Advertisement

Marine Biology

, Volume 156, Issue 12, pp 2505–2515 | Cite as

Macro- and mesoherbivores prefer native seaweeds over the invasive brown seaweed Sargassum muticum: a potential regulating role on invasions

  • Carla A. Monteiro
  • Aschwin H. EngelenEmail author
  • Rui O. P. Santos
Original Paper

Abstract

Herbivory has a strong impact on algal distribution, abundance and community structure and may influence the establishment and spread of introduced seaweed species. In this study, we assess the potential regulating role of herbivory on one of the most invasive brown seaweeds: Sargassum muticum. Multiple choice feeding experiments were conducted with 13 native seaweeds, S. muticum and 5 herbivore species from the Northwest, Southwest and South of Portugal. S. muticum was always the least or among the least preferred seaweeds and attained one of the highest growth rates of the tested seaweeds, with and without herbivores. The addition of herbivores increased the number of cases by 40% in which the invader had higher growth rates. Our results suggest that low grazing pressure on S. muticum by the recipient herbivore community may give the invader a competitive advantage over at least part of the native seaweed community, thereby contributing to the invasiveness of S. muticum along the Portuguese coast.

Keywords

Relative Growth Rate Brown Seaweed Seaweed Species Enemy Release Hypothesis Portuguese Coast 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank to Kerstin Weidner for her help during the set-up of experiments and the staff of Ramalhete and Prof. Pedro Andrade for logistic support. This work was developed under the project “The invasive theory of the pest seaweed Sargassum muticum in Southern Portugal”, POCTI/MAR/55377/2004 (FCT, Portugal and FEDER). A. H. Engelen was supported by scholarship SFRH/BPD/7153/2001 of the Portuguese Science Foundation (FCT) and European Social Foundation.

References

  1. Abelho M, Molles MC Jr (2009) Effect of introduced exotic tree litter on consumption patterns of the introduced exotic isopod Armadillidium vulgare. Eur J Soil Biol 45:306–311. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejsobi.2009.04.004 Google Scholar
  2. Ambrose RF, Nelson BV (1982) Inhibition of giant kelp recruitment by an introduced brown alga. Bot Mar 25:265–267Google Scholar
  3. Amsler CD, Fairhead VA (2006) Defensive and sensory chemical ecology of brown algae. Adv Bot Res 43:1–96. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2296(05)43001-3 Google Scholar
  4. Baker HG (1974) The evolution of weeds. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 5:1–24. doi: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.05.110174.000245 Google Scholar
  5. Baltz DM, Moyle PB (1993) Invasion resistance to introduced species by a native assemblage of California stream fishes. Ecol Apply 3:246–255. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/1941827 Google Scholar
  6. Barile PJ, Lapointe BE, Capo TR (2004) Dietary nitrogen availability in macroalgae enhances growth of the sea hare Aplysia californica (Opisthobranchia: Anaspidea). J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 303:65–78. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2003.11.004 Google Scholar
  7. Bärlocher F (2005) A primer for statistical analysis. In: Graça MAS, Bärlocher F, Gessner MO (eds) Methods to study litter decomposition: a practical guide. Springer, The Netherlands, pp 313–329Google Scholar
  8. Barnes RSK (1979) Intrapopulation variation in Hydrobia sediment preference. Estuar Coast Mar Sci 9:231–234Google Scholar
  9. Barnes RSK, Greenwood JG (1978) The response of the intertidal gastropod Hydrobia ulvae (Pennant) to sediments of differing particle size. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 31:43–54Google Scholar
  10. Benedetti-Cecchi L, Cinelli F (1995) Habitat heterogeneity, sea urchin grazing and the distribution of algae in littoral rock pools on the west coast of Italy (western Mediterranean). Mar Ecol Prog Ser 126:203–212Google Scholar
  11. Boaventura D, Alexander M, Della Santina P, Smith ND, Ré P, Cancela da Fonseca L, Hawkins SJ (2002) The effects of grazing on the distribution and composition of low-shore algal communities on the central coast of Portugal and on the southern coast of Britain. JEMBE 267:185–206. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-0981(01)00372-0 Google Scholar
  12. Boudouresque CF, Verlaque M (2001) Ecology of Paracentrotus lividus. In: Lawrence JM (ed) Edible sea urchins: biology and ecology, vol 32. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 177–216Google Scholar
  13. Brawley SH (1992) Mesoherbivores. In: John DM, Hawkins SJ, Price JH (eds) Plant-animal interactions in marine benthos. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 235–263Google Scholar
  14. Britton-Simmons KH (2004) Direct and indirect effects of the introduced alga Sargassum muticum on benthic, subtidal communities of Washington State, USA. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 277:61–78. doi: https://doi.org/10.3354/meps277061 Google Scholar
  15. Britton-Simmons K, Abbott KC (2008) Short- and long-term effects of disturbance and propagule pressure on a biological invasion. J Ecol 96:68–77. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2007.01319.x Google Scholar
  16. Carefoot TJ (1987) Aplysia: its biology and ecology. Oceanogr Mar Biol Ann Rev 25:167–284Google Scholar
  17. Colautti RI, Ricciardi A, Grigorovitch IA, MacIsaac HJ (2004) Is invasion success explained by the enemy release hypothesis? Ecol Lett 7:721–733. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00616.x Google Scholar
  18. Connan S, Delisle F, Deslandes E, Ar Gall E (2006) Intra-thallus phlorotannin content and antioxidant activity in Phaeophyceae of temperate waters. Bot Mar 49:39–46. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/BOT.2006.005 Google Scholar
  19. Critchley AT, Dijkema R (1984) On the presence of the introduced brown alga Sargassum muticum, attached to commercially imported Ostrea edulis in the S. W. Netherlands. Bot Mar 27:211–216Google Scholar
  20. Critchley AT, Farnham WF, Morrell SL (1986) An account of the attempted control of an introduced marine alga Sargassum muticum, in southern England. Biol Conserv 35:313–332Google Scholar
  21. Cronin G (2001) Resource allocation in seaweeds and marine invertebrates: chemical defense patterns in relation to defense theories. In: McClintock JB, Baker BJ (eds) Marine chemical ecology. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 325–353Google Scholar
  22. Cruz-Rivera E, Hay ME (2000) Can quantity replace quality? Food choice, compensatory feeding, and fitness of marine mesograzers. Ecology 81:201–219Google Scholar
  23. Diaz-Pulido G, McCook L (2003) Relative roles of herbivory and nutrients in the recruitment of coral-reef seaweeds. Ecology 84:2026–2033. doi: https://doi.org/10.1890/01-3127 Google Scholar
  24. Duffy JE, Hay ME (1994) Herbivore resistance to seaweed chemical defense: the roles of mobility and predation risk. Ecology 75:1304–1319. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/1937456 Google Scholar
  25. Duffy JE, Hay ME (2000) Strong impacts of grazing amphipods on the organization of a benthic community. Ecol Monogr 70:237–263Google Scholar
  26. Edgar GJ, Shaw C (1995a) The production and trophic ecology of shallow-water fish assemblages in southern Australia II. Diet of fishes and trophic relationships between fishes and benthos at Western Point, Victoria. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 194:83–106. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0981(95)00084-4 Google Scholar
  27. Edgar GJ, Shaw C (1995b) The production and trophic ecology of shallow-water fish assemblages in southern Australia III. General relationships between sediment, seagrass, invertebrates and fishes. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 194:107–131. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0981(95)00085-2 Google Scholar
  28. Engel C, Åberg P, Gaggiotti OE, Destombe C, Valero M (2001) Population dynamics and stage structure in a haploid–diploid red seaweed, Gracilaria gracilis. J Ecol 89:436–450. doi: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2745.2001.00567.x Google Scholar
  29. Engelen A, Santos R (2009) Which demographic traits determine population growth in the invasive brown seaweed Sargassum muticum? J Ecol 97:675–684. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2009.01501.x Google Scholar
  30. Engelen A, Espirito-Santo C, Simões T, Monteiro C, Serrão EA, Pearson GA, Santos R (2008) Periodicity of propagule expulsion and settlement in the competing native and invasive brown seaweeds, Cystoseira humilis and Sargassum muticum (Phaeophyta). Eur J Phycol 43:275–282. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/09670260801979279 Google Scholar
  31. Farnham W, Fletcher RL, Irvine LM (1973) Attached Sargassum found in Britain. Nature 243:231–232. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/243231c0 Google Scholar
  32. Fensholt DE (1955) An emendation of the genus Cystophyllum (Fucales). Am J Bot 42:305–322Google Scholar
  33. Fish JD, Fish S (1996) A student’s guide to the seashore, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  34. Gaudèncio MJ, Guerra MT (1986) Preliminary observations on Gibbula umbilicalis (da Costa, 1778) on the Portuguese coast. Hydrobiologia 142:23–30. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00026744 Google Scholar
  35. Gorham J, Lewey SA (1984) Seasonal in the chemical composition of Sargassum muticum. Mar Biol 80:103–107. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00393133 Google Scholar
  36. Hawkins SJ, Hartnoll RG (1983) Grazing of intertidal algae by marine invertebrates. Oceanogr Mar Biol Annu Rev 21:195–282Google Scholar
  37. Hay ME (1992) The role of seaweed chemical defenses in the evolution of feeding specialization and in the mediation of complex interaction. In: Paul VJ (ed) Ecological roles of marine natural products. Comstock Publishing Associates, Ithaca, pp 93–118Google Scholar
  38. Hay ME, Fenical W (1988) Marine plant-herbivores: the ecology of chemical defense. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 19:111–145. doi: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es19.110188.000551 Google Scholar
  39. Hay ME, Duffy JE, Pfister CA, Fenical W (1987) Chemical defense against different marine herbivores: are amphipods insect equivalents? Ecology 68:1567–1580. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/1939849 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Holmlund MB, Peterson CH, Hay ME (1990) Does algal morphology affect amphipod susceptibility to fish predation? J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 139:65–83. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0981(90)90039-F Google Scholar
  41. Jernakoff P (1983) Factors affecting the recruitment of algae in a midshore region dominated by barnacles. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 67:17–31. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0981(83)90132-6 Google Scholar
  42. Jormalainen V, Honkanen T, Heikkilä N (2001) Feeding preferences and performance of a marine isopod on seaweed hosts: cost of habitat specialization. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 220:219–230. doi: https://doi.org/10.3354/meps220219 Google Scholar
  43. Keane RM, Crawley MJ (2002) Exotic plant invasions and the enemy release hypothesis. Trends Ecol Evol 17:164–170. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(02)02499-0 Google Scholar
  44. Lawrence JM (1975) On the relationships between marine plants and sea urchins. Oceanogr Mar Biol Ann Rev 13:213–286Google Scholar
  45. Lemée R, Boudouresque C-F, Malestroit P, Mari X, Meinesz A, Menager V, Ruitton S (1996) Feeding behaviour of Paracentrotus lividus in the presence of Caulerpa taxifolia introduced in the Mediterranean sea. Oceanologica acta 19(3–4):245–253Google Scholar
  46. Lotze HK, Worm B, Sommer U (2001) Strong bottom-up and top-down control of early life stages of macroalgae. Limnol Oceanogr 46:749–757Google Scholar
  47. Lubchenco J, Gaines SD (1981) A unified approach to marine plant-herbivore interactions. I. Populations and communities. Ann rev Ecol Syst 12:405–437. doi: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.12.110181.002201 Google Scholar
  48. Mack RN, Simberloff D, Lonsdale WM, Evans H, Clout M, Bazzaz FA (2000) Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecol Appl 10:689–710. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/2641039 Google Scholar
  49. Maron JL, Vilà M (2001) When do herbivores affect plant invasion? Evidence for the natural enemies and biotic resistance hypotheses. Oikos 95:361–373. doi: https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0706.2001.950301.x Google Scholar
