, Volume 734, Issue 1, pp 159–170 | Cite as

Increasing canopy shading reduces growth but not establishment of Elodea nuttallii and Myriophyllum spicatum in stream channels

  • Emily Zefferman
Primary Research Paper


Submersed macrophytes are often important drivers of instream structure and function, but can be problematic when overabundant. The establishment success, growth rates, and morphology of submersed macrophytes could be affected by alteration of instream light levels during riparian restoration (via removing or planting canopy-forming vegetation), potentially influencing the success of riparian restoration projects aimed at improving aquatic habitats. To examine the effects of canopy shading on two common submersed macrophytes—Elodea nuttallii (native) and Myriophyllum spicatum (non-native)—I conducted experiments in artificial stream channels in two locations in California, USA. Initial establishment of stem fragments of both species was close to 100% in all shade levels, including shade that reduced incident light by 94%. Growth rates of the two species were similar across shade levels, and lowest in the highest shade. Full light appeared to have a photoinhibitory effect on E. nuttallii at the higher elevation site. Higher shade increased the length:biomass ratio and decreased the branching of E. nuttallii. My findings suggest that altering canopy cover during riparian restoration is unlikely to affect the ability of these species to establish, but higher shade levels should slow their growth and create more favorable conditions for other instream organisms.


Riparian restoration Propagule establishment Myriophyllum spicatum Elodea nuttallii Shade Sierra Nevada Aquatic Research Laboratory 



I thank Truman Young, Peter Moyle, Eliška Rejmánková, the graduate students of the Young Lab from 2011 to 2013 (Kurt Vaughn, Lauren Porensky, Marit Wilkerson, Jen Balachowski, Kelly Gravuer, Mila Dunbar-Irwin, Steve Fick, Laura Morales, Kristina Wolf, Derek Young, and Grace Charles), Matthew Zimmerman, Alisa Kim, and Elaine Chow for their advice on the manuscript and/or help in the field. Neil Willits gave valuable statistical advice. I am especially Grateful to Andrew Fulks and J. P. Marie of the Putah Creek Riparian Reserve for creating the artificial channel system for the UC Davis experiment. I also thank the staff at the Sierra Nevada Aquatic Research Laboratory and the University of California Natural Reserve System. Fellowship support came from the UC Davis Graduate Group in Ecology and Plant Sciences Department. Additional thanks to two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.

Supplementary material

10750_2014_1877_MOESM1_ESM.docx (23 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 22 kb)


  1. Ali, M. M., S. A. Hassan & A. S. M. Shaheen, 2011. Impact of riparian trees shade on aquatic plant abundance in conservation islands. Acta Botanica Croatica 70: 245–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, L., 2011. Freshwater Plants and Seaweeds. In Simberloff, D. & M. Rejmanek (eds.), Encyclopedia of Biological Invasions. University of California Press, Berkeley: 248–258.Google Scholar
  3. Angelstein, S. & H. Schubert, 2009. Light acclimatisation of Elodea nuttallii grown under ambient DIC conditions. Plant Ecology 202: 91–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barko, J. W. & R. M. Smart, 1981. Comparative influences of light and temperature on the growth and metabolism of selected submersed fresh-water macrophytes. Ecological Monographs 51: 219–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barko, J. W., D. G. Hardin & M. S. Matthews, 1982. Growth and morphology of submersed freshwater macrophytes in relation to light and temperature. Canadian Journal of Botany 60: 877–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barrat-Segretain, M.-H., 2004. Growth of Elodea canadensis and Elodea nuttallii in monocultures and mixture under different light and nutrient conditions. Archiv für Hydrobiologie 161: 133–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bash, J. S. & C. M. Ryan, 2002. Stream restoration and enhancement projects: is anyone monitoring? Environmental Management 29: 877–885.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bornette, G. & S. Puijalon, 2011. Response of aquatic plants to abiotic factors: a review. Aquatic Sciences 73: 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boylen, C. W., L. W. Eichler & J. D. Madsen, 1999. Loss of native aquatic plant species in a community dominated by Eurasian watermilfoil. Hydrobiologia 415: 207–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Canfield, D. E. & M. V. Hoyer, 1988. Influence of nutrient enrichment and light availability on the abundance of aquatic macrophytes in Florida streams. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 45: 1467–1472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carpenter, S. R. & D. M. Lodge, 1986. Effects of submersed macrophytes on ecosystem processes. Aquatic Botany 26: 341–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crowder, L. B. & W. E. Cooper, 1982. Habitat structural complexity and the interaction between bluegills and their prey. Ecology 63: 1802–1813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Daehler, C. C., 2003. Performance Comparisons of Co-occurring Native and Alien Invasive Plants: Implications for Conservation and Restoration In Futuyma, D. J. (ed.), Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics, Vol. 34. Annual Reviews: 183–211.Google Scholar
  14. Davis, M. A., J. P. Grime & K. Thompson, 2000. Fluctuating resources in plant communities: a general theory of invasibility. Journal of Ecology 88: 528–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dawson, F. H. & U. Kern-Hansen, 1979. The effect of natural and artificial shade on the macrophytes of lowland streams and the use of shade as a management technique. Internationale Revue der gesamten Hydrobiologie 64: 437–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Feld, C. K., S. Birk, D. C. Bradley, D. Hering, J. Kail, A. Marzin, A. Melcher, D. Nemitz, M. L. Pedersen, F. Pletterbauer, D. Pont, P. F. M. Verdonschot & N. Friberg, 2011. From Natural to Degraded Rivers and Back Again: A Test of Restoration Ecology Theory and Practice In Woodward, G. (ed.), Advances in Ecological Research, Vol 44. Academic Press: 119–209.Google Scholar
  17. Gardali, T. & A. L. Holmes, 2011. Maximizing benefits from riparian revegetation efforts: local- and landscape-level determinants of avian response. Environmental Management 48: 28–37.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grubbs, F. E., 1950. Sample criteria for testing outlying observations. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 21: 27–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hussner, A., H. P. Hoelken & P. Jahns, 2010. Low light acclimated submerged freshwater plants show a pronounced sensitivity to increasing irradiances. Aquatic Botany 93: 17–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jahnke, L. S., T. T. Eighmy, & W. R. F. Departments, 1991. Studies of Elodea nuttallii Grown Under Photorespiratory Conditions. I. Photosynthetic Characteristics. Plant, Cell and Environment 14: 147–156.Google Scholar
  21. Julian, J. P., S. Z. Seegert, S. M. Powers, E. H. Stanley & M. W. Doyle, 2011. Light as a first-order control on ecosystem structure in a temperate stream. Ecohydrology 4: 422–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Keast, A., 1984. The introduced aquatic macrophyte, Myriophyllum spicatum, as habitat for fish and their invertebrate prey. Canadian Journal of Zoology 62: 1289–1303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Köhler, J., J. Hachol & S. Hilt, 2010. Regulation of submersed macrophyte biomass in a temperate lowland river: interactions between shading by bank vegetation, epiphyton and water turbidity. Aquatic Botany 92: 129–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Krull, J. N., 1970. Aquatic plant macroinvertebrate associations and waterfowl. Journal of Wildlife Management 34: 707–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lacoul, P. & B. Freedman, 2006. Environmental influences on aquatic plants in freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Reviews 14: 89–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Madsen, J. D. & M. S. Adams, 1989. The distribution of submerged aquatic macrophyte biomass in a eutrophic stream, Badfish Creek: the effect of environment. Hydrobiologia 171: 111–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Madsen, T. V. & M. Sondergaard, 1983. The effects of current velocity on the photosynthesis of Callitriche stagnalis Scop. Aquatic Botany 15: 187–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Madsen, J. D., J. W. Sutherland, J. A. Bloomfield, L. W. Eichler & C. W. Boylen, 1991. The decline of native vegetation under dense Eurasian watermilfoil canopies. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 29: 94–99.Google Scholar
  29. Madsen, T. V., H. O. Enevoldsen & T. B. Jorgensen, 1993. Effects of water velocity on photosynthesis and dark respiration in submerged stream macrophytes. Plant, Cell and Environment 16: 317–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mielecki, M. & E. Pieczyńska, 2005. The influence of fragmentation on the growth of Elodea canadensis Michx. in different light conditions. Polish Journal of Ecology 53: 155–164.Google Scholar
  31. Newman, R. M., 1991. Herbivory and detritivory on freshwater macrophytes by invertebrates: a review. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 10: 89–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, 2010. Species Identification and Seasonal Biomass Flux Monitoring in Putah South Canal, September 2008 through September 2009.Google Scholar
  33. Opperman, J. J. & A. M. Merenlender, 2004. The effectiveness of riparian restoration for improving instream fish habitat in four hardwood-dominated California streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 24: 822–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Palmer, M., J. D. Allan, J. Meyer & E. S. Bernhardt, 2007. River restoration in the twenty-first century: data and experiential knowledge to inform future efforts. Restoration Ecology 15: 472–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rejmánková, E., 2011. The role of macrophytes in wetland ecosystems. Journal of Ecology and Field Biology 34: 333–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Riis, T., T. V. Madsen & R. S. H. Sennels, 2009. Regeneration, colonisation and growth rates of allofragments in four common stream plants. Aquatic Botany 90: 209–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Roni, P., K. Hanson & T. Beechie, 2008. Global review of the physical and biological effectiveness of stream habitat rehabilitation techniques. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 28: 856–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sand-Jensen, K. & T. V. Madsen, 1991. Minimum light requirements of submerged freshwater macrophytes in laboratory growth experiments. Journal of Ecology 79: 749–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sand-Jensen, K. & J. R. Mebus, 1996. Fine-scale patterns of water velocity within macrophyte patches in streams. Oikos 76: 169–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schultz, R. & E. Dibble, 2012. Effects of invasive macrophytes on freshwater fish and macroinvertebrate communities: the role of invasive plant traits. Hydrobiologia 684: 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sculthorpe, C. D., 1967. The Biology of Aquatic Vascular Plants. Edward Arnold Publishers, London.Google Scholar
  42. Unmuth, J. M. L., R. A. Lillie, D. S. Dreikosen & D. W. Marshall, 2000. Influence of dense growth of Eurasian watermilfoil on lake water temperature and dissolved oxygen. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 15: 497–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Van, T. K., W. T. Haller & G. Bowes, 1976. Comparison of the photosynthetic characteristics of three submersed aquatic plants. Plant Physiology 58: 761–768.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Warfe, D. M. & La Barmuta, 2006. Habitat structural complexity mediates food web dynamics in a freshwater macrophyte community. Oecologia 150: 141–154.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wilson, S. J. & A. Ricciardi, 2009. Epiphytic macroinvertebrate communities on Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) and native milfoils Myriophyllum sibericum and Myriophyllum alterniflorum in eastern North America. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 66: 18–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wood, K., R. Stillman, R. Clarke, F. Daunt & M. O’Hare, 2012. Understanding plant community responses to combinations of biotic and abiotic factors in different phases of the plant growth cycle. PLOS ONE 7: e49824.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Plant SciencesUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations