Macrophyte biomass and water quality in Ontario rivers

Journal of the North American Benthological Society

Volumn 22, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 182-193

  Carr, Geneviève M ^a,b   Bod, Sarah A E ^a,c   Duthie, Hamish C ^a   Taylor, William D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Macrophytes; Models; Nutrients; Rivers; Validation; Water quality

Indexed keywords

BIOMASS; MACROPHYTE; NUTRIENT; RIVER; WATER QUALITY;

CANADA; ONTARIO;

EID: 0038385890     PISSN: 08873593     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/1467991     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. BEST, E. P. H., C. P. BUZZELLI, S. M. BARTELL, R. L. WETZEL, W. A. BOYD, R. D. DOYLE, AND K. R. CAMPBELL. 2001. Modeling submersed macrophyte growth in relation to underwater light climate: modeling approaches and application potential. Hydrobiologia 444:43-70.
2. CANFIELD, D. E., AND M. V. HOYER. 1988. Influence of nutrient enrichment and light availability on the abundance of aquatic macrophytes in Florida streams. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 45:1467-1472.
3. CARR, G. M., AND P. A. CHAMBERS. 1998. Macrophyte growth and sediment phosphorus and nitrogen in a Canadian prairie river. Freshwater Biology 39:525-536.
4. CHAMBERS, P. A., R. E. DEWREEDE, E. A. IRLANDI, AND H. VANDERMEULEN. 1999. Management issues in aquatic macrophyte ecology: a Canadian perspective. Canadian Journal of Botany 77:471-487.
5. CHAMBERS, P. A., E. E. PREPAS, M. L. BOTHWELL, AND H. R. HAMILTON. 1989. Roots versus shoots in nutrient uptake by aquatic macrophytes in flowing waters. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 46:435-439.
6. CHAMBERS, P. A., E. E. PREPAS, H. R. HAMILTON, AND M. L. BOTHWELL. 1991. Current velocity and its effects on aquatic macrophytes in flowing waters. Ecological Applications 1:249-257.
7. DODDS, W. K., J. R. JONES, AND E. B.WELCH. 1998. Suggested classification of stream trophic state: distributions of temperate stream types by chlorophyll, total nitrogen, and phosphorus. Water Research 32:1455-1462.
8. DODDS, W. K., AND E. B. WELCH. 2000. Establishing nutrient criteria in streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 19:186-196.
9. DUARTE, C. M. 1995. Submerged aquatic vegetation in relation to different nutrient regimes. Ophelia 41:87-112.
10. FRENCH, T. D., AND P. A CHAMBERS. 1997. Reducing flows in the Nechako River (British Columbia, Canada): potential response of the macrophyte community. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 54:2247-2254.
11. th International Symposium on Aquatic Weeds. European Weed Research Society, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
12. NEWBURY, R. W. 1996. Dynamics of flow. Pages 75-92 in F. R. Hauer and G. A. Lamberti (editors). Methods in stream ecology. Academic Press, San Diego.
13. PALMER, R. M., C. JONES, AND M. WALTERS. 1998. Environmental monitoring initiatives to sustain growth in Ontario, Canada. Water Science and Technology 38:113-122.
14. POWER, M. 1993. The predictive validation of ecological and environmental models. Ecological Modelling 68:33-50.
15. SAND-JENSEN, K., AND J. BORUM. 1991. Interactions among phytoplankton, periphyton and macrophytes in temperate freshwaters and estuaries. Aquatic Botany 41:137-175.
16. SAND-JENSEN, K., M. F. PEDERSEN, AND S. L. NIELSEN. 1992. Photosynthetic use of inorganic carbon among primary and secondary water plants in streams. Freshwater Biology 27:283-293.
17. SOSIAK, A. 2002. Long-term response of periphyton and macrophytes to reduced municipal nutrient loading to the Bow River (Alberta, Canada). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 59:987-1001.
18. VADSTRUP, M., AND T. V. MADSEN. 1998. Growth limitation of submerged aquatic macrophytes by inorganic carbon. Freshwater Biology 34:411-419.