Rethinking the marine carbon cycle: Factoring in the multifarious lifestyles of microbes

Worden, Alexandra Z.; Follows, Michael J.; Giovannoni, Stephen J.; Wilken, Susanne; Zimmerman, Amy; Keeling, Patrick J.

doi:10.1126/science.1257594

Cited by 660 publications

(614 citation statements)

References 156 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

563

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Other suggestions for ultimate causal explanatory factors are cellular structures that allow different trophic modes such as predatory, parasitic, osmotrophic, and mixotrophic feeding (89). Worden et al (89) argue, as they explain primal eukaryotic innovations, "Metabolism may be diverse, but environmental interactions are strongly guided by cellular structures and the behaviors they underpin." They are suggesting it is not possible to restrict these feeding behaviors to genetic or metabolic explanations and that cellular structures comprise another explanatory strategy.…”

Section: Different Explanatory Aimsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Endosymbiosis and its implications for evolutionary theory

O’Malley

2015

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Historically, conceptualizations of symbiosis and endosymbiosis have been pitted against Darwinian or neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory. In more recent times, Lynn Margulis has argued vigorously along these lines. However, there are only shallow grounds for finding Darwinian concepts or population genetic theory incompatible with endosymbiosis. But is population genetics sufficiently explanatory of endosymbiosis and its role in evolution? Population genetics "follows" genes, is replication-centric, and is concerned with vertically consistent genetic lineages. It may also have explanatory limitations with regard to macroevolution. Even so, asking whether population genetics explains endosymbiosis may have the question the wrong way around. We should instead be asking how explanatory of evolution endosymbiosis is, and exactly which features of evolution it might be explaining. This paper will discuss how metabolic innovations associated with endosymbioses can drive evolution and thus provide an explanatory account of important episodes in the history of life. Metabolic explanations are both proximate and ultimate, in the same way genetic explanations are. Endosymbioses, therefore, point evolutionary biology toward an important dimension of evolutionary explanation.endosymbiosis | evolutionary theory | macroevolution | eukaryogenesis | metabolism M any historical accounts have viewed organelle-producing endosymbioses and symbioses in general as competing conceptually against standard evolutionary theory. Although there are several older claims to this effect, I will focus on Lynn Margulis's conjectures about how endosymbioses can be interpreted as posing problems for neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory. My aim is to assess whether endosymbiosis does in fact put pressure on evolutionary biologists and philosophers of evolution to expand beyond gene frequencies and encompass alternative explanatory frameworks.Rather than agents of revolution bent on overthrowing evolutionary theory, it is more likely that endosymbiotic relationships offer their greatest explanatory value as model systems for macroevolution. Such systems can tell us a great deal about conflict and control dynamics in ongoing organismal interactions. They provide remarkable examples of enduring evolutionary game-changing mutualistic relationships, and call out for an account of why such relationships persist and become increasingly stable.However, instead of focusing on "informational" properties of organisms, endosymbiotic systems draw attention to metabolism as a central organizing feature of life. A metabolic perspective focuses explanatorily on biochemical networks rather than genes, on phenotypic interactions rather than informational inheritance, on communities in addition to isolated organisms and lineages, and on major diversifications in the history of life. "Endosymbiotic" views of evolution are therefore valuable for expanding evolutionary explanations, even if they do not constitute a fullblown theoretical alternative to standard evolutionary...

show abstract

Section: Different Explanatory Aimsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Endosymbiosis and its implications for evolutionary theory

O’Malley

2015

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Litchman and Klausmeier (2008) reviewed in depth the trait-based approach "to increase our ability to explain the organization of ecological communities and predict their reorganizations under global change". The seminal work by Margalef (1978) elaborated on the effect of the environment as an evolutionary force by selecting phytoplankton life forms, while biological interactions and organism behaviour also play a role (Cullen et al 2002, Worden et al 2015. Among the environmental factors, Margalef (1978) attributed the main role to advection and turbulence but, admittedly, both factors are closely associated with physiologically related parameters such as nutrients and irradiance.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of light and nutrients on the vertical distribution of marine phytoplankton groups in the deep chlorophyll maximum

Latasa¹,

Gutiérrez‐Rodríguez²,

Cabello³

et al. 2016

Sci. Mar.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary: Ecological traits of phytoplankton are being incorporated into models to better understand the dynamics of marine ecosystems and to predict their response to global change. We have compared the distribution of major phytoplankton groups in two different systems: in surface waters of the NW Mediterranean during key ecological periods, and in the DCM (deep chlorophyll maximum) formed in summer in the temperate NE Atlantic. This comparison disentangled the influence of light and nutrients on the relative position of diatoms, dinoflagellates, prymnesiophytes, pelagophytes, chlorophytes, Synechococcus and Prochlorococcus in these environments. Three clusters formed according to their affinity for nutrients: diatoms, chlorophytes and dinoflagellates as the most eutrophic groups; Synechococcus, pelagophytes and prymnesiophytes as mesotrophic groups; and Prochlorococcus as an oligotrophic group. In terms of irradiance, the phytoplankton groups did not cluster clearly. Comparing the nutrient and light preferences of the groups with their distribution in the DCM, dinoflagellates and chlorophytes appear as the most stressed, i.e. their position was most distant from their optimal light and nutrient conditions. Diatoms stayed in deeper than optimal irradiance layers, probably to meet their high nutrient requirements. On the opposite side, low nutrient requirements allowed Prochlorococcus to remain in the uppermost part of the DCM layer. The slight sub-optimal position of Synechococcus and prymnesiophytes with regard to their nutrient requirements suggests that their need for high irradiance plays a significant role in their location within the DCM. Finally, pelagophytes remained in deep layers without an apparent need for the high nutrient concentrations at those depths.Keywords: marine phytoplankton groups; ecological traits; irradiance; nutrients; deep chlorophyll maximum.Influencia de la luz y los nutrientes en la distribución vertical de grupos de fitoplancton marino en el máximo profundo de clorofila Resumen: Las características ecológicas del fitoplancton se están incorporando en modelos con el fin de comprender mejor la dinámica de los ecosistemas marinos y para predecir su respuesta al cambio global. En este trabajo, hemos comparado la distribución de los principales grupos del fitoplancton en dos sistemas diferentes: en las aguas superficiales del Mediterrá-neo noroccidental durante períodos ecológicos clave, y en el Máximo Profundo de Clorofila (MPC) que se forma en verano en el Atlántico NE templado. Esta comparación permitió diferenciar la influencia de la luz y los nutrientes en la posición relativa de diatomeas, dinoflagelados, primnesiofitas, pelagofitas, clorofitas, Synechococcus y Prochlorococcus en estos ambientes. Se pudieron diferenciar tres agrupaciones de acuerdo con su afinidad por los nutrientes: diatomeas, clorofitas y dinoflagelados como los grupos más eutróficos; Synechococcus, pelagofitas y primnesiofitas como grupos mesotróficos; y Prochlorococcus como el grupo más oligotrófico. En térm...

show abstract

“…Plankton are the foundation of marine ecosystems because they sustain food webs and drive global biogeochemical cycles (Worden et al, 2015). Some plankton groups, such as phytoplankton and zooplankton, have been studied extensively for decades, with earlier research founded on microscope-based assessments of diversity and abundance (Russell et al, 1971;Southward, 1974).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multi-year assessment of coastal planktonic fungi reveals environmental drivers of diversity and abundance

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mycoplankton have so far been a neglected component of pelagic marine ecosystems, having been poorly studied relative to other plankton groups. Currently, there is a lack of understanding of how mycoplankton diversity changes through time, and the identity of controlling environmental drivers. Using Fungi-specific high-throughput sequencing and quantitative PCR analysis of plankton DNA samples collected over 6 years from the coastal biodiversity time series site Station L4 situated off Plymouth (UK), we have assessed changes in the temporal variability of mycoplankton diversity and abundance in relation to co-occurring environmental variables. Mycoplankton diversity at Station L4 was dominated by Ascomycota, Basidiomycota and Chytridiomycota, with several orders within these phyla frequently abundant and dominant in multiple years. Repeating interannual mycoplankton blooms were linked to potential controlling environmental drivers, including nitrogen availability and temperature. Specific relationships between mycoplankton and other plankton groups were also identified, with seasonal chytrid blooms matching diatom blooms in consecutive years. Mycoplankton α-diversity was greatest during periods of reduced salinity at Station L4, indicative of riverine input to the ecosystem. Mycoplankton abundance also increased during periods of reduced salinity, and when potential substrate availability was increased, including particulate organic matter. This study has identified possible controlling environmental drivers of mycoplankton diversity and abundance in a coastal sea ecosystem, and therefore sheds new light on the biology and ecology of an enigmatic marine plankton group. Mycoplankton have several potential functional roles, including saprotrophs and parasites, that should now be considered within the consensus view of pelagic ecosystem functioning and services.

show abstract

Rethinking the marine carbon cycle: Factoring in the multifarious lifestyles of microbes

Cited by 660 publications

References 156 publications

Endosymbiosis and its implications for evolutionary theory

Endosymbiosis and its implications for evolutionary theory

Influence of light and nutrients on the vertical distribution of marine phytoplankton groups in the deep chlorophyll maximum

Multi-year assessment of coastal planktonic fungi reveals environmental drivers of diversity and abundance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About