Biomechanical properties and morphological characteristics of lake and river plants: implications for adaptations to flow conditions
- 523 Downloads
Biomechanical properties and morphological characteristics of stems of eight species of submerged aquatic plants were studied to analyse (1) differences between river and lake specimens, (2) seasonal differences between winter/spring and summer/autumn specimens, and (3) change of biomechanical properties and morphological characteristics along the stems. The data show that river macrophytes display not only characteristic biomechanical traits and morphological characteristics specific to their hydraulic habitats, but also distinctive temporal changes due to seasonally varying water temperature, flow velocity, and growth phase. Furthermore, the data reveal differences between lake and river specimens that could be explained by wind exposure of the lake sampling sites and the species-specific flow requirements of the river macrophytes. Biomechanical properties and morphological characteristics varied along the stem with larger cross-sections and a higher resistance against tension and bending forces at the bottom compared to the top parts, being similar for both lake and river specimens. The acquired and analysed stem biomechanical and morphological data contribute to the plant biomechanics database to underpin a wide range of studies in aquatic ecology, river and wetland management.
KeywordsPlant biomechanics Freshwater macrophytes Lotic plants Lentic plants Plant adaptation strategies Biomechanical traits
The work was supported by the Leverhulme Trust, Grant F/00152/Z ‘Biophysics of flow-plant interactions in aquatic systems’. The NERC’s Centre for Ecology and Hydrology Edinburgh (CEH Edinburgh, UK) supplied field equipment for plant sampling, temperature and velocity measurements. Dr Alfred Akisanya and Jim Gall provided helpful advice on cyclic loading/unloading, bending and tension tests using the Hounsfield Materials testing machine. Timothy Crane, Nana Totoe, Mathieu Beauvais and Shane Coughlan helped with tests.
- Brusca RC, Brusca GJ (1990) Invertebrates. Sinauer Associates, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
- Caspers RS, Bugbee GJ, Selsky R, White JC (2005) A guide to invasive aquatic plants of Connecticut. The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station. Bulletin 997, New Haven, ConnecticutGoogle Scholar
- Denny MW (1988) Biology and the mechanics of the wave-swept environment. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
- Haslam SM (2006) River plants. Forrest Text, TresaithGoogle Scholar
- Niklas KJ (1992) Plant biomechanics: an engineering approach to plant form and function. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
- Preston CD, Croft JM (2001) Aquatic plants in Britain and Ireland. Harley Books, StenstrupGoogle Scholar
- Rich TCG, Rich MDB (1988) Plant Crib. BSBI, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Rodwell JS (1998) British plant communities: volume 4, aquatic communities, swamps and tall-herb fens. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Rowan JS (2008) Lake habitat survey in the United Kingdom. Field survey guidance manual. Version 4. Dundee, The Scotland and Northern Ireland forum for environmental research (SNIFFER) and Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH)Google Scholar
- Sabbatini MR, Murphy KJ (1996) Response of Callitriche and Potamogeton to cutting, dredging and shade in English drainage channels. J Aquat Plant Manage 34:8–12Google Scholar
- Wetzel RG (2001) Limnology–lake and river ecosystems. Academic Press, WalthamGoogle Scholar