Phytoplankton pigment-clade dynamics in three Times Series

1. Phytoplankton pigment-clade dynamics in three Times Series Vanessa Balagué Mikel Latasa Ramon Massana Carlos Pedrós-Alió Renate Scharek Fabrice Not Klaus Valentin

2. Time Series seasonality. The range is: Helg > Rosc > Blan Blooms occur in: Feb-Mar  Blanes Jun-Jul  Roscoff Jul-Sep ??  Helgoland Chlorophyll a (ng / L)

3. Time Series seasonality of picophytoplankton. In contrast to Total phytoplankton: - weaker seasonality - less differences among sites Chlorophyll a < 3 µm (ng / L)

4. Diatoms Synechococcus Prochlorococcus Prasinophyceae Pelagophyceae Time Series. Phytoplankton groups seasonality. BLANES Seasonality

5. Haptophyceae Dinophyceae Chlorophyceae Cryptophyceae Time Series. Phytoplankton groups seasonality. BLANES No Seasonality

6. Diatoms Prasinophyceae Haptophyceae Cryptophyceae Dinophyceae Time Series. Phytoplankton groups seasonality. ROSCOFF Seasonality

7. Synechococcus Pelagophyceae Chlorophyceae Time Series. Phytoplankton groups seasonality. ROSCOFF No Seasonality

8. Diatoms Cryptophyceae Dinophyceae Time Series. Phytoplankton groups seasonality. HELGOLAND Seasonality

9. Green algae Haptophyceae Pelagophyceae Time Series. Phytoplankton groups seasonality. HELGOLAND No Seasonality

10. Time Series. Phytoplankton groups seasonality. Blanes Roscoff Helgoland Seas No Seas  Diatoms  Hapto  Synecho  Dino  Prochloro  Crypto  Prasino  Chloro  Pelago Seas No Seas  Diatoms  Synecho  Pras  Pelago  Hapto  Chloro  Dino  Crypto Seas No Seas  Diatoms  Green algae  Dino  Hapto  Crypto  Pelago Not all phytoplankton groups showed seasonality, and not even the same groups showed the same seasonality at the three sites. Diatoms and Prasinophyceae  always Dinophyceae, Cryptophyceae and Pelagophyceae  some times Chlorophyceae  never

11. Time Series. Picophytoplankton contribution. BLANES

12. Time Series. Picophytoplankton contribution. BLANES

13. Time Series. Picophytoplankton contribution. BLANES

14. Time Series. Picophytoplankton contribution. ROSCOFF

15. Time Series. Picophytoplankton contribution. ROSCOFF

16. Time Series. Picophytoplankton contribution. ROSCOFF

17. Blanes Roscoff Helgoland % in < 3 µm Diatoms 11 Dino 10 Hapto 71 Pelago 76 Crypto 72 Chloro 60 Prasino 90 Synecho 93 Prochlo 95 All 55 % in < 3 µm Diatoms 13 Dino 18 Hapto 58 Pelago 60 Crypto 71 Prasino 83 Chloro 87 All 36 % in < 3 µm All 17 Time Series. Picophytoplankton contribution. (Synecho in very low number. Not included)

18. Time Series. Size fraction dynamics. Blanes Roscoff Helgoland < 3 µm > 3 µm Median 267 166 Avg 274 246 C.V. 42% 92% Range 52-509 30-1084 < 3 µm > 3 µm Median 264 273 Avg 301 512 C.V. 53% 132% Range 65-811 123-4543 < 3 µm > 3 µm Median 236 902 Avg 261 1658 C.V. 156% 78% Range 70-539 179-8783 The median, average and range of the < 3 µm fraction were remarkably stable in all three sites. The contribution of the > 3 µm fraction increases Blanes < Roscoff < Helgoland The variability is much higher for the > 3 µm fraction, except in Helgoland.

19. Time Series. Summary.  There was an important seasonality in all three sites but at different periods of the year.  Not all phytoplankton groups showed seasonality, and not even the same groups showed the same seasonality at the three sites.  Size fractionation permitted verify that:  less than 20% of Diatoms and Dinophyceae were in the 3 µm fraction.  50-80% of Haptophyceae, Pelagophyceae, Cryptophyceae and Chlorophyceae were in the < 3 µm fraction.  more than 80% of Prasinophyceae and 90% of prokaryotes were in the < 3 µm fraction.  The differences among sites are mostly due to the > 3 µm fraction.

21. N= 60 (20 of 21 samplings) N= 186 (62 of 66 samplings) N= 45 (15 of 20 samplings) Time Series. Methodological considerations.

22. N= 60 (20 of 21 samplings) N= 186 (62 of 66 samplings) N= 45 (15 of 20 samplings) Time Series. Methodological considerations.