Journal of Applied Phycology

, Volume 29, Issue 5, pp 2587–2593 | Cite as

Use of morphological characteristics for calculating individual biomass in the kelp Ecklonia cava

  • Sangil Kim
  • Yun Hee Kang
  • Tae-Hoon Kim
  • Hyuk Je Lee
  • Sang Rul ParkEmail author


Because kelp biomass contributes to the abundance and production of myriad animals and plants in coastal marine ecosystems, its measurement is critical to evaluating the impact of macroalgae on marine and aquatic habitats. We investigated the relationships among morphological characteristics to develop a non-destructive method for calculating Ecklonia cava biomass. Approximately 253 sporophytes of E. cava with various stipe size gradients were collected at five sites on a seasonal basis from November 2012 to August 2014. The relationships between morphological characteristics and individual weight were best fit by a non-linear regression equation, the sigmoidal regression equation. The length and diameter of the stipe, blade number, and total length accounted for more than 80% of the variation in individual weight. In particular, total length × blade number was highly correlated (r 2 = 0.94) correlated with individual weight. The non-destructive method was 3.4–6.7 times faster than destructive sampling method. Considering the cost and time of fieldwork, stipe diameter and length are suitable for large-scale long-term monitoring. We recommend the use of the total length × blade number variable to improve the accuracy of plant biomass estimation in monitoring programs.


Ecklonia cava Phaeophyceae Kelp biomass Morphometric equation Non-destructive method 



This work was supported in part by Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education (2015R1D1A1A01057603), and the projects entitled “Long-term change of structure and function in marine ecosystems of Korea” and “Development of integrated technologies for developing biomaterials using by magma seawater” funded by the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, Korea.


