Advertisement

Marine Biology

, Volume 144, Issue 1, pp 61–70 | Cite as

Intraspecific competition in Fucus serratus and F. evanescens (Phaeophyceae: Fucales) germlings: effects of settlement density, nutrient concentration, and temperature

  • H. Steen
  • R. Scrosati
Research Article

Abstract

Survival and growth of early post-settlement stages are critical for the development of seaweed populations. Fucoid germlings commonly settle in dense monospecific aggregates, where intraspecific competition and environmental variables (e.g. nutrient concentration and temperature) may affect survival and growth. Using factorial experiments, we determined the effects of settlement density (~10, ~50 and ~250 germlings cm−2), nutrient enrichment (from ~10 to ~40 µM N and from ~0.5 to ~2.5 µM P), and temperature (7°C and 17°C) on Fucus serratus and F. evanescens germlings in laboratory cultures over 3 months. Settlement density, nutrient concentration and temperature interactively affected growth of germlings, and the magnitude of this interaction varied between the two species. This represents the first record of such factorial interactions in Fucus spp. germlings. Intraspecific competition, estimated as the relative reduction in germling growth and survival from low to high densities, increased with decreasing nutrient concentration and increasing temperature in both species. While temperature and nutrient concentration had little effect on germling size distributions, size inequality and skewness generally increased with germling density, indicating that a few large individuals gained dominance and suppressed many smaller ones at high density. Self-thinning increased with settlement density and depended on nutrient concentration and species at high density. At high density, self-thinning increased with decreasing nutrient levels in F. evanescens, but not in F. serratus. At low density, nutrient enrichment increased germling growth in F. evanescens, but not in F. serratus, whereas growth in both species was stimulated by nutrient enrichment at higher densities. These results suggest that germling growth and self-thinning are more sensitive to variation in nutrient concentration in F. evanescens than in F. serratus. The potential implications of our findings for the understanding of eutrophication-related abundance changes in both species in southern Norway are discussed.

Keywords

Nutrient Concentration Nutrient Enrichment Gini Coefficient Intraspecific Competition Settlement Density 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the staff at the Norwegian Institute for Water Research (NIVA), Marine Research Station at Solbergstrand, for supplying seawater and nutrients. Thanks to Prof. J. Rueness, Dr. S. Fredriksen, Dr. T. Andersen, and Dr. L. J. Naustvoll, for sharing their knowledge and making helpful comments on earlier versions of the manuscript. Finally, we thank Dr. S. Blank, for providing valuable technical assistance with the resampling software, and two anonymous referees, for reviewing and improving the quality of this paper. This study complied with environmental laws of Norway.

References

  1. Andrew NL, Viejo RM (1998) Effects of wave exposure and intraspecific density on the growth and survivorship of Sargassum muticum (Sargassaceae: Phaeophyta). Eur J Phycol 33:251–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ang POJ, DeWreede RE (1992) Density-dependence in a population of Fucus distichus. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 90:169–181Google Scholar
  3. Arenas F, Fernández C (2000) Size structure and dynamics in a population of Sargassum muticum (Phaeophyceae). J Phycol 36:1012–1020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arenas F, Viejo RM, Fernández C (2002) Density-dependent regulation in an invasive seaweed: responses at plant and modular levels. J Ecol 90:820–829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arrontes J (2002) Mechanisms of range expansion in the intertidal brown alga Fucus serratus in northern Spain. Mar Biol 141:1059–1067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bertness MD, Leonard GH, Levine JM, Schmidt PR, Ingraham AO (1999) Testing the relative contribution of positive and negative interactions in rocky intertidal communities. Ecology 80:2711–2726Google Scholar
  7. Bi H, Turvey ND (1997) A method of selecting data points for fitting the maximum biomass–density line for stands undergoing self-thinning. Aust J Ecol 22:356–359Google Scholar
  8. Bokn T, Lein TE (1978) Long-term changes in fucoid association of the inner Oslofjord, Norway. Norw J Bot 25:9–14Google Scholar
  9. Bokn TL, Murray S, Moy FE, Magnusson JB (1992) Changes in fucoid distribution and abundance in the inner Oslofjord, Norway: 1974–80 versus 1988–90. Acta Phytogeogr Suec 78:117–124Google Scholar
  10. Brawley SH, Johnson LE (1991) Survival of fucoid embryos in the intertidal zone depends upon developmental stage and microhabitat. J Phycol 27:179–186Google Scholar
  11. Carmer SG, Walker UM (1982) Baby Bear's dilemma: a statistical tale. Agron J 74:122–124Google Scholar
  12. Choi HG (2001) The effects of density on algal competition in culture and the field. PhD thesis, University of Liverpool, LiverpoolGoogle Scholar
  13. Creed JC (1995) Spatial dynamics of a Himanthalia elongata (Fucales, Phaeophyta) population. J Phycol 31:851–859Google Scholar
  14. Creed JC, Norton TA, Harding SP (1996a) The development of size structure in a young Fucus serratus population. Eur J Phycol 31:203–209Google Scholar
  15. Creed JC, Norton TA, Kain JM (1996b) Are neighbours harmful or helpful in Fucus vesiculosis populations? Mar Ecol Prog Ser 133:191–201Google Scholar
  16. Creed JC, Norton TA, Kain JM (1997) Intraspecific competition in Fucus serratus germlings: the interaction of light, nutrients and density. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 212:211–223Google Scholar
  17. Creed JC, Kain JM, Norton TA (1998) An experimental evaluation of density and plant size in two large brown seaweeds. J Phycol 34:39–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Crowley PH (1992) Resampling methods for computation-intensive data analysis in ecology and evolution. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 23:405–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dean TA, Thies K, Lagos SL (1989) Survival of juvenile giant kelp: the effects of demographic factors, competitors, and grazers. Ecology 70:483–495Google Scholar
  20. Dixon PM (2001) The bootstrap and the jackknife: describing the precision of ecological indices. In: Scheiner SM, Gurevitch J (eds) Design and analysis of ecological experiments. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 267–288Google Scholar
  21. Grace JB (1995) On the measurement of plant competition intensity. Ecology 76:305–308Google Scholar
  22. Grenager B (1957) Algological observations from the polluted area of the Oslofjord. Nytt Mag Bot (Oslo) 5:41–60Google Scholar
  23. Grime JP (1977) Evidence for the existence of three primary strategies in plants and its relevance to ecological and evolutionary theory. Am Nat 111:1169–1194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Howell DC (1992) Statistical methods for psychology. Duxbury, BelmontGoogle Scholar
  25. Hruby T, Norton TA (1979) Algal colonization on rocky shores in the Firth of Clyde. J Ecol 67:65–77Google Scholar
  26. Hurlbert SH (1990) Pastor binocularis: now we have no excuse. Ecology 71:1222–1223Google Scholar
  27. Karez R (2003) Do monospecific stands of three Fucus species (Phaeophyta) comply with the 'self-thinning rule'? Eur J Phycol 38:171–180Google Scholar
  28. Kendrick GA (1994) Effects of propagule settlement density and adult canopy on survival of recruits of Sargassum spp. (Sargassaceae: Phaeophyta). Mar Ecol Prog Ser 103:129–140Google Scholar
  29. Kokko H, Mackenzie A, Reynolds JD, Lindstrom J, Sutherland WJ (1999) Measures of inequality are not equal. Am Nat 154:358–382CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Kristiansen S, Paasche E (1982) Nitrogen nutrition of the phytoplankton in the Oslofjord. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 14:237–249Google Scholar
