Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-s22k5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-27T15:28:33.938Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Distribution and Production of Submerged Macrophytes in Loch Leven, Kinross

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2011

B. P. Jupp ,
D. H. N. Spence  and
R. H. Britton
B. P. Jupp
Affiliation:
Department of Botany, University of St Andrews, Edinburgh.
D. H. N. Spence
Affiliation:
Department of Botany, University of St Andrews, Edinburgh.
R. H. Britton
Affiliation:
The Nature Conservancy, Edinburgh.
Get access

Synopsis

The distribution and production of submerged macrophytes in Loch Leven has been investigated using drag-rake surveys and biomass measurements. Survey data suggest that changes in the species diversity of the loch have occurred since the earlier records. There appears to have been a decline in some species with an increase in others.

In general there has been an overall loss in species diversity which may be correlated with the increasingly eutrophic status of Loch Leven. At present the macrophyte flora is dominated by a few species, notably Potamogeton filiformis, Zannichellia palustris, Nitella opaca and algal periphyton, with declining, though still significant amounts of Chora aspera. It is probable that the species diversity is in the process of adjusting to the eutrophic status of the loch and that P. filiformis in particular is in an expanding condition.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Section B: Biological Sciences , Volume 74 , 1974 , pp. 195 - 208
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1974

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

References to Literature

Anon., 1836. New Statistical Account of Scotland, 9, Fife and Kinross, 1845. Edinburgh: Blackwood.Google Scholar
Anon., 1971. Loch Leven I.B.P. Project. A. Rep. Nat. Consent. Edinb.Google Scholar
Anon., 1972. Loch Leven I.B.P. Project. A Rep. Nat. Conserv. Edinb.Google Scholar
Bailey-Watts, A. E., 1974. The algal plankton of Loch Leven, Kinross. Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinb., B, 74, 135–156.Google Scholar
Balfour, I. B., 1894. An old list of stations of rarer plants, ascertained to grow around Inverkeithing and North of the Forth by A. Robertson. Trans. Proc. Bot. Soc. Edinb., 20, 84–90.Google Scholar
Balfour, J. H. and Sadler, J., 1863. Flora of Edinburgh. Edinburgh: Black.Google Scholar
Boyd, C. E., 1970. Amino acid, protein and caloric content of vascular aquatic macrophytes. Ecology, 51, 902–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forsberg, C., 1964 a. Phosphorus, a maximum factor in the growth of the Characeae. Nature, Lond., 201, 517–518.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Forsberg, C., 1964 b. The vegetation changes in Lake Tåkern. Svensk. Bot. Tidskr., 58, 44–54.Google Scholar
Forsberg, C., 1965. Nutritional studies of Chara in axenic cultures. Physiologia Pl., 18, 275–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holden, A. V. and Caines, L. A., 1974. Nutrient chemistry of Loch Leven. Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinb., B, 74, 101–121.Google Scholar
Hooker, W. J., 1821. Flora Scotica: or a description of Scottish Plants. London.Google Scholar
MacLeay, K. N. G., 1953. Additions and emendations to the comital flora for Fife and Kinross (V.-C. 85). Watsonia, 2, 398–410.Google Scholar
Morgan, N. C., 1970. Changes in the fauna and flora of a nutrient enriched lake. Hydrobiologia, 35, 545–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, N. C., 1974. Historical background to the International Biological Programme Project at Loch Leven, Kinross. Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinb., B, 74, 45–55.Google Scholar
Olsen, S., 1964. Vegetation saendringer i Lingby Sø. Bidrag til analyse af kulturpavirkninger pa vand-og sumpplante vegetationen. Bot. Tidsskr., 59, 273–300Google Scholar
Seddon, B., 1972. Aquatic macrophytes as limnological indicators. Freshwat. Biol., 2, 107–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, E. V. and Swingle, H. S., 1941. The use of fertilizer for controlling several submerged aquatic plants in ponds. Trans. Am. Fish Soc., 71, 94–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, I. R., 1974. The structure and physical environment of Loch Leven, Scotland. Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinb., B, 74, 81–100.Google Scholar
Spence, D. H. N., 1964. The macrophytic vegetation of freshwater lochs, swamps and associated fens. In The Vegetation of Scotland. (Burnett, J. H., Ed.) Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd.Google Scholar
Spence, D. H. N., 1967. Factors controlling the distribution of freshwater macrophytes with particular reference to the lochs of Scotland. J. Ecol., 55, 147–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Straškraba, M., 1968. Der Anteil der höheren Pflanzen an der Produktion der stehenden Gewässer. Mitt. Int. Verein. Theor. Angew. Limnol., 14, 212–230.Google Scholar
West, G., 1910 a. A further contribution to a comparative study of the dominant phanerogamic and higher cryptogamic flora of aquatic habit in Scottish lakes. Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinb., 30, 65–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, G., 1910 b. An epitome of a comparative study of the dominant phanerogamic and higher cryptogamic flora of aquatic habit, in seven lake areas in Scotland. In Bathymetrical Survey of the Scottish Freshwater Lochs, 1. (Murray, J. & Pullar, L.) Edinburgh: Challenger Oflice.Google Scholar
Westlake, D. F., 1963. Comparisons of plant productivity. Biol. Rev., 38, 385–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westlake, D. F., 1965. Some basic data for investigations of the productivity of aquatic macrophytes. Memorie 1st. Ital. Idrobiol., 18, Suppl., 229–248.Google Scholar
Young, W., 1936. A list of the flowering plants and ferns recorded from Fife and Kinross. (V.-C. 85). Trans. Proc. Bot. Soc. Edinb., 32, 3–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar