Shoot growth in Typha angustifolia L. and Typha latifolia L. in the Kokemaenjoki River delta, western Finland

• Autorzy: Aulio K.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The growth dynamics of two tall littoral helophytic plants, the narrow-leaved cattail (Typha angustifolia L.) and broad-leaved cattail (Typha latifolia L.; Typhaceae) were studied in the rapidly changing estuarine habitats in the Kokemäenjoki River delta, western Finland. The two cattails form uniform, single-species communities (monocultures) throughout the plant-covered estuary. Of the two taxa compared, the shoots were taller in T. angustifolia (mean 166 cm) than in T. latifolia (mean 120 cm). But due to the robust leaves, the relation in the average weight of individual ramets was opposite: The mean weight of T. angustifolia was 9.6 g (dry wt), and that of T. latifolia was 16.5 g. In a separate study, the leaf height was compared between the fertile (flowering) and sterile (non-flowering) ramets. In flowering ramets the average leaf length was 35 cm taller in Typha angustifolia than in T. latifolia. The differences were even more pronounced in sterile ramets, where the leaves of Typha angustifolia were 70 cm taller than those of T. latifolia. The differences were statistically highly significant. Interspecific competition between the two Typha species is negligible, because the microhabitats differ from each other. T. angustifolia grows in considerably deeper (mean depth 42 cm) waters than T. latifolia (mean depth 19 cm). The optimum range in the water depth is markedly stricter in T. angustifolia than in T. latifolia. The differences between the rooting depths of the two cattails were statistically highly significant. The physico-chemical characteristics of the rooting zones (rhizospheres) of the two cattails are similar, with the locally produced (autochthonous) organic matter dominating and determining the fertility of the habitats.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Finland; Kokemäenjoki River; delta area; wetland; cattail; Typha angustifolia; narrow-leaf cattail; Typha latifolia; shoot growth; growth dynamics; macrophyte; helophyte

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: International Letters of Natural Sciences
• Rocznik: 2015
• Tom: 01
• Opis fizyczny: p.34-46,fig.,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Aulio K.

• Department of Biology, University of Turku, Lankakatu 3 D 16, FI-20660 Littoinen, Finland

Bibliografia

• [1] Allaby, M., (Ed.). Oxford Dictionary of Plant Sciences. Third Edition (2012) Oxford University Press, Oxford.
• [2] Allen S.E. (Ed.). Chemical Analysis of Ecological Materials (1974) Blackwell, Oxford.
• [3] Analyse-it Software Ltd. Analyse-it for Microsoft Exel (version 2.12) (2008) http://www.analyse-it.com
• [4] Andersson B., Ambio 30(8) (2001) 503-513.
• [5] Asaeda T., Hung L.Q., Wetlands Ecology and Management 15(2) (2007) 155-164
• [6] Aulio K., Publicationes Instituti Geographici Universitatis Turkuensis 90 (1979) 1-30.
• [7] Aulio K., Baltic Cities Environmental Bulletin (2010) 2/2010 7.
• [8] Aulio K., Research Journal of Biology 2 (2014) 11-17.
• [9] Aulio K. Journal of Plant Sciences 2(4) (2014) 120-128.
• [10] Bellavance M-E., Brisson J., Aquatic Botany 93(2) (2010) 129-134.
• [11] Čižková H., Kvĕt J., Comín F.A., Laiho R., Pokorný J., Pithart D., Aquatic Sciences 75(1) (2013) 3-26.
• [12] Escutia-Lara Y., Gómez-Romero M., Lindig-Cisneros R., Aquatic Botany 90(1) (2009) 74-77.
• [13] Grace J.B., Wetzel R.G., Canadian Journal of Botany 60(1) (1982) 46-57.
• [14] Häyrén E., Acta Sociatatis pro Fauna et Flora Fennica 32(1909) 1-266.
• [15] Horppila J., Nurminen L., Freshwater Biology 46(11) (2001) 1447-1455.
• [16] Keddy P.A. Wetland Ecology. Principles and Conservation. Second Edition (2010) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• [17] Kercher S.M., Zedler J.B., Aquatic Botany 80(2) (2004) 89-102.
• [18] Li S., Pezeshki SR., Goodwin S., Acta Oecologica 25(1-2) (2004) 17-22.
• [19] Neely R.K., Davis C.B., Aquatic Botany 22(3-4) (1985) 347-361.
• [20] Olson A., Paul J., Freeland JR., Aquatic Botany 91(2) (2009) 67-70.
• [21] Säntti A.A., Acta Geographica 14 (1954) 359-378.
• [22] Sharma P., Asaeda T., Fujino T., Wetlands Ecology and Management 16(1) (2008) 43-49.
• [23] Sokal R.R. and Rohlf F.J. Biometry. Fourth Edition (2012) W.H. Freeman and Company, New York.
• [24] Steinbachova-Vojtiskova L., Tylova E., Soukup A., Novicka H., Votrubova O., Lipavska H., Cizkova H., Environmental and Experimental Botany 57(3) (2006) 246-257.
• [25] Sullivan L., Wildova R., Goldberg D., Vogel C., Plant Ecology 207(1) (2010) 112-129.
• [26] Suominen J., Norrlinia 26 (2013) 1-783.
• [27] Tanaka N., Asaeda T., Hasegawa A., Tanimoto K., Aquatic Botany 79(4) (2004) 285-310.
• [28] Vaccaro L.E., Bedford B.L., Johnston C.A., Wetlands 29(3) (2009) 1036-1048.
• [29] Vollenweider R.A. (Ed.) A manual on methods for measuring primary production in aquatic environments (1969) IBP Handbook 12, London.
• [30] Weiner S.E.B., Oecologia 94(3) (1993) 451-456.