News Downloads About Us Contact Us
Paper Titles
Review on Pharmacological Effects of Plectranthus forskohlii (Willd) Briq
p.1
Screening and Characterization of Fibrinolytic Protease Producing Bacillus circulans from Mangrove Sediments Pitchavaram, South East Coast of India
p.10
Nucleic Acid Content in Tissue of the Fish N. notopterus Collected from Different Aquatic Bodies
p.17
Characterization and Analyses of Hydrophobic Clusters, Acetylation and Myristoylation Sites in Plant Glutathione Peroxidase Sequences
p.27
Shoot Growth in Typha angustifolia l. and Typha latifolia l. in the Kokemäenjoki River Delta Western Finland
p.34
Morphological Variation Assessment in Different Accessions of Plectranthus forskohlii (Willd) Briq. from South India
p.47

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

Article Preview

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.

By email View Pdf

Info:

Periodical:

International Letters of Natural Sciences (Volume 28)

Pages:

34-46

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.56431/p-d4lmjl

Citation:

Cite this paper

Online since:

November 2014

Authors:

Kai Aulio*

Keywords:

Cattails, Kokemäenjoki River Delta, Macrophytes, Typha angustifolia, Typha latifolia, Wetlands

Export:

RIS, BibTeX

Permissions:

Creative Commons CC BY 4.0

Share:

Citation:

* - Corresponding Author

References

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

Google Scholar

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

Google Scholar

[3] Analyse-it Software Ltd. Analyse-it for Microsoft Exel (version 2.12) (2008) http://www.analyse-it.com

Google Scholar

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

Google Scholar

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

Google Scholar

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

Google Scholar

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

Google Scholar

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

Google Scholar

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

Google Scholar

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

Google Scholar

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

Google Scholar

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

DOI: 10.1016/j.aquabot.2008.06.002

Google Scholar

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

Google Scholar

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

Google Scholar

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

Google Scholar

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

Google Scholar

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

Google Scholar

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

Google Scholar

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

Google Scholar

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

Google Scholar

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

Google Scholar

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

Google Scholar

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

Google Scholar

[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.

Google Scholar

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

Google Scholar

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

Google Scholar

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

Google Scholar

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

Google Scholar

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

Google Scholar

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

Google Scholar

© 2025 AOA Academic Open Access Ltd, Cyprus. All rights are reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies. For open access content, terms of the Creative Commons licensing CC-BY are applied. AcademicOA.com is a registered trademark of AOA Academic Open Access Ltd, Cyprus.