{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02905982905982906, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0008547008547008547, 'mean_word_length': 6.0119760479041915, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
COMPARISON OF GROWTH AND SINKING RATES OF NON‐COCCOLITH‐ AND COCCOLITH‐FORMING STRAINS OF EMILIANIA HUXLEYI(PRYMNESIOPHYCEAE) GROWN UNDER DIFFERENT IRRADIANCES AND NITROGEN SOURCES 1

We examined the effect of the presence or absence of coccoliths on the growth and sinking rates of an oceanic isolate of the coccolithophore Emiliania huxleyi (Lohmann) Hay et Mohler isolated from the northeastern subarctic Pacific. Coccolith‐forming and non‐coccolith‐forming (i.e. naked, nonmotile) strains were obtained from the same isolate and grown under both saturating and limiting irradiance levels with either nitrate or ammonium as the primary nitrogen source. Sinking rate, growth rate, and cell volume (excluding coccoliths) were measured for each culture. Under saturating irradiance, coccolith‐forming cells grew significantly slower than naked cells, had significantly higher sinking rates, and had larger cell volumes than naked cells. Under limiting irradiance levels, growth rates of the two strains were identical, sinking rates were higher for coccolith‐forming cells in stationary‐phase cultures only, and cell volumes remained greater for coccolith‐forming cells.