Seagrass response to CO2 contingent on epiphytic algae: indirect effects can overwhelm direct effects
- 606 Downloads
Increased availability of dissolved CO2 in the ocean can enhance the productivity and growth of marine plants such as seagrasses and algae, but realised benefits may be contingent on additional conditions (e.g. light) that modify biotic interactions between these plant groups. The combined effects of future CO2 and differing light on the growth of seagrass and their algal epiphytes were tested by maintaining juvenile seagrasses Amphibolis antarctica under three different CO2 concentrations representing ambient, moderate future and high future forecasts (i.e. 390, 650 vs. 900 µl l−1) and two light levels representing low and high PAR (i.e. 43 vs. 167 µmol m−2 s−1). Aboveground and belowground biomass, leaf growth, epiphyte cover, tissue chemistry and photosynthetic parameters of seagrasses were measured. At low light, there was a neutral to positive effect of elevated CO2 on seagrass biomass and growth; at high light, this effect of CO2 switched toward negative, as growth and biomass decreased at the highest CO2 level. These opposing responses to CO2 appeared to be closely linked to the overgrowth of seagrass by filamentous algal epiphytes when high light and CO2 were combined. Importantly, all seagrass plants maintained positive leaf growth throughout the experiment, indicating that growth was inhibited by some experimental conditions but not arrested entirely. Therefore, while greater light or elevated CO2 provided direct physiological benefits for seagrasses, such benefits were likely negated by overgrowth of epiphytic algae when greater light and CO2 were combined. This result demonstrates how indirect ecological effects from epiphytes can modify independent physiological predictions for seagrass associated with global change.
KeywordsAmphibolis antarctica Biotic interactions Filamentous epiphytes Global change Photosynthesis
We would like to thank Nenah Mackenzie from The University of Adelaide for operating the mass spectrometer. S.D.C. and B.D.R. were funded by an ARC grant and S.D.C. received an ARC Future Fellowship. We would also like to thank two anonymous reviewers and the Associate Editor, whose comments improved an early draft of the manuscript.
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
- Borowitzka MA, Lavery PS, van Keulen M (2006) Epiphytes of seagrasses. In: Larkum AWD, Orth RJ, Duarte CM (eds) Seagrasses: biology, ecology and conservation. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 441–461Google Scholar
- Bryars S, Wear R, Collings G (2008) Seagrasses of Gulf St Vincent and Investigator Strait. In: Shepherd SA, Bryars S, Kirkegaard I, Harbison P, Jennings JT (eds) Natural history of Gulf St Vincent, vol 8. R Soc S Aust, Adelaide, pp 132–147Google Scholar
- Collings G, Bryars S, Nayar S, Miller D, Lill J, O’Loughlin E (2006) Elevated nutrient responses of the meadow forming seagrasses, Amphibolis and Posidonia, from the Adelaide metropolitan coastline. ACWS Technical Report No. 11 prepared for the Adelaide Coastal Waters Study Steering Committee. SARDI publication no. RD01/0208-16. South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), AdelaideGoogle Scholar
- Irving AD (2009) Seagrass rehabilitation in Adelaide’s coastal waters VI. Refining techniques for the rehabilitation of Amphibolis spp. Final report prepared for the Coastal Management Branch of the Department for Environment and Heritage SA. South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), AdelaideGoogle Scholar
- James NP, Bone Y, Brown KM, Cheshire A (2009) Calcareous epiphyte production in cool-water carbonate seagrass depositional environments—Southern Australia. In: Swart PK, Eberli GP, McKenzie JA (eds) Perspectives in carbonate geology: a tribute to the career of Robert Nathan Ginsburg, vol 41. Wiley, New York, pp 123–148. doi: 10.1002/9781444312065.ch9 Google Scholar
- Kendrick GA, Burt JS (1997) Seasonal changes in epiphytic macro-algae assemblages between offshore exposed and inshore protected Posidonia sinuosa Cambridge et Kuo seagrass meadows, Western Australia. Bot Mar 40:77–85Google Scholar
- Kendrick GA, Lavery PS (2001) Assessing biomass, assemblage structure and productivity of algal epiphytes on seagrasses. In: Short FT, Coles RG (eds) Global seagrass research methods. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 199–222Google Scholar
- Meehl GA et al (2007) Global climate projections. In: Soloman S et al (eds) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of the Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Orth RJ, Moore KA (1983) Chesapeake Bay—an unprecedented decline in submerged aquatic vegetation. Science 222:51–53Google Scholar
- Sand-Jensen K (1977) Effect of epiphytes on eelgrass photosynthesis. Aquat Bot 3:55–63Google Scholar
- Thimijan RW, Heins RD (1983) Photometric, radiometric, and quantum light units of measure: a review of procedures for interconversion. Hortscience 18:818–822Google Scholar
- Thomsen MS et al (2012) A meta-analysis of seaweed impacts on seagrasses: generalities and knowledge gaps. PLoS One 7:21–28Google Scholar
- Walker DI (1985) Correlations between salinity and growth of the seagrass Amphibolis antarctica (Labill) Sonder and Aschers. in Shark Bay, Western Australia, using a new method for measuring production-rate. Aquat Bot 23:13–26Google Scholar
- Williams WE, Garbutt K, Bazzaz FA, Vitousek PM (1986) The response of plants to elevated CO2.. IV. Two deciduous-forest tree communities. Oecologia 69:454–459Google Scholar
- Zou DH, Gao KS (2009) Effects of elevated CO2 on the red seaweed Gracilaria lemaneiformis (Gigartinales, Rhodophyta) grown at different irradiance levels. Phycologia 48:510–517Google Scholar