Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Response of picophytoplankton to a warm eddy in the northern South China Sea Cover

Response of picophytoplankton to a warm eddy in the northern South China Sea

Oceanological and Hydrobiological Studies
Volume 45 (2016): Issue 2 (June 2016)
By: Junxing Wang,  Yehui Tan,  Liangmin Huang,  Zhixin Ke,  Jiyang Tan,  Zifeng Hu and  Qiong Wang  
Open Access
|Jun 2016

Figures & Tables

Figure 1

(a) Locations of sampling stations (kj01–kj10) during the cruise of August 2012. (b) Map of weekly average sealevel anomalies during the sampling period in August 12-19, 2012; the 200-, 1000-, 2000-, and 3000-m isobaths are marked. HN, Hainan Island; TW, Taiwan; LZ, Luzon
(a) Locations of sampling stations (kj01–kj10) during the cruise of August 2012. (b) Map of weekly average sealevel anomalies during the sampling period in August 12-19, 2012; the 200-, 1000-, 2000-, and 3000-m isobaths are marked. HN, Hainan Island; TW, Taiwan; LZ, Luzon

Figure 2

Picophytoplankton cytograms of a sample from 75 m at station kj03 in this study. The symbols of pink, green, blue, deep red and black dots show Pro, Syn, Picoeuk, Beads and Noise, respectively.
Picophytoplankton cytograms of a sample from 75 m at station kj03 in this study. The symbols of pink, green, blue, deep red and black dots show Pro, Syn, Picoeuk, Beads and Noise, respectively.

Figure 3

Distribution of temperature (a) and salinity (b) in the upper 200 m at sampling stations kj01–kj10 across the warm eddy (18°N) in the northern SCS in summer 2012. The stations are denoted at the top of each panel.
Distribution of temperature (a) and salinity (b) in the upper 200 m at sampling stations kj01–kj10 across the warm eddy (18°N) in the northern SCS in summer 2012. The stations are denoted at the top of each panel.

Figure 4

Dendrogram of the three station groupings (EC - eddy core, EE - eddy edge, and Ref - reference sites) according to cluster analysis
Dendrogram of the three station groupings (EC - eddy core, EE - eddy edge, and Ref - reference sites) according to cluster analysis

Figure 5

Vertical distribution of nitrate (a), phosphate (b), and silicate (c) in the upper 200 m at sampling stations kj01–kj10 across the warm eddy (18°N) in the northern SCS in summer 2012. The stations are denoted at the top of each panel.
Vertical distribution of nitrate (a), phosphate (b), and silicate (c) in the upper 200 m at sampling stations kj01–kj10 across the warm eddy (18°N) in the northern SCS in summer 2012. The stations are denoted at the top of each panel.

Figure 6

Spatial distribution of water-column integrated nitrate (a), phosphate (b), and silicate (c) from 0 to 200 m. The sampling stations (kj01–kj10) were classified as Ref, EE, and EC 50 m, the abundance of Syn was significantly higher at the eddy edge than that at the reference stations. The water-column integrated Syn abundance within the eddy core was significantly lower than that at the reference stations (Table 1 and Fig. 9b).
Spatial distribution of water-column integrated nitrate (a), phosphate (b), and silicate (c) from 0 to 200 m. The sampling stations (kj01–kj10) were classified as Ref, EE, and EC 50 m, the abundance of Syn was significantly higher at the eddy edge than that at the reference stations. The water-column integrated Syn abundance within the eddy core was significantly lower than that at the reference stations (Table 1 and Fig. 9b).

Figure 7

Vertical distribution of Chl a (a) concentration and abundance of Syn (b), Pro (c), and Picoeuk (d) in the upper 200 m in the warm eddy (18°N) in the northern SCS during summer 2012
Vertical distribution of Chl a (a) concentration and abundance of Syn (b), Pro (c), and Picoeuk (d) in the upper 200 m in the warm eddy (18°N) in the northern SCS during summer 2012

Figure 8

Vertical profiles of Chl a (a) concentration and abundance of Syn (b), Pro (c), and Picoeuk (d) in the upper 200 m in the warm eddy (18°N) in the northern SCS during summer 2012
Vertical profiles of Chl a (a) concentration and abundance of Syn (b), Pro (c), and Picoeuk (d) in the upper 200 m in the warm eddy (18°N) in the northern SCS during summer 2012

Figure 9

Spatial distribution of water-column integrated Chl a (a) concentration and abundance of Syn (b), Pro (c), and Picoeuk (d) from 0 to 200 m in the warm eddy (18°N) in the northern SCS during summer 2012. The sampling stations (kj01–kj10) were classified as Ref, EE, and EC.
Spatial distribution of water-column integrated Chl a (a) concentration and abundance of Syn (b), Pro (c), and Picoeuk (d) from 0 to 200 m in the warm eddy (18°N) in the northern SCS during summer 2012. The sampling stations (kj01–kj10) were classified as Ref, EE, and EC.

Nutrient ratios (N - nitrate, P - phosphate, and Si - silicate) at 50 m and 75 m depths at EC, EE, and Ref

DepthN/PSi/NSi/P
Ref50 m5.82±1.010.83±0.294.75±1.21
75 m11.93±5.611.54±0.5514.63±2.83
EE50 m6.56±2.850.77±0.184.79±1.02
75 m9.02±3.491.09±0.339.28±0.88
EC50 m4.78±0.330.97±0.024.63±0.22
75 m12.67±0.990.62±0.147.91±2.34

Water-column integrated nutrient, Chl a, picophytoplankton, and carbon biomass measured at sampling stations in EC, EE, and Ref

Parameter

SCM refers to subsurface Chl a maximum at 50 m; Cell numbers were converted to carbon biomass by applying conversion factors of 250 (Syn); 2 100 (Picoeuk); and 53 (Pro) fgC cell-1 (Campbell et al. 1994).

UnitRef

EE

Parentheses show P values obtained from analysis of variance (ANOVA) for (EE + EC) vs. Ref (α = 0.05).

EC

Parentheses show P values obtained from ANOVA for EC vs. Ref (the first value) or EE (the second one) (α = 0.05); symbol “—” means P>0.05.

b(EE + EC)
Nitrateμmol l-112.56±3.9716.94±3.8111.88±0.5114.41±3.67
Phosphate0.78±0.080.99±0.002 (0.03)0.74±0.01 (—, 0.030)0.87±0.15
Silicate11.43±0.9512.14±0.269.34±0.83 (—, 0.039)10.74±1.69
Chl a (SCM)μg l-10.16±0.040.09±0.010.08±0.020.09±0.02 (0.005)
Total Chl a0.05±0.010.06±0.0020.05±0.010.06±0.01
Syn× 103 cells ml-12.71±0.632.55±0.121.56±0.04 (0.031, —)2.05±0.58
Picoeuk0.92±0.150.60±0.11 (0.037)0.28±0.01 (0.001, —)0.44±0.19 (0.001)
Pro25.10±2.3215.75±1.78 (0.002)9.67±0.23 (0, 0.05)12.71±3.66 (0)
Syn-carbon× 105 fgC ml-16.76±1.586.38±0.293.89±0.11 (0.031, —)5.13±1.45
Picoeuk-carbon19.40±3.1812.64±2.26 (0.037)5.78±0.08 (0.001, —)9.21±4.19 (0.001)
Pro-carbon13.30±1.238.35±0.94 (0.002)5.12±0.12 (0, 0.05)6.74±1.94 (0)
Pico-carbon39.47±2.5927.37±1.02 (0.011)14.79±0.07 (0, 0.022)21.08±7.28 (0)
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ohs-2016-0014 | Journal eISSN: 1897-3191 | Journal ISSN: 1730-413X
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 145 - 158
Submitted on: Jul 6, 2015
Accepted on: Oct 28, 2015
Published on: Jun 22, 2016
Published by: University of Gdańsk
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 issues per year
Keywords:
northern South China Sea,
picophytoplankton,
warm eddy,
carbon biomass,
nutrient ratio
Related subjects:
Chemistry,
Chemistry, other,
Geosciences,
Geosciences, other,
Life sciences,
Life sciences, other

© 2016 Junxing Wang, Yehui Tan, Liangmin Huang, Zhixin Ke, Jiyang Tan, Zifeng Hu, Qiong Wang, published by University of Gdańsk
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Volume 45 (2016): Issue 2 (June 2016)Next article