  1. Anderson RJ, Rand A, Rothman MD, Share A, Bolton JJ (2007) Mapping and quantifying the South African kelp resource. Afr J Mar Sci 29:369–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Artan M, Li Y, Karadeniz FS, Lee H, Kim MM, Kim SK (2008) Anti-HIV-1 activity of phloroglucinol derivative, 6,6′-bieckol, from Ecklonia cava. Bioorg Med Chem Lett 16:7921–7926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bekkby T, Rinde E, Gundersen H, Norderhaug KM, Gitmark JK, Christie H (2014) Length, strength and water flow: relative importance of wave and current exposure on morphology in kelp Laminaria hyperborea. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 506:61–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bolton JJ, Anderson RJ (1994) Ecklonia. In: Akatsuka I (ed) Biology of economic algae. SPB Academic Publishing, The Hague, pp 385–406Google Scholar
  5. Chung IK, Oak JH, Lee JA, Shin JA, Kim JG, Park K-S (2013) Installing kelp forests/seaweed beds for mitigation and adaptation against global warming: Korean Project Overview. ICES J Mar Sci 70:1038–1044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dean TA, Stekoll MS, Smith RO (1996) Kelps and oil: the effects of the Exxon Valdez oil spill on subtidal algae. In: Rice SD, Spies RB, Wolfe DA, Wright BA (eds) Proceedings of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Symposium. American Fisheries Society Symposium 18, pp 412–423Google Scholar
  7. Duggins DO, Eckman JE, Sewell AT (1990) Ecology of understory kelp environments. II. Effects of kelps on recruitment of benthic invertebrates. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 143:27–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gendron L (1985) Conversion of blade length increments into biomass production estimates in Laminaria longicruris. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 42:33–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gevaert F, Janquin M-A, Davoult D (2008) Biometrics in Laminaria digitata: a useful tool to assess biomass, carbon and nitrogen contents. J Sea Res 60:215–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hwang EK, Gong YG, Hwang I-K, Park E-J, Park CS (2013) Cultivation of the two perennial brown algae Ecklonia cava and E. stolonifera for abalone feeds in Korea. J Appl Phycol 25:825–829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kim S (2016) The function and structure of kelp Ecklonia cava on Jeju Island, Korea. PhD Thesis, Jeju National University, Jeju, KoreaGoogle Scholar
  12. Kim BY, Ko J-C, Ko HJ, Park SE, Cha HK, Choi HG (2013) Seasonal variation in community structure of subtidal seaweeds on Jeju Island, Korea. Kor J Fish Aquat Sci 46:607–618 (in Korean with English abstract) Google Scholar
  13. Klinger T, DeWreede RE (1988) Stipe rings, age, and size in populations of Laminaria setchellii Silva (Laminariales, Phaeophyta) in British Columbia, Canada. Phycologia 27:234–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Laffoley D, Grimsditch GD (2009) The management of natural coastal carbon sinks. IUCN, GlandGoogle Scholar
  15. Mann KH (2000) Ecology of coastal waters, with implications for management. Volume 2. Blackwell Science, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  16. Nellemann C, Corcoran E, Duarte CM, Valdés L, De Young C, Fonseca L, Grimsditch G (2009). Blue carbon: the role of healthy oceans in binding carbon. A rapid response assessment. UNEP/Earthprint, ArendaGoogle Scholar
  17. North WJ, James DE, Jones LG (1993) History of kelp beds (Macrocystis) in Orange and San Diego counties, California. Hydrobiologia 260/261:277–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Reed DC, Rassweiler A, Arkema KK (2008) Biomass rather than growth rate determines variation in net primary production by giant kelp. Ecology 89:2493–2505CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Robbins BD, Boese BL (2002) Macroalgal volume: a surrogate for biomass in some green algae. Bot Mar 45:586–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rollon RN, Samson MS, Roleda MY, Araño KG, Vergara MWB, Licuanan WY (2003) Estimating biomass from the cover of Gelidiella acerosa along the coasts of eastern Philippines. J Appl Phycol 46:497–502Google Scholar
  21. Rothman MD, Anderson RJ, Bolton JJ, Boothroyd CJT, Kemp FA (2010) A simple method for rapid estimation of Ecklonia maxima and Laminaria pallida biomass using floating surface quadrats. Afr J Mar Sci 32:137–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Stekoll MS, Else PV (1992) The feasibility of Macrocystis mariculture in southeast Alaska. The State of Alaska and the Japan Overseas Fisheries Cooperation Foundation, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  23. Stekoll MS, Deysher LE, Hess M (2006) A remote sensing approach to estimating harvestable kelp biomass. J Appl Phycol 18:323–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Steneck RS, Graham MH, Bourque BJ, Corbett D, Erlandson JM, Estes JA, Tegner MJ (2002) Kelp forest ecosystems: biodiversity, stability, resilience and future. Environ Conserv 29:436–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. van Tamelen PG, Woodby D (2001) Macrocystis biomass, quality, and harvesting effects in relation to the herring spawn-on-kelp fishery in Alaska. Alaska Fish Res Bull 8:118–131Google Scholar
  26. Thomas NV, Kim S-K (2011) Potential pharmacological applications of polyphenolic derivatives from marine brown algae. Environ Toxicol Phar 32:325–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Vásquez J, Vega JMA (2004) Kelps: yield, harvesting and culture in northern Chile. Abstract Book Aquaculture 2004. World Aquaculture Society, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 609Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sangil Kim
    • 1
    • 2
  • Yun Hee Kang
    • 3
  • Tae-Hoon Kim
    • 3
  • Hyuk Je Lee
    • 4
  • Sang Rul Park
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Ocean Climate & Ecology Research DivisionNational Institute of Fisheries ScienceBusanRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Estuarine & Coastal Ecology Laboratory, Department of Marine Life SciencesJeju National UniversityJejuRepublic of Korea
  3. 3.Department of Earth and Marine SciencesJeju National UniversityJejuRepublic of Korea
  4. 4.Department of Biological ScienceSangji UniversityWonjuRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations