4.7 Article

Differential effects of pollution on adult and recruits of a canopy-forming alga: implications for population viability under low pollutant levels

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 10, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-73990-5

关键词

-

资金

  1. Horizon 2020 EU Research and Innovation Program (MERCES) [689518]
  2. European Union's EMFF program
  3. AFRIMED [EASME/EMFF/2017/1.2.1.12/S4/01/SI2.789059]
  4. Spanish Ministry Project ANIMA (MINECO/FEDER, UE) [CGL2016-76341-R]
  5. Catalan Government's consolidated research group [2017 SGR 1521]
  6. H2020 Societal Challenges Programme [689518] Funding Source: H2020 Societal Challenges Programme

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Marine macroalgal forests are highly productive and iconic ecosystems, which are seriously threatened by number of factors such as habitat destruction, overgrazing, ocean warming, and pollution. The effect of chronic, but low levels of pollutants on the long-term survival of the canopy-forming algae is not well understood. Here we test the effects of low concentrations (found in good quality water-bodies) of nitrates, heavy metals copper (Cu) and lead (Pb), and herbicides (glyphosate) on both adults and recruits of Carpodesmia crinita, a Mediterranean canopy forming macroalga. We show that although adult biomass, height and photosynthetic yield remain almost unaffected in all the assays, low Cu levels of 30 mu g/L completely suppress adult fertility. In addition, all the assays have a strong and negative impact on the survival and growth of recruits; in particular, glyphosate concentrations above 1 mu g/L almost totally inhibit their survival. These results suggest that the long-term viability of C. crinita may be severely compromised by low pollutant levels that are not affecting adult specimens. Our results provide important data for a better understanding of the present-day threats to marine canopy-forming macroalgae and for the design of future management actions aimed at preserving macroalgal forests.

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