Wetlands

, Volume 34, Issue 3, pp 413–425 | Cite as

Thresholds in the Response of Free-Floating Plant Abundance to Variation in Hydraulic Connectivity, Nutrients, and Macrophyte Abundance in a Large Floodplain River

  • Shawn M. Giblin
  • Jeffrey N. Houser
  • John F. Sullivan
  • Heidi A. Langrehr
  • James T. Rogala
  • Benjamin D. Campbell
Article

Abstract

Duckweed and other free-floating plants (FFP) can form dense surface mats that affect ecosystem condition and processes, and can impair public use of aquatic resources. FFP obtain their nutrients from the water column, and the formation of dense FFP mats can be a consequence and indicator of river eutrophication. We conducted two complementary surveys of diverse aquatic areas of the Upper Mississippi River as an in situ approach for estimating thresholds in the response of FFP abundance to nutrient concentration and physical conditions in a large, floodplain river. Local regression analysis was used to estimate thresholds in the relations between FFP abundance and phosphorus (P) concentration (0.167 mg l−1), nitrogen (N) concentration (0.808 mg l−1), water velocity (0.095 m s−1), and aquatic macrophyte abundance (65 % cover). FFP tissue concentrations suggested P limitation was more likely in spring, N limitation was more likely in late summer, and N limitation was most likely in backwaters with minimal hydraulic connection to the channel. The thresholds estimated here, along with observed patterns in nutrient limitation, provide river scientists and managers with criteria to consider when attempting to modify FFP abundance in off-channel areas of large river systems.

Keywords

Mississippi River Free-floating plants Duckweed Nitrogen Phosphorus Connectivity 

References

  1. Amoros C, Bornette G (2002) Connectivity and biocomplexity in waterbodies of riverine floodplains. Freshw Biol 47:761–776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. APHA (1992) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 18th edn. American Public Health Association, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  3. Boedeltje G, Smolders A, Roelofs J, Van Groenendael J (2001) Constructed shallow zones along navigation canals: vegetation establishment and change in relation to habitat characteristics. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshwat Ecosyst 11:453–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boedeltje G, Smolders A, Lamers L, Roelofs J (2005) Interactions between sediment propagule banks and sediment nutrient fluxes explain floating plant dominance in stagnant shallow waters. Arch Hydrobiol 162:349–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Croft MV, Chow-Fraswer P (2007) Use and development of the wetland macrophyte index to detect water quality impairment in fish habitat of Great Lakes coastal marshes. J Great Lakes Res 33:172–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. De Groot WT, De Jong FM, Van den Berg MM (1987) Population dynamics of duckweed cover in polder ditches. Arch Hydrobiol 109:601–618Google Scholar
  7. Demars BOL, Edwards AC (2007) Tissue nutrient concentrations in freshwater aquatic macrophytes: high inter-taxon differences and low phenotypic response to nutrient supply. Freshw Biol 52:2073–2086CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Duffield AN, Edwards RW (1981) Predicting the distribution of Lemna spp. in a complex system of drainage channels. In: Proceedings of the association of applied biologists conference aquatic weeds and their controls: 59–65Google Scholar
  9. Fontanarrosa MS, Chaparro G, de Tezanos PP, Rodriguez P, O’Farrell I (2010) Zooplankton response to shading effects of free-floating plants in shallow warm temperate lakes: a field mesocosm experiment. Hydrobiologia 646:231–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gray BR, Shi W, Houser JN, Rogala JT, Guan Z, Cochran-Biederman JL (2010) Cumulative effects of restoration efforts on ecological characteristics of an open water area within the Upper Mississippi River. River Res Appl 27:537–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hall JA, Cox N (1995) Nutrient concentrations as predictors of nuisance Hydrodiction reticulatum populations in New Zealand. J Aquat Plant Manag 33:68–74Google Scholar
  12. Hall SR, Smith VH, Lytle DA, Leibold MA (2005) Constraints on primary producer N:P stoichiometry along N:P supply ratio gradients. Ecology 86:1894–1904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Houser JN, Richardson WB (2010) Nitrogen and phosphorus in the Upper Mississippi River: transport, processing, and effects on the river ecosystem. Hydrobiologia 640:71–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Houser JN, Giblin SM, James WF, Langrehr HA, Rogala JT, Sullivan JF, Gray BR (2013) Nutrient cycling, connectivity and free-floating plant abundance in backwater lakes of the Upper Mississippi River. River Systems 21:71–89Google Scholar
  15. James WF, Barko JW (2004) Diffusive fluxes and equilibrium processes in relation to phosphorus dynamics in the Upper Mississippi River. River Res Appl 20:473–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. James WF, Barko JW, Eakin HL (1995) Internal phosphorus loading in Lake Pepin, Upper Mississippi River. J Freshw Ecol 10:269–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. James WF, Richardson WB, Soballe DM (2008) Contribution of sediment fluxes and transformations to the summer nitrogen budget of an Upper Mississippi River backwater system. Hydrobiologia 598:95–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Janse JH, Van Puijenbroek PJTM (1998) Effects of eutrophication in drainage ditches. Environ Pollut 102:547–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Johnson BL, Knights BC, Barko JW, Gaugush RF, Soballe DM, James WF (1998) Estimating flow rates to optimize winter habitat for Centrarchid fish in Mississippi River (USA) backwaters. Regul Rivers Res Manag 14:499–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Klausmeier CA, Litchman E, Levin SA (2004) Phytoplankton growth and stoichiometry under multiple nutrient limitation. Limnol Oceanogr 42:1463–1470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Knowlton MF, Jones JR (1997) Trophic status of Missouri River floodplain lakes in relation to basin type and connectivity. Wetlands 17:468–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Landolt E, Kandeler R (1987) The family of Lemnaceae- a monographic study, vol 2. Veroff. Geobot. Inst. ETH, Stiftung Rubel, ZurichGoogle Scholar
  23. Luond A (1990) The development of some Lemnaceae under different nutrient conditions. Folia Geobot Phytotaxon 25:309–314Google Scholar
  24. Makarewicz JC, D’Aiuto PE, Bosch I (2007) Elevated nutrient levels from agriculturally dominated watersheds stimulate metaphyton growth. J Great Lakes Res 33:437–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McDougal RL, Goldsborough LG, Hann BJ (1997) Responses of a prairie wetland to press and pulse additions of inorganic nitrogen and phosphorus: production by planktonic and benthic algae. Arch Hydrobiol 140:145–167Google Scholar
  26. Moore MJC, Langrehr HA, Angradi TR (2012) A submersed macrophyte index of condition for the Upper Mississippi River. Ecol Indic 13:196–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Morris K, Bailey PC, Boon PI, Hughes L (2003) Alternative stable states in aquatic vegetation of shallow urban lakes. II. Catastrophic loss of aquatic plants consequent to nutrient enrichment. Mar Freshw Res 54:201–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Neill C, Cornwell JC (1992) Stable carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur isotopes in a prairie marsh food web. Wetlands 12:217–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. O’Farrell I, de Tezanos PP, Rodriguez P, Chaparro G, Pizzaro H (2009) Experimental evidence of the dynamic effect of free-floating plants on phytoplankton ecology. Freshw Biol 54:363–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Parr LB, Mason CF (2004) Causes of low oxygen in a lowland, regulated eutrophic river in Eastern England. Sci Total Environ 321:273–286PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Peck JH, Smart MM (1986) An assessment of the aquatic and wetland vegetation of the Upper Mississippi River. Hydrobiologia 136:57–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pokorny J, Rejmankova E (1983) Oxygen regime in a fishpond with duckweeds (Lemnaceae) and Ceratophyllum. Aquat Bot 17:125–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Portielje R, Roijackers RMM (1995) Primary succession of aquatic macrophytes in experimental ditches in relation to nutrient input. Aquat Bot 50:127–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Richardson WB, Strauss EA, Bartsch LA, Monroe EM, Cavanaugh JC, Vingum L, Soballe D (2004) Denitrification in the Upper Mississippi River: rates, controls, and contribution to nitrate flux. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 61:1102–1112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rodrigues RMNV, Williams PJB (2002) Inorganic nitrogen assimilation by picoplankton and whole plankton in a coastal ecosystem. Limnol Oceanogr 47:1608–1616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Roijackers RMM, Szabo S, Scheffer M (2004) Experimental analysis of the competition between algae and duckweed. Archiv für Hydrobiolgie 160:401–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. SAS Institute Inc. (2008) SAS Version 9.2, Cary, North Carolina, USAGoogle Scholar
  38. Scheffer M, Szabo S, Gragnani A, Van Nes EH, Rinaldi S, Katusky N, Norberg J, Roijackers R, Franken R (2003) Floating plant dominance as a stable state. Proc Natl Acad Sci 100:4040–4045PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Soballe DM, Fischer JR (2004) Long Term Resource Monitoring Program Procedures: Water quality monitoring. U.S. Geological Survey, Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center: La Crosse, Wisconsin, March 2004. Technical Report LTRMP 2004-T002-1 (Ref. 95-P002-5). 73 pp. + Appendixes A-JGoogle Scholar
  40. Sparks RE (1995) Need for ecosystem management of large rivers and their floodplains. Bioscience 45:168–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sterner RW, Elser JJ (2002) Ecological stoichiometry: the biology of elements from molecules to the biosphere. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USAGoogle Scholar
  42. Strauss EA, Richardson WB, Bartsch LA, Cavanaugh JC, Bruesewitz DA, Imker H, Heinz JA, Soballe DM (2004) Nitrification in the Upper Mississippi River: patterns, controls, and contribution to the NO3 - budget. J N Am Benthol Soc 23:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Szabo S, Roijackers R, Scheffer M, Borics G (2005) The strength of limiting factors for duckweed during algal competition. Arch Hydrobiol 164:127–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Szabo S, Scheffer M, Roijackers R, Waluto B, Braun M, Nagy PT, Borics G, Zambrano L (2010) Strong growth limitation of a floating plant (Lemna gibba) by the submerged macrophyte (Elodea nuttallii) under laboratory conditions. Freshw Biol 55:681–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tockner K, Pennetzdorfer D, Reiner N, Schiemer F, Ward JV (1999) Hydrological connectivity, and the exchange of organic matter and nutrients in a dynamic river-floodplain system (Danube, Austria). Freshw Biol 41:521–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wilcox DB (1993) An aquatic habitat classification system for the Upper Mississippi River system. LTRMP Technical Report No. 93-T003. US Geological Survey Environmental Management Technical Center: Onalaska, WisconsinGoogle Scholar
  47. Yin Y, Winkelman JS, Langrehr HA (2000) Long Term Resource Monitoring Program procedures: Aquatic vegetation monitoring. U.S. Geological Survey, Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center, La Crosse, Wisconsin. April 2000. LTRMP 95-P002-7. 8 pp. + Appendixes A-CGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Wetland Scientists 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shawn M. Giblin
    • 1
  • Jeffrey N. Houser
    • 3
  • John F. Sullivan
    • 2
  • Heidi A. Langrehr
    • 1
  • James T. Rogala
    • 3
  • Benjamin D. Campbell
    • 1
  1. 1.Wisconsin Department of Natural ResourcesMississippi River Monitoring Field StationLa CrosseUSA
  2. 2.Wisconsin Department of Natural ResourcesLa CrosseUSA
  3. 3.Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences CenterUS Geological SurveyLa CrosseUSA

Personalised recommendations