Advertisement

Aquatic Sciences

, 81:6 | Cite as

Fragment type and water depth determine the regeneration and colonization success of submerged aquatic macrophytes

  • Patrick HeidbüchelEmail author
  • Andreas Hussner
Research Article

Abstract

Submerged aquatic plants predominantly disperse via vegetative means, with shoot fragments being the most important propagules. The establishment of new macrophyte stands largely depends on two parameters, (i) the regeneration of plant fragments and (ii) the successful anchorage of these fragments in the sediment (colonization). Here we studied both the regeneration and colonization abilities of six submerged aquatic plant species (Myriophyllum spicatum, Myriophyllum heterophyllum, Ceratophyllum demersum, Lagarosiphon major, Elodea canadensis and Hydrilla verticillata) with two fragment types (with and without apical tips, 6 cm fragment length) at two water depths (12 and 3 cm). Overall, M. spicatum, L. major, E. canadensis and H. verticillata showed stronger regeneration and colonization abilities than C. demersum and M. heterophyllum. In M. spicatum, L. major and H. verticillata, fragments with apical tips had a significantly higher likelihood of regeneration and colonization than fragments without apices. The presence of apical tips increased regeneration by a factor of up to 5 (L. major), and colonization by a factor of up to 6.5 (H. verticillata). Water depth had an even stronger effect on colonization of M. spicatum, L. major, E. canadensis and H. verticillata, but did not affect regeneration of any species examined. A shallow water depth significantly increased the likelihood of colonization by a factor of 3.5 (L. major) to 31 (M. spicatum). Our findings demonstrate the differences in the likelihood for initial colonization of fragments among aquatic plant species, leading to better predictions of species-specific spread potentials through plant fragments.

Keywords

Dispersal Establishment Fragmentation Invasive alien aquatic plants (IAAPs) Spread Vegetative reproduction 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Prof. Dr. Hanno Gottschalk (School of Mathematics and Science, University of Wuppertal) for valuable comments on the statistical analysis. This work was financially supported by the Deutsche Bundesstiftung Umwelt (DBU) [Grant number 20016/450; P. Heidbüchel].

