4.4 Article

An evaluation of surge uptake capability in the giant kelp (Macrocystis pyrifera) in response to pulses of three different forms of nitrogen

期刊

MARINE BIOLOGY
卷 168, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00227-021-03975-z

关键词

Ammonium; Kelp; Nitrate; Nitrogen; Surge uptake; Urea

资金

  1. U.S. National Science Foundation
  2. U. S, Department of Energy Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) MARINER program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Giant kelp exhibited surge uptake of ammonium and nitrate in summer, but had limited capacity for surge uptake of urea. The ecological importance of surge uptake patterns for ammonium and nitrate is questionable, as the small scale and ephemeral nature of ammonium pulses, together with longer duration pulses of nitrate, may sustain giant kelp growth during seasons with low nitrate concentrations.
This study examined the capacity of the giant kelp, Macrocystis pyrifera, to exhibit surge uptake as a mechanism to enhance nitrogen assimilation during seasons when nitrate is depleted. Surge uptake of nitrate, ammonium, and urea was assessed in the spring and summer with whole-blade incubation experiments using (15) N tracers. The incubation experiments showed evidence of surge uptake lasting up to 5 min for ammonium and 1 min for nitrate during the summer only. Giant kelp showed little capacity for surge uptake of urea regardless of season. The ecological importance of the patterns of surge uptake observed for ammonium and nitrate, however, is questionable, given the small scale and ephemeral nature of ammonium pulses most likely experienced by giant kelp, and the longer duration pulses of nitrate associated with internal waves and upwelling. Rather it seems more likely that uptake of ammonium and urea at ambient concentrations, combined with normal uptake of nitrate during longer duration pulses of high concentrations, sustains giant kelp growth during seasons when ambient concentrations of nitrate are low.

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

4.4
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