4.2 Article

The influence of water level and nutrient availability on growth and root system development of Myriophyllum aquaticum

期刊

WEED RESEARCH
卷 49, 期 1, 页码 73-80

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL PUBLISHING, INC
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-3180.2008.00667.x

关键词

invasive species; aquatic weeds; soil hydro regime; root system growth; rhizotron; climate change

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Myriophyllum aquaticum is an aquatic plant of still or slow flowing waters. The species mostly occurs in its emerged growth form in dense stands, but submerged shoots can also be found. Due to its rapid growth, M. aquaticum is considered one of the most important aquatic weeds worldwide. In southern Europe, M. aquaticum occurs in irrigation and drainage systems, rice fields and lowland wetlands. In this study, root development and growth response of M. aquaticum to different water levels and nutrient availabilities were investigated in a rhizotron experiment under Central European climatic conditions. The species shows an ability to respond to drained soil conditions by a rapid root growth (up to > 1 cm day(-1)), resulting in a deep root system under drained conditions. In waterlogged soil, the root system spreads more horizontally. Root density increased with increasing nutrient availability. Root:shoot ratio increased significantly with decreasing nutrient availability. In addition, total shoot length, shoot biomass, root biomass and total biomass differed significantly between different water levels and different nutrient availabilities. Relative growth rate increased with increasing water level and nutrient availability. Shoot porosity was higher in nutrient rich substrate than in nutrient low substrate. Root porosity increased with increasing water level. In conclusion, M. aquaticum shows a high tolerance to different water levels, which may be important for future habitat conditions in waterbodies and wetlands in Central Europe under the impact of global change with increased water level fluctuations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据