The combined effect of light and temperature on the change in the intracellular ratio of organic carbon to the chlorophyll a (C/chl. a) was studied in three species of diatoms: Phaeodactylum tricornutum Bohlin, Nitzschia sp. 3 and Skeletonema costatum Cleve. At the optimum temperature of 20 °C value of the C/chl. a ratio varies from 15 to 60–70 all over the studied light range in Ph. tricornutum and Nitzschia sp. 3, and up to 350 μE·m^-2·s^-1 in S. costatum. The dependence of this ratio on the light is described by hyperbolic curve. Temperature decrease results in increase both of the C/chl. a ratio in algal cells and increasing the initial tangent of the slope of the C/chl. a ratio curve. Inhibiting light combined with low temperature cause a decrease in the functional activity of algae, a decrease in the rate of synthesis of chl. a against the background of its enhanced photo-oxidation and, as a consequence, a sharp increase of the C/chl. a ratio. All studied diatom species are characterized by similar nature of light and temperature dependence of C/chl. a; however, in S. costatum the curve of C/chl. a ratio formed the plateau at lower light intensities while photo-oxidation of chlorophyll took place with an increase in luminance.

Keywords: marine Bacillariophyta, C/chl. a ratio, light, temperature

Full text: PDF 239K

1. Alves C.A., Magalhaes C.N., and Barja P.R., Bot. Rev., 68(2):193–208, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1663/0006-8101(2002)068[0193:TPOPOP]2.0.CO;2
2. Behrenfeld M., Boss E., Siegel D.A. et al. Global Biogeochem. Cycl, 19, GB1006, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1029/2004GB002299
3. Cloern J.E., Grenz C., and Vidergar-Lucas L., Limnol. Oceanogr., 7:1310–1313, 1995.
4. Finenko Z.Z., Hoepffner N., Williams R., and Piontkovski S.A., Mar. Ecol. J., 2(2):40–64, 2003.
5. Geider R.J. and Osborne B.A., Mar. Biol., 93:351–360, 1986. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00401102
6. Geider R.J., New Phytol., 106:1–34, 1987. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.1987.tb04788.x
7. Geider R.J., MacIntyre L., and Kana T.M., Mar. Ecol. Progr. Ser., 148:187–200, 1997. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps148187
8. Geider R.J., Osborne B.A., and Raven J.A., J. Phycol., 21:609–621, 1985. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-3646.1985.00609.x
9. Gullard R.R.L., Culture of Marine Invertebrate Animals, Plenum Press, New York, Pp. 26–60, 1975.
10. Han P., Virtanen M., Koponen J. et al., J. Plankt. Res., 22(5):865–885, 2000. https://doi.org/10.1093/plankt/22.5.865
11. Hendrey G.A., Houghton F., and Brown S.B., New Phytol., 107:255–302, 1987. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.1987.tb00181.x
12. Jeffrey S.W. and Humphrey G.F., Biochem. Physiol. Pflanz., 167:191–194, 1975.
13. Langdon C., J. Plankt. Res., 9:459–482, 1987. https://doi.org/10.1093/plankt/9.3.459
14. Nielsen M.V., Mar. Ecol. Progr. Ser., 136:205–211, 1996. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps136205
15. Rubin A.B., Soros. obrazovat. zhurn., 4:7–13, 2000.
16. Sakshaug E., Andresen K., and Kiefer D.A., Limnol. Oceanogr., 34:198–205, 1989. https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.1989.34.1.0198
17. Shoman N.Ju. and Akimov A.I., Mor. ekol. zhur., 12(1):85–91, 2013.
18. Shoman N.Ju. and Akimov A.I., Sb. mat. III Mezhdunar. nauch.-prakt. konf. (Zaporozh'e, 11–13 maja 2012 g.). Zaporozh'e, Pp. 61–62, 2013.
19. Terry K.L., Hirata J., and Laws E.A., J. Exp. Mar. Biol. and Ecol., 68:209–227, 1983. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0981(83)90054-0
20. Thompson P.A., Gou M., and Harrison P.J., J. Phycol., 28:481–488, 1992. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-3646.1992.00481.x
21. Verity P.G., J. Exp. Mar. Biol. and Ecol., 60:209–222, 1982. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0981(82)90160-5
22. Yoder J.A., J. Phycol., 15:362–370, 1979. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-8817.1979.tb04397.x