| Literature DB >> 33281835 |
Xiaolong Huang1, Xuan Xu1, Baohua Guan1, Shuailing Liu2, Hongmin Xie2, Qisheng Li1, Kuanyi Li1,3,4.
Abstract
Located downstream of the Yangtze River Delta, the Lake Taihu drainage basin (LTDB) is one of the most developed areas in China. This area currently faces population and development issues, as well as many environmental problems, such as cultural eutrophication, algal blooms, and loss of native aquatic plants. Changes in aquatic biodiversity have received less attention than have changes in terrestrial habitats because relevant observations are lacking. In this study, information from 2010, 2014, and 2018 concerning the transformation of the aquatic plant biodiversity was obtained. The results showed that the dominant aquatic plants have changed from native plants to invasive plants. Aquatic plant biodiversity showed a decreasing trend, which may reduce the freshwater ecosystem function, and anthropogenic activities accounted for these changes. How to prevent the decline in aquatic plants and control the invasion of introduced aquatic plants should be a priority in the management of aquatic plants in the LTDB.Entities:
Keywords: Cabomba caroliniana; Eichhornia crassipes; Lake Taihu drainage basin; Yangtze River; aquatic plant; biodiversity index
Year: 2020 PMID: 33281835 PMCID: PMC7688627 DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2020.513788
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Plant Sci ISSN: 1664-462X Impact factor: 5.753
FIGURE 1Distributions of aquatic plant quadrats in the Lake Taihu drainage basin (LTDB) in 2010, 2014, and 2018.
The relative importance value (RIV) of aquatic plant species in the Lake Taihu drainage basin (LTDB) in 2010.
| Native | 10.68 | Native | 1.23 | ||
| Invasive | 9.59 | Native | 1.11 | ||
| Native | 8.68 | Native | 1.07 | ||
| Native | 7.66 | Invasive | 0.79 | ||
| Native | 5.77 | Invasive | 0.53 | ||
| Native | 5.19 | Native | 0.51 | ||
| Native | 4.77 | Invasive | 0.50 | ||
| Native | 4.36 | Native | 0.46 | ||
| Native | 4.34 | Native | 0.44 | ||
| Native | 3.80 | Native | 0.15 | ||
| Native | 2.06 | Native | 0.13 | ||
| Native | 1.91 | Native | 0.12 | ||
| Native | 1.87 | Native | 0.07 | ||
| Native | 1.41 | Native | 0.03 | ||
| Native | 1.39 | Native | 0.02 | ||
| Native | 1.37 | Native | 0.02 | ||
| Native | 1.34 | Native | 0.02 |
The relative importance value (RIV) of aquatic plant species in the Lake Taihu drainage basin (LTDB) in 2014.
| Invasive | 12.44 | Native | 2.05 | ||
| Native | 11.59 | Native | 1.93 | ||
| Native | 10.73 | Native | 1.76 | ||
| Invasive | 9.08 | Native | 1.59 | ||
| Native | 9.02 | Native | 0.98 | ||
| Native | 8.46 | Invasive | 0.88 | ||
| Native | 7.55 | Native | 0.73 | ||
| Native | 7.51 | Native | 0.71 | ||
| Native | 6.45 | Native | 0.67 | ||
| Native | 5.57 | Invasive | 0.65 | ||
| Native | 5.13 | Native | 0.40 | ||
| Native | 4.09 | Native | 0.14 | ||
| Native | 3.98 | Native | 0.07 | ||
| Native | 3.85 | Introduced | 0.02 | ||
| Native | 3.07 | Native | 0.02 | ||
| Native | 2.69 | Native | 0.01 | ||
| Native | 2.50 | Native | 0.01 | ||
| Native | 2.41 |
The relative importance value (RIV) of aquatic plant species in the Lake Taihu drainage basin (LTDB) in 2018.
| Invasive | 16.84 | Native | 1.17 | ||
| Invasive | 13.65 | Native | 0.91 | ||
| Native | 9.07 | Native | 0.88 | ||
| Native | 7.71 | Native | 0.71 | ||
| Native | 7.21 | Native | 0.68 | ||
| Native | 7.03 | Native | 0.67 | ||
| Native | 5.15 | Invasive | 0.60 | ||
| Native | 4.61 | Native | 0.45 | ||
| Invasive | 4.60 | Native | 0.43 | ||
| Native | 2.54 | Native | 0.19 | ||
| Native | 2.50 | Native | 0.13 | ||
| Native | 2.35 | Native | 0.12 | ||
| Introduced | 2.06 | Native | 0.11 | ||
| Native | 1.81 | Native | 0.10 | ||
| Native | 1.80 | Native | 0.09 | ||
| Native | 1.72 | Native | 0.09 | ||
| Native | 1.27 | Native | 0.03 | ||
| Native | 1.23 |
FIGURE 2The trends in the (A) population and (B) GDP in the Lake Taihu drainage basin (LTDB) from 2010 to 2018.
FIGURE 3The (A) Simpson diversity index, (B) Shannon-Wiener diversity index, and (C) species evenness index in the Lake Taihu drainage basin (LTDB) in 2010, 2014, and 2018. The values are represented as means ± SE. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among the different years (p < 0.05).
The estimated equations and R2 and p values for the Simpson diversity index (D), Shannon-Wiener diversity index (H), and species evenness index (E) in relation to the population (pop.) in the Lake Taihu drainage basin (LTDB).
| Simpson diversity index ( | 0.982 | <0.001 | |
| Shannon-Wiener diversity index ( | 0.993 | <0.001 | |
| Species evenness index ( | 0.963 | <0.001 |
The estimated equations and R2 and p values for the Simpson diversity index (D), Shannon-Wiener diversity index (H), and species evenness index (E) in relation to the gross domestic product (GDP) (billion RMB) in the Lake Taihu drainage basin (LTDB).
| Simpson diversity index ( | 0.858 | <0.001 | |
| Shannon-Wiener diversity index ( | 0.947 | <0.001 | |
| Species evenness index ( | 0.806 | <0.001 |
FIGURE 4Correlations of the (A) Simpson diversity index, (B) Shannon-Wiener diversity index, and (C) species evenness index with the relative coverage (RC) of E. crassipes in the Lake Taihu drainage basin (LTDB) in 2010, 2014, and 2018.
FIGURE 5Correlations of the (A) Simpson diversity index, (B) Shannon-Wiener diversity index, and (C) species evenness index with the relative coverage (RC) of Ca. caroliniana in the Lake Taihu drainage basin (LTDB) in 2010, 2014, and 2018.