Attribute‐based classification of European hydrophytes and its relationship to habitat utilization

Abstract

SUMMARY Here we classify selected European hydrophytes into ‘attribute groups’ based on the possession of homogenous sets of characteristics, and explore the correspondence between these attribute groups, or individual attributes, and habitat use. Non‐hierarchical clustering was used to assign 120 species to twenty groups based on a matrix of categorical scores for literature‐ and field‐derived information covering seventeen intrinsic morphological and life‐history traits. Subdivision of some of these traits produced a total of 58 attributes (i.e. modalities). The robustness of this classification was confirmed by a high rate of reclassification (92%) under multiple discriminant analysis (MDA). The phylogenetic contribution was explored using ordination methods with taxonomy at family level acting as a covariable. Our approach differed from earlier classifications based on growth or life form because we regarded growth form plasticity as a property of the species and its range of growing conditions, rather than of each individual population, and we considered additional (e.g. regenerative) traits. However, some conventional life form groups were preserved (i.e. utricularids, isoetids, hydrocharids and lemnids). Some parallels existed with established theory on terrestrial plant growth strategies, but we used strictly intrinsic attributes relevant specifically to hydrophytes and our groups could not be decomposed into three or four primary strategies. Only finer levels of partitioning appear to be of fundamental and applied ecological relevance in hydrophytes. A principal components analysis ordination based on 26 attributes related to physical habitat utilization separated species and their attribute groups along axes relating to: (a) flow, substratum grade and organic matter content, scour frequency, and sedimentation; and (b) depth, water level stability and biotic disturbance. A MDA applied to species ordination scores indicated only a modest overall correspondence between attribute groups and habitat use (54% correct reclassification). Poor reclassification was the result of intergroup overlap (indicating alternative sets of attributes for a given habitat) or high intragroup variance in habitat utilization (indicating commonality of attributes between different habitats). These results are interpreted in terms of trade‐offs between resistance and resilience traits, ‘functional plasticity’ in traits, phylogenetic dependence in some groups and methodological constraints. The predictive potential of hydrophyte groups and their limitations are discussed. Redundancy analysis revealed a highly significant correlation between traits and habitat use (P < 0.01). Our attribute matrix explained 72% of variation in physical habitat use with eight attributes (i.e. turions, anchored emergent leaves, high or low body flexibility, high root:shoot biomass ratio, free‐floating surface or free‐floating submerged growth form, and annual life history) explaining half of this variation. Most attributes were mapped in accordance ...

Aquatic vegetation as an indicator of littoral habitats and various stages of lake aging in north-eastern Poland

“…The results obtained in this study indicate that in spite of the highly unstable habitat and biotope conditions in the littoral zone dominated by macrophyte communities and the high degree of plasticity of aquatic plants (Hinneri, 1976;Willby et al, 2000, Chambers et al, 2008, clear relationships exist between particular types of phytocoenoses and their habitats. In addition to the depth in which the phytocoenoses occurred and the lake surface area, these vegetation-habitat relationships include both water and substrate properties.…”

Can biological invertebrate traits resolve effects of multiple stressors on running water ecosystems?

“…Harsh, homogenous traits Habitat harshness as trait filter (Thienemann, 1918) Temporal heterogeneity = disturbance/stress Running water predictions (Southwood, 1977) Spatial heterogeneity = provision of refugia stream bryophytes (Muotka & Virtanen, 1995), stream and lake hydrophytes (Willby, Abernethy & Demars, 2000;Demars & Harper, 2005), benthic pond invertebrates (Verberk, Siepel & Esselink, 2008), marine benthic invertebrates (Bremner, Rogers & Frid, 2003b) or fluvial floodplain plants and birds (Bournaud, 1994;Pautou & Arens, 1994). These theoretical studies also stimulated work on applied aspects of trait responses to human-caused stressors (or release from stress after restoration) of organisms such as benthic stream invertebrates Dolédec et al, 1999), stream fish (Ferreira et al, 2007;Schmutz et al, 2007), benthic pond or lake invertebrates (Menetrey et al, 2005;Van Kleef et al, 2006), waterway hydrophytes (Willby, Pygott & Eaton, 2001), lagoon fish, benthic invertebrates, macrophytes and plankton (Mouillot et al, 2006;Pravoni, Da Ponte & Torricelli, 2008), marine benthic invertebrates (Bremner, Frid & Rogers, 2003a;Frid et al, 2008), marine fish (Jennings, Greenstreet & Reynolds, 1999), fluvial floodplain plants, molluscs and insects (Dziock, 2006;Foeckler et al, 2006;Henle et al, 2006) or forest birds (Hausner, Yoccoz & Ims, 2003).…”

Comunidades de macrófitas en ríos andinos: composición y relación con factores ambientales

“…Las características geomorfológicas y climáticas de esta región determinan el desarrollo de pequeños ríos que transcurren sobre abruptos gradientes altitudinales (Villamarín et al, 2013). En ambientes muy pendientes, con sustratos rocosos, sombreados por especies arbustivas o forestales, con flujo de agua variable y con mayores velocidades de la corriente, se disminuyen las posibilidades de colonización y desarrollo de las plantas acuáticas vasculares (Willby, 2000;Bornette y Puijalon, 2011). Ambientes con menor pendiente permiten la acumulación de una mayor cantidad de sedimentos pueden favorecer el enraizamiento de las plantas acuáticas (Cronk y Fennessy, 2001).…”