Photochemical vs. Bacterial Control of H2O2 Concentration Across a pCO2 Gradient Mesocosm Experiment in the Subtropical North Atlantic

Introduction

Reactive oxygen species (ROS) are ubiquitous in sunlit natural surface waters (Van Baalen and Marler, 1966; Moore et al., 1993; Miller and Kester, 1994). The most extensively measured ROS in the marine environment, H₂O₂, is present in the surface mixed layer at concentrations on the order of 10–100 nM (Price et al., 1998; Yuan and Shiller, 2001; Gerringa et al., 2004). In the surface ocean, H₂O₂ is known to be mainly produced by photochemistry (Fujiwara et al., 1993; Micinski et al., 1993) with a poorly quantified fraction produced via biochemical processes (Palenik et al., 1987; Croot et al., 2005; Milne et al., 2009). Biochemical processes are also used to explain H₂O₂ production in the dark (Palenik and Morel, 1988; Moffett and Zafiriou, 1990; Vermilyea et al., 2010).

H₂O₂ can cross cell membranes and cause a wide range of cellular damage, a process generically referred to as oxidative stress (Seaver and Imlay, 2001; Lesser, 2006; Imlay, 2008). Extracellular H₂O₂ is however not generally considered to be a major constraint on cellular growth under natural conditions in the marine environment because most microorganisms are thought to produce catalase and peroxidase enzymes which control H₂O₂ decomposition rates in the surface ocean (Moffett and Zafiriou, 1990; Petasne and Zika, 1997). However, recent work has challenged the assumption that extracellular H₂O₂ at nanomolar concentrations does not negatively influence cellular metabolism in surface seawater. The susceptibility of a range of marine microorganisms to H₂O₂ (Bogosian et al., 2000; Morris et al., 2011) and measurable effects on primary metabolism at extracellular H₂O₂ concentrations within the range of surface marine concentrations (Morris et al., 2011; Baltar et al., 2013) have been demonstrated. Furthermore, it has been suggested that microbes sensitive to H₂O₂ may not be cultivable under normal laboratory conditions (Morris et al., 2008, 2011), which may have severely biased our historical understanding of ROS interactions with marine microorganisms.

H₂O₂ production rates, decomposition rates, and effects on cellular functioning may vary widely at the species level (Palenik et al., 1987; Baltar et al., 2013). Furthermore, cross-group interactions may be important in regulating ambient extracellular H₂O₂ concentrations (Morris et al., 2011). Investigations at the community level are therefore required in order to comprehensively understand the interaction between biological processes and ROS in seawater. Mesocosm studies are one approach by which this could be achieved, yet rapid decay rates mean that investigating ROS during an offshore mesocosm experiment, with a setup for example as per Taucher (2017, this Research Topic), would be logistically challenging. A mesocosm experiment on a smaller and more accessible scale, with a similar pCO₂ gradient and timespan, was therefore conducted in the subtropical waters of Gran Canaria in March 2016. Our objective was to compare changes in ROS and other short-lived reactive species over the timescale of an induced phytoplankton bloom across a broad pCO₂ gradient. The pCO₂ gradient was designed to encompass pCO₂ under all plausible future climate scenarios until 2100 (IPCC Working Group 1, 2014) with the addition of some higher end-members to investigate potential thresholds with respect to CO₂-sensitive ecological and biogeochemical processes.

Materials and Methods

Mesocosm Design

The mesocosm study, conducted in Taliarte Harbor, Gran Canaria in March 2016, used eight thermoplastic polyurethane bags with a 2 m diameter, a depth of ~3 m, a starting volume of ~8,000 L, and no lid or screen on top. The bags were mounted on a buoyant frame which was allowed to drift ~2–3 m away from a sampling jetty. After filling with ambient seawater (on 1 March, experiment day −4), pumped from outside Taliarte Harbor (depth 15 m), the mesocosms were allowed to function without nutrient addition for 21 days (Supplementary Figure 1). A pCO₂ gradient across the eight mesocosms was induced on day 0 by the addition of varying volumes of filtered, CO₂ saturated seawater using a custom made “spider” distribution device described by Riebesell et al. (2013). The pCO₂ gradient (400–1,450 μatm) was designed to be similar to that used during the offshore KOSMOS mesocosm experiment conducted in Gando Bay, Gran Canaria in September/October 2014 (Taucher, 2017, this Research Topic). A further top-up of pCO₂ saturated seawater was then made to the mesocosms as necessary to maintain the pCO₂ gradient (Supplementary Figure 1) following CO₂ outgassing. The precise volume of each mesocosm was determined (on day 18) by measuring salinity before, and after, the addition of 40 L freshwater to each mesocosm, similar to Czerny et al. (2013). A single macronutrient addition (3.1 μM nitrate, 1.5 μM silicate, and 0.2 μM phosphate) was then made (after day 18 sampling).

Analysis

H₂O₂ samples were collected in opaque 125 mL high density polyethylene (HDPE) bottles (Nalgene) which were pre-cleaned (1 day soak in detergent, 1 week soak in 1 M HCl, three rinses with de-ionized water; 18.2 MΩ·cm, Milli-Q, Millipore) and dried in a laminar flow hood prior to use. Sample bottles were rinsed once with seawater and filled with no headspace by gently submerging the bottles within the mesocosms. Chlorophyll a, bacterial abundance, chromophoric dissolved organic matter (CDOM) and macronutrient concentrations were determined from depth integrated water samples collected using 2.5 m long custom-made samplers with an internal volume of ~10 L. These samplers were constructed from polypropylene tubing with valves at both ends. After filling, by submerging into the mesocosms and closing the valves, the samplers were removed and gently inverted to facilitate mixing. Samplers were then slowly drained through 1 cm diameter silicone tubing into pre-rinsed (de-ionized water and then mesocosm water) 25 L transparent HDPE containers, which were then transferred to shaded boxes and moved to a dark, refrigerated room for sub-sampling. Analysis of chlorophyll a and macronutrients then began immediately.

Chlorophyll a was measured by fluorometry as per Welschmeyer (1994) and macronutrient concentrations (nitrate + nitrite, phosphate, silicate) were determined by colorimetry as per Hansen and Koroleff (1999). CDOM absorption spectra were measured with a 100 cm, 250 μL capillary (LPC100CM) connected via an optical fiber to a light source (DH2000BAC) and a USB2000+UV-VIS ES detector (Ocean Optics). The system was controlled using Spectra-suite software (Ocean Optics). Samples were injected into the capillary with a peristaltic pump at a flow rate of 1 mL min⁻¹. Relative molecular weight was estimated from CDOM absorption by deriving the slope ratio (S_R) as the ratio of the slope of the shorter wavelength region (275–295 nm) to that of the longer wavelength region (350–400 nm; Helms et al., 2008). The spectral slopes were calculated from the linear regression of the log-transformed absorption spectra.

H₂O₂ was always analyzed within 1 h of collection via flow injection analysis (FIA) using the Co(II) catalyzed oxidation of luminol (Yuan and Shiller, 1999). A FIA system was assembled and operated exactly as per Hopwood et al. (2017) resulting in a detection limit of <1 nM. Calibrations were run daily, and with every new reagent batch, by at least six standard additions of diluted H₂O₂ (TraceSelect, Fluka) to aged (stored at room temperature for >48 h) seawater (unfiltered). The stability of H₂O₂ stock solution was checked by measuring absorbance at 240 nm using a quartz 10 cm cell and a USB4000 spectrometer (Ocean Optics). H₂O₂ (TraceSelect, Fluka) was sequentially diluted weekly to create stock solutions of 100 mM and 100 μM using de-ionized water. With respect to the measurement of chemical species other than H₂O₂, the H₂O₂ luminol based FIA method is expected to be robust for measurements in oxygenated surface seawater (Yuan and Shiller, 1999, 2004).

Bacterial counts were obtained on depth integrated water samples. Two mL water samples were fixed with 1% paraformaldehyde (final concentration) and stored at −80°C until analysis. Samples were analyzed by flow cytometry (FACSCalibur, Becton Dickinson), with a 15 mW laser set to excite at 488 nm (Gasol and del Giorgio, 2000). Subsamples (400 μL) for the determination of heterotrophic bacteria were stained with the fluorochrome SybrGreen-I (4 μL) at room temperature for 20 min and run at a flow rate of 16 μL min⁻¹. Cells were enumerated in a bivariate plot of 90° light scatter and green fluorescence. Molecular Probes latex beads (1 μm) were used as internal standards.

Ancillary Measurements

A CTD cast (using a CTD60M, Sea and Sun Technology) was conducted every sample collection day in all mesocosms. Additionally, a CTD cast was conducted on the sampling jetty adjacent to the mesocosms where a H₂O₂ sample in ambient seawater was also collected alongside every mesocosm sampling event. Photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) data was obtained from an ELDONET (Häder and Lebert, 2006) monitoring site located <200 m from the mesocosm jetty. Complete diurnal light profiles were available for experiment day 7 onwards, excluding days 12 and 13.

The diurnal change in H₂O₂ concentration in ambient seawater, and inside two mesocosms, was monitored by setting up FIA equipment on the mesocosm sampling jetty with a PTFE sampling line weighted to float ~10 cm below the water surface. Seawater was pumped continuously using a peristaltic pump (MiniPuls 3, Gilson) with a time delay between water inflow and analysis of ~60–120 s. The sample line was used without a filter and visually inspected regularly for blockage. Calibration was undertaken three times in every 24 h period by 6–8 standard additions of H₂O₂ into aged (>48 h in the dark) seawater. A coiled 3 m PTFE sample line, which could be extended to the bottom of the mesocosms, was used to determine whether H₂O₂ was vertically homogenous within the mesocosm bags. During the diurnal experiment monitoring ambient seawater, salinity was measured regularly (<3 h intervals) using a LF 325 conductivity meter (WTW) which was calibrated before use with a KCl solution.

During rain events, rainwater was collected by deploying open low density polyethylene (LDPE) bags adjacent to the mesocosms. Rainwater was diluted prior to analysis by spiking 200 μL unfiltered rainwater into 50 mL aged seawater with the H₂O₂ concentration in seawater measured before, and after, the rainwater spike.

Results

Mesocosm Time Series

Time series for the core parameters discussed herein are included in Supplementary Datasheet 1. Initial measurements in the mesocosms (2 March 2016, experiment day −3, after filling the mesocosms—but before any treatments were applied) verified that the enclosed waters were close to identical with respect to H₂O₂ concentration. Differences between the eight enclosures (range 38.3–40.9 nM, mean 39.3 ± 0.8 nM) were small compared to the detection limit of the analytical method (<1 nM; Croot et al., 2004; Hopwood et al., 2017) and the standard deviation of quadruple measurements of H₂O₂ in seawater collected on the sample jetty (mean 3.3 nM over the experiment duration). Depth profiles within a mesocosm bag (~3 m depth) were conducted on day 25 mid-afternoon, when any stratification was expected to be maximal, and verified that H₂O₂ concentration was relatively well-mixed with only a slight vertical gradient (increasing from 43 to 51 nM bottom-top, mean 47 ± 3.5 nM). On day 12, surface seawater collected using a small inflatable boat showed a range of H₂O₂ concentrations at different locations around Taliarte Harbor (39 ± 9.9 nM, n = 4), outside the harbor within 150 m of the coastline (63 ± 1.8 nM, n = 3) and outside the harbor >400 m offshore (38 ± 5.6 nM, n = 4). Ambient seawater concentrations within the harbor (used to determine a background concentration for comparison with the mesocosms) were therefore similar to those found in near-shore waters.

The imposition of a large pCO₂ gradient across the mesocosm bags after sampling on day 0 had no clear prolonged effect on observed H₂O₂ concentrations (Figure 1A). Temporal trends in H₂O₂ concentration were relatively similar in all mesocosms until day 9 of the experiment with the standard deviation ranging from 0.7 to 13 nM. Data for mesocosm 1 are shown only until day 3, after which exchange with surrounding seawater occurred following leakage, and monitoring was thus discontinued. After day 9 the enclosed waters diverged and some mesocosms experienced swings to very high (>300 nM) H₂O₂ concentrations compared to ambient water (Figure 1A). Over the duration of the mesocosm experiment, ambient surface seawater H₂O₂ concentrations ranged from only 20–92 nM.

