Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Biomechanical properties of aquatic plants and their effects on plant–flow interactions in streams and rivers

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Aquatic Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We analysed the biomechanical properties of aquatic plant stems of four common submerged river macrophyte species with bending, tension and cyclic loading/unloading tests and related these properties to the hydraulic habitats of the plants. The studied species included Glyceria fluitans, Ranunculus penicillatus, Myriophyllum alterniflorum and Fontinalis antipyretica. Habitat assessment shows that these species occur in a range from low to high flow velocities, respectively. G. fluitans is a semi-aquatic species with stems of a high flexural rigidity and high breaking force and breaking stress that enable them to carry their own weight and balance gravity when growing upright in slow flowing rivers. G. fluitans may also grow horizontally often producing emerged terrestrial stems. In contrast, F. antipyretica grows in fierce water flow. Its stems have the highest flexibility, a significantly higher ‘tension’ Young’s modulus, breaking stress and work of fracture and a lower plastic deformation compared to M. alterniflorum and R. penicillatus. These traits enable F. antipyretica to survive even in swift flowing streams and constrict the growth of M. alterniflorum and R. penicillatus to the river reaches with moderate flow velocities. R. penicillatus has a weak bottom part with a low breaking force and breaking stress acting as a predetermined breaking point and enabling seasonal regrowth from root parts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ackerman JD, Okubo A (1993) Reduced mixing in a marine macrophyte canopy. Funct Ecol 7:305–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biedka RF, Gosline JM, de Wreede RE (1987) Biomechanical analysis of wave-induced mortality in the marine alga Pterygophora californica. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 36:163–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biehle G, Speck T, Spatz HC (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 

  • Boller ML, Carrington E (2007) Interspecific comparison of hydrodynamic performance and structural properties among intertidal macroalgae. J Exp Biol 210(11):1874–1884

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brewer CA, Parker M (1990) Adaptations of macrophytes to life in moving water: upslope limits and mechanical properties of stems. Hydrobiologia 194(2):133–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carrington E (1990) Drag and dislodgement of an intertidal macroalga: consequences of morphological variation in Mastocarpus papillatus Kützing. J Exp Mar Biol 1139:163–200

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies P, Morvan C, Sire O, Baley C (2007) Structure and properties of fibres from sea-grass (Zostera marina). J Mater Sci 42(13):4850–4857

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Delf EM (1932) Experiments with the stripes of Fucus and Laminaria. J Exp Biol 9:300–313

    Google Scholar 

  • Denny MW, Gaylord B (2002) The mechanics of wave-swept algae. J Exp Biol 205:1355–1362

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Denny MW, Hale BB (2003) Cyberkelp: an integrative approach to the modeling of flexible organisms. Phil Trans Roy Soc Lond B Biol Sci 358:1535–1542

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denny MW, Gaylord B, Helmuth B, Daniel TL (1998) The menace of momentum: dynamic forces on flexible organisms. Limnol Oceanogr 43:955–968

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fonseca MS, Koehl MAR, Kopp BS (2007) Biomechanical factors contributing to self-organization in seagrass landscapes. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 340(2):227–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaylord B, Denny MW (1997) Flow and flexibility: I. Effects of size, shape and stiffness in determining wave forces on the stipitate kelps Eisenia arborea and Pterygophora californica. J Exp Biol 200:3141–3164

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Harder DL, Hurd CL, Speck T (2006) Comparison of mechanical properties of four large, wave-exposed seaweeds. Am J Bot 93(10):1426–1432

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Haslam SM (2006) River plants. Forrest Text, Cardigan

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmes NTH, Newman JR, Chadd S, Rouen KJ, Saint L, Dawson FH (1999) Mean trophic rank: a user’s manual, R & D Technical Report 38. Environment Agency, Bristol

    Google Scholar 

  • Knighton AD (1999) Downstream variation in stream power. Geomorphology 29:293–306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koch EW, Ackerman J, van Keulen M, Verduin J (2006) Fluid dynamics in seagrass ecology: from molecules to ecosystems. In: Larkum AWD, Orth RJ, Duarte CM (eds) Seagrasses: biology, ecology and conservation. Springer, Berlin, pp 193–225

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Koehl MAR (1979) Stiffness or extensibility of intertidal algae: a comparative study. J Biomech 12:634

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koehl MAR (1982) The interaction of moving water and sessile organisms. Sci Am 247:124–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koehl MAR (1984) How do benthic organisms withstand moving water? Am Zool 24:57–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Koehl MAR, Alberte RS (1988) Flow, flapping, and photosynthesis of Nereocystis luetkeana: a functional comparison of undulate and flat blade morphologies. Mar Biol 99:435–444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Köhler L, Spatz HC (2002) Micromechanics of plant tissues beyond the linear-elastic range. Planta 215:33–40

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mach KJ, Hale BB, Denny MW, Nelson DV (2007a) Death by small forces: a fracture and fatigue analysis of wave-swept macroalgae. J Exp Biol 210(13):2231–2243

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mach KJ, Nelson DV, Denny MW (2007b) Techniques for predicting the lifetimes of wave-swept macroalgae: a primer on fracture mechanics and crack growth. J Exp Biol 210:2213–2230

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nepf HM (1999) Drag, turbulence, and diffusion in flow through emergent vegetation. Water Resour Res 35(2):479–489

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niklas KJ (1992) Plant biomechanics. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Niklas KJ, Spatz HC, Vincent J (2006) Plant biomechanics: an overview and prospectus. Am J Bot 93(10):1369–1378

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nikora V (2010) Hydrodynamics of aquatic ecosystems: an interface between ecology, biomechanics and environmental fluid mechanics. River Res Appl 26:367–384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Hare MT, Hutchinson KA, Clarke RT (2007) The drag and reconfiguration experienced by five macrophytes from a lowland river. Aquat Bot 86(3):253–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Hare MT, Clarke RT, Bowes MJ, Cailes C, Henville P, Bissett N, McGahey C, Neal M (2010) Eutrophication impacts on a river macrophyte. Aquat Bot 92:173–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Okubo A, Ackerman JD, Swaney DP (2002) Passive diffusion in ecosystems. In: Okubo A, Levin SA (eds) Diffusion and ecological problems: modern perspectives, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin, pp 31–106

    Google Scholar 

  • Patterson MR, Harwell MC, Orth LM, Orth RJ (2001) Biomechanical properties of the reproductive shoots of eelgrass. Aquat Bot 69:27–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preston CD, Croft JM (2001) Aquatic plants in Britain and Ireland. Harley Books, Stenstrup

    Google Scholar 

  • Riis T, Biggs B (2003) Hydrologic and hydraulic control of macrophyte establishment and performance in streams. Limnol Oceanogr 48(4):1488–1497

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sand-Jensen K (2003) Drag and reconfiguration of freshwater macrophytes. Freshw Biol 48:271–283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sand-Jensen K, Pedersen ML (2008) Streamlining of plant patches in streams. Freshw Biol 53:714–726

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scarlett P, O’Hare M (2006) Community structure of in-stream bryophytes in English and Welsh rivers. Hydrobiologia 553:143–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schulgasser K, Witztum A (1997) On the strength of herbaceous vascular plant stems. Ann Bot 80(1):35–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schutten J, Dainty J, Davy AJ (2005) Root anchorage and its significance for submerged plants in shallow lakes. J Ecol 93(3):556–571

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spatz HC, Köhler L, Niklas KJ (1999) Mechanical behaviour of plant tissues: composite materials or structures? J Exp Biol 202:3269–3272

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Statzner B, Lamouroux N, Nikora V, Sagnes P (2006) The debate about drag and reconfiguration of freshwater macrophytes: comparing results obtained by three recently discussed approaches. Freshw Biol 51:2173–2183

    Article  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(312):1469–1475

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Vogel S (1994) Life in moving fluids. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Weltner K, Grosjean J, Schuster P, Weber WJ (1986) Mathematics for engineers and scientists. Stanley Thornes LTD, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Wetzel RG (2001) Limnology: lake and river ecosystems. Academic Press, San Diego

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The work was supported by the Leverhulme Trust, Grant F/00152/Z ‘Biophysics of flow-plant interactions in aquatic systems’. The NERC’s Centre for Ecology and Hydrology Edinburgh (CEH Edinburgh, UK) supplied field equipment for plant sampling, temperature and velocity measurements as well as stream power and plant abundance data from Mean Trophic Rank Bio-assessment (MTR) surveys. Dr Alfred Akisanya and Jim Gall provided helpful advice on cyclic loading/unloading, bending, and tension tests using the Hounsfield Materials testing machine. Timothy Crane helped with tests.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Engineering, Fraser Noble Building, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, AB24 3UE, UK

    Oliver Miler, Ismail Albayrak & Vladimir Nikora

  2. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology Edinburgh, Bush Estate, Penicuik, Midlothian, EH26 0QB, UK

    Matthew O’Hare

Authors
  1. Oliver Miler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ismail Albayrak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Vladimir Nikora
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Matthew O’Hare
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Oliver Miler.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Below are the electronic supplementary materials

Supplementary material 1 (DOC 137 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Miler, O., Albayrak, I., Nikora, V. et al. Biomechanical properties of aquatic plants and their effects on plant–flow interactions in streams and rivers. Aquat Sci 74, 31–44 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00027-011-0188-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00027-011-0188-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation