Growth and utilization of internal nitrogen reserves by the giant kelp Macrocystis pyrifera in a low-nitrogen environment

Gerard, V. A.

doi:10.1007/bf00397251

Cited by 159 publications

(129 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

120

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This productivity is very low compared to that of many hard bottom macroalgae (e.g. Mann, 1973;DeBoer et al, 1978;Rogers and Salesky, 1981;Gerard, 1982). Caulerpa spp.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Growth and sediment disturbances of Caulerpa spp. (Chlorophyta) in a submarine canyon

Williams¹,

Breda²,

Anderson³

et al. 1985

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Growth rates of 7 species of Caulerpa were measured in sifu at depths of 20 m in Salt River canyon, St. Croix, US Virgin Islands. Mean stolon elongation rate for all species of Caulerpa studied was approximately 1 cm d-l. Dry biomass accumulated in this new growth was less than 10 mg d-', and specific growth rates were less than 10 % d-'; these values are low compared to rates of many benthic macroalgae. Macrofauna (conchs, ghost shrimp, hermit crabs, urchins, rays) were observed disturbing sediment. Plants were uprooted or buried by animals that foraged, burrowed, and made excavations or sediment mounds. Plants experimentally uprooted or burled to simulate effects of animal activities had significantly lower stolon elongation, biomass accumulation, and specific growth rates than control plants. We hypothesize that the productivity of these algae is limited in part by animal-mediated sediment disturbances.

show abstract

“…This productivity is very low compared to that of many hard bottom macroalgae (e.g. Mann, 1973;DeBoer et al, 1978;Rogers and Salesky, 1981;Gerard, 1982). Caulerpa spp.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Growth and sediment disturbances of Caulerpa spp. (Chlorophyta) in a submarine canyon

Williams¹,

Breda²,

Anderson³

et al. 1985

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Dried material was ground and total nitrogen was determined separately for each sample using an elemental analyzer (Elementar Vario EL III). Results for floating and experimental sporophytes showed nitrogen concentrations above 1.5% and 1.3%, respectively, suggesting that M. pyrifera had sufficient nitrogen available while afloat (Gerard 1982).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 93%

Kelp rafts in the Humboldt Current: Interplay of abiotic and biotic factors limit their floating persistence and dispersal potential

usler

Gómez

Hinojosa

et al. 2011

Limnology & Oceanography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During summer 2009, we conducted a field experiment and a field survey at 30uS in the coastal Humboldt Current to determine how floating time affects the physiological performance of kelp rafts. For the field experiment kelp rafts were tethered in coastal waters and the field survey was specifically designed to collect freefloating Macrocystis pyrifera across a latitudinal temperature gradient that reflects natural floating time. Experimental kelps were kept under photosynthetic active radiation (PAR) and PAR + ultraviolet (UV; PAR + UV) using filter foils, and tethered at the sea surface in their natural habitat. Ultraviolet radiation (UVR) did not affect kelp physiology, but caused a decrease in kelp biomass. The field survey confirmed that sea-surface temperature increased with distance from upstream source populations of M. pyrifera. Rafts sampled at increasing distance from sources showed high epibiont cover and reduced blade lengths. Physiological performance declined with increasing size of algal epibionts, which are indicators of floating time. Rafts that were farthest from the southern source populations had lost their sporophylls, suggesting that dispersal potential decreases with increasing floating time. The combined effects of abiotic (UVR and temperature) and biotic factors accelerate degradation of M. pyrifera and, thus, can impede successful dispersal in the Humboldt Current at 30uS. This suggests that floating macroalgae can be important dispersal vectors in areas with moderate environmental stress (i.e., in temperate oceans).

show abstract

“…The biomass of Macrocystis can be limited by wave disturbance (Graham et al 2007;) and nutrients (Jackson 1977;Gerard 1982), particularly during El Niñ o events when resulting thermal stratification can suppress Macrocystis canopies for multiple years (Zimmerman and Kremer 1986;Dayton et al 1999). At least some understory algal species appear to be less susceptible to nutrient limitation during El Niñ o events, possibly due to lower nutrient requirements or resistance to low-nutrient conditions, combined with lower temperatures and higher nutrient concentrations near the bottom (Dayton et al 1999).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Partitioning of primary production among giant kelp (Macrocystis pyrifera), understory macroalgae, and phytoplankton on a temperate reef

Miller¹,

Reed²,

Brzezinski³

2010

Limnology & Oceanography

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We experimentally investigated the response of phytoplankton and understory macroalgae to canopies of giant kelp, Macrocystis pyrifera, by following changes in their biomass and net primary production over 17 months in 600-m 2 plots where giant kelp was continually removed or left intact and allowed to vary naturally. Production by phytoplankton was two times greater and understory algae five times greater where Macrocystis was removed relative to the intact forest. Understory biomass, but not phytoplankton biomass, was suppressed inside the forest, leading to a higher magnitude of effect on net primary production (NPP) by understory relative to phytoplankton. Following a natural decline of the Macrocystis canopy by winter storms, understory macroalgae and phytoplankton increased production in the Macrocystis control plot. This response was delayed for both groups, with phytoplankton production increasing in spring and understory increasing later during summer. The longer delay for understory macroalgae was likely due to restrictions in the timing of macroalgal recruitment and their slower growth rates compared with phytoplankton and with increased competition for light resulting from greater light absorption by the spring phytoplankton bloom. Surprisingly, total ecosystem production that included NPP by Macrocystis, phytoplankton, and understory algae did not differ between the Macrocystis control and removal plots for much of the study. NPP by understory algae, which comprised the bulk of the ecosystem NPP in the Macrocystis removal plot, can compensate to varying degrees for the loss of Macrocystis production following its removal by winter storms.

show abstract

Growth and utilization of internal nitrogen reserves by the giant kelp Macrocystis pyrifera in a low-nitrogen environment

Cited by 159 publications

References 18 publications

Growth and sediment disturbances of Caulerpa spp. (Chlorophyta) in a submarine canyon

Growth and sediment disturbances of Caulerpa spp. (Chlorophyta) in a submarine canyon

Kelp rafts in the Humboldt Current: Interplay of abiotic and biotic factors limit their floating persistence and dispersal potential

Partitioning of primary production among giant kelp (Macrocystis pyrifera), understory macroalgae, and phytoplankton on a temperate reef

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About