ArticleEcology and evolution2021
Implications for the mesopelagic microbial gardening hypothesis as determined by experimental fragmentation of Antarctic krill fecal pellets.
Article in Ecology and evolution, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Krill and salp faecal pellets contribute equally to the carbon flux at the Antarctic Peninsula.Nature communications · 2021Article
- Implications for the mesopelagic microbial gardening hypothesis as determined by experimental fragmentation of Antarctic krill fecal pellets.Ecology and evolution · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Detritivores need to upgrade their food to increase its nutritional value. One method is to fragment detritus promoting the colonization of nutrient-rich microbes, which consumers then ingest along with the detritus; so-called microbial gardening. Observations and numerical models of the detritus-dominated ocean mesopelagic zone have suggested microbial gardening by zooplankton is a fundamental process in the ocean carbon cycle leading to increased respiration of carbon-rich detritus. However, no experimental evidence exists to demonstrate that microbial respiration rates are higher on recently fragmented sinking detrital particles.Using aquaria-reared Antarctic krill fecal pellets, we showed fragmentation increased microbial particulate organic carbon (POC) turnover by 1.9×, but only on brown fecal pellets, formed from the consumption of other pellets. Microbial POC turnover on un- and fragmented green fecal pellets, formed from consuming fresh phytoplankton, was equal. Thus, POC content, fragmentation, and potentially nutritional value together drive POC turnover rates.Mesopelagic microbial gardening could be a risky strategy, as the dominant detrital food source is settling particles; even though fragmentation decreases particle size and sinking rate, it is unlikely that an organism would remain with the particle long enough to nutritionally benefit from attached microbes. We propose "communal gardening" occurs whereby additional mesopelagic organisms nearby or below the site of fragmentation consume the particle and the colonized microbes.To determine how fragmentation impacts the remineralization of sinking carbon-rich detritus and to parameterize microbial gardening in mesopelagic carbon models, three key metrics from further controlled experiments and observations are needed; how particle composition (here, pellet color/krill diet) impacts the response of microbes to the fragmentation of particles; the nutritional benefit to zooplankton from ingesting microbes after fragmentation along with identification of which essential nutrients are being targeted; how both these factors vary between physical (shear) and biological particle fragmentation.
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.