Seasonal Variations in Planktonic Community Structure and Production in an Atlantic Coastal Pond: the Importance of Nanoflagellates C
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Seasonal Variations in Planktonic Community Structure and Production in an Atlantic Coastal Pond: The Importance of Nanoflagellates C. Dupuy, M. Ryckaert, S. Le Gall, H. J. Hartmann To cite this version: C. Dupuy, M. Ryckaert, S. Le Gall, H. J. Hartmann. Seasonal Variations in Planktonic Community Structure and Production in an Atlantic Coastal Pond: The Importance of Nanoflagellates. Microbial Ecology, Springer Verlag, 2007, 10.1007/s00248-006-9087-z. hal-01248036 HAL Id: hal-01248036 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01248036 Submitted on 26 Dec 2016 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Microbial Ecology Seasonal Variations in Planktonic Community Structure and Production in an Atlantic Coastal Pond: The Importance of Nanoflagellates C. Dupuy1, M. Ryckaert2, S. Le Gall1 and H. J. Hartmann1 (1) CRELA, UMR 6217, Poˆle Science Av. Michel Cre´peau, 17042 La Rochelle, France (2) DEL/IFREMER BP 5, 17137 L’Houmeau, France Received: 31 March 2006 / Accepted: 18 April 2006 / Online publication: 3 April 2007 Abstract was high. We suggest, first, that nanoflagellates represented the primary resource available in the pond and could The structure and summertime production of planktonic constitute an important food resource for higher trophic communities and the role of nondiatom planktonic cells levels, such as oysters, farmed in this type of pond. Overall, were studied in coastal ponds, which are areas traditionally the system appeared to be more autotrophic than hetero- used for fattening and greening table-sized oysters. The trophic. Because inorganic nutrients are quickly exhausted abundance and biomass of nano–microplanktonic protists in a semiclosed pond, pigmented flagellates dominated the were determined at weekly intervals between February 1998 carbon biomass, production and biomass of bacteria were and February 1999 in a coastal pond without oysters in the high (thus, the microbial food web appeared to be active in French Atlantic coast near La Rochelle. The production of this pond), and mixotrophy seemed to be an important these microbiotas was determined in the summer period. trophic mode there. The structure of plankton communities revealed the fol- lowing observations: (1) microphytoplanktonic cells were mostly diatoms and dinoflagellates, (2) microzooplank- tonic cells were mainly ciliates, and (3) nanoplanktonic Introduction cells were represented by pigmented (80–90% of the nanoplankton biomass) and colorless nanoflagellates. Oyster farming is an important activity in Charente-Mari- Diatoms were dominated by Naviculiineae. Dinoflagellates time, on the French Atlantic coast in Europe. Studies on were dominated by Peridiniales. Oligotrichida were pre- coastal ponds, traditionally used for fattening and green- dominant in the ciliate community. Protist biomass levels ing table-sized oysters [28], began in 1980. Microphyto- were nine times higher from April to August (summer planktonic and microphytobenthic communities have _ period 1033 mgCL1) than from September to March often been studied in coastal ponds [7, 46, 47, 60, 61], _ (winter period 114 mgCL1). Whatever the season, whereas bacterioplankton have been occasionally studied nanoflagellates were dominant in the water column (66 [8, 9]. In semiclosed systems, such as ponds where and 53% of the entire protist biomass in the summer and nutrients are quickly exhausted, the development of winter periods, respectively). Nanoflagellates represented microphytoplankton is limited [47]. Although the micro- the highest production of nano–microplanktonic commu- phytobenthic biomass can reach up to 25 times the nities (76% of carbon protist production) in the coastal higher levels of phytoplankton biomass [47, 61] in the pond in summer and showed the shortest generation time water column, it is unlikely that the microphytobenthos (7.1 h). Dinoflagellates came after nanoflagellates in is a significant direct source because of its low level of production (19.5% of carbon protist production). Diatoms resuspension as a result of the lack of turbulence com- represented only a supplementary carbon resource avail- pared with the intertidal zone [4]. Microalgae, usually able for higher trophic levels, whereas, until now, they were considered as the main food source of oysters, cannot considered as the principal food of oysters in coastal ponds. entirely account for their energy requirements in Atlantic Ciliates were a small source