Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Species and Populations Within Species Respond Differently to Environmental Stressors Common in Restorations

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) improves environmental conditions by acting as a sediment stabilizer and nutrient retention tool; therefore, reintroduction of SAV is a common freshwater restoration goal. Initial plant establishment is often difficult in suboptimal conditions, and planting material with specific traits may increase establishment rates. Here we evaluate the variability in plant traits based on collection location. We find consistent differences in traits of plants collected from different natural water bodies, and those differences persist in plants grown from seeds under common garden greenhouse conditions—presumably because of genetic differentiation. In three separate mesocosm experiments, we tested the interactive impacts of collection location and environmental condition (control conditions, reduced light, elevated nutrients, or a combination of reduced light and elevated nutrients) on plant reproduction and on traits that might indicate future restoration success (plant height, number of leaves, and rhizome diameter). In most cases, plant traits at the end of the experiments varied by collection location, environmental condition, and an interaction between the two. The best performing plants also depended on response variable (e.g., plant height or number of new shoots produced). Together these results suggest that unpredictable environmental conditions at restoration sites will make selection of a single high-performing plant source difficult, so we suggest incorporating a diverse set of collection locations to increase the probability of incorporating desirable traits.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Data available upon request

References

  • Abbott JM, DuBois K, Grosberg RK, Williams SL, Stachowicz JJ (2018) Genetic distance predicts trait differentiation at the subpopulation but not the individual level in eelgrass, Zostera marina. Ecol Evol 8(15):7476–7489

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bischoff A, Müller‐Schärer H (2010) Testing population differentiation in plant species–how important are environmental maternal effects. Oikos 119(3):445–454

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crain CM, Kroeker K, Halpern BS (2008) Interactive and cumulative effects of multiple human stressors in marine systems. Ecol Lett 11:1304–1315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crowder LB, Cooper WE (1982) Habitat structural complexity and the interaction between bluegills and their prey. Ecol 63(6):1802–1813

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook CD, Gut BJ, Rix EM Schneller J (1974) Water plants of the world: a manual for the identification of the genera of freshwater macrophytes. Springer Science & Business Media, The Hauge

  • Dennison WC, Orth RJ, Moore KA, Stevenson JC, Carter V, Kollar S et al. (1993) Assessing water quality with submersed aquatic vegetation: habitat requirements as barometers of Chesapeake Bay health. BioScience 43(2):86–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engelhardt KA, Lloyd MW, Neel MC (2014) Effects of genetic diversity on conservation and restoration potential at individual, population, and regional scales. Biol Conserv 179:6–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FDACS- Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (2018) Aquatic plant aquaculture: rules and regulations. Report no. FDACS-P-02058 02/18

  • Florida LAKEWATCH (2020) Florida LAKEWATCH Volunteer Monitoring Program, Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, University of Florida, Unpublished Data (https://lakewatch.ifas.ufl.edu/)

  • French GT, Moore KA (2003) Interactive effects of light and salinity stress on the growth, reproduction, and photosynthetic capabilities of Vallisneria americana (wild celery). Estuaries 26(5):1255

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gettys LA, Haller WT (2013) Effect of ecotype, sediment composition, and fertility level on productivity of eight Florida ecotypes of American eelgrass (Vallisneria americana). J Aquat Plant Mgt 51:127–131

    Google Scholar 

  • Greiner JT, McGlathery KJ, Gunnell J, McKee BA (2013) Seagrass restoration enhances “blue carbon” sequestration in coastal waters. PloS One 8(8):e72469

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gutterman Y (1992) Maternal effects on seeds during development. In: Gutterman Y, Fenner M (1992) Seeds: the ecology of regeneration in plant communities. CAB International, 27–60

  • Hansen JC, Reidenbach MA (2012) Wave and tidally driven flows in eelgrass beds and their effect on sediment suspension. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 448:271–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison SA, Croughan TP, Materne MD, Venuto BC, Breitenbeck GA, Cohn MA, Fang A, Ryan A, Schneider RW, Shadow RA (2001) Improving native plants to protect and preserve Louisiana’s coastal marshes. Louisiana. Agriculture 44:4–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Hemminga MA, Duarte CM (2000) Seagrass ecology. Cambridge University Press

  • Hufford KM, Mazer SJ (2003) Plant ecotypes: genetic differentiation in the age of ecological restoration. Trends Ecol Evol 18(3):147–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes AR, Inouye BD, Johnson MT, Underwood N, Vellend M (2008) Ecological consequences of genetic diversity. Ecol Lett 11(6):609–623

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes AR, Stachowicz JJ, Williams SL (2009) Morphological and physiological variation among seagrass (Zostera marina) genotypes. Oecologia 159(4):725–733

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes AR, Grabowski JH, Leslie HM, Scyphers S, Williams SL (2018) Inclusion of biodiversity in habitat restoration policy to facilitate ecosystem recovery. Conserv Lett 11(3):e12419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan A (2021) Moore’s Creek Submersed Aquatic Vegetation Restoration. https://www.fishamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Final-report-FAF-20-19-Moores-Creek-FL.pdf Accessed 20 July 2021

  • Kettenring KM, Mercer KL, Reinhardt Adams C, Hines J (2014) Application of genetic diversity–ecosystem function research to ecological restoration. J Appl Ecol 51(2):339–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kupsky BG, Dornbush ME (2019) Experimental test of abiotic and biotic factors driving restoration success of Vallisneria americana in the Lower Bay of Green Bay. J Great Lakes Res 45:340–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lambert AM, Baer SG, Gibson DJ (2011) Intraspecific variation in ecophysiology of three dominant prairie grasses used in restoration: cultivar versus non‐cultivar population sources. Rest Ecol 19(101):43–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Looby A, Reynolds LK, Adams CR, Martin CW (2021) Submerged aquatic vegetation patch size affects fish communities in a turbid-algal lake. Front Conserv Sci 2:657691

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li L, Lan Z, Chen J, Song Z (2018) Allocation to clonal and sexual reproduction and its plasticity in Vallisneria spinulosa along a water‐depth gradient. Ecosphere 9(1):e02070

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lesica P, Allendorf FW (1999) Ecological genetics and the restoration of plant communities: mix or match? Rest Ecol 7:42–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd MW, Burnett RK, Engelhardt KA, Neel MC (2011) The structure of population genetic diversity in Vallisneria americana in the Chesapeake Bay: implications for restoration. Conserv Genet 12(5):1269–1285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsden BW, Engelhardt KA, Neel MC (2013) Genetic rescue versus outbreeding depression in Vallisneria americana: Implications for mixing seed sources for restoration. Biol Conserv 167:203–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin CW, Valentine JF (2011) Impacts of a habitat-forming exotic species on estuarine structure and function: an experimental assessment of Eurasian milfoil. Estuaries Coasts 34(2):364–372

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McGlathery KJ, Sundbäck K, Anderson IC (2007) Eutrophication in shallow coastal bays and lagoons: the role of plants in the coastal filter. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 348:1–18

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Middelboe AL, Markager S (1997) Depth limits and minimum light requirements of freshwater macrophytes. Freshw Biol 37(3):553–568

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore KA, Shields EC, Parrish DB (2014) Impacts of varying estuarine temperature and light conditions on Zostera marina (eelgrass) and its interactions with Ruppia maritima (widgeongrass). Estuaries coasts 37(1):20–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ni L (2001) Growth of Potamogeton maackianus under low-light stress in eutrophic water. J Freshw Ecol 16(2):249–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orth RJ, Moore KA, Marion SR, Wilcox DJ, Parrish DB (2012) Seed addition facilitates eelgrass recovery in a coastal bay system. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 448:177–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pater MJ (1995) Registration of ‘Stevan’plains bristlegrass. Crop Science 35(4):1208–1208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Philbrick CT, Anderson GJ (1987) Implications of pollen/ovule ratios and pollen size for the reproductive biology of Potamogeton and autogamy in aquatic angiosperms. Syst Bot 12:98–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds LK, Waycott M, McGlathery KJ, Orth RJ (2016a) Ecosystem services returned through seagrass restoration. Rest Ecol 24(5):583–588

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds LK, DuBois K, Abbott JM, Williams SL, Stachowicz JJ (2016b) Response of a habitat-forming marine plant to a simulated warming event is delayed, genotype specific, and varies with phenology. PloS One 11(6):e0154532

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds LK, McGlathery KJ, Waycott M (2012) Genetic diversity enhances restoration success by augmenting ecosystem services. PloS One 7(6):e38397

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz‐Jaen MC, Aide TM (2005) Restoration success: how is it being measured?. Rest Ecol 13(3):569–577

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Save Crystal River Staff (2021) Growing and planting eelgrass https://kingsbayrestorationproject.com/growing-and-planting-eelgrass/ Accessed 20 July 2021

  • Seliskar DM (1998) Natural and tissue culture-generated variation in the salt marsh grass Sporobolus virginicus: potential selections for marsh creation and restoration. Hort Science 33(4):622–625

    Google Scholar 

  • Shields EC, Parrish D, Moore K (2019) Short-term temperature stress results in seagrass community shift in a temperate estuary. Estuaries Coasts 42:755764

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SER—Society for Ecological Restoration International Science & Policy Working Group (2004) The SER international primer on ecological restoration Tucson: Society for Ecological Restoration International

  • Tomas F, Abbott JM, Steinberg C, Balk M, Williams SL, Stachowicz JJ (2011) Plant genotype and nitrogen loading influence seagrass productivity, biochemistry, and plant–herbivore interactions. Ecology 92(9):1807–1817

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Vergés A, Becerro MA, Alcoverro T, Romero J (2007) Experimental evidence of chemical deterrence against multiple herbivores in the seagrass Posidonia oceanica. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 343:107–114

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Williams SL, Ambo-Rappe R, Sur C, Abbott JM, Limbong SR (2017) Species richness accelerates marine ecosystem restoration in the Coral Triangle. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 114(45):11986–11991

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Yang Y, Yu D, Li Y, Xie Y, Geng X (2004) Phenotypic plasticity of two submersed plants in response to flooding. J Freshw Ecol 19(1):69–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

S. Tiffany, S. Kopetman, C. Sullivan, T. Gruninger, J. Roth, T. Crosby, A. Plamann, and R. Goebel provided significant lab support. This work was funded by St. Johns River Water Management District (contracts 30247 to LKR and CRA and 31945 to LKR, CRA, and CWM). Anonymous reviewers also greatly improved the clarity of this manuscript.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, LKR, CRA, CWM; Data collection, WAS, CBR; Data Analysis, LKR, CBR; Writing – Original Draft Preparation, LKR.; Data interpretation and writing – Review & Editing, LKR, CBR, WAS, CRA, CWM, JS.

Funding

St Johns River Water Management District Contracts 30247 and 31945

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Soil and Water Sciences Department, University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Gainesville, FL, 32611, USA

    Laura K. Reynolds, Christine B. Rohal & Whitney A. Scheffel

  2. Environmental Horticulture Department, University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Gainesville, 32611, FL, USA

    Christine B. Rohal & Carrie Reinhardt Adams

  3. Nature Coast Biological Station, University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Cedar Key, FL, 32625, USA

    Whitney A. Scheffel & Charles W. Martin

  4. St. Johns River Water Management District, Palatka, FL, 32177, USA

    Jodi Slater

Authors
  1. Laura K. Reynolds
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christine B. Rohal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Whitney A. Scheffel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Carrie Reinhardt Adams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Charles W. Martin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jodi Slater
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laura K. Reynolds.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Reynolds, L.K., Rohal, C.B., Scheffel, W.A. et al. Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Species and Populations Within Species Respond Differently to Environmental Stressors Common in Restorations. Environmental Management 68, 477–490 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-021-01517-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-021-01517-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation