Selecting submerged macrophyte species for replanting in Mediterranean eutrophic wetlands

Rodrigo, María A.; Carabal, Nuria

doi:10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e01349

Cited by 9 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Once established, submerged vegetation contributes to the stabilization of a clearwater state and therefore causes a more sustainable effect of lake restorations. Transplantations have also been applied to increase the biodiversity of aquatic macrophytes (Muller et al, 2013 [ 130 ], Rodrigo and Carabal 2020 [ 108 ]) and to create habitats for fish (Slagle and Allen 2008 [ 131 ], Fleming et al, 2011 [ 132 ]). Transplantations are time consuming (Jeppesen et al, 2017 [ 77 ]) and can be successful only if environmental conditions are suitable for submerged macrophytes (e.g., Hussner et al, 2014 [ 79 ], Hilt et al, 2006 [ 80 ], van de Weyer et al, 2021 [ 83 ]).…”

Section: Transplantations Of Submerged Vegetationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Re-Establishment Techniques and Transplantations of Charophytes to Support Threatened Species

Blindow

Carlsson

Weyer³

2021

Plants

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Re-establishment of submerged macrophytes and especially charophyte vegetation is a common aim in lake management. If revegetation does not happen spontaneously, transplantations may be a suitable option. Only rarely have transplantations been used as a tool to support threatened submerged macrophytes and, to a much lesser extent, charophytes. Such actions have to consider species-specific life strategies. K-strategists mainly inhabit permanent habitats, are perennial, have low fertility and poor dispersal ability, but are strong competitors and often form dense vegetation. R-strategists are annual species, inhabit shallow water and/or temporary habitats, and are richly fertile. They disperse easily but are weak competitors. While K-strategists easily can be planted as green biomass taken from another site, rare R-strategists often must be reproduced in cultures before they can be planted on-site. In Sweden, several charophyte species are extremely rare and fail to (re)establish, though apparently suitable habitats are available. Limited dispersal and/or lack of diaspore reservoirs are probable explanations. Transplantations are planned to secure the occurrences of these species in the country. This contribution reviews the knowledge on life forms, dispersal, establishment, and transplantations of submerged macrophytes with focus on charophytes and gives recommendations for the Swedish project.

show abstract

Section: Transplantations Of Submerged Vegetationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Re-Establishment Techniques and Transplantations of Charophytes to Support Threatened Species

Blindow

Carlsson

Weyer³

2021

Plants

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Regarding other cultivation times, Zostera marina plants large enough for planting can be grown from seeds within 70–100 days under controlled conditions [ 79 ]. Rodrigo and Carabal [ 17 ] reported lengths of 80 cm for Stuckenia pectinata in one month planted from 10-cm cuts and cultured in an acclimated room; M. spicatum and Chara vulgaris grew up to 25 cm in one month starting from 5-cm apical parts [ 17 ]. Riis et al [ 7 ] indicated that submerged plant shoots of 20–25 cm are adequate to be planted.…”

Section: Procedures Approaches In Revegetation With Hydrophytesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Su et al [ 94 ] suggested that plant height was one of the mechanisms underlying the positive feedbacks on water quality. Submerged plant species of taller-growing “rank”, such as M. spicatum and Stuckenia pectinata have been suggested to be introduced initially in coastal eutrophic wetlands [ 17 ]. Choosing between r-selected and k-selected plants is also crucial.…”

Section: Selection Of Species Most Commonly Used Speciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For seeding, densities varying from 11 to 100 seeds/m 2 have been used for coastal wetlands. A high number of “transplants” and of adequate length should be selected: around 10 ramets/m 2 with lengths of 20–30 cm seem to be the most adequate to be planted (with apical parts) [ 7 , 17 , 45 ]. The use (or not) of a substrate to plant the prepared cultures in the wetland will depend on the type of the radicular system the hydrophyte develops and the features of the receptor sediment.…”

Section: Final Remarks and Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is because many times it is not able to perpetuate species at risk, nor maintaining complex natural communities, but less is nothing. Therefore, this review mainly focusses on natural wetlands but also includes some information about more or less naturalized constructed wetlands, which nowadays are being used not only to improve water quality [ 13 ] but also to increase biodiversity and recover other ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration [ 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 ]. Available publications, both peer-reviewed and any public domain, from the last 20 years, have been reviewed (although I might have missed some cases).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Wetland Restoration with Hydrophytes: A Review

Rodrigo

2021

Plants

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Restoration cases with hydrophytes (those which develop all their vital functions inside the water or very close to the water surface, e.g., flowering) are less abundant compared to those using emergent plants. Here, I synthesize the latest knowledge in wetland restoration based on revegetation with hydrophytes and stress common challenges and potential solutions. The review mainly focusses on natural wetlands but also includes information about naturalized constructed wetlands, which nowadays are being used not only to improve water quality but also to increase biodiversity. Available publications, peer-reviewed and any public domain, from the last 20 years, were reviewed. Several countries developed pilot case-studies and field-scale projects with more or less success, the large-scale ones being less frequent. Using floating species is less generalized than submerged species. Sediment transfer is more adequate for temporary wetlands. Hydrophyte revegetation as a restoration tool could be improved by selecting suitable wetlands, increasing focus on species biology and ecology, choosing the suitable propagation and revegetation techniques (seeding, planting). The clear negative factors which prevent the revegetation success (herbivory, microalgae, filamentous green algae, water and sediment composition) have to be considered. Policy-making and wetland restoration practices must more effectively integrate the information already known, particularly under future climatic scenarios.

show abstract

Sediment underneath charophyte meadows is enriched in viable ephippia and enhances the benthic periphytic biofilm

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We contribute to the knowledge of charophyte meadows as key components of aquatic systems by analysing how they affect wetland sediments. We performed a factorial-design experiment with limnocorrals (outdoor mesocosms) in a Mediterranean protected wetland with presence or absence of charophytes [Chara vulgaris (CV) and Chara hispida (CH), planted from cultures or recruited in situ from germination of their fructifications]. The first 1 cm-surficial and 2 cm-bottom sediment layers were analysed for cladoceran ephippia, ostracods valves, benthic community of bacteria and periphytic biofilm, and charophyte fructifications. In the surficial sediment, the ephippia density was fourfold higher in the conditions with charophytes than in sites with no-charophytes and higher apparent viability was found. The surficial sediment periphyton biofilm was composed mainly of diatoms, with tenfold higher biomass underneath charophytes, and a much diverse community. The specific microhabitat generated by each charophyte species was reflected in the different abundances and relationships between the analysed components, firstly establishing a divergence with the sediment without meadows and, secondly, a distinction between the meadows of CH and CV that exhibit particular morphology-architecture, might exudate different metabolites and might have different allelopathic capacities over microalgae and microinvertebrates. Thus, the charophyte–sediment tandem is relevant for biodiversity and habitat conservation.

show abstract

Selecting submerged macrophyte species for replanting in Mediterranean eutrophic wetlands

Cited by 9 publications

References 26 publications

Re-Establishment Techniques and Transplantations of Charophytes to Support Threatened Species

Re-Establishment Techniques and Transplantations of Charophytes to Support Threatened Species

Wetland Restoration with Hydrophytes: A Review

Sediment underneath charophyte meadows is enriched in viable ephippia and enhances the benthic periphytic biofilm

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About