Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T10:44:56.799Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of variations in light intensity on life processes of the planktonic foraminifer Globigerinoides sacculifer in laboratory culture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

David A. Caron ,
Allan W. H. Bé  and
O. Roger Anderson
David A. Caron
Affiliation:
Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory of Columbia University, Palisades, New York10964
Allan W. H. Bé
Affiliation:
Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory of Columbia University, Palisades, New York10964
O. Roger Anderson
Affiliation:
Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory of Columbia University, Palisades, New York10964
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The planktonic foraminifer Globigerinoides sacculifer (Brady) was cultured under two different light intensities and in continuous darkness. High light intensity (HLI = 400–500 μeinsteins/m2/s) resulted in a longer lifespan, a greater number of chambers formed, and a larger final shell size compared with individuals cultured under low light intensity (LLI = 20–50 μeinsteins/m2/s) or in continuous darkness. Shell growth rates were unaffected by increasing light intensity, but gametogenesis was delayed. Continuous darkness induced a rapid onset of gametogenesis in organisms with shell lengths larger than 250 μm. Feeding frequency had a greater effect on growth and reproduction than light intensity under conditions of LLI and HLI, but continuous darkness had an overriding effect on growth and reproduction owing to the rapid onset of gametogenesis which terminated the life of the mother cell. Our previous data indicated that the longevity of G. sacculifer was dependent on feeding frequency, and that G. sacculifer cultured under LLI had a lifespan of approximately 2–4 weeks. Present results suggest that the lifespan can vary from a minimum of 8 days for organisms fed daily in continuous darkness to a maximum of 54 days for organisms fed once every 7 days and maintained in HLI. It is concluded that individual G. sacculifer attain a shell size greater than 600 μm only if they maintain their position in the euphotic zone. Prolonged existence below the euphotic zone would result in premature death or gametogenesis following stunted shell growth.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 62 , Issue 2 , May 1982 , pp. 435 - 451
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, O. R. & Bé, A. W. H. 1976. The ultrastructure of a planktonic foraminifer, Globigerinoides sacculifer (Brady), and its symbiotic dinoflagellates. Journal of Foraminiferal Research, 6, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bé, A. W. H., 1980. Gametogenic calcification in a spinose planktonic foraminifer, Globigerinoides sacculifer (Brady). Marine Micropaleontology, 5, 283–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bé, A. W. H., Caron, D. A. & Anderson, O. R., 1981. Effect of feeding frequency on the life processes of the planktonic foraminifer Globigerinoides sacculifer (Brady). Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 61, 257–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bé, A. W. H., Hemleben, C., Anderson, O. R., Spindler, M., Hacunda, J. & Tuntivate-Choy, S., 1977. Laboratory and field observations of living planktonic foraminifera. Micropaleontology, 23, 155–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bé, A. W. H. & Tolderlund, D. S., 1971. Distribution and ecology of living planktonic foraminifera in surface waters of the Atlantic and Indian Oceans. In Micropaleontology of Oceans (ed. Funnell, B. M. and Riedel, W. R.), pp. 105–149. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Berger, W. H., 1969. Ecologic patterns of living planktonic Foraminifera. Deep-Sea Research, 16, 1–24.Google Scholar
Duguay, L. E. & Taylor, D. L., 1978. Primary production and calcification by the soritid foraminiferan Archaias angulatus (Fichtel & Moll). Journal of Protozoology, 25, 356–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fairbanks, R. G., Wiebe, P. H. & Bé, A. W. H., 1980. Vertical distribution and isotopic composition of living planktonic foraminifera in the Western North Atlantic. Science, New York, 207, 61–63.Google ScholarPubMed
Hansen, H. J., 1975. On feeding and supposed buoyancy mechanism in four Recent globigerinid Foraminifera from the Gulf of Elat. Revista española de micropaleontologia, 7, 325–339.Google Scholar
Jones, J. I., 1967. Significance of distribution of planktonic foraminifera in the Equatorial Atlantic Undercurrent. Micropaleontology, 13, 489–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, J. J., Freudenthal, H. D., Kossoy, V. & Bé, A., 1965. Cytological observations on two planktonic foraminifera, Globigerina bulloides d'Orbigny, 1826, and Globigerinoides (d'Orbigny, 1839) Cushman, 1927. Journal of Protozoology, 12, 531–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, J. J. & Zucker, W., 1969. Algal flagellate symbiosis in the foraminifer Archaias. Journal of Protozoology, 16, 71–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muller, P. H., 1978. 14Carbon fixation and loss in a foraminiferal-algal symbiont system. Journal of Foraminiferal Research, 8, 35–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Röttger, R. & Berger, W. H., 1972. Benthic Foraminifera: morphology and growth in clone cultures of Heterostegina depressa. Marine Biology, 15, 89–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar