Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T00:24:59.527Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of water nutrients on regeneration capacity of submerged aquatic plant fragments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 April 2014

Katharina Kuntz ,
Patrick Heidbüchel  and
Andreas Hussner
Katharina Kuntz
Affiliation:
Institute of Plant Biochemistry, Photosynthesis and stress physiology of plants, Heinrich-Heine-University of Düsseldorf, Universitätsstraße 1, D-40225 Düsseldorf, Germany
Patrick Heidbüchel
Affiliation:
Institute of Plant Biochemistry, Photosynthesis and stress physiology of plants, Heinrich-Heine-University of Düsseldorf, Universitätsstraße 1, D-40225 Düsseldorf, Germany
Andreas Hussner*
Affiliation:
Institute of Plant Biochemistry, Photosynthesis and stress physiology of plants, Heinrich-Heine-University of Düsseldorf, Universitätsstraße 1, D-40225 Düsseldorf, Germany
*
*Corresponding author: Andreas.Hussner@hhu.de
Get access

Abstract

Aquatic plants play a substantial role in almost all freshwater habitats throughout the world. Even though submerged aquatic plants dominantly spread by the dispersal of vegetative plant fragments, most aquatic plant species show a broad distribution range. Here we studied the differences in the regeneration capacity and the regeneration type of fragments (by root and/or shoot growth) of eight submerged plant species (Ceratophyllum demersum, Egeria najas, Elodea canadensis, Elodea nuttallii, Hydrilla verticillata, Myriophyllum aquaticum, Myriophyllum heterophyllum and Myriophyllum spicatum) under different water nutrients in sediment-free conditions. Overall, M. spicatum showed the highest regeneration (82±2%) in this study, followed by C. demersum (73±2%) and M. aquaticum (47±4%), whereas M. heterophyllum showed the lowest (1±1%). The shoot fragments of E. canadensis, H. verticillata, E. najas and E. nuttallii regenerated by 40±2, 23±2, 16±2 and 7±1%. The nitrate concentration affected the regeneration capacities of E. najas (P=0.05), M. spicatum (P=0.013) and C. demersum (P=0.001), whereas phosphate had no significant effect. Additionally, the different nutrient concentrations had a significant effect on the portion of the regeneration types within E. canadensis, E. nuttallii and H. verticillata. Summarizing, submerged plants differ significantly in their regeneration capacity, and water nutrients have a potential effect on the regeneration of submerged plant fragments. This might influence the further colonization and spread of the species under field conditions.

Keywords

Colonizationregenerationdispersalspreadsubmerged macrophytes
Type
Research Article
Information
Annales de Limnologie - International Journal of Limnology , Volume 50 , Issue 2 , 2014 , pp. 155 - 162
Copyright
© EDP Sciences, 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aiken, S.G., Newroth, P.R. and While, I., 1979. The biology of Canadian weeds. 34. Myriophyllum spicatum L. Can. J. Plant Sci., 59, 201–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, M.A., Jerde, C.L., Keller, D., Chadderton, W.L., Howeth, J.G. and Lodge, D.M., 2013. Viability of aquatic plant fragments following desiccation. Invasive Plant Sci. Manage., 6, 320–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrat-Segretain, M.H., 1996. Strategies of reproduction, dispersion, and competition in river plants: a review. Vegetatio, 123, 13–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrat-Segretain, M.H. and Bornette, G., 2000. Regeneration and colonization abilities of aquatic plant fragments: effect of disturbance seasonality. Hydrobiologia, 421, 31–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrat-Segretain, M.H. and Cellot, B., 2007. Response of invasive macrophyte species to drawdown: the case of Elodea sp. Aquat. Bot., 87, 255–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrat-Segretain, M.H., Bornette, G. and Hering-Vilas-Boas, A., 1998. Comparative abilities of vegetative regeneration among aquatic plants growing in disturbed habitats. Aquat. Bot., 60, 201–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowes, G., 2011. Single-cell C4 photosynthesis in aquatic plants. In: Rhagavendra, A.S. and Sage, R.F. (eds.), Advances in Photosynthesis, vol. 32: C4 Photosynthesis and Related CO2 Concentrating Mechanisms. Springer, Dordrecht, 63–80.Google Scholar
Carignan, R. and Kalff, J., 1980. Phosphorus sources for aquatic weeds: water or sediments? Science, 207, 987–988.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chambers, P.A., Prepas, E.E., Bothwell, M.L. and Hamilton, H.R., 1989. Roots versus shoots in nutrient uptake by aquatic macrophytes in flowing waters. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 46, 435–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, C.D.K., 1985. Range extensions of aquatic vascular plant species. J. Aquat. Plant Manage., 23, 1–6.Google Scholar
Cook, C.D.K. and Urmi-König, K., 1985. A revision of the genus Elodea (Hydrocharitaceae). Aquat. Bot., 21, 111–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eugelink, A.H., 1998. Phosphorus uptake and active growth of Elodea canadensis Michx. and Elodea nuttallii (Planch.) St. John. Water Sci. Technol., 37, 59–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eusebio Malheiro, A.C., Jahns, P. and Hussner, A., 2013. CO2 availability rather than light and temperature determines growth and phenotypical responses in submerged Myriophyllum aquaticum. Aquat. Bot., 110, 31–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fritschler, N., 2008. Regenerationsfähigkeit von indigenen und neophytischen Wasserpflanzen. Diploma-thesis, Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf, 72 p.Google Scholar
Hilt, S., Gross, E.M., Hupfer, M., Morscheid, H., Mählmann, J., Melzer, A., Poltz, J., Sandrock, S., Scharf, E.M., Schneider, S. and Van de Weyer, K., 2006. Restoration of submerged vegetation in shallow eutrophic lakes – guideline and state of the art in Germany. Limnologica, 36, 155–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hussner, A., 2008. Ökologische und ökophysiologische Charakteristika aquatischer Neophyten in Nordrhein-Westfalen. PhD thesis, Heinrich-Heine-University, Düsseldorf, 192 p.Google Scholar
Hussner, A., 2009. Growth and photosynthesis of four invasive aquatic plant species in Europe. Weed Res., 49, 506–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hussner, A. and Lösch, R., 2005. Alien aquatic plants in a thermally abnormal river and their assembly to neophyte-dominated macrophyte stands (River Erft, Northrhine-Westphalia). Limnologica, 35, 18–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langeland, K.A. and Sutton, D.L., 1980. Regrowth of Hydrilla from axillary buds. J. Aquat. Plant Manage., 18, 27–29.Google Scholar
Madsen, J.D. and Smith, D.H., 1989. Vegetative spread of Eurasian Watermilfoil colonies. J. Aquat. Plant Manage., 35, 63–68.Google Scholar
Orchard, A.E., 1979. Myriophyllum (Haloragaceae) in Australasia. 1. New Zealand: a revision of the genus and a synopsis of the family. Brunonia, 2, 247–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riis, T., Madsen, T.V. and Sennels, R.S.H., 2009. Regeneration, colonisation and growth rates of allofragments in four common stream plants. Aquat. Bot., 90, 209–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sand-Jensen, K., 1989. Environmental variables and their effect on photosynthesis of aquatic plant communities. Aquat. Bot., 34, 5–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santamaria, L., 2002. Why are most aquatic plants widely distributed? Dispersal, clonal growth and small-scale heterogeneity in a stressful environment. Acta Oecol., 23, 137–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sculthorpe, C.D., 1967. The Biology of Aquatic Vascular Plants, Edward Arnold Ltd, London, 610 p.Google Scholar
Smart, R.M. and Barko, J.W., 1985. Laboratory culture of submersed freshwater macrophytes on natural sediments. Aquat. Bot., 21, 251–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vari, A., 2013. Colonization by fragments in six common aquatic macrophyte species. Fund. Appl. Limnol., 183, 15–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, R.D.S., De Winton, M.D. and Clayton, J.S., 1997. Successive macrophyte invasions within the submerged flora of Lake Tarawera, Central North Island, New Zealand. N. Z. J. Mar. Freshwater Res., 31, 449–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiegleb, G. and Brux, H., 1991. Comparison of life history characters of broad-leaved species of the genus Potamogeton L. 1. General characterization of morphology and reproductive strategies. Aquat. Bot., 39, 131–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xie, D. and Yu, D., 2011. Size-related auto-fragment production and carbohydrate storage in auto-fragment of Myriophyllum spicatum L. in response to sediment nutrient and plant density. Hydrobiologia, 658, 221–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar