Present address: Leibniz-Institute for Baltic Sea Research (IOW), Seestraße 15, D-18119 Rostock-Warnemünde, Germany.
Excess nitrate loads to coastal waters reduces nitrate removal efficiency: mechanism and implications for coastal eutrophication
Article first published online: 9 MAY 2012
© 2012 Society for Applied Microbiology and Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Special Issue: Marine Microbial Ecophysiology and Metagenomics
Volume 15, Issue 5, pages 1492–1504, May 2013
How to Cite
Lunau, M., Voss, M., Erickson, M., Dziallas, C., Casciotti, K. and Ducklow, H. (2013), Excess nitrate loads to coastal waters reduces nitrate removal efficiency: mechanism and implications for coastal eutrophication. Environmental Microbiology, 15: 1492–1504. doi: 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2012.02773.x
- Issue published online: 18 APR 2013
- Article first published online: 9 MAY 2012
- Received 23 November, 2011; revised 5 April, 2012; accepted 12 April, 2012.
Fig. S1. Light regime during the experiment. The light intensity was increased during phase 2, in order to promote carbon overconsumption, and thus DOC release. Sampling events are marked with black circles, and radiotracer incubations are indicated by white circles.
Fig. S2. Dynamics of particulate organic nitrogen (PON) and cellular carbon : nitrogen ratios (POC : PON) in the different treatments (1×–5×) over the duration of the experiment. According to the dynamics of the bloom development and based on productivity data, the experiment is divided into a net autotrophic phase 1 and a net heterotrophic phase 2. Each value represents six replicates and error bars indicate the standard error of the computed mean.
Fig. S3. Dynamics of nitrate (NO3-), nitrite (NO2-), ammonium (NH4+), dissolved organic nitrogen (DON), phosphate (PO43−) and silica (SiO4), dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) and dissolved organic carbon (DOC) in the different treatments during the experiment. Each symbol represents the mean value of six true replicates. Error bars indicate the standard error of the calculated mean.
Fig. S4. (A) Primary production (PP), (B) heterotrophic biomass production (Leu incorporation) and (C) bacterial cell division (Thy incorporation) during the different phases of the experiment. Each symbol represents the mean value of six true replicates. Blanks were always lower than 1% and were neglected. Error bars indicate the standard error of the calculated mean.
Fig. S5. (A) Abundance of phytoplankton and (B) bacteria, measured by Flow Cytometry (Accuri C6) daily in the different treatments (1×–5×) during the experiment. Each symbol represents the mean value of six true replicates. Error bars indicate the standard error of the calculated mean.
Table S1. Chemical and biological characterization of the field sample (before the addition of nitrate and phosphorous); mean = average of six independent replicates, sd = standard error of the calculated mean.
Table S2. Comparison of chemical and biological properties from downstream Childs River at different dates in 2009 and during this study.
|emi2773_sm_FigS1-5-TabS1-2.doc||62K||Supporting info item|
|emi2773_sm_FigS1.tif||198K||Supporting info item|
|emi2773_sm_FigS2.tif||198K||Supporting info item|
|emi2773_sm_FigS3.tif||315K||Supporting info item|
|emi2773_sm_FigS4.tif||224K||Supporting info item|
|emi2773_sm_FigS5.tif||203K||Supporting info item|
Please note: Wiley Blackwell is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.