Differences in in vivo fluorescence yield between three phytoplankton size classes

Andrea E. Alpine; James E. Cloern

doi:10.1093/plankt/7.3.381

Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · 70156295

Differences in in vivo fluorescence yield between three phytoplankton size classes

Andrea E. Alpine·James E. Cloern

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The size-dependent relationship between in vivo fluorescence (IVF) and chlorophyll a was determined for monthly phytoplankton samples from the San Francisco Bay estuary. Chlorophyll a and IVF were both measured on netplankton (>22 μm), nanoplankton (5–22 μm), and ultraplankton (<5 μm) samples that were separated with screens. IVF and chlorophyll a were linearly related for each size class, but the IVF per unit chlorophyll a (R) was significantly different between these three size classes. The ultraplankton R was twice that of the nanoplankton which was in turn twice the netplankton R. Hence, accurate size fractionation of phytoplankton biomass from measures of IVF requires correction for size-dependent variations in R.

Explore related subjects

Journal of Plankton Research Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Andrea E. Alpine, James E. Cloern. 1985. Differences in in vivo fluorescence yield between three phytoplankton size classes. https://doi.org/10.1093/plankt%2F7.3.381

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2024

Planktonic to sessile: Drivers of spatial and temporal variability across barnacle life stages and indirect effects of the Pacific Marine Heatwave

Barnacles are a foundation species in intertidal habitats. During the Pacific Marine Heatwave (PMH), intertidal barnacle cover increased in the northern Gulf of Alaska (GoA); however, the role of pelagic larval supply in this increase was unknown. Using long-term monitoring data on intertidal benthic (percent cover) and pelagic larval populations (nauplii and cyprid concentrations), we examined potential environmental drivers (temperature, chlorophyll-a, mixed layer depth) of larval concentration and whether including larval concentration at regional and annual scales improved intertidal barnacle percent cover models in two study regions in the GoA. In both regions, larval concentrations were slightly higher following the PMH. Percent cover models were improved by including cyprid concentrations (but not nauplii), and the effect strength varied by site and tidal elevation. This indicates that larval concentration contributes as a bottom–up driver of benthic barnacle abundance. There is little evidence of a direct effect of the PMH on either life stage. Instead, our results may illustrate the positive feedback between life stages, where higher adult benthic abundance increased larval concentrations, which then supplied more new recruits to the benthos. As heatwaves continue to occur, integrating various data types can provide insights into factors influencing both benthic and pelagic communities.

Alaska↗

USGS2022

Minimal diel vertical migration and consistent zooplankton capturability in low productivity reservoirs, Oregon

Diel migrations of zooplanktons occur in marine and freshwater systems and can complicate inferences from studies. If populations perform vertical or horizontal diel migrations, daytime-only sampling can mischaracterize distributions and abundances. Zooplanktons also often display reduced capture avoidance at night and occupy areas easier to sample near the surface and away from littoral structure and the benthos. We examined zooplankton abundance, water column position and taxonomic composition during daytime and nighttime new moon periods using discrete depth sampling in oligo-mesotrophic reservoirs in Oregon, USA. These reservoirs have limited littoral structures, but support populations of zooplanktivorous fishes that we expected to drive diel vertical migrations. Contrary to our expectations, at night, most zooplankton taxa were within 2 m of their daytime distributional peak and did not display differences in abundance from day to night sampling. We consider factors that may help predict whether diel vertical migration occurs in a system. Where daytime sampling is sufficient to characterize zooplankton densities and distributions, costs and risks specific to nighttime sampling may be avoided. Improving our knowledge of zooplankton dynamics, particularly in ecosystems with limited diurnal variability, is an important part of understanding lake and reservoir food webs and can optimize the efforts of future studies.

Oregon↗

USGS2021

Taxonomic and functional differences between winter and summer crustacean zooplankton communities in lakes across a trophic gradient

Despite increasing interest in winter limnology, few studies have examined under-ice zooplankton communities and the factors shaping them in different types of temperate lakes. To better understand drivers of zooplankton community structure in winter and summer, we sampled 13 lakes across a large trophic status gradient for crustacean zooplankton abundance, taxonomic and functional community composition and C/N stable isotopes. Average winter zooplankton densities were one-third of summer densities across the study lakes. Proportionally, cladocerans were more abundant in summer than winter, with the opposite pattern for calanoids and cyclopoids. In green (eutrophic) lakes, zooplankton densities were higher under the ice than in brown (dystrophic) and blue (oligotrophic) lakes, suggesting better conditions for zooplankton in productive lakes during winter. Overall, zooplankton communities were more similar across lakes under the ice than during the open water season. Feeding group classification showed a decrease in herbivore abundance and an increase in predators from summer to winter. C/N stable isotope results suggested higher lipid content in overwintering zooplankton and potentially increased reliance on the microbial loop by winter zooplankton. Our results show substantial variation in the seasonality of zooplankton communities in different lake types and identify some of the factors responsible for this variation.

Minnesota, Wisconsin↗