A Brief Review

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

A Brief Review PEER-REVIEWED REVIEW ARTICLE bioresources.com Potential of the Micro and Macro Algae for Biofuel Production: A Brief Review Renganathan Rajkumar,* Zahira Yaakob, and Mohd Sobri Takriff The world seems to be raising its energy needs owing to an expanding population and people’s desire for higher living standards. Diversification biofuel sources have become an important energy issue in recent times. Among the various resources, algal biomass has received much attention in the recent years due to its relatively high growth rate, its vast potential to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change, and their ability to store high amounts of lipids and carbohydrates. These versatile organisms can also be used for the production of biofuel. In this review, sustainability and the viability of algae as an up-coming biofuel feedstock have been discussed. Additionally, this review offers an overview of the status of biofuel production through algal biomass and progress made so far in this area. Keywords: Microalgae; Macroalgae; Biomass; Lipid; Biofuel; Oil production; Bioconversion; Algaculture; Wastewater treatment; Malaysia Contact information: Department of Chemical and Process Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment, University Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 UKM Bangi, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia; * Corresponding author: [email protected] INTRODUCTION The energy requirements of the global community are rising year by year. Currently, fossil fuels are a prominent source of transportation fuels and energy. The world’s demand for oil is expected to rise 60% from the current level by 2025 (Khan et al. 2009). In view of the increasing oil demand and the depleting oil reserves, development of innovative techniques for the production of biofuels from novel renewable biomass feedstock sources are gaining importance all over the world. Production of biofuels from traditional agricultural crops such as corn, oil palms, and soybeans using arable lands and fresh water will greatly impact food production. Biomass, whether terrestrial or aquatic, is considered a renewable energy source. Relative to alternative energy sources, the aquatic biomass represents the strategy that is most ready to be executed on a large scale without any economic or environmental penalty (Aresta et al. 2005). Among these, algae are endowed with a unique adaptability to grow in diverse habitats, either in marine or fresh waters (IEA Report 1994). In the past, research mainly focused on their usage as food, animal feed, bio-fertilizer, and in aquaculture. Algae have received a great deal of attention as a novel biomass source for the generation of renewable energy. Apart from other biomass sources, algae contains a high biomass yield per unit of light and area, can have a lot of starch or oil content, does not require fresh water or agricultural land, and the requirements for nutrients can be fulfilled by either wastewater or seawater. Algae produce an array of organic molecules, particularly carbohydrates and lipids. These biomolecules can be used to extract a fuel Rajkumar et al. (2014). “Algal biofuel production,” BioResources 9(1), Pg # to be added 1 PEER-REVIEWED REVIEW ARTICLE bioresources.com known as biofuel. Algae are both unicellular and multicellular autotrophic aquatic life forms. Microalgae can provide several different kinds of renewable biofuel. These include methane produced by the anaerobic digestion of the algal biomass (Spolaore et al. 2006), biodiesel synthesized from the micro algal oil (Thomas 2006), and biohydrogen produced by a photobiological mechanism (Gavrilescu and Chisti 2005). The idea of producing microalgal biofuel is not a new one (Kapdan and Kargi 2006), but it is now being viewed seriously in view of the increasing price of petroleum. Serious interest is also motivated by concern about global warming that is associated with the use of fossil fuels (Sawayama et al. 1995). Macroalgae are generally fast growing and are able to reach sizes up to 60 m in length (McHugh 2003). Growth rates of macroalgae far exceed those of terrestrial plants. For example, brown algae biomass of the average productivity was approximately 3.3 to 11.3 kg dry weight m−2 yr−1 for non-cultured algae and up to 13.1 kg dry weight m−2 over 7 month for cultured algae compared with 6.1 to 9.5 kg fresh weight m−2 yr−1 for sugar cane, a most productive land plant (Kraan 2010). They are seasonally available in the natural water basins. Cultivation of macroalgae at sea, which does not require arable land and fertilizer, offers a possible solution to the energy crisis. Macroalgae are mainly utilized for the production of food and the extraction of hydrocolloids, and it is possible to produce ethanol from algae (Goh and Lee 2010). Macroalgal biomass contains high amounts of sugars (at least 50%), which can be used in ethanol fuel production (Wi et al. 2009). This review explores the opportunities for energy products, encompassing both fresh and marine habitat macro- and microalgae. This paper also discusses the variety of algal resources and their environment, along with the manufacture systems that have been demonstrated for use, as well as algal mass cultivation. BACKGROUND History and the Prospects of Research for Algal Biofuel Production Biofuel production and the environment have been crucial issues in today’s world. Several researchers have described the need for biofuels and the kinds of materials that can serve this purpose (Naika et al. 2010; Antoni et al. 2007). Based on productivity per unit area, algae constitute one of the most effective raw materials that could be exploited for the biofuel production. Algal biomass is capable of producing a host of end products including energy, chemicals, food, cosmetics, fertilizer, and agents for wastewater treatment and/or CO2 sequestration. This could reduce production costs, since there would be a variety of products to serve as sources of revenue, as the cost-effectiveness of these is crucial for the economic and commercial viability of these algal products. Algal biomass can be used as raw material for biofuel production via pyrolysis (bio-oil), or for bio-gas and bio-ethanol generation through fermentation. Macro and micro algae for bioenergy production should satisfy several criteria as listed below (Carlsson et al. 2007): i) they should be highly productive; ii) they should be easily harvestable; iii) they should be able to withstand water currents in the open ocean; and iv) they should be produced at a cost that is equal or lower than the other available sources. Scientific research has been started on the utilization of the various species of algae in waste water/seawater treatment in order to transform them into biofuels by means of Rajkumar et al. (2014). “Algal biofuel production,” BioResources 9(1), Pg # to be added 2 PEER-REVIEWED REVIEW ARTICLE bioresources.com various technological processes ranging from the esterification to anaerobic digestion (Kraan 2010). Macroalgae Macroalgae constitute the most important component in the marine ecosystems that serve for the marine bioresources preservation by preventing eutrophication and pollution (Notoya 2010). Macroalgae belong to the lower plants, in that they do not have roots, stems, and leaves. Instead, they are composed of a thallus (leaf-like) and sometimes a stem and a foot. Some species enclose gas-filled structures to help in buoyancy. They can grow very fast and in sizes of up to tens of meters in length (Luning and Pang 2003). Macroalgae differ in various aspects, such as morphology, longevity, and ecophysiology. Based on their pigmentation, they are classified into Phaeophyta (brown), Rhodophyta (red), and Chlorophyta (green) algae (Chan et al. 2006). In their natural environment, macro-algae grow on rocky substrates and form stable, multi- layered, perennial vegetation, capturing almost all available photons. Approximately 200 species of macroalgae are used worldwide, about ten of which are intensively cultivated, such as the Phaeophyta, Laminaria japonica and Undaria pinnatifida, the Rhodophyta, Eucheuma, Gracilaria, Porphyra and Kappaphycus, and the Chlorophyta, Enteromorpha and Monostroma (Luning and Pang 2003). Figure 1 shows examples of some commercially exploited macroalgae. A B C D Fig. 1. Some commercially exploited macroalgae A) Gracilaria dura; B) Acanthophora spicifera; C) Hypnea esperi; D) Padina pavonica The world production of macroalgae reached 8 million tons in 2003 (McHugh 2003). Many countries have now embarked on establishing large scale macroalgae Rajkumar et al. (2014). “Algal biofuel production,” BioResources 9(1), Pg # to be added 3 PEER-REVIEWED REVIEW ARTICLE bioresources.com cultivation in their territories. Recent research (www.unbsj.ca/sase/biology/chopinlab) has shown the potential of macroalgae for large-scale culture in the Atlantic waters of Canada, France (Kaas 2006), Germany (Buck and Buchholz 2004), Ireland (Kraan et al. 2000), Isle of Man, UK (Kain et al. 1990), and Spain (Peteiro and Freire 2009). In Asian countries such as China, India, Philippines, South and North Korea, Indonesia, and Japan, macroalgae is being cultivated for various needs such as food, feed, chemicals, cosmetics, and pharmaceutical products (Carlsson et al. 2007). Importance of Macroalgal Biomass With substantial processing required for fossil fuels and the higher cost of vegetable oils, there has been a great deal of interest in the algal culture. Apart from that, algal biofuel production presents the following advantages: 1. Production of biofuel from the macroalgae cultivation in seawater is a new approach, since 70% of the earth’s surface is covered by water. Macroalgae possess a unique life cycle. They are more productive in view of the fact that more than five harvests can be made in a year. 2. In addition, macroalgae can succeed in salty water with only sunlight and available nutrients from the seawater. They do not need any chemical fertilizer. Thus, large amounts of energy and money could be saved. These characteristic features favor the sustainability of the production of macroalgae-based bioethanol. 3.
