4.7 Article

Response of the seagrass Halophila ovalis to altered light quality in a simulated dredge plume

Journal

MARINE POLLUTION BULLETIN
Volume 121, Issue 1-2, Pages 323-330

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.05.060

Keywords

Dredging; Seagrass; Light quality; Light quantity

Funding

  1. Western Australian Marine Science Institution (WAMSI) as part of the WAMSI Dredging Science Node, Woodside Energy, Chevron Australia, BHP Billiton as environmental offsets [G1001056]
  2. Australian Commonwealth Government's Collaborative Research networks scheme [CRN2011:05]
  3. School of Sciences, Edith Cowan University
  4. Holsworth Wildlife Research Endowment [G1002158]
  5. Graduate Women of Western Australia Mary Walters Scholarship [G1002228]
  6. WAMSI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Seagrass meadows are globally threatened, largely through activities that reduce light quantity (photosynthetic photon flux density) such as dredging. However, these activities can simultaneously alter the spectral quality of light. Previous studies showed that Halophila ovalis seagrass productivity is reduced under monochromatic yellow/green light, wavelengths associated with dredge plumes, but it is unclear how they respond to spectra produced by real dredging projects. We simultaneously subjected adult H. ovalis plants to altered light quality and quantity simulating a real commercial dredging operation (15 mg L-1 TSS, 50 and 200 mu mol photons m(-2) s(-1)). There was a significant effect of reduced light quantity on physiological and morphological variables and a significant effect of light quality on the pigment antheraxanthin. The lack of effect of light quality on growth indicates that while seagrass are sensitive to changes in light quality, natural- and anthropogenic-driven changes may not always be sufficient to produce strong effects on H. ovalis.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available