4.5 Article

Pacific oysters do not compensate growth retardation following extreme acidification events

期刊

BIOLOGY LETTERS
卷 19, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2023.0185

关键词

bivalve; ocean acidification; compensatory growth; phenotypic plasticity; tipping point; recovery

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ocean acidification from anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions affects the growth of marine calcifiers. Recovery capacity of calcifiers under a wide range of pH has not been studied. We evaluated the recovery capacity of the Pacific oyster Crassostrea gigas under various pH conditions and found that growth retardation persisted even after the stress was removed.
Ocean acidification caused by anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions alters the growth of marine calcifiers. Although the immediate effects of acidification from global ocean models have been well studied on calcifiers, their recovery capacity over a wide range of pH has never been evaluated. This aspect is crucial because acidification events that arise in coastal areas can far exceed global ocean predictions. However, such acidification events could occur transiently, allowing for recovery periods during which the effects on growth would be compensated, maintained or amplified. Here we evaluated the recovery capacity of a model calcifier, the Pacific oyster Crassostrea gigas. We exposed juveniles to 15 pH conditions between 6.4 and 7.8 for 14 days. Oyster growth was retarded below pH 7.1 while shells were corroded at pH 6.5. We then placed the oysters under ambient pH > 7.8 for 42 days. Growth retardation persisted at pH levels below pH 7.1 even after the stress was removed. However, despite persistent retardation, growth has resumed rapidly suggesting that the oysters can recover from extreme acidification. Yet we found that the differences in individual weight between pH conditions below 7.1 increased over time, and thus the growth retardation cannot be compensated and may affect the fitness of the bivalves.

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