4.7 Article

Structural complexity governs seagrass acclimatization to depth with relevant consequences for meadow production, macrophyte diversity and habitat carbon storage capacity

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-51248-z

关键词

-

资金

  1. CONACYT [129880]
  2. DGAPA [IN206710]
  3. Mexican Secretaria de Relaciones Exteriores
  4. Spanish Asociacion Universitaria Iberoamericana de Postgrado

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Analyses of the integrated seagrass response to depth support the previously documented low plasticity and consistent shade-adapted leaf physiology of a habitat-builder that dominates well-illuminated reef environments. Two structural responses, canopy-opening and below-ground-mass-depletion, govern the photoacclimatory response and facilitate, respectively, light penetration within the canopy and functional adjustments in whole-plant carbon balances. Conversely, canopy-closing may also explain dense canopies formed close to the waterline, as they provide shade and photoprotection to a susceptible leaf physiology under high-light. Canopy light attenuation is primarily regulated by the leaf area index (LAI), which is governed by changes in shoot size and density. Shoot density diminishes non-linearly with depth, while shoot size increases to a maximum followed by a decline. The initial increase in shoot size, which resembles a self-thinning response, increases LAI and meadow production in shallow depths. These seagrass structural adjustments have relevant ecological implications. Canopy-thinning allows macrophyte diversity to increase with depth, while seagrass production and carbon storage diminish exponentially, and are maximal only in a shallow coastal fringe. The results support the universality of plant self-thinning, from phytoplankton to complex canopies, likely the consequence of simple physical laws related to light limitation and pigment self-shading within photosynthetic structures and communities.

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

4.7
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