References

  1. Aiken SG, Newroth PR, Wile I (1979) The biology of Canadian weeds: 34. Myriophyllum spicatum. Can J Plant Sci 59:201–215.  https://doi.org/10.4141/cjps79-028 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson LWJ (1998) Dissipation and movement of Sonar and Komeen following typical applications for control of Egeria densa in the Sacramento/ San Joaquin Delta, and production and viability of E. densa fragments following mechanical harvesting (1997/1998). Environmental Impact Report, California Department of Boating and Waterways, p 79Google Scholar
  3. Barrat-Segretain MH (1996) Strategies of reproduction, dispersion, and competition in river plants: A review. Vegetatio 123:13–37.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00044885 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barrat-Segretain MH, Bornette G (2000) Regeneration and colonization abilities of aquatic plant fragments: Effect of disturbance seasonality. Hydrobiologia 421:31–39.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003980927853 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barrat-Segretain MH, Bornette G, Hering-Vilas-Bôas A (1998) Comparative abilities of vegetative regeneration among aquatic plants growing in disturbed habitats. Aquat Bot 60:201–211.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3770(97)00091-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barrat-Segretain MH, Henry CP, Bornette G (1999) Regeneration and colonization of aquatic plant fragments in relation to the disturbance frequency of their habitats. Arch Fur Hydrobiol 145:111–127.  https://doi.org/10.1127/archiv-hydrobiol/145/1999/111 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barrat-Segretain MH, Elger A, Sagnes P, Puijalon S (2002) Comparison of three life-history traits of invasive Elodea canadensis Michx. and Elodea nuttallii (Planch.) H. St John. Aquat Bot 74:299–313.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3770(02)00106-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bickel TO (2017) Processes and factors that affect regeneration and establishment of the invasive aquatic plant Cabomba caroliniana. Hydrobiologia 788:157–168.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-016-2995-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boedeltje G, Bakker JP, Bekker RM et al (2003) Plant dispersal in a lowland stream in relation to occurence and three specific life-history traits of the species in the species pool. J Ecol 91:855–866.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2745.2003.00820.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chadwell TB, Engelhardt KAM (2008) Effects of pre-existing submersed vegetation and propagule pressure on the invasion success of Hydrilla verticillata. J Appl Ecol 45:515–523.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01384.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crooks J (2005) Lag times and exotic species: The ecology and management of biological invasions in slow-motion. Ecoscience 12:316–329.  https://doi.org/10.2980/i1195-6860-12-3-316.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fritschler N, Hussner A, Busch J (2008) Regenerationsfähigkeit von indigenen und neophytischen Wasserpflanzen. In: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Limnologie (DGL)-Tagungsbericht 2007, 199–203Google Scholar
  13. Heidbüchel P, Kuntz K, Hussner A (2016) Alien aquatic plants do not have higher fragmentation rates than native species: a field study from the River Erft. Aquat Sci 78:767–777.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00027-016-0468-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hussner A (2009) Growth and photosynthesis of four invasive aquatic plant species in Europe. Weed Res 49:506–515.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3180.2009.00721.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hussner A, Jahns P (2015) European native Myriophyllum spicatum showed a higher HCO3—use capacity than alien invasive Myriophyllum heterophyllum. Hydrobiologia 746:171–182.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-014-1976-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hussner A, Lösch R (2005) Alien aquatic plants in a thermally abnormal river and their assembly to neophyte-dominated macrophyte stands (River Erft, Northrhine-Westphalia). Limnologica 35:18–30.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.limno.2005.01.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hussner A, Hofstra D, Jahns P, Clayton J (2015) Response capacity to CO2 depletion rather than temperature and light effects explain the growth success of three alien Hydrocharitaceae compared with native Myriophyllum triphyllum in New Zealand. Aquat Bot 120:205–211.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquabot.2014.07.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hussner A, Mettler-Altmann T, Weber APM, Sand-Jensen K (2016) Acclimation of photosynthesis to supersaturated CO2 in aquatic plant bicarbonate users. Freshw Biol 61:1720–1732.  https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.12812 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hussner A, Stiers I, Verhofstad MJJM et al (2017) Management and control methods of invasive alien freshwater aquatic plants: a review. Aquat Bot 136:112–137.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquabot.2016.08.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Johansson M, Nilsson C (1993) Hydrochory, population dynamics and distribution of the clonal aquatic plant Ranunculus lingua. J Ecol 81:81–91.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2261226 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kuntz K, Heidbüchel P, Hussner A (2014) Effects of water nutrients on regeneration capacity of submerged aquatic plant fragments. Ann Limnol Int J Limnol 50:155–162.  https://doi.org/10.1051/limn/2014008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Langeland KA, Sutton DL (1980) Regrowth of Hydrilla from Axillary Buds. J Aquat Plant Manag 18:27–29Google Scholar
  23. Li F, Zhu L, Xie Y et al (2015a) Colonization by fragments of the submerged macrophyte Myriophyllum spicatum under different sediment type and density conditions. Sci Rep 5:1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep11821 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Li HL, Wang YY, Zhang Q et al (2015b) Vegetative propagule pressure and water depth affect biomass and evenness of submerged macrophyte communities. PLoS One 10:1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0142586 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Li F, Qin Y, Zhu L et al (2016a) Effects of fragment size and sediment heterogeneity on the colonization and growth of Myriophyllum spicatum. Ecol Eng 95:457–462.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2016.06.097 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Li F, Zhu L, Xie Y et al (2016b) Fragment growth performance of the invasive submerged macrophyte Myriophyllum spicatum under conditions of different water depths and sediment types. Aquat Ecol 50:727–734.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10452-016-9589-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lockwood JL, Cassey P, Blackburn TM (2005) The role of propagule pressure in explaining species invasions. Trends Ecol Evol 20:223–228.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2005.02.004 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Lockwood JL, Cassey P, Blackburn TM (2009) The more you introduce the more you get: The role of colonization pressure and propagule pressure in invasion ecology. Divers Distrib 15:904–910.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2009.00594.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Orchard A (1981) A revision of South American Myriophyllum (Haloragaceae) and its repercussions on some Australian and North American species. Brunonia 4:27.  https://doi.org/10.1071/BRU9810027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Redekop P, Hofstra D, Hussner A (2016) Elodea canadensis shows a higher dispersal capacity via fragmentation than Egeria densa and Lagarosiphon major. Aquat Bot 130:45–49.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquabot.2016.01.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Riis T (2008) Dispersal and colonisation of plants in lowland streams: Success rates and bottlenecks. Hydrobiologia 596:341–351.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-007-9107-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Riis T, Sand-Jensen K (2006) Dispersal of plant fragments in small streams. Freshw Biol 51:274–286.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2005.01496.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Riis T, Madsen TV, Sennels RSH (2009) Regeneration, colonisation and growth rates of allofragments in four common stream plants. Aquat Bot 90:209–212.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquabot.2008.08.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sand-Jensen K (2008) Drag forces on common plant species in temperate streams: Consequences of morphology, velocity and biomass. Hydrobiologia 610:307–319.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-008-9446-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sand-Jensen K, Møller CL (2014) Reduced root anchorage of freshwater plants in sandy sediments enriched with fine organic matter. Freshw Biol 59:427–437.  https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.12275 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Santamaría L (2002) Why are most aquatic plants widely distributed? Dispersal, clonal growth and small-scale heterogeneity in a stressful environment. Acta Oecol 23:137–154.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1146-609X(02)01146-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sarneel JM (2013) The dispersal capacity of vegetative propagules of riparian fen species. Hydrobiologia 710:219–225.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-012-1022-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sculthorpe CD (1967) The biology of aquatic vascular plants. Arnold, LondonGoogle Scholar
  39. Smart R, Barko JW (1985) Laboratory culture of submersed freshwater macrophytes on natural sediments. Aquat Bot 21:251–263.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3770(85)90053-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Thiébaut G, Martinez L (2015) An exotic macrophyte bed may facilitate the anchorage of exotic propagules during the first stage of invasion. Hydrobiologia 746:183–196.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-014-1982-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Thouvenot L, Haury J, Thiébaut G (2013) A success story: water primroses, aquatic plant pests. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst 23:790–803.  https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2387 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Truscott AM, Soulsby C, Palmer SCF et al (2006) The dispersal characteristics of the invasive plant Mimulus guttatus and the ecological significance of increased occurrence of high-flow events. J Ecol 94:1080–1091.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2006.01171.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Umetsu CA, Evangelista HBA, Thomaz SM (2012) The colonization, regeneration, and growth rates of macrophytes from fragments: a comparison between exotic and native submerged aquatic species. Aquat Ecol 46:443–449.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10452-012-9413-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Vári Á (2013) Colonisation by fragments in six common aquatic macrophyte species. Fundam Appl Limnol 183:15–26.  https://doi.org/10.1127/1863-9135/2013/0328 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wang S, Jin X, Jiao L, Wu F (2009) Response in root morphology and nutrient contents of Myriophyllum spicatum to sediment type. Ecol Eng 35:1264–1270.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2009.05.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Photosynthesis and stress physiology of plantsHeinrich-Heine-UniversityDüsseldorfGermany
  2. 2.Förderverein Feldberg-Uckermärkische-Seenlandschaft e.V.TemplinGermany

Personalised recommendations