Abstract
Aquatic macrophytes are one of the biological quality elements in the Water Framework Directive (WFD) for which status assessments must be defined. We tested two methods to classify macrophyte species and their response to eutrophication pressure: one based on percentiles of occurrence along a phosphorous gradient and another based on trophic ranking of species using Canonical Correspondence Analyses in the ranking procedure. The methods were tested at Europe-wide, regional and national scale as well as by alkalinity category, using 1,147 lakes from 12 European states. The grouping of species as sensitive, tolerant or indifferent to eutrophication was evaluated for some taxa, such as the sensitive Chara spp. and the large isoetids, by analysing the (non-linear) response curve along a phosphorous gradient. These thresholds revealed in these response curves can be used to set boundaries among different ecological status classes. In total 48 taxa out of 114 taxa were classified identically regardless of dataset or classification method. These taxa can be considered the most consistent and reliable indicators of sensitivity or tolerance to eutrophication at European scale. Although the general response of well known indicator species seems to hold, there are many species that were evaluated differently according to the database selection and classification methods. This hampers a Europe-wide comparison of classified species lists as used for the status assessment within the WFD implementation process.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barko JW, Adams MS, Clesceri NL (1986) Environmental factors and their consideration in the management of submersed aquatic vegetation—a review. J Aquat Plan Manag 24:1–10
Birk S, Korte T, Hering D (2006) Intercalibration of assessment methods for macrophytes in lowland streams: direct comparison and analysis of common metrics. Hydrobiologia 566:417–430
CEN (2006) Water quality—guidance standard for the surveying of macrophytes in lakes. prEn 15460
Coops H, Kerkum FCM, van den Berg MS, van Splunder I (2007) Submerged macrophyte vegetation and the European Water Framework Directive: assessment of status and trends in shallow, alkaline lakes in the Netherlands. Hydrobiologia 584:395–402
Covaliov S, van Geest G, Hanganu J, Hulea O, Torok L, Coops H (2003) Seasonality of macrophyte dominance in flood-pulsed lakes of the Danube Delta. Hydrobiologia 506(1–3):651–656
Ecke F (2006) Kompletterande utredningar för revideringen av bedömningsgrunder för makrofyter i sjöar. Report, Institutionen för tillämpad kemi och geovetenskap, Luleå tekniska universitet, 28 pp
Free G, Little R, Tierney D, Donnelly K, Caroni R (2006) A reference based typology and ecological assessment system for Irish lakes-preliminary investigations. Environmental Protection Agency, Wexford. www.epa.ie
Gibson CE, Foy RH, Bailey-Watts AE (1996) An analysis of the total phosphorus cycle in some temperate lakes: the response to enrichment. Freshw Biol 35(3):525–532
Heiskanen AS, Van der Bund WJ, Cardoso AC, Noges P (2004) Towards good ecological status of surface waters in Europe—interpretation and harmonisation of the concept. Water Sci Technol 49(7):169–177
Hill MO, Ellenberg H (1999) Ellenberg’s indicator values for British plants: technical annex. ECOFACT research report S. Stationery Office Books. ISBN: 1870393481
James FJ, Barko JW, Butler MG (2004) Shear stress and sediment resuspension in relation to macrophyte biomass. Hydrobiologia 515:181–191
Kirk JTO (1994) Light and photosynthesis in aquatic ecosystems, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, 509 pp
Kurimo U (1970) Effect of pollution on the aquatic macroflora of the Varkaus area, Finnish Lake District. Ann Bot Fenn 7:213–254
Lamers LPM, Smolders AJP, Roelofs JGM (2002) The restoration of fens in the Netherlands. In: Nienhuis PH, Gulati R (eds) The ecological restoration of wetlands in the Netherlands. Kluwer, Amsterdam. Also in Hydrobiologia 478:107–130
Leka J, Toivonen H, Leikola N, Hellsten S (2007) Makrofyytit Suomen järvien ekologisen tilan ilmentäjinä. Valtakunnallisen makrofyyttiaineiston käyttö ekologisen tila-luokittelun kehittämisessä. Suomen ympäristö, 42 p. + app
Leyssen A, Adriaens P, Denys L, Packet J, Schneiders A, Van Looy K, Vanhecke L (2005) Toepassing van verschillende biologische beoordelingssystemen op Vlaamse potentiele interkalibratielocaties overeenkomstig de Europese Kaderrichtlijn Water – Partim ‘Macrofyten’. Rapport van het Instituut voor Natuurbehoud IN.R. 2005.05 in opdracht van VMM, Brussel
Lyche Solheim A (ed) (2005) Reference conditions of European lakes. Indicators and methods for the Water Framework Directive Assessment of Reference Conditions. REBECCA report D7. www.rbm-toolbox.net/docstore/docs/3.1713.D7-uusi.pdf
Lyche Solheim A (ed) (2006) Dose-response relationships between biological and chemical elements in different lake types. REBECCA report D11. www.rbm-toolbox.net/docstore/docs/3.1713.D11.pdf
Mäkirinta U (1978) Ein neues ökomorphologisches Lebensformen-System der aquatischen Makrophyten. Phytocoenologia 4:446–470
Moe SJ, Dudley B, Ptacnik R (2008) REBECCA databases: experiences from compilation and analyses of monitoring data from 5,000 lakes in 20 European countries. Aquat Ecol. doi:10.1007/s10452-008-9190-y
Mjelde M (2007) Macrophytes and eutrophication in lakes (unpublished)
Moss B, Stephen D, Alvarezn C, Becares E, Van der Bund W, Collings SE et al (2003) The determination of ecological status in shallow lakes—a tested system (ECOFRAME) for implementation of the European Water Framework Directive. Aquatic Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst 13:507–549
Murphy KJ (2002) Plant communities and plant diversity in softwater lakes of Northern Europe. Aquat Bot 73(4):287–324
Murphy KJ, Rørslett B, Springuel I (1990) Strategy analysis of submerged lake macrophyte communities: an International example. Aquat Bot 36:303–323
Palmer MA, Bell SL, Butterfield I (1992) A botanical classification of standing waters in Britain: applications for conservation and monitoring. Aquatic Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst 2:125–143
Penning WE, Dudley B, Mjelde M, Hellsten S, Hanganu J, Kolada A, Van den Berg M, Poikane S, Phillips G, Willby N, Ecke F (2008) Using aquatic macrophyte community indices to define the ecological status of European lakes. Aquatic Ecol. doi:10.1007/s10452-008-9183-x
