Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem
dc.contributor.author
Allende, Luz
dc.contributor.author
Pizarro, Haydee Norma
dc.date.available
2024-10-03T10:52:12Z
dc.date.issued
2006-03
dc.identifier.citation
Allende, Luz; Pizarro, Haydee Norma; Top-down control on plankton components in an Antarctic pond: experimental approach to the study of low-complexity food webs; Springer; Polar Biology; 29; 10; 3-2006; 893-901
dc.identifier.issn
0722-4060
dc.identifier.uri
http://hdl.handle.net/11336/245388
dc.description.abstract
In order to address the top-down effect on the different phytoplankton size-fractions and ciliates, a survey at microcosm scale was conducted in a hypertrophic Antarctic pond, testing the hypotheses that (1) the picophytoplankton is regulated by a top-down control exerted by organisms of the bigger size-fractions, and (2) the nanoplankton fraction (algae and ciliates) is not regulated by a top-down control exerted by the microplankton. The treatments enclosed pond water that was filtered to obtain the different plankton sizes: (a) through 55 lm, (b) 20 lm, and (c) 3 lm pore size filters. The variation in the net growth rate (k¢) of the phytoplankton size-fractions and ciliates was analysed after 4 days. The results determined a significant difference (P<0.011) in the k¢ value of the picophytoplankton when nano and micro-sized fractions where removed. Conversely, nanophytoplankton and nanociliates were not affected by the removal of bigger size-fractions. We suggest that in this pond the top-down control of the picophytoplankton is relevant, and that the grazing impact is not a key factor in the regulation of the nanosized (algae and ciliates) plankton components. when nano and micro-sized fractions where removed. Conversely, nanophytoplankton and nanociliates were not affected by the removal of bigger size-fractions. We suggest that in this pond the top-down control of the picophytoplankton is relevant, and that the grazing impact is not a key factor in the regulation of the nanosized (algae and ciliates) plankton components. phytoplankton size-fractions and ciliates was analysed after 4 days. The results determined a significant difference (P<0.011) in the k¢ value of the picophytoplankton when nano and micro-sized fractions where removed. Conversely, nanophytoplankton and nanociliates were not affected by the removal of bigger size-fractions. We suggest that in this pond the top-down control of the picophytoplankton is relevant, and that the grazing impact is not a key factor in the regulation of the nanosized (algae and ciliates) plankton components. when nano and micro-sized fractions where removed. Conversely, nanophytoplankton and nanociliates were not affected by the removal of bigger size-fractions. We suggest that in this pond the top-down control of the picophytoplankton is relevant, and that the grazing impact is not a key factor in the regulation of the nanosized (algae and ciliates) plankton components. filters. The variation in the net growth rate (k¢) of the phytoplankton size-fractions and ciliates was analysed after 4 days. The results determined a significant difference (P<0.011) in the k¢ value of the picophytoplankton when nano and micro-sized fractions where removed. Conversely, nanophytoplankton and nanociliates were not affected by the removal of bigger size-fractions. We suggest that in this pond the top-down control of the picophytoplankton is relevant, and that the grazing impact is not a key factor in the regulation of the nanosized (algae and ciliates) plankton components. when nano and micro-sized fractions where removed. Conversely, nanophytoplankton and nanociliates were not affected by the removal of bigger size-fractions. We suggest that in this pond the top-down control of the picophytoplankton is relevant, and that the grazing impact is not a key factor in the regulation of the nanosized (algae and ciliates) plankton components. phytoplankton size-fractions and ciliates was analysed after 4 days. The results determined a significant difference (P<0.011) in the k¢ value of the picophytoplankton when nano and micro-sized fractions where removed. Conversely, nanophytoplankton and nanociliates were not affected by the removal of bigger size-fractions. We suggest that in this pond the top-down control of the picophytoplankton is relevant, and that the grazing impact is not a key factor in the regulation of the nanosized (algae and ciliates) plankton components. when nano and micro-sized fractions where removed. Conversely, nanophytoplankton and nanociliates were not affected by the removal of bigger size-fractions. We suggest that in this pond the top-down control of the picophytoplankton is relevant, and that the grazing impact is not a key factor in the regulation of the nanosized (algae and ciliates) plankton components. different phytoplankton size-fractions and ciliates, a survey at microcosm scale was conducted in a hypertrophic Antarctic pond, testing the hypotheses that (1) the picophytoplankton is regulated by a top-down control exerted by organisms of the bigger size-fractions, and (2) the nanoplankton fraction (algae and ciliates) is not regulated by a top-down control exerted by the microplankton. The treatments enclosed pond water that was filtered to obtain the different plankton sizes: (a) through 55 lm, (b) 20 lm, and (c) 3 lm pore size filters. The variation in the net growth rate (k¢) of the phytoplankton size-fractions and ciliates was analysed after 4 days. The results determined a significant difference (P<0.011) in the k¢ value of the picophytoplankton when nano and micro-sized fractions where removed. Conversely, nanophytoplankton and nanociliates were not affected by the removal of bigger size-fractions. We suggest that in this pond the top-down control of the picophytoplankton is relevant, and that the grazing impact is not a key factor in the regulation of the nanosized (algae and ciliates) plankton components. when nano and micro-sized fractions where removed. Conversely, nanophytoplankton and nanociliates were not affected by the removal of bigger size-fractions. We suggest that in this pond the top-down control of the picophytoplankton is relevant, and that the grazing impact is not a key factor in the regulation of the nanosized (algae and ciliates) plankton components. phytoplankton size-fractions and ciliates was analysed after 4 days. The results determined a significant difference (P<0.011) in the k¢ value of the picophytoplankton when nano and micro-sized fractions where removed. Conversely, nanophytoplankton and nanociliates were not affected by the removal of bigger size-fractions. We suggest that in this pond the top-down control of the picophytoplankton is relevant, and that the grazing impact is not a key factor in the regulation of the nanosized (algae and ciliates) plankton components. when nano and micro-sized fractions where removed. Conversely, nanophytoplankton and nanociliates were not affected by the removal of bigger size-fractions. We suggest that in this pond the top-down control of the picophytoplankton is relevant, and that the grazing impact is not a key factor in the regulation of the nanosized (algae and ciliates) plankton components. filters. The variation in the net growth rate (k¢) of the phytoplankton size-fractions and ciliates was analysed after 4 days. The results determined a significant difference (P<0.011) in the k¢ value of the picophytoplankton when nano and micro-sized fractions where removed. Conversely, nanophytoplankton and nanociliates were not affected by the removal of bigger size-fractions. We suggest that in this pond the top-down control of the picophytoplankton is relevant, and that the grazing impact is not a key factor in the regulation of the nanosized (algae and ciliates) plankton components. when nano and micro-sized fractions where removed. Conversely, nanophytoplankton and nanociliates were not affected by the removal of bigger size-fractions. We suggest that in this pond the top-down control of the picophytoplankton is relevant, and that the grazing impact is not a key factor in the regulation of the nanosized (algae and ciliates) plankton components. phytoplankton size-fractions and ciliates was analysed after 4 days. The results determined a significant difference (P<0.011) in the k¢ value of the picophytoplankton when nano and micro-sized fractions where removed. Conversely, nanophytoplankton and nanociliates were not affected by the removal of bigger size-fractions. We suggest that in this pond the top-down control of the picophytoplankton is relevant, and that the grazing impact is not a key factor in the regulation of the nanosized (algae and ciliates) plankton components. when nano and micro-sized fractions where removed. Conversely, nanophytoplankton and nanociliates were not affected by the removal of bigger size-fractions. We suggest that in this pond the top-down control of the picophytoplankton is relevant, and that the grazing impact is not a key factor in the regulation of the nanosized (algae and ciliates) plankton components.
dc.format
application/pdf
dc.language.iso
eng
dc.publisher
Springer
dc.rights
info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess
dc.rights.uri
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
dc.subject
Picoplankton
dc.subject
Phytoplankton
dc.subject
Ciliates
dc.subject
Top-down
dc.subject
Antarctica
dc.subject.classification
Ecología
dc.subject.classification
Ciencias Biológicas
dc.subject.classification
CIENCIAS NATURALES Y EXACTAS
dc.title
Top-down control on plankton components in an Antarctic pond: experimental approach to the study of low-complexity food webs
dc.type
info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type
info:ar-repo/semantics/artículo
dc.type
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.date.updated
2024-09-23T13:55:13Z
dc.journal.volume
29
dc.journal.number
10
dc.journal.pagination
893-901
dc.journal.pais
Alemania
dc.journal.ciudad
Berlin
dc.description.fil
Fil: Allende, Luz. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Departamento de Ecología, Genética y Evolución; Argentina
dc.description.fil
Fil: Pizarro, Haydee Norma. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Departamento de Ecología, Genética y Evolución; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina
dc.journal.title
Polar Biology
dc.relation.alternativeid
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00300-006-0129-2
dc.relation.alternativeid
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00300-006-0129-2
Archivos asociados