Advertisement

Hydrobiologia

, Volume 340, Issue 1–3, pp 127–135 | Cite as

Past and present distribution of stoneworts (Characeae) in The Netherlands

  • Jan Simons
  • Emile Nat
Freshwater Plants and Aquatic Weed Problems

Abstract

In The Netherlands 21 Characeae species occur. Chara vulgaris, C. globularis, and Nitella flexilis are common and widespread, occurring in at least 225 of the total of 1677 atlasblocks (5 × 5 km2). Chara aspera, C. contraria, C major, Nitella mucronata and Tolypella prolifera, occurring in at least 30 atlasblocks, are denoted as ‘not uncommon’. Thirteen species are rare and recorded in less than 30 atlasblocks. Regarding the common species, the number of records significantly increased in recent time, presumably thanks to the recently increased flora inventory activities. The other species remained nevertheless rare, with a tendency of decrease. In the first half of this century mass occurrence of Characeae was a rather common phenomenon, especially in shallow lakes in the central western part of the country. Rich occurrence of Characeae is now restricted to localities with clear water which is low in nutrients. Important habitats are dune waters, polder ditches, shallow lakes and moorland pools. Physico-chemical factors in water and sediment, such as nutrients, salinity, CaCO3, alkalinity, and in the sediment also the redox-value and organic matter, are suggested as important parameters for species composition. In recent years, at several sites where water quality has improved by restoration measures, Characeae reappeared or increased in species and biomass.

Key words

Characeae The Netherlands distribution habitat factors field ecology 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andrews, M., 1987. Phosphate uptake by the component parts of Chara hispida. Br. Phycol. J. 22: 49–53.Google Scholar
  2. Auderset Joye, D., 1993. Contribution à l'écologie des Characées de Suisse. Thesis, Université de Genève.Google Scholar
  3. Barko, J. W. & R. M. Smart, 1981. Sediment based nutrition of submerged macrophytes. Aquat. Bot. 10: 339–352.Google Scholar
  4. Barko, J. W., D. Gunnison & S. R. Carpenter, 1991. Sediment interactions with submerged macrophyte growth and community dynamics. Aquat. Bot. 41: 41–65.Google Scholar
  5. Blindow, I., 1991. Interactions between submerged macrophytes and microalgae in shallow lakes. Doctoral dissertation, Lund University, 112 pp.Google Scholar
  6. Blindow, I., 1994. Sältsynta och hotade kransalger i Sverige. (Rare and threatened charophytes in Sweden). Svensk Bot. Tidskr. 88: 65–73.Google Scholar
  7. Coops, H. & R. W. Doef, 1996. Submerged vegetation development in two shallow, eutrophic lakes. Hydrobiologia 340 (Dev. Hydrobiol. 120): 115–120.Google Scholar
  8. Compère, P., 1992. Charophytes — Flore pratique des a1gues d'eau douce de Belgique, 4. Jardin Botanique National de Belgique, Meise.Google Scholar
  9. Hutchinson, G. E., 1975. A treatise on limnology, 3. Limnological Botany. J. Wiley & Sons, New York, 660 pp.Google Scholar
  10. Krause, W., 1981. Characeen als Bioindikatoren für den Gewässerzustand. Arch. Hydrobiol. Suppl. 35: 305–317.Google Scholar
  11. Krause, W.,1984. Rote Liste der Armleuchteralgen (Characeen). In: Blab et al.: Rote Liste der gefährdeten Tiere and Pflanzen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 4 Aufl.: 184–187, Kilda, Greven.Google Scholar
  12. Kufel, L. & T. Ozimek, 1994. Can Chara control phosphorus cycling in Lake Luknajno (Poland). Hydrobiologia 275/276: 277–283.Google Scholar
  13. Langangen, A., 1974. Ecology and distribution of Norwegian charophytes. Norw. J. Bot. 21: 31–52.Google Scholar
  14. Lyon, M. J. H. de & J. G. M. Roelofs, 1986. Waterplanten in relatie tot waterkwaliteit en bodemgesteldheid I, II. Catholic University, Nijmegen, 230 pp. (in Dutch).Google Scholar
  15. Moore, J. A., 1986. Charophytes of Great Britain and Ireland. Botanical Society of the British Isles, London, 140 pp.Google Scholar
  16. Olsen, S., 1950. Aquatic plants and hydrospheric factors. Svensk Bot. Tidskr. 44:1–34 & 332–373.Google Scholar
  17. Simons, J., 1987. Spirogyra species and accompanying algae from dune waters in The Netherlands. Acta Bot. Neerl. 36: 13–31.Google Scholar
  18. Simons, J., M. Ohm, R. Daalder, P. Boers & W. Rip, 1994. Restoration of Botshol (The Netherlands) by reduction of external nutrient load: recovery of a characean community, dominated by Chara connivens. Hydrobiologia 275/276: 243–253.Google Scholar
  19. Van den Bosch, R. B., 1853. Characeae. Prodromus Florae Batavae 11(2): 186–189, Leiden. (in Latin).Google Scholar
  20. Van Raam, J. C. & E. X. Maier, 1993. Overzicht van de Nederlandse kranswieren. Gorteria 18: 111–116 (in Dutch).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan Simons
    • 1
  • Emile Nat
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Ecology and EcotoxicologyVrije UniversiteitAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Krayenhoffstraat 223AmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations