Advertisement

Could ocean acidification influence epiphytism? A comparison of carbon-use strategies between Fucus vesiculosus and its epiphytes in the Baltic Sea

  • Gerli AlbertEmail author
  • Christopher D. Hepburn
  • Liina Pajusalu
  • Tiina Paalme
  • Daniel W. Pritchard
  • Georg Martin
23rd INTERNATIONAL SEAWEED SYMPOSIUM, JEJU

Abstract

Reduced seawater pH due to elevated carbon dioxide (CO2), a process known as ocean acidification (OA), is a globally significant environmental issue. OA is predicted to influence a range of ecosystem processes, but little is known about how changing seawater carbon chemistry could influence the extent and impacts of epiphytism. In the brackish Baltic Sea, increased epiphytism is associated with coastal eutrophication and the potential for OA to interact with this relationship remains unclear. This study focuses on slow-growing perennial algae Fucus vesiculosus—which is one of the most important habitat-forming species in the Baltic Sea—and two of its most common and abundant filamentous epiphytes Ceramium tenuicorne and Pylaiella littoralis. Material for this study was collected from Estonian coastal waters. The aim of the research was to determine which carbon acquisition strategies these species possess, which could indicate how they respond to predicted changes in seawater chemistry due to elevated CO2. Carbon-use strategies in macroalgae were determined by analyzing natural carbon isotope signatures (δ13C), pH drift experiments, and photosynthesis vs. dissolved inorganic carbon (P vs. DIC) curves. Our results showed that although F. vesiculosus and its filamentous epiphytes all possess a carbon concentrating mechanism (CCM), the potential species-specific variation in the CCMs operation will favor C. tenuicorne over F. vesiculosus and P. littoralis in a future high CO2 world.

Keywords

Brackish water Carbon physiology Ceramium tenuicorne Increasing CO2 Macroalgae Pylaiella littoralis 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The study was carried out partially in a training workshop: Diversity of carbon use strategies in a different macrophyte communities in the NE Baltic Sea, in July 2018 at Kõiguste field station of the Estonian Marine Institute, Saaremaa Island. We would like to thank all the participants that contributed and also the University of Tartu, Department of Geology, for the help in determining the natural carbon isotope values.

References

  1. Almén AK, Glippa O, Pettersson H, Alenius P, Engström-Öst (2017) Changes in wintertime pH and hydrography of the Gulf of Finland (Baltic Sea) with focus on depth layers. Environ Monit Assess 189:147PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bäck S, Likolammi M (2004) Phenology of Ceramium tenuicorne in the SW Gulf of Finland, northern Baltic Sea. Ann Bot Fenn 41:95–101Google Scholar
  3. Bäck S, Ruuskanen A (2000) Distribution and maximum growth depth of Fucus vesiculosus along the Gulf of Finland. Mar Biol 136:303–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) lme4: linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lme4/lme4.pdf on 10 June 2019.
  5. Beardall J, Raven JA (2004) The potential effects of global climate change on microalgal photosynthesis, growth and ecology. Phycologia 43:26–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beardall J, Roberts S (1999) Inorganic carbon acquisition by two Antarctic macroalgae, Porphyra endiviifolium (Rhodophyta: Bangiales) and Palmaria decipiens (Rhodophyta: Palmariales). Polar Biol 21:310–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berger R, Henriksson E, Kautsky L, Malm T (2003) Effects of filamentous algae and deposited matter on the survival of Fucus vesiculosus L. germlings in the Baltic Sea. Aquat Ecol 37:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berger R, Bergström L, Granéli E, Kautsky L. (2004) How does eutrophication affect different life stages of Fucus vesiculosus in the Baltic Sea? — a conceptual model. In: Kautsky H, Snoeijs P. (eds) Biology of the Baltic Sea. Springer, Dordrecht pp243–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bergström L (2005) Macroalgae in the Baltic Sea–responses to low salinity and nutrient enrichment in Ceramium and Fucus. PhD Thesis, Umea University, Umea, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  10. Bergström L, Kautsky L (2006) Local adaptation of Ceramium tenuicorne (Ceramiales, Rhodophyta) within Baltic Sea. J Phycol 42:36–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bonsdorff E, Blomqvist EM, Mattila J, Norkko A (1997) Coastal eutrophication: causes, consequences and perspectives in the Archipelago areas of the northern Baltic Sea. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 44:63–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brutemark A, Engström-Öst J, Vehmaa A (2011) Long-term monitoring data reveal pH dynamics, trends and variability in the western Gulf of Finland. Oceanol Hydrobiol Stud 40:91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Burnell OW, Russell BD, Irving AD, Connell SD (2014) Seagrass response to CO2 contingent on epiphytic algae: indirect effects can overwhelm direct effects. Oecologia 176:871–882PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cederwall H, Elmgren R (1990) Biological effects of eutrophication of the Baltic Sea, particularly the coastal zone. Ambio 19:109–112Google Scholar
  15. Connell SD, Russell BD (2010) The direct effects of increasing CO2 and temperature on non-calcifying organisms: increasing the potential for phase shifts in kelp forests. Proc R Soc B 277:1409–1415PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Connell SD, Kroeker KJ, Fabricius KE, Kline DI, Russell BD (2013) The other ocean acidification problem: CO2 as a resource among competitors for ecosystem dominance. Phil Trans R Soc B 368:20120442PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cornwall CE, Hepburn CD, Pritchard D, Currie KI, McGraw CM, Hunter KA, Hurd CL (2012) Carbon-use strategies in macroalgae: differential responses to lowered pH and implications for ocean acidification. J Phycol 48:137–144PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cornwall CE, Revill AT, Hurd CL (2015) High prevalence of diffusive uptake of CO2 by macroalgae in a temperate subtidal ecosystem. Photosynth Res 124:181–190PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cornwall CE, Revill AT, Hall-Spencer JM, Milazzo M, Raven JA, Hurd CL (2017) Inorganic carbon physiology underpins macroalgal responses to elevated CO2. Sci Rep 7:46297PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cox TE, Schenone S, Delille J, Díaz-Castañeda V, Alliouane S, Gattuso JP, Gazeau F (2015) Effects of ocean acidification on Posidonia oceanica epiphytic community and shoot productivity. J Ecol 103:1594–1609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Diaz-Pulido G, Cornwall C, Gartrell P, Hurd C, Tran DV (2016) Strategies of dissolved inorganic carbon use in macroalgae across a gradient of terrestrial influence: implications for the Great Barrier Reef in the context of ocean acidification. Coral Reefs 35:1327–1341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Eriksson BK, Johansson G (2003) Sedimentation reduces recruitment success of Fucus vesiculosus (Phaeophyceae) in the Baltic Sea. Eur J Phycol 38:217–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Eriksson BK, Johansson G, Snoeijs P (1998) Long-term changes in the sublittoral zonation of brown algae in the southern Bothnian Sea. Eur J Phycol 33:241–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Eriksson BK, Johansson G, Snoeijs P (2002) Long-term changes in the macroalgal vegetation of the inner Gullmar fjord, Swedish Skagerrak coast. J Phycol 38:284–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Eriksson BK, Rubach A, Hillebrand H (2006) Biotic habitat complexity controls species diversity and nutrient effects on net biomass production. Ecology 87:246–254PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Falkenberg LJ, Russell BD, Connell SD (2013) Contrasting resource limitations of marine primary producers: implications for competitive interactions under enriched CO2 and nutrient regimes. Oecologia 172:575–583PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gattuso J, Hansson L (2011) Ocean acidification. Oxford University Press, New York 326 ppGoogle Scholar
  28. Giordano M, Beardall J, Raven JA (2005) CO2 concentrating mechanisms in algae: mechanisms, environmental modulation, and evolution. Annu Rev Plant Biol 56:99–131PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Graiff A, Bartsch I, Ruth W, Wahl M, Karsten U (2015) Season exerts differential effects of ocean acidification and warming on growth and carbon metabolism of the seaweed Fucus vesiculosus in the western Baltic Sea. Front Mar Sci 2:112Google Scholar
  30. Harder T (2009) Marine epibiosis: concepts, ecological consequences and host defence. In: Flemming H-C, Murthy PS, Venkatesan R, Cooksey K (eds) Marine and industrial biofouling. Springer, Berlin, pp 219–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. HELCOM (2009) Eutrophication in the Baltic Sea–an integrated thematic assessment of the effects of nutrient enrichment and eutrophication in the Baltic Sea region. Balt. Sea Environ. Proc. No. 115BGoogle Scholar
  32. HELCOM (2013) Climate change in the Baltic Sea Area: HELCOM thematic assessment in 2013. Balt. Sea Environ. Proc. No. 137Google Scholar
  33. HELCOM (2017) The integrated assessment of eutrophication-supplementary report to the first version of the ‘State of the Baltic Sea’ report 2017. Retrieved from http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/about-helcom-and-the-assessment/downloads-and-data/ on 25 June 2019
  34. Hepburn CD, Pritchard DW, Cornwall CE et al (2011) Diversity of carbon use strategies in a kelp forest community: implications for a high CO2 ocean. Glob Chang Biol 17:2488–2497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hothorn T, Bretz F, Westfall P (2008) Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biom J 50:346–363PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hurd CL, Hepburn CD, Currie KI, Raven JA, Hunter KA (2009) Testing effects of ocean acidification on algal metabolism: consideration for experimental designs. J Phycol 45:1236–1251PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. IPCC (2014) In: Core Writing Team, Pachauri RK, Meyer LA (eds) Climate change 2014: synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland 151 ppGoogle Scholar
  38. Isæus M, Malm T, Persson S, Svensson A (2004) Effects of filamentous algae and sediment on recruitment and survival of Fucus serratus (Phaeophyceae) juveniles in the eutrophic Baltic Sea. Eur J Phycol 39:301–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Israel A, Hophy M (2002) Growth, photosynthetic properties and Rubisco activities and amounts of marine macroalgae grown under current and elevated seawater CO2 concentrations. Glob Chang Biol 8:831–840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Jacobucci GB, Güth AZ, Turra A, Leite FPP (2011) Influence of a narrow depth gradient and season on the morphology, phenology, and epibiosis of the brown alga Sargassum cymosum. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 91:761–770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. James, RK (2011) Algal communities and their response to ocean acidification. MSc Thesis, University of Otago, Dunedin, New-Zealand.Google Scholar
  42. Kangas SD, Autio G, Hallfors G, Luther H, Niemi A, Salemaa H (1982) A general model of the decline of Fucus vesiculosus at Tvarminne, south coast of Finland in 1977-81. Acta Bot Fenn 118:1–27Google Scholar
  43. Karez R, Engelbert S, Kraufvelin P, Pedersen MF, Sommer U (2004) Biomass response and changes in composition of ephemeral macroalgal assemblages along an experimental gradient of nutrient enrichment. Aquat Bot 78:103–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kautsky N, Kautsky H, Kautsky U, Waern M (1986) Decreased depth penetration of Fucus vesiculosus (L.) since the 1940’s indicates eutrophication of the Baltic Sea. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 28:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kautsky H, Kautsky L, Kautsky N, Kautsky U, Lindblad C (1992) Studies on the Fucus vesiculosus community in the Baltic Sea. Acta Phytogeogr Suec 78:33–48Google Scholar
  46. Kersen P, Kotta J, Bučas M, Kolesova N, Deķere Z (2011) Epiphytes and associated fauna on the brown alga Fucus vesiculosus in the Baltic and the North Seas in relation to different abiotic and biotic variables. Mar Ecol 32:87–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kersen P, Paalme T, Treier R (2013) Variation in epibiotic load on the macroalgae Furcellaria lumbricalis and Fucus vesiculosus in the Baltic Sea. Abstract Book. CERF2013: Toward resilient coasts and estuaries, science for sustainable solutions: 22nd Biennial Conference of the Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation, San Diego, California, USA, 3-7 November. 118−118.Google Scholar
  48. Kiirikki M (1996) Dynamics of macroalgal vegetation in the northern Baltic Sea–evaluating the effects of weather and eutrophication. Walter Andree Nottbecks Found Sci Rep 12:1–13Google Scholar
  49. Koch M, Bowes G, Ross C, Zhang XH (2013) Climate change and ocean acidification effects on seagrasses and marine macroalgae. Glob Chang Biol 19:103–132PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Korpinen S, Jormalainen V (2008) Grazing and nutrients reduce recruitment success of Fucus vesiculosus L. (Fucales: Phaeophyceae). Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 78:437–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Korpinen S, Honkanen T, Vesakoski O, Hemmi A, Koivikko R, Loponen Y, Jormalainen V (2007) Macroalgal communities face the challenge of changing biotic interactions: review with focus on the Baltic Sea. Ambio 36:203–211PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kotta H, Kotta J (2004) Food and habitat choice of the isopod Idotea baltica in the northeastern Baltic Sea. Hydrobiologia 514:79–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kraberg AC, Norton TA (2007) Effect of epiphytism on reproductive and vegetative lateral formation in the brown, intertidal seaweed Ascophyllum nodosum (Phaeophyceae). Phycol Res 55:17–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Kuznetsov I, Neumann T (2013) Simulation of carbon dynamics in the Baltic Sea with a 3D model. J Mar Syst 111–112:167–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lehtinen KJ, Notini M, Mattsson J, Landner L (1988) Disappearance of bladder-wrack (Fucus vesiculosus L.) in the Baltic Sea: relation to pulp-mill chlorate. Ambio 17:387–393Google Scholar
  56. Leskinen E, Makinen A, Fortelius W, Lindstrom M, Salemaa H (1992) Primary production of macroalgae in relation to the spectral range and sublittoral light conditions in the Tvarminne archipelago, northern Baltic Sea. Acta Phytogeogr Suec 78:85–93Google Scholar
  57. Lotze HK, Schramm W, Schories D, Worm B (1999) Control of macroalgal blooms at early developmental stages: Pilayella littoralis versus Enteromorpha spp. Oecologia 119:46–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Maberly SC (1990) Exogenous sources of inorganic carbon for photosynthesis by marine macroalgae. J Phycol 26:439–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Malm T, Isæus M (2005) Distribution of macroalgal communities in the central Baltic Sea. Ann Bot Fenn 42:257–266Google Scholar
  60. Mercado JM, Gordillo FJL (2011) Inorganic carbon acquisition in algal communities: are the laboratory data relevant to the natural ecosystems? Photosynth Res 109:257PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Michaelis M, Menten ML (1913) Kinetics of invertase action. Biochem Z 49:333–369Google Scholar
  62. Middelboe AL, Sand-Jensen K (2000) Long-term changes in macroalgal communities in a Danish estuary. Phycologia 39:245–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Müller JD (2018) Ocean acidification in the Baltic Sea: involved processes, metrology of pH in brackish waters, and calcification under fluctuating conditions. PhD Thesis, University of Rostock, Rostock, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  64. Nayar S, Collings GJ, Miller DJ, Bryars S, Cheshire AC (2009) Uptake and resource allocation of inorganic carbon by the temperate seagrasses Posidonia and Amphibolis. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 373:87–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Nygård CA, Dring MJ (2008) Influence of salinity, temperature, dissolved inorganic carbon and nutrient concentration on the photosynthesis and growth of Fucus vesiculosus from the Baltic and Irish Seas. Eur J Phycol 43:253–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Omstedt A, Edman M, Claremar BJ, Frodin P, Gustafsson E, Humborg E, Hägg H, Mörth M, Rutgersson A, Schurgers G, Smith B, Wällstedt T, Yurova A (2012) Future changes in the Baltic Sea acid–base (pH) and oxygen balances. Tellus B 64:19586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Paalme T (2005) Nuisance brown macroalga Pilayella littoralis: primary production, decomposition and formation of drifting algal mats. PhD thesis, Tallinn University, EstoniaGoogle Scholar
  68. Paalme T, Kukk H (2003) Comparison of net primary production rates of Pilayella littoralis (L.) Kjellm. and other dominating macroalgal species in Kõiguste Bay, northeastern Baltic Sea. Proc Estonian Acad Sci Biol Ecol 52:125Google Scholar
  69. Pajusalu L, Martin G, Põllumäe A, Paalme T (2013) Results of laboratory and field experiments of the direct effect of increasing CO2 on net primary production of macroalgal species in brackish-water ecosystems. Proc Estonian Acad Sci 62:148–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Pedersen MF, Borum J (1997) Nutrient control of estuarine macroalgae: growth strategy and the balance between nitrogen requirements and uptake. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 161:155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. R Core Team (2017) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.r-project.org/ (last accessed 27 June 2019)
  72. Råberg S (2004) Competition from filamentous algae on Fucus vesiculosus—negative effects and the implications on biodiversity of associated flora and fauna. Plant Ecology, vol. 4. Licenciate Thesis. Department of Botany, Stockholm University, pp 1–26Google Scholar
  73. Råberg S, Kautsky L (2007) A comparative biodiversity study of the associated fauna of perennial fucoids and filamentous algae. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 73:249–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Raven JA (2003) Inorganic carbon concentrating mechanisms in relation to the biologyof algae. Photosynth Res77:155–171Google Scholar
  75. Raven JA, Beardall J (2014) CO2 concentrating mechanisms and environmental change. Aquat Bot 118:24–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Raven JA, Osmond CB (1992) Inorganic C Acquisition processes and their ecological significance in inter- and sub-tidal macroalgae of North Carolina. Funct Ecol 6:41–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Raven JA, Samuelsson G (2009) Ecophysiology of Fucus vesiculosus L. Close to its northern limit in the Gulf of Bothnia. Bot Mar 31:399Google Scholar
  78. Raven JA, Johnston AM, Kübler JE, Korb R, Mclnroy SG, Handley LL, Scrimgeour CM, Walker DI, Beardall J, Vanderklift M, Fredriksen S, Dunton K (2002) Mechanistic interpretation of carbon isotope discrimination by marine macroalgae and seagrasses. Funct Plant Biol 29:355–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Raven JA, Ball LA, Beardall J, Giordano M, Maberly SC (2005) Algae lacking carbon-concentrating mechanisms. Can J Bot 83:879–890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Rohde S, Hiebenthal C, Wahl M, Karez R, Bischof K (2008) Decreased depth distribution of Fucus vesiculosus (Phaeophyceae) in the Western Baltic: effects of light deficiency and epibionts on growth and photosynthesis. Eur J Phycol 43:143–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Rönnberg O, Ådjers K, Ruokolahti C, Bondestam M (1992) Effects of fish farming on growth, epiphytes and nutrient content of Fucus vesiculosus L. in the Åland archipelago, northern Baltic Sea. Aquat Bot 42:109–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Rost B, Riebesell U, Burkhardt S, Sültemeyer D (2003) Carbon acquisition of bloom-forming marine phytoplankton. Limnol Oceanogr 48:55–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Rothäusler E, Corell H, Jormalainen V (2015) Abundance and dispersal trajectories of floating Fucus vesiculosus in the Northern Baltic Sea. Limnol Oceanogr 60:2173–2184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Russell BD, Elsdon TS, Gillanders BM, Connell SD (2005) Nutrients increase epiphyte loads: broad-scale observations and an experimental assessment. Mar Biol 147:551–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Russell BD, Passarelli CA, Connell SD (2011) Forecasted CO2 modifies the influence of light in shaping subtidal habitat. J Phycol 47:744–752PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Schanz A, Polte P, Asmus H (2002) Cascading effects of hydrodynamics on an epiphyte–grazer system in intertidal seagrass beds of the Wadden Sea. Mar Biol 141:287–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Schramm W, Nienhuis PH (1996) Marine benthic vegetation. Recent changes and effects ofutrophication. Springer, Berlin 465 ppCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Surif MB, Raven JA (1989) Exogenous inorganic carbon sources for photosynthesis in seawater by members of the Fucales and the Laminariales (Phaeophyta): ecological and taxonomic implications. Oecologia 78:97–105PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Torn K, Krause-Jensen D, Martin G (2006) Present and past depth distribution of bladderwrack (Fucus vesiculosus) in the Baltic Sea. Aquat Bot 84:53–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Trautman DA, Borowitzka MA (1999) Distribution of the epiphytic organisms on Posidonia australis and P. sinuosa, two seagrasses with differing leaf morphology. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 179:215–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Vahteri P, Vuorinen I (2016) Continued decline of the bladderwrack, Fucus vesiculosus, in the Archipelago Sea, northern Baltic proper. Boreal Environ Res 21:373–386Google Scholar
  92. Vahteri P, Mäkinen A, Salovius S, Ilppo V (2000) Are drifting algal mats conquering the bottom of the Archipelago Sea, SW Finland? AMBIO 29:338–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Vanderklift MA, Lavery PS (2000) Patchiness in assemblages of epiphytic macroalgae on Posidonia coriacea at a hierarchy of spatial scales. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 192:127–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Vogt H, Schramm W (1991) Conspicuous decline of Fucus in Kiel Bay (Western Baltic): what are the causes? Mar Ecol Prog Ser 69:189–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Waern M (1952) Rocky shore algae in the Öregrund archipelago. Acta Phytogeogr Suec 30:1–298Google Scholar
  96. Wahl M (1989) Marine epibiosis. I. Fouling and antifouling: some basic aspects. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 58:175–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Wahl M (2008) Ecological lever and interface ecology: epibiosis modulates the interactions between host and environment. Biofouling 24:427–438PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Wahl M, Mark O (1999) The predominantly facultative nature of epibiosis: experimental and observational evidence. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 187:59–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Wikström SA, Kautsky L (2007) Structure and diversity of invertebrate communities in the presence and absence of canopy-forming Fucus vesiculosus in the Baltic Sea. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 72:168–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Worm B, Sommer U (2000) Rapid direct and indirect effects of a single nutrient pulse in a seaweed-epiphyte-grazer system. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 202:283–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Worm B, Lotze HK, Boström C, Engvist R, Labanauskas V, Sommer U (1999) Marine diversity shift linked to interactions among grazers, nutrients and propagule banks. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 185:309–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Young EB, Beardall J (2005) Modulation of photosynthesis and inorganic carbon acquisition in a marine microalga by nitrogen, iron, and light availability. Can J Bot 83:917–928CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Estonian Marine InstituteUniversity of TartuTallinnEstonia
  2. 2.Department of Marine ScienceUniversity of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand
  3. 3.Te Ao Tūroa, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi TahuDunedinNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations