Journal of Oceanology and Limnology

, Volume 38, Issue 1, pp 124–132 | Cite as

The vertical structure of the vegetative canopy of the brown algae Cystoseira (Black Sea)

  • Alexsandr V. PrazukinEmail author
  • Yuriy K. Firsov
  • Yury Kamenir


In the coastal ecosystems of the Black Sea, macrophytobenthos and, in particular, the association of Cystoseira crinite, C. barbata, Cladostephus verticillatus, and Corallina mediterranea, with its thick vegetative canopy (VC), is the key contributor to primary production (PP). Though the vertical structure of the canopy, formed by the algal association, is of principal importance to the PP level, this subject has been long-neglected by researchers. The goal of our work was to compare vertical structures of the vegetative canopy of Cystoseira brown algae under diverse hydrodynamical conditions of the Crimean Peninsula coast. Samples were collected using the 50 cm×50 cm counting frame at eight stations positioned in shallow (55–60 cm deep) sites of Sevastopol Bay (Crimean Peninsula). Dry weight biomass of the VC was determined for all algae assemblage and for each algal species individually, per horizontal surface unit, at each height (Z). The study shows that: 1) the VC is characterized by unimodal vertical distribution of biomass, with maximum estimate in the lower part, where the biomass increases to 85% of the total biomass; 2) a series of single-peaked curves reliably describes the unimodal distribution of the biomass; thalli of different age groups are found along the canopy profile; and 3) algae found in epiphytic synusia prefer inhabiting the upper part of the VC. The role of environmental factors (seawater turbulence and solar radiation) is discussed in reference to the formation of the vertical structure, made up of the associations of the brown algae Cystoseira.


vertical structure of the canopy phytobenthos phytocenosis Cystoseira epiphyte biomass multicellular algae Black Sea 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



We thank Sharon Victor for editorial support.


  1. Binzer T, Sand-Jensen K. 2002. Importance of structure and density of macroalgae communities (Fucus serratus) for photosynthetic production and light utilisation. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 235: 53–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Forseth I N, Teramura A H. 1986. Kudzu leaf energy budget and calculated transpiration: the influence of leaflet orientation. Ecology, 67(2): 564–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Habib S, Yousuf A R. 2015. Effect of macrophytes on phytophilous macroinvertebrate community: a review. Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies, 3(6): 377–384.Google Scholar
  4. Kalugina-Gutnik A A. 1975. Phytobenthos of the Black Sea. Naukova Dumka, Kyiv. 248p.(in Russian)Google Scholar
  5. Karmanova I V, Sudnitsyna T N, Il’ina N A. 1987. Spatial Structure of Complex Pine Forests. Nauka, Moscow. 200p.(in Russian)Google Scholar
  6. Khailov K M, Parchevsky V P. 1983. Hierarchical Regulation of the Structure and Functions of Marine Plants. Naukova Dumka, Kyiv. 253p.(in Russian)Google Scholar
  7. Khailov K M, Prazukin A V, Kovardakov S A, Rygalov V E. 1992. Functional Morphology of Marine Multicellular Algae. Naukova Dumka, Kyiv. 280p.(in Russian)Google Scholar
  8. Khailov K M, Zavalko S E, Kovardakov S A, Rabinovich M A. 1988. Production and application of gypsum plaster structures for registration of physicochemical interaction of object with moving water in small-scale space. Ecology of the Sea, 30(5): 83–90.(in Russian)Google Scholar
  9. Kovardakov S A, Prazukin A V, Firsov Y K, Popov A E. 1985. Complex Adaptation of Cystozeira to Gradient Conditions. Naukova Dumka, Kyiv. 216p.(in Russian)Google Scholar
  10. Lucena-Moya P, Duggan I C. 2011. Macrophyte architecture affects the abundance and diversity of littoral microfauna. Aquatic Ecology, 45(2): 279–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Middelboe A L, Binzer T. 2004. Importance of canopy structure on photosynthesis in single-and multi-species assemblages of marine macroalgae. Oikos, 107(2): 422–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Muus B J. 1968. A field method for measuring “exposure” by means of plaster balls: a preliminary account. Sarsia, 34(1): 61–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Myneni R B, Ross J, Asrar G. 1989. A review on the theory of photon transport in leaf canopies. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 45(1–2): 1–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Norussis M J. 1999. SPSS 9.0 Guide to Data Analysis. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. 577p.Google Scholar
  15. Prazukin A V. 2015. Ecological phytosystemology. Pero Press, Moscow. 375p.(in Russian)Google Scholar
  16. Sassenrath-Cole G F. 1995. Dependence of canopy light distribution on leaf and canopy structure for two cotton (Gossypium) species. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 77(1–2): 55–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Schultz R, Dibble E. 2012. Effects of invasive macrophytes on freshwater fish and macroinvertebrate communities: the role of invasive plant traits. Hydrobiol ogia, 684(1): 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Stiers I, Crohain N, Josens G, Triest L. 2011. Impact of three aquatic invasive species on native plants and macroinvertebrates in temperate ponds. Biological Invasion s, 13(12): 2 715–2 726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Thomaz S M, Cunha E R. 2010. The role of macrophytes in habitat structuring in aquatic ecosystems: methods of measurement, causes and consequences on animal assemblages’ composition and biodiversity. Acta Limnologica Brasiliensia, 22(2): 218–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Tooming H G. 1984. Ecological Principles of Maximal Crop Productivity. Gydrometeoizdat, Leningrad. 264p.(in Russian)Google Scholar
  21. Warfe D M, Barmuta L A. 2004. Habitat structural complexity mediates the foraging success of multiple predator species. Oecologia, 141(1): 171–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Zavalko S E, Khailov K M. 1985. On the Choice of Target Functions and Estimated Parameters for the Exploitation of Marine Macrophyte Populations (Cystoseira crinita, Desf. Bory as an Example). Biological basis of aquaculture in the seas of the European part of the USSR, Moscow. p.193-206.(in Russian)Google Scholar
  23. Zavalko S E, Kovalchuk N A. 1994. Stratification as a factor stabilizing optimal vertical structure of the association of black sea macrophytes. Botanicheskij zhurnal, 79(3): 30–39.(in Russian)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Chinese Society for Oceanology and Limnology, Science Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexsandr V. Prazukin
    • 1
    Email author
  • Yuriy K. Firsov
    • 1
  • Yury Kamenir
    • 2
  1. 1.The A.O. Kovalevsky Institute of Marine Biological ResearchesRussian Academy of SciencesSevastopolRussia
  2. 2.The Mina & Everard Goodman Faculty of Life SciencesBar-Ilan UniversityRamat-GanIsrael

Personalised recommendations