Environmental factors influencing the species diversity of macrophytes in middle-sized streams in Latvia
- 206 Downloads
The species diversity of macrophytes and their abundance in middle-sized streams of Latvia were investigated. On the basis of environmental factors (stream width, water depth, substrate type, shading, and flow velocity), five major groups of streams were distinguished representing mutually exclusive macrophyte communities—(1) fast flowing streams on gravel substrates, (2) slow flowing streams on gravel substrates, (3) fast flowing streams on sandy substrates, (4) slow flowing streams on sandy substrates, and (5) streams with soft, silty substrates. A total of 48 macrophyte taxa were found in 72 surveyed sites. The most frequent species in the investigated streams were Sparganium emersum, S. erectum s.l., Nuphar lutea, Veronica beccabunga, as well as the invasive alien Elodea canadensis. The species richness ranged from 2 to 22 per site, and Shannon diversity index varied from 0.61 to 2.88. The highest species richness (22) was found in slow flowing streams with gravel substrates. Poor macrophyte composition was characteristic for fast flowing streams on sandy substrates.
KeywordsEnvironmental factors Macrophytes Middle-sized streams Latvia
The author was grateful to all his colleagues and friends for help in field surveys, especially to Agnese Priede, Gunta Spriņģe, and Egita Zviedre for advices and help. He also thanks an anonymous reviewer for highly useful comments. This study was financially supported by European Social Fund.
- Abolina, A., 2001. Latvijas sūnu saraksts. Latvijas Veģetācija 3: 47–87 (In Latvian).Google Scholar
- Dawson, F. H., 2002. Guidance for the field assessment of macrophytes of rivers within the STAR Project [available on internet at http://www.eu-star.at/frameset.htm].
- European Commission, 2000. Directive 2000/60/EC. Establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy. European Commission PE-CONS 3639/1/100 Rev 1, Luxembourg.Google Scholar
- Furse, M., D. Hering, O. Moog, P. Verdonschot, R. Johnson, K. Brabec, K. Gritzalis, A. Buffagni, P. Pinto, N. Friberg, J. Murray-Bligh, J. Kokes, R. Alber, P. Usseglio-Polatera, P. Haase, R. Sweeting, B. Bis, K. Szoszkiewicz, H. Soszka, G. Springe, F. Sporka & I. Krno, 2006. The STAR project: context, objectives and approaches. Hydrobiologia 566: 3–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Gavrilova, G. & V. Sulcs, 1999. Flora of Latvian vascular plants. List of taxa. Institute of Biology of University of Latvia, Laboratory of Botany, Riga: 136.Google Scholar
- Haslam, S. M., 2006. River Plants. The macrophytic vegetation of watercourses. 2nd revised ed. 438 pp.Google Scholar
- Holmes, N. T. H., J. R. Newman, S. Chadd, K. J. Rouen, L. Saint & F. H. Dawson, 1999. Mean Trophic Rank: A Users Manual. R&D Technical Report E38. Environment Agency of England & Wales, Bristol, UK.Google Scholar
- Klavins, M., V. Rodinov, I. Kokorite & I. Klavina, 1999. Chemical composition of surface waters of Latvia and runoff of dissolved substances from the territory of Latvia. Vatten 55: 97–108.Google Scholar
- McCune, B. & M. J. Mefford, 1999. PC-ORD. Multivariate Analyses of Ecological Data. Version 4.17. MjM Software, Gleneden Beach, Oregon USA.Google Scholar
- Preston, C. D. & J. M. Croft, 2001. Aquatic Plants in Britain and Ireland. Harley Books, Martins, Great Horkesley, Colchester, England: 356.Google Scholar
- Schaumburg, J., C. Schranz, J. Foerster, A. Gutowski, G. Hofmann, P. Meilinger, S. Schneider & U. Schmedtje, 2004. Ecological classification of macrophytes and phytobenthos for rivers in Germany according to the Water Framework Directive. Limnologica 34: 283–301.Google Scholar
- SPSS Inc., 2000. Systat for Windows, Version 10, SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL, USA.Google Scholar