1
Peipei Wu 1 , Emily J. Zakem 2,3 , Stephanie Dutkiewicz 3 , Yanxu Zhang 1,* *Corresponding to Yanxu Zhang ([email protected]). 1 Joint International Research Laboratory of Atmospheric and Earth System Sciences, School of Atmospheric Sciences, Nanjing University 2 Department of Biological Sciences, University of Southern California 3 Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Methylmercury (MeHg) is a strong neurotoxin and is the only form of mercury (Hg) that biomagnifies in food webs. The properties of marine plankton ecosystem and environmental factors can influence trophic transfer of MMHg in the food web. A global model which simulates monomethylmercury (MMHg) biomagnification among three trophic levels (producers, primary and secondary consumers) is developed. We explore the regional variability of MMHg trophic transfer in these three trophic levels and the sensitivity of plankton physiological parameters on MMHg biomagnification. Methods MMHg bioconcentration and biomagnification are simulated in the MITgcm framework. The ocean plankton ecology and biogeochemistry is simulated by the GUD model [1]. We add two carnivorous zooplankton (CZ) groups, grazing on small herbivorous zooplankton (HZ) and large HZ respectively. The Hg model can simulate the bioconcentration and biomagnification in the marine plankton food web. Results The spatial pattern of phytoplankton and bacteria is not much affected by predators at high trophic level. The addition of CZ put predation stress on HZ thus changing the the biomass of HZ and phytoplankton. Distributions of a) prochlorococcus, b) diatoms, c) bacteria, d) HZ1: graze on prochlorococcus, e) HZ4: graze on diatoms, f) CZ [Gmol C]. I. Marine plankton system II. MMHg in plankton A) B) (A) MMHg plankton food web dynamics for the global ocean. The numbers above planktons are the MMHg concentrations per wet weight of plankton cells in the unit of ng/g. (B) MMHg in plankton [ng/g]. a) phytoplankton, b)bacteria, c)HZ, d)CZ. III. MMHg biomagnification Magnification ratios between trophic levels (TMRs) in two representative food chains: prochlorococcus (small)-> HZ1 (a)-> CZ1 (b) and diatoms (large)-> HZ4 (c)-> CZ2 (d). There is almost no MMHg magnification in small zooplankton, which is opposite to large zooplankton. Large zooplankton dominant in eutrophic oceans have sufficient food intake, which results in higher accumulated MMHg than their prey. In oligotrophic oceans, e.g. subtropical oceans in the Southern Hemisphere, TMRs of HZ are low, while TMRs of CZ are high. In oligotrophic oceans, phytoplankton grow slow and suffer less grazing stress. So the grazing flux for HZ is lower than in eutrophic oceans. For CZ, despite sufficient food in the eutrophic oceans, the larger food uptake fails to compensate for the reduced MMHg concentrations caused by larger biomass. IV. Effects of physiological rates and assimilation efficiencies [1] Zakem, E. J., A. Alhaj, M. J. Church, G. L. V. Dijken,S. Dutkiewicz, S. Q. Foster, R. W. Fulweiler, M. M. Mills, and M. J. Follows (2018), Ecological control of nitrite in the upper ocean, Nature Communications, 9(1), 1206. [2] Zhang et al. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, submitted References The effects of grazing, mortality, and excretion rates on the TMR in two selected food chains. With increasing body size, the sensitivity of TMR to grazing, mortality rates, and food assimilation efficiency increases, while the sensitivity to excretion rates decreases. TMRs of small zooplankton are insensitive to the existing physiological rates, except CZ1 to the grazing rates. It means that in real ocean environment MMHg biomagnification is absent in small zooplankton. Low food assimilation efficiencies bring out more obvious MMHg biomagnification. However, MMHg biomagnification is still absent in small zooplankton. Zooplankton tend to eat more when food assimilation efficiency is low, which induces more MMHg transferred from prey to predator. a) b) c) d) concentration excretion+death food floppy predation Introduction e) f) Prochlorococcus 0.6 μm diatoms 12 μm zooplankton The spatial pattern of MMHg in zooplankton is similar to that of phytoplankton, as MMHg from food is the main source for MMHg in zooplankton. The microbial community plays an important role in the trophic transfer of MMHg. Sensitive analyses Varying grazing, excretion, and mortality rates Varying food assimilation efficiencies MMHg transfer in food web Biomagnification of Methylmercury in a Marine Plankton Ecosystem Marine food web The effects of changing carbon assimilation efficiency on the TMR in all possible food chains in this study: (a) small plankton, (b) large plankton.

Biomagnification of Methylmercury in a Marine Plankton ... · ⚫The ocean plankton ecology and biogeochemistry is simulated by the GUD model [1]. We add two carnivorous zooplankton

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    10

  • Download
    1

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Biomagnification of Methylmercury in a Marine Plankton ... · ⚫The ocean plankton ecology and biogeochemistry is simulated by the GUD model [1]. We add two carnivorous zooplankton

Peipei Wu1, Emily J. Zakem2,3, Stephanie Dutkiewicz3, Yanxu Zhang1,*

*Corresponding to Yanxu Zhang ([email protected]).1Joint International Research Laboratory of Atmospheric and Earth System Sciences, School of Atmospheric Sciences, Nanjing University

2Department of Biological Sciences, University of Southern California3Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

◆Methylmercury (MeHg) is a strong neurotoxin and is the onlyform of mercury (Hg) that biomagnifies in food webs.

◆The properties of marine plankton ecosystem andenvironmental factors can influence trophic transfer of MMHgin the food web.

◆A global model which simulates monomethylmercury (MMHg)biomagnification among three trophic levels (producers,primary and secondary consumers) is developed. We explorethe regional variability of MMHg trophic transfer in these threetrophic levels and the sensitivity of plankton physiologicalparameters on MMHg biomagnification.

Methods◆MMHg bioconcentration and biomagnification are simulated in

the MITgcm framework.⚫ The ocean plankton ecology and biogeochemistry is

simulated by the GUD model [1]. We add two carnivorouszooplankton (CZ) groups, grazing on small herbivorouszooplankton (HZ) and large HZ respectively.

⚫ The Hg model can simulate the bioconcentration andbiomagnification in the marine plankton food web.

Results

◆The spatial pattern of phytoplankton and bacteria is not muchaffected by predators at high trophic level.

◆The addition of CZ put predation stress on HZ thus changingthe the biomass of HZ and phytoplankton.

Distributions of a) prochlorococcus, b) diatoms, c) bacteria, d) HZ1: graze on prochlorococcus, e) HZ4: graze on diatoms, f) CZ [Gmol C].

I. Marine plankton system

II. MMHg in planktonA) B)

(A) MMHg plankton food web dynamics for the global ocean. The numbers aboveplanktons are the MMHg concentrations per wet weight of plankton cells in theunit of ng/g. (B) MMHg in plankton [ng/g]. a) phytoplankton, b)bacteria, c)HZ,d)CZ.

III. MMHg biomagnification

Magnification ratios between trophic levels (TMRs) in two representative foodchains: prochlorococcus (small)-> HZ1 (a)-> CZ1 (b) and diatoms (large)-> HZ4(c)-> CZ2 (d).

◆There is almost no MMHg magnification in small zooplankton,which is opposite to large zooplankton.

◆ Large zooplankton dominant in eutrophic oceans have sufficientfood intake, which results in higher accumulated MMHg thantheir prey.

◆ In oligotrophic oceans, e.g. subtropical oceans in the SouthernHemisphere, TMRs of HZ are low, while TMRs of CZ are high.

◆ In oligotrophic oceans, phytoplankton grow slow and suffer lessgrazing stress. So the grazing flux for HZ is lower than ineutrophic oceans. For CZ, despite sufficient food in theeutrophic oceans, the larger food uptake fails to compensate forthe reduced MMHg concentrations caused by larger biomass.

IV. Effects of physiological rates and assimilation efficiencies

[1] Zakem, E. J., A. Alhaj, M. J. Church, G. L. V. Dijken, S. Dutkiewicz, S.Q. Foster, R. W. Fulweiler, M. M. Mills, and M. J. Follows (2018),Ecological control of nitrite in the upper ocean, NatureCommunications, 9(1), 1206.[2] Zhang et al. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, submitted

References

The effects of grazing, mortality, and excretion rates on the TMR in two selected food chains.

◆With increasing body size, the sensitivity of TMR to grazing,mortality rates, and food assimilation efficiency increases,while the sensitivity to excretion rates decreases.

◆TMRs of small zooplankton are insensitive to the existingphysiological rates, except CZ1 to the grazing rates. It meansthat in real ocean environment MMHg biomagnification isabsent in small zooplankton.

◆ Low food assimilation efficiencies bring out more obviousMMHg biomagnification. However, MMHg biomagnification isstill absent in small zooplankton. Zooplankton tend to eatmore when food assimilation efficiency is low, which inducesmore MMHg transferred from prey to predator.

a) b) c)

d)

concentrationexcretion+deathfood floppypredation

Introduction

e) f)

Prochlorococcus0.6 μm

diatoms12 μm

zooplankton

◆The spatial pattern of MMHg in zooplankton is similar to thatof phytoplankton, as MMHg from food is the main source forMMHg in zooplankton. The microbial community plays animportant role in the trophic transfer of MMHg.

◆ Sensitive analyses⚫ Varying grazing, excretion, and mortality rates⚫ Varying food assimilation efficiencies

MMHg transfer in food web

Biomagnification of Methylmercury in a Marine Plankton Ecosystem

Marine food web

The effects of changing carbon assimilation efficiency on the TMR in all possible food chains in this study: (a) small plankton, (b) large plankton.