Misuse of the phytoplankton-zooplankton dichotomy: The need to assign organisms as mixotrophs within plankton functional types

Flynn, KJ; Stoecker, DK; Mitra, A; Raven, JA; Glibert, PM; Hansen, PJ; Granéli, E; Burkholder, JM

Misuse of the phytoplankton-zooplankton dichotomy: The need to assign organisms as mixotrophs within plankton functional types

Flynn, KJ Stoecker, DK Mitra, A Raven, JA

Glibert, PM Hansen, PJ Granéli, E Burkholder, JM

Permalink

Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Journal of Plankton Research, 2013, 35 (1), pp. 3 - 11
Issue Date:: 2013-01-01

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	watermark (10).pdf	Published Version	215.85 kB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Flynn, KJ	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Stoecker, DK	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Mitra, A	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Raven, JA https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2789-3297	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Glibert, PM	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Hansen, PJ	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Granéli, E	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Burkholder, JM	en_US
dc.date.issued	2013-01-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Journal of Plankton Research, 2013, 35 (1), pp. 3 - 11	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	0142-7873	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/118015
dc.description.abstract	The classic portrayal of plankton is dominated by phytoplanktonic primary producers and zooplanktonic secondary producers. In reality, many if not most plankton traditionally labelled as phytoplankton or microzooplankton should be identified as mixotrophs, contributing to both primary and secondary production. Mixotrophic protists (i.e. single-celled eukaryotes that perform photosynthesis and graze on particles) do not represent a minor component of the plankton, as some form of inferior representatives of the past evolution of protists; they represent a major component of the extant protist plankton, and one which could become more dominant with climate change. The implications for this mistaken identification, of the incorrect labelling of mixotrophs as " phytoplankton" or "microzooplankton", are great. It extends from the (mis)use of photopigments as indicators of primary production performed by strict photoautotrophs rather than also (co)locating mixotrophic activity, through to the inadequacy of plankton functional type descriptions in models (noting that mixotrophic production in the individual organism is not a simple sum of phototrophy and heterotrophy). We propose that mixotrophy should be recognized as a major contributor to plankton dynamics, with due effort expended in field and laboratory studies, and should no longer be side-lined in conceptual food webs or in mathematical models. © 2012 The Author 2012. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Journal of Plankton Research	en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1093/plankt/fbs062	en_US
dc.subject.classification	Marine Biology & Hydrobiology	en_US
dc.title	Misuse of the phytoplankton-zooplankton dichotomy: The need to assign organisms as mixotrophs within plankton functional types	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	1	en_US
utslib.citation.volume	35	en_US
utslib.for	0602 Ecology	en_US
utslib.for	0607 Plant Biology	en_US
utslib.for	0608 Zoology	en_US
utslib.for	0704 Fisheries Sciences	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Science
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access
pubs.issue	1	en_US
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.volume	35	en_US

Abstract:

The classic portrayal of plankton is dominated by phytoplanktonic primary producers and zooplanktonic secondary producers. In reality, many if not most plankton traditionally labelled as phytoplankton or microzooplankton should be identified as mixotrophs, contributing to both primary and secondary production. Mixotrophic protists (i.e. single-celled eukaryotes that perform photosynthesis and graze on particles) do not represent a minor component of the plankton, as some form of inferior representatives of the past evolution of protists; they represent a major component of the extant protist plankton, and one which could become more dominant with climate change. The implications for this mistaken identification, of the incorrect labelling of mixotrophs as " phytoplankton" or "microzooplankton", are great. It extends from the (mis)use of photopigments as indicators of primary production performed by strict photoautotrophs rather than also (co)locating mixotrophic activity, through to the inadequacy of plankton functional type descriptions in models (noting that mixotrophic production in the individual organism is not a simple sum of phototrophy and heterotrophy). We propose that mixotrophy should be recognized as a major contributor to plankton dynamics, with due effort expended in field and laboratory studies, and should no longer be side-lined in conceptual food webs or in mathematical models. © 2012 The Author 2012. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/118015