{"@context":{"content":"http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/","dc":"http://purl.org/dc/terms/","foaf":"http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/","og":"http://ogp.me/ns#","rdfs":"http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#","sioc":"http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#","sioct":"http://rdfs.org/sioc/types#","skos":"http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#","xsd":"http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#","owl":"http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#","rdf":"http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#","rss":"http://purl.org/rss/1.0/","site":"https://www.bco-dmo.org/ns#","odo":"http://ocean-data.org/schema/","emo":"http://ocean-data.org/schema/entity-matching#","bibo":"http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/","crypto":"http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/preservation/cryptographicHashFunctions/","bcodmo":"http://lod.bco-dmo.org/id/","tw":"http://tw.rpi.edu/schema/","dcat":"http://www.w3.org/ns/dcat#","time":"http://www.w3.org/2006/time#","geo":"http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#","geosparql":"http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#","sf":"http://www.opengis.net/ont/sf#","void":"http://rdfs.org/ns/void#","sd":"http://www.w3.org/ns/sparql-service-description#","dctype":"http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/","prov":"http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#","schema":"http://schema.org/","geolink":"http://schema.geolink.org/1.0/base/main#","spdx":"http://spdx.org/rdf/terms#","bcodmo_vocab":"http://schema.bco-dmo.org/"},"@id":"http://lod.bco-dmo.org/id/dataset/782888#graph","@graph":[{"http://lod.bco-dmo.org/id/dataset/782888":{"@id":"http://lod.bco-dmo.org/id/dataset/782888","@type":["http://ocean-data.org/schema/DeploymentDatasetCollection","http://www.w3.org/ns/dcat#Dataset","http://ocean-data.org/schema/Dataset"],"http://ocean-data.org/schema/hasAcquisitionDescription":[{"@value":"
Specific growth rates were calculated using change in fluorescence over time (verified using cell count data) and the equation \u03bc=ln[N(T2)/N(T1)]/(T2-T1). Chlorophyll a, total particulate carbon (TPC), particulate organic carbon (POC),\u00a0 particulate organic nitrogen (PON), and particulate organic carbon (POP) were filtered onto GF/F filters and analyzed following the methodology used in Fu et al., 2007. Particulate inorganic carbon was defined as the difference between TPC and POC after POC filters had been subjected to concentrated HCl fumes for 24 hours to remove all inorganic carbon. Calcification, photosynthesis, and carbon fixation rates were all measured following the procedures outlined in Feng et al., 2008.
\nAll data was processed using either R (v 3.4.4) or Microsoft Excel 2016.\u00a0
This dataset includes the growth rates under low and high temperatures for E. huxleyi in constant and fluctuating thermal environments. Global warming will be combined with predicted increases in thermal variability in the future surface ocean, but how temperature dynamics will affect phytoplankton biology and biogeochemistry is largely unknown. Here, we examine the responses of the globally important marine coccolithophore Emiliania huxleyi to thermal variations at two frequencies (1 d and 2 d) at low (18.5 \u00b0C) and high (25.5 \u00b0C) mean temperatures. Elevated temperature and thermal variation decreased growth, calcification and physiological rates, both individually and interactively. The 1 d thermal variation frequencies were less inhibitory than 2 d variations under high temperatures, indicating that high-frequency thermal fluctuations may reduce heat-induced mortality and mitigate some impacts of extreme high-temperature events. Cellular elemental composition and calcification was significantly affected by both thermal variation treatments relative to each other and to the constant temperature controls. The negative effects of thermal variation on E. huxleyi growth rate and physiology are especially pronounced at high temperatures. These responses of the key marine calcifier E. huxleyi to warmer, more variable temperature regimes have potentially large implications for ocean productivity and marine biogeochemical cycles under a future changing climate.
\nThese data are published in Wang, X., Fu, F., Qu, P., Kling, J. D., Jiang, H., Gao, Y., & Hutchins, D. A. (2019). How will the key marine calcifier Emiliania huxleyi respond to a warmer and more thermally variable ocean?. Biogeosciences, 16(22), 4393-4409. doi:10.5194/bg-2019-179.
BCO-DMO Processing Notes:
\n- added conventional header with dataset name, PI name, version date
\n- combined two Excel tables located on one sheet (growth rates)
\n- changed param name 'Growth Rate (d-1)' to 'Growth_Rate'
\n- reduced Growth_Rate precision from 14 to 4 decimal places