4.6 Article

Could rising aquatic carbon dioxide concentrations favour the invasion of elodeids in isoetid-dominated softwater lakes?

期刊

FRESHWATER BIOLOGY
卷 54, 期 9, 页码 1819-1831

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2009.02229.x

关键词

CO2 increase; Callitriche hamulata; macrophyte growth; Myriophyllum alterniflorum; softwater lakes

资金

  1. Centre for Wetland Ecology (CWE)
  2. NSG [20090401]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

P>1. During the past century, isoetid vegetation types in softwater lakes have often been invaded by faster-growing elodeids. In these C-limited systems, this may be related to rising aquatic CO2 levels. 2. In a laboratory experiment we tested the growth response of two elodeid species, Myriophyllum alterniflorum and Callitriche hamulata, at four different CO2 levels, ranging from 20 to 230 mu mol L-1. In addition, we tested the effect of the nutrient status of the sediment on the growth of C. hamulata at the different CO2 levels. 3. Shoot and root growth increased with rising CO2 availability. Irrespective of sediment type, growth was minimal to negative at the lowest CO2 treatment level, while becoming positive at CO2 levels around 40-50 mu mol L-1. Substantial growth was only obtained when the macrophytes were growing on mesotrophic sediments. The plants reached close to maximal growth at CO2 levels of c. 100 mu mol L-1. 4. Within this experiment, the growth of C. hamulata at CO2 levels above 90 mu mol L-1 may have been limited by N and P availability in both sediment types. The growth rate of M. alterniflorum did not seem to be limited by N and P availability, most likely due to its much higher relative root production. 5. The experimental results show that neither M. alterniflorum nor C. hamulata is able to invade isoetid-dominated softwater lakes at very low aquatic CO2 concentrations. However, if the sediments contain enough nutrients, a rise in aquatic CO2 could allow the invasion of elodeid species leading to the subsequent disappearance of slow-growing isoetids.

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

4.6
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