4.5 Article

The lichens Xanthoria elegans and Cetraria islandica maintain a high protection against UV-B radiation in Arctic habitats

期刊

OECOLOGIA
卷 140, 期 2, 页码 211-216

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00442-004-1583-6

关键词

cortical transmittance; latitudinal gradient; melanin; parietin; pigments

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study reports UV screening pigments in the upper cortices of two widespread lichens collected in three sun-exposed locations along a latitudinal gradient from the Arctic lowland to alpine sites of the Central European Alps. Populations from the Alps receive 3-5 times higher UV-B irradiance than their Arctic counterparts from Svalbard because of latitudinal and altitudinal gradients in UV-B irradiance. In Cetraria islandica, the screening capacity of melanin in the upper cortices was assessed by direct measurements of cortical transmittance (250-1,000 nm). A comparison of cortical transmittances in brown sun-exposed and pale shade-adapted forest C. islandica thalli showed that fungal melanins strongly absorb both UV-B and photosynthetically active radiation (PAR). For Xanthoria elegans cortical UV-B absorbing pigments, mainly the orange panietin, were extracted and quantified. Field experiments with extracted, parietin-deficient X elegans thalli cultivated under various filters showed that UV-B was essential for the induction of parietin synthesis. The parietin resynthesis in these parietin-deficient samples increased with decreasing latitude of their location in which they had been sampled, which may imply that the synthesis of pigments is habitat specific. However, no latitudinal gradient in cortical screening capacity was detected for any of the two species investigated in the field. This implies that Arctic populations maintain a high level of screening pigments in spite of low ambient UV-B, and that the studied lichen species presumably may tolerate an increase in UV-B radiation due to the predicted thinning of the ozone layer over polar areas.

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