Differential interactions between the bloom-forming dinoflagellates Karenia bicuneiformis and Karenia selliformis and heterotrophic dinoflagellates

Article information

Algae. 2024;39(4):255-275

Publication date (electronic) : 2024 December 15

doi : https://doi.org/10.4490/algae.2024.39.11.30

Sang Ah Park ¹

, Jin Hee Ok ²^,

, Se Hee Eom ¹

, Min Ji Kwon ¹

, Ji Hyun You ¹

, Hee Chang Kang ³

, Hae Jin Jeong ¹^,⁴^,

¹School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, College of Natural Sciences, Seoul National University, Seoul 08826, Korea

²Department of Marine Sciences and Convergent Engineering, College of Marine Sciences and Convergence Engineering, Hanyang University ERICA, Ansan 15588, Korea

³Department of Ocean Sciences, College of Natural Sciences, Inha University, Incheon 22212, Korea

⁴Research Institute of Oceanography, Seoul National University, Seoul 08826, Korea

^*Corresponding Author: E-mail: jinheeok@hanyang.ac.kr (J. H. Ok), Tel: +82-31-400-5535, E-mail: hjjeong@snu.ac.kr (H. J. Jeong), Tel: +82-2-880-6746, Fax: +82-2-874-9695

Received 2024 October 10; Accepted 2024 November 30.

Abstract

Many species of the dinoflagellate genus Karenia produce neurotoxins and often cause harmful algal blooms. Heterotrophic dinoflagellates are major grazers of bloom-forming dinoflagellates. Therefore, to understand the population dynamics of Karenia species, it is necessary to investigate the interactions between Karenia species and their potential heterotrophic dinoflagellate predators. We examined the interactions between the bloom-forming dinoflagellates Karenia bicuneiformis and Karenia selliformis and eight common heterotrophic dinoflagellates. Gyrodinium dominans, Gyrodinium moestrupii, Oxyrrhis marina, Oblea rotunda, and Protoperidinium pellucidum fed on K. bicuneiformis, whereas Gyrodiniellum shiwhaense, Pfiesteria piscicida, and Noctiluca scintillans did not. Furthermore, K. bicuneiformis supported the positive growth of G. dominans, G. moestrupii, O. marina, and P. pellucidum, but K. bicuneiformis did not support the growth of O. rotunda. With increasing prey concentration, the growth and ingestion rates of P. pellucidum on K. bicuneiformis increased and then became saturated. Maximum growth and ingestion rates of P. pellucidum on K. bicuneiformis were 0.19 d⁻¹ and 0.86 ng C predator⁻¹ d⁻¹ (1.26 cells predator⁻¹ d⁻¹), respectively. However, all eight heterotrophic dinoflagellates tested were lysed by K. selliformis. At a K. selliformis concentration of 100 cells mL⁻¹ within 48 h, the survival of G. dominans and G. moestrupii was only 0 and 13%, respectively. Therefore, K. bicuneiformis can be prey for the heterotrophic dinoflagellates, whereas K. selliformis kills them. These differential interactions may have resulted in different ecological niches for these two Karenia species.

Keywords: allelopathy; harmful algal bloom; Kareniaceae; lysis; marine ecosystem; protist; red tide

INTRODUCTION

Dinoflagellates are major components of marine ecosystems and play diverse roles in marine food webs (Brand et al. 2012, Chang and Gall 2013, Jeong et al. 2013, Kang et al. 2023a, 2023b, Ok et al. 2023b, You et al. 2023). They often cause blooms (Holmes et al. 1967, Anderson et al. 2002, Jeong et al. 2013, Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO 2024). Some dinoflagellates produce noxious and / or toxic stances and cause harmful algal blooms (HABs) that can result in ecological disruption, large-scale faunal mortality, human health risks, and economic loss (Turner and Tester 1997, Turner 2006, 2014, Anderson et al. 2012, Shi et al. 2012). Therefore, predicting the outbreak, persistence, and decline of dinoflagellate blooms is a critical concern for scientists, aquafarmers, officials, and the public. The population dynamics of bloom-forming dinoflagellate species are primarily affected by their growth and mortality rates due to predation (Buskey 1997, Jeong et al. 1999b, 2001, 2015, Lee et al. 2017). In general, the grazing impact by protists, including heterotrophic dinoflagellates, is greater than that by metazoans because the abundance of protist grazers is much higher than that of metazoan grazers (Kim et al. 2013, Yoo et al. 2013, Lee et al. 2017, Lim et al. 2017). Therefore, to understand dinoflagellate bloom dynamics, interactions between bloom-forming dinoflagellate species and their potential protist grazers should be determined.

Many species in the genus Karenia produce neurotoxins and cause HABs (Baden 1989, Botes et al. 2003, Haywood et al. 2004, Van Wagoner et al. 2010, Chang 2011, Brand et al. 2012, Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO 2024). Several Karenia species have lethal effects on diverse marine organisms, including fish, invertebrates, and mammals (Heil et al. 2001, Shi et al. 2012, Twiner et al. 2012). Many studies have been conducted on the interactions between Karenia species and metazoans, some of which feed on Karenia mikimotoi, Karenia bicuneiformis, and Karenia brevis (Uye and Takamatsu 1990, Tester et al. 2000, Cohen et al. 2007, Ok et al. 2024). They can also affect the survival, growth, movement, and egg production of metazooplankton such as copepods, rotifers, and crustacean nauplii (Prince et al. 2006, Cohen et al. 2007, Kubanek et al. 2007, Chang and Gall 2013, Dang et al. 2015, Ok et al. 2024). There have been few studies on the interactions between Karenia species and heterotrophic protists, including three species of the heterotrophic dinoflagellate genus Gyrodinium, which can feed on K. brevis; the heterotrophic dinoflagellate Noctiluca scintillans; and the tintinnid ciliate Favella ehrenbergii, both of which have been observed to feed on K. mikimotoi (Nakamura et al. 1995, Nakamura 1998, Yoo et al. 2013). Ten Karenia species have been previously described so far (Guiry and Guiry 2024). Therefore, the interactions between other Karenia species and heterotrophic dinoflagellates should be explored.

K. bicuneiformis is known to produce brevetoxins and cause visible dense blooms in Japan and South Africa (Botes et al. 2003, Haywood et al. 2004, Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO 2024). However, there have been no records of the impact of K. bicuneiformis on humans or animals (Botes et al. 2003). Karenia selliformis causes HABs along the coasts of Chile, Japan, Kuwait, New Zealand, Russia, Tunisia, and the United States (MacKenzie et al. 1996, Heil et al. 2001, Uribe and Ruiz 2001, Naila et al. 2012, Orlova et al. 2022, Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO 2024, Ohnishi et al. 2024). This species is known to be one of the toxic dinoflagellates that produce gymnodimines (GYMs), brevetoxins, or brevenal, resulting in massive mortalities in fish and shellfish (Miles et al. 2000, Haywood et al. 2004, Mardones et al. 2020, Iwataki et al. 2022). Recently, Ok et al. (2024) reported that the copepod Acartia hongi fed on K. bicuneiformis and survived exposure to K. bicuneiformis. However, K. selliformis is known for its lethal effects on copepods (Ohnishi et al. 2024, Ok et al. 2024). This suggests that, although both species cause blooms, they exert different effects on copepods. Therefore, it is necessary to examine the interactions between these two Karenia species and potential protist grazers.

Heterotrophic dinoflagellates are known to feed on many bloom-forming species, including toxic species (Jeong et al. 2001, 2003, 2010, Stoecker et al. 2002, Tillmann 2004, Clough and Strom 2005, Turner 2006, Jang et al. 2016, You et al. 2020, Kang et al. 2023a). Jeong et al. (2005) estimated that the grazing impact of populations of the heterotrophic dinoflagellate Stoeckeria algicida on the red-tide raphidophyte Heterosigma akashiwo could remove up to 13% of the prey population per minute. Furthermore, during Margalefidinium polykrikoides blooms, populations of the heterotrophic dinoflagellate Polyrkikos kofoidii were estimated to remove 99% of the M. polykrikoides population in one day (Lim et al. 2017). Therefore, feeding by heterotrophic dinoflagellates on a bloom-forming dinoflagellate could significantly affect the population dynamics and interactions between K. bicuneiformis, K. selliformis, and potential heterotrophic dinoflagellate grazers.

In the present study, the feeding behaviors of eight heterotrophic dinoflagellates, Gyrodiniellum shiwhaense, Pfiesteria piscicida, Gyrodinium dominans, Oxyrrhis marina, Gyrodinium moestrupii, N. scintillans, Protoperidinium pellucidum, and Oblea rotunda, were observed after each heterotrophic dinoflagellate was added to each culture of K. bicuneiformis and K. selliformis. Most of these heterotrophic dinoflagellates are known to be present and often abundant in the coastal waters of many countries (Ok et al. 2023a, GBIF.org 2024, Ocean Biodiversity Information System 2024). The growth and ingestion rates of the five heterotrophic dinoflagellates feeding on K. bicuneiformis were measured. In the preliminary test, the growth rate of P. pellucidum on K. bicuneiformis was highest. Therefore, the growth and ingestion rates of P. pellucidum on K. bicuneiformis were measured as a function of prey concentration. The growth and ingestion rates of G. dominans, G. moestrupii, O. marina, and O. rotunda were measured at a single K. bicuneiformis concentration, where the growth rate of P. pellucidum was saturated. Moreover, the survival of G. dominans and G. moestrupii as a function of K. selliformis cell concentration or equivalent culture filtrates was explored. The results of this study provide a basis for understanding the interactions between common heterotrophic dinoflagellates and each of K. bicuneiformis and K. selliformis as well as the ecological roles of K. bicuneiformis and K. selliformis in marine planktonic food webs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Preparation of experimental organisms

Clonal cultures of K. bicuneiformis CAWD81 and K. selliformis NIES 4541 were obtained from the Cawthron Institute Culture Collection of Microalgae and the National and Microbial Culture Collection at the National Institute for Environmental Studies, respectively. These cultures were maintained in L1 seawater medium without silicate (hereafter, L1) (Guillard and Hargraves 1993) and incubated at 20°C under illumination of 100 μmol m⁻² s⁻¹ using cool white fluorescent light and a 14 : 10 h light and dark cycle. The heterotrophic dinoflagellates G. shiwhaense, G. dominans, O. marina, G. moestrupii, N. scintillans, P. pellucidum, and O. rotunda were isolated from the surface waters off the coast of Geoje, Jeongok, Kunsan, Saemangeum, Dangjin, and Jinhae, Korea, respectively. The culture of P. piscicida was obtained from the National Center for Marine Algae and Microbiota (NCMA) in the United States. Each heterotrophic dinoflagellate species was grown on suitable prey species (Table 1).

Table 1

Conditions for the isolation and maintenance of the experimental organisms and feeding capability

Feeding occurrence by potential predators

Experiments 1 and 2 were conducted to investigate the feeding capabilities of the heterotrophic dinoflagellates G. shiwhaense, P. piscicida, G. dominans, O. marina, G. moestrupii, N. scintillans, P. pellucidum, and O. rotunda in K. bicuneiformis and K. selliformis. The two Karenia species and eight heterotrophic dinoflagellates were individually matched (Table 2).

Table 2

Feeding occurrence by eight heterotrophic dinoflagellate predators on each Karenia species in Experiments 1 and 2

After the cell density of K. bicuneiformis (or K. selliformis) in a culture was determined, a predetermined volume was transferred to wells of a six-well plate (final targeted cell density = 3,000 cells mL⁻¹). In addition, the cell density of the potential predator species culture was determined after prey cells in the culture became undetectable. Subsequently, a predetermined volume was transferred to the wells of a six-well plate. One experimental well (a mixture of K. bicuneiformis or K. selliformis with a potential predator), one prey control well (only K. bicuneiformis or K. selliformis), and one predator control well (only a potential predator) were prepared at 5 mL in a six-well plate. The organisms in the wells of the plates were incubated at 20°C under illumination of 20 μmol m⁻² s⁻¹ using a cool white fluorescent light and a 14 : 10 h light and dark cycle. The plates were observed after 0, 2, 6, 24, and 48 h of incubation. Approximately a total of more than 30 potential predator cells were observed under a dissecting microscope at a magnification of 10–63× to determine the ability of the predator to feed on K. bicuneiformis (or K. selliformis). Photographs of the heterotrophic dinoflagellates and Karenia species were captured at 630–1,000× magnification using a digital camera (Zeiss Axiocam 506 and Zeiss Axiocam 820 color; Carl Zeiss Ltd., Göttingen, Germany) attached to an inverted microscope (Zeiss Axiovert 200M and Zeiss Axio Observer 7; Carl Zeiss Ltd; NFEC-2024-12-301531).

Growth and ingestion rates of Protoperidinium pellucidum as a function of Karenia bicuneiformis concentration

In Experiment 1, P. pellucidum fed well on K. bicuneiformis. Therefore, the growth and ingestion rates were measured as a function of K. bicuneiformis concentration (Experiment 3). A culture of K. bicuneiformis (approximately 500 cells mL⁻¹) was transferred to an 800-mL culture flask (Falcon; Corning Inc., New York, USA) with L1. A culture of P. pellucidum was transferred to a 500-mL PC bottle containing Amphidinium carterae as prey and freshly filtered seawater (FSW) and then rotated on a plankton rotating wheel at 0.9 rpm (0.00017 g). When the A. carterae in the P. pellucidum culture became undetectable, a dense culture of P. pellucidum was transferred into a 500-mL PC bottle containing K. bicuneiformis (approximately 16 cells mL⁻¹) and then rotated as described above. A 5-mL aliquot was taken from the predator culture and fixed with Lugol’s solution to 5% every other day. The predator and prey cells in the fixed samples were counted under a light microscope (CX21; Olympus Corporation, Tokyo, Japan). When K. bicuneiformis cells were completely consumed, P. pellucidum were starved for two days to avoid possible residual growth.

Triplicate 42-mL PC experimental bottles containing P. pellucidum and K. bicuneiformis; prey-control bottles containing only K. bicuneiformis; and predator-control bottles containing only P. pellucidum were set up for each predator-prey combination. Predetermined volumes of P. pellucidum or K. bicuneiformis were added to each experimental or control bottle using an autopipette (Table 3). The predator culture was gently filtered using a 0.2-μm disposable syringe filter (DISMIC-25CS type, 25 mm; Advantec, Toyo Roshi Kaisha Ltd., Chiba, Japan) and then added to the prey control bottles in the same volume as the predator culture added to the experimental bottle to create similar conditions in the bottles. The prey culture was also filtered and added to the predator control bottles as described above. All the bottles were filled with FSW and capped. A 5-mL aliquot was pipetted from each bottle and fixed with 5% Lugol’s solution at the start of the experiment. The bottles were refilled with 5 mL of FSW and placed on a plankton-rotating wheel under the conditions described above. The dilution rate of the bottles due to refilling was considered when calculating the growth and ingestion rates. After 72 h of incubation, a 10-mL aliquot was taken from each bottle and fixed with 5% Lugol’s solution. The densities of P. pellucidum and K. bicuneiformis in all fixed samples were determined by counting >200 cells or all cells in triplicate in 1-mL Sedgewick-Rafter chambers (SRCs).

Table 3

Experimental design

The specific growth rate of P. pellucidum, μ (d⁻¹), was calculated as:

(1) μ (d-1)=Ln(Ct/C0)/t

, where C₀ and C_t are the concentrations of P. pellucidum at 0 and 72 h, respectively.

Data for the growth rates of P. pellucidum were fitted to a modified Michaelis-Menten equation:

(2) μ (d-1)=[μmax(x-x′)]/[KGR+(x-x′)]

, where μ_max is the maximum growth rate (d⁻¹), x is the prey concentration (cells mL⁻¹ or ng C mL⁻¹), x′ is the threshold prey concentration (prey concentration where μ = 0), and K_GR is the prey concentration sustaining 1/2 μ_max. Data were iteratively fitted to the model using Delta Graph (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).

Ingestion and clearance rates were calculated using the modified equations of Frost (1972) and Heinbokel (1978). The incubation time for the calculation of the ingestion and clearance rates was the same as that used to calculate the growth rate. Data for ingestion rates (IR, cells predator⁻¹ d⁻¹ or ng C predator⁻¹ d⁻¹) of P. pellucidum were fitted to the Michaelis–Menten equation:

(3) IR=[Imax(x)]/[KIR+(x)]

, where I_max is the maximum ingestion rate (cells predator⁻¹ d⁻¹ or ng C predator⁻¹ d⁻¹), x is the prey concentration (cells mL⁻¹ or ng C mL⁻¹), and K_IR is the prey concentration that sustains 1/2 I_max. The carbon content per cell of K. bicuneiformis was determined as previously described (Ok et al. 2024).

Growth and ingestion rates of four predators at a single concentration of Karenia bicuneiformis

Experiments 4–7 were designed to determine the growth and ingestion rates of G. dominans, G. moestrupii, O. rotunda, and O. marina on K. bicuneiformis at high prey concentrations. The growth and ingestion rates of four heterotrophic dinoflagellate predators on K. bicuneiformis were quantified at the second- and third-highest prey concentrations in Experiment 3, following the methods described in Experiment 3. The growth and ingestion rates of each heterotrophic dinoflagellate on K. bicuneiformis were selected to compare the rates of each predator at a single high K. bicuneiformis concentration.

Effects of Karenia selliformis cell concentration and equivalent culture filtrate on the survival of Gyrodinium dominans and Gyrodinium moestrupii

Experiments 8 and 9 were conducted to investigate the survival of G. dominans and G. moestrupii as a function of the K. selliformis cell concentration and elapsed incubation time. The experiments included one control and five experimental conditions. The control group consisted of G. dominans (or G. moestrupii) incubated in FSW, while the experimental group exposed G. dominans (or G. moestrupii) to five differential concentrations of K. selliformis in triplicate (Table 3). Predetermined volumes of G. dominans (or G. moestrupii) and K. selliformis were added to 50-mL experimental or control flasks (Falcon; Corning Inc.) using an autopipette. The total volume was 40-mL and was filled with FSW. The flasks were incubated at 20°C under illumination of 20 μmol m⁻² s⁻¹ and a 14 : 10 h light and dark cycle. A 5-mL aliquot was taken from each flask and fixed with 5% Lugol’s solution at the beginning of the experiments and after 2, 6, 24, and 48 h of incubation to determine the density of G. dominans (or G. moestrupii) at each incubation time. All or more than 200 cells of G. dominans (or G. moestrupii) in SRCs were enumerated under a light microscope (CX21; Olympus Corporation).

Experiments 10 and 11 were conducted to determine the survival of G. dominans and G. moestrupii as a function of the volume of K. selliformis culture filtrate and elapsed incubation time. The culture of K. selliformis was poured into a syringe with a 0.2-μm disposable syringe filter (DISMIC-25CS type, 25 mm) and gently filtered. All K. selliformis cells were removed, as confirmed from the filtrate using a dissecting microscope. Predetermined volumes of G. dominans (or G. moestrupii) and K. selliformis filtrates were placed in 50-mL culture flasks (Falcon; Corning Inc.) and filled with FSW to the target volume (40 mL). The experiments were set up and proceeded as described in Experiments 8 and 9, except for the use of an equal volume of K. selliformis filtrate.

Survival was calculated as the percentage (%) of surviving cells relative to the total cells of G. dominans (or G. moestrupii) examined after exposure to K. selliformis cells or an equivalent culture filtrate for 2, 6, 24, or 48 h.

