Modelling of pristine depth limits for macrophyte growth in the southern Baltic Sea

Domin, A.; Schubert, Hendrik; Krause, Jochen C.; Schiewer, U.

doi:10.1007/978-94-017-0920-0_3

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Maximum depths limits of macrophytes are easier to determine and our SCUBA and video tow based findings agree well with previous modelling results in the same region (Domin et al, 2004). The delay in the recovery of macrophytes and macroalgae in the GWB despite nutrient input reductions is thought to be caused by several factors, including the release of iron-bound phosphorus from sediments, increased sedimentation caused by excessive phytoplankton production, blooms of filamentous algae and high epiphyte biomass (Munkes, 2005).…”

Section: Accepted Manuscriptsupporting

confidence: 90%

What is left? Macrophyte meadows and Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus) spawning sites in the Greifswalder Bodden, Baltic Sea

Kanstinger

Beher

Grenzdörffer

et al. 2018

Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Accepted Manuscriptsupporting

confidence: 90%

What is left? Macrophyte meadows and Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus) spawning sites in the Greifswalder Bodden, Baltic Sea

Kanstinger

Beher

Grenzdörffer

et al. 2018

Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, there are several knowledge gaps on macroecology of freshwater plants (Alahuhta et al., 2020). Some aspects of depth gradients in macrophytes can also be found in the literature, with previous studies mainly focus on depth limits of species (Domin et al., 2004; Middelboe & Markager, 1997; Søndergaard et al., 2013), growth of single species dependent on depth (Fu et al., 2018; Li et al., 2020; Xu et al., 2020), functional diversity along depth (Fu et al., 2017), or biomass of macrophytes along depths (Chambers & Kaiff, 1985; Collins et al., 1987). However, the depth pattern of submerged macrophytes species richness is sparsely studied (Bolpagni et al., 2016; Fu et al., 2015; Fu, Zhong, Yuan, Ni, et al., 2014; Fu, Zhong, Yuan, Xie, et al., 2014; Ye et al., 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Depth diversity gradients of macrophytes: Shape, drivers, and recent shifts

Lewerentz

Hoffmann

Cabral

2021

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Investigating diversity gradients helps to understand biodiversity drivers and threats. However, one diversity gradient is rarely assessed, namely how plant species distribute along the depth gradient of lakes. Here, we provide the first comprehensive characterization of depth diversity gradient (DDG) of alpha, beta, and gamma species richness of submerged macrophytes across multiple lakes. We characterize the DDG for additive richness components (alpha, beta, gamma), assess environmental drivers, and address temporal change over recent years. We take advantage of yet the largest dataset of macrophyte occurrence along lake depth (274 depth transects across 28 deep lakes) as well as of physiochemical measurements (12 deep lakes from 2006 to 2017 across Bavaria), provided publicly online by the Bavarian State Office for the Environment. We found a high variability in DDG shapes across the study lakes. The DDGs for alpha and gamma richness are predominantly hump‐shaped, while beta richness shows a decreasing DDG. Generalized additive mixed‐effect models indicate that the depth of the maximum richness (Dmax) is influenced by light quality, light quantity, and layering depth, whereas the respective maximum alpha richness within the depth gradient (Rmax) is significantly influenced by lake area only. Most observed DDGs seem generally stable over recent years. However, for single lakes we found significant linear trends for Rmax and Dmax going into different directions. The observed hump‐shaped DDGs agree with three competing hypotheses: the mid‐domain effect, the mean–disturbance hypothesis, and the mean–productivity hypothesis. The DDG amplitude seems driven by lake area (thus following known species–area relationships), whereas skewness depends on physiochemical factors, mainly water transparency and layering depth. Our results provide insights for conservation strategies and for mechanistic frameworks to disentangle competing explanatory hypotheses for the DDG.

show abstract

“…The reference value for the lower distribution limit of submerged macrophytes in the Kleines Haff is 3.0 m, according to the WFD assessment. The colonization depth for an excellent state is ≥ 2.7 m and for the good state between 2.4 m and 2.7 m, based on calculations by Domin et al (2004). On average over the years 2015 and 2021 and over all transects, the present lower colonization depth is only 1.2 m and far below the threshold for a good status.…”

Section: Present State Of Macrophyte Coverage and Compositionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Macrophytes and water quality in a large Baltic lagoon: relevance, development and management perspectives

Schernewski

Friedland

Paysen

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We combine historical and recent monitoring data with modeling to get a better insight into water quality development of the large Oder/Szczecin Lagoon and especially the role of macrophytes. Data indicates that the system is eutrophic for centuries and a naturally eutrophic system. During the last decades, external nutrient loads decreased but keep the system in a eutrophic state. The systems primary production is limited by light and nitrogen and cannot be sufficiently managed by external nutrient load reductions. We consider 36% macrophyte coverage of the lagoon area as potential historical maximum. Despite its shallowness the lagoon was never a macrophyte dominated, clear water system. About 31% of the lagoon area would be covered by macrophytes in a good ecological status according to the Water Framework Directive. However, the existing water transparency targets seem too ambitious and not realistic. Changes in macrophyte coverage on water quality are restricted to near shore areas and hardly affect the open lagoon. Existing models require an improved representation of water transparency and effects on macrophyte colonization depth. Presently the patchy macrophyte coverage is only about 12% of the lagoon area. This low coverage and a relatively poor species composition results in a non-satisfactory state classification. However, ecologically valuable angiosperms and charophytes seem to recover. A strict avoidance of mechanical disturbances could be a measure to support macrophyte re-colonization. A systematic improvement of piscivorous fish stocks may be a supporting measure to reduce eutrophication.

show abstract

Modelling of pristine depth limits for macrophyte growth in the southern Baltic Sea

Cited by 6 publications

References 9 publications

What is left? Macrophyte meadows and Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus) spawning sites in the Greifswalder Bodden, Baltic Sea

What is left? Macrophyte meadows and Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus) spawning sites in the Greifswalder Bodden, Baltic Sea

Depth diversity gradients of macrophytes: Shape, drivers, and recent shifts

Macrophytes and water quality in a large Baltic lagoon: relevance, development and management perspectives

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About