Hostname: page-component-6dbcb7884d-cm8hq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-14T01:34:55.931Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Growth form and environment in Saccorhiza polyschides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

Trevor A. Norton
Trevor A. Norton
Affiliation:
Department of Botany, University of Glasgow
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Descriptive work carried out in two localities at Port Erin, Isle of Man and three localities at Lough Ine, County Cork has shown that there were marked morpho-logical and anatomical differences between sporophytes of Saccorhiza polyschides (Lightf.) Batt. living in different habitats. The plants developed broad, flimsy, curved, non-digitate blades in areas of weak current; long, tough, flat, very digitate blades in strong current and short, tough, flat blades with few digits in habitats without current, but subject to wave action. By means of culture techniques in the laboratory and transplant experiments in the sea the variations were shown to be phenotypically based. The transferred plants adopted the morphology of the population into which they were moved.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 49 , Issue 4 , November 1969 , pp. 1025 - 1045
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1969

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bassindale, R., Davenport, E., Ebling, F. J., Kitching, J. A., Sleigh, M. A. & Sloane, J. F., 1957. The ecology of Lough Ine Rapids with special reference to water currents. VI. Effects of the Rapids on the Hydrography of the south basin. J. Ecol., Vol. 45, pp. 879–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bordner, J. S., 1909. The influence of traction on the formation of mechanical tissue in stems. Bot. Gaz., Vol. 48, pp. 251–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruce, J. R., 1924. Seasonal and tidal pH variations in the water of Port Erin bay. Rep. oceanic, Dep. Univ. Lpool, pp. 35–9.Google Scholar
Burrows, E. M., 1955. Growth control in the Fucaceae. Second Int. Seaweed Symp., Trondheim 1955, pp. 163–70.Google Scholar
Burrows, E. M., 1958. Sublittoral algal population in Port Erin bay, Isle of Man. J. mar. biol. Ass. U.K., Vol. 37, pp. 687–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druehl, L. D., 1967. Distribution of two species of Laminaria as related to some environmental conditions. J. Phycol., Vol. 3, pp. 103–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gessner, F., 1940. Die bedeuting der wasserbewebung für dïe atmung und assimilation der meeresalgen. Jb. wiss. Bot., Bd. 89. pp. 1–12.Google Scholar
Hegler, R., 1893. Uber den einfluss des mechanischen zugs auf das wachstum der pflanze. Beitr. Biol. Pfl., Bd. 6, pp. 383–432.Google Scholar
Jaasund, E., 1965. Aspects of the marine algal vegetation of North Norway. Bot. Gothoburg., Vol. 4, pp. 1–174.Google Scholar
Kain, J.M., 1962. Aspects of the biology of Laminaria hyperborea. I. Vertical distribution. J. mar. biol. Ass. U.K., Vol. 42, pp. 377–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kain, J. M., 1964. Aspects of the biology of Laminaria hyperborea. III. Survival and growth of gametophytes. J. mar. biol. Ass. U.K., Vol. 44, pp. 415–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Killian, K., 1911. Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Laminarien. Z. Bot., Bd. 3, pp. 433–94.Google Scholar
Kitching, J. A., Lilly, S. J., Lodge, S. M., Sloane, J. F., Bassindale, R. & Ebling, F. J., 1952. Ecology of Lough Ine rapids with special reference to water currents. III. The effect of current on other environmental conditions. J. Ecol., Vol. 40, pp. 179–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macmillan, C., 1899. Observations on Nereocystis. Bull. Torrey bot. Club, Vol. 26, PP. 273–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macfarlane, C. I., 1961. Some ecological problems encountered in surveys of marine algae in Nova Scotia. Recent Advances in Botany, pp. 183–187.Google Scholar
Moss, B., 1963. Wound healing and regeneration in Fucus vesiculosus L. Fourth Int. Seaweed Symp., Biarritz 1961, pp. 117–22.Google Scholar
Newcombe, F. C., 1895. The regulatory formation of mechanical tissue. Bot. Gaz., Vol. 20, pp. 441–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norton, T. A., & Burrows, E. M., 1969. Studies on marine algae of the British Isles. 7. Saccorhiza polyschides (Lightf.) Batt. Br. phycol. J., Vol. 4, 19–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruttner, F., 1926. Bemerkungen über den Sauerstoffgehalt der Gewasser und dessen respiratorischen Wert. Naturwissenschaften, Bd. 14, pp. 1237–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Setchell, W. A., 1891. Concerning the life history of Saccorhiza dermatodea (De La Pyl.) J. Ag. Proc. Am. Acad. Arts Sci., Vol. 26, pp. 177–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Setchell, W. A., 1905. Regeneration among Kelps. Univ. Calif. Publs Bot., Vol. 2, pp. 139–68.Google Scholar
Shelford, V. E. & Gail, F. W., 1922. A study of light penetration into seawater by means of the Kunz photo-electric cell with particular reference to the distribution of plants and animals. Publs Puget Sound mar. biol. Stn, Vol. 3, pp. 141–75.Google Scholar
Sinnot, E. W., 1960. Plant morphogenesis. 550 pp. New York: Magraw Hill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skottsberg, C., 1907. Zur kenntnis der Subantarktischen und Antarktischen meeresalgen. I. Phaeophyceen. 171 pp. Uppsala.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sloane, J. F., Ebling, F. J., Kitching, J. A. & Lilly, S. J., 1957. The ecology of the Lough Ine rapids with special reference to water currents. V. The sedentary fauna of the Laminarian algae in the Lough Ine area. J. Anim. Ecol., Vol. 26, pp. 197–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sundene, O., 1964. The Ecology of Laminaria digitata in Norway in view of trans-plant experiments. Nytt Mag. Bot., Vol. 11, pp. 83–107.Google Scholar
Wells, B. W., 1910. A histological study of the self-dividing laminae of certain kelps. Ohio Nat., Vol. 11, pp. 217–27.Google Scholar
Yendo, K., 1914. On the cultivation of seaweeds with special accounts of their ecology. Econ. Proc. R. Dubl. Soc, Vol. 11, pp. 105–22.Google Scholar