Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15164237›Full record

ArticleMicrobial ecology2004

Plankton diversity in the Bay of Fundy as measured by morphological and molecular methods.

M C Savin, J L Martin, M LeGresley, M Giewat, J Rooney-Varga

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Microbial ecology, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 105 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

M C SavinDepartment of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, 115 Plant Science Building, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA. msavin@uark.edu
J L Martin
M LeGresley
M Giewat
J Rooney-Varga
Fisheries and Oceans Canada · CAUniversity of Massachusetts Lowell · USUniversity of Arkansas at Fayetteville · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Phytoplankton have traditionally been identified based on morphological characteristics. However, identifications based on morphology are time-consuming, require expertise in taxonomy, and often fail to distinguish differences among the multitudes of minute, nondescript planktonic organisms. Molecular techniques, which have revealed new insights into bacterial and picoplankton communities, may also enhance our knowledge of the diversity among communities of larger plankton. We compared plankton identifications and community assessments based on the two types of techniques (morphological vs molecular) for surface seawater samples collected on 2 May, 31 July and 25 September 2000 from several sampling stations in the Bay of Fundy. Phytoplankton captured in surface bucket samples were quantified and identified based on morphology. DNA was extracted from plankton communities (5-100 microm in diameter) collected by filtration, and 18S rRNA gene fragments were amplified with primers specific for eukaryotes. Denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE) was used to develop DNA profiles of eukaryotic phylogenetic diversity and to select cloned 18S rDNA fragments for sequencing. Both morphological and molecular methods showed great community diversity. However, the communities identified with the two different types of techniques were starkly different. Morphological abundances and taxon richness were lowest in the May samples, whereas the number of DGGE bands was highest in May and July. Morphological identifications showed a succession of dominant organisms through time. Whereas neither diatoms nor dinoflagellates were dominant in May, diatoms and a few dinoflagellates were dominant in July and September. In contrast, few 18S rDNA sequences were related to rDNA sequences of known identity, and furthermore, few diatoms were identified in the molecular analyses. Molecular phylogenetic analysis indicated the presence of many novel organisms, several of which were most closely related to other unidentified sequences from diverse marine environments representing new lineages. Our results support the ideas that we are just beginning to uncover the diversity of eukaryotic marine organisms and that there may be many more ubiquitous, microeukaryotic plankton than previously realized. Our results suggest that both types of methods capture only a portion of the community. Morphological methods may be more adept at capturing the phototrophic organisms within the community. However, just as for bacteria and picoplankton, molecular techniques can enhance our understanding of plankton diversity, particularly by detecting previously unidentified organisms.

Indexed as

BiodiversityPhylogenyAtlantic OceanBase SequenceElectrophoresisMolecular Sequence DataNew BrunswickPlanktonRNA, Ribosomal, 18SSeasonsSequence Analysis, DNARNA, Ribosomal, 18S

Identifiers

PMID15164237
OpenAlexW2119077881

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.