ArticlePloS one2025
Shifts in phytoplankton community structure across oceanic boundaries.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Phytoplankton communities play an important role in marine food webs and biogeochemical cycles. The transition zones between ocean gyres and surrounding waters represent critical ecological boundaries where environmental gradients drive significant shifts in phytoplankton community structure. This study investigates how nutrient availability and temperature shape the size distribution and composition of small phytoplankton (< 5 [Formula: see text]m) communities across the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre (NPSG) boundaries, testing several ecological hypotheses that explain phytoplankton size distribution patterns in relation to environmental variability. We used high-resolution, underway flow cytometry data collected during eight oceanographic cruises from 2016 to 2021 to assess changes in phytoplankton biomass and growth rate across the gyre boundaries. The cyanobacterium Prochlorococcus dominated within the gyre, with biomass ranging from 3.2 to 13.1 [Formula: see text]gC L-1, and its relative contribution to total phytoplankton biomass varied among cruises (31% to 81%, average 60 [Formula: see text] 16%). Prochlorococcus growth rates were significantly higher within the gyre (0.43 [Formula: see text] 0.18 per day) than outside the gyre (0.28 [Formula: see text] 0.16 per day) (one-sided t-test, p < 0.001). Northward in the gyre, Prochlorococcus biomass and growth rates declined. Some variations in biomass and growth rates were observed southward and eastward, with biomass ranging from 3 to 10 [Formula: see text]gC L-1 and growth rate ranging from 0.2 to 0.6 per day. Outside the NPSG, total phytoplankton biomass increased, with nanoeukaryotes becoming the predominant contributors (up to 71%, 9.1 [Formula: see text] 7.3 [Formula: see text]gC L-1). Picoeukaryote biomass also increased outside the gyre (up to 28 [Formula: see text] 12% of total biomass). Nutrient concentrations increased by nearly two orders of magnitude outside the NPSG, coinciding with the shift towards larger phytoplankton. The dominance of Prochlorococcus within the gyre emphasizes its adaptation to oligotrophic conditions, while the shift towards larger size classes outside the gyre likely reflects the relatively higher nutrient availability. The relatively low abundance of Synechococcus even in nutrient-rich regions suggest that that factors beyond nutrient availability, such as grazing, may influence its distribution. These findings have implications for understanding how phytoplankton communities will respond to future changes in oceanographic conditions, such as warming and altered nutrient regimes.
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.