To determine the median lethal concentration (LC₅₀), the survival data of G. dominans (or G. moestrupii) were fitted to the following equation from Kim et al. (2016):

(4) Survival (%)=SVmax[1-(αxβ+x)]

If the coefficient of determination for the linear regression was higher, linear regression was applied:

(5) Survival (%)=γx+δ

, where x is the initial K. selliformis cell concentration (cells mL⁻¹), and α, β, γ, and δ are variables related to the elapsed time of incubation. The value of SV_max in the Eq. (4) is 100%. Data were fitted to the model using Delta Graph (IBM Corp.).

Statistical analysis

To determine the differences in the growth and ingestion rates of the five heterotrophic dinoflagellates feeding on K. bicuneiformis, the non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U test with Bonferroni correction were performed (p < 0.05) (Mann and Whitney 1947, Kruskal and Wallis 1952). A two-tailed independent samples t-test was conducted to evaluate the difference between the growth rate of O. rotunda on K. bicuneiformis at a single high mean prey concentration and that at 0 ng C mL⁻¹. To assess significant differences in the effect of K. selliformis cell concentration or equivalent culture filtrate on the survival of G. dominans and G. moestrupii, one-way ANOVA was performed, followed by a post-hoc Tukey’s honest significant difference test when the data met normality according to the Shapiro-Wilk test and homoscedasticity using Levene’s tests (Tukey 1949). If the data were not normally distributed, the Kruskal-Wallis test was used with the post-hoc Mann-Whitney U test with Bonferroni correction (Mann and Whitney 1947, Kruskal and Wallis 1952). If the variances between the treatment groups were not homogeneous, Welch’s one-way ANOVA and the Games-Howell post-hoc test were performed (Welch 1947, Games and Howell 1976). All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 25.0 (IBM-SPSS Corp.).

RESULTS

Feeding occurrence of heterotrophic dinoflagellates on Karenia bicuneiformis and Karenia selli-formis

The heterotrophic dinoflagellates G. dominans, G. moestrupii, O. marina, O. rotunda, and P. pellucidum were capable of feeding on K. bicuneiformis (Table 2). O. rotunda and P. pellucidum towed, enclosed with pallium, and fed on K. bicuneiformis cells (Fig. 1). G. dominans, G. moestrupii, and O. marina swam rapidly around a K. bicuneiformis cell when the prey cell was captured, then engulfed the prey cell. The peduncle feeder G. shiwhaense often attacked K. bicuneiformis cells; however, K. bicuneiformis quickly swam helically and escaped from G. shiwhaense immediately. Cells of the peduncle feeder P. piscicida and the engulfment feeder N. scintillans did not attack K. bicuneiformis.

Fig. 1

Light (A, C, D, F, G, I, J, L, M, O & P) and epifluorenscence microscopy (B, E, H, K, N & Q) of heterotrophic dinoflagellates (blue arrows) feeding on Karenia bicuneiformis (Kbi; pink arrows). (A & B) A Kbi cell. (C) A starved Protoperidinium pellucidum (Ppel) cell. (D & E) Ppel feeding on a Kbi cell by using the pallium. (F) A starved Oblea rotunda (Or) cell. (G & H) Or feeding on a Kbi cell by using the pallium. (I) A starved Gyrodinium dominans (Gd) cell. (J & K) Gd with ingested a Kbi cell. (L) A starved Gyrodinium moestrupii (Gm) cell. (M & N) Gm with ingested Kbi cells. (O) A starved Oxyrrhis marina (Om) cell. (P & Q) Om with ingested a Kbi cell. Scale bars represent: A–Q, 10 μm.

All cells of the eight heterotrophic dinoflagellates lost their mobility after being incubated with K. selliformis at 3,000 cells mL⁻¹ for 1 h. Moreover, all cells of G. dominans, G. moestrupii, O. marina, and G. shiwhaense burst after 24 h of incubation, whereas P. piscicida, O. rotunda, P. pellucidum, and N. scintillans maintained their cell shapes until 24 h of incubation but lysed after 48 h of incubation (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2

Micrographs of heterotrophic dinoflagellates at the beginning (A, C, E, G, I, K, M & O) and 24 h elapsed time after being incubated with 3,000 Karenia selliformis (Ksel) cells mL⁻¹ (B, J, L & N) and 48 h elapsed time after being incubated with 3,000 Ksel cells mL⁻¹ (D, F, H & P). Intact (A) and lysed Gyrodiniellum shiwhaense (B). Intact (C) and lysed Pfiesteria piscicida (D). Intact (E) and lysed Oblea rotunda (F). Intact (G) and lysed Protoperidinium pellucidum (H). Intact (I) and lysed Oxyrrhis marina (J). Intact (K) and lysed Gyrodinium moestrupii (L). Intact (M) and lysed Gyrodinium dominans (N). Intact (O) and lysed Noctiluca scintillans (P). Scale bars represent: A–N, 10 μm; O & P, 100 μm.

Growth and ingestion rates of Protoperidinium pellucidum feeding on Karenia bicuneiformis as a function of prey concentration

The specific growth rate of P. pellucidum feeding on K. bicuneiformis rapidly increased with increasing mean prey concentrations ≤ 95.2 ng C mL⁻¹ (140 cells mL⁻¹), but became saturated at higher concentrations (Fig. 3A). When the data were fitted to Eq. (2), the calculated maximum growth rate (μ_max) of P. pellucidum on K. bicuneiformis was 0.19 d⁻¹.

Fig. 3

Growth (A) and ingestion rates (B) of Protoperidinium pellucidum feeding on Karenia bicuneiformis as a function of mean prey concentration (x, ng C mL⁻¹). Symbols represent treatment means ± 1 standard error (SE). The curves are fitted by the Michaelis-Menten equation (Eq. 2 for growth rate and Eq. 3 for ingestion rate) using all treatments in the experiment. Growth rate (d⁻¹) = 0.19 (x - 8.87)/[64.4 + (x - 8.87)], R² = 0.50. Ingestion rate (ng C predator⁻¹ d⁻¹) = 0.86 [x/(342 + x)], R² = 0.52.

As mean prey concentration increased, the ingestion rate of P. pellucidum feeding on K. bicuneiformis rapidly increased at mean prey concentrations ≤ 399.2 ng C mL⁻¹ (587 cells mL⁻¹), but increased slowly at higher mean prey concentrations (Fig. 3B). When the data were fitted to Eq. (3), the maximum ingestion rate (I_max) of P. pellucidum on K. bicuneiformis was 0.86 ng C predator⁻¹ d⁻¹ (1.26 cells predator⁻¹ d⁻¹).

Growth and ingestion rates of five heterotrophic dinoflagellates on Karenia bicuneiformis at a single prey concentration

At a single high mean prey concentration of 1,139–1,420 ng C mL⁻¹, the growth rates of O. rotunda, G. dominans, O. marina, G. moestrupii, and P. pellucidum on K. bicuneiformis were −0.004, 0.04, 0.06, 0.13, and 0.20 d⁻¹, respectively (Fig. 4A). The growth rates of O. rotunda, G. dominans, G. moestrupii, O. marina, and P. pellucidum on K. bicuneiformis at single high prey concentration were significantly different (Kruskal-Wallis test; H₄ = 10.77, p = 0.03). However, the growth rate of O. rotunda feeding on K. bicuneiformis at a single high mean prey concentration was not significantly different from that without K. bicuneiformis (two-tailed t-test, t₄ = 1.01, p = 0.37).

Fig. 4

Comparisons of specific growth (A) and ingestion rates (B) of five heterotrophic dinoflagellates on Karenia bicuneiformis at a single high prey concentration. Or, Oblea rotunda; Gd, Gyrodinium dominans; Om, Oxyrrhis marina; Gm, Gyrodinium moestrupii; Pp, Protoperidinium pellucidum.

At mean prey concentrations of 1,139–1,420 ng C mL⁻¹, the ingestion rate of O. rotunda feeding on K. bicuneiformis was the lowest (0.26 ng C predator⁻¹ d⁻¹), while the ingestion rates of G. dominans, O. marina, G. moestrupii, and P. pellucidum were 0.64, 0.58, 0.45, and 0.76 ng C predator⁻¹ d⁻¹, respectively (Fig. 4B). The ingestion rates of the five heterotrophic dinoflagellates feeding on K. bicuneiformis were significantly different (Welch’s ANOVA, F_{4, 4.13} = 11.43, p = 0.02).

Effects of cell concentration and equivalent culture filtrate of Karenia selliformis on survival of Gyrodinium dominans

At all initial K. selliformis cell concentrations of 0, 10, 50, 100, 500, and 1,000 cells mL⁻¹, the survival of G. dominans decreased with increasing incubation time (Fig. 5A). At initial K. selliformis concentrations of 0 and 10 cells mL⁻¹, the survival of G. dominans gradually decreased until 48 h of incubation (Fig. 5A). At initial K. selliformis concentrations of ≥50 cells mL⁻¹, the survival of G. dominans rapidly decreased and was almost zero at an elapsed time of 6 h.

Fig. 5

Survival (%) of Gyrodinium dominans as a function of the elapsed incubation time and the cell concentration of Karenia selliformis (Ksel) and its equivalent culture filtrate (f). (A) Survival as a function of elapsed time (h) at varying initial Ksel cell concentrations. (B) Survival as a function of the initial Ksel cell concentration after different incubation times. (C) Survival as a function of elapsed time at varying equivalent Ksel culture filtrate concentrations. (D) Survival as a function of equivalent culture filtrate concentration of Ksel after various incubation times. Symbols represent treatment means ± standard error. Post-hoc results for (B) and (D) are shown in Table 4. The curves in (B) and (D) were fitted using Eqs. (4) and (5), with parameter values provided in Table 5. The survival was observed at a light intensity of 20 μmol m⁻² s⁻¹ and 20°C.

After 2, 6, 24, and 48 h of incubation, the survival of G. dominans rapidly decreased with increasing initial K. selliformis cell concentrations (Fig. 5B). After 2 h incubation, the survival of G. dominans rapidly decreased to 8% at K. selliformis cell concentrations of ≤100 cells mL⁻¹ and decreased to 1% at ≥500 cells mL⁻¹ (Fig. 5B). After 6 and 24 h of incubation, the survival of G. dominans was zero at initial K. selliformis concentrations of 100 cells mL⁻¹, while after 48 h, survival reached zero at 50 cells mL⁻¹. Across all incubation times, the survival of G. dominans was significantly affected by the initial K. selliformis cell concentration (Kruskal-Wallis test, H₅ = 15.95, p = 0.01 for 2 h; Welch’s ANOVA, F_{5, 5.29} = 209.96, p < 0.001 for 6 h; Kruskal-Wallis test, H₅ = 15.94, p = 0.01 for 24 h; H₅ = 15.31, p = 0.01 for 48 h; post-hoc test results) (Table 4). After 2, 6, 24, and 48 h of incubation, the calculated LC₅₀ values for G. dominans were 59, 15, 20, and 20 cells mL⁻¹, respectively (Table 5).

Table 4

Post-hoc test results on the effects of Karenia selliformis cell concentration and equivalent culture filtrate on the survival of Gyrodinium dominans and Gyrodinium moestrupii (Experiments 8–11)

Table 5

Parameters for survival from Eqs. (4) and (5)

At all filtrate concentrations equivalent to initial K. selliformis cell concentrations of 0, 10, 50, 100, 500, and 1,000 cells mL⁻¹, the survival of G. dominans similarly decreased to 14–19% at the final incubation time (Fig. 5C), indicating no effects of K. selliformis filtrate on the survival of G. dominans.

After 2, 6, 24, and 48 h of incubation, the survival of G. dominans gradually decreased with increasing filtrate concentrations equivalent to the initial K. selliformis cell concentration (Fig. 5D). After 2, 6, 24, and 48 h of incubation, the survival of G. dominans was 63–81% at filtrate concentrations equivalent to initial K. selliformis cell concentrations of 1,000 cells mL⁻¹. After 2 and 6 h of incubation, the survival of G. dominans was significantly affected by filtrate concentrations equivalent to the initial K. selliformis cell concentrations (Kruskal-Wallis test, H₅ = 14.28, p = 0.01 for 2 h; H₅ = 12.63, p = 0.03 for 6 h; post-hoc test results) (Table 4). However, after 24 and 48 h of incubation, the survival of G. dominans was not significantly affected by filtrate concentrations equivalent to the initial K. selliformis cell concentrations (Kruskal-Wallis test, H₅ = 7.39, p > 0.05, for 24 h; one-way ANOVA, F_{5, 12} = 0.69, p > 0.05, for 48 h). After 2, 6, 24, and 48 h of incubation, the survival of G. dominans with filtrate concentrations equivalent to initial K. selliformis cell concentrations did not decrease below 50%; thus, the LC₅₀ values were not calculated (Table 5).

Effects of cell concentration and equivalent culture filtrate of Karenia selliformis on survival of Gyrodinium moestrupii

At all initial K. selliformis cell concentrations of 0, 10, 50, 100, 500, and 1,000 cells mL⁻¹, the survival of G. moestrupii decreased with increasing incubation time (Fig. 6A). At initial K. selliformis cell concentrations of 0, 10, and 50 cells mL⁻¹, the survival of G. moestrupii slightly decreased after 2 h of incubation. At an initial K. selliformis cell concentration of 100 cells mL⁻¹, survival rapidly decreased at elapsed times of 2 h. At initial K. selliformis cell concentrations of 500 and 1,000 cells mL⁻¹, the survival of G. moestrupii reached zero after 2 h of incubation.

Fig. 6

Survival (%) of Gyrodinium moestrupii as a function of the elapsed incubation time and the cell concentration of Karenia selliformis (Ksel) and its equivalent culture filtrate (f). (A) Survival as a function of elapsed time (h) at varying initial Ksel cell concentrations. (B) Survival as a function of initial Ksel cell concentration after different incubation times. (C) Survival as a function of elapsed time at varying equivalent Ksel culture filtrate concentrations. (D) Survival as a function of equivalent culture filtrate concentration of Ksel after various incubation times. Symbols represent treatment means ± standard error. Post-hoc results for (B) and (D) are shown in Table 4. The curves in (B) and (D) were fitted using Eqs. (4) and (5), with parameter values provided in Table 5. The survival observed at a light intensity of 20 μmol m⁻² s⁻¹ and 20°C.

After 2, 6, 24, and 48 h of incubation, the survival of G. moestrupii rapidly decreased with increasing initial K. selliformis cell concentrations (Fig. 6B). After 2, 6, 24, and 48 h of incubation, survival was significantly affected by K. selliformis cell concentration (Kruskal-Wallis test, H₅ = 15.49, p = 0.01 for 2 h; H₅ = 16.20, p = 0.01 for 6 h; H₅ = 16.55, p = 0.01 for 24 h; H₅ = 16.33, p = 0.01 for 48 h; post-hoc test results) (Table 4). After 2, 6, 24, and 48 h of incubation, the calculated LC₅₀ values for G. moestrupii with K. selliformis cells were 95, 72, 55, and 60 cells mL⁻¹, respectively (Table 5).

At filtrate concentrations equivalent to initial K. selliformis cell concentrations of 0–100 cells mL⁻¹, the survival of G. moestrupii slightly decreased between 84 and 93% at final incubation time (Fig. 6C). At filtrate concentrations equivalent to the initial K. selliformis cell concentration of 500 cells mL⁻¹, the survival of G. moestrupii decreased to 67% at final incubation time (Fig. 6C). At filtrate concentrations equivalent to initial K. selliformis cell concentrations of 1,000 cells mL⁻¹, survival rapidly decreased to 51% at final incubation time.

After 2, 6, 24, and 48 h of incubation, the survival of G. moestrupii gradually decreased with increasing filtrate concentrations equivalent to the initial K. selliformis cell concentrations (Fig. 6D). After 2, 6, 24, and 48 h of incubation, the survival of G. moestrupii at a filtrate concentration equivalent to initial K. selliformis cell concentration of 1,000 cells mL⁻¹ was 58–73%. After 2, 6, 24, and 48 h of incubation, survival was significantly affected by filtrate concentrations equivalent to the initial K. selliformis cell concentrations (Kruskal-Wallis test, H₅ = 12.52, p = 0.03 for 2 h; H₅ = 15.67, p = 0.01 for 6 h; H₅ = 15.14, p = 0.01 for 24 h; H₅ = 12.73, p = 0.03 for 48 h; post-hoc test results) (Table 4). After 2, 6, 24, and 48 h of incubation, the survival of G. moestrupii with filtrate concentrations equivalent to initial K. selliformis cell concentrations did not decrease below 50%, and thus, the LC₅₀ values were not calculated (Table 5).

DISCUSSION

This study is the first to investigate the interactions between the bloom-forming dinoflagellates K. bicuneiformis and K. selliformis and their potential heterotrophic dinoflagellate grazers. The results of the present study clearly show that the heterotrophic dinoflagellates tested responded differently to cell density and equivalent culture filtrates of K. bicuneiformis and K. selliformis; K. bicuneiformis supported the growth of several heterotrophic dinoflagellates, whereas K. selliformis lysed them. Therefore, K. bicuneiformis acts as a suitable prey for heterotrophic dinoflagellates in marine planktonic food webs, whereas K. selliformis acts as a killer. The results of this study expand our knowledge of the interactions between protozooplankton and Karenia species (Table 6).

Table 6

Feeding, mortality, growth, and reproduction of protozooplankton and metazooplankton when incubated with Karenia species

Ok et al. (2024) demonstrated the differential interaction between K. bicuneiformis and K. selliformis and the calanoid copepod Acartia hongi; A. hongi was killed when exposed to K. selliformis cells but not when exposed to K. bicuneiformis cells. Moreover, there have been reports on the massive mortality of invertebrates and fish during K. selliformis blooms but no report on their mortality during K. bicuneiformis blooms (Arzul et al. 1995, MacKenzie et al. 1996, Clément et al. 2000, Heil et al. 2001, Botes et al. 2003). Thus, the results of the present and previous studies suggest that K. selliformis is capable of killing diverse trophic-leveled organisms, ranging from heterotrophic dinoflagellates to fish, whereas K. bicuneiformis does not exhibit such lethal effects on them.

Engulfment feeders O. marina, G. moestrupii, and G. dominans could feed on K. bicuneiformis, while N. scintillans did not. N. scintillans feeds on prey using mucus that may form at the tip of the tentacle (Kiφrboe and Titelman 1998, You et al. 2022) and feeds on Scrippsiella acuminata, Prorocentrum micans, and K. mikimotoi, which have equivalent spherical diameters of 21.3–22.8 μm, similar to that of K. bicuneiformis (Nakamura 1998, Kiφrboe and Titelman 1998, our unpublished data). The maximum swimming speeds of S. acuminata (348 μm s⁻¹), P. micans (380 μm s⁻¹), and K. mikimotoi (230 μm s⁻¹) are lower than that of K. bicuneiformis (480 μm s⁻¹) (Nakamura 1998, Jeong et al. 1999a, Smayda 2002, Ok et al. 2024). Therefore, N. scintillans may have difficulty catching K. bicuneiformis cells compared to other dinoflagellate prey species. In the present study, the peduncle feeders P. piscicida and G. shiwhaense did not feed on K. bicuneiformis. P. piscicida and G. shiwhaense use a feeding tube to ingest prey materials after capturing a prey cell with a tow filament (Burkholder and Glasgow 1997, Jeong et al. 2011). K. bicuneiformis cells immediately escaped from attacks by G. shiwhaense. Therefore, P. piscicida and G. shiwhaense may have difficulty deploying a tow filament on K. bicuneiformis cells.

At a single high mean prey concentration of K. bicuneiformis, the growth rate of O. rotunda was almost zero, whereas those of G. dominans, G. moestrupii, O. marina, and P. pellucidum were positive. Given their ingestion rates, O. rotunda cells acquired 40% d⁻¹ of their body carbon from K. bicuneiformis, whereas cells of the other four species acquired 158–539% d⁻¹. Therefore, the low ingestion rates of O. rotunda on K. bicuneiformis may be partially responsible for its lack of growth.

The maximum growth rate (μ_max) of P. pellucidum feeding on K. bicuneiformis (0.2 d⁻¹) was lower than that on the diatom Ditylum brightwellii (0.7 d⁻¹) and the phototrophic dinoflagellate P. micans (0.4 d⁻¹) (Buskey 1997). The maximum ingestion rate (I_max) of P. pellucidum feeding on K. bicuneiformis (0.86 ng C predator⁻¹ d⁻¹) was considerably lower than that on D. brightwellii (7.10 ng C predator⁻¹ d⁻¹) and P. micans (9.09 ng C predator⁻¹ d⁻¹) (Buskey 1997). The maximum swimming speed of P. micans (380 μm s⁻¹) was lower than that of K. bicuneiformis (480 μm s⁻¹) (Jeong et al. 1999b, Ok et al. 2024). Thus, the higher swimming speed of K. bicuneiformis compared to D. brightwellii and P. micans may be partially responsible for the considerably lower I_max of P. pellucidum on K. bicuneiformis than on D. brightwellii or P. micans, which in turn leads to the lower μ_max of P. pellucidum when feeding on K. bicuneiformis.

The calculated growth and ingestion rates of G. moestrupii feeding on K. brevis at a concentration of 1,192 ng C mL⁻¹ were 0.79 d⁻¹ and 1.84 ng C predator⁻¹ d⁻¹ (Yoo et al. 2013), which are higher than those observed when feeding on K. bicuneiformis at the same concentration (0.18 d⁻¹ and 0.67 ng C predator⁻¹ d⁻¹). The highest growth rate of G. moestrupii is 1.6 d⁻¹ when feeding on the mixotrophic dinoflagellate Alexandrium minutum, which forms HABs in the global oceans (Yoo et al. 2013, Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO 2024). Therefore, G. moestrupii is expected to have lower population densities during or after red tides of K. bicuneiformis compared to those of A. minutum and K. brevis.

K. bicuneiformis does not affect the survival of the calanoid copepod A. hongi; in contrast, it is ingested by A. hongi (Ok et al. 2024). In 2004, a bloom of K. bicuneiformis (previously K. bidigitata) occurred along the coast of Japan, reaching concentrations of 11,261 ng C mL⁻¹ over 16 days (Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO 2024). At this concentration, the calculated ingestion rates of A. hongi on K. bicuneiformis were 8,062 ng C predator⁻¹ d⁻¹ (Ok et al. 2024), which is 9,374 times higher than that of P. pellucidum on the same prey (0.89 ng C predator⁻¹ d⁻¹). The highest reported field abundances of P. pellucidum, at 10,000 cells L⁻¹, are 588 times higher than that of A. hongi (17 individuals L⁻¹) (Ocean Biodiversity Information System 2024, Zuo et al. 2024). Therefore, when the maximum field abundance and ingestion rate of each grazer of K. bicuneiformis are combined, A. hongi may remove more K. bicuneiformis cells than P. pellucidum. However, A. hongi has been reported to be present in the waters of Korea and Japan, whereas P. pellucidum is found across South America, North America, Europe, East Asia, and Africa (Ocean Biodiversity Information System 2024, Zuo et al. 2024). Therefore, in the waters of countries other than Korea and Japan, P. pellucidum may be an important grazer of K. bicuneiformis.

When exposed to a K. selliformis concentration of 1,000 cells mL⁻¹, the survival rates of G. dominans and G. moestrupii were zero after 2 h of incubation. At the same concentration of K. selliformis, the survival of the copepods Paracalanus parvus, Centropages abdominalis, Acartia tumida, Neocalanus plumchrus, and Eurytemora herdmani was 50% after incubation periods of 3, 6, 12, 108, and 113 h, respectively (Ohnishi et al. 2024). Therefore, during K. selliformis blooms, G. dominans and G. moestrupii may not be found, while the copepod population densities may be reduced.

The filtrate of K. selliformis, which has lethal effects on copepods (Ohnishi et al. 2024), also killed the heterotrophic dinoflagellates G. dominans and G. moestrupii. The dinoflagellate K. selliformis mainly produces GYMs, which cause the rapid death of mice when injected intraperitoneally (Miles et al. 2000, Munday et al. 2004). In addition, K. selliformis isolated from Tunisia secretes extracellular GYMs (Tang et al. 2021). Therefore, the extracellular substances of K. selliformis may have lethal effects on copepods and heterotrophic dinoflagellates such as G. dominans and G. moestrupii. Half-lethality times for the copepod P. parvus, A. tumida, N. plumchrus, and E. herdmani in the filtrate of K. selliformis cultures of 1,000 cells mL⁻¹ were 1.3–3.3 times longer than those in the K. selliformis concentration of 1,000 cells mL⁻¹ (Ohnishi et al. 2024). The survival rates of G. moestrupii and G. dominans in K. selliformis culture filtrates at the elapsed times of 2, 6, 24, and 48 h were generally higher than those in K. selliformis cells. Consequently, both live K. selliformis cells and their extracellular substances have significant lethal effects on the copepods and heterotrophic dinoflagellates; however, the effect of live K. selliformis cells on their survival appears to be more immediate and severe.

The LC₅₀ of G. moestrupii when exposed to K. selliformis cells was 55 and 60 cells mL⁻¹ at 24 and 48 h incubation, respectively. This is higher than the LC₅₀ of G. moestrupii when exposed to Alexandrium pohangense cells for the same exposure times, 11 and 25 cells mL⁻¹, respectively (Kim et al. 2016). Cells of A. pohangense have only been reported in Korea, with the highest recorded field density being 13 cells mL⁻¹ in Yongil Bay, Pohang in 2014 (Lim et al. 2015). K. selliformis has caused red tides in various countries at concentrations of 48–60,000 cells mL⁻¹ (Arzul et al. 1995, MacKenzie et al. 1996, Clément et al. 2000, Heil et al. 2001, Uribe and Ruiz 2001, Naila et al. 2012, Elleuch et al. 2021, Iwataki et al. 2022, Orlova et al. 2022, Boudriga et al. 2023, Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO 2024). Therefore, in natural environments, the population of G. moestrupii is likely to be more affected by K. selliformis than by A. pohangense.

This study extends our knowledge of the interactions between heterotrophic dinoflagellates and bloom-forming dinoflagellates, K. bicuneiformis and K. selliformis. Furthermore, this study clearly shows that K. bicuneiformis and K. selliformis play different roles in marine ecosystems, which may create differential ecological niches between these two Karenia species. Therefore, it is necessary to explore interactions between heterotrophic dinoflagellates and other Karenia species.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research was supported by the National Research Foundation (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Science and ICT (NRF-2021M3I6A1091272; 2021R1A2C1093379; RS-2023-00291696) award to HJJ and NRF and Korea Basic Science Institute (National Research Facilities and Equipment Center) funded by the Ministry of Science and ICT (NRF-2022R1A6A3A01086348; RS-2024-00399598) award to JHO.

Notes

^{CONFLICTS OF INTEREST}

The authors declare that they have no potential conflicts of interest.

References

Anderson D. M., Alpermann T. J., Cembella A. D., Collos Y., Masseret E., Montresor M.. 2012;The globally distributed genus Alexandrium: multifaceted roles in marine ecosystems and impacts on human health. Harmful Algae 14:10–35. doi.org/10.1016/j.hal.2011.10.012.

Anderson D. M., Glibert P. M., Burkholder J. M.. 2002;Harmful algal blooms and eutrophication: nutrient sources, composition, and consequences. Estuaries 25:704–726. doi.org/10.1007/BF02804901.

Arzul G., Turki S., Hamza A., Daniel P., Merceron M.. 1995;Fish kills induced by phycotoxins. Toxicon 33:1119. doi.org/10.1016/0041-0101(95)93830-N.

Baden D. G.. 1989;Brevetoxins: unique polyether dinoflagellate toxins. FASEB J 3:1807–1817. doi.org/10.1096/fasebj.3.7.2565840.

Botes L., Sym S. D., Pitcher G. C.. 2003;Karenia cristata sp. nov. and Karenia bicuneiformis sp. nov. (Gymnodiniales, Dinophyceae): two new Karenia species from the South African coast. Phycologia 42:563–571. doi.org/10.2216/i0031-8884-42-6-563.1.

Boudriga I., Abdennadher M., Khammeri Y., et al. 2023;Karenia selliformis bloom dynamics and growth rate estimation in the Sfax harbour (Tunisia), by using automated flow cytometry equipped with image in flow, during autumn 2019. Harmful Algae 121:102366. doi.org/10.1016/j.hal.2022.102366.

Brand L. E., Campbell L., Bresnan E.. 2012;Karenia: the biology and ecology of a toxic genus. Harmful Algae 14:156–178. doi.org/10.1016/j.hal.2011.10.020.

Burkholder J. M., Glasgow H. B. Jr. 1997;Pfiesteria piscicida and other Pfiesreria-like dinoflagellates: behavior, impacts, and environmental controls. Limnol. Oceanogr 42:1052–1075. doi.org/10.4319/lo.1997.42.5_part_2.1052.

Buskey E. J.. 1997;Behavioral components of feeding selectivity of the heterotrophic dinoflagellate Protoperidinium pellucidum. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser 153:77–89. doi.org/10.3354/meps153077.

