| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JOURNAL OF PLANKTON RESEARCH | VOLUME 20 | NUMBER 3 | PAGES 571-584 | 1998
© Oxford University Press
research-article |
Comparative growth rates and yields of ciliates and heterotrophic dinoflagellates
Shannon Point Marine Center, Western Washington University 1900 Shannon Point Road, Anacortes; WA 98221, USA
Received on January 28, 1997; accepted on November 10, 1997 Growth rates, ingestion rates and grazer yields (grazer volume produced/prey volume consumed) were measured for six protozoan species (ciliates: Favella sp., Strombidinopsis acuminatum, Uronema sp.; heterotrophic dinoflagellates: Amphidinium sp., Gymnodinium sp., Noctiluca scintillans) in laboratory batch culture experiments. Comparative growth data indicate that the prymnesiophyte Isochrysis galbana, the prasinophyte Mantoniella squamata, two cryptophyte species and several autotrophic dinoflagellate species were suitable foods for these grazers. When grown on optimized diets at 13°C, maximum ciliate growth rates (range 0.77–1.01 day–1 uniformly exceeded maximum heterotrophic dioflagellate growth rates (range 0.41–0.48 day–1). A compilation of published data demonstrates that this growth rate difference persists across a range of ciliate and dinoflagellate taxa and cell sizes. Comparison of volume-specific ingestion rates and yields for the six species studied here showed that there was no single explanation for this growth rate disparity. Heterotrophic dinoflagellates exhibited both low ingestion rates and, in one case, low yields; ciliates were able to achieve higher growth rates via either higher ingestion rates or higher yields, depending on ciliate species. Volume yield increased over time throughout the exponential growth phase in nearly all experiments, suggesting variation in response to changing food concentrations or long-term acclimation to culture conditions. Higher maximum ciliate growth rates mean that these grazers have the potential to exercise tighter control over incipient blooms of their prey than do heterotrophic dinoflagellates.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  M. Modigh and G. Franze Changes in phytoplankton and microzooplankton populations during grazing experiments at a Mediterranean coastal site J. Plankton Res., August 1, 2009; 31(8): 853 - 864. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. S. Wetz and H. W. Paerl Impact of large storm events with different meteorological characteristics on estuarine ciliate biomass J. Plankton Res., May 1, 2008; 30(5): 551 - 557. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. Palomares-Garcia, J. J. Bustillos-Guzman, and D. Lopez-Cortes Pigment-specific rates of phytoplankton growth and microzooplankton grazing in a subtropical lagoon J. Plankton Res., December 1, 2006; 28(12): 1217 - 1232. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. E. Adolf, D. K. Stoecker, and L. W. Harding Jr The balance of autotrophy and heterotrophy during mixotrophic growth of Karlodinium micrum (Dinophyceae) J. Plankton Res., August 1, 2006; 28(8): 737 - 751. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Quevedo, L. Viesca, R. Anadon, and E. Fernandez The protistan microzooplankton community in the oligotrophicnorth-eastern Atlantic: large- and mesoscale patterns J. Plankton Res., May 1, 2003; 25(5): 551 - 563. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. A. Edwards, H. P. Batchelder, and T. M. Powell Modeling microzooplankton and macrozooplankton dynamics within a coastal upwelling system J. Plankton Res., September 1, 2000; 22(9): 1619 - 1648. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|