Frontiers in Marine Science (Oct 2021)

Interactions Between the Kleptoplastidic Dinoflagellate Shimiella gracilenta and Several Common Heterotrophic Protists

  • Sang Ah Park,
  • Hae Jin Jeong,
  • Hae Jin Jeong,
  • Jin Hee Ok,
  • Hee Chang Kang,
  • Ji Hyun You,
  • Se Hee Eom,
  • Eun Chong Park

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.738547
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 8

Abstract

Read online

The newly described dinoflagellate, Shimiella gracilenta, is known to survive for approximately 1 month on the plastids of ingested prey cells during starvation, indicating kleptoplastidy. To understand the population dynamics of this dinoflagellate in marine planktonic food webs, its growth and mortality rate due to predation should be assessed. Thus, we investigated the feeding occurrence of eight common heterotrophic protists on S. gracilenta. We also determined the growth and ingestion rates of Oxyrrhis marina and the naked ciliate, Rimostrombidium sp. on S. gracilenta as a function of the prey concentration. The common heterotrophic dinoflagellates (HTDs) Gyrodinium dominans, O. marina, and Pfiesteria piscicida and a naked ciliate Rimostrombidium sp. were able to feed on S. gracilenta; whereas the HTDs Aduncodinium glandula, Gyrodinium jinhaense, Oblea rotunda, and Polykrikos kofoidii were not. Shimiella gracilenta supported positive growth of O. marina and Rimostrombidium sp. but did not support that of G. dominans and P. piscicida. With increasing prey concentrations, the growth and ingestion rates of O. marina and Rimostrombidium sp. on S. gracilenta increased and became saturated. The maximum growth rates of O. marina and Rimostrombidium sp. on S. gracilenta were 0.645 and 0.903 day−1, respectively. Furthermore, the maximum ingestion rates of O. marina and Rimostrombidium sp. on S. gracilenta were 0.11 ng C predator day−1 (1.6 cells predator−1 day−1) and 35 ng C predator day−1 (500 cells predator−1 day−1), respectively. The maximum ingestion rate of O. marina on S. gracilenta was lower than that on any other algal prey reported to date, although its maximum growth rate was moderate. In conclusion, S. gracilenta had only a few common heterotrophic protist predators but could support moderate growth rates of the predators. Thus, S. gracilenta may not be a common prey species for diverse heterotrophic protists but may be a suitable prey for a few heterotrophic protists.

Keywords