Subscribe

Subscribe to our Newsletter and get informed about new publication regulary and special discounts for subscribers!

ILNS > Volume 28 > Shoot Growth in Typha angustifolia l. and Typha...
Shoot Growth in <i>Typha angustifolia</i> l. and <i>Typha latifolia</i> l. in the Kokemäenjoki River Delta Western Finland
< Back to Volume

Shoot Growth in Typha angustifolia l. and Typha latifolia l. in the Kokemäenjoki River Delta Western Finland

Full Text PDF

Abstract:

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.

Info:

Periodical:
International Letters of Natural Sciences (Volume 28)
Pages:
34-46
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18052/www.scipress.com/ILNS.28.34
Citation:
K. Aulio "Shoot Growth in Typha angustifolia l. and Typha latifolia l. in the Kokemäenjoki River Delta Western Finland", International Letters of Natural Sciences, Vol. 28, pp. 34-46, 2015
Online since:
November 2014
Authors:
Kai Aulio
Keywords:
Cattails, Kokemäenjoki River Delta, Macrophytes, Typha angustifolia, Typha latifolia, Wetlands
Export:
RIS, BibTeX, Text
Distribution:
Open Access

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

References:

Allaby, M., (Ed. ). Oxford Dictionary of Plant Sciences. Third Edition (2012) Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Allen S.E. (Ed. ). Chemical Analysis of Ecological Materials (1974) Blackwell, Oxford.

Analyse-it Software Ltd. Analyse-it for Microsoft Exel (version 2. 12) (2008) http: /www. analyse-it. com.

Andersson B., Ambio 30(8) (2001) 503-513.

Asaeda T., Hung L.Q., Wetlands Ecology and Management 15(2) (2007) 155-164.

Aulio K., Publicationes Instituti Geographici Universitatis Turkuensis 90 (1979) 1-30.

Aulio K., Baltic Cities Environmental Bulletin (2010) 2/2010 7.

Aulio K., Research Journal of Biology 2 (2014) 11-17.

Aulio K. Journal of Plant Sciences 2(4) (2014) 120-128.

Bellavance M-E., Brisson J., Aquatic Botany 93(2) (2010) 129-134.

Čižková H., Kvĕt J., Comín F.A., Laiho R., Pokorný J., Pithart D., Aquatic Sciences 75(1) (2013) 3-26.

Escutia-Lara Y., Gómez-Romero M., Lindig-Cisneros R., Aquatic Botany 90(1) (2009) 74-77.

Grace J.B., Wetzel R.G., Canadian Journal of Botany 60(1) (1982) 46-57.

Häyrén E., Acta Sociatatis pro Fauna et Flora Fennica 32(1909) 1-266.

Horppila J., Nurminen L., Freshwater Biology 46(11) (2001) 1447-1455.

Keddy P.A. Wetland Ecology. Principles and Conservation. Second Edition (2010) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Kercher S.M., Zedler J.B., Aquatic Botany 80(2) (2004) 89-102.

Li S., Pezeshki SR., Goodwin S., Acta Oecologica 25(1-2) (2004) 17-22.

Neely R.K., Davis C.B., Aquatic Botany 22(3-4) (1985) 347-361.

Olson A., Paul J., Freeland JR., Aquatic Botany 91(2) (2009) 67-70.

Säntti A.A., Acta Geographica 14 (1954) 359-378.

Sharma P., Asaeda T., Fujino T., Wetlands Ecology and Management 16(1) (2008) 43-49.

Sokal R.R. and Rohlf F.J. Biometry. Fourth Edition (2012) W.H. Freeman and Company, New York.

Steinbachova-Vojtiskova L., Tylova E., Soukup A., Novicka H., Votrubova O., Lipavska H., Cizkova H., Environmental and Experimental Botany 57(3) (2006) 246-257.

Sullivan L., Wildova R., Goldberg D., Vogel C., Plant Ecology 207(1) (2010) 112-129.

Suominen J., Norrlinia 26 (2013) 1-783.

Tanaka N., Asaeda T., Hasegawa A., Tanimoto K., Aquatic Botany 79(4) (2004) 285-310.

Vaccaro L.E., Bedford B.L., Johnston C.A., Wetlands 29(3) (2009) 1036-1048.

Vollenweider R.A. (Ed. ) A manual on methods for measuring primary production in aquatic environments (1969) IBP Handbook 12, London.

Weiner S.E.B., Oecologia 94(3) (1993) 451-456. ( Received 22 October 2014; accepted 31 October 2014 ).

Show More Hide