VIII
Preface
The first hydrobiological data obtained using radioisotopes were published
in 1951-1952. The radioisotope of carbon 14C was applied by E. Steemann
Nielsen and A. Jensen in 1949-1950 during the cruise of the R/V Galatea to estimate phytoplankton primary photosynthetic production (Steemann Nielsen
1952). The radioisotope of phosphorus 32p was discovered as a label for investigation of the nutntlOn III aquatIc invertebrates by Marshall and Orr (1955)
and by Rodina and Troshin (1954). Later, the 14C-isotope was used for the same
purpose by Sorokin and Meshkov (1959). Sorokin (1955a) used this isotope
also to estimate the rate of bacterial chemosynthesis. The radioisotope of sulfur
,5S was applied by Tranov (1956) to measure the intensity of H 2S formation in
sediments via microbial sulfate reduction. The radioisotope of calcium, 45Ca,
was used by Goreau (1963) to estimate the rate of calcification in corals. At
about the same time, the radioisotopes of biogenically important metals, 55Fe
and 6OCo, were applied to investigate the role of aquatic biota in the sedimentation processes of these metals and their accumulation in deep ocean sediments (Sorokin 1971a, 1972c). The radioisotope of hydrogen 'H (tritium) was
introduced to hydrobiological research by the early 1970s to label nucleic acids
and other organic substances to investigate their uptake rate by aquatic animals
and bacteria (Brock 1967,1971). These attempts finally resulted by the early
1980s in the appearance of the radioisotopic thymidine method to estimate
microbial production in aquatic environments (Fuhrman and Azam 1982).
Most of these various radioisotopic methods which were developed to
evaluate the rates of in situ dynamics of carbon, phosphorus, or sulfur
employees simulated in situ bottle techniques, when the subsamples of water
or sediments are enclosed in glass bottles or plastic containers. Their confinement in bottles evidently has an influence on the rates of the processes thus
studied, even during a relatively short-lasting bottle experiment (Venrick et
al. 1977). Therefore the strategic goal in the use of corresponding radioisotopic
methods should be the greatest possible decrease in this "bottle" effect, or at
least the evaluation of its size to take into account in computing final results.
In this book I will try to avoid or abbreviate detailed descriptions of the
physical background of radioactivity and phenomena of scintillation processes.
The reader can find the necessary information in textbooks and special
reviews, such as Sheppard (1962), Brandsome (1970), Kobayashi and Maudsley (1974), Neame and Homewood (1974), Crooks and Johnson (1977), Faires
and Boswell (1981), and Peng (1981).
I also avoid describing all versions of known methods given in the literature, and abbreviate the discussions in the literature on controversies over
these versions. Only short notes will be given on the main existing versions
and their evaluation in comparison with the version here recommended and
described in detail.
Acknowledgments. I thank my daughter, Olga Zakuskina, my son, Konstantin
Sorokin, my stepdaughter Olga Sorokina, Mrs. Irina Melnikova, and Dr. Fabbio
Pronovi for technical assistance during the preparation of the manuscript.
Preface
The first hydrobiological data obtained using radioisotopes were published
in 1951-1952. The radioisotope of carbon 14C was applied by E. Steemann
Nielsen and A. Jensen in 1949-1950 during the cruise of the R/V Galatea to estimate phytoplankton primary photosynthetic production (Steemann Nielsen
1952). The radioisotope of phosphorus 32p was discovered as a label for investigation of the nutntlOn III aquatIc invertebrates by Marshall and Orr (1955)
and by Rodina and Troshin (1954). Later, the 14C-isotope was used for the same
purpose by Sorokin and Meshkov (1959). Sorokin (1955a) used this isotope
also to estimate the rate of bacterial chemosynthesis. The radioisotope of sulfur
,5S was applied by Tranov (1956) to measure the intensity of H 2S formation in
sediments via microbial sulfate reduction. The radioisotope of calcium, 45Ca,
was used by Goreau (1963) to estimate the rate of calcification in corals. At
about the same time, the radioisotopes of biogenically important metals, 55Fe
and 6OCo, were applied to investigate the role of aquatic biota in the sedimentation processes of these metals and their accumulation in deep ocean sediments (Sorokin 1971a, 1972c). The radioisotope of hydrogen 'H (tritium) was
introduced to hydrobiological research by the early 1970s to label nucleic acids
and other organic substances to investigate their uptake rate by aquatic animals
and bacteria (Brock 1967,1971). These attempts finally resulted by the early
1980s in the appearance of the radioisotopic thymidine method to estimate
microbial production in aquatic environments (Fuhrman and Azam 1982).
Most of these various radioisotopic methods which were developed to
evaluate the rates of in situ dynamics of carbon, phosphorus, or sulfur
employees simulated in situ bottle techniques, when the subsamples of water
or sediments are enclosed in glass bottles or plastic containers. Their confinement in bottles evidently has an influence on the rates of the processes thus
studied, even during a relatively short-lasting bottle experiment (Venrick et
al. 1977). Therefore the strategic goal in the use of corresponding radioisotopic
methods should be the greatest possible decrease in this "bottle" effect, or at
least the evaluation of its size to take into account in computing final results.
In this book I will try to avoid or abbreviate detailed descriptions of the
physical background of radioactivity and phenomena of scintillation processes.
The reader can find the necessary information in textbooks and special
reviews, such as Sheppard (1962), Brandsome (1970), Kobayashi and Maudsley (1974), Neame and Homewood (1974), Crooks and Johnson (1977), Faires
and Boswell (1981), and Peng (1981).
I also avoid describing all versions of known methods given in the literature, and abbreviate the discussions in the literature on controversies over
these versions. Only short notes will be given on the main existing versions
and their evaluation in comparison with the version here recommended and
described in detail.
Acknowledgments. I thank my daughter, Olga Zakuskina, my son, Konstantin
Sorokin, my stepdaughter Olga Sorokina, Mrs. Irina Melnikova, and Dr. Fabbio
Pronovi for technical assistance during the preparation of the manuscript.