Chang F. H.. 2011;Toxic effects of three closely-related dinoflagellates, Karenia concordia, K. brevisulcata and K. mikimotoi (Gymnodiniales, Dinophyceae) on other microalgal species. Harmful Algae 10:181–187. doi.org/10.1016/j.hal.2010.09.004.

Chang F. H., Gall M.. 2013;Pigment compositions and toxic effects of three harmful Karenia species, Karenia concordia, Karenia brevisulcata and Karenia mikimotoi (Gymnodiniales, Dinophyceae), on rotifers and brine shrimps. Harmful Algae 27:113–120. doi.org/10.1016/j.hal.2013.05.005.

Clément A., Seguel M., Arzul G., Guzman L., Alarcon C.. 2000. Widespread outbreak of a haemolytic, ichthyotoxic Gymnodinium sp. in southern Chile. In : Hallegraeff G. M., Blackburn S. I., Bolch C. J., Lewis R. J., eds. Harmful Algal Blooms 2000. IOC of UNESCO. Paris: p. 66–69.

Clough J., Strom S.. 2005;Effects of Heterosigma akashiwo (Raphidophyceae) on protist grazers: laboratory experiments with ciliates and heterotrophic dinoflagellates. Aquat. Microb. Ecol 39:121–134. doi.org/10.3354/ame039121.

Cohen J. H., Tester P. A., Forward R. B. Jr. 2007;Sublethal effects of the toxic dinoflagellate Karenia brevis on marine copepod behavior. J. Plankton Res 29:301–315. doi.org/10.1093/plankt/fbm016.

Dang L.-X., Li Y., Liu F., et al. 2015;Chemical response of the toxic dinoflagellate Karenia mikimotoi against grazing by three species of zooplankton. J. Eukaryot. Microbiol 62:470–480. doi.org/10.1111/jeu.12201.

Elleuch J., Ben Amor F., Barkallah M., et al. 2021;q-PCR-based assay for the toxic dinoflagellate Karenia selliformis monitoring along the Tunisian coasts. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res 28:57486–57498. doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-14597-9.

Frost B. W.. 1972;Effects of size and concentration of food particles on the feeding behavior of the marine planktonic copepod Calanus pacificus. Limnol. Oceanogr 17:805–815.

Games P. A., Howell J. F.. 1976;Pairwise multiple comparison procedures with unequal n’s and/or variances: a Monte Carlo study. J. Educ. Behav. Stat 1:113–125. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986001002113.

GBIF.org. 2024. Global Biodiversity Information Facility Available from: https://www.gbif.org. Accessed Oct 15, 2024.

Guillard R. R. L., Hargraves P. E.. 1993;Stichochrysis immobilis is a diatom, not a chrysophyte. Phycologia 32:234–236.

Guiry M. D., Guiry G. M.. 2024. AlgaeBase World-wide electronic publication, National University of Ireland; Galway: Available from: http://www.algaebase.org. Accessed Oct 29, 2024.

Haywood A. J., Steidinger K. A., Truby E. W., et al. 2004;Comparative morphology and molecular phylogenetic analysis of three new species of the genus Karenia (Dinophyceae) from New Zealand. J. Phycol 40:165–179. doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-3646.2004.02-149.x.

Heil C. A., Glibert P. M., Al-Sarawi M. A., Faraj M., Behbehani M., Husain M.. 2001;First record of a fish-killing Gymnodinium sp. bloom in Kuwait Bay, Arabian Sea: chronology and potential causes. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser 214:15–23. doi.org/10.3354/meps214015.

Heinbokel J. F.. 1978;Studies on the functional role of tintinnids in the Southern California Bight. I. Grazing and growth rates in laboratory cultures. Mar. Biol 47:177–189. dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00395638.

Holmes R. W., Williams P. M., Eppley R. W.. 1967;Red water in La Jolla Bay, 1964–1966. Limnol. Oceanogr 12:503–512. doi.org/10.4319/lo.1967.12.3.0503.

Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO. 2024. Harmful Algae Event Database (HAEDAT) Available from: http://haedat.iode.org. Accessed Oct 15, 2024.

Iwataki M., Lum W. M., Kuwata K., et al. 2022;Morphological variation and phylogeny of Karenia selliformis (Gymnodiniales, Dinophyceae) in an intensive cold-water algal bloom in eastern Hokkaido, Japan. Harmful Algae 114:102204. doi.org/10.1016/j.hal.2022.102204.

Jang S. H., Jeong H. J., Lim A. S., et al. 2016;Feeding by the newly described heterotrophic dinoflagellate Aduncodinium glandula: having the most diverse prey species in the family Pfiesteriaceae. Algae 31:17–31. doi.org/10.4490/algae.2016.31.2.2.

Jeong H. J., Kim J. S., Kim J. H., et al. 2005;Feeding and grazing impact of the newly described heterotrophic dinoflagellate Stoeckeria algicida on the harmful alga Heterosigma akashiwo. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser 295:69–78. doi.org/10.3354/meps295069.

Jeong H. J., Kim S. K., Kim J. S., Kim S. T., Yoo Y. D., Yoon J. Y.. 2001;Growth and grazing rates of the heterotrophic dinoflagellate Polykrikos kofoidii on red-tide and toxic dinoflagellates. J. Eukaryot. Microbiol 48:298–308. doi.org/10.1111/j.1550-7408.2001.tb00318.x.

Jeong H. J., Lee K. H., Yoo Y. D., Kang N. S., Lee K.. 2011;Feeding by the newly described, nematocyst-bearing heterotrophic dinoflagellate Gyrodiniellum shiwhaense. J. Eukaryot. Microbiol 58:511–524. doi.org/10.1111/j.1550-7408.2011.00580.x.

Jeong H. J., Lim A. S., Franks P. J. S., et al. 2015;A hierarchy of conceptual models of red-tide generation: nutrition, behavior, and biological interactions. Harmful Algae 47:97–115. doi.org/10.1016/j.hal.2015.06.004.

Jeong H. J., Park K. H., Kim J. S., et al. 2003;Reduction in the toxicity of the dinoflagellate Gymnodinium catenatum when fed on by the heterotrophic dinoflagellate Polykrikos kofoidii. Aquat. Microb. Ecol 31:307–312. doi.org/10.3354/ame031307.

Jeong H. J., Shim J. H., Kim J. S., Park J. Y., Lee C. W., Lee Y.. 1999a;Feeding by the mixotrophic thecate dinoflagellate Fragilidium cf. mexicanum on red-tide and toxic dinoflagellates. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser 176:263–277. doi.org/10.3354/meps176263.

Jeong H. J., Shim J. H., Lee C. W., Kim J. S., Koh S. M.. 1999b;Growth and grazing rates of the marine planktonic ciliate Strombidinopsis sp. on red-tide and toxic dinoflagellates. J. Eukaryot. Microbiol 46:69–76. doi.org/10.1111/j.1550-7408.1999.tb04586.x.

Jeong H. J., Yoo Y. D., Kim J. S., Seong K. A., Kang N. S., Kim T. H.. 2010;Growth, feeding and ecological roles of the mixotrophic and heterotrophic dinoflagellates in marine planktonic food webs. Ocean Sci. J 45:65–91. doi.org/10.1007/s12601-010-0007-2.

Jeong H. J., Yoo Y. D., Lee K. H., et al. 2013;Red tides in Masan Bay, Korea in 2004–2005: I. Daily variations in the abundance of red-tide organisms and environmental factors. Harmful Algae 30(Suppl 1):S75–S88. doi.org/10.1016/j.hal.2013.10.008.

Kang H. C., Jeong H. J., Lim A. S., et al. 2023a;Feeding by common heterotrophic protists on the mixotrophic dinoflagellate Ansanella granifera (Suessiaceae, Dinophyceae). Algae 38:57–70. doi.org/10.4490/algae.2023.38.2.24.

Kang H. C., Jeong H. J., Ok J. H., et al. 2023b;Food web structure for high carbon retention in marine plankton communities. Sci. Adv 9:eadk0842. doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adk0842.

Kim J. H., Jeong H. J., Lim A. S., Rho J. R., Lee S. B.. 2016;Killing potential protist predators as a survival strategy of the newly described dinoflagellate Alexandrium pohangense. Harmful Algae 55:41–55. doi.org/10.1016/j.hal.2016.01.009.

Kim J. S., Jeong H. J., Yoo Y. D., et al. 2013;Red tides in Masan Bay, Korea, in 2004–2005: III. Daily variations in the abundance of mesozooplankton and their grazing impacts on red-tide organisms. Harmful Algae 30(Suppl 1):S102–S113. doi.org/10.1016/j.hal.2013.10.010.

Kiφrboe T., Titelman J.. 1998;Feeding, prey selection and prey encounter mechanisms in the heterotrophic dinoflagellate Noctiluca scintillans. J. Plankton Res 20:1615–1636. doi.org/10.1093/plankt/20.8.1615.

Kruskal W. H., Wallis W. A.. 1952;Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis. J. Am. Stat. Assoc 47:583–621. doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1952.10483441.

Kubanek J., Snell T. W., Pirkle C.. 2007;Chemical defense of the red tide dinoflagellate Karenia brevis against rotifer grazing. Limnol. Oceanogr 52:1026–1035. doi.org/10.4319/lo.2007.52.3.1026.

Lee M. J., Jeong H. J., Kim J. S., et al. 2017;Ichthyotoxic Cochlodinium polykrikoides red tides offshore in the South Sea, Korea in 2014: III. Metazooplankton and their grazing impacts on red-tide organisms and heterotrophic protists. Algae 32:285–308. doi.org/10.4490/algae.2017.32.11.28.

Lim A. S., Jeong H. J., Kim J. H., Jang S. H., Lee M. J., Lee K.. 2015;Mixotrophy in the newly described dinoflagellate Alexandrium pohangense: a specialist for feeding on the fast-swimming ichthyotoxic dinoflagellate Cochlodinium polykrikoides. Harmful Algae 49:10–18. doi.org/10.1016/j.hal.2015.07.010.

Lim A. S., Jeong H. J., Seong K. A., et al. 2017;Ichthyotoxic Cochlodinium polykrikoides red tides offshore in the South Sea, Korea in 2014: II. Heterotrophic protists and their grazing impacts on red-tide organisms. Algae 32:199–222. doi.org/10.4490/algae.2017.32.8.25.

Lin J.-N., Song J.-J., Yan T., Zhang Q.-C., Zhou M.-J.. 2015;Large-scale dinoflagellate bloom species Prorocentrum donghaiense and Karenia mikimotoi reduce the survival and reproduction of copepod Calanus sinicus. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. U. K 95:1071–1079. doi.org/10.1017/S0025315415000533.

MacKenzie L., Haywood A., Adamson J., et al. 1996. Gymnodimine contamination of shellfish in New Zealand. In : Yasumoto T., Oshima Y., Fukuyo Y., eds. Harmful and Toxic Algal Blooms Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO. Paris: p. 97–100.

Mann H. B., Whitney D. R.. 1947;On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. Ann. Math. Stat 18:50–60. doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177730491.

Mardones J. I., Norambuena L., Paredes J., et al. 2020;Unraveling the Karenia selliformis complex with the description of a non-gymnodimine producing Patagonian phylotype. Harmful Algae 98:101892. doi.org/10.1016/j.hal.2020.101892.

Miles C. O., Wilkins A. L., Stirling D. J., MacKenzie A. L.. 2000;New analogue of gymnodimine from a Gymnodinium species. J. Agric. Food Chem 48:1373–1376. doi.org/10.1021/jf991031k.

Munday R., Towers N. R., Mackenzie L., Beuzenberg V., Holland P. T., Miles C. O.. 2004;Acute toxicity of gymnodimine to mice. Toxicon 44:173–178. doi.org/10.1016/j.toxicon.2004.05.017.

Naila I. B., Hamza A., Gdoura R., Diogène J., De la Iglesia P.. 2012;Prevalence and persistence of gymnodimines in clams from the Gulf of Gabes (Tunisia) studied by mouse bioassay and LC–MS/MS. Harmful Algae 18:56–64. doi.org/10.1016/j.hal.2012.04.004.

Nakamura Y.. 1998;Biomass, feeding and production of Noctiluca scintillans in the Seto Inland Sea, Japan. J. Plankton Res 20:2213–2222. doi.org/10.1093/plankt/20.11.2213.

Nakamura Y., Suzuki S., Hiromi J.. 1996;Development and collapse of a Gymnodinium mikimotoi red tide in the Seto Inland Sea. Aquat. Microb. Ecol 10:131–137. doi.org/10.3354/ame010131.

Nakamura Y., Suzuki S.-Y., Hiromi J.. 1995;Growth and grazing of a naked heterotrophic dinoflagellate, Gyrodinium dominans. Aquat. Microb. Ecol 9:157–164. doi.org/10.3354/ame009157.

Ocean Biodiversity Information System. 2024. Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO Available from: http://www.obis.org. Accessed Oct 13, 2024.

Ohnishi T., Taniuchi Y., Watanabe T., Shikata T., Kasai H.. 2024;Experimental assessment of copepod survival in response to the harmful dinoflagellate Karenia selliformis from the southeastern coast of Hokkaido, Japan. Plankton Benthos Res 19:88–97. doi.org/10.3800/pbr.19.88.

Ok J. H., Jeong H. J., Kang H. C., et al. 2023a;Protists in hypoxic waters of Jinhae Bay and Masan Bay, Korea, based on metabarcoding analyses: emphasizing surviving dinoflagellates. Algae 38:265–281. doi.org/10.4490/algae.2023.38.12.6.

Ok J. H., Jeong H. J., Lee K. H., et al. 2023b;Density-dependent inhibition among four major dinoflagellate species causing red tides in Korean waters. Mar. Biol 170:170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-023-04319-9.

Ok J. H., Jeong H. J., Lim A. S., et al. 2023c;Lack of mixotrophy in three Karenia species and the prey spectrum of Karenia mikimotoi (Gymnodiniales, Dinophyceae). Algae 38:39–55. https://doi.org/10.4490/algae.2023.38.2.28.

Ok J. H., Jeong H. J., You J. H., et al. 2024;Interactions between the calanoid copepod Acartia hongi and the bloom-forming dinoflagellates Karenia bicuneiformis and K. selliformis. Mar. Biol 171:112. doi.org/10.1007/s00227-024-04427-0.

Orlova T. Y., Aleksanin A. I., Lepskaya E. V., et al. 2022;A massive bloom of Karenia species (Dinophyceae) off the Kamchatka coast, Russia, in the fall of 2020. Harmful Algae 120:102337. doi.org/10.1016/j.hal.2022.102337.

Prince E. K., Lettieri L., McCurdy K. J., Kubanek J.. 2006;Fitness consequences for copepods feeding on a red tide dinoflagellate: deciphering the effects of nutritional value, toxicity, and feeding behavior. Oecologia 147:479–488. doi.org/10.1007/s00442-005-0274-2.

Shi F., McNabb P., Rhodes L., et al. 2012;The toxic effects of three dinoflagellate species from the genus Karenia on invertebrate larvae and finfish. N. Z. J. Mar. Freshw. Res 46:149–165. doi.org/10.1080/00288330.2011.616210.

Smayda T. J.. 2002;Turbulence, watermass stratification and harmful algal blooms: an alternative view and frontal zones as “pelagic seed banks”. Harmful Algae 1:95–112. doi.org/10.1016/S1568-9883(02)00010-0.

Stoecker D. K., Parrow M. W., Burkholder J. M., Glasgow H. B. Jr. 2002;Grazing by microzooplankton on Pfiesteria piscicida cultures with different histories of toxicity. Aquat. Microb. Ecol 28:79–85. doi.org/10.3354/ame028079.

Tang Z., Qiu J., Wang G., Ji Y., Hess P., Li A.. 2021;Development of an efficient extraction method for harvesting gymnodimine-A from large-scale cultures of Karenia selliformis. Toxins 13:793. doi.org/10.3390/toxins13110793.

Tester P. A., Turner J. T., Shea D.. 2000;Vectorial transport of toxins from the dinoflagellate Gymnodinium breve through copepods to fish. J. Plankton Res 22:47–62. doi.org/10.1093/plankt/22.1.47.

Tillmann U.. 2004;Interactions between planktonic microalgae and protozoan grazers. J. Eukaryot. Microbiol 51:156–168. doi.org/10.1111/j.1550-7408.2004.tb00540.x.

Tukey J. W.. 1949;Comparing individual means in the analysis of variance. Biometrics 5:99–114. doi.org/10.2307/3001913.

Turner J. T.. 2006. Harmful algae interactions with marine planktonic grazers. In : Granéli E., Turner J. T., eds. Ecology of Harmful Algae Springer-Verlag. Berlin: p. 259–270.

Turner J. T.. 2014;Planktonic marine copepods and harmful algae. Harmful Algae 32:81–93. doi.org/10.1016/j.hal.2013.12.001.

Turner J. T., Tester P. A.. 1997;Toxic marine phytoplankton, zooplankton grazers, and pelagic food webs. Limnol. Oceanogr 42:1203–1213. https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.1997.42.5_part_2.1203.

Twiner M. J., Flewelling L. J., Fire S. E., et al. 2012;Comparative analysis of three brevetoxin-associated bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) mortality events in the Florida panhandle region (USA). PLoS ONE 7:e42974. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0042974.

Uribe J. C., Ruiz M.. 2001;Gymnodinium brown tide in the Magellanic fjords. Southern Chile. Rev. Biol. Mar. Oceanogr 36:155–164.

Uye S.-I., Takamatsu K.. 1990;Feeding interactions between planktonic copepods and red-tide flagellates from Japanese coastal waters. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser 59:97–107. doi.org/10.3354/meps059097.

Van Wagoner R. M., Satake M., Bourdelais A. J., Baden D. G., Wright J. L. C.. 2010;Absolute configuration of brevisamide and brevisin: confirmation of a universal biosynthetic process for Karenia brevis polyethers. J. Nat. Prod 73:1177–1179. doi.org/10.1021/np100159j.

Waggett R. J., Hardison D. R., Tester P. A.. 2012;Toxicity and nutritional inadequacy of Karenia brevis: synergistic mechanisms disrupt top-down grazer control. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser 444:15–30. doi.org/10.3354/meps09401.

Welch B. L.. 1947;The generalization of ‘student’s’ problem when several different population variances are involved. Biometrika 34:28–35. doi.org/10.2307/2332510.

Yoo Y. D., Yoon E. Y., Jeong H. J., et al. 2013;The newly described heterotrophic dinoflagellate Gyrodinium moestrupii, an effective protistan grazer of toxic dinoflagellates. J. Eukaryot. Microbiol 60:13–24. doi.org/10.1111/jeu.12002.

You J. H., Jeong H. J., Kang H. C., Ok J. H., Park S. A., Lim A. S.. 2020;Feeding by common heterotrophic protist predators on seven Prorocentrum species. Algae 35:61–78. doi.org/10.4490/algae.2020.35.2.28.

You J. H., Jeong H. J., Park S. A., et al. 2022;Development of an automatic system for cultivating the bioluminescent heterotrophic dinoflagellate Noctiluca scintillans on a 100-liter scale. Algae 37:149–161. doi.org/10.4490/algae.2022.37.6.8.

You J. H., Ok J. H., Kang H. C., Park S. A., Eom S. H., Jeong H. J.. 2023;Five phototrophic Scrippsiella species lacking mixotrophic ability and the extended prey spectrum of Scrippsiella acuminata (Thoracosphaerales, Dinophyceae). Algae 38:111–126. doi.org/10.4490/algae.2023.38.6.6.

Zuo T., Wang J., Sun J., Li Y., Niu M., Cheng Z.. 2024;Response of the abundance and size of Acartia (Acartiura) hongi (copepods: Calanoida) copepodites to environmental variables in Laizhou Bay, Bohai Sea. Reg. Stud. Mar. Sci 77:103709. doi.org/10.1016/j.rsma.2024.103709.

Article information Continued

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Organisms	Strain name	Type	ESD	Location	Time	T	S	P / M
Predators
Gyrodiniellum shiwhaense	GSGJ1408	HTD	10.5	Geoje, Korea	Aug 2014	26.5	33.4	Ac
Pfiesteria piscicida	CCMP2091	HTD	13.5	Neuse River, USA	Jan 1998	-	-	Ac
Gyrodinium dominans	GDJK1907	HTD	11.6	Jeongok, Korea	Jul 2019	25.2	31.9	Ac
Oxyrrhis marina	OMKS0105	HTD	15.6	Kunsan, Korea	May 2001	16.0	27.7	Ac
Gyrodinium moestrupii	GMSMK0910	HTD	16.0	Saemangeum, Korea	Oct 2009	21.2	31.0	Am
Noctiluca scintillans	NSDJ2010	HTD	467.3	Dangjin, Korea	Oct 2020	19.5	28.8	Ds
Protoperidinium pellucidum	PPJH2208	HTD	14.2	Jinhae, Korea	Aug 2022	28.3	31.5	Ac
Oblea rotunda	ORJH1504	HTD	21.6	Jinhae, Korea	Apr 2015	12.6	31.2	Ac
Prey
Karenia bicuneiformis	CAWD81	ATD	21.0	Fouveaux Strait, New Zealand	-	-	-	L1
Karneia selliformis	NIES 4541	ATD	29.7	Katsurakoi Port, Japan	Sep 2021	16.5	28.2	L1

Organisms	FM	IPC	K. bicuneiformis	K. selliformis
Gyrodiniellum shiwhaense	PD	1,000	N^a	N^b
Pfiesteria piscicida	PD	1,000	N	N^b
Gyrodinium dominans	EG	700	Y	N^b
Gyrodinium moestrupii	EG	300	Y	N^b
Oxyrrhis marina	EG	1,500	Y	N^b
Noctiluca scintillans	EG	30	N	N^b
Oblea rotunda	PA	500	Y	N^b
Protoperidinium pellucidum	PA	700	Y	N^b

Target heterotrophic dinoflagellate	Type	ET (h)	α or γ	β or δ	R²	LC₅₀ (cells mL⁻¹)
Gyrodinium dominans	Ksel cell	2^a	1.13	73.9	0.89	59
		6^a	1.10	18.5	0.90	15
		24^a	1.12	25.3	0.87	20
		48^a	1.12	25.3	0.87	20
Gyrodinium moestrupii	Ksel cell	2^a	1.19	131.0	0.92	95
		6^a	1.16	95.6	0.92	72
		24^a	1.11	67.1	0.97	55
		48^a	1.14	77.1	0.92	60
Gyrodinium dominans	Ksel filtrate	2^a	0.35	56.1	0.66	N.C.
		6^a	0.79	1,210.8	0.75	N.C.
		24^a	0.27	364.3	0.36	N.C.
		48^a	-	-	-
Gyrodinium moestrupii	Ksel filtrate	2^b	−0.003	100.1	0.82	N.C.
		6^b	−0.004	97.5	0.86	N.C.
		24^b	−0.002	95.3	0.81	N.C.
		48^b	−0.004	99.5	0.94	N.C.

Expt No.	Karenia species	Initial cell concentration (cells mL⁻¹)	Potential predator species	Initial cell concentration (cells mL⁻¹)
1	Karenia bicuneiformis	3,000	See Table 2	-
2	Karenia selliformis	3,000	See Table 2	-
3	Karenia bicuneiformis	0, 28, 62, 140, 426, 587, 1,038, 1,122, 2,088	Protoperidinium pellucidum	6, 17, 28, 98, 144, 156, 236, 218 (95)
4	Karenia bicuneiformis	0, 1,767	Gyrodinium dominans	149 (94)
5	Karenia bicuneiformis	0, 1,753	Gyrodinium moestrupii	93 (85)
6	Karenia bicuneiformis	0, 1,825	Oblea rotunda	138 (173)
7	Karenia bicuneiformis	0, 1,676	Oxyrrhis marina	133 (125)
8	Karenia selliformis	0, 10, 50, 100, 500, 1,000	Gyrodinium dominans	700
9	Karenia selliformis	0, 10, 50, 100, 500, 1,000	Gyrodinium moestrupii	300
10	Filtrate of Karenia selliformis	Filtrate from a culture with a cell concentration of 0, 10, 50, 100, 500, 1,000	Gyrodinium dominans	700
11	Filtrate of Karenia selliformis	Filtrate from a culture with a cell concentration of 0, 10, 50, 100, 500, 1,000	Gyrodinium moestrupii	300

Target heterotrophic dinoflagellate	Type	ET (h)	Post-hoc	Ksel cell concentration or equivalent culture-filtrate (cells mL⁻¹)

				Ksel 0	Ksel 10	Ksel 50	Ksel 100	Ksel 500	Ksel 1000
Gyrodinium dominans	Ksel cell	2	MW	a	ab	ab	ab	ab	b
		6	GH	a	a	b	c	c	c
		24	MW	-	-	-	-	-	-
		48	MW	-	-	-	-	-	-
Gyrodinium moestrupii	Ksel cell	2	MW	a	ab	ab	ab	ab	b
		6	MW	a	ab	ab	ab	b	b
		24	MW	a	ab	ab	ab	b	b
		48	MW	a	ab	ab	ab	b	b
Gyrodinium dominans	Ksel filtrate	2	MW	-	-	-	-	-	-
		6	MW	a	ab	ab	ab	ab	b
		24		NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
		48		NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
Gyrodinium moestrupii	Ksel filtrate	2	MW	-	-	-	-	-	-
		6	MW	a	a	ab	ab	ab	b
		24	MW	a	ab	ab	ab	ab	b
		48	MW	-	-	-	-	-	-

Zooplankton		Karenia species	Feeding	Mortality	Growth / Reproduction	Reference
Protozooplankton
Dinoflagellate	Gyrodiniellum shiwhaense	Karenia bicuneiformis	×			This study
		Karenia selliformis	×	○		This study
	Gyrodinium dominans	Karenia bicuneiformis	○		+	This study
		Karenia brevis	○	○		Nakamura et al. (1995)
		Karenia selliformis	×	○		This study
	Gyrodinium moestrupii	Karenia bicuneiformis	○		+	This study
		Karenia brevis	○	○	+	Yoo et al. (2013)
		Karenia selliformis	×	○		This study
	Gyrodinium spirale	Karenia brevis	○	○		Yoo et al. (2013)
	Noctiluca scintillans	Karenia bicuneiformis	×			This study
		Karenia mikimotoi	○	○		Nakamura (1998)
		Karenia selliformis	×	○		This study
	Oblea rotunda	Karenia bicuneiformis	○		−	This study
		Karenia selliformis	×	○		This study
	Oxyrrhis marina	Karenia bicuneiformis	○		+	This study
		Karenia selliformis	×	○		This study
	Pfiesteria piscicida	Karenia bicuneiformis	×			This study
		Karenia selliformis	×	○		This study
	Protoperidinium pellucidum	Karenia bicuneiformis	○		+	This study
		Karenia selliformis	×	○		This study
Ciliate	Favella ehrenbergii	Karenia mikimotoi	○		+^a	Nakamura et al. (1996)
Metazooplankton
Cladoceran Copepod	Moina mongolica	Karenia mikimotoi		×		Dang et al. (2015)
	Acartia hongi	Karenia bicuneiformis	○	×		Ok et al. (2024)
		Karenia selliformis	○^b	○		Ok et al. (2024)
	Acartia omorii	Karenia mikimotoi	×^c		−^c	Uye and Takamatsu (1990)
	Acartia tonsa	Karenia brevis	○	○ or ×^d	−^e	Prince et al. (2006), Cohen et al. (2007), Wagget et al. (2012)
	Acartia tumida	Karenia selliformis		○		Ohnish et al. (2024)
	Calanus sinicus	Karenia mikimotoi		○	−	Lin et al. (2015)
	Centropages abdominalis	Karenia selliformis		○		Ohnish et al. (2024)
	Centropages typicus	Karenia brevis	○	×		Cohen et al. (2007)
	Eurytemora herdmani	Karenia selliformis		○		Ohnish et al. (2024)
	Neocalanus plumchrus	Karenia selliformis		○		Ohnish et al. (2024)
	Paracalanus parvus	Karenia selliformis		○		Ohnish et al. (2024)
	Pseudodiaptomus annandalei	Karenia mikimotoi		○^f		Dang et al. (2015)
	Pseudodiaptomus marinus	Karenia mikimotoi	○^g		+	Uye and Takamatsu (1990)
	Temora turbinata	Karenia brevis	○	○		Tester et al. (2000), Cohen et al. (2007)
Crustacean Nauplius	Artemia salina	Karenia brevisulcata		Immobilized^h		Chang and Gall (2013)
		Karenia concordia		Immobilized^h		Chang and Gall (2013)
		Karenia mikimotoi		○^g		Dang et al. (2015)
Rotifer	Brachionus ibericus	Karenia brevis	×		−	Kubanek et al. (2007)
	Brachionus plicatilis	Karenia brevis	×		−	Kubanek et al. (2007)
	Branchinus sp.	Karenia brevisulcata		○ⁱ		Chang and Gall (2013)
		Karenia concordia		○ⁱ		Chang and Gall (2013)