ArticleFEMS microbiology ecology2018
Daily variation in the prokaryotic community during a spring bloom in shelf waters of the East China Sea.
Article in FEMS microbiology ecology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Seasonal recurrence and modular assembly of an Arctic pelagic marine microbiome.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Ecological roles of nano-picoplankton in stratified waters of an embayment in the southern Benguela.FEMS microbiology letters · 2024Article
- Mesozooplankton taurine production and prokaryotic uptake in the northern Adriatic Sea.Limnology and oceanography · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To understand prokaryotic responses during a spring bloom in offshore shelf waters, prokaryotic parameters were measured daily at a station located in the middle of the East China Sea over a six-week period from March 25 to May 19. The site experienced a phytoplankton bloom in late April, triggering changes in prokaryotic abundance and production after a lag of approximately one week. Before the bloom, changes in prokaryotic composition were small. Both during the bloom and in the post-bloom period, successive changes among bacterial groups were apparent. A SAR11 group became more dominant during the bloom period, and diverse groups belonging to the Flavobacteriia occurred dominantly during both the bloom and post-bloom periods. However, bacterial community changes at the species level during the bloom and post-bloom periods occurred rapidly in a time scale of a few days. Especially, NS5, NS4 and Formosa bacteria belonging to Flavobacteriia and bacteria belonging to Halieaceae and Arenicellaceae families of Gammaproteobacteria showed a successive pattern with large short-term variation during the period. The changes in prokaryotic composition were found to be related to phytoplankton biomass and composition, as well as seawater temperature and variations in nutrients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.