DOCSLIB.ORG

Life in the Pelagic: an Introduction to the Plankton Size Classifications and Terminology

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Life in the Pelagic: an Introduction to the Plankton Size Classifications and Terminology Life in the Pelagic: An introduction to the Plankton Size classifications and terminology • Classification of planktonic organisms is generally based upon size – rather than function (most methods involve filtration which distinguishes organisms based upon size rather than species). • This can be problematic because in the plankton, trophic position is not always determined by size (size ratios between predator and prey are not constant). Abundance of living organisms Organism and size Typical abundance Bacterioplankton (~1um) 105 to 107 per ml Nanoflagellates (1-10um) 102 to 104 per ml Protizoan plankton (20-50um) 10 to 102 per ml Phytoplankton (20-200um) 10 to 104 per ml Humans (2m) 6x106 in Washington State Bacterioplankton in Aquatic Systems • Found in all natural waters • Non-pathogenic! • Small (≤1µm) yet abundant (>106 cells ml-1) • Comparable in biomass to phytoplankton • Fundamental in nutrient & carbon cycling • Drive water quality parameters (i.e. anoxia, nutrient availability) • Extremely diverse 10 µm (DAPI stained slide of bacterioplankton from Chesapeake Bay) Femtoplankton (0.02 – 0.2 µm) Bacteriophage •Diverse and ubiquitous viral community in the marine environment •Significant role suspected (certainly impact bacteria and may also impact primary production and higher trophic levels, viruses suspected in some marine mammal beachings). •Viruses may be important agents in demise of some phytoplankton blooms (e.g., Trichodesmium) •Viruses are important agents for DOM release and nutrient cycling 0.1um Picoplankton (0.2 – 2 µm) Bacteria Archaea •Very important role in marine food webs, •Distinct RNA especially degradation and recycling •Early evolutionary separation •Ubiquitous in ocean (~106 / ml) •Favoring extreme environments •Various forms (motile, rods, spiral, coccoid) •Recently discovered in ocean Picoplankton (0.2 – 2 µm) Vertical distribution of Bacteria and Archaea cell abundance at HOTS (Karner et al 2001). • Opposite patterns of distribution • Archaea are ubiquitous, but biogeochemical significance is poorly understood More on Picoplankton (0.2 – 2 µm) Cyanobacteria – “blue-green algae” Photosynthetic bacteria e.g. Synechococcus spp. • Up to 106/ml in euphotic zone • In both coastal and oceanic waters • In temperate and tropical oceans • Can play major role in primary production, especially open ocean Prochlorophytes •Prochlorococcus marinus •Abundant at base of the euphotic zone in open ocean (106 / ml) •Ubiquitous distribution •Can play a major role in primary production, especially in the open ocean •Different strains have been identified that live in different depths in the water column and have different metabolic capabilities particularly with respect to what forms of nutrients they can use, i.e., NH4 vs. NO3. Note: Prochlorococcus is currently believed to be the most abundant form of plant life on earth. 2µm Nanoplankton (2 – 20 µm) Mostly small eukaryotic phytoplankton Dominate more oligotrophic open ocean environments dinoflagellates small centric diatom small pennate diatom coccolithophorid Microphytoplankton (20 – 200 µm) Large eukaryotic phytoplankton Prominent in productive coastal / upwelling zones Heterosigma large dinoflagellates chain-forming diatoms centric diatom Microzooplankton (2 – 200 µm) These are heterotrophic and mixotrophic protozoans •Large group and taxonomically diverse • ciliates • dinoflagellates • heterotrophic nanoflagellates (HNFs) • radiolarians (silica) and foraminifera (calcite) •Same size as the microphytoplankton (2 – 200 µm) Oxyrrhis marina •Heterotrophic and mixotrophic forms •Very important consumers in marine environments!!! Tintinnid ciliate Heterotrophic nanoflagellates bodonids choanoflagellates Dinoflagellates Protoperidinium Noctiluca scintillans Gyrodinium spirale Favella-like tintinnid Ciliates Eutintinnis Laboea strobila Favella-like tintinnid http://www.aslo.org/photopost Leegaardiella sp. Let’s talk about grazing… Sarcodines: foraminifera Sarcodines heliozoa radiolaria