Re:how deep will a plant grow?

[Thomas Barr <tcbiii at earthlink_net>]

> Tom's Teaser: What is the maximum depth in lakes for
> plants(Dicots/monocots only,

> "The depth maxima for the vascular plants plateau at around
> 5.5 to 6 m regardless of water transparency. This suggests
> that factors other than available light limited the depth
> maxima for vascular plants and a case for hydrostatic
> pressure effects is strongly suggested. "
> 
> Ref:
> http://www.aquabotanic.com/paper2-5.html

This reference is about to get mauled as it probably should.

I've dived and pulled plants deeper than 7-8 meters within the last 3
months. I cannot quite dive down as far as I would need to to reach the
actual maximum depth. I'm not using SCUBA, just the old lungs.
I am getting a waterproof casing for my digital camera that will make it to
the maximum depths and beyond. I wanted to know what the answer was to the
question for this reason also should I someday get scuba gear.

My references are a Limnologist who has found angiosperms deeper much deeper
than 6 meters and works on Latin American lakes(Titicaca), Payne 1982, and
Dale 1981, and other effects to overcome depths of 13.3 m in Bodkin et al
1980(eg Temperatures above 15C good light/clear waters). I've pull them from
over 30ft deep myself. I suppose if I worked on it more, I may be able to go
down to the max depth.
Many plants such as Myriphyllum spicatum for example are not affected by
depth/pressure. They compensate by increase cell turgor pressure and are
somehow able to maintain the air lacunae.

A great deal is not known about the effects of pressure on growth,
physiology etc.    

Look at the reference of that site. It's for a few lakes in the UK(see title
of Figure). There are other lakes and many plants that can handle
significantly deeper locations.
There's not a large number of species of aquatic plants growing submerged in
the UK. Does this reference make a good case for all aquatic plants or just
those tested in this study?.........

I find the above reference "a poor source" to make any generalization about
depths except in the lakes studied in the UK. But they have found Elodea
(Egeria now I guess) deeper than that even in NY(about 11m).

I'll tell you personally on a common sense level the above reference doesn't
jive since I can go out and find plants considerably deeper than this.
That's why it's good to go out into nature and see for yourself.
Sag's and Vals are found deeper and doing quite well at those depths.
  
> BTW I also know someone who is interested in that Gigantic
> monster moss.

Don't worry, I go to the location monthly for at least another year.
I'll get more than one species for you. There are many species here, I wish
some would grow underwater.

> Regards
> 
> Stephan

Okay, _you_ being a _moss man_ and all, how deep does moss grow in Lake
Tahoe? The answer will likely surprise most folks. It's deeper than most
anyone would in their right mind would dive.

Regards, 
Tom Barr