Implications of environmental conditions for health status and biomechanics of freshwater macrophytes in hydraulic laboratories

References

• Aberle J, Järvelä J. 2013. Flow resistance of emergent rigid and flexible floodplain vegetation. J Hydraul Res. 51(1):33–45.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abernethy VJ, Sabbatini MR, Murphy KJ. 1996. Response of Elodea canadensis Michx, and Myriophyllum spicatum L. to shade, cutting and competition in experimental culture. Hydrobiologia. 340(1–3):219–224.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Albayrak I, Nikora V, Miler O, O’Hare M. 2012. Flow-plant interactions at a leaf scale: effects of leaf shape, serration, roughness and flexural rigidity. Aquat Sci. 74(2):267–286.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asaeda T, Rashid MH. 2017. Effects of turbulence motion on the growth and physiology of aquatic plants. Limnologica. 62:181–187.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asaeda T, Sanjaya K, Kaneko Y. 2017. Effects of mechanical stressors caused by mean flow and turbulence on aquatic plants with different morphologies. Ecohydrology. 10(5):e1873-13.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baker NR. 2008. Chlorophyll fluorescence: a probe of photosynthesis in vivo. Annu Rev Plant Biol. 59:89–113.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baker NR, Rosenqvist E. 2004. Applications of chlorophyll fluorescence can improve crop production strategies: an examination of future possibilities. J Exp Bot. 55(403):1607–1621.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bertoldi W, Welber M, Gurnell AM, Mao L, Comiti F, Tal M. 2015. Physical modelling of the combined effect of vegetation and wood on river morphology. Geomorphology. 246:178–187.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biehle G, Speck T, Spatz H-C. 1998. Hydrodynamics and biomechanics of the submerged water moss Fontinalis antipyretica – a comparison of specimens from habitats with different flow velocities. Bot Acta. 111(1):42–50.
   Google Scholar
• Bornette G, Puijalon S. 2011. Response of aquatic plants to abiotic factors: a review. Aquat Sci. 73(1):1–14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Catling PM, Dobson I. 1985. The biology of Canadian weeds. 69. Potamogeton crispus L. Can J Plant Sci. 65(3):655–668.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chambers PA, Spence DHN, Weeks DC. 1985. Photocontrol of turion formation by Potamogeton crispus L. in the laboratory and natural water. New Phytol. 99(2):183–194.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davies TD. 2007. Sulphate toxicity to the aquatic moss, Fontinalis antipyretica. Chemosphere 66(3):444–451.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Langre E. 2008. Effects of wind on plants. Annu Rev Fluid Mech. 40(1):141–168.
   Google Scholar
• Dülger E, Hussner A. 2017. Differences in the growth and physiological response of eight Myriophyllum species to carbon dioxide depletion. Aquat Bot. 139:25–31.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Folkard AM. 2011. Vegetated flows in their environmental context: a review. Proc Inst Civ Eng Eng Comput Mech. 164:3–24.
   Google Scholar
• Gurnell AM. 2014. Plants as river system engineers. Earth Surf Process Landforms. 39(1):4–25.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanelt D, Hawes I, Rae R. 2006. Reduction of UV-B radiation causes an enhancement of photoinhibition in high light stressed aquatic plants from New Zealand lakes. J Photochem Photobiol B Biol. 84(2):89–102.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haslam SM. 1978. River plants. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hochberg J, Tamhane A. 1987. Multiple comparison procedures. New York: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Hussner A, Hoelken HP, Jahns P. 2010. Low light acclimated submerged freshwater plants show a pronounced sensitivity to increasing irradiances. Aquat Bot. 93(1):17–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Järvelä J. 2005. Effect of submerged flexible vegetation on flow structure and resistance. J Hydrol. 307(1–4):233–241.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knauert S, Singer H, Hollender J, Knauer K. 2010. Phytotoxicity of atrazine, isoproturon, and diuron to submersed macrophytes in outdoor mesocosms. Environ Pollut. 158(1):167–174.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Łoboda AM, Bialik RJ, Karpiński M, Przyborowski Ł. 2018. Seasonal changes in the biomechanical properties of Elodea canadensis Michx. Aquat Bot. 147:43–51.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Łoboda AM, Przyborowski Ł, Karpiński M, Bialik RJ, Nikora VI. 2018. Biomechanical properties of aquatic plants: the effect of test conditions. Limnol Oceanogr Methods. 16(4):222–236.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Madsen TV, Cedergreen N. 2002. Sources of nutrients to rooted submerged macrophytes growing in a nutrient-rich stream. Freshwater Biol. 47(2):283–291.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marjoribanks TI, Hardy RJ, Lane SN, Parsons DR. 2017. Does the canopy mixing layer model apply to highly flexible aquatic vegetation? Insights from numerical modelling. Environ Fluid Mech. 17(2):277–301.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marwood CA, Solomon KR, Greenberg BM. 2001. Chlorophyll fluorescence as a bioindicator of effects on growth in aquatic macrophytes from mixtures of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Environ Toxicol Chem. 20(4):890–898.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maxwell K, Johnson GN. 2000. Chlorophyll fluorescence – a practical guide. J Exp Bot. 51(345):659–668.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miler O, Albayrak I, Nikora V, O’Hare M. 2012. Biomechanical properties of aquatic plants and their effects on plant-flow interactions in streams and rivers. Aquat Sci. 74(1):31–44.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miler O, Albayrak I, Nikora V, O’Hare M. 2014. Biomechanical properties and morphological characteristics of lake and river plants: implications for adaptations to flow conditions. Aquat Sci. 76(4):465–481.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Möller I, Kudella M, Rupprecht F, Spencer T, Paul M, van Wesenbeeck BK, Wolters G, Jensen K, Bouma TJ, Miranda-Lange M, et al. 2014. Wave attenuation over coastal salt marshes under storm surge conditions. Nature Geosci. 7(10):727–731.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murchie EH, Lawson T. 2013. Chlorophyll fluorescence analysis: a guide to good practice and understanding some new applications. J Exp Bot. 64(13):3983–3998.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nepf HM. 2012. Hydrodynamics of vegetated channels. J Hydraul Res. 50(3):262–279.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Niklas KJ. 1992. Plant biomechanics: an engineering approach to plant form and function. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Niklas KJ, Spatz H-C. 2012. Plant physics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• O’Hare M, Aguiar FC, Asaeda T, Bakker ES, Chambers PA, Clayton JS, Elger A, Ferreira TM, Gross EM, Gunn IDM, et al. 2018. Plants in aquatic ecosystems: current trends and future directions. Hydrobiologia. 812:1–11.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olesen B, Sand-Jensen K. 1993. Seasonal acclimatization of eelarass Zostera marina growth to light. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 94:91–99.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Preston CD, Croft J. 1997. Aquatic plants in Britain and Ireland. Colchester: Harley Books.
   Google Scholar
• Ralph PJ, Gademann R. 2005. Rapid light curves: a powerful tool to assess photosynthetic activity. Aquat Bot. 82(3):222–237.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sand-Jensen K. 2003. Drag and reconfiguration of freshwater macrophytes. Freshwater Biol. 48(2):271–283.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simmons JA. 2012. Toxicity of major cations and anions (Na+, K+, Ca2+, Cl−, and SO) to a macrophyte and an alga. Environ Toxicol Chem. 31(6):1370–1374.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siniscalchi F, Nikora V. 2012. Flow–plant interactions in open-channel flows: a comparative analysis of five freshwater plant species. Water Resour Res. 48(5):1–13.
   Google Scholar
• Tadrist L, Saudreau M, de Langre E. 2014. Wind and gravity mechanical effects on leaf inclination angles. J Theor Biol. 341:9–16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tal M, Paola C. 2010. Effects of vegetation on channel morphodynamics: results and insights from laboratory experiments. Earth Surf Process Landforms. 35(9):1014–1028.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas RE, Johnson MF, Frostick LE, Parsons DR, Bouma TJ, Dijkstra JT, Eiff O, Gobert S, Henry P-Y, Kemp P, et al. 2014. Physical modelling of water, fauna and flora: knowledge gaps, avenues for future research and infrastructural needs. J Hydraul Res. 52(3):311–325.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Underwood AJ. 1997. Experiments in ecology: their logical design and interpretation using analysis of variance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Usherwood JR, Ennos AR, Ball DJ. 1997. Mechanical and anatomical adaptations in terrestrial and aquatic buttercups to their respective environments. J Exp Bot. 48(7):1469–1475.
   Google Scholar
• Vettori D, Nikora V. 2018. Flow–seaweed interactions: a laboratory study using blade models. Environ Fluid Mech. 18(3):611–636.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vettori D, Nikora V. 2019. Hydrodynamic performance of vegetation surrogates in hydraulic studies: a comparative analysis of seaweed blades and their physical models. J Hydraul Res. DOI: 10.1080/00221686.2018.1562999
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar