When the relative differences in all response variables under medium compared with low
saline conditions are considered, the species tested in this study can be arranged in descending
order of salinity tolerance as A. marina > R. mucronata > R. apiculata > B. gymnorrhiza > A.
officinalis > B. sexangula > S. caseolaris. For example, B. sexangula showed average changes
in leaf size, % water content, and dry weight of −56, −5 and −46 percent respectively, under
medium compared with low salinities. These compared with −38, −3 and −23 for B. gymnorrhiza
and −52, −4 and −51 for A. officinalis. This ranking shows that closely related species
i.e., species in the same genera, may be distant in salinity tolerance, and hence that shared
vivipary or cryptovivipary do not determine response to salinity. Laboratory studies such as
the present work may not always suggest the same optimal conditions for mangrove growth
as those recorded from field distributions (HWANG and CHEN, 2001).
When the relative differences in all response variables under medium compared with lowsaline conditions are considered, the species tested in this study can be arranged in descendingorder of salinity tolerance as A. marina > R. mucronata > R. apiculata > B. gymnorrhiza > A.officinalis > B. sexangula > S. caseolaris. For example, B. sexangula showed average changesin leaf size, % water content, and dry weight of −56, −5 and −46 percent respectively, undermedium compared with low salinities. These compared with −38, −3 and −23 for B. gymnorrhizaand −52, −4 and −51 for A. officinalis. This ranking shows that closely related speciesi.e., species in the same genera, may be distant in salinity tolerance, and hence that sharedvivipary or cryptovivipary do not determine response to salinity. Laboratory studies such asthe present work may not always suggest the same optimal conditions for mangrove growthas those recorded from field distributions (HWANG and CHEN, 2001).
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