Pot R (2003) Veldgids nr. 17: Veldgids Water- en oeverplanten, -352. KNNV Uitgeverij & STOWA, Utrecht
Rørslett B (1991) Principal determinants of aquatic macrophyte richness in northern European lakes. Aquat Bot 39:173–193
Schaminee JHJ, Weeda EJ, Westhof V (1995) De vegetatie van Nederland. Deel 2. Plantengemeenschappen van wateren, moerassen en natte heiden. Opulus Press, Uppsala, Leiden
Schaumburg J, Schranz C, Hofmann G, Stelzer D, Schneider S, Schmedtje U (2004) Macrophytes and phytobenthos as indicators of ecological status in German lakes—a contribution to the implementation of the Water Framework Directive. Limnologica 34:302–314
Søndergaard M, Jeppesen E, Peder JJ, Lildal SA (2005) Water Framework Directive: ecological classification of Danish lakes. J Appl Ecol 42(4):616–629
Stelzer D, Schneider S, Melzer A (2005) Macrophyte based assessment of lakes—a contribution to the implementation of the European Water Framework Directive in Germany. Int Rev Hydrobiol 90(2):223–237
Tόth LG, Poikane S, Penning WE, Free G, Mäemets H, Kolada A (2008) First steps of the central-baltic intercalibration exercise: from where do we start? Aquatic Ecol. doi:10.1007/s10452-008-9184-9
Van den Berg MS (2004) Achtergrondrapportage referenties en maatlatten waterflora. Rapportage van de expertgroepen macrofyten en fytoplankton. STOWA report
Van Geest G (2005) Macrophyte succession in floodplain lakes. Spatio-temporal patterns in relation to hydrology, lake morphology and management. Thesis, Wageningen University, The Netherlands
Willby N, Pitt J, Phillips G (2006) Summary of approach used in LEAFPACS for defining ecological quality of rivers and lakes using macrophyte composition. Draft Report January 2006
Acknowledgements
REBECCA was funded by the European Commission under the 6th Framework Program, Contract No.: SSP1-CT-2003-502158—REBECCA. The authors thank all intercalibration representatives who contributed to the realisation of the database and the formulation of ideas and concepts during discussions in REBECCA and GIG meetings, specifically Laszlo Tóth (JRC) and Deirdre Tierney (EPA, Ireland). We are grateful to those who supplied data to the REBECCA dataset of European macrophyte data: Heikki Toivonen (SYKE, Finland); Tapio Rintanen (Finland); Helle Mäemets (Centre for Limnology, Estonia), Luc DeNeijs (Institute of Nature Conservation, Belgium); Vaida Olsauskyte (Lithuanian Environmental Protection Agency, Lithuania); Hanna Soszka (Institute of Environmental Protection, Poland); Arie Naber (Institute for Inland Water Management and Waste Water Treatment, the Netherlands). Gary Free (EPA, Ireland) and Eddy Lammens (Institute for Inland Water Management and Waste Water Treatment, the Netherlands) provided valuable comments on earlier versions of this manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
List of species per species group included in REBECCA macrophyte study, with results of classifications. Column headings ‘P’ and ‘L’ represent methods based on percentiles or on LEAFPACS, respectively, and ‘n’ is the number of lakes in which a species occurred
