Constancea 83.7: Algae of Russian Coasts of the Bering Sea 12/17/2002 07:10:48 PM Constancea 83, 2002 University and Jepson Herbaria P.C
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Constancea 83.7: Algae of Russian Coasts of the Bering Sea 12/17/2002 07:10:48 PM Constancea 83, 2002 University and Jepson Herbaria P.C. Silva Festschrift Marine Benthic Algae of the Russian Coasts of the Bering Sea (from Ozernoi Gulf to Dezhnev Bay, including Karaginskii Island) O.N. Selivanova Kamchatka Branch of Pacific Institute of Geography, Far Eastern Division, Russian Academy of Sciences, 683000, Petropavlovsk−Kamchatsky, Russia ABSTRACT A list of the marine benthic algae of the Russian coasts of the Bering Sea that belong to the administrative region Kamchatka Oblast is given in the paper. Since the marine benthic flora of this region is insufficiently studied and the literature is minimal, the information presented in the article is based mostly on the analysis of the author's own materials. This inventory of the flora of marine algae of the western coasts of the Bering Sea reveals 170 species of macrophytes, including 33 species of green, 39 species of brown, and 98 species of red algae. Twenty species are newly recorded from the area, and four are new to the flora of the Far Eastern seas of Russia. A new species of Phycodrys (Delesseriaceae) was discovered. The information is updated in accordance with new data on taxonomy and nomenclature of the species. INTRODUCTION The marine benthic flora of the western coasts of the Bering Sea is poorly investigated. It has been studied by Russian phycologists for many years, but these studies were episodic and uncoordinated. Remoteness and inaccessibility, severe climate and ice conditions, and a short navigation season make this area very inconvenient for natural studies. Practically no seasonal field observations have been conducted there, no marine biological stations have ever existed, and scientific expeditions have been infrequent and sporadic. Therefore information on the structure and composition of benthic vegetation is limited. Special publications on this subject are rare (e.g., Vinogradova 1973a; 1978; Perestenko 1988; Zhigadlova and Selivanova 2003 (in press), although information on the marine algae of this area may be found in some general taxonomic, floristic and detailed hydrobiological studies (Kongisser 1933; Petrov 1972; Vinogradova 1973b, 1973c; 1974; 1979; Kussakin and Ivanova 1978; Vinogradova et al. 1978; Klochkova and Demeshkina 1985; Gusarova and Semkin 1986; Perestenko 1994; Klochkova and Berezovskaya 1997; Klochkova 1998). Short publications (conference abstracts) by T. Klochkova (1999) and Zhigadlova (2000) concerned algae of only the Karaginskii Gulf. Data from some of these publications are cited in Table 1. The laboratory of Hydrobiology of the Kamchatka Branch of Pacific Institute of Geography (KBPIG) conducted studies on flora and fauna of the Russian continental coasts of the Bering Sea (from Ozernoi Gulf to Dezhnev Bay) during a 7−month−long expedition in 1988. However, processing of phycological material collected during this expedition was delayed. The species were difficult to identify because many of them deviate morphologically from typical forms. This may be due to geographical factors such as the phenomenon of gigantism in northern races of plants and animals. For example, some samples of Porphyra miniata (C.Agardh) C.Agardh from the bays north of Olyutorskii Gulf reach 50–55 cm in length. It should be noted that taxonomic viewpoints of Russian and western phycologists differ quite often, and that is the case with the above mentioned Porphyra. Lindstrom and Cole (1992a, 1992b) treated species resembling our specimens as P. 1/35 Constancea 83.7: Algae of Russian Coasts of the Bering Sea 12/17/2002 07:10:48 PM cuneiformis (Setch. & Hus) Krishnamurthy but their viewpoint is not recognized in Russian literature. Phycologists in our country prefer to follow Perestenko's (1982, 1983, 1994) position, so we identified our samples in accordance with the concept of the latter author as P. miniata. Systematics of the other species within the genus Porphyra is also controversial. For instance, Porphyra purpurea (Roth) C.Agardh was revised by Lindstrom and Cole (1992a, 1992b) who showed by biochemical and genetic analyses that true P. purpurea was distributed only in the Atlantic Ocean, while its Pacific vicariant was described by these authors as a new species P. kurogii S.C.Lindstr. (Lindstrom and Cole 1992b). We followed this viewpoint in our publications dealing with the flora of the Commander Islands and replaced P. purpurea in our list of algae with P. kurogii (Selivanova and Zhigadlova 1997a, 1997c). The morphological description of P. kurogii however was considerably different from that of P. purpurea given by Perestenko (1982; 1994) who insisted on wide Atlantic−Pacific distribution of P. purpurea. There were specimens of Porphyra in our material from Olyutorskii Gulf that morphologically represented P. purpurea in Perestenko's interpretation. There were also specimens that fit into P. kurogii. Additional taxonomic studies are necessary to resolve the problem. Since we have no opportunity to carry out biochemical or genetic analyses, we prefer to keep the morphological approach and to treat P. kurogii and P. purpurea as separate species. They are both presented in Table 1. According to personal information of Gayle Hansen both species also occur in Alaska. The interpretation of families within the orders has also been disputed. For instance, Perestenko (1975) described the family Crossocarpaceae (Cryptonemiales, Rhodophyta) on the basis of vegetative structure and the morphology of the post−fertilization fusion cell. Independence of this family was supported by Russian phycologists but rejected by Hansen and Lindstrom (1984), who considered the Crossocarpaceae a subgroup within the Kallymeniaceae sensu lato. The circumscription of the family Dumontiaceae is also treated differently by Russian and western phycologists: thus Neoabbotiella araneosa described by Perestenko (1975) is still included by this author (Perestenko 1994) in the Dumontiaceae in spite of the proposal of Lindstrom (1985) to transfer this species from the Dumontiaceae into the Cryptonemiaceae (=Halymeniaceae). Another example, the family Arthrothamnaceae was segregated by Yu. Petrov (1974) from the Laminariaceae on the basis of distinctive features of lamina formation. The Arthrothamnaceae is widely recognized in Russian taxonomic literature but overlooked by other phycologists. In addition, there are many other unsolved systematic and nomenclature problems. For example, Kraft and Robins (1985) synonymized the order Cryptonemiales with the Gigartinales within the division Rhodophyta. This viewpoint was supported by some phycologists, including leading specialists (e.g., Scagel et al. 1986, 1993; Perestenko 1994). Others (e.g., Silva et al. 1996; Silva 2002) retained the Cryptonemiales as a separate order. Silva (2002) considered the proposal of Kraft and Robins to be retrogressive because the order Cryptonemiales was sufficiently heterogeneous and several new orders had already been segregated from it, including: Hildenbrandiales Pueschel & Cole (1982) and Corallinales Silva & Johansen (1986). Later the Halymeniales was proposed by Saunders and Kraft (1996) to replace the remaining Cryptonemiales on the basis of molecular, histochemical and ultrastructural features. This proposal was disputed by Masuda et al. (1999), who chose the older name, based on priority and the personal recommendation of P. Silva. These examples show that even higher taxa (orders and families) are still controversial. Systematics of lower taxa (genera and species) is also in many cases unresolved. For example, the number of genera within the order Acrochaetiales has been disputed. Woelkerling (1971, 1973) applied the common generic name Audouinella to the species representing the previously described genera Acrochaetium, Rhodochorton, Colaconema, Meiodiscus etc. Several subsequent authors shared this concept (e.g., Garbary, Hansen, and Scagel 1982) but the others considered transfer of these species to Audouinella unreasonable (Perestenko 1994; Silva et al. 1996). Harper and Saunders (2002) have recently published a new classification of acrochaetioid algae which includes the establishment of the new order Colaconematales. Taxonomy of the group is clearly still in flux. The main purpose of our work was to make an inventory of the flora of the Russian coasts of the Bering Sea using our own material, taking into consideration current data on taxonomy and nomenclature of the species. We have also tried to include species from earlier studies dealing with benthic algae of the Bering Sea. After revision these data were included in the list of the marine benthic algae of the coasts of the Bering Sea belonging to Kamchatka Oblast in its former boundaries (including Koryak Autonomous Disrtict): from Ozernoi to Olyutorskii Gulf and its northwestern coasts up to 2/35 Constancea 83.7: Algae of Russian Coasts of the Bering Sea 12/17/2002 07:10:48 PM Dezhnev Bay. Data on algae of the Commander Islands are excluded from the present list as they were published earlier in a series of papers (Selivanova and Zhigadlova 1993; 1997a; 1997b; 1997c; 1997d; 1999; 2000; 2002a). Information on the algae of the northern part of the Bering Sea located on the territory of Chukchi Autonomous District (Anadyrskii Gulf, north of Dezhnev Bay to Bering Strait) is not included in the present paper, because the author did not have opportunity to work in this area. Data on the algae of this area may be found in the papers