2001
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-662-04453-7_7
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Pelagic Plankton Growth and Resource Limitations in the Baltic Sea

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

8
44
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 50 publications
(53 citation statements)
references
References 78 publications
8
44
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Bacteria, pico-phytoplankton and heterotrophic nano-flagellates manage to survive without external nutrient supply and primary production is sustained by the nutrients regenerated by the heterotrophic nano-flagellate activity (Hagström et al 2001). In this context BGE is related to the availability of nutrients, and ranges from 0.22 to 0.33, which is in good agreement with the observations in terms of behaviour and values (del Giorgio et al 1997, del Giorgio & Cole 1998.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 86%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Bacteria, pico-phytoplankton and heterotrophic nano-flagellates manage to survive without external nutrient supply and primary production is sustained by the nutrients regenerated by the heterotrophic nano-flagellate activity (Hagström et al 2001). In this context BGE is related to the availability of nutrients, and ranges from 0.22 to 0.33, which is in good agreement with the observations in terms of behaviour and values (del Giorgio et al 1997, del Giorgio & Cole 1998.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 86%
“…In such systems there is significant competition between bacteria and phytoplankton for inorganic nutrients (Thingstad & Rassoulzadegan 1999, Hagström et al 2001, and heterotrophic nanoflagellate excretion products (DOM and inorganic nutrients) are a significant source of nutrients for both bacteria and pico-phytoplankton (Hagström et al 2001). This ecosystem structure is often referred to as the 'microbial loop' (Azam et al 1983).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We therefore conclude that the addition of riverine DOC, being half of the total DOC, notably changed the composition compared to the prevailing marine (mainly phytoplankton-derived) DOC in the seawater. Thus, the SWR mesocosms contained a higher proportion of refractory DOM than SW. Our data agree with the report that the more labile forms of DOC are better retained in sea ice than the refractory forms (e.g., humic acids) (Jørgensen et al, submitted for publication;Müller et al, 2013), and that the DOC_n concentrations in ice may be even lower than in the under-ice water when the water contains higher concentrations of soil-derived DOC (Granskog et al, 2005;Hagström et al, 2001). Furthermore, Dittmar and Kattner (2003b) referred to the intramolecular contraction and coiling of humic acids with increasing salinity to explain differences of their behavior in size-exclusion chromatography.…”
Section: The Particular Cases Of Si(oh) 4 and Docsupporting
confidence: 92%
“…In the open ocean siderophores however were shown to only contribute 0.2-4.6% to the dissolved iron complexation capacity (Mawji et al, 2008). The contribution of siderophores may be higher here, but the main proportion of iron complexing substances in coastal seawater, and especially in the Baltic Sea, would be dissolved organic matter (DOM) such as humic and fulvic acids (Hagström et al, 2001;Öztürk et al, 2002;Rose and Waite, 2003;Bergström et al, 2001), which can be present in truly dissolved or colloidal form (Hassellöv, 2005;Wells, 1998). DOM in the Baltic Sea is largely of terrestrial origin and subject to seasonality (Stedmon et al, 2007;Pempkowiak, 1983) and was shown to complex and transport trace metals into this land locked sea (Pettersson et al, 1997a;Pempkowiak, 1991).…”
Section: Phytoplankton Bloom Dynamics and Organic Fe(iii)-complexationmentioning
confidence: 84%