Blade life span, structural investment, and nutrient allocation in giant kelp
- 400 Downloads
The turnover of plant biomass largely determines the amount of energy flowing through an ecosystem and understanding the processes that regulate turnover has been of interest to ecologists for decades. Leaf life span theory has proven useful in explaining patterns of leaf turnover in relation to resource availability, but the predictions of this theory have not been tested for macroalgae. We measured blade life span, size, thickness, nitrogen content, pigment content, and maximum photosynthetic rate (P max) in the giant kelp (Macrocystis pyrifera) along a strong resource (light) gradient to test whether the predictions of leaf life span theory applied to this alga. We found that shorter blade life spans and larger blade areas were associated with increased light availability. In addition, nitrogen and P max decreased with blade age, and their decrease was greater in shorter lived blades. These observations are generally consistent with patterns observed for higher plants and the prevailing theory of leaf life span. By contrast, variation observed in pigments of giant kelp was inconsistent with that predicted by leaf life span theory, as blades growing in the most heavily shaded portion of the forest had the lowest chlorophyll content. This result may reflect the dual role of macroalgal blades in carbon fixation and nutrient absorption and the ability of giant kelp to modify blade physiology to optimize the acquisition of light and nutrients. Thus, the marine environment may place demands on resource acquisition and allocation that have not been previously considered with respect to leaf life span optimization.
KeywordsLeaf life span Macroalgae Macrocystis pyrifera Photosynthesis Resource allocation
We thank E. Barba, J. Mandoske, and P. Salinas-Ruiz for help in data collection and S. Harrer and C. Nelson for technical and logistical assistance. Financial support was provided by the US National Science Foundation’s Long Term Ecological Research program (OCE-0620276, OCE-1232779).
Author contribution statement
GER, DCR, and SJH conceived and designed the experiments. GER performed the experiments. GER and DCR analyzed the data. GER wrote the manuscript and DCR and SJH provided editorial advice.
- Clendenning KA (1971) Photosynthesis and general development in Macrocystis. Nova Hedwig 32:169–190Google Scholar
- Gerard VA (1976) Some aspects of material dynamics and energy flow in a kelp forest in Monterey Bay, California. PhD dissertation, Department of Biology, University of California. Santa Cruz, California, USAGoogle Scholar
- Graham MH, Vasquez JA, Buschmann AH (2007) Global ecology of the giant kelp Macrocystis: from ecotypes to ecosystems. Oceanogr Mar Biol Ann Rev 45:39–88Google Scholar
- Mann KH (2000) Ecology of coastal waters: with implications for management. Blackwell Science, MaldenGoogle Scholar
- North WJ (1971) The biology of giant kelp beds (Macrocystis) in California. Nova Hedwig 32:1–600Google Scholar
- Rodriguez GE (2015) Turnover dynamics of the giant kelp, Macrocystis pyrifera. PhD dissertation, Department of Ecology, Evolution and Marine Biology, University of California Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California, USAGoogle Scholar
- Stewart HL, Fram JP, Reed DC, Williams SL, Brzezinski MA, MacIntyre S, Gaylord B (2009) Differences in growth, morphology and tissue carbon and nitrogen of Macrocystis pyrifera within and at the outer edge of a giant kelp forest in California, USA. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 375:101–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Wing BL, Clendenning KA (1971) Kelp surfaces and associated invertebrates. Nova Hedwig 32:319–341Google Scholar
- Wright IJ, Reich PB, Westoby M, Ackerly DD, Baruch Z, Bongers F, Cavender-Bares J, Chapin T, Cornelissen JHC, Diemer M, Flexas J, Garnier E, Groom PK, Gulias J, Hikosaka K, Lamont BB, Lee T, Lee W, Lusk C, Midgley JJ, Navas M, Niinemets U, Oleksyn J, Osada N, Poorter H, Poot P, Prior L, Pyankov VI, Roumet C, Thomas SC, Tjoelker MG, Veneklaas EJ, Villa R (2004) The worldwide leaf economics spectrum. Nature 428:821–827CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar