146 Methodological Problems of Marine Macroalgae Age Estimation

To know the birthdate of any organism is the best way to estimate its age. Unfortunately direct chronometric method, being the most reliable, can't be generally applied. In these cases indirect methods are used. One of them – morphobiometric – is used to estimate age of trees by the number of y...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of Phycology
Main Author: Selivanova, O. N.
Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2003
Subjects:
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-3646.2003.03906001_146.x
https://api.wiley.com/onlinelibrary/tdm/v1/articles/10.1111%2Fj.0022-3646.2003.03906001_146.x
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.0022-3646.2003.03906001_146.x
id crwiley:10.1111/j.0022-3646.2003.03906001_146.x
record_format openpolar
spelling crwiley:10.1111/j.0022-3646.2003.03906001_146.x 2024-06-02T08:09:44+00:00 146 Methodological Problems of Marine Macroalgae Age Estimation Selivanova, O. N. 2003 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-3646.2003.03906001_146.x https://api.wiley.com/onlinelibrary/tdm/v1/articles/10.1111%2Fj.0022-3646.2003.03906001_146.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.0022-3646.2003.03906001_146.x en eng Wiley http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor Journal of Phycology volume 39, issue s1, page 51-51 ISSN 0022-3646 1529-8817 journal-article 2003 crwiley https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-3646.2003.03906001_146.x 2024-05-03T11:03:43Z To know the birthdate of any organism is the best way to estimate its age. Unfortunately direct chronometric method, being the most reliable, can't be generally applied. In these cases indirect methods are used. One of them – morphobiometric – is used to estimate age of trees by the number of year rings in the stem or fucoid algae by the number of dichotomic branching. Both methods are widely used however the data obtained may deviate considerably from the true age of the plants. In this study I compared chronometric data on algal age to those obtained by calculation of the number of dichotomic branching in Fucus evenescens growing in Kamchatka, Russia. Field experiments were carried out from 1999 to 2002. No marked with plastic lables plants survived for 3 years. The comparison showed that morphobiometric data exceeded true age of algae at least in 2–3, sometimes even in 5 times. The first year plants can produce up to 5 dichotomous branching per season and can become fertile in the first months of their life. There is information in Russian literature that Kamchatka's F. evenescens age can reach 12–15 years. I consider these data erroneous and suppose underestimation of the number of branches in the early stages of Fucus development to be the cause of overestimation of its true age. In my opinion it is not more than 4–5 years. Application of morphobiometric method is more problematic in case of polytomy. Besides that this method usually causes damage or death of the plant. So I consider that only chronometric method can give the researcher exact information on the age of macroalgae. Article in Journal/Newspaper Kamchatka Wiley Online Library Journal of Phycology 39 s1 51 51
institution Open Polar
collection Wiley Online Library
op_collection_id crwiley
language English
description To know the birthdate of any organism is the best way to estimate its age. Unfortunately direct chronometric method, being the most reliable, can't be generally applied. In these cases indirect methods are used. One of them – morphobiometric – is used to estimate age of trees by the number of year rings in the stem or fucoid algae by the number of dichotomic branching. Both methods are widely used however the data obtained may deviate considerably from the true age of the plants. In this study I compared chronometric data on algal age to those obtained by calculation of the number of dichotomic branching in Fucus evenescens growing in Kamchatka, Russia. Field experiments were carried out from 1999 to 2002. No marked with plastic lables plants survived for 3 years. The comparison showed that morphobiometric data exceeded true age of algae at least in 2–3, sometimes even in 5 times. The first year plants can produce up to 5 dichotomous branching per season and can become fertile in the first months of their life. There is information in Russian literature that Kamchatka's F. evenescens age can reach 12–15 years. I consider these data erroneous and suppose underestimation of the number of branches in the early stages of Fucus development to be the cause of overestimation of its true age. In my opinion it is not more than 4–5 years. Application of morphobiometric method is more problematic in case of polytomy. Besides that this method usually causes damage or death of the plant. So I consider that only chronometric method can give the researcher exact information on the age of macroalgae.
format Article in Journal/Newspaper
author Selivanova, O. N.
spellingShingle Selivanova, O. N.
146 Methodological Problems of Marine Macroalgae Age Estimation
author_facet Selivanova, O. N.
author_sort Selivanova, O. N.
title 146 Methodological Problems of Marine Macroalgae Age Estimation
title_short 146 Methodological Problems of Marine Macroalgae Age Estimation
title_full 146 Methodological Problems of Marine Macroalgae Age Estimation
title_fullStr 146 Methodological Problems of Marine Macroalgae Age Estimation
title_full_unstemmed 146 Methodological Problems of Marine Macroalgae Age Estimation
title_sort 146 methodological problems of marine macroalgae age estimation
publisher Wiley
publishDate 2003
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-3646.2003.03906001_146.x
https://api.wiley.com/onlinelibrary/tdm/v1/articles/10.1111%2Fj.0022-3646.2003.03906001_146.x
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.0022-3646.2003.03906001_146.x
genre Kamchatka
genre_facet Kamchatka
op_source Journal of Phycology
volume 39, issue s1, page 51-51
ISSN 0022-3646 1529-8817
op_rights http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor
op_doi https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-3646.2003.03906001_146.x
container_title Journal of Phycology
container_volume 39
container_issue s1
container_start_page 51
op_container_end_page 51
_version_ 1800755499787878400