Advertisement

Production ecology ofPhragmites communis 1. Relations of two ecotypes to the microclimate and nutrient conditions of habitat

  • Dagmar Dykyjová
  • Dana Hradecká
Article

Abstract

The growth rate of stand biomass, the seasonal development of vertical stand structure and accumulation of mineral nutrients were compared in twoPhrogmites ecotypes; the stands occur in two different biotopes, littoral and limosal, situated in the littoral of the Opatovický fishpond in the South Bohemian fishpond basin. Microclimatological data including incoming global radiation were recorded in both biotopes during three growing seasons. The differences in morphological, chemical and production characteristics of the two reed ecotypes were in good relation with the edaphic, hydrochemical and microclimatological characteristics of their biotopes. These differences are reflected in a higher leaf area index, denser stand, higher production parameters and a higher efficiency in the conversion of solar energy in the limosal reed ecotype as compared with the littoral population. The differences in annual production and in energy conversion have not changed within seven growing seasons.

Keywords

Leaf Area Index Common Reed Folia GEOBOTANICA Underground Organ Production Ecology 
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.

Literature cited

  1. Allen, S. E. etPearsall, W. H. (1963): Leaf analysis and shoot production inPhragmites.— Oikos, København, 14/2: 176–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Auclair, A. N.: Diversity and productivity in a marsh ecosystem.—First Intern. Congr. Ecol., The Hague, The Netherlands, September 8–14., 1974. [In press].Google Scholar
  3. Bayly, I. L. etO’Neill, T. A. (1972): Seasonal ionic fluctuations in aPhragmites communis community. —Canad. Journ. Bot., 50: 2103–2109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernatowicz, S. (1960): Metody badania roślinności naczyniowej w jeziorach. (The methods of investigations of vascular plants in lakes.)—Rocz. Nauk Roln., Warszawa, 77 B, 1: 61–78.Google Scholar
  5. Bernatowicz, S. (1965): Wplyw koszenia na wystepowanie makrofitów w jeziore Dgał Maly. (Effects of mowing on the occurrence of macrophytes in the Dgał Maly lake.)—Acta Hydrobiol., Kraków, 7: 71–82.Google Scholar
  6. Bernatowicz, S. (1969): Macrophytes in the lake Warniak and their chemical composition.— Ekol. Polska, Ser. A, Warszawa, 17: 447–467.Google Scholar
  7. Bernatowicz, S. etRadziej, J. (1960): Badania ilósciove flory naczyniowej jeziora Dolskiego.— Pol. Arch. Hydrobiol., Warszawa, 7/20: 29–60.Google Scholar
  8. Bernatowicz, S. etRadziej, J. (1964): Produkcja ręczna makrofitow w kompleksie jeziora Mamry.—Pol. Arch. Hydrobiol., Warszawa, 12/3: 307–348.Google Scholar
  9. Bernatowicz, S. etPieczynska, E. (1965): Organic matter production of macrophytes in the lake Tałtowisko (Mazurian lakeland).—Ekol. Polska, Ser. A, Warszawa, 13: 113–124.Google Scholar
  10. Bernatowicz, S. etZachwieja, J. (1966): Types of littoral found in the lakes of the Masurian and Suwałki lakelands.—Ekol. Polska, Ser. A, Warszawa, 14: 519–547.Google Scholar
  11. Bernatowicz, S., Pieczynska, E. etRadziej, J. (1969): The biomass of macrophytes in the lake Sniardwy.—Bull. Acad. Sci. Polon., Cl. II, Warszawa, 16: 625–629.Google Scholar
  12. Boruckij, E. V. (1950): Materiali po dynamike biomasy makrofitov ozer. (On the dynamics of standing crop of macrophytes in the lakes.)—Trud. Vsesoj. Gidrobiol. Obščestva, Moskva, 2: 43–68.Google Scholar
  13. Burian, K. (1971): Primary production, carbon dioxide exchange and transpiration inPhragmites communis Trin, on the lake Neusiedler See, Austria.—Hidrobiologia, Bucuresti, 12: 203–218.Google Scholar
  14. Björk, S. (1967): Ecologic investigations ofPhragmites communis. Studies in theoretic and applied limnology.—Folia Limnol. Scand., 14, Lund.Google Scholar
  15. Buttery, B. R., Williams, W. T. etLambert, J. M. (1965): Competition betweenGlyceria maxima andPhragmites communis in the region of Sourlingham Broad. I. The competition mechanism. II. The fen gradient.—Journ. Ecol., Oxford, 53: 183–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bykov, B. A., Michajlova, V. P. etDemidovskaja, L. F., (ed.) (1964): Trostnik. Materialy po biologii, ekologii i ispolzovanju trostnika obyknovennogo v Kazachstane. (Common reed. Materials on the biology, ecology and utilization of common reed in Kazakhstan.)—Trudy Inst. Bot. Akad. Nauk Kazach. SSR, Alma-Ata.Google Scholar
  17. Clayton, W. D. (1968): The correct name of the common reed.—Taxon, Utrecht, 17: 168–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Connert, H. J. (1961): Die Systematik und Anatomie der Arundineae.—Weinheim.Google Scholar
  19. Demidovskaja, L. F. etKiričenko, R. A. (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): Trostnik. Materialy po biologii, ekologii i ispolzovanju trostnika obyknovennogo v Kazachstane. (Common reed. Materials on the biology, ecology and utilization of common reed in Kazahstan.)—Trudy Inst. Bot. Akad. Nauk Kazach. SSR, Alma-Ata, p. 93–159.Google Scholar
  20. Demidovskaja, L. F. etKiričenko, R. A. (1964): Fitoklimat trostnikovych naroslej v delte reki Syr-Darja.—In:Bykov, B. A. et al. (1964): Trostnik. Materialy po biologii, ekologii i ispolzovanju trostnika obyknovennogo v Kazachstane. (Common reed. Materials on the biology, ecology and utilization of common reed in Kazakhstan.).—Trudy Inst. Bot. Akad. Nauk Kazach. SSR, Alma-Ata, p. 160–171.Google Scholar
  21. Demina, O. M. (1971): Chozjastvennje značenije trostnikovych lugov nizovijev reki Ču.—Izvest. Akad. Nauk Kazachskoj SSR., Ser. Biol., Alma-Ata, No. 1: 21–25.Google Scholar
  22. Dykyjová, D. (1971a): Ekomorfozy a ekotypy rákosu obecného. (Ecomorphoses and ecotypes ofPhragmites communis Trin.).—Preslia, Praha, 43: 120–138.Google Scholar
  23. Dykyjová, D. (1971b): Productivity and solar energy conversion in reedswamp stands in comparison with outdoor mass culture of algae in the temperate climate of Central Europe.— Photosynthetica, Praha, 5: 329–340.Google Scholar
  24. Dykyjová, D. (1971c): Production, vertical structure and light profiles in littoral stands of reed-bed species.—Hidrobiologia, Bucuresti, 12: 361–376.Google Scholar
  25. Dykyjová, D. (1973): Content of mineral macronutrients in emergernt macrophytes during their seasonal growth and decomposition.—In:Hejný, S. (ed.): Ecosystem study on wetland Biome in Czechoslovakia.—Czechosl. IBP/PT-PP Report, Třeboň, No. 3: 163–172.Google Scholar
  26. Dykyjová, D., Ondok, J. P. etPřibáň, K. (1970): Seasonal changes in productivity and vertical structure of reed stands (Phragmites communis Trin.).—Photosynthetica, Praha, 4: 280 to 287.Google Scholar
  27. 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.—PT-PP/IBP Report, Praha, No. 1: 71–79.Google Scholar
  28. Dykyjová, D., Přibáň, K. etVéber, K. (1971): Productivity and root/shoot ratio of reedswamp species growing in outdoor hydroponic cultures.—Folia Geobot. Phytotax., Praha, 6: 233–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Dykyjová, D. etPřibil, S. (1975): Energy content in the biomass of emergent macrophytes and their ecological efficiency.—Arch. Hydrobiol., Stuttgart, 75: 90–108.Google Scholar
  30. Fiala, K., Dykyjová, D., Květ, J. etSvoboda, J. (1968): Methods of assessing rhizome and root production in reed-bed stands.—International Symposium: Methods of productivity studies in root systems and rhizosphere organisms.—IBP/USSR, August 28. September 1968, Leningrad, 12: 36–47.Google Scholar
  31. Fiala, K. (1970): Rhizome biomass and its relation to shoot biomass and stand pattern in eight clones ofPhragmites communis Trin.—InDykyjová, D. (ed.): Productivity of terrestrial ecosystems and production processes.—PT-PP/IBP Report, Praha, No. 1: 95–98.Google Scholar
  32. Fiala, K. (1973a): Growth and production of underground organs ofTypha angustifolia, Typha latifolia andPhragmites communis Trin.—Pol. Arch. Hydrobiol., Warszawa, 20: 59–66.Google Scholar
  33. Fiala, K. (1973b): Seasonal changes in the growth and total carbohydrate content in the underground organs ofPhragmites communis Trin.—In:Hejný, S. (ed.): Ecosystem study on wetland biome in Czechoslovakia.—Czechosl. IBP/PT-PP Report, Třeboň, No. 3: 107–110.Google Scholar
  34. Gorham, E. etPearsall, W. H. (1956): Production ecology III. Shoot production inPhragmites in relation to habitat.—Oikos, København, 7: 206–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Haslam, S. M. (1969a): Stem types ofPhragmites communis Trin.—Ann. Bot., Oxford, 33: 127–131.Google Scholar
  36. Haslam, S. M. (1969b): The development of shoots inPhragmites communis Trin.—Ann., Oxford, 33: 695–709.Google Scholar
  37. Haslam, S. M. (1972): Biological flora of the British Isles. No. 128.Phragmites communis Trin.— Journ. Ecol., Oxford, 60: 585–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Haslam, S. M. (1970): The performance ofPhragmites communis Trin. in relation to water-supply.—Ann. Bot., Oxford, 34: 867–877.Google Scholar
  39. Hejný, S. (1957): Ein Beitrag zur ökologischen Gliederung der Makrophyten der tschechoslowakischen Niederungsgewässer.—Preslia, Praha, 29: 349–368.Google Scholar
  40. Hejný, S. (1960): Ökologische Charakteristik der Wasser- und Sumpfpflanzen in der Slowakischen Tiefebenen (Donau- und Theissgebiet).—Bratislava.Google Scholar
  41. Hejný, S. (1970): Plant sociological and synecological characteristics of the reed communities in South Bohemian and South Moravian fishponds.—In:Dykyjová, D. (ed.): Productivity of terrestrial ecosystems and production processes.—PT-PP/IBP Report, Praha, No. 1: 65–70.Google Scholar
  42. Hejný, S. (ed.) (1973a): Ecosystem study on wetland biome in Czechoslovakia.—Czechosl. IBP/PT-PP Report, Třeboň, No. 3.Google Scholar
  43. Hejný, S. (1973b): Plant communities and their typical features in the littoral of Opatovický fishpond.—In:Hejný, S. (ed.): Ecosystem study on wetland biome in Czechoslovakia.— Czechosl. IBP/PT-PP Report, Třeboň, No. 3: 29–37.Google Scholar
  44. Hürlimann, H. (1951): Zur Lebensgeschichte des Schilfs an den Ufern der Schweizer Seen.— Beitr. Geobot. Landesaufn. Schweiz, Bern, No. 30.Google Scholar
  45. Isambajev, A. I. (1964): Podzemnje pobegi trostnika obyknovennogo v različnych ekologičeskich uslovijach.—In:Bykov, B. A. et al. (1964): Trostnik. Materialy po biologii, ekologii i ispolzovanju trostnika obyknovennogo v Kazachstane. (Common reed. Materials of the biology, ecology and utilization of common reed in Kazakhstan.)—Trudy Inst. Bot. Akad. Nauk. Kazach. SSSR, Alma-Ata. 185–201.Google Scholar
  46. Katanskaja, V. M. (1960): Materialy dlja izučenija produktivnosti zaroslej vodnych rastenij delty r. Amu-Darji.—Trudy Labor. Ozerovedenija, 10.Google Scholar
  47. Kaul, V. (1971): Production and ecology of some macrophytes of Kashmir lakes.—Hidrobiologia, Bucuresti, 12: 63–69.Google Scholar
  48. Kira, T. etOgawa, H. (1968): Indirect estimation of root biomass increment in trees.—IBP-Internat. Symposium: Methods of Productivity Studies in Root Systems and Rhizosphere organisms. August 28–September, Leningrad, 12: 96–101.Google Scholar
  49. Komárková, J. etPřibil, S. (1973): Chemical and physical properties of pelagial and littoral water in Opatovický fishpond.—In:Hejný, S. (ed.): Ecosystem study on wetland biome in Czechoslovakia.—Czechosl. IBP/PT-PP Report, Třeboň, No. 3: 15–27.Google Scholar
  50. Koppová, A., Pirkl, J. etKalina, J. (1955): Stanovení popelovin v rostlinném materiálu přesnými expeditivními metodami. (The determination of mineral elements in plant material by quick accurate methods.)—Věd. práce Výzk. úst. rostl. výroby v Praze-Ruzyni, (1955): 119–127.Google Scholar
  51. Kowalczewski, A. etWasilewski, L. (1966): Differentiation of biomass ofPhragmites communis Trin. and its production in Mikołajskie lake.—Bull. Acad. Polon. Sci., Cl. 2., Warszawa, 14: 219–223.Google Scholar
  52. Korelyakova, I. L. (1971): Distribution and productivity of communities ofPhragmites communis Trin. in Dnieper resorvoirs.—Hidrobiologia, Bucuresti, 12: 149–154.Google Scholar
  53. Krotkevič, P. L. (1966): Klassifikacija biotopov trostnika na ekologičeskoj osnove.—Sbor. Trud. Ukr. N. L. I. B., Kiev, 9: 28–50.Google Scholar
  54. Krasnovskij, L. I. (1962): O biomasse podzemnych pobegov trostnika.—Bot. Žurn., Moskva, 47: 673–677.Google Scholar
  55. Kubín, Š. etHládek, L. (1963): An integrating recorder for photosynthetically active radiant energy with improved resolution.—Plant Cell Physiol., Tokyo, 4: 153–168.Google Scholar
  56. Kuroiwa, S. (1968): A new calculation method for total photosynthesis of a plant community under illumination consisting of direct and diffused light.—In: Functioning of terrestrial ecosystems at the primary production level.—Proc. Copenhagen Symposium, Paris, p. 391–398.Google Scholar
  57. Květ, J., Svoboda, J. etFiala, K. (1969): Canopy development in stands ofTypha latifolia L. andPhragmites communis Trin. in South Moravia.—Hidrobiologia, Bucuresti, 10: 63–75.Google Scholar
  58. 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 and production processes.—PT-PP/IBP Report, Praha, No. 1.Google Scholar
  59. Květ, J. (1971): Growth analysis approach to production ecological investigations in reedswamp plant communities.—Hidrobiologia, Bucuresti, 12: 14–40.Google Scholar
  60. Květ, J. (1973a): Transpiration of South MoravianPhragmites communis.—In:Květ, J. (ed.): Littoral of the Nesyt fishpond.—Studie ČSAV, Praha, 15: 143–146.Google Scholar
  61. Květ, J. (1973b): Shoot biomass, leaf area index and mineral content in selected South Bohemian and South Moravian stands of common reed (Phragmites communis Trin.). Results of 1968.—In:Hejný, S. (ed.): Ecosystem study on wetland biome in Czechoslovakia.—Czechosl. IBP/PT-PP Report, Třeboň, No. 3: 93–95.Google Scholar
  62. Levêque, C. et al. (1972): Recherches sur les biomasses et la productivité du Lac Tchad.—In: Productivity Problems of Freshwater, Warszawa et Kraków. Proceeding of the IBP-UNESCO Symposium, p. 165–181.Google Scholar
  63. Ljubič, F. P. etArzubova, L. Ja. (1964): Biologičeskoje značenije vodnych pridatočnych kornej u trostnika obyknovennogo.—Bot. Žurn., Moskva, 49: 11–23.Google Scholar
  64. Matjuk, I. S. (1960): Nekotoryje tipy trostnikovych zaroslej v delte reki Volgi.—Bot. Žurn., Moskva, 45: 1681–1687.Google Scholar
  65. Mc Naughton, S. J. (1966): Ecotype function inTypha community type.—Ecol. Monographs. Durham, 36: 297–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Medina, E. (1964): Über die Beziehungen zwischen Chlorophyllgehalt, assimilierender Fläche und Trockensubstanzproduktion einiger Pflanzengemeinschaften.—Thesis Dr. Agric., Agric. Univ. Stuttgart-Hohenheim.Google Scholar
  67. Misra, R. A. (1938): Edaphic factors in the distribution of aquatic plants in the English lakes.— Journ. Ecol., Oxford, 26: 411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Monsi, M. (1968): Mathematical models of plant communities.—In. Functioning of terrestrial ecosystems at the primary production level.—Proc. Copenhagen Symposium, Paris, p. 391–398.Google Scholar
  69. Monsi, M. etSaeki, T. (1953): Über den Lichtfaktor in den Pflanzengesellschaften und seine Bedeutung für Stoffproduktion.—Jap. Journ. Bot., Tokyo, 14: 22–52.Google Scholar
  70. Neuhäusl, R. (1965): Vegetation der Röhrichte u. der sublitoralen Magnocariceten in Wittingauer Backen.—In:Neuhäusl, R., Moravec, J. etNeuhäuslová-Novotná: Synökologische Studien über Röhrrichte, Wiesen und Auenwälder.—Vegetace ČSSR, A1: 11–177, Praha.Google Scholar
  71. Nikolajevskij, V. G. (1971): Research into the biology of the common reed (Phragmites communis Trin.) in the USSR.—Folia Geobot. Phytotax., Praha, 6: 221–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Ondok, J. P. (1969): Die Probleme der Anwendung der Wachstumanalyse auf Forschungen vonPhragmites communis Trin.—Hidrobiologia, Bucuresti, 10: 87–95.Google Scholar
  73. Ondok, J. P. (1970): The horizontal structure of reed stands (Phragmites communis) and its relation to productivity.—Preslia, Praha, 42: 256–261.Google Scholar
  74. Ondok, J. P. (1971): Indirect estimation of primary values used in growth analysis.—In:Šesták, Z., Čatský, J. etJarvis, P. G. (ed.): Plant photosynthetic production: manual of methods.—The Hague.Google Scholar
  75. Ondok, J. P. (1973a): Interception of photosynthetically active radiation by aPhragmites stand.— In:Hejný, S. (ed.): Ecosystem study on wetland biome in Czechoslovakia.—Czechosl. IBP/PT-PP Report, Třeboň, No. 3: 133–142.Google Scholar
  76. Ondok, J. P. (1973b): Photosynthetically active radiation in a stand ofPhragmites communis Trin. I. Distribution of irradiance and foliage structure.—Photosynthetica, Praha, 7: 8–17.Google Scholar
  77. Pearsall, W. H. etGorham, E. (1956): Production ecology. I: Standing crops of natural vegetation. —Oikos, Kobenhavn, 7/2: 193–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Pénzes, A. (1960): Über die Morphologie, Dynamik und zönologische Rolle der sprosskolonienbildenden Pflanzen.—Fragm. Florist. Geobot., Kraków, 6: 501–515.Google Scholar
  79. Planter, M. (1970): Physicochemical properties of the water of reed-belts in Mikołajskie, Tałtowisko and Šnierdny lakes.—Polskie Arch. Hydrobiol., Warszawa, 17: 337–356.Google Scholar
  80. Pieczynska, E. (1972): Production and decomposition in the eulittoral zone of lakes.—Proc. IBP-UNESCO Symp. Productivity Problems of Freshwaters, Warszawa et Kraków, p. 271 to 285.Google Scholar
  81. Přibáň, K. (1973): Climatological characteristics of the Třeboň basin and of the Opatovický fishpond area.—In:Hejný, S. (ed.): Ecosystem study on wetland biome in Czechoslovakia.— Czechosl. IBP/PT-PP Report, Třeboň, No. 3: 11–14.Google Scholar
  82. Raspopov, I. M. (1971a): Rastitelnyj mir Onežskogo ozera. II. Makrofity Onežskogo ozera.— Leningrad, p. 21–88.Google Scholar
  83. Raspopov, I. M. (1971b): Litoralvegetation der Onega- und Ladogasseen.—Hidrobiologia, Bucuresti, 12: 241–247.Google Scholar
  84. Rodewald-Rudescu, L. (1958): Schilfrohr und Fischkultur im Donaudelta.—Arch. Hydrobiol., Stuttgart, 54: 303–339.Google Scholar
  85. Rodewald-Rudescu, L. (1974): Das Schilfrohr.—Die Binnengewässer Bd. XXVII, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  86. Rudescu, L. (1965): Neue biologische Probleme bei den Phragmiteskulturarbeiten in Donaudelta. —Arch. Hydrobiol. Suppl. Donauforschung, Stuttgart, 30/2: 80–111.Google Scholar
  87. Rudescu, L., Niculescu, C. etChivu, I. P. (1965): Monografia Stufului din Delta Dunarii. (Monography of common reed in the Danube Delta.)—Bucuresti.Google Scholar
  88. Rychnovská, M. (1967): A contribution to the autecology ofPhragmites communis Trin. I. Physiological heterogeneity of leaves.—Folia Geobot. Phytotax., Praha, 2: 179–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Rychnovská, M. (1973): Some physiological features of water balance in littoral and terrestrialPhragmites communis Trin.—In:Květ, J. (ed.): Littoral of the Nesyt fishpond.—Studie ČSAV, Praha, 15: 163–172.Google Scholar
  90. Smirenskij, A. A. (1951): Vodnyje kormovyje i zaščitnyje rastenja v ochotnyče-promyslovych chozjajstvach. I, II.—Moskva.Google Scholar
  91. 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, 73/13: 1–63.Google Scholar
  92. Straškraba, M. (1968): Der Anteil der höheren Pflanzen an der Produktion der stehenden Gewässer. —Mitt. Intern. Verein Limnol., Stuttgart, 14: 212–230.Google Scholar
  93. Szczepański, A. (1969): Biomass of underground parts of the reedPhragmites communis Trin.— Bull. Acad. Sci. Polon., Cl. 2., Warszawa, 17: 245–246.Google Scholar
  94. Szajnowski, F. (1973): Relationship between the leaf area and shoot production ofPhragmites communis Trin.—Pol. Arch. Hydrobiol., Warszawa, 20: 20: 257–268.Google Scholar
  95. Šesták, Z., Čatský, J. etJarvis, P. G. (ed.) (1971): Plant photosynthetic production methods and techniques.—The Hague.Google Scholar
  96. Toorn, J. van der (1972): Variability ofPhragmites australis (Cav.)Trin. exSteudel in relation to the environment.—Van Zee Tot Land.Google Scholar
  97. Tóth, L. (1960): Phytozönologische Untersuchungen über die Röhrichte des Balaton-Sees.— Ann. Biol. Tihany, 27: 209–242.Google Scholar
  98. Tóth, L. etSzabó, E. (1958): Über die chemische Zusammensetzung verschiedener Schilfproben vom Balaton-See.—Ann. Biol. Tihany, 25: 363–374.Google Scholar
  99. Tóth, L., Szabó, E. etFelföldy, L. J. M. (1963): Standing crop measurements in stands ofPhragmites communis on the ice cover of lake Balaton.—Acta Bot. Acad. Sci. Hung., Budapest, 9/1–2: 151–159.Google Scholar
  100. Vavruška, A. (1966): Stanovení živin v nejrozšířenějších vodních pobřežních a bažinných rostlinách z hlediska využití ke kompostování.—Práce Výzk. Úst. Ryb. Hydrobiol. Vodňany, 6: 41–68.Google Scholar
  101. Wallentinus, H. G., Gustafsson, K. etSoderstrom, B. (1973): Bladvassen,Phragmites communis Trin., i Brunnsviken, Stockholm 1971.—Svensk Bot. Tidskr., Stockholm, 67: 81–96.Google Scholar
  102. Walter, H. (1968): Vegetation der Erde in ökologischer Betrachtung II. Die gemäßigten und arktischen Zonen.—Jena.Google Scholar
  103. Wassink, E. C. (1968): Light energy conversion in photosynthesis and growth of plants.—In: Functioning of terrestrial ecosystems at the primary production level.—Proc. Copenhagen Symposium. Paris, p. 53–66.Google Scholar
  104. Went, F. W. (1958): The Physiology of photosynthesis in higher plants.—Preslia, Praha, 30: 225–249.Google Scholar
  105. Westlake, D. F. (1963): Comparison of plant productivity.—Biol. Rev., Cambridge, 38: 385–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Westlake, D. F. (1965): Some basic data for investigations 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 Suppl.: 229–248.Google Scholar
  107. Westlake, D. F. (1968): Methods used to determine the annual production of reedswamp plants with extensive rhizomes.—Internat. symposium: Methods of produktivity studies in root systems and rhizosphere organisms.—IBP/USSR, August 28–September, 1968, Leningrad, 12: 226–234.Google Scholar
  108. Willer, A. etWoddem, L. (1943): Untersuchungen über das Rohrgelege der Gewässer. I. Das Lichtklima im Phragmitesgelege.—Zeitschr. f. Fischerei, Berlin, 41: 69–83.Google Scholar
  109. Willer, A. (1944): Untersuchungen über das Rohrgelege der Gewässer. II. Das Rohrgelege als Siedlungsraum.—Zeitschr. f. Fischerei, Berlin, 42: 5–43.Google Scholar
  110. Willer, A. (1949): Kleinklimatische Untersuchungen imPhragmites-Gelege.—Verh. Internat. Ver. Limnol., Stuttgart, 10: 566–571.Google Scholar
  111. Wit, C. T. de (1965): Photosynthesis of leaf canopies.—Agric. Res. Rep., Wageningen, No. 663 1–57.Google Scholar
  112. Zalenskij, V. R. (1904): Materialy k količestvennoj anatomii različnych listev odnich i techže rastenij. (Materials concerning the quantitative anatomy of various leaves of one and the same plants).—Kijev.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Botany, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic 1976

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dagmar Dykyjová
    • 1
  • Dana Hradecká
    • 2
  1. 1.Botanical InstituteCzechoslovak Academy of SciencesTřeboň
  2. 2.Blata District MuseumSoběslav

Personalised recommendations