Polar Biology

, Volume 9, Issue 7, pp 415–422 | Cite as

Carbon dioxide exchange of two ecodemes of Schistidium antarctici in Continental Antarctica

  • L. Kappen
  • R. I. Lewis Smith
  • M. Meyer
Article

Summary

Schistidium antarctici is the commonest of five bryophytes known in the Windmill Islands area of Wilkes Land, Greater Antarctica. In moist habitats it forms closed carpets, but in dry sites it develops a short cushion growth form. Carbon dioxide exchange of both a mesic (Sm) and a xeric growth form (Sx) was investigated by means of an IRGA system in the field near Casey Station under natural light and simulated ambient or controlled temperature conditions in the plant chamber. The chlorophyll content in Sm was three times higher than in Sx. The light compensation point of Sm was lower than in Sx. The data for photosynthesis and dark respiration were computed by means of non-linear and linear regression analysis. Sm was more productive and had a wider temperature range of positive net photosynthesis than Sx under similar conditions. Dark respiration per gram of the whole moss sample was identical in both ecodemes. A decline of the photosynthesis curves at quantum flux densities above 500 μmol m-2 s-1 PAR indicated a photoinhibitory effect in Sm. Sx was even more sensitive to high irradiance levels. Photoinhibition was not apparent in laboratory measurements under artificial light. According to our field measurements the photoinhibitory effect increases with increasing temperature. Moisture loss was avoided during the experiments by water supply from the bottom and frequently spraying the moss samples with water. In the natural habitat the desiccating effect of solar radiation is important, as it quickly causes photosynthesis to cease. The moss will dry out sooner in a xeric habitat than in one which is continuously moist. Consequently, the mesic Schistidium might particularly be subjected to photoinhibition by bright sunshine.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adamson H, Wilson M, Selkirk P, Seppelt R (1989) Photoinhibition in Antaretic mosses. Polarforschung (in press)Google Scholar
  2. Björkman O (1980) The response of photosynthesis to temperature. In: Grace J, Ford ED, Jarvis PG (eds) Plants and their atmospheric environment. 21st Symp Br Ecol Soc Edinburgh, March 1979. Black well, Oxford, pp 273–301Google Scholar
  3. Björkman O (1981) Responses to different quantum flux densities. In: Lange OL, Nobel PS, Osmond CB, Ziegler H (eds) Encyclopedia of plant physiology, New Ser, vol 12A, Physiological plant ecology I. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 57–107Google Scholar
  4. Caldwell MM (1981) Plant response to solar ultraviolet radiation. In: Lange OL, Nobel PS, Osmond CB, Ziegler H (eds) Encyclopedia of plant physiology, New Ser, vol 12A, Physiological plant ecology I. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 170–197Google Scholar
  5. Curtis OF, Clark DG (1950) An introduction to plant physiology. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Davis RC, Harrisson PM (1981) Prediction of photosynthesis in maritime Antaretic mosses. CNFRA 51:241–247Google Scholar
  7. Edwards JA, Smith RIL (1988) Photosynthesis and respiration of Colobanthus quitensis and Deschampsia antarctica from the maritime Antarctic. Bull Br Antarct Surv 81:43–63Google Scholar
  8. Gilmour JSL, Greger JW (1939) Demes: a suggested new terminology. Nature 144:333–334Google Scholar
  9. Goldman CR, Mason DT, Wood BJB (1963) Light injury and inhibition in Antarctic freshwater phytoplankton. Limnol Oceanogr 8:313–322Google Scholar
  10. Greene DM (1986) A conspectus of the mosses of Antarctica, South Georgia, the Falkland Islands and southern South America. Cambridge, British Antarctic Survery, 314 ppGoogle Scholar
  11. Ino Y (1983) Photosynthesis and primary production in a moss community at Syowa station, Antarctica. Jpn J Ecol 33:427–433Google Scholar
  12. Jacobsen P, Kappen L (1989) A note of the performance of Rinodina olivaceobrnnnea in the continental Antarctic. Lichenologist (in press)Google Scholar
  13. Jarvis PG, Catsky J (1971) Gas exchange systems. In: Sestak Z, Catsky J, Jarvis PG (eds) Plant photosynthetic production. Manual of methods. Junk, The Hague, pp 50–56Google Scholar
  14. Kallio P, Saarnio E (1986) The effect on mosses of transplantation to different latitudes. J Bryol 14:159–178Google Scholar
  15. Kappen L, Bölter M, Kühn A (1986) Field measurements of net photosynthesis of lichens in the Antarctic. Polar Biol 5:255–258Google Scholar
  16. Mache R, Loiseaux S (1973) Light saturation of growth and photosynthesis of the shade plar Marchantia polymorpha. J Cell Sci 12:391–401Google Scholar
  17. Oechel W, Sveinbjörnsson B (1978) Primary production prooesses in Antarctic bryophytes at Barrow, Alaska. In: Tiezen L (ed) Vegetation and production ecology of an Alaskan Arctic tundra. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 269–298Google Scholar
  18. Rastorfer JR, Higginbotham N (1968) Rates of photosynthesis and respiration of the moss Bryum sandbergii as influenced by light intensity and temperature. Am J Bot 55:1225–1229Google Scholar
  19. Rastorfer JR (1970) Effects of light intensity and temperature on photosynthesis and respiration of two east Antarctic mosses, Bryum argenteum and Bryum antarcticum. Bryologist 73:544–556Google Scholar
  20. Rastorfer JR (1972) Comparative physiology of four west Antarctic mosses. Antarct Res Ser 20, Antarctic terrestrial biology. In: Llano GA (ed) American Geophysical Union, Washington, pp 143–161Google Scholar
  21. Smith RIL (1984) Terrestrial plant biology of the Sub-Antarctic and Antarctic. In: Laws RM (ed) Antarctic ecology, vol 1. Academic Press, New York, pp 61–162Google Scholar
  22. Smith RIL (1988) Recording oryophyte microclimate in remote and severe environments. In: Glime JM (ed) Methods in bryology. Nichinan, Hattori Botanical Laboratory, pp 275–284Google Scholar
  23. Smith RIL (1989) Aspects of cryptogam water relations at a continental Antarctic site. Polarforschung (in press)Google Scholar
  24. Turesson G (1925) The plant species in relation to habitat and climate. Contributions to the knowledge of genecological units. Hereditas 6:147–236Google Scholar
  25. Valanne N (1984) Photosynthesis and photosynthetic products in mosses. In: Dyer AF, Duckett JG (eds) The experimental biology of bryophytes. Academic Press, London, pp 257–273Google Scholar
  26. Ziegler H, Egle K (1965) Zur quantitativen Analyse der Chloroplastenpigmente. Beitr Biol Pflanzen 41:11–63Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. Kappen
    • 1
  • R. I. Lewis Smith
    • 2
  • M. Meyer
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für PolarökologieUniversität KielKiel 1Germany
  2. 2.British Antarctic SurveyNatural Environment Research CouncilCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations