Rock-protecting seaweed? Experimental evidence of bioprotection in the intertidal zone
Biogeomorphological processes are an important component of dynamic intertidal systems. On rocky shores, the direct contribution of microorganisms, plants and animals to weathering and erosion is well known. There is also increasing evidence that organisms can alter rock breakdown indirectly, by mod...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal article |
| Published: |
Wiley
2015
|
| _version_ | 1797077178689519616 |
|---|---|
| author | Gowell, M Coombes, M Viles, H |
| author_facet | Gowell, M Coombes, M Viles, H |
| author_sort | Gowell, M |
| collection | OXFORD |
| description | Biogeomorphological processes are an important component of dynamic intertidal systems. On rocky shores, the direct contribution of microorganisms, plants and animals to weathering and erosion is well known. There is also increasing evidence that organisms can alter rock breakdown indirectly, by moderating temperature and moisture regimes at the rock–air interface. These influences have been purported to represent mechanisms of bioprotection, by buffering microclimatic fluctuations associated with weathering processes such as wetting and drying and salt crystallisation. However, virtually nothing has been done to test whether microclimatic buffering translates to differences in actual rock breakdown rates. <p><br/>Here we report a preliminary laboratory experiment to assess how an artificial canopy (chosen to represent seaweed) affects mechanical rock breakdown. Using a simplified and accelerated thermal regime based on field data from on a rocky shore platform in southern England, UK, we find that breakdown (mineral debris release) of mudstone covered with a canopy is reduced by as much as 79% relative to bare rock after around 100 thermal cycles. Reduction in rock surface hardness (measured using an Equotip device) was also greater for bare rock (17%) compared to covered rock (10%) over this period. Measurements of salt crystal formation indicate that the mechanism driving these differences was a reduction in the frequency of crystallisation events, via moisture retention and shading of the rock surface.</p> |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-07T00:14:10Z |
| format | Journal article |
| id | oxford-uuid:7a3f8e2e-0898-4f7e-83d0-b4f3254e8fe8 |
| institution | University of Oxford |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-07T00:14:10Z |
| publishDate | 2015 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oxford-uuid:7a3f8e2e-0898-4f7e-83d0-b4f3254e8fe82022-03-26T20:42:47ZRock-protecting seaweed? Experimental evidence of bioprotection in the intertidal zoneJournal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:7a3f8e2e-0898-4f7e-83d0-b4f3254e8fe8Symplectic Elements at OxfordWiley2015Gowell, MCoombes, MViles, HBiogeomorphological processes are an important component of dynamic intertidal systems. On rocky shores, the direct contribution of microorganisms, plants and animals to weathering and erosion is well known. There is also increasing evidence that organisms can alter rock breakdown indirectly, by moderating temperature and moisture regimes at the rock–air interface. These influences have been purported to represent mechanisms of bioprotection, by buffering microclimatic fluctuations associated with weathering processes such as wetting and drying and salt crystallisation. However, virtually nothing has been done to test whether microclimatic buffering translates to differences in actual rock breakdown rates. <p><br/>Here we report a preliminary laboratory experiment to assess how an artificial canopy (chosen to represent seaweed) affects mechanical rock breakdown. Using a simplified and accelerated thermal regime based on field data from on a rocky shore platform in southern England, UK, we find that breakdown (mineral debris release) of mudstone covered with a canopy is reduced by as much as 79% relative to bare rock after around 100 thermal cycles. Reduction in rock surface hardness (measured using an Equotip device) was also greater for bare rock (17%) compared to covered rock (10%) over this period. Measurements of salt crystal formation indicate that the mechanism driving these differences was a reduction in the frequency of crystallisation events, via moisture retention and shading of the rock surface.</p> |
| spellingShingle | Gowell, M Coombes, M Viles, H Rock-protecting seaweed? Experimental evidence of bioprotection in the intertidal zone |
| title | Rock-protecting seaweed? Experimental evidence of bioprotection in the intertidal zone |
| title_full | Rock-protecting seaweed? Experimental evidence of bioprotection in the intertidal zone |
| title_fullStr | Rock-protecting seaweed? Experimental evidence of bioprotection in the intertidal zone |
| title_full_unstemmed | Rock-protecting seaweed? Experimental evidence of bioprotection in the intertidal zone |
| title_short | Rock-protecting seaweed? Experimental evidence of bioprotection in the intertidal zone |
| title_sort | rock protecting seaweed experimental evidence of bioprotection in the intertidal zone |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT gowellm rockprotectingseaweedexperimentalevidenceofbioprotectionintheintertidalzone AT coombesm rockprotectingseaweedexperimentalevidenceofbioprotectionintheintertidalzone AT vilesh rockprotectingseaweedexperimentalevidenceofbioprotectionintheintertidalzone |