Advertisement

Hydrobiologia

, Volume 583, Issue 1, pp 183–193 | Cite as

Modeling interactions of submersed plant biomass and environmental factors in a stream using structural equation modeling

  • Nguyen Thanh Hung
  • Takashi Asaeda
  • Jagath Manatunge
Primary Research Paper

Abstract

This study investigated the interactions of submersed plants with environmental factors using structural equation modeling (SEM) and evaluated the effect strength of respective factors in an aquatic ecosystem using a data set collected at a fourth order stream in Japan. A model that simultaneously examines the relative importance of factors of the system has developed. The investigated factors included plant biomass (Biomass) of submersed macrophytes (Potamogeton malaianus and Potamogeton oxyphyllus) and other environmental factors, i.e. water velocity and water depth (Hydraulic), pore water nitrogen (TNL), pore water phosphorus (TPL), sediment organic matter (Organic) and sediment particle size (Texture). The estimated model showed that the Biomass was negatively correlated with Hydraulic but positively correlated with Organic whilst TNL and TPL affected the Biomass with almost equal strength. The effects caused by Hydraulic to Texture were greater than the ones caused by Biomass. At the narrow ranges of water velocity (0–7 cm s−1) and shallow depth (0–35 cm), the effect of wash-away of Organic by Hydraulic were smaller than the retention effect of Organic by Biomass. These results provide more insights into interactions of the submersed macrophytes with environmental factors.

Keywords

Flow velocity LISREL SEM Submersed macrophytes 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to express our gratefulness to Dr. John D. Madsen (Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, USA) for the constructive discussion during the field investigation, Professor G. Wiegleb (Cottbus University, Germany) for the beneficial discussion while drafting the paper. We also would like to express our sincere thanks to Takuya Yamashita, Lalith Rajapakse and other members of the Engineering Ecology Laboratory of Saitama University for their assistance in the field and laboratory. Last but not least, we must admit that the comments and suggestions of the editor and reviewers of the journal have greatly contributed to the improvement and dissemination of this manuscript. This research was supported by grants from the Foundation of River and Watershed Management, and the Ministry of Education, Science, Culture and Sports of Japan.

References

  1. APHA, 1995. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 19th edn. American Public Health Association, Water Works Association and Water Environment Federation, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  2. Asaeda, T., N. T. Hung, J. Manatunge & T. Fujino, 2004. The effects of flowing water and organic matter on the distribution of submersed macrophytes. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 19(2): 401–405.Google Scholar
  3. Barko, J. W. & R. M. Smart, 1986. Sediment-related mechanisms of growth limitation in submersed macrophytes. Ecology 67: 1328–1340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barko, J. W. & R. M. Smart, 1981. Sediment-base nutrition of submersed macrophytes. Aquatic Botany 10: 339–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Best, M. D. & K. E. Mantai, 1978. Growth of Myriophyllum: sediment or lake water as the source of nitrogen and phosphorus. Ecology 59: 1075–1080.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Biggs, B. J. F., 1996. Hydraulic habitat of plants in streams. Regulated River Research & Management 12: 131–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carignan, R. F. & J. Kalff, 1980. Phosphorus sources for aquatic weeds: water or sediment? Science 207: 987–989.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Carr, G. M. & P. A. Chambers, 1998. Macrophyte growth and sediment phosphorus and nitrogen in a Canadian prairie river. Freshwater Biology 39: 525–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chambers, P. A., E. E. Prepas, H. R. Hamilton & M. L. Bothwell, 1991. Current velocity and its effects on aquatic macrophytes in flowing waters. Ecological Applications 1: 249–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chambers, P. A., E. E. Prepas, M. L. Bothwell & H. R. Hamilton, 1989. Roots versus shoots in nutrient uptake by aquatic macrophytes in flowing water. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 46: 435–439.Google Scholar
  11. Chambers, P. A., 1987. Light and nutrients in the control of aquatic plant community structure. II. In situ observations. Journal of Ecology 75: 621–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Champion, P. D. & C. C. Tanner, 2000. Seasonality of macrophytes and interaction with flow in a New Zealand lowland stream. Hydorbiologia 441: 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Feijoó, C. S., F. R. Momo1, C. A. Bonetto & M. T. Nuncia, 1996. Factors influencing biomass and nutrient content of the submersed macrophyte Egeria densa Planch. in a pampasic stream. Hydrobiologia 341(1): 21–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Flynn, N .J., D.L. Snook, A. J. Wade & H. P. Jarvie, 2002. Macrophyte and periphyton dynamics in a UK Cretaceous chalk stream: the river Kennet, a tributary of the Thames. The Science of the Total Environment 282–283: 143–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gantes, H. P. & A. S. Caro, 2001. Environmental heterogeneity and spatial distribution of macrophytes in plain streams. Aquatic Botany 70: 225–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gough, L. & J. B. Grace, 1999. Effects of environmental change on plant species density: comparing predictions with experiments. Ecology 80(3): 882–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grace, J. B. & B. H. Pugesek, 1997. A structural equation model of plant species richness and its application to a coastal wetland. The American Naturalist 149(3): 436–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grace, J. B., A. Larry & A. Charles, 2000. Factors associated with plant species richness in a coastal tall grass prairie. Journal of Vegetation Science 11: 443–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Haslam, S. L., 1978. River Plants: the Macrophytic Vegetation of Watercourses. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  20. Hayduk, L. A., 1987. Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL: Essentials and Advances. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.Google Scholar
  21. Hoyle, R. H. & T. S. Gregory, 1994. Formulating research hypothesis as structural equation models: a conceptual overview. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 62(3): 429–440.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hoyle, R. H., 1995. Structural Equation Modeling Concepts, Issues, and Applications. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, California.Google Scholar
  23. Kelloway E. K., 1998. Using LISREL for Structural Equation Modeling, A Researcher’s Guide. SAGE Publications, International Educational and Professional Publisher.Google Scholar
  24. Kline, R. B., 1998: Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. The Guilford Press, New York.Google Scholar
  25. Johnson, M. L. & D. G. Huggins & F. DeNoyelles Jr., 1991. Ecosystem modeling with LISREL: a new approach for measuring direct and indirect effects. Ecological Applications 4:383–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Joreskog, K. G. & D. Sorbom, 1996. LISREL 8 User’s Reference Guide. Scientific Software International, Chicago, Illinois, USA.Google Scholar
  27. Joreskog, K. G., 1973. A general method for estimating a linear structural equation system. In Goldberger, A. S. & O. D. Duncan (eds), Structural Equation Models in the Social Sciences. Seminar Press, New York, 85–112.Google Scholar
  28. Joreskog, K. G., 1974. Analyzing psychological data by structural analysis of covariance matrices. In Atkinson, R. C., D. H. Krantz, R. D. Luce & P. Suppes (eds), Contemporary Developments in Mathematical Psychology, Vol. II. W.J. Freeman, San Francisco, 1–56.Google Scholar
  29. Losee, R. F. & R. G. Wetzel, 1993. Littoral flow rates within and around submerged macrophyte communities. Freshwater Biology 29: 7–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Madsen, J. D. & A. S. Adam, 1989. The distribution of submersed aquatic macrophyte biomass in a eutrophic stream, Badfish Creek: the effect of environment. Hydrobiologia 171: 111–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Madsen, J. D., 1999: Point intercept and line intercept methods for aquatic plant management. APCRP Technical Notes Collection (TN APCRP-M1-02). U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.Google Scholar
  32. Madsen, J. D., P. A. Chambers, W. F. James, E. W. Koch & D. F. Westlake, 2001. The interaction between water movement, sediment dynamics and submersed macrophytes. Hydrobiologia 444: 71–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Madsen, T. V., H. O. Enevoldsen & T. B. Jorgensen, 1993. Effect of water velocity on photosynthesis and dark respiration in submersed stream macrophytes. Plant, Cell and Environment 16: 317–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Madsen, T. V. & N. Cedegreen, 2002. Sources of nutrient to rooted submersed macrophytes growing in a nutrient-rich stream. Freshwater Biology 47: 283–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nilsson, C., 1987. Distribution of stream-edge vegetation along a gradient of current velocity. Journal of Ecology 75: 513–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Power, P., 1996. Effect of current and substrate composition on growth of Texas wildrice (Zizania texana). Aquatic Botany 55: 199–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pugesek, B. H. & A. Tomer, 1996. The Bumpus house sparrow data: a reanalysis using structural equation models. Evolutionary Ecology 10: 387–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Riis, T. & B. J. F. Biigs, 2001. Distribution of macrophytes in New Zealand streams and lakes in relation to disturbance frequency and resource supply—a synthesis conceptual model. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 35: 255–267.Google Scholar
  39. Riis, T. & B. J. F. Biigs, 2003. Hydrologic and hydraulic control of macrophyte establishment and performence in streams. Limnology Oceanography 48(4):1488–1497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rubio, D. M. & D. F. Gillespie, 1995. Problems with errors in structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling 2(4): 367–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sand-Jensen, K. & J. R. Mebus, 1996. Fine-scale patterns of water velocity within macrophyte patches in streams. Oikos 76: 169–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sand-Jensen, K., 1998. Influence of submerged macrophytes on sediment composition and near bed flow in lowland streams. Freshwater Biology 39: 663–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sand-Jensen, K., E. Jeppesen, K. Nielsen, L. V. D. Bijl, L. Hjermind, L. W. Nielsen & T. M. Iversen, 1989. Growth of macrophytes and ecosystem consequences in a lowland Danish stream. Freshwater Biology 22: 15–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stanley, A. N., 1994. Factors influencing the distribution of Eurasian Watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum L.) biomass in lake Wingra, Wisconsin. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 9(2): 145–151.Google Scholar
  45. Weisner, S. E. B., J. A. Strand & H. Sandsten, 1997. Mechanisms regulating abundance of submerged vegetation in shallow eutrophic lakes. Oecologia 109: 592–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Westlake, D. F., 1967. Some effects of low velocity currents on the metabolism of aquatic macrophytes. Journal of Experimental Botany 18: 187–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wiegleb, G. & Y. Kadono, 1989. Growth and development of Potamogeton malaianus in SW Japan. Nordic Journal of Botany 9(2): 167–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nguyen Thanh Hung
    • 1
  • Takashi Asaeda
    • 2
  • Jagath Manatunge
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute for Water Resources ResearchDong da, HanoiVietnam
  2. 2.Department of Environmental Science and Human EngineeringSaitama UniversitySaitama-shi, SaitamaJapan

Personalised recommendations