4.6 Article

Photophysiological and thermal tolerance of various genotypes of the coral endosymbiont Symbiodinium sp (Dinophyceae)

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYCOLOGY
卷 29, 期 4, 页码 1893-1905

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10811-017-1127-1

关键词

Irradiance; Photosynthesis; Respiration; Symbiodinium; Temperature; Tolerance

资金

  1. National Science Foundation (NSF) [OCE-09-26822]
  2. Institute of General Electrical Engineering, University of Rostock

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Dinoflagellates of the genus Symbiodinium, the endosymbiont of reef corals, play an important role in coral-bleaching events which can be induced by prolonged enhanced seawater temperature anomalies, and which are predicted to occur at increasing frequencies and severities due to global warming. The genus Symbiodinium exhibits high genetic diversity with physiological variation within and among species, leading to a range of thermal tolerance. Although these variations have been examined in individual species, comprehensive comparative experimental data across several species are still rare. Therefore, in the present study, the photophysiological and thermal response patterns of six genetically characterized Symbiodinium genotypes were comparatively investigated. The six Symbiodinium genotypes were isolated from four different host species from the following biogeographic locations: Hawaii (Central Pacific), Panama (Caribbean), Florida (Caribbean), and Palau (West Pacific). Photosynthesis-irradiance curve and growth measurements at temperatures ranging from 20 to 33 A degrees C were carried out. All physiological data clearly indicate significant differences in the response patterns of the six Symbiodinium genotypes. While some types photosynthesized, respired, and grew at 33 A degrees C, others showed a partial or complete inhibition. The genotype-specific response over the experimental temperature reveals the potential range response of a given symbiont and variation between strains that adaptation might act upon.

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

4.6
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