FIGURE 1

Figure 1. Time series of core parameters over the experiment duration. The eight mesocosms (numbered 1–8) were subject to a pCO₂ gradient (400–1,450 μatm) imposed by the addition of CO₂ saturated, filtered seawater on day 0 (5 March 2016). Labels refer to target pCO₂ levels (μatm) which were obtained on pCO₂ addition days (see Supplementary Figure 1). The 550 μatm pCO₂ mesocosm (1) was discontinued after day 3 due to leakage and exchange with outside seawater and so no data is shown. (A) H₂O₂ concentrations (nM) during the mesocosm experiment. H₂O₂ concentration was also measured in ambient surface seawater outside the mesocosms (open circles). (B) Chlorophyll a concentrations (μg L⁻¹, depth integrated samples) throughout the experiment. (C) Nitrate + nitrite concentrations (μM, depth integrated samples) throughout the experiment. One macronutrient addition (3.1 μM nitrate, 1.5 μM silicate, and 0.2 μM phosphate) was made on day 18 to stimulate a phytoplankton bloom. (D) Total bacteria (cells mL⁻¹) during the mesocosm experiment. (E) Chromophoric dissolved organic matter (CDOM) slope ratio (S_R), a dimensionless parameter that is inversely proportional to molecular weight. (F) Photosynthetically active radiation (PAR, mean irradiance integrated over each experiment day, W m⁻²), available only for experiment day 7 onwards, compared to ambient seawater and mean (±standard deviation) mesocosm H₂O₂ concentration.

The initial nitrate concentration present in ambient seawater was depleted rapidly after filling of the mesocosms (Figure 1C). Nitrate + nitrite fell to <0.1 μM in all mesocosms by day −1. Nitrate concentration then remained depleted until the macronutrient addition on day 18 (macronutrient addition occurred after sampling on day 18). Correspondingly, a small peak in chlorophyll a was observed in all mesocosms on day −1 (Figure 1B). Chlorophyll a then declined to low concentrations until a larger peak following the macronutrient addition on day 18. Maximum chlorophyll a was then observed in most mesocosms on days 21–22.

A notable exception to the general trend in mesocosm H₂O₂ under post-bloom conditions was mesocosm 7 (700 μatm pCO₂). On days 25–27, H₂O₂ concentrations in the majority of mesocosms dropped below those measured in ambient seawater, but H₂O₂ in mesocosm 7 always remained >100 nM (Figure 1A). Mesocosm 7 was also anomalous with respect to the bloom development. In mesocosm 7 only it appeared that grazing may have impeded bloom development after nutrient addition (this was consistent with higher meso-zooplankton abundances in mesocosm 7, data not shown), as evidenced by a noticeably slower decline in nitrate concentration (Figure 1C) and a late peak in chlorophyll a (Figure 1B).

Bacterial abundance was similar in all mesocosms until after nutrient addition (Figure 1D). Unlike chlorophyll a however, an increase in bacterial abundance was evident in all treatments prior to the nutrient addition on day 18. A small dip in bacterial abundance was then evident in most mesocosms between days 19 and 22. Under post-bloom conditions bacterial abundance was lowest in the anomalous treatment (700 μatm) and the 400 μatm pCO₂ mesocosm with notably elevated abundances in all pCO₂ enriched treatments. The observed trend in bacterial abundance can be interpreted as resulting from grazing pressure, and enhanced growth rates post-nutrient addition. Bacterial abundance pre-nutrient addition was inversely related to nanoeukaryotes' abundance due to grazing pressure. The increase in bacterial abundance from day 13 reflected a decline in the abundance of nanoeukaryotes. After nutrient addition (day 18), grazing on bacteria was probably considerable, but bacterial growth was enhanced sufficiently to overcome grazing pressure (except in the anomalous treatment). An in depth discussion of phytoplankton community structure over the experiment duration will be presented in a companion text.

The trend in CDOM over the experiment duration was similar across all pCO₂ treatments. The generally higher S_R at the start of the experiment (Figure 1E) corresponds to lower mean molecular weight and suggests an overall increase in CDOM molecular weight over the experiment duration. Photochemical bleaching would be expected to have had the opposite effect; to have produced low molecular weight CDOM from high molecular weight CDOM (i.e., to have increased S_R). Thus, the overall trend suggests that bacterial production of high molecular weight CDOM exceeded the rate of photochemical bleaching. Only between experiment days 7 and 13 was a sustained increase in S_R evident across most mesocosms and this corresponded to a temporary decline in bacterial abundance (Figure 1D).

Photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) data was available from day 7 until the end of the mesocosm experiment (Figure 1F) from a recording site close to the mesocosm jetty (<200 m displacement). Integrated daily PAR was subject to notable variations over the duration of the experiment ranging from a mean irradiance of 44 (day 25) to 102 (day 22) W m⁻².

Diurnal Cycling of H₂O₂

The diurnal cycling of H₂O₂ was followed both in ambient seawater (Figure 2) and inside mesocosm numbers 6 (1,450 μatm pCO₂, Figure 3A) and 5 (400 μatm pCO₂, Figure 3B) on days 22 and 23, respectively. Gaps in the data series corresponded to periods when standard additions were analyzed, the FIA instrument was cleaned, or malfunctions occurred such as air bubbles which occasionally resulted in missed data collection points. Generally, a clear increase in H₂O₂ associated with daylight was evident in all three diurnal datasets (Figures 2, 3). Yet H₂O₂ concentrations were much higher throughout the diurnal cycle within the mesocosms compared to ambient waters. In all three diurnal cycles, peak H₂O₂ concentration occurred mid-late afternoon (times refer to UTC). In the two mesocosms where diurnal H₂O₂ concentration was followed, the range between peak and minimum H₂O₂ was similar (180–300 nM, mesocosm 5, day 23; 160–300 nM, mesocosm 6, day 22), despite the pronounced difference in pCO₂ (400 μatm [5] compared 1,450 μatm [6]) and the 2 h offset between the timing of peak daytime H₂O₂ concentration (Figure 3). In ambient seawater, the amplitude of diurnal variation in H₂O₂ (~20–30 nM, Figure 2) was very similar to that reported previously in the central Atlantic Ocean (25 nM, Yuan and Shiller, 2001).

FIGURE 2

Figure 2. H₂O₂ concentrations (nM) in ambient waters adjacent to the mesocosm sampling jetty over a complete diurnal cycle at ~2 min resolution (blue circles), superimposed on H₂O₂ concentrations for different days (as per Figure 3) from within the 1,450 μatm pCO₂ (dark gray) and 400 μatm pCO₂ (light gray) mesocosms Ambient H₂O₂ concentration data collected 5–6 March 2016. All times are UTC, sunrise/sunset (illustrated) refers to Las Palmas: sunrise (5 March) 7:21, sunset (5 March) 19:04, sunrise (6 March) 07:20. The sample line was positioned at ~10 cm depth. There was no large change in surface salinity over the experiment duration (range 0.2 practical salinity units).

