Kyh. Gin et al., Seasonal and depth variation in microbial size spectra at the Bermuda Atlantic time series station, DEEP-SEA I, 46(7), 1999, pp. 1221-1245
Citations number
57
Categorie Soggetti
Aquatic Sciences","Earth Sciences
Journal title
DEEP-SEA RESEARCH PART I-OCEANOGRAPHIC RESEARCH PAPERS
Dual-beam flow cytometry was used to generate concentration and biomass siz
e spectra (derived from light scatter signals) of bacteria and phytoplankto
n at the Bermuda Atlantic Time Series (USJGOFS) station in the oligotrophic
Sargasso Sea. The size structure of the phytoplankon was characterized by
an average slope of -1.8 for the normalized cell concentration spectrum. Wh
en bacteria were included, the average slope was -1.9, very close to the po
int at which there would be an equal amount of biomass in equal sized logar
ithmic classes (slope = -2.0). Nanoplankton were the major biomass fraction
(about 55-85%) in the upper 100 m of the water column where total biomass
levels are highest. At greater depths, where total biomass is lower, the re
lative proportion of picoplankton (especially bacteria) increases (to about
70-90%). Microplankton generally were less than 20% of the microbial commu
nity biomass,
The size spectra indicate the importance of picophytoplankton at the chloro
phyll maximum, consistent with the competitive advantage of small cells in
light-limited conditions. Most of the seasonal variability in biomass occur
ed in the nanoplankton fraction, whereas bacteria biomass remained relative
ly constant. In the spring, increases in the nano- and picoplankton were ob
served which could be attributed to small increases in nutrient concentrati
ons in the surface layer. Late summer stratification and the subsequent dep
letion of nutrients from surface waters resulted in a decline in the nano/m
icro fraction and thus the mean cell size of phytoplankton. Overall, the ba
cterial contribution to total microbial biomass integrated over the euphoti
c zone was about 12%, a finding that is lower than that of most other studi
es. This can be attributed to methodological differences between flow cytom
etry and microscopy, as well as the choice of cell volume to biomass conver
sion factors. (C) 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.