4.7 Article

Relative roles of endolithic algae and carbonate chemistry variability in the skeletal dissolution of crustose coralline algae

期刊

BIOGEOSCIENCES
卷 11, 期 17, 页码 4615-4626

出版社

COPERNICUS GESELLSCHAFT MBH
DOI: 10.5194/bg-11-4615-2014

关键词

-

资金

  1. PADI Foundation grant [5051]
  2. ARC [CE0561435, LP110200674, LP0989845, DP0988039]
  3. Queensland Smart State Premier's Fellowship
  4. Great Barrier Reef Foundation (GBRF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The susceptibility of crustose coralline algae (CCA) skeletons to dissolution is predicted to increase as oceans warm and acidify. Skeletal dissolution is caused by bioerosion from endolithic microorganisms and by chemical processes associated with undersaturation of carbonate minerals in seawater. Yet, the relative contribution of algal microborers and seawater carbonate chemistry to the dissolution of organisms that cement reefs under projected pCO(2) and temperature (pCO(2)-T) scenarios have not been quantified. We exposed CCA skeletons (Porolithon onkodes) to four pCO(2)-T treatments (pre-industrial, present-day, SRES-B1 reduced pCO(2), and SRES-A1FI business-as-usual pCO(2) emission scenarios) under natural light cycles vs. constant dark conditions for 8 weeks. Dissolution rates of skeletons without photo-endoliths were dramatically higher (200 %) than those colonized by endolithic algae across all pCO(2)-T scenarios. This suggests that daytime photosynthesis by microborers counteract dissolution by reduced saturation states resulting in lower net erosion rates over day-night cycles. Regardless of the presence or absence of phototrophic microborers, skeletal dissolution increased significantly under the spring A1FI business-as-usual scenario, confirming the CCA sensitivity to future oceans. Projected ocean acidity and temperature may significantly disturb the stability of reef frameworks cemented by CCA, but surficial substrates harbouring photosynthetic microborers will be less impacted than those without algal endoliths.

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