FIGURE 3

Figure 3. (A) H₂O₂ measured in mesocosm 6 (1450 μatm pCO₂) surface water over a diurnal cycle (experiment day 22, 27 March 2016, sunrise 06:56, and sunset 19:17). (B) H₂O₂ measured in mesocosm 5 (400 μatm pCO₂) surface water over a diurnal cycle (experiment day 23, 28 March 2016, sunrise 06:55, and sunset 19:17). In both cases the sample line was positioned at ~10 cm depth. Times are UTC, sunrise/sunset refers to Las Palmas, Gran Canaria. PAR (red lines) recorded at an ELDONET site <200 m from the mesocosm jetty.

Two curious features were notable in both mesocosm diurnal cycles (Figure 3). These features could only be observed by virtue of the very high data resolution and, to some extent, also the relatively high H₂O₂ concentrations within the mesocosms compared to ambient waters. First, peak H₂O₂ concentrations occurred >1 h after peak irradiance. PAR data from ELDONET was not available for the seawater diurnal study date (Figure 2), but noting the timing of peak H₂O₂, there was likely approximately a 1 h offset between peak irradiance and peak H₂O₂ here also. Second, the net decline in H₂O₂ concentration which occurred in the dark continued until sometime after sunrise in both mesocosm studies (Figure 3). An increase in H₂O₂ was not apparent until after PAR increased above ~100 W m⁻². This was not apparent in the ambient seawater study (Figure 2) where a relatively stable concentration of 18.1 ± 1.3 nM was maintained from 21:11 to 07:20 (sunrise) with a sustained rise in H₂O₂ thereafter. This time offset could simply therefore have related to the incident solar angle as the mesocosm walls may have reduced the rate of light induced H₂O₂ formation at low incident solar angles.

Minor H₂O₂ Additions From Rainwater

The open design of the mesocosms created the potential for significant atmospheric deposition of H₂O₂. Rain water H₂O₂ concentrations were quantified for the two rainfall events during the mesocosm experiment with sufficient amounts of deposition (>1 mm) to facilitate sampling (Table 1) and were similar to values reported elsewhere over the Atlantic (Zika et al., 1982; Kieber et al., 2001). H₂O₂ concentrations in rainwater are thought to be sufficiently high to offset the expected beneficial effect of rainwater derived nutrient and micro-nutrient addition on primary production when rainwater is mixed with seawater (Willey et al., 2004) unless the dilution factor is high. The calculated H₂O₂ addition to mesocosms resulting from rainfall in Gran Canaria was however modest relative to the mesocosm H₂O₂ concentrations due to the low ratio of rain:mesocosm volume (Table 1).

TABLE 1

Table 1. Contribution of rainwater events to H₂O₂ concentrations in the mesocosms.

Discussion

Diurnal Cycling of H₂O₂

Photochemical processes are thought to be the dominant influence on ambient H₂O₂ concentrations in the surface ocean (O'Sullivan et al., 2005; Steigenberger and Croot, 2008), with large scale spatial variations typically explained in terms of latitudinal changes in light and ocean temperature (Yocis et al., 2000; Yuan and Shiller, 2001). In the high-resolution temporal experiments a clear diurnal cycle in H₂O₂ concentration was evident, both inside and outside the mesocosm bags (Figures 2, 3). The amplitude of H₂O₂ concentration over a diurnal cycle was however much greater inside the mesocosms (100 nM compared to 20–30 nM in ambient seawater). H₂O₂ concentrations over the 28 day duration of the mesocosm experiment (Figure 1A) were always measured at 14:00–15:00 (UTC) daily to ensure that the month long data series was not affected unduly by diurnal variation.

During overnight monitoring of ambient H₂O₂ it appeared that an equilibrium concentration of 18 nM was maintained in the dark (Figure 2). This was indicative of a dark production mechanism, such as that highlighted in prior work (Palenik and Morel, 1988; Moffett and Zafiriou, 1990), sufficient to offset H₂O₂ decay. Whilst photochemical processes are no doubt a major source of H₂O₂, inter-day changes in integrated PAR were only significantly correlated with the H₂O₂ trend in ambient seawater (Spearman rank correlation 0.73, p value 0.002, n = 14) and in the 400 μatm mesocosm (Table 2). In all other mesocosms there was no apparent correlation between integrated daily PAR and H₂O₂ concentration from days 7–29.

TABLE 2

Table 2. Spearman rank correlation coefficients and p values for H₂O₂ concentration time series in each mesocosm compared to: baseline H₂O₂ concentration in ambient seawater (nM), chlorophyll a (μg L⁻¹), total bacteria (cells mL⁻¹), colored dissolved organic matter slope ratio (S_R), and daily integrated mean photosynthetically active radiation (PAR, W m⁻²).

The two high-resolution diurnal cycles within mesocosms (Figure 3) revealed some interesting features that would not be apparent at lower H₂O₂ concentrations (due to the increased signal:noise ratio) or reduced sampling resolution. An offset between irradiance and H₂O₂ concentration was reflected in the later delayed peak in H₂O₂ compared to maximum irradiance. Partial shading of the mesocosms in the early morning and late afternoon could create a local PAR exposure that was reduced compared to that reported by a mounted sensor. However, as the displacement of the sensor was <200 m from the mesocosms, this could not explain the offset between peak H₂O₂ and peak irradiance in the mid-afternoon. Instead, we suggest that net biological production of H₂O₂ is slightly offset from irradiance. A critical factor, not measured herein, which likely affects the net rate of change in H₂O₂ concentration during daylight hours is the production rate of peroxidase or catalase enzymes. This process is known to be diurnally variable, with oxidative defenses more active during daylight hours (Morris et al., 2016). Whilst it is not clear if this response under natural conditions is triggered by increasing H₂O₂ induced stress or by a circadian rhythm, the rate and efficiency (which may also change with incident light) of enzymatic H₂O₂ removal are likely to be key influences on the shape of the diurnal H₂O₂ trend.

Correlation of H₂O₂ in Mesocosms With Core Parameters

Between days −3 and 9 the range of H₂O₂ within the different mesocosms was small (<45 nM) and the behavior of chlorophyll a and nitrate very similar across all mesocosms (Figures 1A–C). During this early phase, H₂O₂ inside and outside the mesocosms was relatively well correlated across all pCO₂ conditions (positive Spearman Rank Coefficients of 0.79–0.93). Combined with the comparability of the diurnal H₂O₂ cycle in 400 and 1,450 μatm pCO₂ mesocosms (Figure 3), despite the extreme pCO₂ difference, this suggests that the direct effect of the pCO₂ gradient (applied after day 0) on H₂O₂ concentrations was minimal.

