Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-cjp7w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-26T16:05:24.387Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response of benthic foraminifera Rosalina leei to different temperature and salinity, under laboratory culture experiment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 June 2008

R. Nigam ,
Sujata R. Kurtarkar ,
R. Saraswat ,
V.N. Linshy  and
S.S. Rana
R. Nigam*
Affiliation:
Micropaleontology Laboratory, Geological Oceanography Division, National Institute of Oceanography, Dona Paula-403 004, Goa
Sujata R. Kurtarkar
Affiliation:
Micropaleontology Laboratory, Geological Oceanography Division, National Institute of Oceanography, Dona Paula-403 004, Goa
R. Saraswat
Affiliation:
Present address: Centre of Advanced Studies, Geology Department, Delhi University, Delhi-110 006
V.N. Linshy
Affiliation:
Micropaleontology Laboratory, Geological Oceanography Division, National Institute of Oceanography, Dona Paula-403 004, Goa
S.S. Rana
Affiliation:
Micropaleontology Laboratory, Geological Oceanography Division, National Institute of Oceanography, Dona Paula-403 004, Goa
*
Correspondence should be addressed to: Rajiv Nigam Micropaleontology Laboratory Geological Oceanography DivisionNational Institute of Oceanography, Dona Paula - 403 004, Goa email: nigam@nio.org
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Live specimens of benthic foraminiferal species Rosalina leei were subjected to a combination of temperature (25°C, 30°C and 35°C) and salinity (25‰, 30‰ and 35‰) to assess its differential response to the annual range of seawater temperature and salinity reported at the sampling site. A total of 216 specimens were used for the experiment. Within the range of temperature and salinity, to which R. leei specimens were subjected as part of the present experiment, growth increased with increasing salinity, whereas increase in seawater temperature resulted in retarded growth. Maximum growth was reported in the specimens kept at 25°C temperature and 35‰ salinity while the rest of the specimens maintained in 30‰ and 25‰ saline water, showed comparatively less growth. The specimens kept at 30°C and 35°C temperature and different salinities showed much less growth as compared to the specimens maintained at 25°C temperature. However, none of the R. leei specimens subjected to the present experiment reproduced during the course of the experiment. The absence of reproduction under the present set of temperature and salinity conditions, probably indicates that R. leei reproduces at a very narrow range of temperature and salinity which is different from the temperature and salinity conditions in the present experiment. It is further inferred that under the present set of temperature–salinity conditions, 25°C temperature and 35‰ saline water is most suitable for the growth of R. leei. Results are significant as the responses of benthic foraminifera to different temperatures and salinity are being used for palaeoclimatic reconstruction.

Keywords

benthic foraminiferaRosalina leeilaboratory culture experimentsalinitytemperatureecology
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 88 , Issue 4 , August 2008 , pp. 699 - 704
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 2008

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

Arnold, Z.M. (1954) Culture methods in the study of living foraminifera. Journal of Paleontology 28, 404–416.Google Scholar
Berger, W.H. and Piper, D.J.W. (1972) Planktonic foraminifera: differential settling, dissolution, and redeposition. Limnology and Oceanography 17, 275–287.Google Scholar
Bijma, J., Erez, J. and Hemleben, C. (1990) Lunar and semi-lunar reproductive cycles in some spinose planktonic foraminifers. Journal of Foraminiferal Research 20, 117–127.Google Scholar
Boltovskoy, E. and Wright, R. (1976) Recent foraminifera. The Hague: Dr W. Junk b.v., Publishers.Google Scholar
Boltovskoy, E., Scott, D.B. and Medioli, F.S. (1991) Morphological variations of benthic foraminiferal tests in response to changes in ecological parameters, a review. Journal of Paleontology 65, 175–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyle, E.A. (1981) Cadmium, zinc, copper, and barium in foraminifera tests. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 53, 11–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradshaw, J.S. (1955) Preliminary laboratory experiments on ecology of foraminiferal populations. Micropaleontology 1, 351–358.Google Scholar
Bradshaw, J.S. (1957) Laboratory studies of the rate of growth of the foraminifera. Journal of Paleontology 31, 1138–1147.Google Scholar
Bradshaw, J.S. (1961) Laboratory experiments on the ecology of foraminifera. Contributions Cushman Foundation of Foraminiferal Research 12, 87–106.Google Scholar
Brunner, C.A. and Biscaye, P.E. (2003) Production and resuspension of planktonic foraminifers at the shelf break of the Southern Middle Atlantic Bight. Deep-Sea Research I 50, 247–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caron, D.A., Faber, W.W. and Be, A.W.H. (1987) Effects of temperature and salinity on the growth and survival of the planktonic foraminifera, Globigerinoides sacculifer. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 67, 323–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, W.B. (1856) Researches on the foraminifera, I. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London 146, 547–569.Google Scholar
Carstens, J. and Wefer, G. (1992) Recent distribution of planktonic foraminifera in the Nansen Basin, Arctic Ocean. Deep-Sea Research 39, 507–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chatelet, E.A., Debenay, J.-P. and Soulard, R. (2004) Foraminiferal proxies for pollution monitoring in moderately polluted harbors. Environmental Pollution 127, 27–40.Google Scholar
Debenay, J.-P., Guillou, J.-J., Redois, F. and Geslin, E. (2000) Distribution trends of foraminiferal assemblages in paralic environments. A base for using foraminifera as bioindicators. In Martin, R.E. (ed.) Environmental micropaleontology: the application of microfossils to environmental geology. Topics in geobiology. Kluwer Academic Plenum Publishers, New York, pp. 39–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gooday, A.J. and Rathburn, A.E. (1999) Temporal variability in living deep-sea benthic foraminifera: a review. Earth-Science Reviews 46, 187–212.Google Scholar
Gooday, A.J. (2003) Benthic foraminifera (Protista) as tools in deep-water palaeoceanography: environmental influences on faunal characteristics. Advances in Marine Biology 46, 1–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hedley, R.H. and Wakefield, J. St J. (1967) Clone culture studies of a new Rosalinid foraminifer from Plymouth, England and Wellington, New Zealand. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 47, 121–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurtarkar, S.R., Nigam, R. and Saraswat, R. (In Preparation) Regenerative capability of benthic foraminiferal species Rosalina leei.Google Scholar
Myers, E.H. (1935) Culture methods for the marine foraminifera of the littoral zone. Transactions of the American Microscopical Society 54, 264–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, J.W. (1991) Ecology and paleoecology of benthic foraminifera. New York: John Wiley, and Harlow, UK: Longman Scientific and Technical.Google Scholar
Murray, J.W. and Alve, E. (1999) Natural dissolution of shallow water benthic foraminifers: taphonomic effects on the paleoecological record. Paleogeography, Paleoclimatology, Paleoecology 146, 195–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nigam, R. and Khare, N. (1994) Effect of river discharge on the morphology of benthic foraminiferal test. Journal of the Geological Society of India 43, 457–463.Google Scholar
Nigam, R. and Khare, N. (1999) Spatial and temporal distribution of foraminifera in sediments off the central west coast of India and use of their test morphologies for the reconstruction of palaeomonsoonal precipitation. Micropaleontology 45, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nigam, R., Khare, N. and Borole, D.V. (1992) Can benthic foraminiferal morpho-groups be used as indicator of paleo-monsoonal precipitation? Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 34, 533–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nigam, R., Saraswat, R. and Panchang, R. (2006a) Application of foraminifers in ecotoxicology: retrospect, perspect and prospect. Environment International 32, 273–283.Google Scholar
Nigam, R., Saraswat, R. and Sujata, R.K. (2006b) Laboratory experiments to study the effect of salinity variations on benthic foraminiferal species Pararotalia nipponica (Asano). Journal of the Geological Society of India 67, 41–46.Google Scholar
Pujol, C. and Grazzini, C.V. (1995) Distribution patterns of live planktonic foraminifers as related to regional hydrography and productive systems of the Mediterranean Sea. Marine Micropaleontology 25, 187–217.Google Scholar
Rodrigues, C. (1984) Community structure of intertidal fauna at Dona Paula Beach (Goa, India). Unpublished PhD thesis, National Institute of Oceanography, Goa, India.Google Scholar
Rhumbler, L. (1911) Die foraminiferen (Thalamophoren) der plankton-expedition. Ergebnisse der Plankton — Expedition der Humboldt — Stiftung, V.3, Lief. C., pp. 1–331.Google Scholar
Schiebel, R., Hiller, B. and Hemleben, C. (1995) Impacts of storms on recent planktonic foraminiferal test production and CaCO3 flux in the North Atlantic at 47° 20° (JGOFS). Marine Micropaleontology 26, 115–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen Gupta, B.K. (1999) Foraminifera in marginal marine environments. In Sen Gupta, B.K. (ed.) Modern foraminifera. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 141–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar