Classifying nuisance submerged vegetation depending on ecosystem services

Abstract

Throughout the world, mass development of native and non-native submerged macrophytes leads to nuisance problems for humans. However, often neither the type of nuisance nor the characteristics of nuisance vegetation have been uniformly quantified, leaving nuisance vegetation as a largely unsubstantiated qualification. The lack of a consensus about when submerged plants cause nuisance hampers comparative research on the environmental conditions leading to nuisance. Furthermore, defining and evaluating management goals to reduce nuisance caused by submerged plants are not possible when characteristics of the nuisance vegetation remain unquantified. In this study, we performed a literature review and gathered stakeholder information to identify (1) which problems are caused by nuisance submerged macrophytes, (2) which plant characteristics underlie 'nuisance' and (3) and which species cause nuisance. We (4) synthesised this information into a framework to classify submerged vegetation as either 'nuisance' or 'non-nuisance' using a case study to illustrate the principles. We found that most nuisance problems that affect human use of the ecosystem can be grouped into problems for boat traffic, swimming, fishing and hydrological functioning of the system. Additionally, a multitude of ecological effects have also been reported, but these were outside of the scope of this study. Vegetation cover and canopy depth below the water surface are the main determinant characters for nuisance. Therefore, both invasive and native eutrophilic species with a vertical growth strategy are particularly problematic, but other species can also cause nuisance.

Shifting states, shifting services: Linking regime shifts to changes in ecosystem services of shallow lakes

“…roots in the sediment) macrophytes and phytoplankton. While each dominant group of primary producers is comprised of a different species pool across biomes and/or continents (Mikheyeva, Parparov, Adamovich, Gal, & Lukyanova, 2017), the species within a dominant group share similar growth strategies (Verhofstad & Bakker, 2019). For each of the four dominant groups, we elaborate on how they contribute to various ecosystem services.…”

“…For instance, macrophyte‐dominated states provide beneficial feedbacks to overall water quality and thereby favour several supporting services . However, high macrophyte abundances in more eutrophic systems, particularly those containing vertical tall‐growing or floating species, constrain some provisioning services, such as navigation and drinking water supply, as well as cultural services like recreation and fishing (Hilt et al., 2017; Verhofstad & Bakker, 2019; Villamagna, Murphy, & Trauger, 2010). Thus, although these services are provided through good water quality promoted by the macrophytes, the macrophytes themselves constrain other services.…”

Effects of nuisance submerged vegetation on the fauna in Norwegian rivers

“…The buds are normally 10 to 20 cm long, however, they may be up to 3 m long and cover the water column to the surface. Such vegetation outgrowth is considered a nuisance because large mats of the plant and the additional accumulated soft sediments interfere with human uses of the waters, such as fishing, boating and swimming (Moe et al, 2013;Verhofstad & Bakker, 2019). Plant buds also block inlet screens of hydropower facilities.…”

A hybrid stochastic river environmental restoration modeling with discrete and costly observations

“…Loss of biological and cultural diversity endangers ecological utility that rivers provide 7 . Benthic algae and macrophytes blooms in inland waters are serious problems affecting other aquatic species 8‐10 . Dam‐downstream environment encounters this issue 11 where blooms of nuisance species like Cladophora glomerata and Egeria densa are severe 12,13 …”