4.7 Article

Internal pH regulation facilitates in situ long-term acclimation of massive corals to end-of-century carbon dioxide conditions

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 6, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/srep30688

关键词

-

资金

  1. German Federal Ministry for Education and Research project BIOACID II [03F0655A]
  2. Great Barrier Reef Foundation's Resilient Coral Reefs Successfully Adapting to Climate Change research and development programme
  3. Australian Government
  4. Australian Institute of Marine Science
  5. Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [J3667] Funding Source: Austrian Science Fund (FWF)
  6. Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [J 3667] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The resilience of tropical corals to ocean acidification depends on their ability to regulate the pH within their calcifying fluid (pH(cf)). Recent work suggests pHcf homeostasis under short-term exposure to pCO(2) conditions predicted for 2100, but it is still unclear if pHcf homeostasis can be maintained throughout a corals lifetime. At CO2 seeps in Papua New Guinea, massive Porites corals have grown along a natural seawater pH gradient for decades. This natural gradient, ranging from pH 8.1-7.4, provides an ideal platform to determine corals' pH(cf) (using boron isotopes). Porites maintained a similar pH(cf) (similar to 8.24) at both a control (pH 8.1) and seep-influenced site (pH 7.9). Internal pH(cf) was slightly reduced (8.12) at seawater pH 7.6, and decreased to 7.94 at a site with a seawater pH of 7.4. A growth response model based on pH(cf) mirrors the observed distribution patterns of this species in the field. We suggest Porites has the capacity to acclimate after long-time exposure to end-of-century reduced seawater pH conditions and that strong control over pH(cf) represents a key mechanism to persist in future oceans. Only beyond end-of-century pCO(2) conditions do they face their current physiological limit of pH homeostasis and pH(cf) begins to decrease.

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