Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 168, Issue 2, pp 343–353 | Cite as

Two parthenogenetic populations of Chara canescens differ in their capacity to acclimate to irradiance and salinity

  • Ralf SchaibleEmail author
  • Antje Gerloff-Elias
  • Fernando Colchero
  • Hendrik Schubert
Physiological ecology - Original Paper

Abstract

The parthenogens of Chara canescens (Charophyceae) occupy broader geographical and ecological ranges than their sexual counterparts. Two possible hypotheses explain the ubiquity of parthenogens: the occurrence of one or several parthenogens with wide niches, or of many parthenogens that are restricted to narrow ecological niches. For the purposes of this study, C. canescens individuals from two neighbouring populations of the Baltic Sea (Bodstedter Bodden = BB; Salzhaff = SH), which differed significantly in water transparency and salinity, were investigated for significant differences in physiological capacity. Individuals of both habitats acclimated quickly to daily changes in irradiances in the field, but the photosynthetic efficiency of PS II showed a significant decrease with increasing daily irradiance in the habitat BB, which has lower levels of salinity and water transparency. In addition to the field study, individuals were reared under different levels of environmental factors in the laboratory: four irradiances (70–600 μmol m−2 s−1) and five salinity levels (0–24 psu). The individuals of both habitats grew almost equally well at intermediate salinity levels. Growth under the artificial light supply was highest at levels corresponding to the in situ conditions for each population. Total chlorophyll was highest at intermediate salinities (BB), or hardly changed with salinity (SH). The physiological capacity for individuals from SH clearly depends upon changing growth irradiance, whereas the capacity for individuals from BB was relatively independent of salinity and irradiance. These findings indicate that both parthenogenetic C. canescens populations are locally adapted to light. However, to test adaptive potential of the parthenogens, more than two populations should be tested in future.

Keywords

Chara canescens Charophytes Brackish water Parthenogenesis Salinity and irradiance acclimation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank A. Lübke and all the members of the Laboratory of Plant Ecology at the University of Greifswald for their support of our experimental studies. This study was funded by a FAZIT-scholarship to R.S.