amoebae Mesozooplankton (200 um – 2 mm) • Relatively large, planktonic heterotrophs (200 µm – 2 mm) • Huge, diverse group… • Larger protozoans • Coelenterates • Cheatognaths • Annelids •Molluscs • Arthropods • Copepods • Amphipods • Euphausiids • Small larvaceans and salps • Pteropods and heteropods Meroplankton •As opposed to holoplankton or true plankton •Eggs, larvae and juvenile stages of benthic invertebrates and fish •Time spent in the plankton may be minutes to months •Especially important in coastal and estuarine waters as you will see on the zooplankton lab Polycheate larvae Snail veliger Starfish larvae Sea urchin larvae Barnacle nauplius Crab zoea Barnacle cypris Crab megalopa Macroplankton (2-20 cm) and Megaplankton (20-200 cm) Scyphozoan medusa (Chrysaora) Ctenophores like Mnemiopsis and Beroe (megaplankton) (macroplankton) • “Jellyfish” are prominent examples • Most are classified as plankton • Hydrozoan, Scyphozoan and Cubozoan medusae • Ctenophores •Salps • Larvaceans • Pteropods and Heteropods Major Phytoplankton Groups Major Phytoplankton Groups 1) Diatoms (20um to 2mm) • Most abundant, rapidly dividing organisms, bloomers • Silicate frustrule (shell) – pennates (motile) and centrics • Solitary and chain forming 2) Dinoflagellates (20 – 40um) • Motile with flagella • Auto, mixo, hetero-trophic • HABs (paralytic shellfish poisoning, Gymnodinium, red tides (Prorocentrum), Pfiesteria piscicida, zooxanthellae • Noctiluca sp. (bioluminescence) 3) Microflagellates (2-30um) • Coccolithophores, primnesiophytes, cryptophytes 4) Picophytoplankton (<2um) • Prochlorococcus and Synechococcus Diatoms Thalassiosira anguste Chaetoceros convolutus Pseudo-nitszchia multiseries Chaetoceros debilis Cylindrotheca sp. Dinoflagellates Ceratium tripos Dinophysis Gymnodinium spp. Protoperidinium Other phytoflagellates cryptomonads Chrysochromulina Emiliania huxleyi bergeri Phaeocystis globosa Pyramimonas Chlorella Dunaliella Chlorophytes and other coastal taxa Heterosigma akashiwo Euglena Picophytoplankton Mixed assemblage under epifluorescence Synechococcus Prochlorococcus N2-fixing cyanobacteria as endosymbionts in the diatom Rhizosolenia Trichodesmium spp. .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chapter 6.2-Assessment of Harmful Algae Bloom
    Maryland’s Coastal Bays: Ecosystem Health Assessment Chapter 6.2 Chapter 6.2 Assessment of harmful algae bloom species in the Maryland Coastal Bays Catherine Wazniak Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Tidewater Ecosystem Assessment, Annapolis, MD 21401 Abstract Thirteen potentially harmful algae taxa have been identified in the Maryland Coastal Bays: Aureococcus anophagefferens (brown tide), Pfiesteria piscicida and P. shumwayae, Chloromorum/ Chattonella spp., Heterosigma akashiwo, Fibrocapsa japonica, Prorocentrum minimum, Dinophysis spp., Amphidinium spp., Pseudo-nitzchia spp., Karlodinium micrum and two macroalgae genera (Gracilaria, Chaetomorpha). Presence of potentially toxic species is richest in the polluted tributaries of St. Martin River and Newport Bay. Approximately 5% of the phytoplankton species identified for Maryland’s Coastal Bays represent potentially harmful algal bloom (HAB) species. The HABs are recognized for their potentially toxic properties and, in some cases, their ability to produce large blooms negatively affecting light and dissolved oxygen resources. Brown tide (Aureococcus anophagefferens) has been the most widespread and prolific HAB species in the area in recent years, producing growth impacts to juvenile clams in test studies and potential impacts to sea grass distribution and growth (see Chapter 7.1). Macroalgal fluctuations may be evidence of a system balancing on the edge of a eutrophic (nutrient- enriched) state (see chapter 4). No evidence of toxic activity has been detected among the Coastal Bays phytoplankton. However, species such as Pseudo-nitzschia seriata, Prorocentrum minimum, Pfiesteria piscicida, Dinophysis acuminata and Karlodinium micrum have produced positive toxic bioassays or generated detectable toxins in Chesapeake Bay. Pfiesteria piscicida was retrospectively considered as the likely causative organism in a large historical fish kill on the Indian River, Delaware.
    [Show full text]
  • The Eukaryotic Life on Microplastics in Brackish Ecosystems
    Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Fakultät Marie Therese Kettner | Sonja Oberbeckmann | Matthias Labrenz Hans-Peter Grossart The Eukaryotic Life on Microplastics in Brackish Ecosystems Suggested citation referring to the original publication: Frontiers in Microbiology 10 (2019), Art. 538 DOI https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00766 ISSN (online) 1664-302X Postprint archived at the Institutional Repository of the Potsdam University in: Postprints der Universität Potsdam Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe ; 741 ISSN 1866-8372 https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-434996 DOI https://doi.org/10.25932/publishup-43499 fmicb-10-00538 March 19, 2019 Time: 17:29 # 1 ORIGINAL RESEARCH published: 20 March 2019 doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.00538 The Eukaryotic Life on Microplastics in Brackish Ecosystems Marie Therese Kettner1,2, Sonja Oberbeckmann3, Matthias Labrenz3 and Hans-Peter Grossart1,2* 1 Department of Experimental Limnology, Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries, Berlin, Germany, 2 Institute for Biochemistry and Biology, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany, 3 Environmental Microbiology Working Group, Leibniz Institute for Baltic Sea Research Warnemünde, Rostock, Germany Microplastics (MP) constitute a widespread contaminant all over the globe. Rivers and wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) transport annually several million tons of MP into freshwaters, estuaries and oceans, where they provide increasing artificial surfaces for microbial colonization. As knowledge on MP-attached communities is insufficient for brackish ecosystems, we conducted exposure experiments in the coastal Baltic Sea, an in-flowing river and a WWTP within the drainage basin. While reporting on prokaryotic and fungal communities from the same set-up previously, we focus here on the entire eukaryotic communities.
    [Show full text]
  • Proceedings of the 40Th U.S.-Japan Aquaculture Panel Symposium
    Hatchery Technology for High Quality Juvenile Production Proceedings of the 40th U.S.-Japan Aquaculture Panel Symposium University of Hawaii East West Center Honolulu, Hawaii October 22-23 2012 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-136 Hatchery Technology for High Quality Juvenile Production Proceedings of the 40th U.S.-Japan Aquaculture Panel Symposium University of Hawaii East West Center Honolulu, Hawaii October 22-23 2012 Mike Rust1, Paul Olin2, April Bagwill3, and Marie Fujitani3, editors 1Northwest Fisheries Science Center 2725 Montlake Boulevard East Seattle, Washington 98112 2California Sea Grant UCSD / Scripps Institution of Oceanography 133 Aviation Blvd., Suite 109 Santa Rosa CA 95403 3NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service 1315 East-West Highway Silver Spring, MD 20910 NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-136 December 2013 U.S. Department of Commerce Penny Pritzker, Secretary of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Dr. Kathryn Sullivan, (Acting) NOAA Administrator National Marine Fisheries Service Samuel D. Rauch III, (Acting) Assistant Administrator for Fisheries SUGGESTED CITATION: Rust, M., P. Olin, A. Bagwill and M. Fujitani (editors). 2013. Hatchery Technology for High Quality Juvenile Production: Proceedings of the 40th U.S.-Japan Aquaculture Panel Symposium, Honolulu, Hawaii, October 22-23, 2012. U.S. Dept. Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-136. A COPY OF THIS REPORT MAY BE OBTAINED FROM: Northwest Fisheries Science Center 2725 Montlake Boulevard East Seattle, Washington 98112 OR ONLINE AT: http://spo.nmfs.noaa.gov/tm/ Reference throughout this document to trade names does not imply endorsement by the National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA.