In contrast to the early stage of the experiment, H₂O₂ concentrations in the mesocosms diverged after day 9 and there was then no longer a statistically significant relationship between the paired H₂O₂ concentrations in and outside the mesocosm (Spearman Rank Correlation P > 0.05, Table 2) for any pCO₂ treatment. If irradiance was the dominant factor controlling extracellular H₂O₂ concentrations throughout the experiment, we would expect H₂O₂ concentrations to have remained similar across all mesocosms and to remain correlated with H₂O₂ in ambient water outside the mesocosms. Yet this was not the case. Variations in daily integrated PAR, available from day 7 onwards, could explain some of the variation in background seawater H₂O₂, but inter-day changes in PAR were only significantly correlated with H₂O₂ in the 400 μatm mesocosm (Table 2).

Formation of ROS generally increases with dissolved organic carbon concentration in estuarine waters and this is specifically linked to the presence of terrestrially derived humic material (Timko et al., 2014) which has a relatively large component of CDOM. However, CDOM properties are not clearly linked to increasing H₂O₂ concentrations in offshore seawater (O'Sullivan et al., 2005). The general decline in S_R throughout the mesocosms (from day 1 to day 27, Figure 1E) suggested that in situ production of higher molecular weight CDOM was sufficient to offset photo bleaching. However, this was not clearly related to any change in H₂O₂ concentration as no clear correlation was found between S_R and H₂O₂ either over the whole experiment or specifically for days 11+ (Table 2).

Similarly, the overall trend in H₂O₂ concentration could not be related directly to macronutrient depletion. The observed nitrate concentrations were similar across all mesocosms until after the addition of macronutrients on day 18 (Figure 3) and there was no consistent trend in H₂O₂ concentration in the days immediately following this addition. Most mesocosms obtained the highest measured H₂O₂ concentration between days 9–18. Yet mesocosm 6 was notable for obtaining a peak H₂O₂ concentration 3 days after the nutrient addition. A sustained drop in H₂O₂ concentration across all mesocosms (apart from the anomalous mesocosm 7) was only observed between days 23–25.The lowest H₂O₂ concentrations, both within the mesocosm experiment and relative to ambient seawater, were observed in this post-bloom phase when bacterial abundance peaked (Figure 1D) and when daily integrated PAR was persistently low for 3 days (Figure 1F).

A Contribution to H₂O₂ From Mesocosm Design?

H₂O₂ concentrations might be expected to be generally higher inside the mesocosms due to the nature of their design. Sunlight is attenuated with depth, so in a natural surface mixed layer H₂O₂ is formed predominantly at the surface and then physically mixed throughout the surface mixed layer (Johnson et al., 1989; Miller and Kester, 1994), although sub-surface H₂O₂ peaks can occasionally be observed at the chlorophyll a maxima (Yuan and Shiller, 2001; Croot et al., 2005; Steigenberger and Croot, 2008). The confinement of the surface 3 m within the mesocosm bags used here thereby encloses the water with the highest light exposure and, throughout most of this experiment, a high level of biological activity relative to ambient seawater, whilst removing the physical processes that would constantly act to mix H₂O₂ into deeper waters. The enclosure of seawater was thereby a likely factor contributing to the high H₂O₂ concentrations occurring during the middle (days 9–18) of the mesocosm experiment. Yet this alone does not explain the divergence in H₂O₂ levels between the various mesocosms after day 9 (Figure 1A). The timings of the initial mini-bloom after the mesocosms were filled, of the macronutrient addition and the subsequent bloom were (with the exception of mesocosm 7) relatively uniform (Figures 1B,C).

A Link Between Community Structure and Extracellular H₂O₂?

Two possible explanations for why H₂O₂ concentrations were so variable between mesocosms, which are not mutually exclusive, are that either the biological H₂O₂ source(s) or the biological H₂O₂ sink(s) varied because of different microbial communities across the pCO₂ gradient. An anti-correlation between bacterial abundance and extracellular H₂O₂ concentrations is therefore intriguing. Microorganisms are simultaneously both a H₂O₂ source and a H₂O₂ sink. ROS are generated as waste products from aerobic cellular metabolism (Kruk, 1998; Apel and Hirt, 2004), with H₂O₂ produced both directly and from the decay of other ROS (for example, the enzyme superoxide dismutase produces H₂O₂ from ${\text{O}}_2^{-}$; McCord and Fridovich, 1969). Conversely, biological H₂O₂ sinks arise from both synthesis of H₂O₂ destroying enzymes (catalase and peroxidase) and also, under some circumstances, serendipitously with increasing biomass. The quenching of extracellular H₂O₂ with increasing biomass is referred to as “self-shading” and has been described both in monocultures of Prochlorococcus, which lacks catalase-peroxidase genes (Morris et al., 2011) and at the community level (Barros and Colepicolo, 2003). It presumably arises from physical shading and/or non-enzymatic ROS sinks.

The anti-correlation between H₂O₂ concentrations in each mesocosm both with chlorophyll a and with total bacterial abundance over the duration of the experiment (Table 2) was statistically significant in most mesocosms. Overall there was a significant (P < 0.05) anti-correlation between chlorophyll a and H₂O₂ concentrations with negative correlation coefficients (Table 2) in mesocosms 3, 4, 8, and 2 (850–1,300 μatm pCO₂). The anti-correlation was slightly stronger when the initial phase of the experiment (Days −3 to 9, when the range of H₂O₂ concentrations across all mesocosms was relatively narrow) was excluded. A negative relationship between chlorophyll a and H₂O₂ concentrations could arise from an increasing biological H₂O₂ sink simply due to self-shading associated with increasing biomass, yet no correlation with chlorophyll a was found either at low (400, 700 μatm) or at the highest (1,450 μatm) pCO₂ treatments. For bacteria, the correlation followed the same pattern as chlorophyll a with respect to pCO₂, yet the effect was stronger and more significant. From day 11 onwards, the intermediate pCO₂ mesocosms (850–1,300 μatm) all exhibited a strong negative correlation (Spearman Rank Coefficients of −0.83 to −0.94) between bacteria cell counts and H₂O₂ concentration (P values < 0.001). This suggests that under post-bloom conditions, bacteria were an important net-sink for extracellular H₂O₂.

As both cellular H₂O₂ production and defense mechanism activity vary over diurnal cycles and at the species level, it is difficult to separate the source and sink terms within separate mesocosms and over the pCO₂ gradient. Yet in any case, the effects of a pCO₂ gradient on H₂O₂ concentration were apparently indirect, resulting from changes to bacterial abundance and community composition rather than directly arising as a consequence of perturbing the carbonate system alone.

Effects of Elevated H₂O₂ Under Experimental Conditions?

Reported H₂O₂ concentrations in seawater incubated under laboratory conditions are typically 100–300 nM (e.g., Coe et al., 2016), but can be much higher depending on the buffer composition and irradiance exposure (Morris and Zinser, 2013). In a spot-check of baseline H₂O₂ concentrations in incubated seawater (with added nutrients) in our own laboratory, we found 42 ± 50 nM H₂O₂ in freshly made mixtures (made from seawater which was previously stored in the dark for >1 year) and 180 ± 130 nM in the same water after 72 h of incubation subject to a diel light cycle. In all these cases, the H₂O₂ concentrations in seawater incubated under laboratory conditions are thereby at the mid-high end of the range observed in the surface ocean (Price et al., 1998; Yuan and Shiller, 2001; Hopwood et al., 2017).

The unmodified concentrations of H₂O₂ in growth media are sufficiently high to prevent the cultivation of some microorganisms, including strains of Prochlorococcus, under laboratory conditions (Morris et al., 2011). However, uncertainties remain about what the effects of elevated H₂O₂ are at the community level. Whilst H₂O₂ is not widely investigated during mesocosm studies, field evidence suggests that increases in H₂O₂ to concentrations less than the peaks observed here (Figure 1A) can affect a broad range of biogeochemical processes. Additions of 10–100 nM H₂O₂ to water from 100 m in the North Atlantic were found to reduce the extracellular activity of β-glucosidase, alkaline phosphatase, and leucine aminopeptidase by 20–80% with the inhibition effect consistently strongest on β-glucosidase (Baltar et al., 2013). A similar small absolute increase of only 30 nM is reported to suppress rates of ammonia oxidation to below detection in surface (10 m depth) Antarctic seawater (Tolar et al., 2016) where the initial natural concentration of H₂O₂ was low (14 nM). Additional specific effects of increasing extracellular H₂O₂ concentrations in seawater can also be deduced from laboratory experiments. For example, an increase on the order of 100 nM H₂O₂ is sufficient to measurably decrease the half-life of Fe(II), thereby theoretically decreasing dissolved Fe bioavailability (González-Davila et al., 2005), and to double brominating activity in some diatoms (Hughes and Sun, 2016).

A particularly curious phenomenon observed here was the extremely high H₂O₂ concentrations observed during the pre-bloom phase of the experiment (Figure 1A). It is questionable to what extent this phenomenon would occur in a natural environment because small-scale mesocosms inevitably fail to mimic the mixing processes that occur within the natural water column. Nevertheless, the potential for oxidative stress from extracellular ROS to be increased under natural, or incubated, oligotrophic conditions should be investigated concurrently with other stressors to understand the interactive effect(s) on microbial functioning. As outlined above, the sensitivity of some enzymatic processes to increasing extracellular H₂O₂ concentrations and the involvement of H₂O₂ in the biogeochemical cycling of various chemicals including the micronutrient Fe, means that large perturbations to H₂O₂ during mesocosm experiments are undesirable.

Conclusions

During the progression of a 28 day mesocosm experiment in North Atlantic waters an applied pCO₂ gradient (400–1,450 μatm) had no discernable direct effect upon extracellular H₂O₂ concentrations. Whilst a clear diurnal trend in H₂O₂ was observed, both within high/low pCO₂ mesocosms and in ambient waters, inter-day variation in PAR was not correlated with mesocosm H₂O₂ concentrations.

The general elevation of H₂O₂ above ambient North Atlantic concentrations was attributed to the effect of enclosing seawater in an open mesocosm at the ocean surface. Yet during the pre-bloom phase of the experiment, unexpected swings occurred to H₂O₂ concentrations >300 nM. Across the majority of mesocosms, bacteria appeared to be a net-sink for H₂O₂, particularly under post-bloom conditions. Thus, microbial community structure does appear to strongly influence extracellular H₂O₂ concentrations.

Given the multitude of possible direct and indirect, chemical and biological effects of large changes to H₂O₂ concentrations, it is important to consider to what extent ROS are a source of oxidative stress in the natural surface ocean and how well experiments manipulate the natural environment with respect to this stressor.

Author Contributions

All authors contributed to the design of the study. Fieldwork and analytical work was conducted by MH, UR, AL, JA, and NH. MH wrote the initial draft of the manuscript and then all authors contributed to its revision.

Funding

Funding for this mesocosm study was provided by the Kiel Excellence Cluster The Future Ocean and by the German Research Foundation (DFG) through the Leibniz Award 2012 to UR. MH and EA gratefully acknowledge financial aid from the European Commission (OCEAN-CERTAIN, FP7-ENV-2013-6.1-1; no: 603773) and the Collaborative Research Centre 754 (SFB 754) Climate-Biogeochemistry Interactions in the Tropical Ocean funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG). JA was supported by a Helmholtz International Fellow Award, 2015 (Helmholtz Association, Germany). NH was partially supported by the FLUXES project (CTM2015-69392-C3-1-R) funded by the Spanish government (Plan Nacional I+D).

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

The KOSMOS/PLOCAN teams assisting with all aspects of mesocosm organization are thanked for logistical support. Leila Kittu and Syrmalenia Kotronaki are thanked for chlorophyll a and macronutrient data. Labview software for operating the H₂O₂ FIA system was designed by P. Croot, M. Heller, C. Neill, and W. King. Statistics were performed in SigmaPlot.

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2018.00105/full#supplementary-material

Supplementary Figure 1. Mesocosm timeline labeled with experiment days (used throughout the text). Day −4, when the mesocosms were filled, was 1 March 2016. A pH gradient was imposed on day 0 by the addition of CO₂ saturated, filtered seawater. Further pCO₂ additions were then made as necessary to compensate for out-gassing. The volume of each mesocosm was determined on day 18 by measuring the change in salinity resulting from a freshwater addition. A single macronutrient spike was then added after sampling on day 18.

Supplementary Datasheet 1. Mesocosm time series data for core parameters used: chlorophyll a, nitrate + nitrite, hydrogen peroxide, bacterial abundance and CDOM SR.

References

Apel, K., and Hirt, H. (2004). Reactive oxygen species: metabolism, oxidative stress, and signal transduction. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 55, 373–399. doi: 10.1146/annurev.arplant.55.031903.141701

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Baltar, F., Reinthaler, T., Herndl, G. J., and Pinhassi, J. (2013). Major effect of hydrogen peroxide on bacterioplankton metabolism in the Northeast Atlantic. PLoS ONE 8:e61051. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0061051

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Barros, M. P., and Colepicolo, P. (2003). Self-shading protects phytoplankton communities against H₂O₂-induced oxidative damage. Aquat. Microb. Ecol. 30, 275–282. doi: 10.3354/ame030275

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bogosian, G., Aardema, N. D., Bourneuf, E. V., Morris, P. J. L., and O'Neil, J. P. (2000). Recovery of hydrogen peroxide-sensitive culturable cells of Vibrio vulnificus gives the appearance of resuscitation from a viable but nonculturable state. J. Bacteriol. 182, 5070–5075. doi: 10.1128/JB.182.18.5070-5075.2000

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Coe, A., Ghizzoni, J., LeGault, K., Biller, S., Roggensack, S. E., and Chisholm, S. W. (2016). Survival of Prochlorococcus in extended darkness. Limnol. Oceanogr. 61, 1375–1388. doi: 10.1002/lno.10302

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Croot, P. L., Laan, P., Nishioka, J., Strass, V., Cisewski, B., Boye, M., et al. (2005). Spatial and temporal distribution of Fe(II) and H₂O₂ during EisenEx, an open ocean mescoscale iron enrichment. Mar. Chem. 95, 65–88. doi: 10.1016/j.marchem.2004.06.041

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Croot, P. L., Streu, P., Peeken, I., Lochte, K., and Baker, A. R. (2004). Influence of the ITCZ on H2O2 in near surface waters in the equatorial Atlantic Ocean. Geophys. Res. Lett. 31:L23S04. doi: 10.1029/2004GL020154

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Czerny, J., Schulz, K. G., Krug, S. A., Ludwig, A., and Riebesell, U. (2013). Technical note: the determination of enclosed water volume in large flexible-wall mesocosms KOSMOS. Biogeosciences 10, 1937–1941. doi: 10.5194/bg-10-1937-2013

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Fujiwara, K., Ushiroda, T., Takeda, K., Kumamoto, Y., and Tsubota, H. (1993). Diurnal and seasonal distribution of hydrogen-peroxide in seawater of the seto inland sea. Geochem. J. 27, 103–115. doi: 10.2343/geochemj.27.103

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Gasol, J. M., and del Giorgio, P. A. (2000). Using flow cytomery for counting natural planktonic bacteria and understanding the structure of planktonic bacterial communities. Sci. Mar. 64, 197–224. doi: 10.3989/scimar.2000.64n2197

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Gerringa, L. J. A., Rijkenberg, M. J. A., Timmermans, R., and Buma, A. G. J. (2004). The influence of solar ultraviolet radiation on the photochemical production of H₂O₂ in the equatorial Atlantic Ocean. J. Sea Res. 51, 3–10. doi: 10.1016/j.seares.2003.03.002

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

González-Davila, M., Santana-Casiano, J. M., and Millero, F. J. (2005). Oxidation of iron (II) nanomolar with H₂O₂ in seawater. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 69, 83–93. doi: 10.1016/j.gca.2004.05.043

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Häder, D.-P., and Lebert, M. (2006). “Eldonet—European light dosimeter network BT - environmental UV radiation: impact on ecosystems and human health and predictive models,” in Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Study Institute on Environmental UV Radiation: Impact on Ecosystems and Human Health, eds F. Ghetti, G. Checcucci, and J. F. Bornman (Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands), 95–108.

Hansen, H. P., and Koroleff, F. (1999). “Determination of nutrients,” in Methods of Seawater Analysis, eds K. Grasshoff, K. Kremling, and M. Ehrhardt (New York, NY: Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH), 159–228.

Helms, J. R., Stubbins, A., Ritchie, J. D., Minor, E. C., Kieber, D. J., and Mopper, K. (2008). Absorption spectral slopes and slope ratios as indicators of molecular weight, source, and photobleaching of chromophoric dissolved organic matter. Limonol. Oceanogr. 53, 955–969. doi: 10.4319/lo.2008.53.3.0955

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hopwood, M. J., Rapp, I., Schlosser, C., and Achterberg, E. P. (2017). Hydrogen peroxide in deep waters from the Mediterranean Sea, South Atlantic and South Pacific Oceans. Sci. Rep. 7:43436. doi: 10.1038/srep43436

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hughes, C., and Sun, S. (2016). Light and brominating activity in two species of marine diatom. Mar. Chem. 181, 1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.marchem.2016.02.003

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Imlay, J. A. (2008). Cellular defenses against superoxide and hydrogen peroxide. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 77, 755–776. doi: 10.1146/annurev.biochem.77.061606.161055

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

IPCC Working Group 1 (2014). IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) - The Physical Science Basis. IPCC Working Group.

Johnson, K. S., Willason, S. W., Wiesenburg, D. A., Lohrenz, S. E., and Arnone, R. A. (1989). Hydrogen peroxide in the western Mediterranean Sea: a tracer for vertical advection. Deep Sea Res. Oceanogr. Res. Pap. 36, 241–254. doi: 10.1016/0198-0149(89)90136-2

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kieber, R. J., Peake, B., Willey, J. D., and Jacobs, B. (2001). Iron speciation and hydrogen peroxide concentrations in New Zealand rainwater. Atmos. Environ. 35, 6041–6048. doi: 10.1016/S1352-2310(01)00199-6

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kruk, I. (1998). Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry of Oxygen Species, 1st Edn. Berlin; Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.

Lesser, M. P. (2006). Oxidative stress in marine environments: biochemistry and physiological ecology. Annu. Rev. Physiol. 68, 253–278. doi: 10.1146/annurev.physiol.68.040104.110001

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

McCord, J. M., and Fridovich, I. (1969). Superoxide dismutase. An enzymic function for erythrocuprein (hemocuprein). J. Biol. Chem. 244, 6049–6055.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

Micinski, E., Ball, L. A., and Zafiriou, O. C. (1993). Photochemical oxygen activation: superoxide radical detection and production rates in the eastern Caribbean. J. Geophys. Res. Ocean. 98, 2299–2306. doi: 10.1029/92JC02766

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Miller, W. L., and Kester, D. R. (1994). Peroxide variations in the Sargasso Sea. Mar. Chem. 48, 17–29. doi: 10.1016/0304-4203(94)90059-0

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Milne, A., Davey, M. S., Worsfold, P. J., Achterberg, E. P., and Taylor, A. R. (2009). Real-time detection of reactive oxygen species generation by marine phytoplankton using flow injection-chemiluminescence. Limnol. Oceanogr. 7, 706–715. doi: 10.4319/lom.2009.7.706

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Moffett, J. W., and Zafiriou, O. C. (1990). An investigation of hydrogen peroxide chemistry in surface waters of Vineyard Sound with ${\text{H}}_2^{18}$O₂ and ¹⁸O₂. Limnol. Oceanogr. 35, 1221–1229. doi: 10.4319/lo.1990.35.6.1221

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Moore, C. A., Farmer, C. T., and Zika, R. G. (1993). Influence of the Orinoco River on hydrogen peroxide distribution and production in the eastern Caribbean. J. Geophys. Res. 98:2289. doi: 10.1029/92JC02767

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Morris, J. J., Johnson, Z. I., Szul, M. J., Keller, M., and Zinser, E. R. (2011). Dependence of the cyanobacterium Prochlorococcus on hydrogen peroxide scavenging microbes for growth at the ocean's surface. PLoS ONE 6:e16805. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0016805

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Morris, J. J., Johnson, Z. I., Wilhelm, S. W., and Zinser, E. R. (2016). Diel regulation of hydrogen peroxide defenses by open ocean microbial communities. J. Plankton Res. 38, 1103–1114. doi: 10.1093/plankt/fbw016

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Morris, J. J., Kirkegaard, R., Szul, M. J., Johnson, Z. I., and Zinser, E. R. (2008). Facilitation of robust growth of Prochlorococcus colonies and dilute liquid cultures by “helper” heterotrophic bacteria. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 74, 4530–4534. doi: 10.1128/AEM.02479-07

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Morris, J., and Zinser, E. R. (2013). Continuous hydrogen peroxide production by organic buffers in phytoplankton culture media. J. Phycol. 49, 1223–1228. doi: 10.1111/jpy.12123

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

O'Sullivan, D. W., Neale, P. J., Coffin, R. B., Boyd, T. J., and Osburn, C. L. (2005). Photochemical production of hydrogen peroxide and methylhydroperoxide in coastal waters. Mar. Chem. 97, 14–33. doi: 10.1016/j.marchem.2005.04.003

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Palenik, B., and Morel, F. M. M. (1988). Dark production of H₂O₂ in the Sargasso Sea. Limnol. Oceanogr. 33, 1606–1611. doi: 10.4319/lo.1988.33.6_part_2.1606

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Palenik, B., Zafiriou, O. C., and Morel, F. M. M. (1987). Hydrogen peroxide production by a marine phytoplankter. Limnol. Oceanogr. 32, 1365–1369. doi: 10.4319/lo.1987.32.6.1365

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Petasne, R. G., and Zika, R. G. (1997). Hydrogen peroxide lifetimes in South Florida coastal and offshore waters. Mar. Chem. 56, 215–225. doi: 10.1016/S0304-4203(96)00072-2

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Price, D., Mantoura, R. F. C., and Worsfold, P. J. (1998). Shipboard determination of hydrogen peroxide in the western Mediterranean sea using flow injection with chemiluminescence detection. Anal. Chim. Acta 377, 145–155. doi: 10.1016/S0003-2670(98)00621-7

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Riebesell, U., Czerny, J., Von Bröckel, K., Boxhammer, T., Büdenbender, J., Deckelnick, M., et al. (2013). Technical note: a mobile sea-going mesocosm system - new opportunities for ocean change research. Biogeosciences 10, 1835–1847. doi: 10.5194/bg-10-1835-2013

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Seaver, L. C., and Imlay, J. A. (2001). Hydrogen peroxide fluxes and compartmentalization inside growing Escherichia coli. J. Bacteriol. 183, 7182–7189. doi: 10.1128/JB.183.24.7182-7189.2001

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Steigenberger, S., and Croot, P. L. (2008). Identifying the processes controlling the distribution of H₂O₂ in surface waters along a meridional transect in the eastern Atlantic. Geophys. Res. Lett. 35:L03616. doi: 10.1029/2007GL032555

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Taucher, J. (2017). Influence of ocean acidification and deep water upwelling on oligotrophic plankton communities in the subtropical North Atlantic: insights from an in situ Mesocosm study. Front. Mar. Sci. 4:85. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2017.00085

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Timko, S. A., Romera-Castillo, C., Jaffé, R., and Cooper, W. J. (2014). Photo-reactivity of natural dissolved organic matter from fresh to marine waters in the Florida Everglades, USA. Environ. Sci. Process. Impacts 16, 866–878. doi: 10.1039/C3EM00591G

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Tolar, B., Powers, L., Miller, W., Wallsgrove, N., Popp, B., and Hollibaugh, J. (2016). Ammonia oxidation in the ocean can be inhibited by nanomolar concentrations of hydrogen peroxide. Front. Mar. Sci. 3:237. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2016.00237

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Van Baalen, C., and Marler, J. E. (1966). Occurrence of hydrogen peroxide in sea water. Nature 211:951. doi: 10.1038/211951a0

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Vermilyea, A. W., Hansard, S. P., and Voelker, B. M. (2010). Dark production of hydrogen peroxide in the Gulf of Alaska. Limnol. Oceanogr. 55, 580–588. doi: 10.4319/lo.2009.55.2.0580

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Welschmeyer, N. A. (1994). Fluorometric analysis of chlorophyll a in the presence of chlorophyll b and pheopigments. Limnol. Oceanogr. 39, 1985–1992. doi: 10.4319/lo.1994.39.8.1985

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Willey, J. D., Kieber, R. J., and Avery, G. B. (2004). Effects of rainwater iron and hydrogen peroxide on iron speciation and phytoplankton growth in seawater near Bermuda. J. Atmos. Chem. 47, 209–222. doi: 10.1023/B:JOCH.0000021087.19846.e1

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Yocis, B. H., Kieber, D. J., and Mopper, K. (2000). Photochemical production of hydrogen peroxide in Antarctic Waters. Deep. Res. I 47, 1077–1099. doi: 10.1016/S0967-0637(99)00095-3

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Yuan, J. C., and Shiller, A. M. (1999). Determination of subnanomolar levels of hydrogen peroxide in seawater by reagent-injection chemiluminescence detection. Anal. Chem. 71, 1975–1980. doi: 10.1021/ac981357c

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Yuan, J., and Shiller, A. (2001). The distribution of hydrogen peroxide in the southern and central Atlantic ocean. Deep Sea Res. II Top. Stud. Oceanogr. 48, 2947–2970. doi: 10.1016/S0967-0645(01)00026-1

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Yuan, J., and Shiller, A. M. (2004). Hydrogen peroxide in deep waters of the North Pacific Ocean. Geophys. Res. Lett. 31:L01310. doi: 10.1029/2003GL018439

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Zika, R., Saltzman, E., Chameides, W. L., and Davis, D. D. (1982). H₂O₂ levels in rainwater collected in south Florida and the Bahama Islands. J. Geophys. Res. 87:5015. doi: 10.1029/JC087iC07p05015

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar