2020Unpublished venueOpen access

Peer Review #1 of "Seasonal variability and vertical distribution of autotrophic and heterotrophic picoplankton in the Central Red Sea (v0.1)"

Author information unavailable

Open full text 0 citations

Abstract

fall.The seasonality of heterotrophic prokaryotes (2.29 -4.21× 10 5 cell mL -1) was less noticeable than autotrophic picoplankton.The contribution of HNA cells was generally low in the upper layers, ranging from 36% in late spring and early summer to ca.48 -51% in winter and fall.Autotrophs dominated integrated picoplankton biomass in the upper 100 m, with 1.4-fold higher values in summer than in winter (mean 387 and 272 mg C m -2 , respectively).However, when the whole water column was considered, the biomass of heterotrophic prokaryotes exceeded that of autotrophic picoplankton with an average of 411 mg C m -2. Despite being located in tropical waters, our results show that the picoplankton community seasonal differences in the central Red Sea are not fundamentally different from higher latitude regions.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

fall.The seasonality of heterotrophic prokaryotes (2.29 -4.21× 10 5 cell mL -1) was less noticeable than autotrophic picoplankton.The contribution of HNA cells was generally low in the upper layers, ranging from 36% in late spring and early summer to ca.48 -51% in winter and fall.Autotrophs dominated integrated picoplankton biomass in the upper 100 m, with 1.4-fold higher values in summer than in winter (mean 387 and 272 mg C m -2 , respectively).However, when the whole water column was considered, the biomass of heterotrophic prokaryotes exceeded that of autotrophic picoplankton with an average of 411 mg C m -2. Despite being located in tropical waters, our results show that the picoplankton community seasonal differences in the central Red Sea are not fundamentally different from higher latitude regions.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

fall.The seasonality of heterotrophic prokaryotes (2.29 -4.21× 10 5 cell mL -1) was less noticeable than autotrophic picoplankton.The contribution of HNA cells was generally low in the upper layers, ranging from 36% in late spring and early summer to ca.48 -51% in winter and fall.Autotrophs dominated integrated picoplankton biomass in the upper 100 m, with 1.4-fold higher values in summer than in winter (mean 387 and 272 mg C m -2 , respectively).However, when the whole water column was considered, the biomass of heterotrophic prokaryotes exceeded that of autotrophic picoplankton with an average of 411 mg C m -2. Despite being located in tropical waters, our results show that the picoplankton community seasonal differences in the central Red Sea are not fundamentally different from higher latitude regions.

Key concepts: Picoplankton, Heterotroph, Autotroph, Oceanography, Environmental science, Climatology, Geography, Ecology

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Peer Review #1 of "Seasonal variability and vertical distribution of autotrophic and heterotrophic picoplankton in the Central Red Sea (v0.1)" — Research Paper | ScholarLens