Advertisement

Journal of Paleolimnology

, Volume 60, Issue 4, pp 495–509 | Cite as

Plant macrofossil assemblages from surface sediment represent contemporary species and growth forms of aquatic vegetation in a shallow Mediterranean lake

  • Jorge García-Girón
  • Camino Fernández-Aláez
  • Alejandro Nistal-García
  • Margarita Fernández-Aláez
Original paper
  • 61 Downloads

Abstract

Macrofossils are known as a useful tool in reconstructing their original plant communities. However, most studies have been focused on comparing the composition and distribution of living plant communities and their remains in temperate lakes. Mediterranean shallow lakes have been historically far less studied and little is known about the relationships between Mediterranean macrophyte communities and their remains. The aim of our study is to assess how contemporary aquatic macrophyte communities are represented by their sedimentary remains in terms of composition, distribution and concordance between the contemporary and the subfossil assemblages in a procrustean superimposition space, and to determine which surface sediment cores, collected along a depth gradient, may represent best the whole-lake macrofossil assemblage. These analyses were carried out for both species and macrophyte growth forms (submerged hydrophytes, floating-leaved hydrophytes, helophytes and charophytes) in order to check which of the two (species and growth forms) were represented best by their macro-remains. The most abundant present-day species (Myriophyllum alterniflorum DC. and Potamogeton trichoides L.) were under-represented while Characeae and some floating-leaved hydrophytes (Polygonum amphibium L. and Ranunculus peltatus Schrank) were over-represented in sedimentary samples. Additionally, macro-remains of submerged hydrophytes and helophytes were generally found in the central areas and in close proximity to contemporary vegetation, whereas floating-leaved hydrophytes distributed close to the near-shore. Notwithstanding some disparities between contemporary vegetation and their macrofossil assemblages, we found a good agreement between present-day and sedimentary datasets for both species and macrophyte growth forms. Furthermore, our study suggests that sediment cores from deep areas are more likely to represent best the whole-lake macrofossil assemblage because of their high diversity, equitability and heterogeneity. We conclude that aquatic macrophyte subfossils from the central areas of the basin can be a very useful tool in tracking the species composition and structure of the original macrophyte communities in shallow Mediterranean lakes. Additionally, when considering the use of macro-remains to reconstruct the composition and structure of macrophyte growth forms, we recommend a multicore approach that uses transects running from the shore to the lake center.

Keywords

Macrophytes Mediterranean lakes Plant macrofossils Surface sediment Shallow lakes 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

References

  1. Adam ME (2007) Development and application of plant macrofossils for paleolimnological reconstructions in the Slave River Delta, N.W.T. University of Waterloo, Ontario, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  2. Álvarez-Cobelas M, Rojo C, Angeler D (2005) Mediterranean limnology: current status, gaps and the future. J Limnol 64:13–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson MJ (2006) Distance-based tests for homogeneity of multivariate dispersions. Biometrics 62:245–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beijerinck W (1976) Zadenatlas der Nederlandsche Flora. Backhuys & Meesters, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  5. Bennion H, Sayer CD, Clarke SJ, Davidson TA, Rose NL, Goldsmith B, Rawcliffe R, Burgess A, Clarke G, Turner S, Wiik E (2017) Sedimentary macrofossil records reveal ecological change in English lakes: implications for conservation. J Paleolimnol.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10933-017-9941-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berggren G (1981) Atlas of Seeds. Part 3. Salicaceae-Cruciferae. Swedish Museum of Natural History, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  7. Birks HH (1973) Modern macrofossil assemblages in lake sediments in Minnesota. In: Birks HJB, West RG (eds) Quaternary plant ecology. Blackwells, Oxford, pp 173–189Google Scholar
  8. Birks HJB (2007) Plant macrofossil introduction. In: Elias SA (ed) Encyclopedia of quaternary science. Elsevier B.V., Amsterdam, pp 2266–2288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Birks HH (2017) Plant macrofossil Introduction. In: Elias SA (ed) Reference module in earth systems and environmental sciences. Elsevier, Amsterdam.  https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-409548-9.10499-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Birks HJB, Birks HH (1980) Quaternary palaeoecology. The Blackburn Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. Birks HH, Birks HJB (2000) Future uses of pollen analysis must include plant macrofossils. J Biogeogr 27(31):35Google Scholar
  12. Birks HH, Birks HJB (2006) Multi-proxy studies in palaeolimnology. Veg Hist Archaebot 15:235–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Canfield DEJ, Shireman JV, Colle DE, Haller WT, Watkins CEI, Maceina MJ (1984) Prediction of chlorophyll a concentrations in Florida lakes: importance of aquatic macrophytes. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 41:497–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Casanova MT, Brock MA (1990) Charophyte germination and establishment from the seed bank of an Australian temporary lake. Aquat Bot 36:247–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Clarke KR (1993) Non-parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure. Aust J Ecol 18:117–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Clarke GH, Sayer CD, Turner S, Salgado J, Meis S, Partmore IA, Zhao Y (2014) Representation of aquatic vegetation change by plant macrofossils in a small and shallow freshwater lake. Veg Hist Archaebot 23:265–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Davidson TA, Jeppesen E (2013) The role of palaeolimnology in assessing eutrophication and its impact on lakes. J Paleolimnol 49:391–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Davidson TA, Sayer CD, Bennion H, David C, Rose N, Wade MP (2005) A 250 year comparison of historical, macrofossil and pollen records of aquatic plants in a shallow lake. Freshw Biol 50:1671–1686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dieffenbacher-Krall AC (2007) Surface samples, taphonomy, representation. In: Elias SA (ed) Encyclopedia of quaternary science. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  20. Dieffenbacher-Krall AC, Nurse A (2005) Late-glacial and Holocene record of lake levels of Mathews Pond and Whitehead Lake, northern Maine, USA. J Paleolimnol 34:283–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. European Union (1992) Directive 1992/43/EC of the European Parliament and the council of 21 May 1992 establishing a framework for conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. Off J Eur Commun 206:7–50Google Scholar
  22. Fernández-Aláez C, Fernández-Aláez M, Rodríguez S, Bécares E (1999) Evaluation of the state of conservation of shallow lakes in the province of León (Northwest Spain) using botanical criteria. Limnetica 17:107–117Google Scholar
  23. Frey DG (1986) Cladocera analysis. In: Berglund BE (ed) Handbook of Holocene palaeoecology and palaeohydrology. Wiley, London, pp 667–701Google Scholar
  24. García-Girón J, Fernández-Aláez C, Fernández-Aláez M, Nistal-García A (2018) Changes in climate, land use and local conditions drive macrophyte assemblages in a Mediterranean shallow lake. Limnetica 37:159–172Google Scholar
  25. Getzner M (2002) Investigating public decision about protecting wetlands. Environ Manag 64:237–246Google Scholar
  26. Gower JC (1971) Statistical methods of comparing different multivariate analyses of the same data. In: Hodson FR, Kendall DG, Tautu P (eds) Mathematics in the archaeological and historical sciences. Edinburg University Press, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  27. Heggen MP, Birks HH, Heiri O, Grytnes JA, Birks HJB (2012) Are fossil assemblages in a single sediment core from a small lake representative of total deposition of mite, chironomid, and plant macrofossil remains? J Paleolimnol 48:669–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Heiri O, Lotter AF, Lemcke G (2001) Loss on ignition as a method for estimating organic and carbonate content in sediments: reproducibility and comparability of results. J Paleolimnol 25:101–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jeffries M (2008) The spatial and temporal heterogeneity of macorphyte communities in thirty small, temporary ponds over a period of ten years. Ecography 31:765–775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jensén S (1977) An objective method for sampling the macrophyte vegetation in lakes. Vegetatio 33:107–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jessen K (1955) Key to subfossil Potamogeton. Bot Tidsskr 52:1–7Google Scholar
  32. Kattel GR, Battarbee RW, Mackay A, Birks HJB (2007) Are cladoceran fossils in lake sediment samples a biased reflection of the communities from which they are derived? J Paleolimnol 38:157–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Koff T, Vandel E (2008) Spatial distribution of macrofossil assemblages in surface sediments of two small lakes in Estonia. Est J Ecol 57:5–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Levi EE, Çakiroğlu AI, Bucak T, Odgaard BV, Davidson TA, Jeppesen E, Beklioğlu M (2014) Similarity between contemporary vegetation and plant remains in the surface sediment in Mediterranean lakes. Freshw Biol.  https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.12299 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Moss B (1990) Engineering and biological approaches to the restoration from eutrophication of shallow lakes in which aquatic plant communities are important components. Hydrobiologia 200:367–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Kindt R, Legendre P, Minchin PR, O’Hare RB et al (2012) Vegan: community ecology package. R package version 3.3.2Google Scholar
  37. Punning JM, Puusepp L, Koff T (2004) Spatial variability of diatoms, subfossil macrophytes, and OC/N values in surface sediments of Lake Väike Juusa (southern Estonia). Proc Est Acad Sci Biol Ecol 53:147–160Google Scholar
  38. Salgado J, Sayer CD, Carvalho L, Davidson TA, Gunn I (2010) Assessing aquatic macrophyte community change through the integration of palaeolimnological and historical data at Loch Leven, Scotland. J Paleolimnol 43:191–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Scheffer M, Hosper SH, Meijer ML, Moss B, Jeppesen E (1993) Alternative equilibria in shallow lakes. Trends Ecol Evol 8:275–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Cirujano S, Meco A, García-Murillo P, Chirino M (2008) Carófitos. Flora Ibérica. Algas continentales. Real Jardín Botánico, CSIC, MadridGoogle Scholar
  41. Shannon CE, Weaver W (1949) The mathematical theory of communication. University of Illinois Press Urbana, ChampaignGoogle Scholar
  42. Simpson GL, Oksanen J (2016) Analogue and weighted averaging methods for palaeoecology. R package version 3.3.2Google Scholar
  43. Ter Braak CFJ, Šmilauer P (2002) Reference manual and CanoDraw for windows. User’s Guide: Software for Canonical Community Ordination (version 4.5). BiometricsGoogle Scholar
  44. Watts WA, Winter TC (1966) Plant macrofossils from Kirchner Marsh, Minnesota—a paleoecological study. Geol Soc Am Bull 77:1339–1360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zhao Y, Sayer CD, Birks HH, Hughes M, Peglar SM (2006) Spatial representation of aquatic vegetation by macrofossils and pollen in a small and shallow lake. J Paleolimnol 35:335–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Group for Limnology and Environmental Biotechnology, Ecology SectionUniversity of LeónLeónSpain

Personalised recommendations