Journal of Biosciences

, Volume 29, Issue 4, pp 461–470 | Cite as

Plant response strategies to stress and disturbance: the case of aquatic plants

  • Michèle Trémolières


The environmental factors controlling the establishment and development of plants in different ecosystems are of two types, stress and disturbance. The effects of stress or disturbance on aquatic systems are discussed in relation to the following questions:

Can we predict the state and rate of recolonization after a disturbance? What are the strategies of recolonization developed by plants? How high is the resilience of a disturbed system? Two theories, the intermediate disturbance hypothesis, and the patch dynamics concept proposed to predict the composition, structure and dynamics of plants due to physical-chemical factors, were tested on two scales, that of communities and that of species, within two alluvial floodplains (the Rhine and the Rhône systems in France).

With regard to the change of community on a larger scale (i.e. the whole network of the cut-off channels in the floodplain), large gradients of connection and disturbance induce high diversities within communities. Moreover, the highest flood disturbance induces a higher species richness and the occurrence of a particular species. The change in species is analysed using biological traits (morphological, reproductive or physiological). In the floodplain of the river Rhône, the response of plants corresponds well to theory, i.e. that habitats with an intermediate disturbance are richer than more or less disturbed habitats. So we can predict, through the biological traits, the functioning of a habitat. The last remaining question is that of the resilience of the system, which can be discussed in terms of species competition and the risk of biological invasion after an opening of habitat.


Aquatic plants disturbance strategies stress 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Barrat-Segretain M 1995Patch dynamics concept et végétation aquatique: stratégies de recolonization de zones perturbées dans des anciens chenaux fluviaux, Ph D thesis, University of Lyon, FranceGoogle Scholar
  2. Barrat-Segretain M H 2001 Invasive species in the Rhône river floodplain (France): replacement ofEodea canadensis byE. nuttallii St John in two former river channels;Arch. Hydrobiol. 152 237–251Google Scholar
  3. Barrat-Segretain M H and Amoros C 1996 Recovery of riverine vegetation after experimental disturbance: a field test of patch dynamics concept;Hydrobiologia 321 53–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barrat-Segretain M H, Henry C P and Bornette G 1999 Regeneration and colonization of aquatic plan fragments in relation to the disturbance frequency of their habitats;Arch. Hydrobiol. 14 111–127Google Scholar
  5. Barrat-Segretain M H, Elger A, Sagnes P and Puijalon S 2002 Comparison of three life-history traits of invvasiveElodea canadensis Michx andElodea nuttallii St John;Aquat. Bot. 24 299–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barrett S C H, Echert C G and Husband B C 1993 Evolutionary processes in aquatic plants populations;Aquat. Bot. 44 105–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bornette G, Amoros C, Castella C and Beffy J L 1994 Succession and fluctuation in the aquatic vegetation of two former Rhôine river channels;Vegetatio 110 171–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bornette G, Amoros C and Lamouroux N 1998 Aquatic plant diversity in riverine wetlands: the role of connectivity;Fresh-water Biol. 39 267–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burke M J W and Grime J P 1996 An experimental study of plant community invasibility;Ecology 77 776–790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carbiener R, Trémolières M, Mercier J L and Ortscheit A 1990 Aquatic macrophyte communities as bioindicators of eutrophication in calcareous oligosaprobe stream waters (Upper Rhine plain, Alsace);Vegetatio 86 71–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Connell J H 1978 Diversity in tropical rain forests and coral refs;Science 199 1302–1310PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davis M A, Grime J P and Thompson K 2000 Fluctuating resources in plant communities: a general theory of invisibility;J. Ecol. 88 528–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Garbey C 2003Plasticité phénotypique et compétitivité chez les hydrophytes: étude expérimentale et de modélisation de Ranunculus peltatus Schrank, Ph.D. thesis, University of Metz, FranceGoogle Scholar
  14. Garbey C, Thiébaut G and Muller S 2003 Morphological plasticity of a spreading aquatic macrophyte,Ranunculus peltatus, in response to environmental variables;Plant Ecol. (in press)Google Scholar
  15. Greulich S, Bornette G, Amoros C and Roelofs J G M 2000a Investigation on the fundamental niche of a rare species: an experiment on establishment ofLuronium natans;Aquat. Bot. 66 209–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Greulich S, Bornette G and Amoros C 2000b Persistence of a rare aquatic species along gradients of disturbance and sediment richness;J. Veget. Sci. 11 415–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grime J P 1979Plant strategies and vegetation processes (New York: J Wiley)Google Scholar
  18. Henry C P, Amoros C and Bornette G 1996 Species traits and recolonization processes after flood disturbances in riverine macrophyte;Vegetatio 122 13–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kautsky L 1987 Life-cycles of three populations ofPotamogeton pectinatus L. at different degrees of wave exposure in the Askö area, Northern Baltic Proper;Aquat. Bot. 27 177–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. MacArthur R H and Wilson E O 1967Theory of island biogeography (Princeton: Princeton University press)Google Scholar
  21. Murphy K J, Rørslett B and Springuel I 1990 Strategy analysis of submerged lake macrophyte communities: an international example;Aquat. Bot. 36 303–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pickett S T A and White P S 1985 Patch dynamics: a synthesis; inThe ecology of natural disturbance and patch dynamics (eds) S T A Pickett and P S White (Orlando: Academic Press) pp 371–384Google Scholar
  23. Rolland T and Trémolières M 1995 The role of ammonium in the distribution of the three species ofElodea;Acta Bot. Gallica 142 733–740Google Scholar
  24. Santamaria L 2002 Why are most aquatic plants widely distributed? Dispersal, clonal growth and small-scale heterogeneity in a stressful environment;Acta. Oecol. 23 137–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Spink A J, Murphy K J, Smith S M and Westlake D F 1993 Effects of eutrophication onRanunculus andPotamogeton;J. Aquat. Plant Manage. 31 113–117Google Scholar
  26. Townsend C R 1989 The patch dynamic concept of stream community ecology;J. North Am. Benthol. Soc. 8 36–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Townsend C R and Hildrew A G 1994 Species traits in relation to habitat templet for river systems;Freshwater Biol. 31 265–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Van Wijk R J 1988 Ecological studies onPotamogeton pectinatus L. General characteristics, biomass production and life cycles under field conditions;Aquat. Bot. 31 211–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Academy of Sciences 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michèle Trémolières
    • 1
  1. 1.Center of Vegetal Ecology and HydrologyCEVH UMR MA 101 ULP/ENGEESStrasbourgFrance

Personalised recommendations