  50. Mitchell CE, Power AG (2003) Release of invasive plant species from fungal and viral pathogens. Nature 421:625–627. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01317 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Morris RH, Abbott DP, Haderlie EC (1980) Intertidal invertebrates of California. Stanford University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  52. Paine TR (2002) Trophic control of production in a rocky intertidal community. Science 296:736–739. doi: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1069811 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Palacín C, Giribert G, Carner S, Dantart L, Turon X (1998) Low densities of sea urchins influence the structure of algal assemblages in the western Mediterranean. J Sea Res 39:281–290. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1385-1101(97)00061-0 Google Scholar
  54. Parker JD, Hay ME (2005) Biotic resistance to plant invasions? Native herbivores prefer non-native plants. Ecol Lett 8:959–967. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00799.x Google Scholar
  55. Parker JD, Burkepile DE, Hay ME (2006) Opposing effects of native and exotic herbivores on plant invasions. Science 311:1459–1461. doi: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1121407 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Paul VJ, Cruz-Rivera E, Thacker RW (2001) Chemical mediation of macroalgal-herbivore interactions: ecology and evolutionary perspectives. In: McClintock JB, Baker BJ (eds) Marine chemical ecology. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 325–353Google Scholar
  57. Pavia H, Toth GB, Åberg P (2002) Optimal defense theory: elasticity analysis as a tool to predict intraplant variation in defenses. Ecology 83:891–897. doi: https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083[0891:ODTEAA]2.0.CO;2 Google Scholar
  58. Pedersen MF, Stæhr PA, Wernberg T, Thomsen MS (2005) Biomass dynamics of Sargassum muticum in Limfjorden, Denmark—implications of species replacement on turnover rate. Aquat Bot 83:31–47. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquabot.2005.05.004 Google Scholar
  59. Pennings SC (1990) Size-related shifts in herbivory: specialization in the sea hare Aplysia californica. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 142:43–61. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0981(90)90136-Z Google Scholar
  60. Peterson CH, Renaud PE (1989) Analysis of feeding preference experiments. Oecologia 80:82–86. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00789935 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Ribera MA, Boudouresque CF (1995) Introduced marine plants, with special reference to macroalgae: mechanisms and impact. Prog Phycol Res 11:217–268Google Scholar
  62. Roa R (1992) Design and analysis of multiple-choice feeding preference experiments. Oecologia 89:509–515. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00317157 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Rogers CN, de Nys R, Steinberg PD (2003) Ecology of the sea hare Aplysia parvula (Opisthobranchia) in New South Wales, Australia. Molluscan Res 23:185–198. doi: https://doi.org/10.1071/MR03004 Google Scholar
  64. Rohde S, Molis M, Wahl M (2004) Regulation of anti-herbivore defence by Fucus vesiculosus in response to various cues. J Ecol 92:1011–1018. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-0477.2004.00936.x Google Scholar
  65. Sakai AK, Allendorf FW, Holt JS, Lodge DM, Molofsky J, With KA, Baughman S, Cabin RJ, Cohen JE, Ellstrand NC, McCauley DE, O’Neil P, Parker IM, Thompson JN, Weller SG (2001) Population biology of invasive species. Ann Revi Ecol Syst 32:305–332. doi: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.32.081501.114037 Google Scholar
  66. Sala E, Ribes M, Hereu B, Zabala M, Alvà V, Coma R, Garrabou J (1998) Temporal variability in abundance of the sea urchins Paracentrotus lividus and Arbacia lixula in the northwestern Mediterranean: comparison between a marine reserve and an unprotected area. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 168:135–145Google Scholar
  67. Sax DF, Brown JH (2000) The paradox of invasion. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 9:363–371. doi: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2699.2000.00217.x Google Scholar
  68. Schaffelke B, Evers D, Walhorn A (1995) Selective grazing of the isopod Idotea baltica between Fucus evanescens and F. vesiculosus from Kiel Fjord (western Baltic). Mar Biol 124:215–218. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00347125 Google Scholar
  69. Scheibling RE, Antony SX (2001) Feeding, growth and reproduction of sea urchins (Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis) on single and mixed diets of kelp (Laminaria spp.) and the invasive alga Codium fragile ssp. tomentosoides. Mar Biol 139:139–146. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s002270100567 Google Scholar
  70. Schories D, Anibal J, Chapman AS, Herre E, Isaksson I, Lillebö AI, Pihl L, Reise K, Sprung M, Thiel M (2000) Flagging greens: hydrobiid snails as substrata for the development of green algal mats (Enteromorpha spp.) on tidal flats of North Atlantic coasts. MEPS 199:127–136Google Scholar
  71. Sheader M, Sheader AL (1985) New distribution records for Gammarus insensibilis Stock, 1966, in Britain. Crustaceana 49:101–105Google Scholar
  72. Siemann E, Rogers WE (2003) Reduced resistance of invasive varieties of the alien tree Sapium sebiferum to a generalist herbivore. Oecologia 135:451–457. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-003-1217-4 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Sotka EE, Taylor RB, Hay ME (2002) Tissue-specific induction of resistance to herbivores in a brown seaweed: the importance of direct grazing versus waterborne signals from grazed neighbors. JEMBE 277:1–12. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-0981(02)00128-4 Google Scholar
  74. Steinberg PD (1984) Algal chemical defense against herbivores: allocation of phenolic compounds in the kelp Alaria marginata. Science 223:405–406. doi: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.223.4634.405 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. Steinberg D, Estes JA, Winter FC (1995) Evolutionary consequences of food chain length in kelp forest communities. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 92:8145–8148PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Steneck RS (1982) A limpet-coralline alga association: adaptations and defenses between a selective herbivore and its prey. Ecology 63:507–522. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/1938967 Google Scholar
  77. Sumi CBT, Scheibling RE (2005) Role of grazing by sea urchins Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis in regulating the invasive alga Codium fragile ssp. tomentosoides in Nova Scotia. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 292:203–212. doi: https://doi.org/10.3354/meps292203 Google Scholar
  78. Torchin ME, Mitchell CE (2004) Parasites, pathogens, and invasions by plants and animals. Front Ecol Environ 2(4):183–190. doi: https://doi.org/10.1890/15409295(2004)002[0183:PPAIBP]2.0.CO;2 Google Scholar
  79. Torchin ME, Lafferty KD, Dobson AP, McKenzie VJ, Kuris AM (2003) Introduced species and their missing parasites. Nature 421:628–630. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01346 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. Tuomi J, Ilvessalo H, Niemela P, Siren S, Jormalainen V (1989) Within-plant variation in phenolic content and toughness of the brown alga Fucus vesiculosus. Bot Mar 32:505–509Google Scholar
  81. Tweedley JR, Jackson EL, Attrill MJ (2008) Zostera marina seagrass beds enhance the attachment of the invasive alga Sargassum muticum in soft sediments. MEPS 354:305–309. doi: https://doi.org/10.3354/meps07242 Google Scholar
  82. Umezaki I (1984) How many eggs will be discharged from the plant of Sargassum horneri? Hydrobiologia 116/117:398–402. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00027709 Google Scholar
  83. Underwood AJ (1997) Experiments in ecology: their logical design and interpretation using analysis of variance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 184–185 ISBN 0 521 55696 1Google Scholar
  84. Valentine JP, Johnson CR (2003) Establishment of the introduced kelp Undaria pinnatifida in Tasmania depends on disturbance to native assemblages. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 295:63–90. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-0981(03)00272-7 Google Scholar
  85. van Alstyne KL, Ehlig JM, Whitman SL (1999) Feeding preferences for juvenile and adult algae depend on algal stage and herbivore species. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 180:179–185. doi: https://doi.org/10.3354/meps180179 Google Scholar
  86. Vergés A, Becerro MA, Alcoverro T, Romero J (2007) Variation in multiple traits of vegetative and reproductive seagrass tissue influences plant-herbivore interaction. Oecologia 151:675–686. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-006-0606-x PubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. Vergés A, Alcoverro T, Ballesteros E (2009) Role of fish herbivory in structuring the vertical distribution of canopy algae Cystoseira spp. in the Mediterranean Sea. MEPS 375:1–11. doi: https://doi.org/10.3354/meps07778 Google Scholar
  88. Vermeij MJA, Smith TB, Dailer ML, Smith CM (2009) Release from native herbivores facilitates the persistence of invasive marine algae: a biogeographical comparison of the relative contribution of nutrients and herbivory to invasion success. Biol Inv 11:1463–1474. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-008-9354-7 Google Scholar
  89. Weidner K, Lages BG, da Gama BAP, Molis M, Wahl M, Pereira RC (2004) Effects of mesograzers and nutrient levels on the induction of defenses in several Brazilian macroalgae. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 283:113–125. doi: https://doi.org/10.3354/meps283113 Google Scholar
  90. Wikström SA (2004) Marine seaweed invasions—the ecology of introduced F. evanescens. Doctoral dissertation, Stockholm University, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  91. Wikström SA, Steinarsdóttir MB, Kautsky L, Pavia H (2006) Increased chemical resistance explains low herbivore colonization of introduced seaweed. Oecologia 148:593–601. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-006-0407-2 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. Williams SL, Smith JE (2007) A global review of the distribution, taxonomy, and impacts of introduced seaweeds. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 38:327–359. doi: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.38.091206.095543 Google Scholar
  93. Wilson CG (1989) Post-dispersal seed predation of an exotic weed, Mimosa pigra L., in the northern territory. Aust J Ecol 14:235–240Google Scholar
  94. Yun HY, Cruz J, Treitschke M, Wahl M, Molis M (2007) Testing for the induction of anti-herbivory defences in four Portuguese macroalgae by direct and water-borne cues of grazing amphipods. Helgol Mar Res 61:203–209. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10152-007-0067-6 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carla A. Monteiro
    • 1
  • Aschwin H. Engelen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Rui O. P. Santos
    • 1
  1. 1.ALGAE-Marine Plant Ecology Research Group, CCMAR, CIMAR-Laboratório AssociadoUniversidade do AlgarveFaroPortugal

Personalised recommendations