18.08.2013 Views

Download (20MB) - Repository@Napier

Download (20MB) - Repository@Napier

Download (20MB) - Repository@Napier

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

used, approximately equivalent to the Enteromorpha spp. biomass in the algal plots of<br />

the removal experiment by Cha (in prep.). At the start of this experiment, 3kg FW<br />

(equivalent to 600g DW/m 2) of E. prolifera were added to each weed treatment plot.<br />

This suggests that approximately only 23% of the initial weed added remained after 6<br />

weeks within these plots, highlighting the difficulties in implanting weed in more<br />

exposed sandflats. The weed biomass within the weed treatments remained fairly<br />

constant until it started disappearing during October rather than a continual decline<br />

during the summer (pers. obs.).<br />

Algal species Mean algal<br />

Enteromorpha<br />

prolifera<br />

biomass (gDW/m 2)<br />

Implantation<br />

/ Removal<br />

Authors<br />

66-139 I This study<br />

Ulva spp. 450-890 R Everett (1991, 1994)<br />

Enteromorpha spp. *60, 200, and 600 I Hull (1987)<br />

Rhodomela, Ceramium<br />

and Polysiphonia spp.<br />

Raffaelli et al. (1991)<br />

*180 and 360 I Sundback et al.<br />

(1990)<br />

Enteromorpha spp. 157 R Cha (in prep.)<br />

Table 4.2 : Mean algal biomasses used in controlled weed manipulation experiments.<br />

* Indicates that dry weight values have been obtained from wet weight measurements<br />

using a wet/dry ratio of 5 (Ramus and Venable, 1987).<br />

101

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!