2012
DOI: 10.1007/s13157-012-0316-6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Impacts of Mute Swans (Cygnus olor) on Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in Illinois River Valley Backwaters

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…By any estimate, these values are clearly lower than rates reported in aquatic systems, where herbivores have been shown to consume between 30-80% of primary production on average (Lodge 1991, Cyr and Pace 1993, Burkepile 2013, Gruner and Mooney 2013. At the highest extremes, large aquatic herbivores can consume well above 100% of annual primary production (Heinsohn et al 1977, Preen 1995, Masini et al 2001, Skilleter et al 2007) (Conover and Kania 1994, Allin and Husband 2003, O'Hare et al 2007, Tatu et al 2007, Hidding et al 2009, 2010a, 2010b, Gayet et al 2011, Wood et al 2012b, Stafford et al 2012) and diversity (95%) in grazed plots (Qvarnemark and Sheldon 2004) productivity, modifying geomorphology, altering nutrient cycling and transport of organisms.…”
Section: Impact On Aquatic Vascular Plant Abundance and Species Compomentioning
confidence: 84%
“…By any estimate, these values are clearly lower than rates reported in aquatic systems, where herbivores have been shown to consume between 30-80% of primary production on average (Lodge 1991, Cyr and Pace 1993, Burkepile 2013, Gruner and Mooney 2013. At the highest extremes, large aquatic herbivores can consume well above 100% of annual primary production (Heinsohn et al 1977, Preen 1995, Masini et al 2001, Skilleter et al 2007) (Conover and Kania 1994, Allin and Husband 2003, O'Hare et al 2007, Tatu et al 2007, Hidding et al 2009, 2010a, 2010b, Gayet et al 2011, Wood et al 2012b, Stafford et al 2012) and diversity (95%) in grazed plots (Qvarnemark and Sheldon 2004) productivity, modifying geomorphology, altering nutrient cycling and transport of organisms.…”
Section: Impact On Aquatic Vascular Plant Abundance and Species Compomentioning
confidence: 84%
“…Simultaneously, the growth rate of aquatic plants in temperate rivers declines after the spring period of growth [12], [22]; thus plants experienced the highest grazing pressures when they were senescing and thus their capacity for compensatory growth was low [12], [22]. This led to substantial reductions in plant abundance as have been reported for other aquatic ecosystems [50], [51], [52]. The positive relationship between swan biomass density and species evenness in the peak-phase, suggested grazing of the more naturally-abundant species [29].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 91%
“…For instance, aquatic plant cover was on average 79% lower, mean shoot density was 76% lower and canopy height was 40% lower in areas of the Chesapeake Bay grazed by swans (Tatu et al, 2006). In mid-continental American wetlands, Mute Swan effects on above-ground plant biomass could not be demonstrated after only 2 years of swan exclusion, but they were found to reduce below-ground plant biomass significantly, probably forecasting a future effect on above-ground biomass (Stafford et al, 2012). In other areas, emergent plants could potentially be uprooted by the swans (Chaichana et al, 2011).…”
Section: Impactsmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…Being such large herbivorous waterbirds, Mute Swans can potentially overgraze aquatic plants, generating conflicts with various stakeholders such as those managing habitats for other species, including hunters and fish farmers. Mute Swan feeding activity can reduce plant biomass substantially, in some cases leaving only bare sediment, and can also influence species dominance relationships within plant communities (Tatu et al, 2006;O'Hare et al, 2007;Sandsten and Klaassen, 2008;Gayet et al, 2011cGayet et al, , 2012Stafford et al, 2012). For instance, aquatic plant cover was on average 79% lower, mean shoot density was 76% lower and canopy height was 40% lower in areas of the Chesapeake Bay grazed by swans (Tatu et al, 2006).…”
Section: Impactsmentioning
confidence: 99%