River macrophytes are widely used in freshwater ecosystem assessment because of their sensitivity to anthropogenic pressures, even if there are only a few studies that investigated how macrophytes respond to water regime alterations. In this study, we analyzed the effects of dams on river macrophyte communities through a comparison between upstream and downstream sides from 18 dams located in Alps and Apennines. A co-inertia analysis and a Mantel test were applied to assess if the analysis of environmental parameters could be effective in predicting macrophyte community structure. We analyzed morphological and physicochemical inter-site differences and tested the influence of dams on various aspects of community structure (composition, richness, diversity, dominance, coverage) using multivariate randomized block permutation procedure. Plant similarity between sites was evaluated at the level of phylum, and indicator species analysis was performed to identify the taxa most sensitive or tolerant to water regulation. We found that the overall environmental setting overwhelms the dam impact and that the influence of hydrological alteration became apparent when comparing upstream and downstream assemblages at the same dam. In particular, we found that most of taxa had a higher affinity with the downstream side and that in general, stream regulation increases plant richness and coverage, but reduces community evenness. Analyses based on higher taxonomic groups (phyla) demonstrated that this community can be effectively used in bioassessment even at phylum level analysis. In particular, we found that bryophytes, strictly linked with changes in substrate stability, show particular sensitivity to water regulation in mountain streams.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Arthington, A. H., King, J. M., O’Keeffe, J. H., Bunn, S. E., Day, J. A., Pusey, et al. (1992). Development of an holistic approach for assessing environmental flow requirements of riverine ecosystems. In J. J. Pilgram & B. P. Hooper (Eds.), Water allocation for the environment (pp. 69–76). Australia: The Centre for Water Policy Research, University of New England.
Baattrup-Pedersen, A., & Riis, T. (1999). Macrophyte diversity and composition in relation to substratum characteristics in regulated and unregulated Danish streams. Freshwater Biology, 42(2), 375–385.
Barendregt, A., & Bio, A. M. F. (2003). Relevant variables to predict macrophyte communities in running waters. Ecological Modelling, 160, 205–217.
Benítez-Mora, A., & Camargo, J. A. (2014). Ecological responses of aquatic macrophytes and benthic macroinvertebrates to dams in the Henares River Basin (Central Spain). Hydrobiologia, 728, 167–178.
Bernez, I., & Ferreira, T. (2007). River macrophytes in regulated mediterranean-type rivers of southern Portugal. Belgian Journal of Botany, 140(1), 136–139.
Bernez, I., Daniel, H., Haury, J., & Ferreira, M. T. (2004). Combined effects of environmental factors and regulation on macrophyte vegetation along three rivers in western France. River Research and Applications, 20, 43–59.
Biggs, B. J. F. (1996). Hydraulic habitat of plants in streams. Regulated Rivers: Research & Management, 12, 131–144.
Brookes, A. (1994). River channel change. In P. Calow & G. E. Petts (Eds.), The rivers handbook vol 2 (pp. 55–75). London: Blackwell Scientific Publications.
Bunn, S. E., & Arthington, A. H. (2002). Basic principles and ecological consequences of altered flow regimes for aquatic biodiversity. Environmental Management, 30, 492–507.
Casanova, M. T., & Brock, M. A. (2000). How do depth, duration and frequency of flooding influence the establishment of wetland plant communities? Plant Ecology, 147, 237–250.
Ceschin, S., Aleffi, M., Bisceglie, S., Savo, V., & Zuccarello, V. (2012). Aquatic bryophytes as ecological indicators of the water quality status in the Tiber river basin (Italy). Ecological Indicators, 14, 74–81.
Ceschin, S., Minciardi, M. R., Spada, C. D., & Abati, S. (2015). Bryophytes of Alpine and Apennine mountain streams: floristic features and ecological notes. Cryptogamie Bryologie, 36(3), 1–17.
Daniel, H., Bernez, I., & Haury, J. (2006). Relationships between macrophytic vegetation and physical features of river habitats: the need for a morphological approach. Hydrobiologia, 270, 11–17.
De Cáceres, M., Legendre, P., & Moretti, M. (2010). Improving indicator species analysis by combining groups of sites. Oikos, 119(10), 1674–1684.
Demars, B. O. L., Potts, J. M., Trémolières, M., Thiébaut, G., Gougelin, N., & Nordmann, V. (2012). River macrophyte indices: not the Holy Grail. Freshwater Biology, 57, 1745–1759.
Dolédec, S., & Chessel, D. (1994). Co-inertia analysis: an alternative method to study species-environment relationships. Freshwater Biology, 31, 277–294.
Downes, B. J., Entwisle, T. J., & Reich, P. (2003). Effects of flow regulation on disturbance frequencies and in-channel bryophytes and macroalgae in some upland streams. River Research and Applications, 19, 27–42.
Dufrêne, M., & Legendre, P. (1997). Species assemblages and indicator species: the need for a flexible asymmetrical approach. Ecological Monographs, 67(3), 345–366.
Englund, G., Jonsson, B. G., & Malmqvist, B. (1997). Effects of flow regulation on bryophytes in north Swedish rivers. Biological Conservation, 79(1), 79–86.
European Union (2013). Commission Decision 2013/480/EU establishing, pursuant to Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, the values of the Member State monitoring system classifications as a result of the intercalibration exercise and repealing Decision 2008/915/EC.
Fayolle, S., Cazaubon, A., Comte, K., & Franquet, E. (1998). The intermediate disturbance hypothesis: application of this concept to the response of epilithon in a regulated Mediterranean river (Lower-Durance, southeastern France). Archiv Fur Hydrobiologie, 143, 57–77.
Ferreira, M. T., & Moreira, I. S. (1999). River plants from an Iberian basin and environmental factors influencing their distribution. Hydrobiologia, 415, 101–107.
Ferreira, M. T., Rodríguez-González, P., Aguiar, F. C., & Albuquerque, A. (2005). Assessing biotic integrity in Iberian rivers: development of a multimetric plant index. Ecological Indicators, 5, 137–149.
Franklin, P., Dunbar, M. J., & Whitehead, P. (2008). Flow controls on lowland river macrophytes: a review. The Science of the Total Environment, 400, 369–378.
Friberg, N., O’Hare, M. T., & Poulsen, A. M. (Eds.) (2013). Impacts of hydromorphological degradation and disturbed sediment dynamics on ecological status. REstoring rivers FOR effective catchment Management Project. Deliverable D3.1.
Hammer, Ø., Harper, D. A. T., & Ryan, P. D. (2001). PAST: paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontologia Electronica, 4(1), 1–9.
Haslam, S. M. (1978). River plants: the macrophytic vegetation of watercourses. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Haury, J., Peltre, M. C., Muller, S., Tremolieres, M., Barbe, J., Dutartre, A., et al. (1996). Des indices macrophytiques pour estimer la qualitè des cours d’eau francais: premieres propositions. Ecologie, 27, 233–244.
Hayek, L. C., & Buzas, M. A. (2010). Surveying natural populations. New York: Columbia U Press.
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2, e124.
Janauer, G. A., Schmidt-Mumm, U., & Schmidt, B. (2010). Aquatic macrophytes and water current velocity in the Danube River. Ecological Engineering, 36, 1138–1145.
Jowett, I. G., & Biggs, B. J. F. (2008). Application of the ‘natural flow paradigm’ in a New Zealand context. River Research and Applications, 25, 1126–1135.
Lowe, R. L. (1979). Phytobenthic ecology and regulated streams. In J. V. Ward & J. A. Standford (Eds.), The ecology of regulated rivers (pp. 25–34). New York: Plenum Press.
Madsen, J. D., Chambers, P. A., James, W. F., Koch, E. W., & Westlake, D. F. (2001). The interaction between water movement, sediment dynamics and submersed macrophytes. Hydrobiologia, 444, 71–84.
Mebane, C. A., Simon, N. S., & Maret, T. R. (2014). Linking nutrient enrichment and streamflow to macrophytes in agricultural streams. Hydrobiologia, 722, 143–158.
Mielke, P. W., Berry, K. J., & Johnson, E. S. (1976). Multi-response permutation procedures for a priori classifications. Communications in Statistics – Theory and Methods, 5, 1409–1424.
Minciardi, M. R., Spada, C. D., Rossi, G. L., Angius, R., Orrù, G., Mancini, L., et al. (2009). Metodo per la valutazione e la classificazione dei corsi d’acqua utilizzando la comunità delle Macrofite acquatiche. Rapporto Tecnico ENEA RT/2009/23/ENEA, Roma.
Minciardi, M. R., Spada C. D., Abati S., Ciadamidaro, S., & Fiorenza, A. (2014). Protocollo di campionamento e analisi delle macrofite dei corsi d’acqua guadabili, in: ISPRA. Metodi biologici per le acque superficiali interne. Manuali e linee guida, 111/2014.
Newman, J. R., Dawson, F. H., Holmes, N. T. H., Chadd, S., Rouen, K. J., & Sharp, L. (1997). Mean trophic rank: a user’s manual. Bristol: Environment Agency of England & Wales.
Petts, G. E. (1984). Impounded rivers: perspectives for ecological management. Chichester: Wiley.
Poff, N. L., & Hart, D. D. (2002). How dams vary and why it matters for the emerging science of dam removal. BioScience, 52, 659–668.
Poff, N. L., & Zimmerman, J. K. H. (2010). Ecological responses to altered flow regimes: a literature review to inform environmental flows science and management. Freshwater Biology, 55(1), 194–205.
Poff, N. L., Allan, J. D., Bain, M. B., Karr, J. R., Prestegaard, K. L., Richter, et al. (1997). The natural flow regime. BioScience, 47, 769–784.
R Core Team. (2014). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
Rehn, A. C. (2009). Benthic macroinvertebrates as indicators of biological condition below hydropower dams on west slope Sierra Nevada streams, California, USA. River Research and Applications, 25, 208–228.
Riis, T., & Biggs, B. J. F. (2003). Hydrologic and hydraulic control of macrophyte establishment and performance in streams. Limnology and Oceanography, 48, 1488–1497.
Riis, T., Suren, A. M., Clausen, B., & Sand-Jensen, K. (2008). Vegetation and flow regime in lowland streams. Freshwater Biology, 53, 1531–1543.
Robert, P., & Escoufier, Y. (1976). A unifying tool for linear multivariate statistical methods: the RV-coefficient. Applied Statistics, 25, 257–265.
Rørslett, B., Mjelde, M., & Johansen, S. W. (1989). Effects of hydropower development on aquatic macrophytes in Norwegian rivers: present state of knowledge and some case studies. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management, 3, 19–28.
Schank, J. C., & Koehnle, T. J. (2009). Pseudoreplication is a pseudoproblem. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 123, 421–433.
Schaumburg, J., Schranz, C., Foerster, J., Gutowski, A., Hofmann, G., Meilinger, et al. (2004). Ecological classification of macrophytes and phytobenthos for rivers in Germany according to the Water Framework Directive. Limnologica, 34, 283–301.
Schneider, S., Krumpholz, T., & Melzer, A. (2000). Trophieindikation in Fließgewässern mit Hilfe des TIM (Trophie-Index Makrophyten) – Erprobung eines neu entwickelten Index im Inninger Bach. Acta Hydrochimica et Hydrobiologica, 28, 241–249.
Sculthorpe, C. D. (1966). The biology of aquatic vascular plants. London: Edward Arnold Ltd.
Slack, N. G., & Glime, J. M. (1985). Niche relationships of mountain stream bryophytes. The Bryologist, 88, 7–18.
Suren, A. M., & Duncan, M. J. (1999). Rolling stones and mosses: effect of substrate stability on bryophyte communities in streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 18, 457–467.
Tharme, R. E. (2003). A global perspective on environmental flow assessment: emerging trends in the development and application of environmental flow methodologies for rivers. River Research and Applications, 19, 397–441.
Tombolini, I., Caneva, G., Cancellieri, L., Abati, S., & Ceschin, S. (2014). Damming effects on riparian and aquatic vegetation: the Nazzano case study (Tiber River, central Italy). Knowledge and Management of Aquatic Ecosystems. doi:10.1051/kmae/2013085.
Vanderpoorten, A., & Klein, P. J. (2000). Aquatic bryophyte assemblages along a gradient of regulation in the river Rhine. Hydrobiologia, 410, 11–16.
Vieira, C., Séneca, A., Sérgio, C., & Ferreira, M. T. (2012). Bryophyte taxonomic and functional groups as indicators of fine scale ecological gradients in mountain streams. Ecological Indicators, 18, 98–107.
Vörösmarty, C. J., McIntyre, P. B., Gessner, M. O., Dudgeon, D., Prusevich, A., Green, P., et al. (2010). Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity. Nature, 467, 555–561.
Wehr, J. D., & Sheath, R. G. (Eds.). (2003). Freshwater algae of north america: ecology and classification. Boston: Academic.
Wiegleb, G. (1984). A study of habitat conditions of the macrophytic vegetation in selected river systems in western Lower Saxony (Federal Republic of Germany). Aquatic Botany, 18, 313–352.
We are grateful to Dr. Concita Daniela Spada and Dr. Valeria Ginepri for their help in the field and laboratory work and to Dr. Gian Luigi Rossi for his comments improving the research design.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
(PDF 14 kb)
About this article
Cite this article
Abati, S., Minciardi, M.R., Ciadamidaro, S. et al. Response of macrophyte communities to flow regulation in mountain streams. Environ Monit Assess 188, 414 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-016-5420-2
- River flow regulation
- Alpine streams
- Aquatic plant
- Dam impact