4.4 Article

Allelopathic activity of Elodea canadensis and Elodea nuttallii against epiphytes and phytoplankton

期刊

AQUATIC BOTANY
卷 85, 期 3, 页码 203-211

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.aquabot.2006.04.002

关键词

allelopathy; epiphytes; invasive species; phytoplankton; submersed macrophyte

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Elodea nuttallii and Elodea canadensis have both been introduced from North America to Europe. They are now common in many water bodies where they often form dominating stands. It was suggested that negative relationships between Elodea and phytoplankton or epiphytic covers exist, probably due to the release of growth inhibiting allelochemicals. This would be an effective strategy to avoid light limitation caused by algae and cyanobacteria. We investigated the allelopathic potential of both E. nuttallii and E. canadensis against different photoautotrophs, focussing on epiphytic algae and cyanobacteria isolated from different submersed macrophytes and culture strains. Methanolic extracts of both species inhibited the growth of most of these organisms. Only a culture strain of Scenedesmus brevispina was stimulated. Further separation of extracts yielded several active fractions, indicating that bydrophilic and slightly lipophilic compounds were responsible for growth reduction. At least some ofthe activity seems to be related to phenolic substances, but flavonoids in these species are inactive. Since growth declined also in a moderately lipophilic fraction of culture filtrate of E. nuttallii, we assume that active compounds were exuded in the water. Allelopathy might thus be relevant in situ and suppress cyanobacteria and algae. We furthermore found differences in the susceptibility of target organisms, which could (1) at least partly be a result of adaptation to the respective host plants and (2) indicate that allelopathic interference might reduce the abundance of some species, especially cyanobacteria, in epiphytic biofilms. (c) 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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