ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2025
Experimental and field comparisons of two common methods for measuring microzooplankton grazing rates.
Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Beyond the bottle: exposing the identity-rate gap in microzooplankton ecology.Journal of plankton researchReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Grazing on picoplankton by microbial eukaryotes is a fundamental process within aquatic food webs, particularly in oligotrophic regions that are typically dominated by picophytoplankton. Remarkably, classical methods that have been used for decades to measure this process in the field have rarely been evaluated under controlled laboratory conditions where true rates of prey mortality can be quantified and compared to experimental results. This study evaluated two commonly used field techniques to estimate phytoplankton mortality rates by microbial consumers, the dilution technique and the disappearance of fluorescently labeled bacteria (FLB). Methods: An elaborate laboratory experiment was first conducted comparing picophytoplankton mortality rates measured using these two techniques to rates observed directly in culture based on changes in prey abundance, using the cyanobacterium, Results: Summed across multiple treatments in the laboratory, mortality rates estimated by FLB disappearance displayed high variability and on average underestimated observed mortality rates by ∼27%. The dilution technique also underestimated observed mortality rates (by ∼54%) but displayed lower variance (yielding an approximately 27% difference between the two methods). In contrast to laboratory results, field experiments resulted in an order of magnitude difference between grazer-mediated mortality rates using the two methods. Discussion: Our laboratory results revealed that both methods yielded reasonable albeit somewhat underestimated mortality rates in the laboratory setup, while differences between the two methods in our field studies implied that the underlying assumptions of one or both methods were not met. These findings advocate for caution in interpreting quantitative assessments of protistan-based mortality rates using these long-used approaches.
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.