Recommended publications
  • 28-Protistsf20r.Ppt [Compatibility Mode]
    9/3/20 Ch 28: The Protists (a.k.a. Protoctists) (meet these in more detail in your book and lab) 1 Protists invent: eukaryotic cells size complexity Remember: 1°(primary) endosymbiosis? -> mitochondrion -> chloroplast genome unicellular -> multicellular 2 1 9/3/20 For chloroplasts 2° (secondary) happened (more complicated) {3°(tertiary) happened too} 3 4 Eukaryotic “supergroups” (SG; between K and P) 4 2 9/3/20 Protists invent sex: meiosis and fertilization -> 3 Life Cycles/Histories (Fig 13.6) Spores and some protists (Humans do this one) 5 “Algae” Group PS Pigments Euglenoids chl a & b (& carotenoids) Dinoflagellates chl a & c (usually) (& carotenoids) Diatoms chl a & c (& carotenoids) Xanthophytes chl a & c (& carotenoids) Chrysophytes chl a & c (& carotenoids) Coccolithophorids chl a & c (& carotenoids) Browns chl a & c (& carotenoids) Reds chl a, phycobilins (& carotenoids) Greens chl a & b (& carotenoids) (more groups exist) 6 3 9/3/20 Name word roots (indicate nutrition) “algae” (-phyt-) protozoa (no consistent word ending) “fungal-like” (-myc-) Ecological terms plankton phytoplankton zooplankton 7 SG: Excavata/Excavates “excavated” feeding groove some have reduced mitochondria (e.g.: mitosomes, hydrogenosomes) 8 4 9/3/20 SG: Excavata O: Diplomonads: †Giardia Cl: Parabasalids: Trichonympha (bk only) †Trichomonas P: Euglenophyta/zoa C: Kinetoplastids = trypanosomes/hemoflagellates: †Trypanosoma C: Euglenids: Euglena 9 SG: “SAR” clade: Clade Alveolates cell membrane 10 5 9/3/20 SG: “SAR” clade: Clade Alveolates P: Dinoflagellata/Pyrrophyta:
    [Show full text]
  • University of Oklahoma
    UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA GRADUATE COLLEGE MACRONUTRIENTS SHAPE MICROBIAL COMMUNITIES, GENE EXPRESSION AND PROTEIN EVOLUTION A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY By JOSHUA THOMAS COOPER Norman, Oklahoma 2017 MACRONUTRIENTS SHAPE MICROBIAL COMMUNITIES, GENE EXPRESSION AND PROTEIN EVOLUTION A DISSERTATION APPROVED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF MICROBIOLOGY AND PLANT BIOLOGY BY ______________________________ Dr. Boris Wawrik, Chair ______________________________ Dr. J. Phil Gibson ______________________________ Dr. Anne K. Dunn ______________________________ Dr. John Paul Masly ______________________________ Dr. K. David Hambright ii © Copyright by JOSHUA THOMAS COOPER 2017 All Rights Reserved. iii Acknowledgments I would like to thank my two advisors Dr. Boris Wawrik and Dr. J. Phil Gibson for helping me become a better scientist and better educator. I would also like to thank my committee members Dr. Anne K. Dunn, Dr. K. David Hambright, and Dr. J.P. Masly for providing valuable inputs that lead me to carefully consider my research questions. I would also like to thank Dr. J.P. Masly for the opportunity to coauthor a book chapter on the speciation of diatoms. It is still such a privilege that you believed in me and my crazy diatom ideas to form a concise chapter in addition to learn your style of writing has been a benefit to my professional development. I’m also thankful for my first undergraduate research mentor, Dr. Miriam Steinitz-Kannan, now retired from Northern Kentucky University, who was the first to show the amazing wonders of pond scum. Who knew that studying diatoms and algae as an undergraduate would lead me all the way to a Ph.D.
