Find research datasets worth reusing

Fig. 4 in Planktonic foraminiferal assemblage in surface sediments from the Thukela Shelf, South Africa

Fig. 4. (A–C) Globorotalia inflata (d'Orbigny, 1839), sample 26; (D, G) Neogloboquadrina incompta, sample 15; (E, H) N. dutertrei (d'Orbigny, 1839), sample 30; (F, I) N. dutertrei, a low trochospiral specimen with more umbilical aperture from sample 30.

Fig. 1 in Planktonic foraminiferal assemblage in surface sediments from the Thukela Shelf, South Africa

Fig. 1. (a) Locality map of the study area; (b) Focused map showing the regional setting of the Thukela Shelf within the KwaZulu-Natal Bight. (After Hunter 2007)

Fig. 3 in Planktonic foraminiferal assemblage in surface sediments from the Thukela Shelf, South Africa

Fig. 3. (A, D) Globorotalia cultrata (d'Orbigny, 1839), sample 25; (B, E) Globorotalia menardii (Parker, Jones & Brady, 1865), sample 30; (C, F) Globorotalia ungulata Bermúdez, 1961, sample 25; (G, H) Globorotalia tumida (Brady, 1877), sample 26; (I) Globorotalia ungulata Bermúdez, 1961, sample 30.

Fig. 9 in Planktonic foraminiferal assemblage in surface sediments from the Thukela Shelf, South Africa

Fig. 9. (A, B) Globigerinoides ruber (d'Orbigny, 1839), sample 22; (C) G. ruber, sample TB34; (D, E) G. ruber (aberrant form), sample 8; (F, G) Sphaeroidinella dehiscens (Parker & Jones, 1865), sample 30; (H) Orbulina universa (d'Orbigny, 1839), sample C.

Fig. 2 in Planktonic foraminiferal assemblage in surface sediments from the Thukela Shelf, South Africa

Fig. 2. Map showing the positions from which samples were collected on the Thukela Shelf. These were taken on the inner, mid and outer shelf, offshore of the Thukela River. Isobaths drawn at 5 m.

Fig. 6 in Planktonic foraminiferal assemblage in surface sediments from the Thukela Shelf, South Africa

Fig. 6. (A–C) Globigerina falconensis Blow, 1959, sample 30; (D–F) Globigerina rubescens Hofker, 1956, sample 25; (G–I) Globigerinella calida (Parker, 1962), sample 4.

Fig. 5 in Planktonic foraminiferal assemblage in surface sediments from the Thukela Shelf, South Africa

Fig. 5. (A, D) Pulleniatina obliquiloculata (Parker & Jones, 1865), sample 26; (B, E) Globigerinita glutinata (Egger, 1893), sample 26; (C, F) Globigerina quinqueloba Natland, 1938, sample 2; (G–I) Globigerina bulloides d'Orbigny, 1826, sample 6.

Fig. 6. The 12 in On Papulifères, putative ciliate cysts of diverse morphologies, with new observations from the plankton of the Chukchi Sea (Arctic Ocean)

Fig. 6. The 12 fusiform (spindle-shaped, and oblong) Fusuposis papuliferid cyst forms found in Chukchi Sea plankton net tow material. The specimens shown in A, B, D, E, I, K, and L are all from the 2022 station 16. Scale bars all represent 50 µm.

Fig. 9 in On Papulifères, putative ciliate cysts of diverse morphologies, with new observations from the plankton of the Chukchi Sea (Arctic Ocean)

Fig. 9. Geographical distribution of the records of the occurrences of Fusopsis in the 155,000 samples collected with the Continuous Plankton Recorder (CPR) across the North Atlantic from 1958 to 1998, adapted from CPR (2004). Note the occurrence records from north of approximately 45°N and into the Arctic waters, in contrast to the absence of records from localities south of about 45°N. The CPR is a plankton sampling device towed by ships of opportunity which provides samples of the plankton of near surface waters captured on a filter gauze of approximately 270 µm mesh. For details see Beaugrand (2004) and CPR (2004). For the history of the device see Dolan (2022).

Fig. 2 in On Papulifères, putative ciliate cysts of diverse morphologies, with new observations from the plankton of the Chukchi Sea (Arctic Ocean)

Fig. 2. The early illustrations of forms, of distinct morphologies, which would later come to be known as Fusopsis, from reports pre-dating Meunier's studies naming them as such. Canu (1893) depicted two forms, A 1, and A 2 (figs. 8 and 9, respectively, in Canu 1893), which he found in plankton net samples from coastal waters of Boulogne-sur-Mer (NW France). Vanhöffen reported finding the form B (Plate 6, fig. 5 in Vanhöffen 1897) in a plankton net samples from a fjord in western Greenland. Wright (1907) illustrated a form (Plate 5, fig. 4 in Wright 1907) that he found in a plankton net sam- ple from the coastal waters on New Brunswick (E. Canada).

Fig. 5 in On Papulifères, putative ciliate cysts of diverse morphologies, with new observations from the plankton of the Chukchi Sea (Arctic Ocean)

Fig. 5. Locations of the sampling sites in the Chukchi Sea where Papulifère forms were found in plankton net tow material gathered during survey cruises in 2015, 2021, and 2022. The sites are numbered I to VII in chronological order of sampling. Details of the sites and sampling are given in Table 2.

Fig. 8 in On Papulifères, putative ciliate cysts of diverse morphologies, with new observations from the plankton of the Chukchi Sea (Arctic Ocean)

Fig. 8. Frequency distributions of the largest dimensions of the two forms found in the greatest abundance. The left panel shows the distribution of 53 specimens of the form shown in Fig. 6E, resembling Meunier's Fusopsis umbracula (Fig. 1B), parsed into size-classes of longest dimension. The right panel shows the distribution of 20 specimens of the form shown in Fig. 7B, resembling Meunier's Sphaeropsis brevisetosa (Fig. 1S), parsed into size-classes of longest dimension. The distributions of the size-classes appears more 'normal' than bi-modal' suggesting that single populations were sampled with wide size-ranges.

Fig. 4 in On Papulifères, putative ciliate cysts of diverse morphologies, with new observations from the plankton of the Chukchi Sea (Arctic Ocean)

Fig. 4. Illustrations of Papulifère forms said to be tintinnid cysts by Reid and John. From Reid and John 1978: A, B, J, K, & L. From Reid and John 1981: C, D, E, F, G, H, & I. Some were given specific designations: B: "cyst type P"; C: "cyst type S"; D: "cyst type T"; E: "cyst type M"; F: "cyst type F"; G: "cyst type Q"; H: "cyst type K; I: "cyst type N"; L: "cyst type O". Some of these specific designa- tions are still in use in the micropaleontology literature (e.g. Mudie et al. 2021a,b)

Fig. 7. The 14 in On Papulifères, putative ciliate cysts of diverse morphologies, with new observations from the plankton of the Chukchi Sea (Arctic Ocean)

Fig. 7. The 14 spherical/ovoid 'Sphaeropsis' papuliferid cyst forms found in Chukchi Sea plankton net tow material. All the specimens shown are from the 2022 sample station 16 (sample VII in Table 2), except the one shown in Fig. F. Scale bars all represent 50 µm.

Fig. 4. A in Good Reasons and Guidance for Mapping Planktonic Protist Distributions

Fig. 4. A variogram for the ciliate Pleuronema sp. (inset) abundance. The best fit to the data (points) provided a pure nugget model; i.e. the distribution is random at the measured scale (40 m), with no observed patchiness.

Fig. 3. A in Good Reasons and Guidance for Mapping Planktonic Protist Distributions

Fig. 3. A time series of Cyrtostrombidium sp. (inset) abundance during ~ 1 year at a fix point in a coastal lagoon. The autocorrelation function indicates positive spikes for weeks 2, 3 and 4 suggesting a persistence of Cyrtostrombidium bloom for ~ 1 month. Horizontal dashed lines indicate the ~ 95% confidence interval for the signifi- cance of each autocorrelation value.

Fig. 2 in Good Reasons and Guidance for Mapping Planktonic Protist Distributions

Fig. 2. Geostatistical analysis of Lohmaniella oviformis (inset in a) abundance (cells ml–1) produces: a) the variogram, b) the kriging map, and c) a map of the coefficient of variation (CV). A spherical model (a, line) is fit to the empirical variogram (a, points); the points account for different number of pairs of abundance averaged on a class distance (lag). Only half of the maximum distance was calculated and represented to avoid the edge effect, where there are fewer sampling points (see text). The model (a, line) is used to predict abundance at unsampled points and to assess characteristics of patches. The model is also used to map patches of L. oviformis abundance (b, grey areas) using the kriging interpolator; a patch is operationally defined as abundance in the upper quartile. On the CV map (c), grey areas (with lower abundance and closer to edges) have the highest coefficient of variation of the estimated distribution.

Fig. 1. A in Good Reasons and Guidance for Mapping Planktonic Protist Distributions

Fig. 1. A schematic description of establishing a variogram, modelling a function, and producing maps by kriging. Samples (e.g. to determine ciliate abundance) are collected at points of a sampling grid (a). Variance estimates of ciliate abundances at points separated by a common distance (lag, h) are calculated using the equation (explanations in the text); this is repeated for each lag (three examples of lags are illustrated in a). Each variance estimate is then plotted against its respective lag to produce an empirical variogram (points in b). Then, a model is fit to the variogram data (lines in b), and the model is used to predict abundance at unsampled points and to characterize patches. The parameters of the variogram models are the nugget, the range, and the sill (see text for their interpretation). Three models are the most common: the Gaussian, spherical and exponential (thick, medium, and thin lines, respectively, in b). Models are used to map ciliate abundance by the kriging procedure, with each model producing different predicted distributions (c, d, e): the spherical and exponential produce "fuzzier" images than the Gaussian.

Fig. 6 in Good Reasons and Guidance for Mapping Planktonic Protist Distributions

Fig. 6. Patches of total phytoplankton biomass (ng C ml–1, left) and total ciliate abundance (cells ml–1, right) in the Irminger Sea, North Atlantic. The spatial coincidence indicates a potential prey-predator relationship.