Biogeochemical implications of comparative growth rates of Emiliania huxleyi and Coccolithus species

Coccolithophores, a diverse group of phytoplankton, make important contributions to pelagic calcite production and export, yet the comparative biogeochemical role of species other than the ubiquitous Emiliania huxleyi is poorly understood. The contribution of different coccolithophore species to tot...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Biogeosciences
Main Authors: Daniels, C. J., Sheward, R. M., Poulton, A. J.
Format: Text
Language:English
Published: 2018
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-11-6915-2014
https://www.biogeosciences.net/11/6915/2014/
id ftcopernicus:oai:publications.copernicus.org:bg25967
record_format openpolar
spelling ftcopernicus:oai:publications.copernicus.org:bg25967 2023-05-15T15:05:52+02:00 Biogeochemical implications of comparative growth rates of Emiliania huxleyi and Coccolithus species Daniels, C. J. Sheward, R. M. Poulton, A. J. 2018-09-27 application/pdf https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-11-6915-2014 https://www.biogeosciences.net/11/6915/2014/ eng eng doi:10.5194/bg-11-6915-2014 https://www.biogeosciences.net/11/6915/2014/ eISSN: 1726-4189 Text 2018 ftcopernicus https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-11-6915-2014 2019-12-24T09:53:55Z Coccolithophores, a diverse group of phytoplankton, make important contributions to pelagic calcite production and export, yet the comparative biogeochemical role of species other than the ubiquitous Emiliania huxleyi is poorly understood. The contribution of different coccolithophore species to total calcite production is controlled by inter-species differences in cellular calcite, growth rate and relative abundance within a mixed community. In this study we examined the relative importance of E. huxleyi and two Coccolithus species in terms of daily calcite production. Culture experiments compared growth rates and cellular calcite content of E. huxleyi (Arctic and temperate strains), Coccolithus pelagicus (novel Arctic strain) and Coccolithus braarudii (temperate strain). Despite assumptions that E. huxleyi is a fast-growing species, growth rates between the three species were broadly comparable (0.16–0.85 d −1 ) under identical temperature and light conditions. Emiliania huxleyi grew only 12% faster on average than C. pelagicus , and 28% faster than C. braarudii . As the cellular calcite content of C. pelagicus and C. braarudii is typically 30–80 times greater than E. huxleyi , comparable growth rates suggest that Coccolithus species have the potential to be major calcite producers in mixed populations. To further explore these results we devised a simplistic model comparing daily calcite production from Coccolithus and E. huxleyi across a realistic range of relative abundances and a wide range of relative growth rates. Using the relative differences in growth rates from our culture studies, we found that C. pelagicus would be a larger source of calcite if abundances of E. huxleyi to C. pelagicus were below 34:1. Relative abundance data collected from North Atlantic field samples (spring and summer 2010) suggest that, with a relative growth rate of 88%, C. pelagicus dominated calcite production at 69% of the sites sampled. With a more extreme difference in growth rates, where C. pelagicus grows at 1/10th of the rate of E. huxleyi , C. pelagicus still dominated calcite production in 14% of the field. These results demonstrate the necessity of considering interactions between inter-species differences in growth rates, cellular calcite and relative abundances when evaluating the contribution of different coccolithophores to pelagic calcite production. In the case of C. pelagicus , we find that there is strong potential for this species to make major contributions to calcite production in the North Atlantic, although estimates of relative growth rates from the field are needed to confirm our conclusions. Text Arctic North Atlantic Phytoplankton Copernicus Publications: E-Journals Arctic Biogeosciences 11 23 6915 6925
institution Open Polar
collection Copernicus Publications: E-Journals
op_collection_id ftcopernicus
language English
description Coccolithophores, a diverse group of phytoplankton, make important contributions to pelagic calcite production and export, yet the comparative biogeochemical role of species other than the ubiquitous Emiliania huxleyi is poorly understood. The contribution of different coccolithophore species to total calcite production is controlled by inter-species differences in cellular calcite, growth rate and relative abundance within a mixed community. In this study we examined the relative importance of E. huxleyi and two Coccolithus species in terms of daily calcite production. Culture experiments compared growth rates and cellular calcite content of E. huxleyi (Arctic and temperate strains), Coccolithus pelagicus (novel Arctic strain) and Coccolithus braarudii (temperate strain). Despite assumptions that E. huxleyi is a fast-growing species, growth rates between the three species were broadly comparable (0.16–0.85 d −1 ) under identical temperature and light conditions. Emiliania huxleyi grew only 12% faster on average than C. pelagicus , and 28% faster than C. braarudii . As the cellular calcite content of C. pelagicus and C. braarudii is typically 30–80 times greater than E. huxleyi , comparable growth rates suggest that Coccolithus species have the potential to be major calcite producers in mixed populations. To further explore these results we devised a simplistic model comparing daily calcite production from Coccolithus and E. huxleyi across a realistic range of relative abundances and a wide range of relative growth rates. Using the relative differences in growth rates from our culture studies, we found that C. pelagicus would be a larger source of calcite if abundances of E. huxleyi to C. pelagicus were below 34:1. Relative abundance data collected from North Atlantic field samples (spring and summer 2010) suggest that, with a relative growth rate of 88%, C. pelagicus dominated calcite production at 69% of the sites sampled. With a more extreme difference in growth rates, where C. pelagicus grows at 1/10th of the rate of E. huxleyi , C. pelagicus still dominated calcite production in 14% of the field. These results demonstrate the necessity of considering interactions between inter-species differences in growth rates, cellular calcite and relative abundances when evaluating the contribution of different coccolithophores to pelagic calcite production. In the case of C. pelagicus , we find that there is strong potential for this species to make major contributions to calcite production in the North Atlantic, although estimates of relative growth rates from the field are needed to confirm our conclusions.
format Text
author Daniels, C. J.
Sheward, R. M.
Poulton, A. J.
spellingShingle Daniels, C. J.
Sheward, R. M.
Poulton, A. J.
Biogeochemical implications of comparative growth rates of Emiliania huxleyi and Coccolithus species
author_facet Daniels, C. J.
Sheward, R. M.
Poulton, A. J.
author_sort Daniels, C. J.
title Biogeochemical implications of comparative growth rates of Emiliania huxleyi and Coccolithus species
title_short Biogeochemical implications of comparative growth rates of Emiliania huxleyi and Coccolithus species
title_full Biogeochemical implications of comparative growth rates of Emiliania huxleyi and Coccolithus species
title_fullStr Biogeochemical implications of comparative growth rates of Emiliania huxleyi and Coccolithus species
title_full_unstemmed Biogeochemical implications of comparative growth rates of Emiliania huxleyi and Coccolithus species
title_sort biogeochemical implications of comparative growth rates of emiliania huxleyi and coccolithus species
publishDate 2018
url https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-11-6915-2014
https://www.biogeosciences.net/11/6915/2014/
geographic Arctic
geographic_facet Arctic
genre Arctic
North Atlantic
Phytoplankton
genre_facet Arctic
North Atlantic
Phytoplankton
op_source eISSN: 1726-4189
op_relation doi:10.5194/bg-11-6915-2014
https://www.biogeosciences.net/11/6915/2014/
op_doi https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-11-6915-2014
container_title Biogeosciences
container_volume 11
container_issue 23
container_start_page 6915
op_container_end_page 6925
_version_ 1766337544715239424