Species | All | N-GIG | C-GIG | CH | CL | NH | NL | Norway | Finland | Latvia | |||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
P | n | P | n | P | n | P | L | n | P | L | n | P | L | n | P | L | n | P | n | P | n | P | n | ||
I | Baldellia ranunculoides | o | 8 | + | 5 | 1 | 1 | + | + | 4 | 1 | ||||||||||||||
I | Crassula aquatica | o | 24 | o | 24 | o | + | 24 | − | 8 | o | 8 | |||||||||||||
I | Elatine hexandra | − | 20 | o | 8 | − | 5 | 1 | + | + | 4 | o | + | 8 | 3 | ||||||||||
I | Elatine hydropiper | − | 131 | − | 128 | 1 | 1 | − | + | 124 | o | 13 | − | 74 | |||||||||||
I | Elatine orthosperma | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||
I | Elatine triandra | o | 57 | o | 57 | + | + | 56 | + | 5 | o | 41 | |||||||||||||
I | Eleocharis acicularis | − | 394 | − | 372 | − | 18 | − | − | 11 | − | − | 7 | + | + | 31 | − | − | 328 | − | 56 | − | 189 | − | 9 |
I | Eriocaulon aquaticum | − | 20 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||
I | Isoetes echinospora | − | 380 | − | 378 | 2 | − | − | 365 | − | 101 | − | 186 | ||||||||||||
I | Isoetes lacustris | − | 487 | − | 424 | − | 13 | 2 | − | − | 11 | 3 | − | − | 405 | − | 117 | − | 197 | − | 7 | ||||
I | Limosella aquatica | − | 23 | o | 23 | 1 | − | − | 22 | − | 11 | o | 4 | ||||||||||||
I | Littorella uniflora | − | 207 | − | 130 | − | 16 | − | − − | 7 | − | − | 9 | + | + | 12 | − | − | 118 | − | 55 | − | 16 | ||
I | Lobelia dortmanna | − | 292 | − | 260 | − | 4 | − | − | 4 | + | − | 6 | − | − | 251 | − | 81 | − | 102 | |||||
I | Lythrum portula | o | 13 | − | 12 | 1 | 1 | 1 | o | + | 11 | o | 7 | ||||||||||||
I | Ranunculus reptans | − | 462 | − | 462 | + | − | 21 | − | − | 419 | − | 88 | − | 256 | ||||||||||
I | Subularia aquatica | − | 323 | − | 319 | 3 | 3 | 2 | − | − | 302 | − | 75 | − | 157 | ||||||||||
E | Callitriche cophocarpa | o | 25 | + | 25 | 3 | + | + | 21 | + | 9 | + | 14 | ||||||||||||
E | Callitriche hamulata | − | 93 | − | 78 | o | 5 | 1 | − | − | 4 | 2 | − | − | 76 | − | 63 | 1 | |||||||
E | Callitriche hermaphroditica | o | 101 | − | 79 | o | 13 | o | − | 8 | + | + | 5 | + | − | 19 | − | + | 58 | − | 27 | − | 24 | ||
E | Callitriche palustris | o | 224 | − | 223 | 1 | 1 | o | − | 4 | − | − | 210 | − | 46 | o | 112 | ||||||||
E | Callitriche stagnalis | o | 15 | o | 8 | o | 5 | 3 | 2 | o | + | 8 | o | 6 | |||||||||||
E | Ceratophyllum demersum | + | 184 | + | 90 | + | 87 | + | + | 83 | + | + | 4 | + | + | 33 | + | + | 53 | + | 17 | o | 30 | + | 61 |
E | Elodea canadensis | o | 237 | o | 107 | o | 78 | o | − | 60 | + | + | 18 | + | + | 30 | − | + | 75 | o | 23 | o | 39 | o | 49 |
E | Elodea nuttallii | + | 20 | 2 | + | 15 | + | + | 14 | 1 | 2 | ||||||||||||||
E | Hydrilla verticillata | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||
E | Myriophyllum alterniflorum | − | 482 | − | 419 | − | 24 | − | − − | 11 | − | − | 13 | o | − − | 22 | − | − | 387 | − | 115 | − | 185 | − | 12 |
E | Myriophyllum sibiricum | − | 45 | − | 45 | − | − | 6 | − | + | 37 | − | 15 | − | 30 | ||||||||||
E | Myriophyllum spicatum | + | 184 | + | 68 | o | 90 | o | + | 79 | o | + | 11 | + | + | 44 | + | + | 24 | + | 9 | o | 56 | ||
E | Myriophyllum verticillatum | + | 79 | + | 53 | + | 26 | + | + | 24 | 2 | + | + | 13 | + | + | 38 | + | 5 | + | 28 | + | 16 | ||
E | Najas flexilis | o | 11 | + | 7 | 3 | + | + | 4 | 2 | 1 | ||||||||||||||
E | Najas marina | + | 24 | + | 24 | + | − | 24 | |||||||||||||||||
E | Najas tenuissima | − | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||
E | Potamogeton acutifolius | 2 | 2 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||
E | Potamogeton alpinus | − | 311 | − | 296 | − | 8 | 3 | − | − | 5 | − | − − | 29 | − | + | 255 | o | 90 | o | 144 | ||||
E | Potamogeton berchtoldii | − | 322 | o | 284 | − | 8 | 2 | o | + | 6 | + | − | 27 | − | + | 245 | o | 83 | − | 138 | ||||
E | Potamogeton compressus | o | 83 | o | 65 | + | 18 | o | + | 18 | + | + | 12 | o | + | 51 | 2 | − | 30 | o | 6 | ||||
E | Potamogeton crispus | + | 94 | + | 52 | o | 31 | + | + | 28 | 3 | + | + | 24 | o | + | 28 | + | 7 | 4 | + | 5 | |||
E | Potamogeton filiformis | − | 82 | − | 63 | − | 11 | − | − − | 9 | 2 | − | − | 30 | − | − | 33 | − | 38 | − | 11 | ||||
E | Potamogeton friesii | o | 61 | o | 45 | o | 14 | o | − | 14 | + | + | 36 | − | + | 9 | + | 21 | 2 | ||||||
E | Potamogeton gramineus | − | 317 | − | 285 | − | 20 | o | − | 11 | − | − | 9 | o | − | 33 | − | + | 245 | − | 66 | − | 128 | + | 8 |
E | Potamogeton lucens | o | 181 | + | 64 | o | 93 | o | − | 84 | + | + | 9 | + | + | 37 | − | + | 26 | + | 11 | − | 5 | o | 74 |
E | Potamogeton obtusifolius | o | 177 | + | 151 | + | 11 | + | + | 7 | + | + | 4 | + | + | 28 | + | + | 120 | + | 30 | + | 55 | 1 | |
E | Potamogeton pectinatus | + | 128 | + | 45 | + | 71 | + | + | 68 | 3 | + | + | 30 | o | + | 15 | + | 10 | 1 | o | 9 | |||
E | Potamogeton perfoliatus | o | 627 | − | 470 | o | 115 | o | − | 99 | o | + | 16 | o | − | 56 | − | + | 394 | o | 73 | − | 239 | − | 75 |
E | Potamogeton polygonifolius | − | 23 | − | 18 | 1 | 1 |
| − | − − | 18 | − | 16 | ||||||||||||
E | Potamogeton praelongus | − | 224 | − | 199 | − | 22 | − | − | 16 | o | + | 6 | o | − | 43 | − | + | 153 | − | 47 | − | 62 | − | 18 |
E | Potamogeton pusillus | + | 56 | o | 19 | + | 30 | + | + | 29 | 1 | + | + | 7 | − | + | 12 | + | 4 | + | 6 | ||||
E | Potamogeton rutilus | o | 23 | o | 17 | o | 5 | 3 | 2 | + | + | 5 | o | + | 12 | + | 9 | + | 4 | 1 | |||||
E | Potamogeton trichoides | + | 10 | + | 10 | + | + | 10 | |||||||||||||||||
E | Potamogeton vaginatus | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||
E | Potamogeton gramineus × perfoliatus | o | 39 | o | 31 | o | 6 | o | − | 4 | 2 | + | − | 14 | − | + | 17 | − | 12 | 1 | |||||
E | Potamogeton gramineus × natans | − | 4 | − | 4 | − | − | 4 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||
E | Potamogeton filiformis × pectinatus | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 |
|
| |||||||||||||||||
E | Potamogeton gramineus × lucens | − | 25 | − | 24 | − | − | 10 | − | + | 14 | 3 | |||||||||||||
E | Ranunculus aquatilis | o | 58 | o | 25 | − | 31 | − | − | 29 | 2 | + | + | 10 | − | + | 15 | o | 12 | − | 24 | ||||
E | Ranunculus baudoti | 3 | 2 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||
E | Ranunculus circinatus | + | 36 | + | 25 | + | 10 | + | + | 9 | 1 | + | + | 20 | + | + | 5 | ||||||||
E | Ranunculus confervoides | − | 43 | − | 43 | − | − − | 9 | − | − | 34 | − | 32 | − | 4 | ||||||||||
E | Ranunculus peltatus | − | 249 | − | 249 | + | − | 18 | − | − | 222 | − | 29 | − | 133 | ||||||||||
E | Ranunculus penicillatus | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
E | Utricularia australis | − | 7 | − | 7 | − | + | 7 | − | 7 | |||||||||||||||
E | Utricularia intermedia | − | 130 | − | 127 | − | − | 7 | − | − | 114 | − | 38 | o | 57 | ||||||||||
E | Utricularia minor | − | 85 | − | 83 | 1 | 1 | − | − | 4 | − | − | 77 | − | 50 | o | 24 | 1 | |||||||
E | Utricularia ochroleuca | − | 30 | − | 30 | − | − − | 30 | − | 27 | 3 | ||||||||||||||
E | Utricularia vulgaris | o | 418 | − | 364 | o | 38 | o | − | 34 | o | + | 4 | − | + | 41 | − | + | 308 | − | 53 | o | 173 | − | 25 |
E | Zannichellia palustris | + | 36 | + | 15 | + | 20 | + | + | 17 | 3 | + | + | 8 | + | + | 7 | 2 | |||||||
N | Nuphar lutea | o | 766 | o | 572 | o | 154 | o | − | 122 | + | + | 32 | + | + | 73 | − | + | 473 | o | 111 | o | 248 | + | 118 |
N | Nuphar pumila | o | 206 | − | 178 | o | 25 | o | − | 14 | + | + | 11 | 3 | − | + | 165 | − | 19 | o | 117 | + | 24 | ||
N | Nuphar lutea × pumila | − | 174 | − | 172 | 2 | 1 | 1 | − | − | 154 | − | 134 | ||||||||||||
N | Nymphaea alba | o | 454 | o | 416 | o | 26 | o | + | 22 | o | + | 4 | − | − | 56 | − | + | 350 | o | 109 | o | 163 | − | 11 |
N | Nymphaea candida × tetragona | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||
N | Nymphaea candida | o | 86 | o | 30 | o | 56 | o | + | 46 | + | + | 10 | 3 | − | + | 27 | − | 50 | ||||||
N | Nymphaea tetragona | o | 24 | o | 24 | o | + | 23 | o | 24 | |||||||||||||||
N | Nymphaea alba × candida | 3 | 3 | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||
N | Nymphoides peltata | + | 4 | + | 4 | + | + | 4 |
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||||||
N | Persicaria amphibia | o | 208 | o | 184 | − | 13 | − | − | 8 | + | + | 5 | + | + | 43 | o | + | 140 | o | 35 | o | 63 |
| |
N | Potamogeton natans | o | 669 | o | 513 | − | 129 | o | − | 102 | + | + | 27 | − | − | 83 | o | + | 422 | o | 133 | o | 189 | o | 107 |
N | Sagittaria natans | o | 68 | o | 68 |
| o | + | 66 |
| o | 53 |
| ||||||||||||
N | Sagittaria sagittifolia × natans | + | 8 | + | 8 |
| + | + | 7 |
| + | 8 |
| ||||||||||||
N | Sparganium angustifolium | − | 396 | − | 388 | 2 | 2 | − | − − | 15 | − | − | 348 | − | 147 | − | 196 |
| |||||||
N | Sparganium gramineum | o | 205 | o | 205 | 2 | o | + | 201 | 1 | o | 138 |
| ||||||||||||
N | Sparganium hyperboreum | − | 27 | − | 27 | 1 | − | − − | 26 | − | 20 | − | 6 |
| |||||||||||
N | Sparganium natans | o | 99 | o | 97 | − | − | 5 | o | + | 88 | − | 12 | o | 54 |
| |||||||||
N | Sparganium angustifolium × gramineum | − | 21 | − | 21 |
|
|
| − | + | 21 |
|
|
| 2 |
|
| ||||||||
L | Hydrocharis morsus-ranae | + | 120 | + | 76 | + | 44 | + | + | 37 | + | + | 7 | + | + | 25 | + | + | 48 |
| + | 30 | + | 25 | |
L | Lemna gibba | + | 7 | 2 | o | 5 | o | + | 5 | 1 | 1 |
|
| 1 | |||||||||||
L | Lemna minor | + | 264 | + | 215 | + | 47 | + | + | 42 | + | + | 5 | + | + | 53 | + | + | 158 | + | 56 | + | 81 | + | 18 |
L | Lemna trisulca | + | 146 | + | 78 | + | 36 | + | + | 33 | 3 | + | + | 26 | + | + | 51 | + | 4 | + | 23 | o | 14 | ||
L | Salvinia natans | + | 7 | + | 7 | + | + | 7 |
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||||||
L | Spirodela polyrhiza | + | 84 | + | 58 | + | 26 | + | + | 24 | 2 | + | + | 22 | + | + | 34 | + | 13 | + | 19 | + | 9 | ||
L | Stratiotes aloides | + | 60 | + | 56 | + | 4 | + | + | 4 | + | + | 26 | o | + | 28 |
| o | 13 |
| |||||
L | Trapa natans | + | 5 | + | 5 | + | + | 4 | 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 | ||||
C | Chara aspera | o | 76 | o | 49 | − | 23 | − | − − | 21 | 2 | o | − | 28 | − | + | 20 | o | 12 | − | 11 | 3 | |||
C | Chara connivens | + | 15 | − | 15 | − | − − | 15 |
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||||||
C | Chara contraria | o | 47 | o | 22 | − | 25 | − | − − | 24 | 1 | o | − | 16 | o | + | 6 | − | 5 |
| − | 5 | |||
C | Chara delicatula | − | 15 | − | 12 | 3 | 3 | − | − | 9 | 3 | − | 10 |
|
| ||||||||||
C | Chara filiformis | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
|
|
|
| |||||||||||||||
C | Chara fragilis | o | 10 | o | 10 | 1 | o | + | 9 |
| o | 6 |
| ||||||||||||
C | Chara globularis | o | 135 | − | 97 | − | 33 | − | − | 26 | − | + | 7 | o | − | 30 | − | + | 63 | − | 40 | − | 25 |
| |
C | Chara hispida | o | 22 | o | 7 | − | 14 | − | − − | 14 | o | − | 4 | 3 |
|
| − | 4 | |||||||
C | Chara intermedia | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 1 |
| 1 | |||||||||||||||
C | Chara rudis | o | 20 | − | 15 | − | 5 | − | − − | 5 | − | − | 14 | 1 | − | 11 |
| 2 | |||||||
C | Chara strigosa | − | 7 | − | 6 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | − | 6 |
|
| ||||||||||||
C | Chara tomentosa | o | 24 | + | 10 | o | 14 | o | − − | 14 | − | − | 9 | 1 | + | 4 |
| o | 9 | ||||||
C | Chara vulgaris | o | 12 | − | 10 | − | − | 10 |
|
|
|
| 2 | ||||||||||||
C | Nitella confervacea | 2 | 2 |
| 2 | 1 | 1 |
| |||||||||||||||||
C | Nitella flexilis | o | 48 | − | 29 | o | 10 | + | − | 6 | − | + | 4 |
| − | + | 27 |
| − | 25 |
| ||||
C | Nitella mucronata | o | 8 | 2 | + | 6 | o | + | 6 |
| 2 | 2 |
|
| |||||||||||
C | Nitella opaca | − | 142 | − | 132 | o | 6 | 3 | 3 | o | − | 6 | − | − | 121 | − | 67 | − | 51 |
| |||||
C | Nitella translucens | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| 2 |
|
|
| |||||||||||||||
C | Nitella wahlbergiana | 3 | 3 |
| 3 |
| 2 |
| |||||||||||||||||
C | Nitellopsis obtuse | + | 41 | 1 | + | 40 | + | + | 40 | 1 |
|
|
| o | 10 | ||||||||||
C | Tolypella canadensis | − | 5 | − | 5 |
| − | − − | 5 | − | 5 |
|
| ||||||||||||
C | Tolypella glomerata | 3 | 2 | 2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Penning, W.E., Mjelde, M., Dudley, B. et al. Classifying aquatic macrophytes as indicators of eutrophication in European lakes. Aquat Ecol 42, 237–251 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10452-008-9182-y
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10452-008-9182-y