4.4 Article

Growth and nutrient uptake capacity of two co-occurring species, Ulva prolifera and Ulva linza

Journal

AQUATIC BOTANY
Volume 100, Issue -, Pages 18-24

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.aquabot.2012.03.006

Keywords

Green tides; Nutrient uptake; Eutrophication; Ulva prolifera; Ulva linza; Macroalgal bloom

Funding

  1. East China Sea Fisheries Research Institute [2008M10]
  2. Science and Technology Commission of Qingdao Shinan District [2011-5-030-QT]
  3. Chinese 973 projects [2010CB428705]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study was designed to evaluate interspecific physiological differences in growth and nutrient uptake of two co-occurring species, Viva prolifera and Viva linza, in laboratory conditions. Growth-testing results showed that U. prolifera grew faster than U. linza in a range of temperature (8-30 degrees C) and irradiance (50-500 mu mol photon m(-2) s(-1)). Nitrate (NO3-) and ammonium (NH4+) enrichment had far more effect on growth of U. prolifera (max. 13.1 and 16.9% d(-1)) than on U. linza (max. 9.8 and 11.6% d(-1)). The V-max values of NO3- and NH4+ uptake by U. prolifera (124.25 and 284.60 mu mol g(-1) DM h(-1)) were higher than those by U. linza (109.13 and 250.25 mu mol g(-1) DM h(-1)), and the K-s values for U. prolifera were much lower than those for U. linza during the 3-h testing period. Significant difference in the V-max/K-s values indicated that U. prolifera had an apparent competitive advantage over U. linza to uptake and stock nitrogen (NO3- and NH4+) from the water column. There was no distinct difference in phosphate uptake between the two species. The results of this investigation revealed that distinct interspecific physiological traits in growth and nutrient uptake might be key factors to determine the species dominance patterns in green tides in the Yellow Sea. Crown Copyright (C) 2012 Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available