Malaspina 2010: observaciones de R/ETS

Maldonado Uribe, Federico

Malaspina 2010: observaciones de R/ETS

Maldonado Uribe, Federico

Published: 2012
Repository: accedacris.ulpgc.es
Language: sp

Abstract

Respiratory electron transport system (ETS) activities have been used, in the past, to study respiration in many marine organisms and many different environments. The methodology follows standard practices of enzymology, by attempting to measure the maximum velocity of the enzyme reaction (Vmax) sensu Michaelis-Menten. Under controlled conditions of nutritional state the ETS method is well correlated with in situ respiration. In the interdisciplinary Expedition MALASPINA 2010, that circumnavigated the planet, we had the chance in three of seven transects (Cape Town to Perth; Perth to Sydney and Cartagena de Indias to Cartagena) to take zooplankton samples from the southern Indian Ocean and from North Atlantic Ocean. From these samples we measured protein and 150 ratios between in vivo respiration and potential respiration (ETS activity) in three size-classes of zooplankton between 100?m to > 1000?m, in the upper 150 meters of the water column. Normally, the measurements were made on fresh naturally nourished zooplankton (in situ). When biomass permitted, measurements were also made on zooplankton starved for 24 h. With this data we are investigating the variations in the R/ETS ratio and Kleiber?s law under different nutritional conditions, different oceanographic conditions, and different oceanographic regions. This analysis will help our ongoing investigation of ETS activity as an index of both respiration and of living biomass. The information acquired will facilitate the calculation of zooplankton respiration for some relatively unexplored areas of the Indian and Atlantic oceans. This data will then be available for integration with results of other Malaspina research programs

Full text

MALASPINA2010:ObservationsofR/ETS Federico Maldonado Ted Packard & May Gómez Federico  Maldonado , Ted  Packard  &  May Gómez METHODS LEG3 7stations LEG4 6stations 6  stations LEG7 12stations 0m 100‐500μm Respiration 500‐1000μm Siphoning >1000μm St ti 24 h Onebyone 150 St arva ti on 24  h Gelatinous or g anisms 150 m g Oximeter Electrodes& incubation chamber Liquid Nitrogen Nitrogen 80 ° C Airpump ‐ 80  ° C Th i bh ETS (Owens&King,1975) Biomass(protein) Lowryetal.(1951)modifiedRutter(1967) Th ermostat i c b at h RESULTS&DISCUSSION R(μmolO2∙h‐1∙mgprot‐1)Φ(μmolO2∙h‐1∙mgprot‐1) SPECIFICACTIVITY LEG 3 1.53± 0.59 1.67±0.60 4 168 ± 079 199 ± 048 4 1 . 68  ± 0 . 79 1 . 99  ± 0 . 48 7 0.98± 0.57 1.09±0.66 R(μmolO2∙h‐1∙mgprot‐1)Φ(μmolO2∙h‐1∙mgprot‐1) SizeClass 100‐500μm1.49± 0.56 1.72±0.54 500‐1000μm1.35± 0.84 1.49±0.79 >1000 μm 096 ± 054 106 ± 063 >1000  μm 0 . 96  ± 0 . 54 1 . 06  ± 0 . 63 logR/logbiomass 100 500 m 094 logR/logbiomass 100 - 500 μ m 0 . 94 500-1000 μm0.64 > 1000 μm 1.2 Leg30.72 Leg41.16 Leg 7 103 Median 0 888 1000 μm 1.2 Leg  7 1 . 03 Median 0 955 Median = 0 . 888 Mean=0.8730.024 Median = 0 . 955 Mean=0.95 0.079 Glazier 2006 Metabolic scaling exponent Glazier,2006 Glazier , 2006 Metabolic scaling exponent ) 0 2 2  mol O2/h ) -2 0 mol O2/h) 0 ln  (  -4 LEG 3 y = 0 97x - 0 23; R = 074 ln  ( -2 100 500 112 06 R 09 -4 -2 0 2 -6 LEG 3 y 0 . 97x 0 . 23; R 0 . 74 LEG 4 y = 1.0x + 0.68; R = 0.84 LEG 7 y = 1.15x + 0.22; R = 0.71 2-4 -2 0 2 -4 100 - 500  m y = 1 . 12 x + 0 . 6 ; R = 0 . 9 500-1000 m y = 0.99x + 0.18; R= 0.69 >1000 m y = 0.90x - 0.19; R= 0.61 2 h ) 0 h) 0 2 (mol O2/ h -2 ( mol O 2 /h - 2 0 ln R -4 Leg 3 y = 0.72 + 0.03; R= 0.65 Leg4 y=116+058;R=083 ln R ( - 4 2 100-500 m y = 0.94x + 0.27; R= 0.83 ln Biomass (mg) -4 -2 0 2 Leg 4 y = 1 . 16 + 0 . 58; R= 0 . 83 Leg 7 y = 1.03x - 0.16; R= 0.68 ln biomass (mg) -4 -2 0 2 4 500-1000 m y = 0.64x - 0.29; R= 0.40 >1000 m y = 1,20x +7.20; R= 0.47 LogΦ/logbiomass LogR/logbiomass LEG 3 0.97(r2=0.74) 0.72(r2=0.65) 4 100(r 2 0 84) 116(r 2 0 83) 4 1 . 00  (r 2 = 0 . 84) 1 . 16  (r 2 = 0 . 83) 7 1.15(r2=0.71) 1.03(r2=0.68) LΦ/ l bi L R / l bi L og Φ  /  l og bi omass L og R  /  l og bi omass SizeClass 100 500 112( 2 0 90) 094( 2 0 83) 100 ‐ 500 μm 1 . 12  ( r 2 = 0 . 90) 0 . 94  ( r 2 = 0 . 83) 500‐1000μm 0.99(r2=0.69) 0.64(r2=0.40) >1000 μm 090(r 2 0 61) 120(r 2 0 47) >1000  μm 0 . 90  (r 2 = 0 . 61) 1 . 20  (r 2 = 0 . 47) 2,5 3,0 l O2/h) 15 2,0 R (mo 1,0 1 , 5 3,0 LEG 3 y = 0.87x - 0.003; R= 0.89 LEG 4 090 006 R 090 0 1 2 3 4 0,0 0,5 100-500 m y = 0.90x - 0.06; R= 0.90 500-1000 m y = 0.73x+ 0.06; R= 0.5 >1000 m y = 0.71x + 0.04; R= 0.94 / h) 2,0 2,5 LEG 4 y = 0 . 90 x - 0 . 06 ; R = 0 . 90 LEG 7 y = 0.87x - 0.19; R= 0.91 0 1 2 3 4 mol O2/h) R/Φ> 0.5 Christensen etal.,1980 R (mol O2 / 10 1,5 Basal to good condition R 0,5 1 , 0 Basal  to good condition mol O2/h) 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3 0,0