Advertisement

Abundance and Diversity of Taxa Within the Genus Potamogeton in Slovenian Watercourses

  • Mateja Germ
  • Urška Kuhar
  • Alenka GaberščikEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

This contribution presents the species abundance and diversity of the taxa of genus Potamogeton in selected Slovenian watercourses. A total of 40 watercourses, divided into 1231 reaches were surveyed and 8 species of the genus Potamogeton were assessed. Among these, Potamogeton nodosus was the most abundant, followed by P. pectinatus and P. natans. P. crispus was found to be the most frequently encountered species found in 251 reaches. Three hybrids, P. × cooperi, P. × salicifolius and P. × zizii were also found, each in only one or two watercourses. Pondweeds accounted for 19.5 % of the total relative abundance of all macrophytes in the watercourses that were surveyed. Canonical correspondence analysis reveals that land use, structure of riparian zone, substrate quality and flow dynamics exert a significant effect on distribution and abundance of pondweeds. Potamogeton species that were detected have different indicator values.

Keywords

Genus Potamogeton Hybrid Abundance Watercourses Environmental parameters 

Notes

Acknlowledgement

This research was financed by the Slovenian Research Agency through the program “Biology of plants” (P1-0212).

References

  1. ARSO (Agencija republike Slovenije za okolje). (2001). Pregled stanja biotske raznovrstnosti in krajinske pestrosti v Sloveniji. Ljubljana: ARSO.Google Scholar
  2. Baattrup-Pedersen, A., & Riis, T. (1999). Macrophyte diversity and composition in relation to substratum characteristics in regulated and unregulated Danish streams. Freshwater Biology, 42, 375–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boylen, C.W., Eichler, L.W., & Madsen, J.D. (1999). Loss of native aquatic plant species in a community dominated by Eurasian watermilfoil. Hydrobiologia, 415, 207–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dar, N.A., Pandit, A.K., & Ganai, B.A. (2014). Factors affecting the distribution patterns of aquatic macrophytes. Limnological Review, 14(2), 75–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dykyjová, D., Košánová, A., Husák, Š., & Sládečková, A. (1985). Macrophytes and water pollution of the Zlatá Stoka (Golden Canal). Trebon Biosphere Reserve. Czechoslovakia. Archiv für Hydrobiologie, 105, 31–58.Google Scholar
  6. Germ, M., Gaberščik, A., & Urbanc-Berčič, O. (2000). The wider environmental assessment of river ecosystems = Širša okoljska ocena rečnega ekosistema. Acta Biologica Slovenica, 43(4), 13–19.Google Scholar
  7. Germ, M., Dolinšek, M., & Gaberščik, A. (2003). Macrophytes of the River Ižica – Comparison of species composition and abundance in the years 1996 and 2000. Archiv für Hydrobiologie, 147 (Suppl.), 181–193.Google Scholar
  8. Germ, M., Urbanc-Berčič, O., Janauer, G.A., Filzmoser, P., Exler, N., & Gaberščik, A. (2008). Macrophyte distribution pattern in the Krka River – The role of habitat quality. Fundamental and Applied Limnology / Archiv für Hydrobiologie, 162 (Suppl.), 145–155.Google Scholar
  9. Haslam, S.M. (1987). River plants of Western Europe. The macrophytic vegetation of watercourses of the European Economic Community. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Hrivnák, R., Oťaheľová, H., & Valachovič, M. (2009). Macrophyte distribution and ecological status of the Turiec river (Slovakia): Changes after seven years. Archives of Biological Science Belgrade, 61(2), 297–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kaplan, Z., & Fehrer, J. (2011). Erroneous identities of Potamogeton hybrids corrected by molecular analysis of plants from type clones. Takson, 60(3), 758–766.Google Scholar
  12. Kaplan, Z., Jarolímová, V., & Fehrer, J. (2013). Revision of chromosome numbers of Potamogetonaceae: A new basis for taxonomic and evolutionary implications. Preslia, 85, 421–482.Google Scholar
  13. Kennedy, M.P., Lang, P., Grimaldo, J.T., Martins, S.V., Bruce, A., & Hastie, A. (2015). Environmental drivers of aquatic macrophyte communities in southern tropical African rivers: Zambia as a case study. Aquatic Botany, 124, 19–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kohler, A. (1978) Methoden der Kartierung von Flora und Vegetation von Süßwasserbiotopen. Landschaft und Land, 10(2), 78–85.Google Scholar
  15. Kohler, A., & Janauer, G.A. (1995). Zur Methodik der Untersuchung von aquatischen Makrophyten in Flieβgewässern. In C. Steinberg, H. Bernhardt, & H. Klapper (Eds.), Handbuch Angewandte Limnologie (pp. 3–22). Landsberg/Lech: Ecomed Verlag.Google Scholar
  16. Kržič, N., Germ, M., Urbanc-Berčič, O., Kuhar, U., Janauer, G.A., & Gaberščik, A. (2007). The quality of the aquatic environment and macrophytes of karstic watercourses. Plant Ecology, 192, 107–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kuhar, U., Gregorc, T., Renčelj, M., Šraj-Kržič, N., & Gaberščik, A. (2007). Distribution of macrophytes and condition of the physical environment of streams flowing through agricultural landscape in north-eastern Slovenia. Limnologica, 37, 146–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kuhar, U., Germ, M., & Gaberščik, A. (2010). Habitat characteristics of the alien species Elodea canadensis in Slovenian watercourses. Hydrobiologia, 656(1), 205–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kuhar, U., Germ, M., Gaberščik, A., & Urbanič, G. (2011). Development of a River Macrophyte Index (RMI) for assessing river ecological status. Limnologica, 41, 235–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mackay, S.J., Arthington, A.H., Kennard, M.J., & Pusey, B.J. (2003). Spatial variation in the distribution and abundance of submersed macrophytes in an Australian subtropical river. Aquatic Botany, 77, 169–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Martinčič, A., Wraber, T., Jogan, N., Podobnik, A., Turk, B., Vreš, B., Ravnik, V., Frajman, B., Strgulc Krajšek, S., Trčak, B., Bačič, T., Fischer, M.A., Eler, K., & Surina, B. (2010). Mala flora Slovenije. Ljubljana: Tehniška založba Slovenije.Google Scholar
  22. Pall, K., & Janauer, G.A. (1995). Die Makrophytenvegetation von Flußstauen am Beispiel der Donau zwischen Fluß-km 2552.0 und 2511.8 in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Arhiv für Hydrobiologie, 101 (Suppl.), 91–109.Google Scholar
  23. Petersen, R.C. (1992). The RCE: A Riparian, Channel, and Environmental Inventory for small streams in the agricultural landscape. Freshwater Biology, 27, 295–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Preston, C.D. (2003). Pondweeds of Great Britain and Ireland. London: Botanical Society of the British Isles.Google Scholar
  25. Schneider, S., & Melzer, A. (2003). The trophic index of macrophytes (TIM)—A new tool for indicating the trophic state of running waters. International Review of Hydrobiology, 88, 49–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Biotechnical Faculty, Department of BiologyUniversity of LjubljanaLjubljanaSlovenia

Personalised recommendations