Advertisement

Folia Geobotanica et Phytotaxonomica

, Volume 8, Issue 4, pp 435–442 | Cite as

Proposal for international comparative investigations of production by stands of reed (phragmites communis)

  • Dagmar Dykyjová
  • Slavomil Hejný
  • Jan Květ
Reports

Abstract

Methodological recommendations are given for comparative investigations of production by invasion stands of reed (Phragmites communis Trin.). The comparisons are mainly based on estimates of the seasonal maximum shoot biomass and leaf area index. Recommendations for a quantitative morphological characteristic of thePhragmites shoots, and for a description of the habitat, are also given.

Keywords

Leaf Area Specific Leaf Area Leaf Weight Common Reed Emergent Macrophyte 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature cited

  1. Bernatowicz, S. etRadziej, J. (1964): Produkcja roczna makrofitow w kompleksie jeziora Mamry.—Pol. Arch. Hydrobiol., Warszawa, 12: 307–348.Google Scholar
  2. Björk, S. (1967): Ecologic investigations ofPhragmites communis. Studies in theoretic and applied limnology.—Folia Limnol. Scandin., Lund, No. 14.Google Scholar
  3. Bykov, B. A., Michajlova, V. P. etDemidovskaja, L. F. (ed.) (1964): Trostnik. Materialy po biologii, ekologii i ispolzovaniju trostnika obyknovennogo v Kazachstane. (Common reed. Materials on the biology, ecology and utilization of common reed in the Kazakhstan). (In Russian.)—Trudy Inst. Bot. Akad. Nauk Kazach. SSR, Alma-Ata, 19.Google Scholar
  4. Connert, H. J. (1961): Die Systematik und Anatomie der Arundineae.—Weinheim.Google Scholar
  5. Demidovskaja, L. F. etKiričenko, L. F. (1964): Morfologoanatomičeskije osobennosti trostnika i ego cikl razvitja. (Morphological and anatomical features of common reed and its developmental cycle).—In:Bykov, B. A. et al. (1964), p. 93–159.Google Scholar
  6. Dykyjová, D. (1969): Kontaktdiagramme als Hilfsmethode für vergleichende Biometrie, Allometrie und Produktionsanalyse vonPhragmites-Ökotypen.—Rev. Roum. Biol.-Zoolog., Bucuresti, 14: 107–119.Google Scholar
  7. Dykyjová, D. (1970): Comparative biometry ofPhragmites communis ecotypes and its significance to investigation of reed stands productivity.—In:Dykyjová, D. (ed.): Productivity of terrestrial ecosystems and production processes. Czechosl. National Committee for the IBP, subcom. PT, PP, Praha, Report No. 1: 105–110.Google Scholar
  8. Dykyjová, D. (1971a): Ekomorfózy a ekotypy rákosu obecného. (Ecomorphoses and ecotypes ofPhragmites communis Trin.).—Preslia, Praha, 43: 120–138.Google Scholar
  9. Dykyjová, D. (1971b): Productivity and solar energy conversion in reedswamp stands in comparison with outdoor mass cultures of algae in the temperate climate of Central Europe.— Photosynth., Praha, 5: 329–340.Google Scholar
  10. Dykyjová, D. (1971c): Production, vertical structure and light profiles in littoral stands of reed-bed species.—Hidrobiol., Bucuresti, 12: 361–376.Google Scholar
  11. Dykyjová, D. etHradecká, D. (1973): Comparative investigations on the microclimate in two reed-bed biotopes and on its relation to the ecotype, productivity and trophic conditions of habitat.—Pol. Arch. Hidrobiol., Warszawa, 20: 111–119.Google Scholar
  12. Dykyjová, D. etKvět, J. (1970): Comparison of biomass production in reedswamp communities growing in South Bohemia and South Moravia.—In:Dykyjová, D. (ed.): Productivity of terrestrial ecosystems and production processes. Czechosl. National Committee for the IBP, subcom. PT-PP, Praha, Report No 1: 71–79.Google Scholar
  13. Dykyjová, D., Ondok, J. P. etPřibáň, K. (1970): Seasonal changes in productivity and vertical structure of reed stands (Phragmites communis Trin.).—Photosynth., Praha, 4: 280–287.Google Scholar
  14. Dykyjová, D., Véber, K. etPřibáň, K. (1971): Productivity and Root/Shoot ratio of reedswamp species growing in outdoor hydroponic cultures.—Folia Geobot. Phytotax., Praha, 6: 233–254.Google Scholar
  15. Fiala, K. (1970): Rhizome biomass and its relation to shoot biomass and stand pattern in eight clones ofPhragmites communis Trin.—In:Dykyjová, D. (ed.): Productivity of terrestrial ecosystems, and production processes. Czechosl. National Committee for the IBP, subcom. PT-PP, Praha, Report No 1: 95–98.Google Scholar
  16. Fiala, K., Dykyjová, D. etSvoboda, J. (1968): Methods of assessing rhizome and root production in reed-bed stands.—In: “Methods of Productivity Studies in Root Systems and Rhizosphere Organisms.”—IBP/USSR, August 28-September 12, p. 36–47, Leningrad.Google Scholar
  17. Fiala, K. etKvět, J. (1971): Dynamic balance between plant species in South Moravian reedswamps.—In:Duffey, E. etWatt, A. S. (ed.): The scientific management of animal and plant communities for conservation, p. 241–269, Blackwells, Oxford and Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  18. Gorham, E. etPearsall, W. H. (1956): Production ecology III. Shoot production inPhragmites in relation to habitat.—Oikos, København, 7: 206–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Haslam, S. M. (1969a): Stem types ofPhragmites communis Trin.—Ann. Bot., Oxford, 33: 127–131.Google Scholar
  20. Haslam, S. M. (1969b): The development of shoots inPhragmites communis Trin.—Ann. Bot., Oxford, 33: 695–709.Google Scholar
  21. Haslam, S. M. (1970a): The development of the annual population inPhragmites communis Trin.—Ann. Bot., Oxford, 34: 571–591.Google Scholar
  22. Haslam, S. M. (1970b): The performance ofPhragmites communis Trin. in relation to water supply.—Ann. Bot., Oxford, 34: 867–877.Google Scholar
  23. Haslam, S. M. (1973): Some aspects of the life history and autecology ofPhragmites communis Trin. A. review.—Pol. arch. Hydrobiol., Warszawa, 20: 79–100.Google Scholar
  24. Hejný, S. (1957): Ein Beitrag zur ökologischen Gliederung der Makrophyten der tschechoslowakischen Niederungsgewässer.—Preslia, Praha, 29: 349–368.Google Scholar
  25. Hejný, S. (1960): Ökologische Charakteristik der Wasser- und Sumpfpflanzen in den slowakischen Tiefebenen (Donau- und Theissgebiet).—Bratislava.Google Scholar
  26. Hejný, S. (1971): The dynamic characteristic of littoral vegetation with respect to changes of water level.—Hidrobiol., Bucuresti, 12: 71–85.Google Scholar
  27. Hradecká, D. (1973): Inflorescence morphology in twelve types of reed (Phragmites communis Trin.) from the Nesyt Fishpond.—In:Květ, J., ed.: Littoral of the Nesyt Fishpond.—Studie ČSAV, Praha 1973/15: 93–95.Google Scholar
  28. Hradecká, D. etKvět, J. (1973): Morphological and production characteristics of three clones ofPhragmites communis Trin. from the Nesyt area.—In:Květ J. (ed.): Littoral of the Nesyt Fishpond.—Studie ČSAV, Praha 1973/15: 97–101.Google Scholar
  29. Hürlimann, H. (1951): Zur Lebensgeschichte des Schilfs an den Ufern der Schweizer Seen.— Beitr. Geobot. Landesaufnahme der Schweiz, Bern, 30.Google Scholar
  30. Květ, J. (1971): Growth analysis approach to the production ecology of reedswamp plant communities.—Hidrobiol., Bucuresti, 12: 15–40.Google Scholar
  31. Květ, J. (1973): Mineral nutrients in shoots of reedPhragmites communis Trin.—Pol. Arch. Hidrobiol., Warszawa, 20: 137–147.Google Scholar
  32. Květ, J. etMarshall, J. K. (1971): Assessment of leaf area and other assimilating plant surfaces. —In:Šesták, Z., Čatský, J. etJarvis, P. G.: Plant photosynthetic production: manual of methods, p. 517–555. The Hague.Google Scholar
  33. Květ, J. etSvoboda, J. (1970): Development of vertical structure and growth analysis in a stand ofPhragmites communis Trin.—In:Dykyjová, D. (ed.): Productivity of terrestrial ecosystems, production processes. Czechosl. National Committee for the IBP, subcom. PT-PP, Praha, Report No. 1: 84–87.Google Scholar
  34. Květ, J., Svoboda, J. etFiala, K. (1969): Canopy development in stands ofTypha latifolia L. andPhragmites communis Trin. in South Moravia.—Hidrobiol., Bucuresti, 10: 63–75.Google Scholar
  35. Lieth, H. (ed.) (1962): Die Stoffproduktion der Pflanzendecke.—Vortr. und Diskussionsergebnisse d. Internat. Ökol. Symposiums in Stuttgart-Hohenheim, von 4.–7. Mai 1960, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  36. Medina, E. (1964): Über die Beziehungen zwischen Chlorophyllgehalt, assimilierender Fläche und Trockensubstanzproduktion einiger Pflanzengemeinschaften.—Thesis Dr. Agricult., Agricult. Univ. Stuttgart-Hohenheim.Google Scholar
  37. Monteith, J. L. (1967): Climatological measurements.—Photosynth., Praha, 1: 129–132.Google Scholar
  38. Neuhäusl, R., (1965): Vegetation der Röhrichte und der sublitoralen Magnocariceten im Wittingauer Becken.—In:Neuhäusl, R. et al.: Synökologische Studien über Röhrichte, Wiesen und Auenwälder.—Vegetace ČSSR, A 1, Praha.Google Scholar
  39. Newbould, P. J. (1967): Methods of estimating the primary production of forests (IBP Handbook No. 2).—Oxford et Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  40. Nikolajevskij, V. G. (1971): Research into the biology of the common reed (Phragmites communis Trin.) in the U.S.S.R..—Folia Geobot. Phytotax., Praha, 6: 221–230.Google Scholar
  41. Ondok, J. P. (1968): Measurements of leaf area inPhragmites communis Trin.—Photosynth., Praha, 2: 25–30.Google Scholar
  42. Ondok, J. P. (1970): The horizontal structure of reed stands (Phragmites communis) and its relation to productivity.—Preslia, Praha, 42: 256–261.Google Scholar
  43. Pankowa, I. A. (1965): Trostnik obyknovennyj i ego chozjajstvennoje značenje.—Rastitel. Resursy, Moskva, 1: 1.Google Scholar
  44. Peterken, G. F. (1967): Guide to the check sheet for IBP areas. (IBP Handbook no. 4.)— Oxford et Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  45. Rudescu, L. (1965): Neue biologische Probleme bei denPhragmites-Kulturarbeiten in Donaudelta. —Arch. Hydrobiol. (Suppl. Donauforschung), Stuttgart, 30/2: 80–111.Google Scholar
  46. Rudescu, L. (1968): Der Einfluss der Umweltbedingungen auf die Produktivität des SchilfrohresPhragmites communis Trin. aus dem Donaudelta, Dniepr und Wolgadelta, Mesopotamien, Pakistan und Nildelta.—Ms. (Presented at the IBP—Intecol Varna Symposium.)Google Scholar
  47. Rudescu, L., Niculescu, C. etChivu, I. P. (1965): Monografia stufului din Delta Dunarii. (Monography of common reed in the Danube Delta.)—Bucuresti.Google Scholar
  48. Rychnovská, M. (1967): A contribution to the autecology ofPhragmites communis Trin. 1. Physiological heterogeneity of leaves.—Folia Geobot. Phytotax., Praha, 2: 179–189.Google Scholar
  49. Smirenskij, A. A. (1952): Vodnyje kormovyje i zaščitnyje rastenija v ochotniče-promyslovych chozjajstvach. I: 1–134. II: 1–182. Sagotizdat, Moskva.Google Scholar
  50. Straškraba, M. (1963): Share of the littoral region in the productivity of two fishponds in Southern Bohemia.—Rozpravy Čs. Akad. Věd, Ř. Mat.-Přírod. Věd, Praha, 73: 1–63.Google Scholar
  51. Straškraba, M. (1968): Der Anteil der höheren Pflanzen an der Produktion der stehenden Gewässer.—Mitt. Intern. Verein. Limnol., Stuttgart, 14: 212–230.Google Scholar
  52. Toorn van der, J. (1972): Variability ofPhragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. ex Steudel in relation to the environment.—Van Zee tot Land No 48. Rapp. Meded. Inzake de Droogmaking, Ontginning en Sociaal-Economische Opbouw der Ijsselmeerpolders, den Haag.Google Scholar
  53. Tóth, L., Szabó, E. etFelföldy, L. (1963): Standing crop measurement ofPhragmites communis on the ice of Lake Balaton.—Acta Bot. Acad. Sci. Hung., Budapest, 9: 151–159.Google Scholar
  54. Walter, H. (1962): Vegetation der Erde in ökologischer Betrachtung I. Die tropischen und subtropischen Zonen.—Jena.Google Scholar
  55. Westlake, D. F. (1963): Comparisons of plant productivity.—Biol. Rev., Cambridge, 38: 385–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Westlake, D. F. (1965): Some basic data for investigations of the productivity of aquatic macrophytes.—In: Proceedings of the IBP symposium on primary productivity in aquatic environments. Pallanza, Italy, April 1965.—Mem. Ist. Ital. Idrobiol., 18 Suppl.: 229–248.Google Scholar
  57. Westlake, D. F. (1968): Methods used to determine the annual production of reedswamp plants with extensive rhizomes.—In: “Methods of Productivity Studies in Root Systems and Rhizosphere Organisms”.—IBP/USSR, August 28–September 12, p. 226–234, Leningrad.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Botany, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic 1973

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dagmar Dykyjová
    • 1
  • Slavomil Hejný
    • 1
  • Jan Květ
    • 1
  1. 1.Botanical InstituteCzechoslovak Academy of SciencesTřeboň

Personalised recommendations