Flow-divergence feedbacks control propagule retention by in-stream vegetation: the importance of spatial patterns for facilitation
Facilitation (enhancement of propagule retention in this case) is increasingly recognized as an important driver of biodiversity, but it is still unknown if facilitation during dispersal and colonization is affected by self-organized spatial pattern formation. We investigated the ability of in-stream submerged macrophyte patches to trap the vegetative propagules of three species (Berula erecta, Groenlandia densa, Elodea nuttallii in two size classes: 13–22 and 40–48 cm long), and to potentially benefit the colonization of these three species. We tested the effects of propagule traits, hydrodynamic forcing, and spatial patch configuration on propagule trapping. Propagule buoyancy was negatively correlated with trapping chance, while propagule size did not influence trapping. Species-specific differences in buoyancy were maintained for weeks after fragmentation. Propagule retention was interactive and conditional upon the interplay between incoming flow velocities and vegetation spatial patterning. In the flume experiment at low flows, a patchy configuration (one patch filling 66% of the flume width) retained more surface-drifting propagules (B. erecta, G. densa), than near-homogeneous cover (two patches close together, filling the entire flume width). In contrast, retention of sinking E. nuttallii propagules increased in the two-patch configurations. In flume and field releases where patches did not completely fill the channel width, water flowed around the patches rather than over or through them. This resulted in low-flow velocity areas within patches where canopies were upright and propagules were retained, and higher velocity flows around patches. In contrast, when vegetation filled the channel width, water could not be diverted laterally around the patches and preferentially flowed over them, causing the canopies to bend and reduce their trapping capacity. In flume experiments at high flows, retention of all species decreased, regardless of vegetation configuration, as propagules passed over the reconfigured vegetation canopies. These findings on the interplay of water movement and patch reconfiguration suggest that environmental heterogeneity generated by the self-organizing behavior of aquatic plants might enhance colonization of sessile organisms, calling for landscape-scale processes like dispersal to be better investigated.
KeywordsAquatic macrophytes Bio-physical feedbacks Stress divergence Establishment Flume tank Hydrochory
This work was supported by the Research Executive Agency, through the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Union, Support for Training and Career Development of Researchers (Marie Curie - FP7-PEOPLE-2012-ITN), which funded the Initial Training Network (ITN) HYTECH ‘Hydrodynamic Transport in Ecologically Critical Heterogeneous Interfaces’, N.316546. We thank the CNR (Compagnie Nationale du Rhône) for providing access to field sites. We thank the Associate Editor and two anonymous referees for their helpful comments that have improved the quality of our manuscript.
- Callaway RM (2007) Positive interactions and interdependence in plant communities. Springer, Dordrecht, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
- Cornacchia L, Licci S, van de Koppel J, van der Wal D, Wharton G, Puijalon S, Bouma TJ (2016) Flow velocity and morphology of a submerged patch of the aquatic species Veronica anagallis-aquatica L. In: Rowiński PM, Marion A (eds) Hydrodynamic and mass transport at freshwater aquatic interfaces. Springer, Cham, pp 141–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Dayton PK (1972) Toward an understanding of community resilience and the potential effects of enrichments to the benthos at McMurdo Sound, Antarctica. In: Proceedings of the colloquium on conservation problems in Antarctica, 1972. Allen Press Lawrence, KS, pp 81–96Google Scholar
- Demars B, Gornall R (2003) Identification of British species of Callitriche by means of isozymes. Watsonia 24:389–400Google Scholar
- Haslam SM (1978) River plants: the macrophyte vegetation of watercourses. Cambridge Univer Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Kondziolka JM, Nepf HM (2014) Vegetation wakes and wake interaction shaping aquatic landscape evolution Limnology and Oceanography. Fluids Environ 4:106–119Google Scholar
- Licci S, Delolme C, Marmonier P, Philippe M, Cornacchia L, Gardette V, Bouma T, Puijalon S (2016) Effect of aquatic plant patches on flow and sediment characteristics: the case of Callitriche platycarpa and Elodea nuttallii. In: Rowiński M, Marion P A (eds) Hydrodynamic and mass transport at freshwater aquatic interfaces: 34th International School of Hydraulics. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 129–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27750-9_11 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Minckley W (1963) The ecology of a spring stream: Doe Run, Meade County, Kentucky. Wildl Monogr 11:3–124Google Scholar
- R Core Team (2015) R: a language and environment for statistical computing (Version 3.1. 2): R Foundation for Statistical ComputingGoogle Scholar
- Sand-Jensen K, Andersen K, Andersen T (1999) Dynamic properties of recruitment, expansion and mortality of macrophyte patches in streams. Int Rev Hydrobiol 84:497–508Google Scholar
- Sculthorpe CD (1967) Biology of aquatic vascular plants. St. Martin’s, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Vandenbruwaene W, Temmerman S, Bouma T, Klaassen P, De Vries M, Callaghan D, Van Steeg P, Dekker F, Van Duren L, Martini E (2011) Flow interaction with dynamic vegetation patches: implications for biogeomorphic evolution of a tidal landscape. J Geophys Res Earth Surf 116:F01008CrossRefGoogle Scholar