TY - JOUR
T1 - Physiological control on carbon isotope fractionation in marine phytoplankton
AU - Brandenburg, Karen M.
AU - Rost, Björn
AU - Van De Waal, Dedmer B.
AU - Hoins, Mirja
AU - Sluijs, Appy
N1 - Funding Information:
European Research Council (SPANC, grant no. 771497).
Funding Information:
This research has been supported by the H2020 European Research Council (SPANC, grant no. 771497).
Funding Information:
Acknowledgements. The authors thank Gert-Jan Reichart for constructive discussions that helped shape the presented ideas and are grateful for the constructive comments received from two reviewers. Appy Sluijs thanks the European Research Council for Consolidator Grant 771497.
Funding Information:
Financial support. This research has been supported by the H2020
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 Karen M. Brandenburg et al.
PY - 2022/7/15
Y1 - 2022/7/15
N2 - One of the great challenges in biogeochemical research over the past half a century has been to quantify and understand the mechanisms underlying stable carbon isotope fractionation (ϵp) in phytoplankton in response to changing CO2 concentrations. This interest is partly grounded in the use of fossil photosynthetic organism remains as a proxy for past atmospheric CO2 levels. Phytoplankton organic carbon is depleted in 13C compared to its source because of kinetic fractionation by the enzyme RubisCO during photosynthetic carbon fixation, as well as through physiological pathways upstream of RubisCO. Moreover, other factors such as nutrient limitation, variations in light regime as well as phytoplankton culturing systems and inorganic carbon manipulation approaches may confound the influence of aquatic CO2 concentrations [CO2] on ϵp. Here, based on experimental data compiled from the literature, we assess which underlying physiological processes cause the observed differences in ϵp for various phytoplankton groups in response to C-demand/C-supply, i.e., particulate organic carbon (POC) production / [CO2]) and test potential confounding factors. Culturing approaches and methods of carbonate chemistry manipulation were found to best explain the differences in ϵp between studies, although day length was an important predictor for ϵp in haptophytes. Extrapolating results from culturing experiments to natural environments and for proxy applications therefore require caution, and it should be carefully considered whether culture methods and experimental conditions are representative of natural environments.
AB - One of the great challenges in biogeochemical research over the past half a century has been to quantify and understand the mechanisms underlying stable carbon isotope fractionation (ϵp) in phytoplankton in response to changing CO2 concentrations. This interest is partly grounded in the use of fossil photosynthetic organism remains as a proxy for past atmospheric CO2 levels. Phytoplankton organic carbon is depleted in 13C compared to its source because of kinetic fractionation by the enzyme RubisCO during photosynthetic carbon fixation, as well as through physiological pathways upstream of RubisCO. Moreover, other factors such as nutrient limitation, variations in light regime as well as phytoplankton culturing systems and inorganic carbon manipulation approaches may confound the influence of aquatic CO2 concentrations [CO2] on ϵp. Here, based on experimental data compiled from the literature, we assess which underlying physiological processes cause the observed differences in ϵp for various phytoplankton groups in response to C-demand/C-supply, i.e., particulate organic carbon (POC) production / [CO2]) and test potential confounding factors. Culturing approaches and methods of carbonate chemistry manipulation were found to best explain the differences in ϵp between studies, although day length was an important predictor for ϵp in haptophytes. Extrapolating results from culturing experiments to natural environments and for proxy applications therefore require caution, and it should be carefully considered whether culture methods and experimental conditions are representative of natural environments.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85134371513&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.5194/bg-19-3305-2022
DO - 10.5194/bg-19-3305-2022
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85134371513
SN - 1726-4170
VL - 19
SP - 3305
EP - 3315
JO - Biogeosciences
JF - Biogeosciences
IS - 13
ER -