Skip Navigation


JPR Advance Access originally published online on August 7, 2008
Journal of Plankton Research 2008 30(11):1297-1303; doi:10.1093/plankt/fbn084
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
30/11/1297    most recent
fbn084v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Zarauz, L.
Right arrow Articles by Irigoien, X.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Zarauz, L.
Right arrow Articles by Irigoien, X.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Effects of Lugol’s fixation on the size structure of natural nano–microplankton samples, analyzed by means of an automatic counting method

Lucía Zarauz1,* and Xabier Irigoien2

1 Marine Research Division, AZTI Foundation, Txatxarramendi Ugartea, z/g 48395, Sukarrieta (Bizkaia), Spain 2 Marine Research Division, AZTI Foundation, Herrera Kaia Portualdea, z/g 20110, Pasaia (Guipuzkoa), Spain

* CORRESPONDING AUTHOR: lzarauz{at}suk.azt.es

Received on November 21, 2007; accepted on August 4, 2008


  Abstract

Accurate abundance and biomass measurements are essential steps for determining the role of nano–microplankton in the microbial food web. Owing to practical constraints, traditional microscope analysis of nano–microplankton requires preservation; but preservatives alter plankton samples and bias the measurements. The majority of studies on the effects of preservation have been based on cell cultures. However, new automatic counting systems offer the possibility to investigate the effect of fixatives on large numbers of natural samples. In the present study, cell counts of live and 1% Lugol’s preserved samples were compared at 115 stations located in the Bay of Biscay. Additionally, the effect of different Lugol’s concentration (1 and 5%) was studied. Analyses were performed with the FlowCAM (see Sieracki et al. in An imaging-in-flow system for automated analysis of marine microplankton. Mar. Ecol. Progress Ser., 168, 285–296, 1998), using plankton samples directly collected from the field. The results show that the analysis of natural samples preserved with a single fixative biases the abundance and biomass estimates of different size ranges of the nano- and microplankton, not only in the large sizes. This is due to changes in cell abundance, especially in the nanoplankton size range, and to the formation of aggregates.

Corresponding editor: Roger Harris


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.