It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Ocean warming (OW), ocean acidification (OA) and their interaction with local drivers, e.g., copper pollution, may negatively affect macroalgae and their microscopic life stages. We evaluated meiospore development of the kelps Macrocystis pyrifera and Undaria pinnatifida exposed to a factorial combination of current and 2100-predicted temperature (12 and 16 °C, respectively), pH (8.16 and 7.65, respectively), and two copper levels (no-added-copper and species-specific germination Cu-EC50). Meiospore germination for both species declined by 5–18% under OA and ambient temperature/OA conditions, irrespective of copper exposure. Germling growth rate declined by >40%·day−1, and gametophyte development was inhibited under Cu-EC50 exposure, compared to the no-added-copper treatment, irrespective of pH and temperature. Following the removal of copper and 9-day recovery under respective pH and temperature treatments, germling growth rates increased by 8–18%·day−1. The exception was U. pinnatifida under OW/OA, where growth rate remained at 10%·day−1 before and after copper exposure. Copper-binding ligand concentrations were higher in copper-exposed cultures of both species, suggesting that ligands may act as a defence mechanism of kelp early life stages against copper toxicity. Our study demonstrated that copper pollution is more important than global climate drivers in controlling meiospore development in kelps as it disrupts the completion of their life cycle.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details


1 Department of Botany, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand; Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia; Departamento de Repoblación y Cultivo, Instituto de Fomento Pesquero (IFOP), Puerto Montt, Casilla, Chile
2 Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
3 NIWA/ University of Otago Research Centre for Oceanography, Chemistry Department, Union Place West, Dunedin 9016, New Zealand, Dunedin, New Zealand; Marine Environment Study Laboratory, International Atomic Energy Agency, Monaco, Monaco
4 NIWA/ University of Otago Research Centre for Oceanography, Chemistry Department, Union Place West, Dunedin 9016, New Zealand, Dunedin, New Zealand
5 Centro i~mar, Universidad de Los Lagos, Puerto Montt, Casilla, Chile
6 ETH Zürich, Institute of Geochemistry and Petrology, Department of Earth Sciences, Zürich, Switzerland
7 Department of Botany, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand; Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy Research, Bodø, Norway; The Marine Science Institute, College of Science, University of the Philippines Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines