Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T22:57:07.988Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Preliminary study on the influence of water level on the growth and morphology of Limnocharis flava (L.) Buchenau

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2013

V. P. Ranawakage ,
K. C. Ellawala  and
G. G. Tushara Chaminda
V. P. Ranawakage
Affiliation:
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Ruhuna, Hapugala, Galle, Sri Lanka
K. C. Ellawala*
Affiliation:
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Ruhuna, Hapugala, Galle, Sri Lanka
G. G. Tushara Chaminda
Affiliation:
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Ruhuna, Hapugala, Galle, Sri Lanka
*
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Limnocharis flava, a species native to tropical America, is naturalized as a noxious weed in Sri Lanka, India and some other Southeast Asian countries. It is widespread in flood plains, wetlands and agricultural wetlands resulting in poor drainage. In the current study, the influence of different water conditions on growth, development and morphology of L. flava was investigated. Plants were grown on experimental pots filled with wetland soil, simulating flood, standing water and dry conditions. The highest biomass and relative growth rate was observed in the plants grown at flood conditions, while the lowest total biomass content was observed in the plants grown at dry conditions. L. flava showed morphological adaptations in different water conditions, including significant differences in the relative biomass allocation for root, petioles and leaves. Root biomass significantly increased in flooded conditions. Observed decrease in leaf area and increase in leaf total chlorophyll content may facilitate the survival in dry conditions. Plant mortality and no production of inflorescence may indicate the difficulty in surviving at dry conditions. No significant difference was observed between the plants grown under ‘high flood’ conditions and ‘low flood’ conditions. Overall, L. flava showed difficulties to grow under dry conditions, but performed well under other conditions.

Keywords

InvasiveplasticitymorphologyLimnocharis flavawater conditions
Type
Research Article
Information
Annales de Limnologie - International Journal of Limnology , Volume 49 , Issue 4 , 2013 , pp. 249 - 254
Copyright
© EDP Sciences, 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abhilash, P.C., Singh, N., Sylas, V.P., Kumar, B.A., Mathew, J.C., Satheesh, R. and Thomas, A.P., 2008. Eco-distribution mapping of invasive weed Limnocharis flava (l.) Buchenau using geographical information system: implications for containment and integrated weed management for ecosystem conservation. Taiwania, 53, 30–41.Google Scholar
Asch, F., Dingkuhn, M., Sow, A. and Audebert, A., 2005. Drought-induced change in rooting patterns and assimilate partitioning between root and shoot in upland rice. Field Crop Res., 93, 223–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, S.J. and Galway, K.E., 2006. Progress towards the eradication of two tropical weeds. Fifteenth Australian Weeds Conference, 641–644.
Brooks, S.J., Weber, J.M., Setter, S.D. and Akacich, B.A., 2008. Seed production and maturation of Limnocharis flava (l.) Buchenau in the field and glasshouse. Sixteenth Australian Weeds Conference, 180–182.
Burns, J.H., 2004. A comparison of invasive and noninvasive dayflowers (Commelinaceae) across experimental nutrient and water gradients. Diversity Distrib., 10, 387–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, A.M., Jennions, M. and Nicotra, A.B., 2011. Do invasive species show higher phenotypic plasticity than native species and, if so, is it adaptive? A meta-analysis. Ecol. Lett., 14, 419–431.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dawson, T.E., 1993. Hydraulic lift and water use by plants: implications for water balance, performance and plant-plant interactions. Oecologia, 95, 565–574.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deegan, B.M., White, S.D. and Ganf, G.G., 2007. The influence of water level fluctuations on the growth of four emergent macrophyte species. Aquat. Bot., 86, 309–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellmore, G.S., 1981. Root dimorphism in Ludwigia peploides (Onargraceae): structure and gas content of mature roots. Am. J. Bot., 68, 557–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gomes, P.I.A. and Asaeda, T., 2009. Spatial and temporal heterogeneity of Eragrostis curvula in the downstream flood meadow of a regulated river. Ann. Limnol., Int. J. Lim., 45, 181–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunt, R., 1982. Plant growth curves: The functional approach to plant growth analysis, Edward Arnold Ltd., London.
Hussner, A. and Meyer, C., 2009. The influence of water level on the growth and photosynthesis of Hydrocotyle ranunculoides l. Fil. Flora, 204, 755–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, M.B., Ishizawa, K. and Ito, O., 2009. Evolution and mechanisms of plant tolerance to flooding stress. Ann. Bot., 103, 137–142.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Karthigeyan, K., Sumathi, R., Jayanthi, J., Diwakar, P.G. and Lakra, G.S., 2004. Limnocharis flava (L.) Buchenau (Alismataceae) – a little known and troublesome weed in Andaman islands. Curr. Sci., 87, 140–141.Google Scholar
Kercher, S.M. and Zedler, J.B., 2004. Flood tolerance in wetland angiosperms: a comparison of invasive and noninvasive species. Aquat. Bot., 80, 89–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Z., Yu, D. and Xu, J., 2011. Adaptation to water level variation: responses of a floating-leaved macrophyte Nymphoides peltata to terrestrial habitats. Ann. Limnol. - Int. J. Lim., 47, 97–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macek, P., Rejma´Nkova´, E.K. and Houdkova´, K.I., 2006. The effect of long-term submergence on functional properties of Eleocharis cellulosa torr. Aquat. Bot., 84, 251–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porra, R.J., 2002. The chequered history of the development and use of simultaneous equations for the accurate determination of chlorophylls a and b. Photosynth. Res., 73, 149–156.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Quero, J.L., Villar, R., Marañón, T. and Zamora, R., 2006. Interactions of drought and shade effects on seedlings of four Quercus species: physiological and structural leaf responses. New Phytol., 170, 819–834.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Richards, J.H., Troxler, T.G., Lee, D.W. and Zimmerman, M.S., 2011. Experimental determination of effects of water depth on Nymphaea odorata growth, morphology and biomass allocation. Aquat. Bot., 95, 9–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodiyati, A., Arisoesilaningsih, E., Isagi, Y. and Nakagoshi, N., 2005. Responses of Cyperus brevifolius (Rottb.) Hassak. and Cyperus kyllingia Endl. to varying soil water availability. Env. Exp. Bot., 53, 259–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorrell, B.K., Tanner, C.C. and Sukias, J.P.S., 2002. Effects of water depth and substrate on growth and morphology of Eleocharis sphacelata: implications for culm support and internal gas transport. Aquat. Bot., 73, 93–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sultan, S.E., 2000. Phenotypic plasticity for plant development, function and life history. Trends Plant Sci., 5, 537–542.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Valladares, F., Martinez-Ferri, E., Balaguer, L., Perez-Corona, E. and Manrique, E., 2000. Low leaf-level response to light and nutrients in Mediterranean evergreen oaks: a conservative resource-use strategy? New Phytol., 148, 79–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vasellati, V., Oesterheld, M., Medan, D. and Loreti, J., 2001. Effects of flooding and drought on the anatomy of Paspalum dilatatum. Ann. Bot., 88, 355–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wan, C., Sosebee, R.E. and Mcmichael, B.L., 1996. Lateral root development and hydraulic conductance in four populations of Gutierrezia sarothrae. Env. Exp. Bot., 36, 157–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, L.-L. and Wen, D.-Z., 2009. Structural and physiological responses of two invasive weeds, Mikania micrantha and Chromolaena odorata, to contrasting light and soil water conditions. J. Plant Res., 122, 69–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed