Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-n9wrp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T17:23:24.715Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Factors affecting the Distribution and Productivity of Emergent Vegetation at Loch Leven, Kinross

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2011

R. H. Britton
R. H. Britton
Affiliation:
The Nature Conservancy, Edinburgh.
Get access

Synopsis

The extent of emergent vegetation at Loch Leven has declined considerably within historical times. In 1972 only 5 per cent of the shoreline and less than 0·01 per cent of the area of the loch was occupied by emergent vegetation, the principal species being Phragmites communis Trin. and Polygonum amphibium L. The production of Phragmites communis was estimated from standing crop measurements and is low for a eutrophic lake. The maximum aerial shoot biomass varies from 1148 to 513 g dry wt/m2 in the different beds. The total production of all species of emergent vegetation is insignificant when compared to other sources of primary production. Possible factors causing the low production and decline in emergent vegetation are discussed. These include water level changes, soil types, exposure to wind and wave action and grazing by wildfowl and domestic stock.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Section B: Biological Sciences , Volume 74 , 1974 , pp. 209 - 218
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

Bindloss, M. E., 1974. Primary productivity of phytoplankton in Loch Leven, Kinross. Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinb. B, 74, 157–181.Google Scholar
Bjork, S., 1967. Ecologic investigations of Phragmites communis: Studies in theoretic and applied limnology. Folia Limnol. Scand., 14, 1–248.Google Scholar
Burian, K., 1973. Phragmites communis Trin. im Rohricht des Neusiedler Sees. Wachstum, Produktion und Wasserverbrauch. In Okosystemforschung Ergebnisse von Symposien der Deutschen Botanischen Gesellschaft und der Gesellschaft für Angewandte Botanik in Innsbruck, July 1971, 79–86. (Ellenberg, H., Ed.).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiala, K., Dykyjova, D., Kvet, J. and Svoboda, J., 1968. Methods of assessing rhizome and root production in reed-bed stands. Proc. IBP Symp. Methods of productivity studies in root systems and rhizosphere organisms, 36–48. Leningrad.Google Scholar
Gorham, E. and Pearsall, W. H., 1956. Production ecology III. Shoot production in Phragmites in relation to habitat. Oikos, 7, 206–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haslam, S. M., 1968. The biology of reed (Phragmites communis) in relation to its control. Proc. 9th Brit. Weed Control Conf., 392–397.Google Scholar
Haslam, S. M., 1972. Phragmites communis Trin. Biological Flora of the British Isles. J. Ecol., 60, 585–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jupp, B. P., Spence, D. H. N. and Britton, R. H., 1974. The distribution and production of submerged macrophytes in Loch Leven, Kinross. Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinb. B, 74, 195–208.Google Scholar
Kowalczewski, A. and Wasilewski, L., 1966. Differentiation of biomass of Phragmites communis Trin. and its production in Mikolajskie Lake. Bull. Acad. Pol. Sci. (II), 14, 219–223.Google Scholar
Kvet, J. and Hudec, K., 1971. Effects of grazing by Greylag geese on reedswamp plant communities. Hidrobiologia, 12, 351–359.Google Scholar
Milner, C. and Hughes, R. E., 1968. Methods for the Measurement of the Primary Production of Grassland. IBP Handb., 6.Google Scholar
Sibbald, R., 1710. The History, Ancient and Modern, of the Sheriffdoms of Fife and Kinross. Edinburgh.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 and Boyd.Google Scholar
Straskraba, M., 1968. Der Anteil der höheren Pflanzen an der Produktion der stehenden Gewasser. Mitt. Int. Verein. Theor. Angew. Limnol., 14, 212–230.Google Scholar
West, G., 1910. 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
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
Westlake, D. F., 1968. Methods used to determine the annual production of reedswamp plants with extensive rhizomes. Proc. IBP Symp. Methods of productivity studies in root systems and rhizosphere organisms, 226–234. Leningrad.Google Scholar