Advertisement

Folia Geobotanica et Phytotaxonomica

, Volume 6, Issue 3, pp 233–254 | Cite as

Productivity and root/shoot ratio of reedswamp species growing in outdoor hydroponic cultures

  • Dagmar Dykyjová
  • Karel Véber
  • Karel Pribáň
Article

Abstract

The study of the annual productivity of some reedswamp species grown in hydroponic sand cultures is described. The plants were cultivated in the open in a mixture of diatomite earth and sand, and irrigated periodically with a nutrient solution. The cultivation tanks were arranged in tiers to enable a continuous passage of the nutrient solution through the rooting medium. The plants were grown from small rhizome cuttings or seedlings one year old. Harvests at intervals of 1 to 3 years made it possible to follow and assess in quantitative terms the dry matter production of both aerial (shoots) and underground organs (“Root/Shoot” Ratio) and the annual dry weight increase of the underground biomass of these perennial species. The research included macro- and microclimatological measurements of temperature (air, substrate), humidity and incident (global) solar radiation. The annual productivity and the efficiency of incident solar energy utilization in the yields of cultivated reedswamp species are compared with corresponding values of the same species in natural stands. The values of production (standing crop), net annual productivityC, and the coefficient of solar energy conversion η were very high, surpassing in several cases those of natural habitats. The significance of these findings is discussed.

Keywords

Nutrient Solution Natural Stand Hydroponic Culture Folia GEOBOTANICA Underground Organ 
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. Allen, S. E. etPearsall, W. H. (1963): Leaf analysis and shoot production inPhragmites.— Oikos, Copenhagen, 14: 176–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Annual Report of the Laboratory of Algology for the year 1966.—Třeboň, 1967.Google Scholar
  3. Bernatowicz, S. (1960): Charakterystika jezior na podstawie roslin naczyniowych. (The characteristics of lakes on the base of vascular plants).—Roczniki Nauk Rolniczych, Warszawa, 77-B-1.Google Scholar
  4. Bernatowicz, S. etRadziej, J. (1964): Produkcja roczna makrofitów v kompleksie jeziora Mamry. (Yearly production of macrophytes in Mamry lake complex).—Polsk. Arch. Hydrobiol., Warszawa, 12: 207–348.Google Scholar
  5. Bernatowicz, S. (1969): Macrophytes in the lake Warniak and their chemical composition.— Ekol. Polska, Ser. A, Warszawa, 17: 447–467.Google Scholar
  6. Björk, S. (1967): Ecologic investigation ofPhragmites communis. Studies in theoretic and applied Limnology.—Folia Limnol. Scand., Lund, 14.Google Scholar
  7. Bray, J. R., Lawrence, D. B. etPearson, L. C. (1959): Primary production in some Minnesota terrestrial communities for 1957.—Oikos, Copenhagen, 10: 38–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Butlery, B. R., Williams, W. T. etLambert, J. M. (1965): Competition betweenGlyceria maxima andPhragmites communis in the region of Surlingham Broad, II. The fen gradient.— Journ. Ecol., London, 53: 183–195.Google Scholar
  9. Dykyjová, D. etKvět, J. (1970): Comparison of biomass production in reedswamp communities growing in South Bohemia and South Moravia.—In: Productivity of terrestrial ecosystems and production processes. Czechoslovak PT-PP/IBP Report No. 1: 71–79 Praha.Google Scholar
  10. Fiala, K., Dykyjová, D., Květ, J. etSvoboda, J. (1968): Methods of assessing rhizome and root production in reed-bed stands.—Int. Symposium: Methods of production studies in root systems and rhizosphere organisms. IBP (USSR), August 28-September 12, Leningrad, p. 36–47.Google Scholar
  11. Gorham, E. etPearsall, W. H. (1956): Production ecology: III. Shoot production inPhragmites in relation to habitat.—Oikos, Copenhagen, 7: 206–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hejný, S. (1960): Ökologische charakteristik der Wasser- und Sumpfpflanzen in der Slowakischen Tiefebenen (Donau- und Theissgebiet).—Bratislava.Google Scholar
  13. Hürlimann, H. (1951): Zur Lebensgeschichte des Schilfs an den Ufern der Schweizor Seen.—Beitr. Geobotan. Landesaufn. Schweiz, Bern, 30.Google Scholar
  14. Lieth, H. [Edit.] (1960): Die Stoffproduction der Pflanzendecke.—Vorträge und Diskussions-ergebnisse des internat. ökologisch. Symposiums in Stuttgart—Hohenheim vom 4.–7. Mai 1960, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  15. Lohamar, G. (1938): Wasserchemie und höhere Vegetation schwedischer Seen.—Symb. Bot. Upsal., 3: 1–252.Google Scholar
  16. Luther, H. (1951): Verbreitung und Ökologie der höherer Wasserpflanzen in Brackwasser der Ekanäs-Gegend in Südfinland. II. Spezieller Teil.—Acta Bot. Fenn., Helsinki, 50: 1–370.Google Scholar
  17. Luther, H. (1951 a): Beobachtung über die fruktificative Vermehrung vonPhragmites communis Trin.—Acta Bot. Fenn., Helsinki, 46: 1–18.Google Scholar
  18. Malmer, N. (1961): Ecologic studies on the water chemistry of lakes in South Sweden.—Bot. Not., Lund, 114.Google Scholar
  19. Misra, R. A. (1938): Edaphic factors in the distribution of aquatic plants in the English Lakes.— Journ. Ecol., London, 26: 411.Google Scholar
  20. Neuhäusl, R. (1965): Synökologische Studien über die Röhrichte. Vegetation der Röhrichte und der sublitoralen Magnocariceten im Wittingauer Becken.—In: Synökologische Studien über Röhrichte, Wiesen und Auenwälder.—Vegetace ČSSR Al, Praha.Google Scholar
  21. Ondok, J. P. (1968): Analyse des Blattwachstums als Methode zur Bestimmung des Masstabes der Ontogenetischen Entwicklung.—Studia Biophysica, Berlin, 11: 161–168.Google Scholar
  22. Pénzes, A. (1960): Über die Morphologie, Dynamik und zönologische Rolle der Sprosskolonien-bildenden Pflanzen (Polycormone).—Fragm. Florist. Geobot., Kraków, 6, 4: 505–515.Google Scholar
  23. Rodewald-Rudescu, L. (1958): Schilfrohr und Fischkultur in Donaudelta.—Arch. Hydrobiol. Berlin, 54: 303–339.Google Scholar
  24. Rudescu, L., Niculescu, G., etChivu, I. P. (1965): Monografia stufului din Delta Dunari.— Edit. Acad. Republ. Social. Romania, Bucuresti.Google Scholar
  25. Setlík, I., Šust, V. etMálek, I. (1970): Dual purpose open circulating units for large scale culture of algae in temperate zones. I.—Algolog. Studies, 1, Třeboň.Google Scholar
  26. Tóth, L. etSzábo, E. (1961): Zönologische und ökologische Untersuchungen in den Röhrichten des Neusiedlerseee.—Annal. Biol. Tihan., 28: 151–168.Google Scholar
  27. Véber, K. etDykyjová, D. (1971): Pěstování a rozmnožování rákosu, technické rostliny chemického a stavebního průmyslu.—Rostlinná výroba, Praha, 17: 97–109.Google Scholar
  28. Walter, H. (1963): La productivité du tapis végétal.—Lejeunia, Liège, 22: 1–13.Google Scholar
  29. Westlake, D. F. (1963): Comparisons of plant productivity.—Biol. Rev., Cambridge, 38: 385–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Westlake, D. F. (1965): Some basic data for investigation of the productivity of aquatic macrophytes. —Proceedings of IBP Symposium on primary productivity in aquatic environments Pallanza, Italy, April 1965.—Mem. Ist. Ital. Idrobiol., 18 supplem: 229–248.Google Scholar
  31. Westlake, D. F. (1968): Methods used to determine the annual production of reedswamp plants with extensiverhizomes.—Intern. Symposium: Methods of productivity studies in root systems and rhizosphere organisms. IBP (USSR), August 28-September 12, 1968, Leningrad. p. 226–234.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Academia 1971

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dagmar Dykyjová
    • 1
  • Karel Véber
    • 1
  • Karel Pribáň
    • 1
  1. 1.Botanical Institute of the Czechoslovak Academy of SciencesTřeboň

Personalised recommendations