  31. Lonsdale WM (1990) The self-thinning rule: dead or alive? Ecology 71:1373–1388Google Scholar
  32. Lotze HK, Worm B, Sommer U (2001) Strong bottom-up and top-down control of early life stages of macroalgae. Limnol Oceanogr 46:749–757Google Scholar
  33. Markham JH, Chanway CP (1996) Measuring plant neighbour effects. Funct Ecol 10:548–549Google Scholar
  34. Markham JW, Hagmeier E (1982) Observations on the effects of germanium dioxide on the growth of macroalgae and diatoms. Phycologia 21:125–130Google Scholar
  35. Mead R (1991) The design of experiments. Statistical principles for practical applications. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  36. Morris CE (1999) Density-dependent mortality induced by low nutrient status of the substrate. Ann Bot (Lond) 84:95–107Google Scholar
  37. Morris CE (2002) Self-thinning lines differ with fertility level. Ecol Res 17:17–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Morris CE (2003) How does fertility of the substrate affect intraspecific competition? Evidence and synthesis from self-thinning. Ecol Res 18:287–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Morris CE, Myerscough PJ (1985) Nutrient level effects on thinning and non-thinning crowding effects in even aged population of subterranean clover. Aust J Ecol 10:469–479Google Scholar
  40. Osawa A, Sugita S (1989) The self-thinning rule: another intepretation of Weller's results. Ecology 70:279–283Google Scholar
  41. Paine RT (1990) Benthic macroalgal competition: complications and consequences. J Phycol 26:12–17Google Scholar
  42. Quatrano RS (1980) Gamete release, fertilization, and embryogenesis in the Fucales. In: Gantt E (ed) Handbook of phycological methods. Developmental and cytological methods. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 59–68Google Scholar
  43. Reed DC (1990) An experimental evaluation of density dependence in a subtidal algal population. Ecology 71:2286–2296Google Scholar
  44. Rueness J (1998) Alger i farger. Almater, OsloGoogle Scholar
  45. Schmitt HJ, Eccleston J, Ehrhardt DW (1987) Dominance and suppression, size-dependent growth and self-thinning in a natural Impatiens capensis population. J Ecol 75:651–665Google Scholar
  46. Schmitt J, Ehrhardt EW, Cheo M (1986) Light-dependent dominance and suppression in experimental radish populations. Ecology 67:1502–1507Google Scholar
  47. Silvertown JW, Charlesworth D (2001) Introduction to plant population biology. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  48. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1995) Biometry: the principles and practice of statistics in biological research. Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  49. Soto D, Hurlbert SH (1991) Long-term experiments on calanoid–cyclopoid interactions. Ecol Monogr 61:245–265Google Scholar
  50. Steen H (2003) Intraspecific competition in Sargassum muticum (Phaeophyceae) germlings under various density, nutrient and temperature regimes. Bot Mar 46:36–43Google Scholar
  51. Steen H, Rueness J (2004) Comparison of survival and growth in germlings of six fucoid species (Fucales, Phaeophyceae) at two different temperature and nutrient levels. Sarsia (in press)Google Scholar
  52. Turner MD, Rabinowitz D (1983) Factors affecting frequency distributions of plant mass: the absence of dominance and suppression in competing monocultures of Festuca paradoxa. Ecology 64:469–475Google Scholar
  53. Vadas RL Sr, Johnson S, Norton TA (1992) Recruitment and mortality of early post-settlement stages of benthic algae. Br Phycol J 27:331–351Google Scholar
  54. Weiner J (1985) Size hierarchies in experimental population of annual plants. Ecology 66:743–752Google Scholar
  55. Weiner J, Thomas SC (1986) Size variability and competition in plant monocultures. Oikos 47:211–222Google Scholar
  56. Weller DE (1987) A reevaluation of the −3/2 power rule of plant self-thinning. Ecol Monogr 57:23–43Google Scholar
  57. Weller DE (1989) The interspecific size–density relationship among crowded plant stands and its implications for the −3/2 power rule of self-thinning. Am Nat 133:20–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Westoby M (1984) The self-thinning rule. Adv Ecol Res 14:167–225Google Scholar
  59. Worm B, Lotze HK, Sommer U (2001) Algal propagule banks modify competition, consumer and resource control on Baltic rocky shores. Oecologia 128:281–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Yoda K, Kira T, Ogawa H, Hozumi K (1963) Self-thinning in overcrowded pure stands under cultivated and natural conditions. Intraspecific competition among higher plants. XI. J Biol Osaka City Univ 14:107–129Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of OsloOsloNorway
  2. 2.Department of BotanyUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations