[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Plant references
- To: <Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com>
- Subject: Re: Plant references
- From: Thomas Barr <tcbiii at earthlink_net>
- Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 11:19:03 -0800
- In-Reply-To: <200202082048.g18Km1Q21474 at actwin_com>
- User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022
>> Tom's remarks were directed, of course, at a request
>> for very _precise_ references, but the thought behind
>> these statements is what I'd like to address...
Sorry, doing algae bloom analysis and community structure problems.
I feel this way about it. Not everyone shares my thoughts and sometimes you
simply do not have any work done on a certain question.
I reviewed Diana Walstad's book again. Much of what is said is pretty well
founded. I know some of the folks that wrote the primary literature and am
familiar with them. Complain all you like. She did a much better job
presenting her case than any other before her. Wetzal is very good. I would
say generalizations are there but, they do have specific cases of
application. Whether it can generalized across the board? Some yes, some no
most likely. I think figuring out what is not true, is generally easier than
figuring out what is true. Eventually you rule out everything else. PO4 I
approached that way.
> Are not most of the plants we culture amphibious in nature?
Yes, but my TA for another class claimed otherwise. I insisted and he
insisted. I'll have to bring the ref's on down.
I actually am curious about the relative % of amphibious vs true aquatics
incapable of terrestrial life.
But even hornwort I've found in "seeps" with no standing water, but only a
slight wet soil flow and semi emmersed mats of it all over. There are a
number of annuals also that are aquatic. Algae also can be found like this.
> And a lot of the
> "true aquatics" merely ancient terrestrials that have gone the way of the
> Dolphin and Whale - preferring the aquatic to the land?
Yes. Some have done this faster than you think. The evolution of Utricularia
is very interesting. Vascular Aquatic Plants, a book I was wondering around
at the AGA meeting in TN is a gem of a book(It's pretty old). You'd eat it
up as would a number of folks here.
I found some Callitriche in dark redwood stream that I just ID'ed in this
book. Neat little plant but too fragile for trade. This one was true aquatic
though. A reference in Aquatic Botany also has it(a plant in this genera) as
the only proven case of submersed pollination.
> Obviously the mechanics of how those needs are met will vary with the
> environment involved - it's a little difficult, for example, to simply
> spread Rose Food across the surface of the tank and get the desired results.
> But I would think that what plants _do_ with that nutrition, or light
> energy, or whatever would still be essentially the same...
Pretty much and the same can be said for algae in most respects also. They
are leaky like plants, they can live on land/water/hot springs/on ice/under
ice/in ice/At ph of 12/at extreme salinity/800 ft deep even/in caves etc.
Reviewing an Australian web site Cavan sent me I find this:
> Check out the text portion under Ondinia (Ondinea). Recognize the authors?
> Ed Schneider
> Santa Barbara Botanic Garden
> 1212 Mission Canyon Road
> Santa Barbara, CA 93105
>> From: Thomas Barr
>> Sent: Saturday, February 9, 2002 12:03 AM
>> Subject: Aussy plants
He's my very own professor here at UC:) Right under my nose. I know he knows
Gasser, did lots of work at San Marcos, president of the water lily society
for years etc. But up pops a reference:) Should have known he's possessed
about water lilies.