4.6 Article

Response of Phytoplankton Photophysiology to Varying Environmental Conditions in the Sub-Antarctic and Polar Frontal Zone

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 8, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0072165

关键词

-

资金

  1. Australian Government via Australian Antarctic Science Grants (AAS) [2720]
  2. ACE CRC PhD scholarship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Climate-driven changes are expected to alter the hydrography of the Sub-Antarctic Zone (SAZ) and Polar Frontal Zone (PFZ) south of Australia, in which distinct regional environments are believed to be responsible for the differences in phytoplankton biomass in these regions. Here, we report how the dynamic influences of light, iron and temperature, which are responsible for the photophysiological differences between phytoplankton in the SAZ and PFZ, contribute to the biomass differences in these regions. High effective photochemical efficiency of photosystem II (F-q'/F-m' > 0.4), maximum photosynthesis rate (P-max(B)), light-saturation intensity (E-k), maximum rate of photosynthetic electron transport (1/tau(PSII)), and low photoprotective pigment concentrations observed in the SAZ correspond to high chlorophyll a and iron concentrations. In contrast, phytoplankton in the PFZ exhibits low F-q'/F-m' (similar to 0.2) and high concentrations of photoprotective pigments under low light environment. Strong negative relationships between iron, temperature, and photoprotective pigments demonstrate that cells were producing more photoprotective pigments under low temperature and iron conditions, and are responsible for the low biomass and low productivity measured in the PFZ. As warming and enhanced iron input is expected in this region, this could probably increase phytoplankton photosynthesis in this region. However, complex interactions between the biogeochemical processes (e.g. stratification caused by warming could prevent mixing of nutrients), which control phytoplankton biomass and productivity, remain uncertain.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据