Premium
Temperature influence on phytoplankton community growth rates
Author(s) -
Sherman Elliot,
Moore J. Keith,
Primeau Francois,
Tanouye David
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
global biogeochemical cycles
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.512
H-Index - 187
eISSN - 1944-9224
pISSN - 0886-6236
DOI - 10.1002/2015gb005272
Subject(s) - phytoplankton , environmental science , growth rate , grazing , biomass (ecology) , atmospheric sciences , productivity , mathematics , ecology , nutrient , biology , physics , economics , geometry , macroeconomics
Abstract A large database of field estimates of phytoplankton community growth rates in natural populations was compiled and analyzed to determine the apparent temperature effect on phytoplankton community growth rate. We conducted an ordinary least squares regression to optimize the parameters in two commonly used growth‐temperature relations (Arrhenius and Q 10 models). Both equations fit the observational data equally with the optimized parameter values. The optimum apparent Q 10 value was 1.47 ± 0.08 (95% confidence interval, CI). Microzooplankton grazing rates closely matched the temperature trends for phytoplankton growth. This likely reflects a dynamic adjustment of biomass and grazing rates by the microzooplankton to match their available food source, illustrating tight coupling of phytoplankton growth and microzooplankton grazing rates. The field‐measured temperature effect and growth rates were compared with estimates from the satellite Carbon‐based Productivity Model (CbPM) and three Earth System Models (ESMs), with model output extracted at the same month and sampling locations as the observations. The optimized, apparent Q 10 value calculated for the CbPM was 1.51, with overestimation of growth rates. The apparent Q 10 value in the Community Earth System Model (V1.0) was 1.65, with modest underestimation of growth rates. The GFDL‐ESM2M and GFDL‐ESM2G models produced apparent Q 10 values of 1.52 and 1.39, respectively. Models with an apparent Q 10 that is significantly greater than ~1.5 will overestimate the phytoplankton community growth response to the ongoing climate warming and will have spatial biases in estimated growth rates for the current era.