    [Show full text]
  • North and South Carolina Coasts
    Marine Pollution Bulletin Vol. 41, Nos. 1±6, pp. 56±75, 2000 Ó 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved Printed in Great Britain PII: S0025-326X(00)00102-8 0025-326X/00 $ - see front matter North and South Carolina Coasts MICHAEL A. MALLIN *, JOANN M. BURKHOLDERà, LAWRENCE B. CAHOON§ and MARTIN H. POSEY Center for Marine Science, University of North Carolina at Wilmington, 5001 Masonboro Loop Road, Wilmington, NC 28409, USA àDepartment of Botany, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7612, USA §Department of Biological Sciences, University of North Carolina at Wilmington, Wilmington, NC 28403, USA This coastal region of North and South Carolina is a sediments with toxic substances, especially of metals and gently sloping plain, containing large riverine estuaries, PCBs at suciently high levels to depress growth of sounds, lagoons, and salt marshes. The most striking some benthic macroinvertebrates. Numerous ®sh kills feature is the large, enclosed sound known as the have been caused by toxic P®esteria outbreaks, and ®sh Albemarle±Pamlico Estuarine System, covering approx- kills and habitat loss have been caused by episodic imately 7530 km2. The coast also has numerous tidal hypoxia and anoxia in rivers and estuaries. Oyster beds creek estuaries ranging from 1 to 10 km in length. This currently are in decline because of overharvesting, high coast has a rapidly growing population and greatly siltation and suspended particulate loads, disease, hyp- increasing point and non-point sources of pollution. oxia, and coastal development. Fisheries monitoring Agriculture is important to the region, swine rearing which began in the late 1970s shows greatest recorded notably increasing fourfold during the 1990s.
    [Show full text]
  • Human Health and Environmental Impacts from Pfiesteria: a Science-Based Rebuttal to Griffith (1999)
    Human Health and Environmental Impacts from Pfiesteria: A Science-Based Rebuttal to Griffith (1999) By: Alan J. Lewitus, Parke A. Rublee, Michael A. Mallin, and Sandra E. Shumway Lewitus, A.J., P.A. Rublee, M.A. Mallin, S.E. Shumway. 1999. Human health and environmental impacts from Pfiesteria: A Science-based rebuttal to Griffith (1999). Human Organization 58(4):455-458. Made available courtesy of Society for Applied Anthropology: http://www.sfaa.net/ ***Reprinted with permission. No further reproduction is authorized without written permission from the Society for Applied Anthropology. This version of the document is not the version of record. Figures and/or pictures may be missing from this format of the document.*** Key words: dinoflagellate, environmental health, fish kill, human health, Pfiesteria, risk analysis Article: David Griffith began his article, ―Exaggerating Environmental Health Risk: The Case of the Toxic Dinoflagellate Pfiesteria‖ (Human Organization 58:119-127). with a quotation by Angell (1995) which notes that assuming a connection between an effect and a cause, and then searching for it, is an inefficient approach that can lead to bias. Griffith clearly implied this was the approach Burkholder and her colleagues took to link Pfiesteria to human health problems. Griffith was in error. The approach Drs. Burkholder. Noga, and others took began with an observation of fish dying in aquaria. followed by identification of the cause as an unknown dinollagellate (Burkholder et al. 1992; Noga et al. 19931. It was then hypothesized that this organism could potentially cause fish kills in the environment. This was followed by its identification in field samples at fish kills (Burkholder et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Autotrophic Picoplankton: Their Presence and Significance in Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 1 Harold G
    ______,...----- Virginia Journal of Science Volume 53, Number 1 Spring 2002 Autotrophic Picoplankton: Their Presence and Significance In Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 1 Harold G. Marshall, Department of Biological Sciences, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia, 23529-0266, U.S.A. During the first half of the 20th century, scientists collecting plankton specimens would use nets having different sized apertures to selectively obtain organisms within various plankton categories. As these net apertures were reduced in size, it was realized that there were numerous microscopic cells capable of passing through the smallest openings of these nets (Lohmann, 1911 ). The presence of these very small cells was later reported at numerous freshwater sites (Rodhe, 19 5 5, Bailey-Watts et al., 1968; Pennak, 1968; Votintsev et al., 1972; Pearl, 1977) and marine locations (Van Baalin, 1962; Saijo, 1964; Saijo and Takesue, 1965; Reynolds, 1973; Banse, 1974; Berman, 1975; etc.). In this early literature, various terms were used to describe these cells (e.g. ultraplankton, olive green cells, µ-algae, nanoplankton, etc.), but it wasn't until Sieburth et al. ( 1978) established a plankton reference classification system based on size, that the term picoplankton began to be used collectively for these microscopic cells. The standard definition of picoplankton refers to cells within the size range of 0.2 to 2.0 microns. This term has since been generally accepted as the category to assign plankton cells that occur singly or within colonies that are within this size range. However, one of the initial concerns in algal studies was the inability to distinguish many of the bacteria, cyanobacteria, and eukaryotes in this category with similar characteristics, and to specifically identify the heterotrophs from autotrophs when limited to standard light microscopy protocols.
    [Show full text]
  • Aquatic Invasive Species Literature Review C
    Dinoflagellate “Cell from Hell”; “Ambush Predator”; “Phantom Dinoflagellate” I. Current Status and Distribution Pfiesteria piscicida a. Range Global/Continental Wisconsin Native Range Native to United States coasts1 Not recorded in Wisconsin1,2 Figure 1: U.S. Distribution Map1 Abundance/Range Widespread: Brackish coastal waters from Delaware Not applicable to North Carolina1 Locally Abundant: Undocumented Not applicable Sparse: Undocumented Not applicable Range Expansion Date Introduced: Not introduced; believed to be native1 Not applicable Rate of Spread: First discovered in 19881,3; estimated 1 Not applicable billion fish killed in fall 19914; has not been found in freshwater lakes, streams, or other inland water1,2 Density Risk of Monoculture: Undocumented Unknown Facilitated By: Undocumented Unknown b. Habitat Warm, brackish, poorly flushed waters, high levels of nutrients1 Tolerance Chart of tolerances: Increasingly dark color indicates increasingly optimal range2,5 ,6 Preferences Shallow, brackish, slow-moving waters (typical of estuaries); temperature of 75°F; abundant fish population; high levels of nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorous)7 Page 1 of 5 Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources – Aquatic Invasive Species Literature Review c. Regulation Noxious/Regulated: Not regulated Minnesota Regulations: Not regulated Michigan Regulations: Not regulated Washington Regulations: Not regulated II. Establishment Potential and Life History Traits a. Life History Marine/estuarine dinoflagellate1; flagellated, amoeboid, and cyst stages8 Fecundity Undocumented Reproduction Sexual; Asexual; highly complex life cycle, 24 reported forms, several of which can produce toxins1 Importance of Gametes: Produces anisogamous gametes (sexual)5 Vegetative: Produces temporary cysts (asexual)5 Hybridization Undocumented Overwintering Winter Tolerance: Cysts can stay dormant in sediment2; undocumented cyst temperature tolerance Phenology: Potentially a problem from April through October9 b.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 1 Fish Diseases and Parasites
    Advances in Fish Diseases and Disorders Diagnosis and Treatment Steve C Singer Editor ANMOL PUBLICATIONS PVT. LTD. NEW DELHI-110 002 (INDIA) ANMOL PUBLICATIONS PVT. LTD. Regd. Office: 4360/4, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, New Delhi-110002 (India) Tel.: 23278000, 23261597, 23286875, 23255577 Fax: 91-11-23280289 Email: [email protected] Visit us at: www.anmolpublications.com Branch Office: No. 1015, Ist Main Road, BSK IIIrd Stage IIIrd Phase, IIIrd Block, Bengaluru-560 085 (India) Tel.: 080-41723429 • Fax: 080-26723604 Email: [email protected] Advances in Fish Diseases and Disorders: Diagnosis and Treatment © 2013 ISBN: 978-81-261-5160-8 Editor: Steve C Singer No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without prior written permission of the publisher. Reasonable efforts have been made to publish reliable data and information, but the authors, editors, and the publisher cannot assume responsibility for the legality of all materials or the consequences of their use. The authors, editors, and the publisher have attempted to trace the copyright holders of all materials in this publication and express regret to copyright holders if permission to publish has not been obtained. If any copyright material has not been acknowledged, let us know so we may rectify in any future reprint. PRINTED IN INDIA Printed at Avantika Printers Private Limited, New Delhi Contents Preface vii 1. Fish Diseases and Parasites 1 Disease • Parasites • Mass Die Offs • Cleaner Fish • Wild Salmon • Farmed Salmon • Aquarium Fish • Spreading Disease and Parasites • Eating Raw Fish • Aeromonas Salmonicida • Columnaris • Enteric Redmouth Disease • Fin Rot 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Report of the Working Group on Pathology and Diseases of Marine Organisms (WGPDMO)
    ICES WGPDMO REPORT 2015 SCICOM STEERING GROUP ON ECOSYSTEM PRESSURES AND IMPACTS ICES CM 2015/SSGEPI:01 REF. ACOM, SCICOM Report of the Working Group on Pathology and Diseases of Marine Organisms (WGPDMO) 24-28 February 2015 Helsinki, Finland International Council for the Exploration of the Sea Conseil International pour l’Exploration de la Mer H. C. Andersens Boulevard 44–46 DK-1553 Copenhagen V Denmark Telephone (+45) 33 38 67 00 Telefax (+45) 33 93 42 15 www.ices.dk [email protected] Recommended format for purposes of citation: ICES. 2015. Report of the Working Group on Pathology and Diseases of Marine Or- ganisms (WGPDMO), 24–28 February 2015, Helsinki, Finland. ICES CM 2015/SSGEPI:01. 124 pp. For permission to reproduce material from this publication, please apply to the Gen- eral Secretary. The document is a report of an Expert Group under the auspices of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea and does not necessarily represent the views of the Council. © 2015 International Council for the Exploration of the Sea ICES WGPDMO REPORT 2015 | i Contents Executive summary ................................................................................................................ 1 1 Administrative details .................................................................................................. 2 2 Terms of Reference a) – z) ............................................................................................ 2 3 Summary of Work plan ................................................................................................ 3 4 Summary of Achievements of the WG during 3-year term ................................... 4 5 Final report on ToRs, workplan and Science Implementation Plan .................... 5 5.1 Produce an update of new disease trends in wild and cultured fish, molluscs and crustaceans based on national reports (ToR a)................. 5 5.2 Parasites and other infectious agents in marine finfish and shellfish species posing a hazard to human health (ToR b) ........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Pfiesteria Piscicida, Toxic Dinoflagellate: Facts, Life Cycle
    http://www.MetaPathogen.com: Pfiesteria piscicida, toxic dinoflagellate cellular organisms - Eukaryota - Alveolata - Dinophyceae - Peridiniales - Pfiesteriaceae - Pfiesteria - Pfiesteria piscicida 1. Genera information 2. Introduction to dinoflagellates 3. Pfiesteria brief facts 4. Pfiesteria discovery 5. Human health implications 6. Pfiesteria general biology 7. Pfiesteria life cycle controversy 8. Pfiesteria toxicity controversy 9. Pfiesteria piscicida life forms by Burkholder JM, Glasgow HB Jr. (1997) 10. Pfiesteria piscicida life cycle by Litaker et al. (2002) 11. References 1. General informaiton Pfiesteria spp. and Pfiesteria-like organisms belong to class Dinophyceae (synonym Pyrrhophyta), dinoflagellates. Dinoflagellates are organisms whose dominant stage is unarmored or armored flagellated zoospore. Armor consists of thecal (wall) plates. Their arrangment is most important morphological characteristic for taxonomic placement of the dinoflagellates. Pfiesteria spp. are small (~10-20 µm in length) lightly armored heterotrophic dinoflagellates, typically with a dinokaryon (dinoflagellate nucleus) in the hypocone (region of a dinoflagellate cell posterior to the girdle) and food vacuoles in the epicone (region of a dinoflagellate cell anterior to the girdle). 2. Introduction: dinoflagellates ● The dinoflagellates are a major marine phytoplankton group found in high energy aquatic biosystems. They are the major agents causing Harmful Algal Bloom (HAB) and are also the symbionts of corals. Despite of the autotrophic nature of many dinoflagellates, the group is phylogenetically affiliated with obligate parasites Plasmodium falsiparum (malaria) and Toxoplasma gondii (toxoplasmosis). ● The dinoflagellates are characterized by the presence of one or two flagella which propel the organisms in a rotating manner through the water. Each flagellum is located in a groove on the cell surface. One flagellum encircles the cell and is flattened like a ribbon; the other one is whip-like and extends beyond the posterior end of the cell.
    [Show full text]
  • An Overview of Harmful Algal Blooms and Human Health
    An Overview of Harmful Algal Blooms and Human Health Lora E Fleming MD PhD MPH MSc Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) Definition: • “Red/Brown/Yellow/etc Tides” • Proliferation of microscopic organisms • Marine, fresh & estuarine waters • Potential danger to: – Environment – Wildlife – Humans Harmful Algal Bloom Causes of HABs? DEPENDS on Individual Organism!!!! • Environmental/Biological factors • ?Anthropogenic Factors – ?Human Interactions – ?Pollution & Nutrients – ?Global Change Causes of HABs • Microscopic organisms • “Harm” = – Oxygen deprivation – Natural Toxin- production HAB Toxins • Natural Toxins – Harmful in minute (picogram) doses • Can NOT be – detected • No taste or smell – eliminated • Heat and acid stable • Cleaning, storage, cooking • Work at cellular level Ciguatoxin Effects on the Sodium Channel in Nerve Cells Nerve Cell Economic Costs of HABs US 1987-1992: > $449,291,987 – Public Health – Commercial Fisheries – Recreation & Tourism – Monitoring & Management – Anderson, Hoagland et al (2000/2002) HAB Human Diseases: Routes of Exposure Seafood Consumption • Conflicting Health Advice & Data • Bivalve Consumption (FAO 2004) – France & Norway 35% consume 1-11x/yr = 4.2 “eating occasions”/yr – US 8.6 “eating occasions”/yr • Seafood Consumption (NAS 2007) – US > 16 lbs/person/yr • Subpopulation & Individual Variability HAB Human Diseases: Air/Water Exposure HAB Known Human Diseases HAB Known Human Diseases • Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning (PSP) • Neurotoxic Shellfish Poisoning (NSP) • Diarrheic Shellfish Poisoning (DSP) • Amnesiac
    [Show full text]
  • Symposium on Harmful Marine Algae in the U.S
    Symposium on Harmful Marine Algae in the U.S. December 4-9, 2000 Symposium Agenda, Abstracts and Participants Marine Biological Laboratory Woods Hole, Massachusetts Symposium Director: Donald M. Anderson Symposium Coordinator: Judy Kleindinst Steering Committee: Don Anderson Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Dan Baden University of North Carolina, Wilmington Sue Banahan NOAA, National Ocean Service, Silver Spring JoAnn Burkholder North Carolina State University Pat Glibert University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science John Heisler EPA, Oceans and Coastal Protection Division Dennis McGillicuddy Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Chris Scholin Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute Kevin Sellner NOAA, Coastal Ocean Program, Silver Spring Rick StumpfNOAA, National Ocean Service, Silver Spring Pat Tester NOAA, National Ocean Service, Beaufort Fran VanDolah NOAA, National Ocean Service, Charleston Tracy Villareal The University of Texas at Austin Session Coordinators/Chairs: (Note: Names of Session Chairs are underlined) ECOHAB – Florida: Karen Steidinger, Pat Tester, Fran VanDolah Gulf of Mexico HABs Quay Dortch, Tracy Villareal Pfiesteria – NC, SC, FL JoAnn Burkholder, Jan Landsberg, Alan Lewitus, Wayne Litaker Pfiesteria – DE, MD, VA Pat Glibert, Dave Oldach, Jeff Shields West Coast HABs Rita Horner, Chris Scholin, Vera Trainer Non-regional HABs Kevin Sellner, Tracy Villareal ECOHAB – GOM Don Anderson, Dave Townsend Brown Tides Sue Banahan, Greg Boyer, Cornelia Schlenk Sponsors: U.S. National Office for Marine Biotoxins and Harmful Algae California Sea Grant College Maryland Sea Grant College Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences NOAA / Coastal Ocean Program NOAA / Center for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment National Sea Grant Office New York Sea Grant College South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium Virginia Sea Grant College Symposium on Harmful Marine Algae in the U.S.
    [Show full text]