4.3 Article

Possible functional roles of cortical depsides and medullary depsidones in the foliose lichen Hypogymnia physodes

期刊

FLORA
卷 204, 期 1, 页码 40-48

出版社

ELSEVIER GMBH
DOI: 10.1016/j.flora.2007.12.002

关键词

Secondary compounds; UV-B screening; UV-B tolerance; Shade-sun gradient; Hemispherical photography; Herbivore defence

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Secondary compounds were quantified in 75 thalli of the foliose lichen Hypogymnia physodes collected in habitats along a natural shade-sun gradient from dark spruce forests to sun-exposed sea cliffs. The irradiance in all the 75 lichen sites was estimated from hemispherical photographs. The content of lichen compounds per thallus area correlated positively with irradiance level (r(2) = 0.73), and the mean concentration increased from 6.7% in the spruce forest to 14.4% on sea cliffs. The medullary depsidones, physodic, physodalic and protocetraric acids, constituted > 95% of the total pool of extractable secondary compounds, the cortical depsides, atranorin and chloratranorin, represented < 5%. Both cortical compounds correlated well with direct and with diffuse radiation, whereas the three medullary compounds correlated better with diffuse than with direct radiation. Mentioned trends are consistent with a solar radiation screening hypothesis of both groups of these colourless compounds occuring as tiny crystals outside fungal hyphae. However, the UV-B protective hypothesis of the compounds was further tested in a lab experiment. Unnaturally high UV-B doses were required to significantly reduce the PSII efficiency (F-V/F-M) of symbiotic algae. Removal of the major pool of secondary compounds with acetone did not increase photobiont susceptibility to UV-B. Therefore, the main functional role of the UV-B absorbing secondary compounds in H. physodes is hardly UV-B screening. Other roles such as PAR-screening and defence against herbivores and pathogenic organisms are discussed. (C) 2008 Elsevier GmbH. 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

4.3
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