JPR Advance Access originally published online on September 30, 2004
Journal of Plankton Research 2004 26(12):1529-1546; doi:10.1093/plankt/fbh141
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Journal of Plankton Research Vol. 26 No. 12 © Oxford University Press 2004; all rights reserved
Bioluminescence response of four species of dinoflagellates to fully developed pipe flow
1 Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093-0202, USA and 2 Spawar Systems Center San Diego, 53560 Hull Street, 211, San Diego, CA 92152-5001, USA 3 Present Address: Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA
* Corresponding Author: mlatz{at}ucsd.edu
Received March 27, 2004; accepted in principle July 14, 2004; accepted for publication August 23, 2004; published online September 30, 2004
Dinoflagellate bioluminescence provides a nearly instantaneous index of flow sensitivity. This study compared flow sensitivity in four species of morphologically diverse luminescent dinoflagellates (Ceratium fusus, Ceratocorys horrida, Lingulodinium polyedrum and Pyrocystis fusiformis) using fully developed laminar and turbulent pipe flow. Bioluminescence response thresholds always occurred in laminar flows with wall shear stress levels that, depending on species, ranged from 0.02 to 0.3 N m–2. With few exceptions, such as breaking waves and wave-forced bottom shears in shallow nearshore areas, these threshold shear stress levels are several orders of magnitude larger than typical oceanic ambient flows. For laminar flows above threshold, species also differed in the proportion of organisms responding and the minimum shear stress level where individual flashes reached their highest intensity. Following transition to turbulent flow, there was never a dramatic increase in bioluminescence, even when energetic turbulent length scales were similar to the cell size. On the basis of their bioluminescence response in laminar flow, these species were ranked in order of decreasing sensitivity as C. horrida > P. fusiformis > C. fusus > L. polyedrum. This ranking, though not conclusive, is consistent with increased flow sensitivity due to increasing size and the presence of spines. With the exception of a small fraction of the C. horrida population that is sensitive enough to flash within the feeding current of a predator, the present study suggests that flashes only occur with predator contact. Nevertheless, flow sensitivity may serve as an index of the response to mechanical agitation during predator contact/handling. Flow sensitivity may be constrained to maximize the response to predator contact/handling while minimizing stimulation by background oceanic flows to avoid depleting luminescent reserves.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  M. I. Latz, M. Bovard, V. VanDelinder, E. Segre, J. Rohr, and A. Groisman Bioluminescent response of individual dinoflagellate cells to hydrodynamic stress measured with millisecond resolution in a microfluidic device J. Exp. Biol., September 1, 2008; 211(17): 2865 - 2875. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E. M. Maldonado and M. I. Latz Shear-Stress Dependence of Dinoflagellate Bioluminescence Biol. Bull., June 1, 2007; 212(3): 242 - 249. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. K. Chen, M. I. Latz, P. Sobolewski, and J. A. Frangos Evidence for the role of G-proteins in flow stimulation of dinoflagellate bioluminescence Am J Physiol Regulatory Integrative Comp Physiol, May 1, 2007; 292(5): R2020 - R2027. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|