Author
Listed:
- Wenqing Xiao
(Jiangxi Provincial Key Laboratory of Safe and Efficient Mining of Rare Metal Resource, School of Emergency Management and Safety Engineering, Jiangxi University of Science and Technology, Ganzhou 341000, China)
- Xiaojing Wang
(Jiangxi Provincial Key Laboratory of Safe and Efficient Mining of Rare Metal Resource, School of Emergency Management and Safety Engineering, Jiangxi University of Science and Technology, Ganzhou 341000, China)
- Long Wang
(Jiangxi Provincial Key Laboratory of Safe and Efficient Mining of Rare Metal Resource, School of Emergency Management and Safety Engineering, Jiangxi University of Science and Technology, Ganzhou 341000, China)
Abstract
The escalating threat of cyanobacterial blooms necessitates a deeper understanding of the environmental factors regulating their toxicity. While light intensity effects are well-documented, it remains unclear whether photoperiod regulates microcystin (MC) production. This study investigates the effects of five light–dark (LD) cycles on the growth and MC-LR production of two Microcystis strains in batch culture under a light intensity of 25 μmol m −2 s −1 . Longer photoperiods enhanced early growth, although long-term biomass accumulation proved strain-dependent. Regarding toxin production, cellular MC-LR (total toxin per cell) during the initial 9-day phase was analyzed using a mixed-effects model. The analysis revealed significant main effects of photoperiod and cell density, supporting both direct and growth-mediated indirect effects of photoperiod. Moreover, a significant strain × photoperiod × day interaction ( p < 0.001) was observed, indicating additional strain-specific and time-dependent regulation. Conversely, a general linear model of the strictly intracellular MC-LR at the 27-day endpoint showed significant independent effects of photoperiod and cell density, with no interaction. The photoperiod effect strengthened after controlling for cell density. These findings reveal a phase-dependent regulation of toxicity, suggesting that risk assessment based solely on biomass is inadequate. Sustainable bloom management should therefore incorporate photoperiod dynamics and adopt phase-specific strategies.
Suggested Citation
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:22:p:10156-:d:1793833. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask MDPI Indexing Manager to update the entry or send us the correct address
(email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.