Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/bgd-2-1331-2005
https://doi.org/10.5194/bgd-2-1331-2005
06 Sep 2005
 | 06 Sep 2005
Status: this preprint was under review for the journal BG but the revision was not accepted.

Effect of incubation time and substrate concentration on N-uptake rates by phytoplankton in the Bay of Bengal

S. Kumar, R. Ramesh, S. Sardesai, and M. S. Sheshshayee

Abstract. We report here the results of three experiments, which are slight variations of the 15N method (JGOFS protocol) for determination of new production. The first two test the effect of (i) duration of incubation time and (ii) concentration of tracer added on the uptake rates of various N-species (nitrate, ammonium and urea) by marine phytoplankton; while the third compares in situ and deck incubations from dawn to dusk. Results indicate that nitrate uptake can be underestimated by experiments where incubation times shorter than 4h or when more than 10% of the ambient concentration of nitrate is added prior to incubation. The f-ratio increases from 0.28 to 0.42 when the incubation time increases from two to four hours. This may be due to the observed increase in the uptake rate of nitrate and decrease in the urea uptake rate. Unlike ammonium [y{=}2.07x{-}0.002\, (r2=0.55)] and urea uptakes [y{=}1.88x{+}0.004 (r2=0.88)], the nitrate uptake decreases as the concentration of the substrate (x) increases, showing a negative correlation [y{=}-0.76x+0.05 (r2=0.86)], possibly due to production of glutamine, which might suppress nitrate uptake. This leads to decline in the f-ratio from 0.47 to 0.10, when concentration of tracer varies from 0.01 to 0.04μ M. The column integrated total productions are 519 mg C m-2 d-1 and 251 mg C m-2 d-1 for in situ and deck incubations, respectively. The 14C based production at the same location is ~200 mg C m-2 d-1, which is in closer agreement to the 15N based total production measured by deck incubation.

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.
S. Kumar, R. Ramesh, S. Sardesai, and M. S. Sheshshayee
 
Status: closed
Status: closed
AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment
Printer-friendly Version - Printer-friendly version Supplement - Supplement
 
Status: closed
Status: closed
AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment
Printer-friendly Version - Printer-friendly version Supplement - Supplement
S. Kumar, R. Ramesh, S. Sardesai, and M. S. Sheshshayee
S. Kumar, R. Ramesh, S. Sardesai, and M. S. Sheshshayee

Viewed

Total article views: 1,154 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
721 369 64 1,154 60 49
  • HTML: 721
  • PDF: 369
  • XML: 64
  • Total: 1,154
  • BibTeX: 60
  • EndNote: 49
Views and downloads (calculated since 01 Feb 2013)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 01 Feb 2013)

Saved

Latest update: 13 Dec 2024
Download
Altmetrics