4.7 Article

Evaluation of four seagrass species as early warning indicators for nitrogen overloading: Implications for eutrophic evaluation and ecosystem management

期刊

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 635, 期 -, 页码 1132-1143

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.227

关键词

Eutrophication; Bio-indicator; Global; C/N ratio; Benchmark

资金

  1. National Program on Key Basic Research Project (973 Program) [2015CB453302]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41676153]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Seagrasses are major coastal primary producers and are widely distributed on coasts worldwide. Seagrasses show sensitivity to environmental stress due to their high phenotypic plasticity, and therefore, we evaluated the use of constituent elements in four dominant seagrass species as early warning indicators for nitrogen eutrophication of coastal regions. Ameta-analysis was conducted with published data to develop a global benchmark for the selected indicator, which was used to evaluate nitrogen loading at a global scale. A case study at three bays was subsequently conducted to test for local-scale differences in leaf C/N ratios in four seagrasses. Additionally, morphological and physiological metrics of seagrasses were measured from the three locations under varied nitrogen levels to develop further assessment indexes. The benchmark and local study showed that leaf C/N ratios of Zostera marina were sensitive to nitrogen discharge, which could be a highly valuable early warning indicator on a global scale. Moreover, the threshold value of seagrass leaf C/N was determined according to the benchmark to differentiate eutrophic and low nitrogen levels at a local scale. Of the eight phenotypic metrics measured, leaf width, total chlorophyll (a+b), chlorophyll ratio (a/b), and starch in the rhizome were the most effective at discriminating between the three locations and could also be promising indicators for monitoring eutrophication. (C) 2018 Published by Elsevier B.V.

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