2000
DOI: 10.1016/s0022-0981(99)00135-5
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Seasonal variations in eelgrass (Zostera marina L.) responses to nutrient enrichment and reduced light availability in experimental ecosystems

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

8
68
0
3

Year Published

2003
2003
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 141 publications
(87 citation statements)
references
References 51 publications
8
68
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…The results showed that even the light-sensitive parameters are more influenced by nutrient availability than by light intensity: nutrient surplus in the sediment increased the size of leaves as has been described in numerous previous studies (Moore and Wetzel, 2000;Crossley et al, 2002;Cronin and Lodge, 2003;Va´ri et al, 2010), although in our case P. perfoliatus Table 2. Leaf number, leaf area (LA -cm 2 ), leaf width (width -cm), leaf length (length -cm), leaf dry weight (DW -mg) and internode length (internode -cm) (average ¡ SD) of P. perfoliatus at the north-eastern (NE), south-eastern (SE), north-western (NW) and south-western (SW) study sites of Lake Balaton (average ¡ SD) and the effect of nutrients (i.e., difference between the western and eastern basins) and light environment (i.e., difference between the northern and southern shores) of these parameters (t-test).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 76%
“…The results showed that even the light-sensitive parameters are more influenced by nutrient availability than by light intensity: nutrient surplus in the sediment increased the size of leaves as has been described in numerous previous studies (Moore and Wetzel, 2000;Crossley et al, 2002;Cronin and Lodge, 2003;Va´ri et al, 2010), although in our case P. perfoliatus Table 2. Leaf number, leaf area (LA -cm 2 ), leaf width (width -cm), leaf length (length -cm), leaf dry weight (DW -mg) and internode length (internode -cm) (average ¡ SD) of P. perfoliatus at the north-eastern (NE), south-eastern (SE), north-western (NW) and south-western (SW) study sites of Lake Balaton (average ¡ SD) and the effect of nutrients (i.e., difference between the western and eastern basins) and light environment (i.e., difference between the northern and southern shores) of these parameters (t-test).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 76%
“…Light reduction caused decreased leaf, rhizome and root elongation rates, followed by diminished production. This phenomenon has been widely recorded in previous studies, independently of the nature of the screen used (Philippart 1995, Short & Burdick 1995, Longstaff & Denninson 1999, Moore & Wetzel 2000, Havens et al 2001, Nelson & Lee 2001, Ruíz & Romero 2001, Peralta et al 2002, Brun et al 2003a. Non-structural carbohydrates were mobilized, both in above-and belowground tissues, to meet carbon demands under light limitation (Alcoverro et al 1999, Ruíz & Romero 2001, Peralta et al 2002, Brun et al 2003a, with the capacity of sucrose formation and exportation restricted in aboveground tissues, and sink strength stimulated in belowground tissues, under low light (Brun et al 2003a).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 69%
“…Most of the studies on the effects of light reduction on seagrass survival and growth use neutral density screens to simulate such light conditions (Philippart 1995, Short et al 1995, Lee & Dunton 1997, Moore & Wetzel 2000, Peralta et al 2002. However, the major light-absorbing components (gilvin, tripton, phytoplankton and macroalgae) in the aquatic system are not optically neutral (Kirk 1983), which becomes evident under a dense blanket of ephemeral macroalgae.…”
Section: Zostera Noltii)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In both models, seagrass/SAV had an overwhelmingly positive response to the nutrient reduction scenario, which is a well-documented effect in other eutrophic estuaries (McGlathery, Sundback, and Anderson, 2007;Moore, Neckles, and Orth, 1996;Moore and Wetzel, 2000). In the FCM model, stakeholders indicated that seagrass is adversely affected by increases in phytoplankton, which is driven by increased nutrients (Figure 2).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 81%