4.7 Article

Reed (Phragmites australis) decline in a brackish wetland in Italy

期刊

MARINE ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH
卷 53, 期 5, 页码 465-479

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0141-1136(02)00091-0

关键词

die-buck; eutrophication; organic acids; Phragmites australis; phytotoxins; salinity; sulphide

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A comparative field study was carried out at two sites (a healthy site and a declining site) in a brackish wetland in northern Italy, with the objective to investigate the symptoms and the possible causes leading to reed (Phragmites australis) decline in this area. The declining reed plants presented many of the symptoms (clumping habit, smaller size, weaker culms, abnormal rhizome and root anatomy, tow starch levels in rhizomes) comprised within the so-called reed die-back syndrome, frequently observed in central European wetlands but never recorded previously in (Sub)Mediterranean regions. Soil nutrient levels did not differ much between the two sites, with nitrate concentrations in the soil being even higher at the healthy site (1.54 mug g(-1); die-back site 0.76 mug g(-1)). Hence, eutrophication did not seem to represent a major cause in determinina reed decline in this area. High sulphate concentrations in saltwater associated with low soil redox potentials (-215 mV) due to waterlogging resulted in high soil sulphide concentrations, Concentrations of organic acids, especially acetic acid, did not differ remarkably between sites. High sulphide levels presumably accounted for abnormal anatomical formations (callus blocking acrenchyma channels), lower rates of net CO2 exchange and reduced reserve storage, observed at the die-back site. This was associated with a lower mechanical resistance of reed culms which accelerated reed mortality in the die-back areas. We concluded that high sulphide levels in permanently waterlogged soils may result in die-back of reed stands in Mediterranean wetlands. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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