Phenology of host Chondrus ocellatus with filamentous green endophyte infection

Choi, H. G.; Kim, Changsong; Kim, Young Sik; Lee, Soon Jeong; Park, Myoung Ae; Nam, Ki Wan

doi:10.1007/s12601-015-0047-8

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…and green U. ramosa and U. operculata (Correa et al 1988). Choi et al (2015b) recently isolated a green endophyte, U. ramosa, from C. ocellatus. Here, we report that the brown endophyte M. zosterae was present in C. ocellatus.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, natural populations of Chondrus have declined due to a variety of abiotic (e.g., pollution, ocean acidification, and typhoons) and biotic environmental factors, including predation by herbivores and pathogens McLachlan 1992, 1994). Production of natural or cultivated seaweeds has been diminished by seaweed diseases caused by fungi, bacteria, tifying the species and a green endophytic U. ramosa was found in C. ocellatus fronds by Choi et al (2015b). We also isolated two endophytes, U. ramosa and Mikrosyphar zosterae from C. ocellatus fronds.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Growth responses of Chondrus ocellatus Holmes (Gigartinales, Rhodophyta) to two endophytes, Mikrosyphar zosterae Kuckuck (Ectocarpales, Ochrophyta) and Ulvella ramosa (N. L. Gardner) R. Nielsen (Ulvales, Chlorophyta) in culture

Ogandaga¹,

Choi²,

Kim³

et al. 2016

ALGAE

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To examine the effects of two endophytic algae, Mikrosyphar zosterae (brown alga) and Ulvella ramosa (green alga), on the host Chondrus ocellatus (red alga), culture experiments were conducted. Four treatments were made: endophytefree (Chondrus only), endophyte-M (Chondrus + Mikrosyphar), endophyte-U (Chondrus + Ulvella), and endophytes-M·U (Chondrus + Mikrosyphar + Ulvella). After 3 weeks, the relative growth rates (RGRs) of frond lengths and the number of newly formed bladelets were examined. M. zosterae formed wart-like dots on C. ocellatus fronds, whereas U. ramosa made dark spots. The RGRs of frond lengths of C. ocellatus were significantly greater in the endophyte-free and endophyte-M treatment groups than in the endophyte-U and endophytes-M·U treatment groups, indicating that the growth of host C. ocellatus was inhibited more by the green endophyte U. ramosa than the brown endophyte M. zosterae. The number of newly produced bladelets was greater in the endophyte-U and endophytes-M·U groups than in the endophyte-free and endophyte-M treatment groups. These results indicate that the two endophytes inhibit growth of the host C. ocellatus. The negative effects of U. ramosa on C. ocellatus growth were more severe than those caused by M. zosterae. Furthermore, U. ramosa destroyed the apical meristems of C. ocellatus, whereas M. zosterae did not. On the other hand, C. ocellatus showed compensatory growth in the form of lateral branch production as U. ramosa attacked its apical meristems.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%