of carbon, but their growth rate coastal ponds [24]. In recent years, interest in the ecological role of Correspondence to: C. Dupuy; E-mail: [email protected] marine planktonic protists has increased, particularly for DOI: 10.1007/s00248-006-9087-z & Volume 53, 537–548 (2007) & * Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2007 537 538 C. DUPUY ET AL.: PLANKTONIC COMMUNITY STRUCTURE AND PRODUCTION IN AN ATLANTIC COASTAL POND marine nanoplankton and microzooplankton in the mi- these semiclosed systems. At the end of the sequestration crobial food web. Numerous studies have been made on period, the pond was emptied at ebb tide and filled again the trophic link of microzooplankton and nanoplankton with new water during the following high tide. because they are preyed on by many sorts of zooplankton, particularly copepods [3, 19, 22, 25, 57], bivalve larvae Physical Parameters. Hydrological data were [27], and suspension-feeding bivalves such as oysters, recorded by the Aanderaa data logger with the use of Crassostrea gigas [11, 33]. Microzooplankton is consid- sensors (thermometer and conductivity meter). The ered to be an important grazer of nanoplankton [13] and hydrological sensors were cleaned every 30 min. The data bacterial production [49, 50]. Heterotrophic and mixo- were transferred every month, via a portable computer, to trophic nanoplanktons are important grazers of bacteria a magnetic disk in ASCII format. [53]. In the Atlantic coastal ponds, 17–50% of the plank- Experimental Procedure. Preliminary tests were tonic carbon biomass is made up of bacterioplankton [9, performed to define an accurate sampling strategy for 17]. Such heterotrophic bacterioplankters, with typically the pond water column to estimate average values of mi- high growth rates and efficiencies, represent a significant crobiota abundance over its entire surface: the pond was energy pathway by recycling dissolved organic matter divided into 12 squares (3 m wide), and one subsurface into particles potentially available to upper trophic levels, water sample was taken from each square at each sampling such as nano–microzooplankton [1, 41]. In addition, date. These 12 samples were collected with a 2.5-L Van bacterioplankton are not held by oysters, which retain Doorn bottle (Wildco), and 500 mL from each sample was particles between 5 and 100 mm[2, 24, 44, 55]. Thus, in mixed in a single, opaque carboy and was quickly taken to Atlantic coastal ponds, nano–microzooplankton may the laboratory. The final 6-L sample was assumed to represent a trophic link between bacteria and the higher represent a mean spatial estimate of water-column pa- trophic levels in the benthos, especially oysters [11]. rameters within the pond and sampling date. The aim of this study was to determine the structure To estimate the production of planktonic protists in and production of planktonic communities and to summer, pond water was collected in June 1999 by using estimate the significance of microphytoplankton, com- the sampling method described above. pared with nano–microzooplankton, as a potential food source for oysters. Our experimental design was to mon- Taxonomy and Enumeration of Protist Com- itor physical–hydrobiological parameters, abundance, munities. Taxonomic determination of protists and biomass of phytoplanktonic and zooplanktonic present in the pond was carried out in accordance with communities in a coastal pond without oysters between systematic literature [26, 34, 37, 39, 43, 59]. February 1998 and February 1999 (12 cycles) on a weekly For microphytoplanktonic cells (diatoms and dino- basis. Protist production was estimated in summer by flagellates), a 20-mL triplicate aliquot from the 6-L pond incubation experiments as described by Landry and water samples was fixed with formaldehyde (final concen- Hassett [29] and Ferrier-Page`s and Rassoulzadegan [15]. tration 1%) and stained with alkaline lugol. Micro- phytoplanktonic cells were counted in Utermo¨hl settling chambers (Hydro-Bios combined plate chambers) under Materials and Methods an inverted microscope. The cell sizes (length and width) Study Site. This study was performed in an experi- were measured on at least 100 cells through a calibrated mental coastal pond without oysters called BMarais du ocular micrometer. From cell size measurements, the Plomb^ (L’Houmeau, near La Rochelle, French Atlantic mean cell volume of each taxon was calculated by equating coast). It was dug 15 years ago in clay sediment. The flat the shape to standard geometric configurations. The cell bottom is made up of thin layers of silt resulting from volume was converted into carbon