Mixoplankton interferences in dilution grazing experiments

Our results show that Chl a alone is not an adequate proxy for prey growth rates in dilution grazing experiments when mixoplankton are present^5,10. Chlorophyll is, in any case, a poor proxy for phototrophic plankton biomass³¹ because of inter-species variations, and also for the photoacclimation abilities of some species (for which very significant changes can occur within a few hours). The problem extends to the involvement of mixoplanktonic prey and grazers. Nevertheless, even very recent studies continue to rely on this parameter for quantifications of grazing despite acknowledging the dominance, both in biomass and abundance, of mixoplanktonic predators in their system³⁰. Moreover, the detailed analysis of the species-specific dynamics revealed that different prey species are consumed at very different rates. In our experiments, and contrary to expectations (see^32,33, and Fig. S1 in the Supplementary Information), C. weissflogii was only actively ingested in the ciliate experiment and, according to the results from the control bottles (Table 2), not by M. rubrum (see Fig. 4 and Fig. S1a).

Certainly, it is not the first time that a negative selection against diatoms has been seen; for example, Burkill et al.³⁴ noticed that diatoms were less grazed by protist grazers than other phytoplankton species, as assessed by a dilution technique paired with High-Performance Liquid Chromatography for pigment analysis. Using the same method, Suzuki et al.³⁵ reported that diatoms became the dominant phytoplankton group, which suggests that other groups were preferentially fed upon. Calbet et al.³⁶, in the Arctic, also found only occasional grazing over the local diatoms. In our study, diatoms were not only not consumed, but the presence of dinoflagellates appeared to contribute to their growth (Fig. 4), this relationship being partly dependent on the concentration of the predator (see Fig. 2c, d). This result could be a direct consequence of assimilation and use of compounds (e.g.,^37,38) released by microplankton such as ammonium (e.g.,^39,40) and urea (e.g.,⁴¹), which were not supplied in the growth medium, but which would have supported prey growth. Alternatively, this unexpected outcome may have been a consequence of the selective ingestion of R. salina by the two predators, relieving the competition for nutrients and light and resulting in a higher growth rate of the diatom in the presence of the predators. We cannot rule out the fact that diatoms sink faster than flagellates which, as the bottles were not mixed during most of the incubation period (although gently mixed at every sampling point), may have also involuntarily decreased ingestion rates on C. weissflogii. Still, one C. weissflogii cell contains, on average, ca. 2.5 times more Chl a than one R. salina cell (initial value excluded, see Table 3). Taken together with the preference for R. salina it is not surprising that the proportion of total Chl a represented by the diatoms increased over time, in particular in the L/D treatment (Figs. 6a, c and 7a, c).

Another factor clearly highlighted by our experiments, is that protozooplankton themselves contribute a significant portion of the total chlorophyll of the system (due to ingested Chl a), in particular at the beginning of the incubation (see Figs. 6 and 7); this being invariably ignored in a traditional dilution experiment. The high Chl a detected inside the protozooplanktonic grazers at the beginning of the incubations could suggest that the system was initially not in equilibrium, and that this was the result of superfluous feeding (e.g.,⁴²). This would, nevertheless, be surprising since we required ca. 1 h to collect the initial samples (t = 0 h) after joining all the organisms together (see the section “Dilution grazing experiments” in the “Methods” section); previous studies, like the one on G. dominans and Oxyrrhis marina by Calbet et al.⁴², showed that the hunger response and consequent vacuole replenishment occurred in ca. 100 min for very high prey concentrations and it is expected to decrease at lower prey concentrations as the ones used in our study. Therefore, even if one assumes that the first 4 h of incubation are a result of superfluous feeding, after 24 h, the “estimated”, “observed”, and “from dilution slope” grazing estimates are not significantly different to those displayed in Fig. 5 (P > 0.05 in all instances) and, therefore, we can assume that the hunger response was likely irrelevant (e.g.,⁴³) and did not mask our results. In any case, as stated before, an actual field grazing dilution experiment also suffers from similar problems, because grazers and prey are suddenly diluted and not pre-adapted to distinct food concentrations. Nevertheless, this is not novel information, since Chl a and its degradation products have been found inside several protozooplankton species from different phylogenetic groups immediately after feeding⁴⁴ and even after some days without food⁴⁵. An increase in intracellular Chl a concentrations immediately after feeding has also been found in mixoplankton^46,47, on which this increase is derived both from ingested prey as well as from new synthesis of their own Chl a. Additionally, several experiments with Live Fluorescently Labelled Algae (LFLA) show that predators (irrespective of their trophic mode) seem to maximise the concentration of intracellular prey shortly after the initiation of the incubation (e.g.,⁴⁸; Ferreira et al., submitted). Indeed, some authors have even been able to measure photosynthesis in protozooplankton, like the ciliates Mesodinium pulex⁴⁹ and Strombidinopsis sp.⁵⁰.

The fact that Chl a is a poor indicator of phytoplankton biomass and the inherent consequences discussed so far can be solved by the quantification of the prey community abundance (e.g.,⁵¹) by microscopy or by the use of signature pigments for each major phytoplankton group. The latter method, however, is not as thorough as the former, since rare are the cases where one pigment is exclusively associated with a single group of organisms (see⁵² and references therein). In any case, any pigment-based proxy is subject to the same problems, as identified by Kruskopf & Flynn³¹. Irrespective of the quantification method, it has been made evident that the different algae are consumed at different rates (e.g., pigments^10,34,35; microscopy^5,36).

Prey selection in protistan grazers is a common feature (e.g.,^23,26,27,28). Given the diversity of grazers in natural communities and the array of preferred prey that each particular species possesses, it is logical to think that dilution experiments will capture the net community response properly. Likewise, grazers interact with each other through toxins, competition, and intraguild predation among other factors. An example of intraguild predation could be the observed on K. armiger by G. dominans (see Figs. 2f and 4 and Table 1), which caused an average loss of ca. 18.72 pg of K. armiger carbon per G. dominans per hour in the D treatment. Interestingly, in the same treatment, a slight negative effect of K. armiger on its predator G. dominans can also be deduced (i.e., positive g, Table 1), resulting in an average loss of ca. 0.33 pg G. dominans carbon per K. armiger per hour. This could be a consequence of algal toxins, since K. armiger is a known producer of karmitoxin²², whose presence may have negative effects even on metazoan grazers²¹. Regarding ciliates, none of the species used is a known producer of toxic compounds, which suggests that the average loss of ca. 1.25 pg M. rubrum carbon per hour in the D treatment was due to S. arenicola predation. Altogether, it seems clear from our data that intraguild predation cannot be ignored when analysing dilution experiments (Fig. 4). Furthermore, our results clearly show that single functional responses cannot be used to extrapolate community grazing impacts, as evidenced by the differences in estimated and measured ingestion rates based on the disappearance of prey in combined grazers experiments (Fig. 5). Nevertheless, this is a relatively common procedure (e.g.,⁵³ and references therein). Often in modelling approaches, individual predator’s functional responses have been used to extrapolate prey selectivity and community grazing responses²⁷; in reality complex prey selectivity functions are required to satisfactorily describe prey selectivity and inter-prey allelopathic interactions⁵⁴.

It is, however, also evident that the measured ingestion rates in combined grazers experiments were not the same as those calculated from the slope of the dilution grazing experiment. This raises the question of why was that the case. It is well known that phytoplankton cultures, when extremely diluted, show a lag phase of different duration⁵⁵ which has been attributed to the net leakage of metabolites⁵⁶. Assuming that the duration of the lag phase will be dependent on the level of dilution, it seems reasonable to deduce that after ca. 24 h the instantaneous growth rates (µ) in the most diluted treatments will be lower than that of the undiluted treatments. This has consequences, not only for the estimated prey growth rates but also for the whole assessment of the grazing rate, due to the flattening of the regression line (i.e., the decrease in the computed growth rate). This artefact may be more evident in cultures acclimated to very particular conditions (as the laboratory cultures used in this study) than in nature.

Another important finding of our research is the importance of light on the correct expression of the feeding activity by both mixoplankton and protozooplankton. We noticed that irrespective of the light conditions, all species exhibited a diurnal feeding rhythm (R. salina panels in Figs. 2 and 3), which is in accordance with earlier observations on protists (e.g.,^29,57,58). The presence of light typically increased the ingestion rates. Additionally, the ingestion rates differed during the night period between L/D and D treatments, which implies that receiving light during the day is also vital in modulating the night behaviour of protoozoo- and mixoplankton. In particular, mixoplankton grazing is usually affected by light conditions, typically increasing (e.g.,^32,59), but also sometimes decreasing(e.g.,⁶⁰) in the presence of light. Different irradiance levels can also affect the magnitude of ingestion rates both in protozoo- and mixoplankton (see⁶¹ and references therein).

For those reasons, we hoped for a rather consistent pattern among our protists that would help us discriminate mixoplankton in dilution grazing experiments. As a matter of fact, based on the results from Arias et al.²⁹, we expected that in the dinoflagellate experiment, the D treatment would have inhibited only the grazing of K. armiger, enabling a simple discrimination between trophic modes. The reality did not meet the expectations since the day and night-time carbon-specific ingestion rates (as assessed using the control bottles, Table 2) of K. armiger were respectively higher and equal than those of G. dominans. Conversely, in the ciliate experiment, protozooplankton were the major grazers in our incubations regardless of the day period and light conditions. This response was not as straightforward as one would expect it to be because M. rubrum has been recently suggested to be a species complex containing at least 7 different species (⁶² and references therein), which hinders any possible conjecture on their grazing impact. Indeed, the uneven responses found between and within trophic modes precluded such optimistic hypothetical procedure.

The D treatment in the present paper illustrated the importance of mimicking natural light conditions, a factor also addressed in the original description of the technique by Landry and Hassett¹. It is crucial for the whole interpretation of the dilution technique that incubations should be conducted in similar light (and temperature) conditions as the natural ones to allow for the continued growth of the phototrophic prey. However, here we want to stress another aspect of the incubations: should they start during the day or the night? Considering our (and previous) results on diel feeding rhythms, and on the contribution of each species to the total Chl a pool, it is clear that different results will be obtained if the incubations are started during the day or the night. Besides, whether day or night, organisms are also likely to be in a very different physiological state (either growing or decreasing). Therefore, we recommend that dilution experiments conducted in the field should always be started at the same period of the day to enable comparisons (see also Anderson et al.¹⁴ for similar conclusions on bacterivory exerted by small flagellates). Ideally, incubations would be started at different times of the day to capture the intricacies of the community dynamics on a diel cycle. Nevertheless, should the segmented analysis be impossible, we argue that the right time to begin the incubations would be during the night, as this is the time where ingestion rates by protozooplankton are typically lower (e.g.,^29,57,58, this study) and would, consequently, reduce their quota of Chl a in the system.

Lastly, we want to stress that we are aware that our study does not represent natural biodiversity because our experiments were conducted in the laboratory with a few species. Nevertheless, we attempted to use common species of wide distribution for each major group of protists to provide a better institutionalisation of our conclusions. Further to the choice of predator and prey is their concentrations and proportions. Being a laboratory experiment designed to understand fundamental mechanisms within a dilution grazing experiment, we departed from near saturating food conditions from where we started the dilution series. In nature, the concentrations that we used may be high but are not unrealistic, and actually lower than in many bloom scenarios. We included diatoms at high concentrations, even knowing that they are not the preferred prey of most grazers³⁴, because diatoms are very abundant in many natural ecosystems and to stress the point of food selection within the experiment. For sure, using different proportions of prey would have rendered different results. However, as previously mentioned, our aim was not to seek flaws in the dilution technique, but to understand the role of mixoplankton in these experiments and the complex trophic interactions that may occur within. Ultimately, with our choice of prey and their concentrations, we have proven that when there is no selection for a massively abundant prey, the use of Chl a as a proxy for community abundances may underestimate actual grazing rates.

Some other aspects of our experiments may also be criticised because they do not fully match a standard dilution experiment. For instance, we manipulated light, adding complexity to the study. However, this manipulation enabled the deepening into the drivers of the mixoplanktonic and protozooplanktonic grazing responses. Another characteristic, perhaps awkward, of our study is that we allowed the grazers to deplete their prey before starting the experiment. One may argue this procedure does not mimic the natural previous trophic history a grazer may have in nature. Yet, in nature, when facing a dilution experiment, it is impossible to ascertain whether the organisms are encountering novel prey or not. Indeed, they (prey and predator) could have just migrated into such conditions, or be subject to famine, or just moved from a food patch. In any case, it is true that a consistent “hunger response” would have affected our initial grazing values, biasing grazing rate estimates. To overcome this artefact, we let the grazers feed for about one hour before starting the actual dilution assay (see the “Methods” section). From that point on, any dilution is, in fact, an abrupt alteration of the food scenario, which is likely more important than the previous trophic history of the grazer.

In summary, with these laboratory experiments, we have presented evidence calling for a revision of the use of chlorophyll in dilution grazing experiments^5,10, and we have highlighted the need to observe the organismal composition of both initial and final communities to better understand the dynamics during the dilution grazing experiments⁵¹. This approach will not incorporate mixoplanktonic activity into the dilution technique per se however if combined with LFLA (see^5,17), a semi-quantitative approach to disentangle the contribution of mixoplankton to community grazing could be achieved (although not perfect). An alternative (and perhaps more elegant) solution could be the integration of the experimental technique with in silico modelling. The modelling approaches of the dilution technique have already been used, for example, to disentangle niche competition⁶³ and to explore nonlinear grazer responses²⁰. We believe that our experimental design and knowledge of the previously indicated data could be of use for the configuration of a dilution grazing model, which could then be validated in the field (and, optimistically, coupled to the ubiquitous application of the dilution technique across the globe). We cannot guarantee that having a properly constructed model that mimics the dilution technique will be the solution to the mixoplankton paradigm. However, it may provide a step towards that goal as it could finally shed much-needed light on the mixo- and heterotrophic contributions to the grazing pressure of a given system. To quote from the commentary of Flynn et al.⁶, it could provide the answer to the question of whether mixoplankton are de facto “another of the Emperor’s New Suit of Clothes” or, “on the other hand (…) collectively worthy of more detailed inclusion in models”.

Source: Ecology - nature.com