Mesoscale eddies are important features in the Sargasso Sea that can increase or decrease the available nutrients in the euphotic zone. Two different mesoscale eddies were sampled: an anti-cyclonic eddy and the BATS station which was located at the edge of a cyclonic eddy. The results indicated that BATS had overall higher instantaneous growth (µ between 0.1 d-1 and 3.7 d-1) and grazing rates on pico- and nanophytoplankton, as well as diatoms, compared to the anti-cyclonic eddy (µ between 0.2 d-1 and 3 d-1). I also determined taxon-specific rates using quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) for the order Mamiellales, one of the smallest representatives of the abundant prasinophytes. This method yielded surprisingly high growth (9.7 d-1 ) and grazing rates (-8.2 d-1) at 80m for BATS. The euphotic zone (~100m) integrated biomass of all phytoplankton did not vary significantly between BATS (379 mg C m-2) and the anti-cyclonic eddy (408 mg C m-2) and the net growth rates at both locations were very close to zero for most of the groups. Although the biomass and net growth rates did not vary greatly between the two locations, the high instantaneous growth and grazing rates of pico- and nano-eukaryotic phytoplankton indicate an increase in the rate of the marine microbial food web, or microbial loop, compared to the anti-cyclonic eddy. This could have been due to the input of new nutrients in the edge of the cyclonic eddy at BATS. Thus, my study suggests that mesoscale variability is of considerable importance for the dynamics of the phytoplankton community and their role in the microbial loop. Much can be learned when using DNA based taxon-specific rates, especially to understand the relative importance and contribution of specific taxa.
More taxon-specific molecular studies will have to be carried out to quantify specific rates of more phytoplankton groups, which will supply a more complete knowledge of phytoplankton community dynamics in the Sargasso Sea. This will increase our understanding of the role of specific groups to the biological carbon dynamics in the euphotic zone into the deep ocean.
Based on findings of previous studies, there was speculation that two well-known experimental design software packages, JMP and Design Expert, produced varying power outputs given the same design and user inputs. For context and scope, another popular experimental design software package, Minitab® Statistical Software version 17, was added to the comparison. The study compared multiple test cases run on the three software packages with a focus on 2k and 3K factorial design and adjusting the standard deviation effect size, number of categorical factors, levels, number of factors, and replicates. All six cases were run on all three programs and were attempted to be run at one, two, and three replicates each. There was an issue at the one replicate stage, however—Minitab does not allow for only one replicate full factorial designs and Design Expert will not provide power outputs for only one replicate unless there are three or more factors. From the analysis of these results, it was concluded that the differences between JMP 13 and Design Expert 10 were well within the margin of error and likely caused by rounding. The differences between JMP 13, Design Expert 10, and Minitab 17 on the other hand indicated a fundamental difference in the way Minitab addressed power calculation compared to the latest versions of JMP and Design Expert. This was found to be likely a cause of Minitab’s dummy variable coding as its default instead of the orthogonal coding default of the other two. Although dummy variable and orthogonal coding for factorial designs do not show a difference in results, the methods affect the overall power calculations. All three programs can be adjusted to use either method of coding, but the exact instructions for how are difficult to find and thus a follow-up guide on changing the coding for factorial variables would improve this issue.