Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Diversity of macrophyte communities and their relationship to water quality in different types of lowland rivers in Poland

  • PLANTS IN HYDROSYSTEMS
  • Published:
Hydrobiologia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

    We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

    Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Abstract

The aim of the study was to verify botanical and ecological traits of river typology based on macrophytes. We compared diversities of macrophyte communities in different river types and their relationship to water quality. The 240 surveyed rivers were situated in the central-west of Poland in a lowland area. Species compositional similarities were analysed using the Jaccard index. The macrophyte matrix was classified into four groups: Large rivers (LR), Sandy rivers (SaR), Stony rivers (StR) and Organic rivers (OR). The highest level of homogeneity was found for LR, followed by OR, StR and SaR. The greatest differences in species composition were found between LR and StR. Variabilities of indices (species richness, Shannon, Simpson and Pielou indices, and total cover) confirmed the specific diversity patterns in the four types of rivers. All metrics based on relative abundance were strongly correlated with each other, and they were never correlated with water quality. The total covers of LR and OR as well as species richness of LR show some correlation with water quality. The total cover was correlated with water quality in OR and LR. The communities with the highest species richness were related with OR.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  • Baattrup-Pedersen, A., K. Sz1oszkiewicz, R. Nijboer, M. O’Hare & T. Ferreira, 2006. Macrophyte communities in unimpacted European streams: variability in assemblage patterns, abundance and diversity. Hydrobiologia 566: 179–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baattrup-Pedersen, A., G. Springe, T. Riis, S. E. Larsen, K. Sand-Jensen & L. M. Kjellerup Larsen, 2008. The search for reference conditions for stream vegetation in northern Europe. Freshwater Biology 53: 1890–1901.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birk, S. B. & N. J. Willby, 2010. Towards harmonization of ecological quality classification: establishing common grounds in European macrophyte assessment for rivers. Hydrobiologia 652: 149–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Budka, A., K. Borowiak, J. Zbierska, D. Kayzer & W. Krzesiński, 2011. Application of a multidimensional linear model to compare degrees of tobacco leaf injury caused by tropospheric ozone at rural and urban exposure sites. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin 4: 969–975.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, K. R., 1993. Non-parametric multivariate analysis of change in community structure. Australian Journal of Ecology 10: 117–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Digby, P. G. & R. A. Kempton, 1987. Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Communities. Chapman and Hall, London.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dodkins, I., B. Rippey, T. J. Harrington, C. Bradley, B. N. Chathain, M. Kelly, M. Quinn, M. McGarrigle, S. Hodge & D. Trigg, 2005. Developing an optimal river typology for biological elements within the Water Framework Directive. Water Research 39: 3479–3486.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • ECOSTAT (CIS WG 2.A Ecological Status), 2004. Overview of common intercalibration types. Final version for finalisation of the intercalibration network spring 2004. Version 5.1, 23 April 2004. Joint Research Centre, Ispra.

  • Engelhardt, K. A. M. & M. E. Ritchie, 2001. Effects of macrophyte species richness on wetland ecosystem functioning and services. Nature 411: 687–689.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission, 2000. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament: establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. Official Journal of the European Communities L 327: 1–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira, M. T., A. Albuquerque, F. C. Aguiar & N. Sidorkewicz, 2002. Assessing reference sites and ecological quality of river plant assemblages from an Iberian basin using a multivariate approach. Archiv für Hydrobiologie 155: 121–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haury, J., M.-C. Peltre, M. Tremolieres, J. Barbe, G. Thiebaut, I. Bernez, H. Daniel, P. Chatenet, G. Haan-Archipof, S. Muller, A. Dutartre, C. Laplace-Treyture, A. Cazaubon & E. Lambert-Servien, 2006. A new method to assess water trophy and organic pollution – the Macrophyte Biological Index for Rivers (IBMR): its application to different types of river and pollution. Hydrobiologia 570: 153–158.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jaccard, P., 1912. The distribution of flora in the alpine zone. The New Phytologist 11(2): 37–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, J. E., 1991. User’s Guide to Principal Components. Wiley, New York.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jolliffe, I. T., 2002. Principal Component Analysis. Springer, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kayzer, D., K. Borowiak, A. Budka & J. Zbierska, 2009. Study of interaction in bioindication research on tobacco plant injuries caused by ground level ozone. Environmetrics 20: 666–675.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lejeune, M. & T. Caliński, 2000. Canonical analysis applied to multivariate analysis of variance. Journal of Multivariate Analysis 72: 100–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meilinger, P., S. Schneider & A. Melzer, 2005. The Reference Index method for the macrophyte-based assessment of rivers – a contribution to the implementation of the European Water Framework Directive in Germany. International Review of Hydrobiology 90(3): 322–342.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pielou, E. C., 1969. An Introduction to Mathematical Ecology. Wiley-Interscience, New York.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shannon, C. E. & W. Weaver, 1949. The Mathematical Theory of Communication. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, E. H., 1949. Measurement of diversity. Nature 163: 688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szoszkiewicz, K., Sz. Jusik, A. E. Ławniczak, T. Zgola & M. Szwabińska, 2010a. Variation of macrophytes in different types of reference lowland rivers [in Polish]. Woda-Środowisko-Obszary Wiejskie 10, 3(31): 297–308.

  • Szoszkiewicz, K., J. Zbierska, Sz. Jusik & T. Zgoła, 2010b. Macrophyte river assessment method. A textbook on assessment and classification of rivers based on aquatic plants [in Polish]. Bogucki Wydawnictwo Naukowe Poznań.

  • Szoszkiewicz, K., J. Zbierska, R. Staniszewski & Sz. Jusik, 2009. The variability of macrophyte metrics used in river monitoring. Oceanological and Hydrobiological Studies 38: 117–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tai, G. C. C., 1999. Canonical variate analysis of genotype environment interactions. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 79(3): 427–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Bund, W. J., 2009. Water Framework Directive Intercalibration Technical Report. Part 1: rivers. JRC Scientific and Technical Reports.

  • Van de Weyer, K., 2003. Kartieranleitung zur Erfassung und Bewertung der aquatischen Makrophyten der Fließgewässer in NRW gemäß den Vorgaben der EU-Wasser-Rahmenrichtlinie. Landesumweltamt Nordrhein-Westfalen (LUA), Merkblätter 39: 1–60.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ecology and Environment Protection, Poznan University of Life Sciences, Poznan, Poland

    Krzysztof Szoszkiewicz

  2. Department of Mathematical and Statistical Methods, Poznan University of Life Sciences, Poznan, Poland

    Anna Budka & Dariusz Kayzer

  3. Provincial Environmental Inspectorate, Poznan, Poland

    Karol Pietruczuk

Authors
  1. Krzysztof Szoszkiewicz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anna Budka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dariusz Kayzer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Karol Pietruczuk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Krzysztof Szoszkiewicz.

Additional information

Guest editors: M. T. Ferreira, M. O’Hare, K. Szoszkiewicz & S. Hellsten / Plants in Hydrosystems: From Functional Ecology to Weed Research

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Szoszkiewicz, K., Budka, A., Kayzer, D. et al. Diversity of macrophyte communities and their relationship to water quality in different types of lowland rivers in Poland. Hydrobiologia 737, 77–85 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-013-1698-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-013-1698-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation