CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 81Protist diversity and phylogenyMicrobial Community Ecology and PhysiologyMarine Plankton and Biogeochemistry

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 18 of the 18 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effect of fixation on particle retention by microflagellates: underestimation of grazing rates

Open access
Sieracki, ME, Haas, LW, Caron, DA, Lessard, EJ·1987·Marine Ecology Progress Series
DOI 10.3354/meps038251
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The uptake of fluorescent particles by protists and filter-feeding metazoa is being used increasingly by microbial ecologists to study feeding behavior and measure grazing rates.Recent studies of microflagellate uptake of these inert particles have yielded inconsistent results.In particular.grazing rates determined from fluorescent particle uptake are often less than rates measured using other techniques.These low uptake rates have been attributed to osmotrophy, food quality or size selection, rapid egestion of inert particles, and the slower feeding by free-living, as opposed to attached, protists.We have found that a variety of flagellates egest food vacuole contents upon fixation with several commonly used agents including glutaraldehyde and formaldehyde.During time course experiments, the observed microsphere uptake rate for a small chrysomonad flagellate using 1 % glutaraldehyde was only 6 % of the rate obtained by using the fixation method of van der Veer (1982) (2 '10 acrolein, 2 % glutaraldehyde and 1 % tannic acid), modified for epifluorescence microscopy.Uptake rates of several mixed flagellate populations also were 2.4 to 3.1 times higher using the modified van der Veer method than with 1 % glutaraldehyde.The average number of ingested microspheres cell-' using this method was simllar to that observed in live cells immobilized with NiS04.Glutaraldehyde also caused the egestion of Synechococcus sp. cells and fluorescently labelled bacteria from the chrysomonad flagellate.We conclude that previous studies using common aldehyde fixation wlth particle uptake for measunng rates of microflagellate bacterivory have significantly underestimated actual rates of consumpt~on, and that these studes must be re-evaluated, and perhaps repeated, using effective fixation methods.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3354/meps038251

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 81

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Sieracki, M., Haas, L., Caron, D., & Lessard, E.
Venue
Marine Ecology Progress Series
Publisher
Inter-Research Science Center
Published
1987
Volume
38
Pages
251-258
ISSN
  • 0171-8630 (ISSN-L)
  • 1616-1599
DOI
10.3354/meps038251
OpenAlex
W2048477826
Cited by
81
References
18
Citations by year
2022: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
2.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Marine Ecology Progress Series (publishedVersion)
  • W&M Publish (College of William & Mary) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation (8316613, 8600510, 8617565)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Protist diversity and phylogeny
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Microbial Community Ecology and Physiology
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Oceanography › Marine Plankton and Biogeochemistry
Keywords
microflagellates, particle retention, grazing rates, aldehyde fixation, glutaraldehyde, formaldehyde, egestion, chrysomonads, bacterivory, Synechococcus, epifluorescence microscopy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review