4.2 Article

Comparative growth rates and internal banding periodicity of maerl species (Corallinales, Rhodophyta) from northern Europe

期刊

PHYCOLOGIA
卷 42, 期 6, 页码 606-612

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.2216/i0031-8884-42-6-606.1

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Maerl is a type of rhodolith, found in ecologically important beds of high conservation value; a major conservation objective is to establish growth rates. Maerl shows internal banding of controversial periodicity that may contain a high-resolution record of palaeoceanographic-palaeoclimatic data. To investigate growth rates and banding periodicity, we used the vital stain Alizarin Red in combination with scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Three maerl species, Phymatolithon calcareum, Lithothamnion corallioides and L. glaciale, were collected from maerl beds in Ireland. Following staining, maerl was grown in three controlled temperature treatments and at two depths in the field (P. calcareum only), with Corallina officinalis as a control for the stain. Alizarin Red was shown to be a suitable marker for growth in European maerl species and for C. officinalis. The average tip growth rate of P. calcareum from Northern Ireland at 10 m depth and under constant laboratory conditions was c. 0.9 mm yr(-1), double the rates observed at 5 m depth and in L. corallioides. Our measurements and re-examination of reported data allow us to conclude that the three most abundant maerl species in Europe grow about 1 (0.5-1.5) mm per tip per year under a wide range of field and artificial conditions. Internal banding in temperate European maerl revealed by SEM is a result of regular changes in wall thickness; the approximately monthly periodicity of bands in field-grown specimens is consistent with previous suggestions that they may be lunar. The potential for maerl banding to be a high-resolution record of palaeoclimatic and palaeoenvironmental change could be realized with this vital stain in conjunction with isotopic or microgeochemical analyses.

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

4.2
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