Temporal change of plankton size structure preserved by Lugol’s solution: a FlowCAM study -- Journal of Oceanology and Limnology,2023,41(1):290-299

	Cite this paper:
	Zijia LIU, Yuan DONG, Qian P. LI, Zhengchao WU, Zaiming GE, Mengzhen MA. Temporal change of plankton size structure preserved by Lugol’s solution: a FlowCAM study[J]. Journal of Oceanology and Limnology, 2023, 41(1): 290-299

Temporal change of plankton size structure preserved by Lugol’s solution: a FlowCAM study

Zijia LIU^1,2, Yuan DONG^1,3, Qian P. LI^1,2,3, Zhengchao WU^1,3, Zaiming GE^1,2, Mengzhen MA^1,2

1 State Key Laboratory of Tropical Oceanography, South China Sea Institute of Oceanology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou 510301, China;
2 University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China;
3 Southern Marine Science and Engineering Guangdong Laboratory(Guangzhou), Guangzhou 511458, Chin

Abstract:

Plankton size structure is crucial for understanding marine ecosystem dynamics and the associated biogeochemical processes. A fixation step by acid Lugol’s solution has been commonly employed to preserve plankton samples in the field. However, the acid Lugol’s solution can bias the estimation of size structure and the preserved plankton size structure can vary with time. Here, we explore the impact of sample storage time on the size-structure of the plankton community preserved by Lugol’s solution. Two short-term experiments and one long-term experiment were conducted to explore the change of plankton community size structure with the storage time: covering from a week to a month, and to nearly seven months based on particle-size data obtained by continuous Flow Cytometer and Microscope (FlowCAM) measurements. We found a linear change of plankton size with the storage time in short-term periods (less than 3 months) with a decrease of the slope but an increase of the intercept for the normalized biomass size spectrum (NBSS). However, there were opposite trends for NBSS with increasing slope but decreasing intercept after 3 months. The potential causes of the distinct patterns of the NBSS parameters are addressed in terms of the interplay between particle aggregation and fragmentation. We found large changes in plankton biovolume and abundance among different size classes, which may indicate a distinct effect of acid Lugol’s solution on various plankton size classes. The mechanism driving temporal change in the size-structure of the Lugolfixed plankton community was further discussed in terms of particle aggregation and fragmentation. Finally, we emphasize that the effect of storage time should be taken into account when interpreting or comparing data of plankton community acquired from samples with various storage durations.

Key words: Lugol's|plankton|size structure|Flow Cytometer and Microscope (FlowCAM)

Received: 2021-05-20 Revised:

