The Malaspina 2010 circumnavigation was an
important study into the deep ocean microbiomes. It was the first to look at
the abundance and biomass of heterotrophic protists (HP) on a global scale.
In the bathypelagic zone, microbes interact with a wide
range of organic molecules, leading to the breakdown of this organic matter
into its simplest inorganic forms. Along with the stable homogenous mesopelagic
zone, this makes the deep oceans one of the earths largest biomes, which has an
important role in remineralisation and carbon sequestration on a global scale (Nagata
et al., 2010).
Photosynthetic organisms do not form the basis of the deep
oceans food web because little to no light is able to penetrate down to the
depths of the ocean. This lack of light means that the basis of the deep oceans
microbial food web is sustained by organic matter that descends to the depths and
by the production of prokaryotes. This is evidenced by the in-situ chemosynthesis that uses reduced inorganic compounds, such
as ammonia or carbon monoxide, which Jiao and Zheng (2011) argue has a big
impact on global carbon sequestration.
This makes prokaryotes the entry point for carbon in the
deep oceans food web. In surface waters, HP are known to be an important grazer
of prokaryotes, but little is known about the deep oceans HP. Disagreements
about the importance of deep ocean grazing by HP concern the variation in
abundance and biomass of the deep oceans HP.
This study was the first to globally assess the abundance
and biomass of HP in mesopelagic and bathypelagic waters. A combination of epifluorescence microscopy and flow cytometry was used to analyse deep
water samples from the Malaspina 2010 circumnavigation. The study correlated a
global trend in decreasing HP abundance with depth. At the same depth ranges
across the globe, however, the decrease in biomass and abundance of HP was not
equal. On average the HP biomass would equate to roughly 20% of the prokaryote
biomass, suggesting the possibility of HP grazing on the prokaryotes.
However, there was substantial variation
regionally in the HP to prokaryote ratio, for example, the Atlantic community had
no significant difference between the bathypelagic and mesopelagic layers, and
in contrast, the Great Australian Blight had the highest levels of variation. In
areas where there where high levels of HP compared to prokaryotes, counting osmotrophs
and parasites as HP grazers, when in fact they are independent to prokaryote
abundance, could be the causal factor to this discrepancy. In the areas with a
higher prokaryote to HP ratio, there was a large contribution of fungi to total
abundance. This could mean that fungi are being used as an additional carbon
source for HP and that the presence of osmotrophs and parasites could relax the
grazing pressure on prokaryotes.
Ref
Jiao, N. and Zheng, Q., 2011. The microbial carbon pump: from genes to ecosystems. Applied and environmental microbiology, 77(21), pp.7439-7444.
Nagata, T., Tamburini, C., Arístegui, J., Baltar, F., Bochdansky, A.B., Fonda-Umani, S., Fukuda, H., Gogou, A., Hansell, D.A., Hansman, R.L. and Herndl, G.J., 2010. Emerging concepts on microbial processes in the bathypelagic ocean–ecology, biogeochemistry, and genomics. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 57(16), pp.1519-1536.
Article reviewed
Pernice, M.C., Forn, I., Gomes, A., Lara, E., Alonso-Sáez, L., Arrieta, J.M., del Carmen Garcia, F., Hernando-Morales, V., MacKenzie, R., Mestre, M. and Sintes, E., 2015. Global abundance of planktonic heterotrophic protists in the deep ocean. The ISME journal, 9(3), pp.782-792.
Hi Richard,
ReplyDeleteThank you for this post. It is interesting that some microbes may have been misidentified which lead to discrepancies - do you think that this was mainly due to the methods used? Did the authors mention whether or not they then took this into account in their analysis?
Many thanks,
Sophie
Hi Sophie, the authors didn't take this into account for their analysis but did use it as a reasoning for the discrepancies in HP to prokaryotic ratios. The reason for this miscounting was due to the methods used, specifically the flow cytometry. This method fires a laser beam at cells and sorts them due to the unique light characteristics given off, such as scattering incidents and emitted fluorescence, this sorting would be where the error occurred. This method can be found in Marine Microbiology: Ecology and Applications by Colin Munn on page 33, this should explain the mechanics of flow cytometry much better than I can.
ReplyDeleteRich