References

  1. Akaike H (1974) A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans Autom Control 19:716–723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Asker SE, Jerling L (1992) Apomixis in plants. CRC Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. Bierzychudek P (1987) Pattern in plant parthenogenesis. In: Stearns SC (ed) The evolution of sex and its consequences. Birkhaeuser, Basel, pp 197–218Google Scholar
  4. Bihmidine S et al (2010) Photosynthetic performance of invasive Pinus ponderosa and Juniperus virginiana seedlings under gradual soil water depletion. Plant Biol 12:668–675PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Blindow I, Schubert H (2004) Chara canescens Desv. et Loisel. in Loisel. 1810. In: Schubert H, Blindow I (eds) Charophytes of the Baltic Sea. Koeltz, Königstein, pp 70–81Google Scholar
  6. Blindow I, Mollmann N, Boegle MG, Schutte M (2009) Reproductive isolation in Chara aspera populations. Aquat Bot 91:224–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Böhme K, Wilhelm C, Goss R (2002) Light regulation of carotenoid biosynthesis in the prasinophycean alga Mantoniella squamata. Photochem Photobiol Sci 1:619–628PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Borell EM, Bischof K (2008) Feeding sustains photosynthetic quantum yield of a scleractinian coral during thermal stress. Oecologia 157:593–601PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clausen P, Nolet BA, Fox AD, Klaassen M (2002) Long-distance endozoochorous dispersal of submerged macrophyte seeds by migratory waterbirds in northern Europe—a critical review of possibilities and limitations. Acta Oecol-Int J Ecol 23:191–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Doroszuk A, Wojewodzic MW, Kammenga JE (2006) Rapid adaptive divergence of life-history traits in response to abiotic stress within a natural population of a parthenogenetic nematode. Proc R Soc Lond B 273:2611–2618Google Scholar
  11. Glesener RR, Tilman D (1978) Sexuality and components of environmental uncertainty—clues from geographic parthenogenesis in terrestrial animals. A Nat 112:659–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goddard MR, Godfray HCJ, Burt A (2005) Sex increases the efficacy of natural selection in experimental yeast populations. Nature 434:636–640PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Halkett F, Simon JC, Balloux F (2005) Tackling the population genetics of clonal and partially clonal organisms. Trends Ecol Evol 20:194–201PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hörandl E (2004) Comparative analysis of genetic divergence among sexual ancestors of apomictic complexes using isozyme data. Int J Plant Sci 165:615–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hörandl E (2006) The complex causality of geographical parthenogenesis. New Phytol 171:525–538PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Kearney M (2005) Hybridization, glaciation and geographical parthenogenesis. Trends Ecol Evol 20:495–502PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kondrashov AS (1993) Classification of hypotheses on the advantage of amphimixis. J Heredity 84:372–387Google Scholar
  18. Krause W (1997) Charales (Charophyceae). In: Ettl H, Gärtner G, Heynig H, Mollenhauer D (eds) Süßwasserflora von Mitteleuropa; Band 18. Fischer Jena, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  19. Kromkamp JC, Forster RM (2003) The use of variable fluorescence measurements in aquatic ecosystems: differences between multiple and single turnover measuring protocols and suggested terminology. Eur J Phycol 38:103–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Küster A, Schaible R, Schubert H (2004) Light acclimation of photosynthesis in three charophyte species. Aquat Bot 79:111–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Küster A, Schaible R, Schubert H (2005) Sex-specific light acclimation of Chara canescens (Charophyta). Aquat Bot 83:129–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lichtenthaler HK, Marek MV, Kalina J, Urban O (2007) Differences in pigment composition, photosynthetic rates and chlorophyll fluorescence images of sun and shade leaves of four tree species. Plant Physiol Biochem 45:577–588PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Loiseleur-Deslongchamps JLA (1810) Notice sur les plantes a ajouter a la Flore de France (Flora Gallica). JB Sajou, Paris, France, pp 1–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lynch M (1984) Destabilizing hybridization, general-purpose genotypes and geographic parthenogenesis. Q Rev Biol 59:257–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Marquardt R, Schubert H, Varela DA, Huovinen P, Henriquez L, Buschmann AH (2010) Light acclimation strategies of three commercially important red algal species. Aquaculture 299:140–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Menendez M, Sanchez A (1998) Seasonal variations in P-I responses of Chara hispida L. and Potamogeton pectinatus L. from stream Mediterranean ponds. Aquat Bot 61:1–15Google Scholar
  27. Olsen S (1944) Danish charophyta. Chorological, ecological and biological investigation. Biologiske skrifter, Bind II, Nr.1. Det Kongelige Danske Videskabernes Selskap, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  28. Parker ED, Selander RK, Hudson RO, Lester LJ (1977) Genetic diversity in colonizing parthenogenetic cockroaches. Evolution 31:836–842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Peck JR, Yearsley JM, Waxman D (1998) Explaining the geographic distributions of sexual and asexual population. Nature 391:889–892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pilon J, Santamaria L (2002) Clonal variation in morphological and physiological responses to irradiance and photoperiod for the aquatic angiosperm Potamogeton pectinatus. J Ecol 90:859–870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Porra RJ, Thompson WA, Kriedemann PE (1989) Determination of accurate extinction coefficients and simultaneous equations for assaying chlorophylls a and b extracted with four different solvents: verification of the concentration of chlorophyll standards by atomic absorption spectroscopy. Biochim Biophys Acta 975:384–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. R Development Core Team (2009) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL http://www.R-project.org
  33. Sagert S, Schubert H (2000) Acclimation of Palmaria palmata (Rhodophyta) to light intensity: Comparison between artificial and natural light fields. J Phycol 36:1119–1128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sagert S, Forster RM, Feuerpfeil P, Schubert H (1997) Daily course of photosynthesis and photoinhibition in Chondrus crispus (Rhodophyta) from different shore levels. Eur J Phycol 32:363–371Google Scholar
  35. Schagerl M, Pichler C (2000) Pigment composition of freshwater charophyceae. Aquat Bot 67:117–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schaible R, Schubert H (2008) The occurrence of sexual Chara canescens populations (Charophyceae) is not related to ecophysiological potentials with respect to salinity and irradiance. Eur J Phycol 43:309–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schaible R, Bergmann I, Boegle M, Schoor A, Schubert H (2009a) Genetic characterization of sexually and parthenogenetically reproductive populations of Chara canescens (Charophyceae), estimated with AFLP, rbcL and SNPs markers. Phycologia 48(2):105–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schaible R, Bergmann I, Schubert H (2009b) A survey of sexually reproductive female and male Chara canescens populations in the National Park Neusiedler See-Seewinkel (Austria). Chrypt Algol 30:279–294Google Scholar
  39. Schubert H, Blindow I (eds) (2004) Charophytes of the Baltic Sea. Gantner, RuggellGoogle Scholar
  40. Selig U, Eggert A, Schories D, Schubert M, Blumel C, Schubert H (2007) Ecological classification of macroalgae and angiosperm communities of inner coastal waters in the southern Baltic Sea. Ecol Indic 7:665–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Smith RC (1968) Optical characterization of natural waters by means of an extinction coefficient. Limnol Oceanogr 13:423–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sudhir P, Murthy SDS (2004) Effects of salt stress on basic processes of photosynthesis. Photosynthetica 42:481–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Steinhardt T, Selig U (2007) Spatial distribution patterns and relationship between recent vegetation and diaspore bank of a brackish coastal lagoon on the southern Baltic Sea. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 74:205–214Google Scholar
  44. Talling JF (1957) Some observations on the stratification of Lake Viktoria. Limnol Oceanogr 2:213–221Google Scholar
  45. Venables WN, Ripley BD (2002) Modern applied statistics with S, 4th edn. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  46. Vrijenhoek RC (1984) Ecological differentiation among clones the frozen niche variation model. In: Woehrmann K, Loeschcke V (eds) Population biology and evolution. Springer, Berlin, pp 217–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Walsby AE (1997) Numerical integration of phytoplankton photosynthesis through time and depth in a water column. New Phytol 136:189–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Winter U, Kirst GO (1991) Partial turgor pressure regulation in Chara canescens and its implications for a generalized hypothesis of salinity response in charophytes. Bot Acta 104:37–46Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ralf Schaible
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Antje Gerloff-Elias
    • 1
  • Fernando Colchero
    • 2
  • Hendrik Schubert
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Bio Sciences, Aquatic EcologyUniversity of RostockRostockGermany
  2. 2.Max Planck Institute for Demographic ResearchRostockGermany

Personalised recommendations