Long‐term dynamics of macrophyte dominance and growth‐form types in two north‐west German lowland streams

Abstract

SUMMARY1. Continuous multiyear data sets can help to detect long-term trends and allow predictions with respect to environmental and biological variables. While the use of taxon-based approaches for biomonitoring of watercourses is well established, little information exists concerning long-term variability of dominance and growth form composition of aquatic macrophyte communities. We analysed patterns in dominance and growth forms of macrophytes over a period of 21 years in relation to changes in water chemistry, disturbance regime and extreme weather conditions in two reference streams in the north-west German lowlands. 2. Rank-abundance curves of annual observations indicated five core species. The pattern of abundance resembled a broken-stick rather than a log-normal distribution. The core species, which reached both the highest absolute and average cover values, were Sparganium emersum, Elodea canadensis, Callitriche hamulata, Potamogeton natans and Ranunculus peltatus.3. An analysis of change in dominance showed that in 67.5% of all observed cases, the same species became dominant in the subsequent year. Sparganium emersum (80.6%) and E. canadensis (68.8%) were the most successful species in retaining their relative dominance. Calculation of transition probabilities showed a strong attractor function of states dominated by Sparganium and Elodea. However, dominance patterns broke down over time and after 20 years, only one of the sites still showed the same dominance type. On average, dominance was preserved for around 4 years. 4. Reaches were mostly dominated by six growth forms, namely vallisnerids, potamids, peplids, nymphaeids, myriophyllids and graminids. In each reach, two, three or five growth forms shared the highest cover percentages. An analysis of traits of successfully established and dominant species identified three strategies: a facultative wintergreen growth habit in combination with effective means of vegetative reproduction; strong maintenance traits (in particular rhizomes); short-life span in combination with seed and turion production. 5. Strong oscillations of growth form types were observed. Six growth form clusters were defined, up to four of which may occur in one reach. Most frequent clusters were one characterised by strong vallisnerid dominance and another characterised by dominant potamids with peplids and myriophyllids. Both clusters showed the highest frequencies, durations and transition probabilities from other clusters. On average, growth form clusters persisted for 4.5 years.6. An analysis of the influence of environmental factors on growth form dynamics showed that chemical and physical parameters distinguish the sample sites but cannot explain the observed changes. 7. We conclude that dynamics of species dominance as well as the occurrence of growth form assemblages are not controlled by physicochemical environmental factors such as nutrient composition at the scale of observation in this type of river. Instead, stochastic interactions between species characteristics and...

Aquatic vegetation in deep lakes: Macrophyte co-occurrence patterns and environmental determinants

“…These authors confirmed the predominance of nonhuman pressures in driving the variability in river macrophyte indices, suggesting that not-trophic determinants (e.g., temperature, lake area) play an important role in this variability. Furthermore, recent evidence suggests that macrophyte communities that exhibit marked inter-annual fluctuations and stochastic interactions with external disturbance events or weather extremes are characterized by intrinsic high dynamicity (Wiegleb et al, 2014). With respect to these considerations, our approach can complement other types of surveys, especially those aimed at investigating the long-term changes in macrophyte communities using sedimentary macrofossils as verified by Levi et al (2014) in several Mediterranean lakes.…”

Aquatic Plant Dynamics in Lowland River Networks: Connectivity, Management and Climate Change

“…The substrate is mostly dominated by sand and gravel. Further information is available in Wiegleb [54,58,60,69] (in Wiegleb [54] site Lethe 6 here was called Lethe 7). …”

“…We test this general approach using the trait database and attribute groups of Willby et al [68] and revisit three complementary datasets: (1) monthly aquatic plant surveys for two years and every summer for 21 consecutive years at six sites along two rivers [54,60,69]; (2) one-off survey of 62 sites, with a subset resurveyed annually over three years, in the lowland rivers of Norfolk where the effects of spatial connectivity and exogenous factors were disentangled [43]; and (3) one-off survey of 44 sites in the Welland river network where indicator species richness was shown to increase with distance from source [61].…”

Natural variation of macrophyte vegetation of lowland streams at the regional level

“…It cannot be expected that simple upscaling of variables may work. At the reach level macrophyte growth can be quantified using a variety of metrics such as cover, abundance, richness, diversity or evenness of taxa, growth forms, or attribute types (Willby et al, 2000;Birk and Willby, 2010;Wiegleb et al, 2014a). Along a river course or in the course of time turnover and autocorrelation measures can be related either to hydrochemical, morphological, sedimentological, hydrological and spatial variables, or discontinuous variables such as disturbance events including unusual weather conditions (Wiegleb et al, 2014b;Demars et al, 2014).…”

“…Measures of abundance and cover are strongly dependent of the applied sampling method and short-term change in the vegetation (Staniszewski et al, 2006;Pentecost et al, 2009). Still, the spatio-temporal variation of reach-based data was broadly underestimated (Wiegleb et al, 2014a;Demars et al, 2014). Recognizing in addition the natural variability of macrophyte vegetation at the regional level requires that species frequencies of the wider geographical area in which a physiographic unit is embedded must be known.…”