Echavarría-Heras Héctor, Solana-Arellano Elena, Leal-Ramírez Cecilia, Castillo Oscar
Centro de Investigación Científica y de Educación Superior de Ensenada, carretera Ensenada-Tijuana No, 3918, Zona Playitas, Código Postal 22860, Apdo, Postal 360, Ensenada, BC, Mexico.
Theor Biol Med Model. 2013 May 16;10:34. doi: 10.1186/1742-4682-10-34.
Estimation of leaf productivity in eelgrass (Zostera marina L.) is crucial for evaluating the ecological role of this important seagrass species. Although leaf marking techniques are widely used to obtain estimates of leaf productivity, the accuracy of these assessments, has been questioned mainly because these fail to account for leaf growth below the reference mark and also because they apparently disregard the contribution of mature leaf tissues to the growth rate of leaves. On the other hand, the plastochrone method is a simpler technique that has been considered to effectively capture growth in a more realistic way, thereby providing more accurate assessments of both above- and below-ground productivities. But since the actual values of eelgrass growth rates are difficult to obtain, the worth of the plastochrone method has been largely vindicated because it produces assessments that overestimate productivity as compared to estimates obtained by leaf marking. Additionally, whenever eelgrass leaf biomass can be allometrically scaled in terms of matching leaf length in a consistent way, the associated leaf growth rates can be also projected allometrically. In this contribution, we used that approach to derive an authentication of the plastochrone method and formally demonstrate that, as has been claimed to occur for leaf marking approaches, the plastochrone method itself underestimates actual values of eelgrass leaf growth rates. We also show that this unavoidable bias is mainly due to the inadequacy of single-leaf biomass assessments in providing a proxy for the growth of all leaf tissue in a shoot over a given interval. Moreover, the derived formulae give conditions under which assessments of leaf growth rates using the plastochrone method would systematically underestimate matching values obtained by leaf marking procedures. And, assessments of leaf growth rates obtained by using the present data show that plastochrone method estimations underestimated corresponding proxies obtained allometrically (27%), or through leaf marking (35%). Allometric projection is recommended as a simpler and more effective procedure to reduce the bias in eelgrass leaf productivity estimations that associates to the use of plastochrone methods.
估算鳗草(大叶藻)的叶片生产力对于评估这种重要海草物种的生态作用至关重要。尽管叶片标记技术被广泛用于获取叶片生产力的估算值,但这些评估的准确性受到了质疑,主要原因是这些方法没有考虑参考标记以下的叶片生长,而且显然忽略了成熟叶片组织对叶片生长速率的贡献。另一方面,叶龄期法是一种更简单的技术,被认为能以更实际的方式有效捕捉生长情况,从而更准确地评估地上和地下生产力。但由于难以获得鳗草生长速率的实际值,叶龄期法的价值在很大程度上得到了证明,因为与通过叶片标记获得的估算值相比,它得出的评估结果高估了生产力。此外,只要鳗草叶片生物量能够以一致的方式根据匹配的叶片长度进行异速生长缩放,相关的叶片生长速率也可以进行异速生长投影。在本论文中,我们采用这种方法来验证叶龄期法,并正式证明,正如叶片标记方法所声称的那样,叶龄期法本身低估了鳗草叶片生长速率的实际值。我们还表明,这种不可避免的偏差主要是由于单叶生物量评估不足以代表给定时间段内茎中所有叶片组织的生长。此外,推导得出的公式给出了使用叶龄期法评估叶片生长速率会系统性低估通过叶片标记程序获得的匹配值的条件。而且,使用当前数据对叶片生长速率的评估表明,叶龄期法的估算值分别比通过异速生长投影(27%)或叶片标记(35%)获得的相应代理值低。建议采用异速生长投影作为一种更简单、更有效的方法,以减少与使用叶龄期法相关的鳗草叶片生产力估算偏差。