4.5 Article

Effects of UVB Radiation on Competition between the Bloom-Forming Cyanobacterium Microcystis aeruginosa and the Chlorophyceae Chlamydomonas microsphaera

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYCOLOGY
卷 49, 期 2, 页码 318-328

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jpy.12038

关键词

Chlamydomonas microsphaera; competition; growth; Microcystis aeruginosa; photosynthesis; UVB

资金

  1. National Basic Research Program (973 Program) [2008CB418004]
  2. Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University [NCET-08-0786]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The growth, photosynthetic characteristics, and competitive ability of three algal strains were investigated under different doses of ultraviolet-B (UVB) radiation (0, 0.285, and 0.372W m2). The organisms were the toxic bloom-forming cyanobacterium Microcystis aeruginosa FACHB 912, nontoxic M.aeruginosa FACHB 469, and the green microalga Chlamydomonas microsphaera FACHB 52. In monocultures, the growth of all three strains was inhibited by UVB. In mixed cultures, enhanced UVB radiation resulted in decreased percentages of the two M.aeruginosa strains (19%22% decrease on d 12 of the competition experiment). UVB radiation resulted in increased contents of chlorophyll a, b, and carotenoids (CAR) in C.microsphaera, and decreased contents of allophycocyanin (APC) or phycocyanin in the two Microcystis strains. All three strains showed increased levels of UVabsorbing compounds and intracellular reactive oxygen species under 0.372W m2 UVB radiation, and decreased light compensation points, dark respiratory rates, and maximal quantum efficiency of PSII. After a 20h recovery, the photosynthetic oxygen evolution of C.microsphaera was restored to its maximum value, but that of Microcystis strains continued to decrease. Nonphotochemical quenching was increased by UVB radiation in C.microsphaera, but was unaffected in the two M.aeruginosa strains. Our results indicated that C.microsphaera has a competitive advantage relative to Microcystis during exposure to UVB irradiation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据