    [Show full text]
  • Biology and Systematics of Heterokont and Haptophyte Algae1
    American Journal of Botany 91(10): 1508±1522. 2004. BIOLOGY AND SYSTEMATICS OF HETEROKONT AND HAPTOPHYTE ALGAE1 ROBERT A. ANDERSEN Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences, P.O. Box 475, West Boothbay Harbor, Maine 04575 USA In this paper, I review what is currently known of phylogenetic relationships of heterokont and haptophyte algae. Heterokont algae are a monophyletic group that is classi®ed into 17 classes and represents a diverse group of marine, freshwater, and terrestrial algae. Classes are distinguished by morphology, chloroplast pigments, ultrastructural features, and gene sequence data. Electron microscopy and molecular biology have contributed signi®cantly to our understanding of their evolutionary relationships, but even today class relationships are poorly understood. Haptophyte algae are a second monophyletic group that consists of two classes of predominately marine phytoplankton. The closest relatives of the haptophytes are currently unknown, but recent evidence indicates they may be part of a large assemblage (chromalveolates) that includes heterokont algae and other stramenopiles, alveolates, and cryptophytes. Heter- okont and haptophyte algae are important primary producers in aquatic habitats, and they are probably the primary carbon source for petroleum products (crude oil, natural gas). Key words: chromalveolate; chromist; chromophyte; ¯agella; phylogeny; stramenopile; tree of life. Heterokont algae are a monophyletic group that includes all (Phaeophyceae) by Linnaeus (1753), and shortly thereafter, photosynthetic organisms with tripartite tubular hairs on the microscopic chrysophytes (currently 5 Oikomonas, Anthophy- mature ¯agellum (discussed later; also see Wetherbee et al., sa) were described by MuÈller (1773, 1786). The history of 1988, for de®nitions of mature and immature ¯agella), as well heterokont algae was recently discussed in detail (Andersen, as some nonphotosynthetic relatives and some that have sec- 2004), and four distinct periods were identi®ed.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Resources Report
    MMINNEAPOLISINNEAPOLIS PPARKARK && RRECREATIONECREATION BBOARDOARD 20122012 WWATERATER RRESOURCESESOURCES RREPORTEPORT Environmental Stewardship Water Resources Management www.minneapolisparks.org January 2015 2012 WATER RESOURCES REPORT Prepared by: Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board Environmental Stewardship 3800 Bryant Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55409-1029 612.230.6400 www.minneapolisparks.org January 2015 Funding provided by: Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board City of Minneapolis Public Works Copyright © 2015 by the Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board Material may be quoted with attribution. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................. i Executive Summary ............................................................................................................... iv 1. Monitoring Program Overview .............................................................................................. 1-1 2. Birch Pond .............................................................................................................................. 2-1 3. Brownie Lake ......................................................................................................................... 3-1 4. Lake Calhoun ......................................................................................................................... 4-1 5. Cedar Lake ............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • CH28 PROTISTS.Pptx
    9/29/14 Biosc 41 Announcements 9/29 Review: History of Life v Quick review followed by lecture quiz (history & v How long ago is Earth thought to have formed? phylogeny) v What is thought to have been the first genetic material? v Lecture: Protists v Are we tetrapods? v Lab: Protozoa (animal-like protists) v Most atmospheric oxygen comes from photosynthesis v Lab exam 1 is Wed! (does not cover today’s lab) § Since many of the first organisms were photosynthetic (i.e. cyanobacteria), a LOT of excess oxygen accumulated (O2 revolution) § Some organisms adapted to use it (aerobic respiration) Review: History of Life Review: Phylogeny v Which organelles are thought to have originated as v Homology is similarity due to shared ancestry endosymbionts? v Analogy is similarity due to convergent evolution v During what event did fossils resembling modern taxa suddenly appear en masse? v A valid clade is monophyletic, meaning it consists of the ancestor taxon and all its descendants v How many mass extinctions seem to have occurred during v A paraphyletic grouping consists of an ancestral species and Earth’s history? Describe one? some, but not all, of the descendants v When is adaptive radiation likely to occur? v A polyphyletic grouping includes distantly related species but does not include their most recent common ancestor v Maximum parsimony assumes the tree requiring the fewest evolutionary events is most likely Quiz 3 (History and Phylogeny) BIOSC 041 1. How long ago is Earth thought to have formed? 2. Why might many organisms have evolved to use aerobic respiration? PROTISTS! Reference: Chapter 28 3.
    [Show full text]
  • And Macro-Algae: Utility for Industrial Applications
    MICRO- AND MACRO-ALGAE: UTILITY FOR INDUSTRIAL APPLICATIONS Outputs from the EPOBIO project September 2007 Prepared by Anders S Carlsson, Jan B van Beilen, Ralf Möller and David Clayton Editor: Dianna Bowles cplpressScience Publishers EPOBIO: Realising the Economic Potential of Sustainable Resources - Bioproducts from Non-food Crops © September 2007, CNAP, University of York EPOBIO is supported by the European Commission under the Sixth RTD Framework Programme Specific Support Action SSPE-CT-2005-022681 together with the United States Department of Agriculture. Legal notice: Neither the University of York nor the European Commission nor any person acting on their behalf may be held responsible for the use to which information contained in this publication may be put, nor for any errors that may appear despite careful preparation and checking. The opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of the University of York, nor the European Commission. Non-commercial reproduction is authorized, provided the source is acknowledged. Published by: CPL Press, Tall Gables, The Sydings, Speen, Newbury, Berks RG14 1RZ, UK Tel: +44 1635 292443 Fax: +44 1635 862131 Email: [email protected] Website: www.cplbookshop.com ISBN 13: 978-1-872691-29-9 Printed in the UK by Antony Rowe Ltd, Chippenham CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION 1 2 HABITATS AND PRODUCTION SYSTEMS 4 2.1 Definition of terms 4 2.2 Macro-algae 5 2.2.1 Habitats for red, green and brown macro-algae 5 2.2.2 Production systems 6 2.3 Micro-algae 9 2.3.1 Applications of micro-algae 9 2.3.2 Production
    [Show full text]
  • Brown Algae and 4) the Oomycetes (Water Molds)
    Protista Classification Excavata The kingdom Protista (in the five kingdom system) contains mostly unicellular eukaryotes. This taxonomic grouping is polyphyletic and based only Alveolates on cellular structure and life styles not on any molecular evidence. Using molecular biology and detailed comparison of cell structure, scientists are now beginning to see evolutionary SAR Stramenopila history in the protists. The ongoing changes in the protest phylogeny are rapidly changing with each new piece of evidence. The following classification suggests 4 “supergroups” within the Rhizaria original Protista kingdom and the taxonomy is still being worked out. This lab is looking at one current hypothesis shown on the right. Some of the organisms are grouped together because Archaeplastida of very strong support and others are controversial. It is important to focus on the characteristics of each clade which explains why they are grouped together. This lab will only look at the groups that Amoebozoans were once included in the Protista kingdom and the other groups (higher plants, fungi, and animals) will be Unikonta examined in future labs. Opisthokonts Protista Classification Excavata Starting with the four “Supergroups”, we will divide the rest into different levels called clades. A Clade is defined as a group of Alveolates biological taxa (as species) that includes all descendants of one common ancestor. Too simplify this process, we have included a cladogram we will be using throughout the SAR Stramenopila course. We will divide or expand parts of the cladogram to emphasize evolutionary relationships. For the protists, we will divide Rhizaria the supergroups into smaller clades assigning them artificial numbers (clade1, clade2, clade3) to establish a grouping at a specific level.
    [Show full text]
  • Harmful Algal Blooms in Coastal Waters of New Jersey Include Red Tides, Green Tides, Brown Tides and Other Harmful Species As Listed in Appendix I
    Brown Tide Alga, Aureococcus anophagefferens HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOMS IN COASTAL WATERS OF NEW JERSEY BY Mary Downes Gastrich, Ph.D. May, 2000 NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Division Of Science, Research and Technology Leslie McGeorge, Director Table of Contents Executive Summary iii Foreward v I. Background 1 II. National Assessment of Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) 1 A. National Assessment of HABs 1 B. National Perspective on the Causes of HABs 2 III. Sources of Current and Historical Data on HABs 2 A. Sources of Historical Data 2 B. Sources of Current Information 3 IV. Health and Ecological Implications 6 A. Human health impacts 6 B. Ecological impacts 8 C. Aesthetic/Economic Impacts 11 V. Extent, Severity and Duration of HABs 11 A. Summary of Historic and Recent HABs in NJ 11 B. Summary of the 1999 HABs in NJ coastal waters 13 VI. Research and Indicator Development 17 A. General Research and Indicator Development: HABs 18 B. Specific Brown Tide Bloom Research Needs 20 VII. References 24 List of Figures Figure 1. Historical perspective of major phytoplankton blooms 32 causing red tides in the New York Bight and adjacent New Jersey coastal region Figure 2. New Jersey’s Coastal Phytoplankton Monitoring Network 33 List of Tables Table 1. Listing of documented algal blooms from 1957-1995 34 In NY Harbor and NY Bight VIII. Appendix I: Documented occurrences of harmful algae in New Jersey waters 1-4 Acknowledgements: The following people are gratefully acknowledged for their review and input to this report: Paul Olsen for his expertise and information on the NJ Phytoplankton Network and his comprehensive reviews, Eric Feerst, Bob Connell, Bill Eisele, Jim Mumman, Tom Atherholt and to Alan Stern, Dr.P.H.
    [Show full text]
  • Short Communication on the Classification of The
    SHORT COMMUNICATION ON THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE GENERA Labyrinthula, Schizochytrium AND Thraustochytrium (Labyrinthulids AND Thraustochytrids) Øjvind Moestrup Biological Institute, University of Copenhagen Universitetsparken 4 , DK- 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark E-mail: [email protected] Citation as: Moestrup Øjvind, 2019. On the classification of the genera Labyrinthula, Schizochytrium and Thraustochytrium (Labyrinthulids and Thraustochytrids). Tap chi Sinh hoc, 41(2): xx–xx. https://doi.org/10.15625/0866-7160/v41n2.xxxxx Species of the genera Labyrinthula, Schizochytrium, Thraustochytrium and related organisms have recently attracted attention in biotechnology, and here is a short note on how to classify these rather special organisms. The labyrinthulids and thraustochytrids belong to the heterokonts, a large group of very diverse organisms, from microscopic unicells to metre-long brown algae. The heterokonts comprise species that were formerly classified as algae, fungi and/or protozoa. Many heterokonts are autotrophic and contain chloroplasts, and such organisms are often classified as algae (golden algae, brown algae). Labyrinthulids and thraustochytrids, however, are heterotrophic and lack chloroplasts. They were until recently known as Labyrinthulomycetes or Labyrinthulea , indeed the new classification of Adl et al. (2019) uses the first of these names. It is an unfortunate name as it gives the misleading impression that they are fungi. Honigberg et al. (1964) and others considered them protozoa. Are heterokonts algae, protozoa or fungi? And, more specifically, what are labyrinthulids and thraustochytrids? The heterokonts are thought to be a very old group (probably precambrian), and this may account for their huge morphological diversity. In the WORMS list (World Register of Marine Species) heterokonts are classified as the Infrakingdom Heterokonta .
    [Show full text]
  • Limnological Information Supporting the Development of Regional Nutrient Criteria for Alaskan Lakes
    LIMNOLOGICAL INFORMATION SUPPORTING THE DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL NUTRIENT CRITERIA FOR ALASKAN LAKES Water Quality Monitoring and Trophic Assessment of Seven Lakes in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough J. A. Edmundson REGIONAL INFORMATION REPORT No. 2A03-24 Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Commercial Fisheries 333 Raspberry Road Anchorage, Alaska 99518-1599 August 2002 I The Regional Information Report Series was established in 1987 to provide an information access system for all unpublished division reports. These reports frequently serve diverse ad hoc informational purposes or archive basic uninterpreted data. To accommodate timely reporting ofrecently collected information. reports in this series undergo only limited internal review and may contain preliminary data; this information may be subsequently finalized and published in the formal literature. Consequently, these reports should not be cited without prior approval of the author or the Division of Commercial Fisheries. AUTHORS II,'" Jim A. Edmundson is the project leader for Central Region Limnology of the Alaska Department ofFish and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries, 43961 Kalifornsky Beach Road, Suite B, Soldotna, AK 99669. "..• '''11I11 ,." "J " ,,j Product names used in this report are included for scientific completeness but do not constitute endorsement by Alaska Department of Fish and Game. " il"l I.~ II~ IH ""I' TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page LIST OF TABLES .iii LIST OF FIGURES iv LIST OF APPENDICES viii ABSTRACT ix INTRODUCTION 1 Objectives . 3 Description of Study Site 3 METHODS 6 Data Gathering 6 Databases, Statistical Analysis, and Trophic State Index 15 RESULTS and DISCUSSION 16 Physical Conditions 16 Chemical Characteristics 22 Nutrients 29 Particulate Organic Carbon '" 34 Phytoplankton 34 Nutrient-Chlorophyll Models 36 Trophic Status 43 CONCLUSIONS and RECOMMENDATIONS 46 ACKN"OWLEDGEMENTS 49 REFERENCES 49 ii ., LIST OF TABLES Table " ;I 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Cladistic Analyses of Combined Traditional and Moleculardata
    Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 92, pp. 244-248, January 1995 Evolution Cladistic analyses of combined traditional and molecular data sets reveal an algal lineage (18S rRNA/chromophyte/chrysophyte/diatom/phylogeny) GARY W. SAUNDERSt, DANIEL POTrERt, MICHAEL P. PASKIND§, AND ROBERT A. ANDERSENt$ tBotany School, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia; tBigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences, West Boothbay Harbor, ME 04575; and §BASF Research Corporation, Worcester, MA 01605 Communicated by Hewson Swift, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, September 12, 1994 ABSTRACT The chromophyte algae are a large and bio- ultrastructural features, especially those of the flagellar appa- logically diverse assemblage of brown seaweeds, diatoms, and ratus. The eukaryotic flagellum (including cilium) probably other golden algae classified in 13 taxonomic classes. One evolved only once, and regardless of life stage, flagella are subgroup (diatoms, pedinellids, pelagophytes, silicoflagel- considered homologous; i.e., a flagellum of a sperm cell is lates, and certain enigmatic genera) is characterized by a considered homologous to that of a flagellate phytoplankter or highly reduced flagellar apparatus. The flagellar apparatus an asexual zoospore (10). Microtubular roots often anchor the lacks microtubular and fibrous roots, and the flagellum basal flagellum or flagella, and they are the major component of the body is attached directly to the nucleus. We hypothesize that cell's cytoskeleton (17), often being active in specific cell the flagellar reduction is the result of a single evolutionary activities [e.g., phagocytosis (18-20) and scale formation (21- series of events. Cladistic analysis of ultrastructural and 23)]. The flagellar apparatus in many chromophyte classes has biochemical data reveals a monophyletic group that unites all four microtubular roots, and in some cases a system II fiber or taxa with a reduced flagellar apparatus, supporting our rhizoplast is also present (Fig.
    [Show full text]
  • The Dinoflagellates Durinskia Baltica and Kryptoperidinium Foliaceum
    BMC Evolutionary Biology BioMed Central Research article Open Access The dinoflagellates Durinskia baltica and Kryptoperidinium foliaceum retain functionally overlapping mitochondria from two evolutionarily distinct lineages Behzad Imanian and Patrick J Keeling* Address: Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, Department of Botany, University of British Columbia, 3529-6270 University Boulevard, Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1Z4, Canada Email: Behzad Imanian - [email protected]; Patrick J Keeling* - [email protected] * Corresponding author Published: 24 September 2007 Received: 30 April 2007 Accepted: 24 September 2007 BMC Evolutionary Biology 2007, 7:172 doi:10.1186/1471-2148-7-172 This article is available from: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/7/172 © 2007 Imanian and Keeling; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Abtract Background: The dinoflagellates Durinskia baltica and Kryptoperidinium foliaceum are distinguished by the presence of a tertiary plastid derived from a diatom endosymbiont. The diatom is fully integrated with the host cell cycle and is so altered in structure as to be difficult to recognize it as a diatom, and yet it retains a number of features normally lost in tertiary and secondary endosymbionts, most notably mitochondria. The dinoflagellate host is also reported to retain mitochondrion-like structures, making these cells unique in retaining two evolutionarily distinct mitochondria. This redundancy raises the question of whether the organelles share any functions in common or have distributed functions between them.
    [Show full text]