FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2605129927> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2605129927 endingPage "807" @default.
• W2605129927 startingPage "806" @default.
• W2605129927 abstract "One of the major questions occupying aquatic ecologists these days is how inputs of terrestrially derived dissolved organic matter (DOM; usually measured as dissolved organic carbon, DOC) affect the structure and function of lake ecosystems. DOM concentrations vary considerably from lake to lake and are changing through time (Hanson et al. 2007; Monteith et al. 2007), and have far-reaching and complex effects on the physical, chemical and biological structure of lakes (Jones 1992; Williamson et al. 1999; Prairie 2008; Solomon et al. 2015). Understanding these effects has emerged as a major research challenge. Many of the effects of DOM on lakes arise because it absorbs solar radiation and therefore intensifies vertical gradients of light and heat. These in turn lead to vertical gradients in primary productivity, oxygen concentration and biogeochemical process rates, as well as in things like growth and mortality rates that control the fitness landscape for organisms. For some organisms – including crustacean zooplankton, the primary herbivores in these systems – the effect of DOM on vertical attenuation of ultraviolet light can be important. Short-wavelength UV-B causes cellular damage and longer-wavelength UV-A causes damage but also stimulates repair mechanisms (Morris et al. 1995; Williamson et al. 2001; Häder et al. 2007). UVR exposure reduces zooplankton survival and can induce the vertical migrations through the water column that they sometimes undertake to maximize fitness as conditions change through the diel cycle (Leech & Williamson 2001; Williamson et al. 2001, 2011). Because DOM reduces UVR penetration through the water column, researchers have typically viewed it as a sort of sunscreen that helps protect zooplankton and other organisms from the damaging effects of UVR. In this issue of Functional Ecology, Wolf et al. (2017) report on a creative experiment that challenges that view. They exposed zooplankton to environmentally realistic ranges of DOM concentration and UV-A radiation intensity, and measured resulting cellular damage as DNA strand breaks. This experiment showed that DOM, alone and especially in interaction with UVR exposure, leads to DNA damage. This appears to occur via formation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) from photoactivated DOM. It has been shown previously that UVR can be harmful to zooplankton (Williamson et al. 1994), that UVR and DOM produce ROS (Cooper & Zika 1983) and that ROS induce DNA damage (Cooke et al. 2003); this study brings those pieces together for the first time and suggests that while DOM may reduce DNA damage via photoprotection, it may also induce DNA damage via formation of ROS. This message – that the effects of DOM on organisms and ecosystems are complex – has emerged repeatedly from work over the past several years. Ecosystem ecologists, for instance, have been interested in testing ecological subsidy theory by determining whether lake food web productivity is positively or negatively related to DOM concentrations (Karlsson et al. 2009, 2015; Jones, Solomon & Weidel 2012; Craig et al. 2015; Seekell et al. 2015). For zooplankton, in particular, while comparative studies of lakes with different DOM concentrations indicate a strong negative relationship between DOM and productivity (Kelly et al. 2014), a recent whole-lake manipulation produced the opposite effect (Kelly et al. 2016). This apparently occurred in part because the direct negative effects of DOM on primary productivity via light limitation were counterbalanced by indirect positive effects of DOM on light availability via a reduced depth of thermal stratification (Kelly et al. 2016; Zwart et al. 2016). Zooplankton productivity might also be influenced by the molecular effects described by Wolf et al. (2017); a recent mesocosm experiment, for instance, demonstrated increases in zooplankton abundance when DOM was added and UVR was screened out (Cooke et al. 2015). We clearly have a lot left to learn about the effects of DOM on aquatic ecosystems, and the study by Wolf et al. (2017) suggests some interesting paths forward. In a narrow sense, their work suggests a need for measurements and experiments to investigate, in natural environments, the linkages among DOM, UVR, ROS and genetic damage that they have demonstrated with their elegant laboratory experiment. A fundamental question is whether (and where) ROS are an important cause of genetic damage for zooplankton in natural environments, where UV-A is absorbed fairly rapidly in the water column; an intriguing next step is to understand if and how zooplankton weigh the risk of genetic damage from ROS against other vertical gradients of risk and benefit and energetic investments in migration or pigmentation to maximize fitness. Wolf et al. (2017) point towards both of these questions in their study. Their study also suggests an important path forward in a broader sense. Their work is novel in large part because they brought both ecosystem-level and molecular-level perspectives on mechanism to bear on a question set within an ecosystem context. There is an important lesson there for all of us working to understand how environmental conditions influence ecological processes. S. Jones, C. Williamson and C. Fox provided constructive critiques that improved this commentary." @default.
• W2605129927 created "2017-04-14" @default.
• W2605129927 creator A5056737164 @default.
• W2605129927 date "2017-04-01" @default.
• W2605129927 modified "2023-09-30" @default.
• W2605129927 title "Dissolved organic matter causes genetic damage in lake zooplankton via oxidative stress" @default.
• W2605129927 cites W1881654663 @default.
• W2605129927 cites W1907965836 @default.
• W2605129927 cites W1922077942 @default.
• W2605129927 cites W2018828897 @default.
• W2605129927 cites W2045053713 @default.
• W2605129927 cites W2047356732 @default.
• W2605129927 cites W2055763451 @default.
• W2605129927 cites W2056425062 @default.
• W2605129927 cites W2061555491 @default.
• W2605129927 cites W2071634634 @default.
• W2605129927 cites W2092923189 @default.
• W2605129927 cites W2104577185 @default.
• W2605129927 cites W2128987355 @default.
• W2605129927 cites W2134824048 @default.
• W2605129927 cites W2140126848 @default.
• W2605129927 cites W2141319940 @default.
• W2605129927 cites W2169039330 @default.
• W2605129927 cites W2169068338 @default.
• W2605129927 cites W2172741101 @default.
• W2605129927 cites W2278967416 @default.
• W2605129927 cites W2292543219 @default.
• W2605129927 cites W2520005219 @default.
• W2605129927 cites W4232664368 @default.
• W2605129927 cites W4242300116 @default.
• W2605129927 doi "https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12807" @default.
• W2605129927 hasPublicationYear "2017" @default.
• W2605129927 type Work @default.
• W2605129927 sameAs 2605129927 @default.
• W2605129927 citedByCount "4" @default.
• W2605129927 countsByYear W26051299272020 @default.
• W2605129927 countsByYear W26051299272021 @default.
• W2605129927 countsByYear W26051299272023 @default.
• W2605129927 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2605129927 hasAuthorship W2605129927A5056737164 @default.
• W2605129927 hasBestOaLocation W26051299271 @default.
• W2605129927 hasConcept C107872376 @default.
• W2605129927 hasConcept C110872660 @default.
• W2605129927 hasConcept C122846477 @default.
• W2605129927 hasConcept C127313418 @default.
• W2605129927 hasConcept C153102810 @default.
• W2605129927 hasConcept C158836135 @default.
• W2605129927 hasConcept C175327387 @default.
• W2605129927 hasConcept C185592680 @default.
• W2605129927 hasConcept C18903297 @default.
• W2605129927 hasConcept C36574619 @default.
• W2605129927 hasConcept C39432304 @default.
• W2605129927 hasConcept C42088612 @default.
• W2605129927 hasConcept C48743137 @default.
• W2605129927 hasConcept C71915725 @default.
• W2605129927 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2605129927 hasConcept C91586092 @default.
• W2605129927 hasConceptScore W2605129927C107872376 @default.
• W2605129927 hasConceptScore W2605129927C110872660 @default.
• W2605129927 hasConceptScore W2605129927C122846477 @default.
• W2605129927 hasConceptScore W2605129927C127313418 @default.
• W2605129927 hasConceptScore W2605129927C153102810 @default.
• W2605129927 hasConceptScore W2605129927C158836135 @default.
• W2605129927 hasConceptScore W2605129927C175327387 @default.
• W2605129927 hasConceptScore W2605129927C185592680 @default.
• W2605129927 hasConceptScore W2605129927C18903297 @default.
• W2605129927 hasConceptScore W2605129927C36574619 @default.
• W2605129927 hasConceptScore W2605129927C39432304 @default.
• W2605129927 hasConceptScore W2605129927C42088612 @default.
• W2605129927 hasConceptScore W2605129927C48743137 @default.
• W2605129927 hasConceptScore W2605129927C71915725 @default.
• W2605129927 hasConceptScore W2605129927C86803240 @default.
• W2605129927 hasConceptScore W2605129927C91586092 @default.
• W2605129927 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W2605129927 hasLocation W26051299271 @default.
• W2605129927 hasOpenAccess W2605129927 @default.
• W2605129927 hasPrimaryLocation W26051299271 @default.
• W2605129927 hasRelatedWork W2038685478 @default.
• W2605129927 hasRelatedWork W2143414540 @default.
• W2605129927 hasRelatedWork W2963660388 @default.
• W2605129927 hasRelatedWork W3092815386 @default.
• W2605129927 hasRelatedWork W3127588597 @default.
• W2605129927 hasRelatedWork W3190091399 @default.
• W2605129927 hasRelatedWork W3215253602 @default.
• W2605129927 hasRelatedWork W4309774881 @default.
• W2605129927 hasRelatedWork W4378649212 @default.
• W2605129927 hasRelatedWork W3085503435 @default.
• W2605129927 hasVolume "31" @default.
• W2605129927 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2605129927 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2605129927 magId "2605129927" @default.
• W2605129927 workType "article" @default.