Tools

PDF (1110 KB) Free

Print this page

Add to favorites

Email this article to others

Authors

Articles by Zijia LIU

Articles by Yuan DONG

Articles by Qian P. LI

Articles by Zhengchao WU

Articles by Zaiming GE

Articles by Mengzhen MA

References:
Álvarez E, López-Urrutia Á, Nogueira E et al. 2011. How to effectively sample the plankton size spectrum? A case study using FlowCAM. Journal of Plankton Research, 33(7): 1119-1133, https://doi.org/10.1093/plankt/fbr012.
Álvarez E, Moyano M, López-Urrutia Á et al. 2014. Routine determination of plankton community composition and size structure: a comparison between FlowCAM and light microscopy. Journal of Plankton Research, 36(1): 170-184, https://doi.org/10.1093/plankt/fbt069.
Blanco J M, Echevarría F, García C M. 1994. Dealing with sizespectra: some conceptual and mathematical problems.Scientia Marina, 58(1-2): 17-29.
Choi J W, Stoecker D K. 1989. Effects of fixation on cell volume of marine planktonic protozoa. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 55(7): 1761-1765.
Cisternas-Novoa C, Lee C, Engel A. 2015. Transparent Exopolymer Particles (TEP) and Coomassie Stainable Particles (CSP): differences between their origin and vertical distributions in the ocean. Marine Chemistry, 175: 56-71.
Dong Y, Li Q P, Liu Z J et al. 2018. Size-dependent phytoplankton growth and grazing in the northern South China Sea. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 599: 35-47, https://doi.org/10.3354/meps12614.
Dong Y, Li Q P, Wu Z C et al. 2021. Biophysical controls on seasonal changes in the structure, growth, and grazing of the size-fractionated phytoplankton community in the northern South China Sea. Biogeosciences, 18(24): 6423-6434, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-6423-2021.
García-Muñoz C, García C M, Lubián L M et al. 2014.Metabolic state along a summer north-south transect near the Antarctic Peninsula: a size spectra approach. Journal of Plankton Research, 36(4): 1074-1091, https://doi.org/10.1093/plankt/fbu042.
Hällfors G, Melvasalo T, Niemi Å et al. 1979. Effect of different fixatives and preservatives on phytoplankton counts. Vesientutkimuslaitoksen Julkaisuja, 34: 25-34.
Hawkins P R, Holliday J, Kathuria A et al. 2005. Change in cyanobacterial biovolume due to preservation by Lugol’s Iodine. Harmful Algae, 4(6): 1033-1043, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hal.2005.03.001.
Huete-Ortega M, Marañón E, Varela M et al. 2010. General patterns in the size scaling of phytoplankton abundance in coastal waters during a 10-year time series. Journal of Plankton Research, 32(1): 1-14, https://doi.org/10.1093/plankt/fbp104.
Ide K, Takahashi K, Kuwata A et al. 2008. A rapid analysis of copepod feeding using FlowCAM. Journal of Plankton Research, 30(3): 275-281, https://doi.org/10.1093/plankt/fbm108.
Jakobsen H H, Carstensen J. 2011. FlowCAM: sizing cells and understanding the impact of size distributions on biovolume of planktonic community structure. Aquatic Microbial Ecology, 65(1): 75-87, https://doi.org/10.3354/ame01539.
Jaspers C, Carstensen J. 2009. Effect of acid Lugol solution as preservative on two representative chitineous and gelatinous zooplankton groups. Limnology and Oceanography: Methods, 7(6): 430-435, https://doi.org/10.4319/lom.2009.7.430.
Le Bourg B, Cornet-Barthaux V, Pagano M et al. 2015. FlowCAM as a tool for studying small (80-1000 μm) metazooplankton communities. Journal of Plankton Research, 37(4): 666-670, https://doi.org/10.1093/plankt/fbv025.
Li Q P, Zhou W W, Chen Y C et al. 2018. Phytoplankton response to a plume front in the northern South China Sea. Biogeosciences, 15(8): 2551-2563, https://doi.org/10.5194/BG-15-2551-2018.
Liu Z J, Li Q P, Ge Z M et al. 2021a. Variability of plankton size distribution and controlling factors across a coastal frontal zone. Progress in Oceanography, 197: 102665, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2021.102665.
Liu Z J, Li Q, Chen Y C et al. 2021b. Tidal effects on plankton community and size-structure in the Huangmao Bay of the South China Sea. Oceanologia et Limnologia Sinica, 52(6): 1408-1417, https://doi.org/10.11693/hyhz20210400107. (in Chinese with English abstract)
Marañón E. 2015. Cell size as a key determinant of phytoplankton metabolism and community structure.Annual Review of Marine Science, 7: 241-264, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-marine-010814-015955.
Martin E S, Harris R P, Irigoien X. 2006. Latitudinal variation in plankton size spectra in the Atlantic Ocean. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 53(14-16): 1560-1572, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2006.05.006.
Menden-Deuer S, Lessard E J, Satterberg J. 2001. Effect of preservation on dinoflagellate and diatom cell volume and consequences for carbon biomass predictions.
Marine Ecology Progress Series, 222: 41-50, https://doi.org/10.3354/meps222041.
Montagnes D J S, Berges J A, Harrison P J et al. 1994.Estimating carbon, nitrogen, protein, and chlorophyll a from volume in marine phytoplankton. Limnology and Oceanography, 39(5): 1044-1060, https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.1994.39.5.1044.
Moreno-Ostos E, Blanco J M, Agustí S et al. 2015.Phytoplankton biovolume is independent from the slope of the size spectrum in the oligotrophic Atlantic Ocean.Journal of Marine Systems, 152: 42-50, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmarsys.2015.07.008.
Mukherjee A, Das S, Bhattacharya T et al. 2014. Optimization of phytoplankton preservative concentrations to reduce damage during long-term storage. Biopreservation and Biobanking, 12(2): 139-147, https://doi.org/10.1089/bio.2013.0074.
Ngando T S, Groliere C A. 1991. Quantitative effects of fixatives on the storage of freshwater planktonic ciliates.Archiv für Protistenkunde, 140(2-3): 109-120, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-9365(11)80179-X.
Ohman M D, Snyder R A. 1991. Growth kinetics of the omnivorous oligotrich ciliate Strombidium sp. Limnology and Oceanography, 36(5): 922-935, https://doi.org/10. 4319/lo.1991.36.5.0922.
Platt T, Denman K. 1977. Organization in the pelagic ecosystem.Helgoländer Wissenschaftliche Meeresuntersuchungen, 30(1): 575-581, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02207862.
Platt T, Denman K. 1978. The structure of pelagic marine ecosystems. Journal du Conseil International Pour l’Exploration de la Mer, 173: 60-65.
Quintana X D, Comín F A, Moreno-Amich R. 2002. Biomasssize spectra in aquatic communities in shallow fluctuating Mediterranean salt marshes (Empordà wetlands, NE Spain). Journal of Plankton Research, 24(11): 1149-1161, https://doi.org/10.1093/plankt/24.11.1149.
Rodriguez J, Jiménez F, Bautista B et al. 1987. Planktonic biomass spectra dynamics during a winter production pulse in Mediterranean coastal waters. Journal of Plankton Research, 9(6): 1183-1194, https://doi.org/10.1093/plankt/9.6.1183.
Roy S, Silverberg N, Romero N et al. 2000. Importance of mesozooplankton feeding for the downward flux of biogenic carbon in the Gulf of St. Lawrence (Canada).Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 47(3-4): 519-544, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0967-0645(99)00117-4.
Sheldon R W, Prakash A, Sutcliffe W H Jr. 1972. The size distribution of particles in the ocean. Limnology and Oceanography, 17(3): 327-340, https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.1972.17.3.0327.
Sieracki C K, Sieracki M E, Yentsch C S. 1998. An imagingin-flow system for automated analysis of marine microplankton. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 168:285-296, https://doi.org/10.3354/meps168285.
Stoecker D K, Gifford D J, Putt M. 1994. Preservation of marine planktonic ciliates: losses and cell shrinkage during fixation. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 110(2-3): 293-299, https://doi.org/10.3354/meps110293.
Taylor A G, Landry M R. 2018. Phytoplankton biomass and size structure across trophic gradients in the southern California Current and adjacent ocean ecosystems.Marine Ecology Progress Series, 592: 1-17, https://doi.org/10.3354/meps12526.
Ventura M, Jeppesen E. 2009. Effects of fixation on freshwater invertebrate carbon and nitrogen isotope composition and its arithmetic correction. Hydrobiologia, 632(1): 297-308, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-009-9852-3.
White E P, Enquist B J, Green J L. 2008. On estimating the exponent of power-law frequency distributions. Ecology, 89(4): 905-912, https://doi.org/10.1890/07-1288.1.
Williams O J, Beckett R E, Maxwell D L. 2016. Marine phytoplankton preservation with Lugol’s: a comparison of solutions. Journal of Applied Phycology, 28(3): 1705-1712, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10811-015-0704-4.
Yang Y, Sun X X, Zhao Y F. 2017. Effects of Lugol’s iodine solution and formalin on cell volume of three bloomforming dinoflagellates. Chinese Journal of Oceanology and Limnology, 35(4): 858-866, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00343-017-5378-0.
Zarauz L, Irigoien X. 2008. Effects of Lugol’s fixation on the size structure of natural nano-microplankton samples, analyzed by means of an automatic counting method.Journal of Plankton Research, 30(11): 1297-1303, https://doi.org/10.1093/plankt/fbn084.
Zinabu G M, Bott T L. 2000. The effects of formalin and Lugol’s iodine solution on protozoal cell volume. Limnologica—Ecology and Management of Inland Waters, 30(1): 59-63, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0075-9511(00)80044-4.