Marine Biology

, Volume 149, Issue 4, pp 721–730

Morphological variation and phenotypic plasticity of buoyancy in the macroalga Turbinaria ornata across a barrier reef

Research Article

Abstract

Many aspects of morphology of benthic algae (length, surface area-to-volume ratio, and blade undulation) are plastic traits that vary in response to physical factors (such as light or water flow environment). This study examines whether frond buoyancy is a plastic trait, and whether differences in morphology including buoyancy affect the potential persistence of macroalgae in habitats characterized by different water flow regimes. Fronds of the tropical alga Turbinaria ornata in protected backreef environments in Moorea, French Polynesia possess pneumatocysts (gas-filled floats) and experience positive buoyant forces, whereas fronds in wave-exposed forereef sites either lack pneumatocysts entirely or have very small, rudimentary pneumatocysts and experience negative buoyant forces. Forereef fronds transplanted to the backreef developed pneumatocysts and experienced increased buoyant force indicating that buoyancy is a phenotypically plastic trait in T. ornata. In comparing the potential for dislodgement by drag, drag was greater on forereef fronds at low flow speeds as these fronds were stiffer and did not bend over at low flow speeds and therefore were less streamlined in the flow than backreef algae, which bent easily. The environmental stress factor (ESF) (a measure of the likelihood of detachment for a frond in its habitat) was higher for forereef than backreef fronds at all flow speeds. When examined with respect to the flow velocities likely in their respective habitats however, the chance of detachment for backreef and forereef was similar. Neither backreef nor forereef fronds were predicted to break under normal, non-storm conditions, but both were predicted to break in storms. Strong forereef morphologies are well suited to habitats characterized by rapid flow, whereas the weaker, buoyant, tall backreef fronds are well suited to habitats where crowding and shading is common but hydrodynamic forces are low.

References

  1. Bell EC, Denny MW (1994) Quantifying wave exposure—a simple device for recording maximum velocity and results of its use at several field sites. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 181:9–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blanchette CA (1997) Size and survival of intertidal plants in response to wave action: a case study with Fucus gardneri. Ecology 78:1563–1578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brandt RP (1923) Potash from kelp. Early growth and development of the giant kelp Macrocystis pyrifera. US Dept Agric 1191:1–40Google Scholar
  4. Carrington E (1990) Drag and dislodgment of an intertidal macroalga: consequences of morphological variation in Mastocarpus papillatus Kutzing. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 139:185–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Denny M, Gaylord B, Helmuth B, Daniel T (1998) The menace of momentum: dynamic forces on flexible organisms. Limnol Oceanogr 43:955–968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Denny MW (1988) Biology and the mechanics of the wave-swept environment. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  7. Denny MW (1995) Predicting physical disturbance: mechanistic approaches to the study of survivorship on wave-swept shores. Ecol Monogr 65:371–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Denny MW, Roberson L (2002) Blade motion and nutrient flux to the kelp, Eisenia arborea. Biol Bull (Woods Hole) 203:1–13Google Scholar
  9. Dromgoole FI (1981) Form and function of the pneumatocysts of marine algae II Variations in morphology and resistance to hydrostatic pressure. Bot Mar 24:299–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Druehl LD (1978) The distribution of Macrocystis integrifolia in Britsh Columbia as related to environmental parameters. Can J Bot 56:69–79Google Scholar
  11. Dudgeon SR, Johnson AS (1992) Thick vs. thin Thallus morphology and tissue mechanics influence differential drag and dislodgement of two co-dominant Seaweeds. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 165:23–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eckman JE (1987) The role of hydrodynamics in recruitment, growth and survival of Argpecten-irradians L. and Anomia-simplex D.Orbigny within seagrass meadows. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 106:165–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eckman JE (1989) Ecology of understory kelp environments I. Effects of kelps on flow and particle transport near the bottom. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 129:173–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fonseca MS, Zieman JC, Thayer GW, Fisher JS (1983) The role of current velocity in structuring eelgrass Zostera marina meadows. Estuarine Coast Shelf Sci 17:367–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gaylord B (2000) Biological implications of surf-zone flow complexity. Limnol Oceanogr 45:174–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gerard VA, Mann KH (1979) Growth and production of Laminaria longicruris (Phaeophyta) populations exposed to different intensities of water movement. J Phycol 15:33–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hurd CL (2000) Water motion, marine macroalgal physiology, and production. J Phycol 36:453–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hurd CL, Harrison PJ, Druehl LD (1996) Effect of seawater velocity on inorganic nitrogen uptake by morphologically distinct forms of Macrocystis integrifolia from wave-sheltered and exposed sites. Mar Biol 126:205–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jackson GA (1997) Currents in the high drag environment of a coastal kelp stand off California. Cont Shelf Res 17:1913–1928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Johnson AS (2001) Drag, drafting, and mechanical interactions in canopies of the red alga Chondrus crispus. Biol Bull 201:126–135PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Johnson AS, Koehl MAR (1994) Maintenance of dynamic strain similarity and environmental stress factor in different flow habitats–thallus allometry and material properties of a giant-kelp. J Exp Biol 195:381–410PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Kilar JA, Littler MM, Littler DS (1989) Functional-morphological relationships in Sargassum-Polyceratium (Phaeophyta)—phenotypic and ontogenetic variability in apparent photosynthesis and dark respiration. J Phycol 25:713–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Koehl MAR (1984) How do benthic organisms withstand moving water? Am Zool 24:57–70Google Scholar
  24. Koehl MAR (1986) Seaweeds in moving water: form and mechanical function. In: Givnish TJ (ed) Ecology of plant form and function. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 603–634Google Scholar
  25. Koehl MAR (2000) Mechanical design and hydrodynamics of blade-like algae: Chondracanthus exasperatus. In: Spatz H-C, Speck T (eds) Proceedings of the third internat. Plant Biomechanics. Thieme Verlag, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  26. Koehl MAR, Alberte RS (1988) Flow, flapping, and photosynthesis of Nereocystis luetkeana: a functional comparison of undulate and flat blade morphologies. Mar Biol 99:435–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Koehl MAR, Wainwright SA (1977) Mechanical adaptations in a giant kelp. Limnol Oceanogr 22:1067–1071CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Littler MM, Littler DS (1980) The evolution of thallus form and survival strategies in benthic marine macroalgae: field and laboratory tests of a functional form model. Am Nat 116:25–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Norton TA, Mathieson AC, Neushul M (1981) Morphology and environment. In: Lobban CS, Wynne MJ (eds) The biology of seaweeds. Botanical Monographs. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 421–451Google Scholar
  30. Pace DR (1972) Polymorphism in Macrocystis integrifolia Bory in relation to water motion. MSc thesis, University of British ColumbiaGoogle Scholar
  31. Payri CE, N’Yeurt DR (1997) A revised checklist of Polynesian benthic marine algae. Aust Syst Bot 10:867–910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Payri CE, Naim O (1982) Fluctuations 1971–1980 of biomass and composition of algal populations from Tiahura coral reef Moorea island French Polynesia. Cryptogam Algol 3(3):229–240Google Scholar
  33. Pratt MC, Johnson AS (2002) Strength, drag, and dislodgment of two competing intertidal algae from two wave exposures and four seasons. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 272:71–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sheath RR, Hambrook JA (1988) Mechanical adaptations to flow in freshwatered algae. J Phycol 24:107–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stevens CL, Hurd CL, Smith MJ (2001) Water motion relative to subtidal kelp fronds. Limnol Oceanogr 46:668–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stewart HL (2004) Hydrodynamic consequences of maintaining an upright posture by different magnitudes of stiffness and buoyancy in the tropical alga Turbinaria ornata. J Mar Syst 49:157–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stewart HL (2006) Ontogenetic changes in buoyancy, breaking strength, extensibility and reproductive investment in a rafting macroalga Turbinaria ornata (Phaeophyta). J Phycol 42:43−50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stewart HL, Carpenter RC (2003) The effects of morphology and water flow on photosynthesis among and within functional form groups of marine macroalgae. Ecology 84:2999–3012Google Scholar
  39. Stiger V, Payri CE (1999) Spatial and seasonal variations in the biological characteristics of two invasive brown algae, Turbinaria ornata (Turner) J Agardh and Sargassum mangarevense (Grunow) Setchell (Sargassaceae, Fucales) spreading on the reefs of Tahiti (French Polynesia). Bot Mar 42(3):295–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stiger V, Payri CE (1999b) Spatial and temporal patterns of settlement of the brown macroalgae Turbinaria ornata and Sargassum mangarevense in a coral reef in Tahiti. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 191:91–100Google Scholar
  41. Vogel S (1994) Life in moving fluids—the physical biology of flow. Princeton University Press, Princeton. NJGoogle Scholar
  42. Walsby AE (1972) Gas filled structures providing buoyancy in photosynthetic organisms. Symp Soc Exp Biol 26:233–250PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Integrative BiologyUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA
  2. 2.Marine Science InstituteUniversity of CaliforniaSanta BarbaraUSA

Personalised recommendations