Macrophyte communities of European streams with altered physical habitat

Abstract

The impact of altering hydro-morphology on three macrophyte community types was investigated at 107 European stream sites. Sites were surveyed using standard macrophyte and habitat survey techniques (Mean Trophic Rank Methodology and River Habitat Survey respectively). Principal Components Analysis shows the macrophyte community of upland streams live in a more structurally diverse physical habitat than lowland communities. Variables representing the homogeneity and diversity of the physical environment were used to successfully separate un-impacted from impacted sites, e.g. homogeneity of depth and substrate increased with decreasing quality class for lowland sites (ANOVA p<0.05). Macrophyte attribute groups and structural metrics such as species richness were successfully linked to hydro-morphological variables indicative of impact. Most links were specific to each macrophyte community type, e.g., the attribute group liverworts, mosses and lichens decreased in abundance with increasing homogeneity of depth and decreasing substrate size at lowland sites but not at upland sites. Elodea canadensis, Sparganium emersum and Potamogeton crispus were indicative of impacted lowland sites. Many of the indicator species are also known to be tolerant to other forms of impact. The potential for a macrophyte tool indicative of hydro-morphological impact is discussed. It is concluded one could be constructed by combining indicator species and metrics such as species richness and evenness.

Development of comprehensive river typology based on macrophytes in the mountain-lowland gradient of different Central European ecoregions

“…Nevertheless, macrophytes were introduced into freshwater monitoring as indicators of river degradation, especially of more persistent and constant habitat changes, which can integrate the long-term effects of disturbances (Westlake, 1975;Smolders et al, 2001;Ceschin et al, 2010). Macrophyte-based methods focus mainly on the determination of eutrophication (e.g., Holmes et al, 1999;Meilinger et al, 2005;Haury et al, 2006;Szoszkiewicz et al, 2006Szoszkiewicz et al, , 2010bSchneider, 2007;Willby et al, 2009;Gebler et al, 2014) or acidification (Tremp & Kohler, 1995;O'Hare et al, 2006). However, macrophyte methods are also used to assess river degradation in a more holistic or integrative way (Passauer et al, 2002;Schaumburg et al, 2004).…”

Effect of removal of free-floating macrophytes on zooplankton habitat in shallow wetland

“…Macrophytes can have dramatic effects on the physical structure of aquatic habitats (O'Hare et al, 2006;Smokorowski and Pratt, 2007) and create a heterogeneous mosaic at different scales. Some studies have suggested that structural heterogeneity of macrophytes mediates trophic interactions among various biota (Jeppesen et al, 1997;Pelicice and Agostinho, 2006) and significantly influences the biodiversity of the zooplankton community (Tolonen et al, 2005).…”

Spatio-temporal distribution of Diaphanosoma brachyurum (Cladocera: Sididae) in freshwater reservoir ecosystems: importance of maximum water depth and macrophyte beds for avoidance of fish predation

“…In empirical studies, macrophytes can have dramatic effects on freshwater habitat structures (O'Hare et al, 2006;Smokorowski and Pratt, 2007), and provide a heterogeneous mosaic at different scales. Therefore, macrophytes are capable of providing habitat suitable for colonization by zooplankton, including D. brachyurum.…”