| Literature DB >> 35161382 |
Andrej Peternel1,2, Alenka Gaberščik1, Igor Zelnik1, Matej Holcar1, Mateja Germ1.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to reveal the changes of macrophyte community over time and along the course of the Ižica River. In 1996, 2000, and 2016, we surveyed the distribution and abundance of macrophyte species in the lowland Ižica River, which originates in the town of Ig and then flows through an agricultural landscape. We calculated the River Macrophyte Index (RMI), which reflects the ecological status of the river. In 2016, ecomorphological conditions of the river, using the Riparian, Channel and Environmental inventory, were also assessed. In just 10.5 km of the river, we identified 27 taxa of macrophytes, among which Potamogeton natans, Sagittaria sagittifolia, and P. perfoliatus were the most abundant. Detrended correspondence analysis showed that, in 1996, the surveyed stretches differed more according to macrophyte composition than in the following years. The assessed environmental parameters explained 43% of the variability of the macrophyte species; riverbank stability explained 20%, riverbed structure 10%, while vegetation type of the riparian zone and bottom type explained 7 and 5%, respectively. The species composition of the macrophyte community revealed significant changes over the years of the riverine ecosystem. Comparison of RMIs in 1996 revealed better conditions in the upper and middle part of the river, while in 2016, the situation was the opposite, since the conditions in the upper part deteriorated significantly over time, while the lower part of the river had the best ecological status. These changes may be due to a considerable increase in the population of the settlement Ig, while better status in the lower course of the river may be a consequence of improvements in the infrastructure and the use of sustainable agricultural practices in the catchment due to the establishment of a formal area of protection.Entities:
Keywords: Slovenia; ecological status; environmental parameters; long-term changes; lowland river; macrophytes
Year: 2022 PMID: 35161382 PMCID: PMC8840756 DOI: 10.3390/plants11030401
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plants (Basel) ISSN: 2223-7747
Figure 1Map of Slovenia with the position of the study area and map of the Ižica River on the Ljubljana Moor. Points represent the starting or ending point of stretches.
Average values and standard deviations of selected abiotic parameters measured in different stretches of the Ižica River.
| Year | pH | Conductivity (μS cm−1) | NO3-N (mg L−1) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1996 | average | 8.1 | 466 | 1.1 |
| S.D. | 0.05 | 12 | 0.1 | |
| 2000 | average | 7.9 | 509 | 1.0 |
| S.D. | 0.2 | 26 | 0.2 | |
| 2016 | average | 7.8 | 426 | 0.9 |
| S.D. | 0.4 | 17 | 0.2 |
List of aquatic macrophyte taxa recorded in the Ižica River with their codes/abbreviations and functional types (HE—helophytes, AM—amphiphytes, FLH—floating-leaved hydrophytes, FIL—filamentous algae, SM—submerged hydrophytes).
| Taxon Name | Code Name | Functional Type |
|---|---|---|
|
|
| HE |
|
| SM | |
|
|
| SM |
|
|
| FIL |
|
|
| SM |
|
|
| HE |
|
|
| AM |
|
|
| HE |
|
|
| FLH |
|
|
| AM |
|
|
| AM |
|
|
| SM |
|
|
| HE |
|
|
| FLH |
|
|
| SM |
|
|
| SM |
|
|
| FLH |
|
|
| FLH |
|
|
| SM |
|
|
| SM |
|
|
| SM |
|
|
| SM |
|
|
| HE |
|
|
| AM |
|
|
| HE |
|
|
| AM |
|
|
| AM |
Figure 2Relative plant abundance (RPA) in 1996, 2000, and 2016. Species with RPA more than 1% abundance are presented. The graphs are based on macrophyte species and abundance in 26 river stretches surveyed in each year. See caption of Table 2 for abbreviations.
Figure 3Average proportions of the abundances (in %) of the functional types of aquatic macrophytes, as well as single species with average abundance ≥ 2%. The statistical significance between the years 1996 and 2016 was confirmed with paired t-tests. Significant differences over time (p < 0.05) are in bold. See caption of Table 2 for abbreviations.
Figure 4Detrended correspondence analysis ordination diagram showing the similarity among macrophyte assemblages of surveyed stretches in years 1996 (white triangles), 2000 (grey triangles), and 2016 (black triangles). Numbers from 1 to 26 indicate the stretch number (regular, black—1996; bold, grey—2000; bold, black—2016).
Figure 5Canonical correspondence analysis (CCA) ordination plot showing the relationship between different locations, macrophytes presence and abundance, and environmental parameters. Abbreviations: Ber ere—Berula erecta, Cal sp.—Callitriche spp., Elo can—Elodea canadensis, Fil alg—filamentous algae, Fon ant—Fontinalis antipyretica, Gly flu—Glyceria fluitans, Hip vul—Hippuris vulgaris, Iri pse—Iris pseudacorus, Lem min—Lemna minor, Men aqu—Mentha aquatica, Myo sco—Myosotis scorpioides, Myr spi—Myriophyllum spicatum, Nas off—Nasturtium officinale, Nup lut—Nuphar luteum, Pot cri—Potamogeton crispus, Pot luc—P. lucens, Pot nat—P. natans, Pot nod—P. nodosus, Pot per—P. perfoliatus, Stu pec—Stuckenia pectinata, Ran tri—Ranunculus trichophyllus, Sag sag—Sagittaria sagittifolia, Sch lac—Schoenoplectus lacustris, Spa eme—Sparganium emersum, Ver ana—Veronica anagallis-aquatica.
Average values of RMI in the upper, middle and lower course in different years of the survey, and results of testing for significance (t-tests) of these changes along the course of the Ižica River. Significant differences (p < 0.05) are in bold.
| Year | Average RMI, Upper Section: |
| Average RMI, Middle Section: |
| Average RMI, Lower Section: | Changes of RMI along the Course: |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1996 | 0.836 | 0.725 n.s. | 0.825 |
| 0.742 | worst status in lower course |
| 2000 | 0.74 | 0.653 n.s. | 0.75 | 0.894 n.s. | 0.76 | no significant changes |
| 2016 | 0.71 | 0.070 n.s. | 0.65 |
| 0.78 | best status in lower course |
| three years | 0.762 | 0.492 n.s. | 0.745 | 0.439 n.s. | 0.762 | no significant changes |
Figure 6Map of the Ižica River from different years displaying spatial distribution of stretches with different ecological status.
Average values of RMI for the entire course of the Ižica River, and for its upper, middle, or lower course in different years of the survey, and results of testing for significance (paired t-tests) of these changes over time. Significant differences (p < 0.05) are in bold.
| year 1996 |
| year 2000 |
| year 2016 |
| average RMI: entire course = 0.80 |
| average RMI: | average RMI: entire course = 0.72 | |
|
| ||||
| upper = 0.836 |
| upper = 0.71 | ||
| middle = 0.825 |
| middle = 0.65 | ||
| lower = 0.742 | lower = 0.78 | |||