Introduction Most aquatic plant research has been stimulated by the need to
control nuisance species such as Eurasian watermilfoil
(Myriophyllum spicatum), elodea (Elodea canadensis), coontail (Ceratophyllum
demersum), curly-leaf pondweed (Potamogeton crispus), water hyacinth (Eichhornia
crassipes), hydrilla
(Hydrilla verticillata), and alligator-weed
(Alternanthera philoxeroides). Understanding aquatic plant biology is
important to the immediate problems of managing aquatic plants and aquatic
ecosystems and it makes the development of new management techniques, the
application of present techniques, and the assessment of environmental impacts
more efficient. Interest in restoring and restructuring macrophyte communities
and an appreciation for the littoral zone (littoral zone is that portion of a
water body extending from the shoreline lakeward to the greatest depth occupied
by rooted plants) is growing. There is also a need to make management results
more predictable, especially when considered in a long-term ecosystem
context. The development of effective and environmentally acceptable aquatic plant
management programs also requires some knowledge of lake and reservoir limnology
(limnology is the scientific study of the physical, chemical, geological, and
biological factors that affect aquatic productivity and water chemistry in
freshwater ecosystems-lakes, reservoirs, rivers, and streams). Many limnological
processes affect the kind and distribution of aquatic plants and aquatic plants
also impact, nutrient, chemical and temperature regimes and other biota in a
lake or reservoir, especially in the littoral zone. A single chapter cannot review all the macrophyte biology, ecology, and
limnology (Hutchinson 1975; Wetzel 1983; Cole 1983) that might be relevant to
aquatic plant management and it is not our intent to do so. We will provide
information that is most applicable to plant management efforts including
information about the basic types of aquatic plants, the habitat factors that
determine plant distribution, the influence aquatic plants have on the littoral
zone, and the relationship between aquatic plants and other organisms including
epiphytes, macroinvertebrates, fish, and wildlife. Types of Aquatic
Plants The type of aquatic and wetland plants (macrophytes) of interest to most
aquatic plant management programs can be classified into four groups:
Emergent, Floating-leaved, Submersed, and Freely floating.
Aquatic macrophytes, by definition, are the macroscopic (large enough to be
observed by the naked eye) forms of aquatic and wetland plants found in water
bodies. The term aquatic macrophytes refers to a diverse group of aquatic plants
and encompasses flowering vascular plants, mosses, ferns, and macroalgae. Emergent macrophytes Emergent plants have to be strongly rooted and much energy is put into
producing a strong structure to withstand the wind and waves in the shallow
water zone. Many species need mud flats to spread by seeds but they can spread
into deeper water by sprouting from an expanding roots or underground stem
(rhizome) systems. In northern climates the dry dead stems often supply oxygen
for root respiration during the winter when the lakes are locked under ice.
Cutting off dead stems below the water surface before the lake freezes limits
oxygen supplies and sometime kills rhizomes - a potentially useful management
technique. Common emergent macrophytes include plants such as reeds (Phragmites
spp.), bulrushes
(Scirpus spp.), cattails (Typha spp.),
and spikerushes
(Eleocharis spp.). Some emergents, wild rice (Zizania
spp.) for example, have submersed or floating leaves before mature aerial leaves
form. Floating-leaved macrophytes Floating leaves live in two extremely different habitats, water on the
bottom, air on top. A thick, waxy coating protects the top of the leaf from the
aerial environment this makes herbicidal control difficult without the addition
of special chemicals called adjuvants (wetting agents) to help the herbicide
stick to and penetrate the waxy surface. Adjuvants are also used on many kinds
of emergent and free-floating species when treating with herbicides for the same
reason. Floating leaves can be ravaged by wind and waves so these plants are
usually found in protected areas. Submersed macrophytes Submersed species face special problems obtaining light for photosynthesis
and they must obtain carbon dioxide from the water where it is much less
available than it is in air. Submersed species invest much less energy into
structural support because they are supported by water and water accounts for
about 95% of the weight of these submersed species. Free floating macrophytes Free floating species are entirely dependent on the water for their nutrient
supply. In fact, some (e.g., water hyacinth) have been used in wastewater
treatment to remove excess nutrients. If nutrient limitation will work for
macrophyte management, this is the group where it is most likely to work. The
location of these plants is at the whims of wind, waves, and current so they
will likely be found in quiet locations and embayments. The above is a general description of aquatic plant groups and some of the
biology pertinent to their management. One excellent resource for this type of
information is the Aquatic Plant Information Retrieval System
at the University of Florida, Center for Aquatic Plants, 7922 N. W. 71st Street,
Gainesville, Florida (http://aquat1.ifas.ufl.edu/). Control tactics are often
species specific and as management plans are devised you will want to know
exactly what species are present, where they are located, and in what abundance.
This takes some technical knowledge but help is usually readily available
through natural resource agencies, universities, museums, natural history
surveys, and private consultants. The Littoral
Zone Rooted aquatic plants inhabit the littoral zone, the interface between dry
land and open water of lakes and reservoirs. The littoral zone is defined by
where plants will grow. It is the area from the lake's edge to the maximum water
depth where plant growth occurs. Because most lakes and reservoirs in the United
States are relatively small and shallow the littoral zone often contributes
significantly to a water body's productivity and it can be a major factor
regulating lake or reservoir ecosystems (Wetzel 1983). The littoral zone has
traditionally been divided into four rather distinct transitional zones: the
eulittoral, upper littoral, middle littoral, and lower littoral (Wetzel
1983). The eulittoral The middle littoral The lower littoral zone Factors Regulating
Plant Growth Different species of aquatic plants live in different "worlds" - sediment,
water, and air in different combinations. Most aquatic plants are secondarily
adapted to life in the water having once lived on land and gradually evolving
mechanisms to deal with a watery world. The most important environmental factors affecting the abundance and
distribution of aquatic macrophytes in lakes are light availability (Spence
1975; Chambers and Kalff 1985; Nichols 1992; and Canfield et al. 1985), lake
trophic characteristics as they relate to nutrients and water chemistry,
(Hutchinson 1975; Beal 1977; Kando 1982; Hoyer et al. 1996), substrate
(sediment) characteristics (Pearsall 1920; Barko et al. 1986; Nichols 1992), and
wind energy (Duarte and Kalff 1986; Dieter 1990). Lake morphology (e.g., shape,
depth etc.), size, and watershed characteristics are related to these factors
independently and in combination (Pearsall 1917; Spence 1982; Duarte and Kalff
1986; Gasith and Hoyer 1997). Aquatic plants require light for growth, thus light availability is often
considered the single most crucial environmental factor regulating the maximum
depth of plant growth (Pearsall 1920; Spence 1975; Chambers and Kalff 1985).
Light availability is directly linked to water clarity (Canfield et al. 1985;
Chambers and Kalff 1985). As water depth increases or water clarity decreases
both the amount and the spectral quality of light for photosynthesis at the lake
bottom diminishes. Generally, submersed macrophytes will grow to a depth of 2-3
times the Secchi depth (depth at which a black and white disk lowered into a
lake disappears). Thus, lakes with the majority of their bottom exceeding 2-3
times the Secchi depth will have fewer aquatic macrophytes. Even shallow lakes,
if they are turbid enough, will have sparse aquatic plant growth (Engel and
Nichols 1994; Nichols and Rogers 1997, in press). Water clarity in most lakes is controlled by phytoplankton, organic color and
both organic and inorganic suspended particles (Jones and Bachmann 1978;
Canfield and Hodgson 1983; Hoyer and Jones 1983). Lakes with low phytoplankton
concentrations and low color values have high water clarity. As phytoplankton
and color levels increase, there is a rapid reduction in water clarity, aquatic
macrophytes become light limited, and the size of the littoral zone can
decrease. Conversely, the size of the littoral zone can increase if
phytoplankton or color levels decrease which can occur where management efforts
reduce nutrient levels in a lake. The amount of non-algal suspended particles (suspended solids) in a lake is
determined by the continuous processes of tributary input, sedimentation and
resuspension. Shallow lakes with substantial layers of soft sediments and open
to the wind often have high suspended solids concentrations due to wind mixing
of bottom sediments. Suspended solids limit light for plant growth and decrease
littoral zone size. Boat traffic, shoreline erosion, and biotic factors like
common carp can increase suspended sediment. Plant Nutrition, Trophic Status,
and Water Chemistry All things being equal, nutrient poor lakes are less productive than nutrient
rich lakes (Hutchinson, 1975). A primary factor determining the trophic status
(i.e., nutrient richness) of a lake is the geologic region where the lake occurs
(Jones and Bachmann 1978; Canfield and Hoyer 1988). Watershed management
practices and direct human-caused nutrient additions can also be important. There are few substantiated reports of nutrient related growth limitation for
aquatic plants (Barko et al. 1986). Nutrients supplied from sediments combined
with those in solution are generally adequate to meet nutritional demands of
rooted aquatic plants, even in oligotrophic (nutrient poor) systems (Barko et
al. 1986). While this information suggests that nutrients do not limit growth of
aquatic plants in oligotrophic lakes, these lakes generally maintain less total
biomass of aquatic plants and usually different species than eutrophic (nutrient
rich) lakes (Canfield and Hoyer 1992). Rooted macrophytes usually fulfill their phosphorus (P) and nitrogen (N)
requirements by direct uptake from sediments (Barko et al. 1986). The role of
sediment as a direct source of P and N for submersed macrophytes is ecologically
quite significant, because available forms of these elements are normally in
very low concentration in the open water of aquatic systems during the growing
season. Likewise, the availability of micronutrients in the open water is
usually very low but they are relatively available in most sediments. However,
the preferred source of some nutrients such as potassium (K), calcium (Ca),
magnesium (Mg), sulfate (SO4), sodium (Na), and (Cl) appears to be the open
water. Submersed macrophytes make use of both aqueous and sedimentary nutrient
sources, and sites (roots vs. shoots) of uptake are related, at least in part,
to nutrient-specific differences in sediment compared to overlying water
nutrient availability. In other words, submersed plants are operating like good
opportunistic species should operate; they take nutrient supplies from the most
available source. Inorganic carbon is the nutrient most likely limiting photosynthesis and
growth of submersed macrophytes (Barko et al. 1986). The difficulty plants have
in carbon dioxide (CO2) transport is known to limit photosynthesis in
terrestrial plants and is even more critical in submersed species because the
diffusion of CO2 in water is much slower than in air. Free CO2 is the more
readily used carbon form for photosynthesis by freshwater submersed plants. Some
species can utilize bicarbonate as a carbon source, but do so less efficiently.
The ability to use bicarbonate has adaptive significance in many freshwater
systems because the largest fraction of inorganic carbon exists as
bicarbonate. Besides influencing growth, general water chemistry (i.e., pH, alkalinity,
conductivity ) influences the species composition in lakes and is an important
factor determining plant distribution over broad geographic regions (Moyle 1956;
Nichols and Yandell 1995; and Hoyer et al. 1996). Hardwater/softwater, acid/alkaline, oligotrophic/eutrophic Ñ there is
tremendous variety in the waters of the world but usually there are plants than
can live there. Nutrient poor systems (oligotrophic) generally have less biomass
or Percent of the lakes Volume Infested with aquatic plants (PVI) than nutrient
rich systems (eutrophic). Oligotrophic systems, however, can still have a
substantial Percentage of Lake Area Covered (PAC) with aquatic plants, up to
100% coverage while maintaining little plant biomass. Nutrient rich systems have
the potential for both a large PAC and PVI. Hypereutrophic systems (very
nutrient rich) have the potential for large PAC and PVI values but in some
systems that have heavy phytoplankton growth the rooted plants can be shaded
out, yielding low PAC and PVI values. Bottom sediments act as a nutrient source and anchoring point for aquatic
plants. Some bottom types (e.g., rocks or cobble) are so hard that plant roots
cannot penetrate them. Others are so soft, flocculent, and unstable that they
will not anchor plants. Extremely coarse-textured sediment (sand) can be so
nutritionally poor for macrophyte growth that low level accumulation of organic
matter from plant growth or erosion stimulates growth. Anaerobic (no oxygen) conditions found in many lake sediments may have a
profound effect on plant growth. Low dissolved oxygen concentrations, high
concentrations of soluble reduced iron and manganese can be toxic to plants.
Soluble sulfides including S= , HS-, and H2S are highly toxic to plants. High
soluble iron concentrations interfere with sulfur metabolism and limit the
availability of phosphorus. Sediments containing excessive organic matter often
contain high concentrations of organic acids, methane, ethylene, phenols, and
alcohols that can be toxic to vegetation. The above conditions are most
frequently found in anaerobic (devoid of oxygen) sediments of eutrophic or
hypereutrophic lakes. To some degree, aquatic plants can protect themselves from
these toxins with oxygen released from roots, which eliminates the anaerobic
conditions that create the toxic substances. Lake Morphology - An Integrating
Factor Turbidity, nutrient concentration, sediment texture, sediment organic matter,
siltation rates, wind and wave action are parameters identified as important
factors determining aquatic plant distribution and abundance. These parameters
are interrelated and interact with basin depth, bottom slope, surface area and
shape to determine littoral zone size. Lake basin forms are extremely variable. They reflect the water body's mode
of origin and they are constantly being modified by water movements within the
basin and sediment inputs from the watershed (Hutchinson 1975; Wetzel and Hough
1973). As basin form is modified, the size of the littoral zone in relation to a
lake's open-water changes with most water bodies becoming shallower. Unless
something or someone intervenes, littoral zone size increases as a water body
gets older. Water depth is one of the most critical environmental factors determining the
lakeward extent of the littoral zone and the type of plants that grow in a water
body. Where a lake's substrate exceeds 2-3 times the Secchi depth, submersed
aquatic plants will be light limited and generally not able to grow. With some
exceptions, a depth range between 30 and 45 ft (9 and 14 m) is the limit for
most aquatic plants. Emergent and floating-leaved plants seldom grow in water
exceeding 10 ft (3 m), so deep lakes also have limited emergent communities. The steepness of the littoral slope is inversely related to the maximum
biomass of submersed macrophytes (Duarte and Kalff 1986). Probably, this is due
to the difference in sediment stability on gentle and steep slopes. A gently
sloping littoral allows the deposition of fine sediments that promote plant
growth. Steeply sloped littorals are areas of erosion and sediment transport
(Pearsall 1917), areas not suitable for plant growth. The manipulation of lake
depth and slope are both powerful tools when encouraging or discouraging the
growth of aquatic plants in specific areas of a lake. All lakes have a shoreline-water interface that receives energy from wind and
waves. Surface area and shape significantly influence the effect wind can have
on wave size and current strength. Large lakes tend to have larger fetches (area
open to the prevailing wind) and thus have greater wave and current energy than
lakes with small surface areas. Wave action and currents erode a terrace along
the shoreline, leaving coarse material in shallow water and depositing finer
materials in deep water. The direction and strength of the wind, slope, and
shape of the lake basin determine where the substrates will move. Generally,
points and shallows where wind and wave energy are highest tend to be swept
clean. Bays and deep spots in a lake tend to fill with sediment. In England,
Pearsall (1920) demonstrated that the variation in the quantity and quality of
silt largely controls the distribution of submersed vegetation. Large lakes with
many bays or coves may develop an extensive littoral zone because these areas
are protected from strong waves and currents. Thus, basin size, shape, and depth
determine to a large degree the distribution of sediments in a lake and
therefore the distribution of aquatic plants. The Effects of
Macrophytes on Their Environment Up to this point we have discussed the effects of the environment on
macrophytes. Now it is time to discuss the converseÑthe effects of macrophytes
on their environment. Natural ecosystems can experience massive changes in
macrophyte biomass over time scales of decades to centuries. Management
practices and the introduction of new species produce equally large changes over
time scales of weeks or months. How are the amount of macrophytes and change in
the amount of macrophytes likely to change the aquatic ecosystem? The effects
are physical, chemical, and biological. Dense stands of aquatic plants form a heavy shading canopy that significantly
alters the photosynthetically available light under macrophyte stands (Adams et
al. 1974). Shading and reduced water circulation allow vertical temperature
gradients as steep as 18¡F (10¡C) over 3 ft (1m) of water to develop under
macrophyte canopies (Dale and Gillespie 1977). Reduction in water flow through macrophyte beds enhances deposition of fine
sediment that would otherwise be eroded. Macrophyte beds also act as a sieve,
retaining coarse particulate organic detritus. Both of these mechanisms increase
the accumulation of sediments which is usually undesirable to shoreline users
that like to swim or wade in the waters edge. Daily dissolved oxygen changes as large as 8 mg/L occur in waters of dense
submersed macrophyte stands. During daylight hours, while photosynthesis occurs,
water can become supersaturated with oxygen. Respiration at night can deplete
dissolved oxygen in dense beds with little water circulation. Dense growths of
floating or matted submersed species decreases oxygenation by inhibiting oxygen
exchange with the atmosphere. Macrophytes influence nutrient cycles. Phosphorus for example, is removed
from the sediment via plant roots and incorporated into plant biomass. When
plant tissue dies, phosphorus is circulated, at least briefly, back into the
water column. The extent and timing of this cycling can greatly influence
phytoplankton growth. If nutrients are "tied up" in macrophyte biomass during
the growing season, little is available for phytoplankton growth and the water
in the littoral zone may be clearer than in deeper water zones. In northern
lakes, if the nutrients are released in the fall, water temperatures are cool
enough so phytoplankton blooms, at least noxious ones, do not occur. If
macrophytes die during the spring or summer, as often happens with herbicide
treatments, nutrients are released at an opportune time for phytoplankton
growth. Macrophyte death and decay also adds organic matter to the sediments. When
and how much organic matter is added influences dissolved oxygen concentrations.
If large amounts of dead organic matter are added to the lake under warm, still
conditions, oxygen depletion and its associated impacts on aquatic organisms are
a concern. This can occur if summer herbicide treatments are not well planned.
In northern climates oxygen depletion occurs under ice and can be critical if
decaying vegetation is extremely abundant. Over the short-term, organic matter addition is a food source for benthic
organisms. Over the long term, accretion of organic sediments causes expansion
of the littoral zone and filling in the lake. In general, macrophyte stands are
sinks for particulate matter and sources of dissolved phosphorus and inorganic
carbon (Carpenter and Lodge 1986). How important is all this to overall lake productivity and ecology? The
importance of the littoral zone to whole lake primary productivity (the rate at
which algae and macrophytes fix or convert light, water, and carbon to plant
tissue in plant cells) varies with the size and volume of the lake and the size
of the littoral zone in that lake. Small lakes generally have more miles of
shoreline per acre of lake surface so they have more potential for a higher
littoral zone productivity when compared to open water algal productivity. Thus,
the importance of aquatic macrophytes and attached periphyton to the overall
productivity of lakes decreases proportionately as lakes get larger and deeper
(Rounsefell 1946; Tilzer and Serruya 1990; Gasith and Hoyer 1997). Shallow
lakes, however, can also have a limited littoral zone with low submersed
macrophyte abundance because of natural circumstances (low water clarity) or
lake management activities (macrophyte control with herbicides, biocontrol, or
mechanical harvesting). In these lakes, open-water algae would again dominate
the total primary productivity of the systems. Generally the more productive the littoral zone, the more productive the
whole lake is likely to be, if your definition of productive is carbon fixed
(total photosynthesis). There are, however, few herbivores in North America
(invertebrates or fish) that derive energy directly from aquatic macrophytes
(Hecky and Hesslein 1995). Recently, stable carbon isotope analysis (an analysis
that follows the flow of carbon through a food web from primary producers
through top carnivores) in a shallow Florida lake showed the carbon source for
12 species of fish and five species of invertebrates was primarily epiphytes
(algae that grow attached to aquatic plants) and not eel-grass (Vallisneria
americana), the rooted aquatic plant that covered 90% of the lake area
(Hoyer et al. 1997). Thus, while eel-grass was fixing the majority of the carbon
in the lake, the carbon fixed by periphyton was the major source being
transferred through the food web. Aquatic plants and attached periphyton in the littoral zone are food and
habitat for a wide variety of organisms. Because this is a rather large and
understudied topic we will discuss it separately from the other effects
macrophytes have on their environment. The physical and chemical changes that
macrophytes produce in the littoral impact the other organisms that live there.
We separate the relationships only for ease of discussion and will emphasize the
relationships with epiphytes and macroinvertebrates, fish, and wildlife
species. Epiphytes and
Macroinvertebrates Macrophytes are colonized by a rich array of microbes, particularly in hard
water lakes where carbonate deposits provide a matrix for the epiphytes
(Allanson 1973). Productivity of the epiphyte complex ranges from 4 to 93% of
host macrophyte productivity (Carpenter and Lodge 1986). Epiphytes appear to be
much more active than their hosts in dissolved nutrient exchange.
(Howard-Williams 1981; Carignan and Kalff 1982). High invertebrate densities typically associated with macrophytes may result
from the epiphytic food available on macrophyte surfaces. Many invertebrates
associated with macrophytes eat the epiphyte-detritus complex on the surface of
the macrophytes rather than the macrophytes themselves (Hoyer et al. 1997). A few invertebrates, however, feed directly on aquatic macrophytes. A classic
case is the denuding of some macrophyte communities in northern Wisconsin lakes
by the exotic (for this region) crayfish Orconectes rusticus (Lodge and Lorman
1987). Also, mining insects bore through plant tissue and some insects use plant
tissue as habitat to lay eggs and nurture immature life stages. With these
activities, insects destroy much more macrophyte tissue than they consume. Invertebrates that live in sediments congregate beneath macrophytes as well .
Some use plant remains as food and shelter. Others eat algae that cover
sediments. The total abundance of invertebrates (primarily chironomid larvae)
varied up to 196,000/m2 on and under Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum
spicatum) beds in a cove of the Hudson River, New York (Menzie 1980). In
the Eau Galle Reservoir-Wisconsin, bottom dwelling organisms were more than ten
fold greater in number in a coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum) bed than
in an adjacent barren area with the same substrate (Miller et al. 1989). The
inshore area, under macrophyte beds in Halverson Lake, Wisconsin contained 60%
of the midge larvae and over 90% each of snails, fingernail clams and caddisfly,
dragonfly, damselfly, and mayfly larvae (Engel 1985) in the lake. Although the importance of invertebrates may not be obvious to many lake
users, they can be a link between the production of macrophytes, phytoplankton,
epiphytes and the energy (i.e. food) needs of recreationally important fish and
wildlife species. Invertebrates are a major food source for forage fish and
young life stages of many game fish. Young waterfowl depend heavily on
invertebrates as a high protein food source needed for rapid early growth. The interactions between fish and aquatic plants are highly variable which
makes discussing generalities difficult. The relationships vary because of
differences in aquatic systems, lake morphology, plant forms and abundances,
fish species composition, and geographic area. Generally, however, there are
fish species that decrease in abundance (e.g., bluespotted sunfish,
Enneacanthus gloriosus), increase in abundance (e.g., gizzard shad,
Dorosoma cepedianum) and maintain the same abundance (largemouth bass,
Micropterus salmoides) as aquatic macrophytes abundance decreases in a
lake (Bailey 1978, Noble 1981; Maceina and Shireman 1985; Hoyer and Canfield
1994a). Each lake has a carrying capacity for the total amount of fish, which is
primarily determined by lake trophic status (Yurk and Ney 1989; Bachmann et al.
1996). Within that carrying capacity aquatic macrophytes can determine the fish
species composition in a lake. High aquatic plant abundance favors fish species
that are adapted to aquatic plants. Low aquatic plant abundance favors fish
species that are adapted to open water. It is important to note here that the
number of species in a lake generally remains the same and only the species
composition changes. A good example of this is Lake Baldwin, Florida that went
from 95% covered with hydrilla to <1% after the introduction of grass carp
while maintaining the same fish species richness (Shireman et al. 1985). A major factor determining the value of aquatic plants to fish species is
whether the fish is a prey species or a predator species. The presence of
aquatic macrophytes increases the physical structural complexity of lake
ecosystems. This structural complexity provides refuge for prey species and
interferes with the feeding of some predator species. Exposure to predators
strongly determines small fish feeding behavior. If they are relatively safe
from predators they can forage more effectively. For large predators, the visual
barriers of plant stems decreases foraging efficiency; hence growth declines as
habitats become more complex (Colle and Shireman 1980). Sometimes small areas of littoral habitat, while not contributing
significantly to the total production of the lake, are important for the
reproduction or recruitment (i.e., spawning or nursery habitat) of some fish or
other aquatic organisms. For example, although spawning on macrophytes is
unusual for salmonids, at least a portion of the population of lake trout
(Salvelinus namaycush) in Lake Tahoe spawns in deep water (40-60m deep)
over beds of Chara spp (Beauchamp et al. 1992). No additional evidence
for spawning was found over rocky formations that exist at various depths in the
lake. Apparently the Chara spp. mounds, which represent a small portion of the
primary productivity in Lake Tahoe, are favored as they provide the basic
requirements for successful egg incubation. These are only a few of the important relationships that exist between
aquatic plants and fish populations. Unfortunately, these relationships give
little insight into how aquatic macrophytes affect "fishing." Some anglers enjoy
fishing in aquatic plants and some do not, but most anglers agree that there can
be too many aquatic plants for good fishing (King et al. 1978). Thus, the
question boils down to how many plants are the right amount to provide habitat
for fish populations and structure for anglers. Too few plants generally do not
provide enough cover; too many may lead to stunted fish populations, poor
predator growth and poor fishing. The common answer is a moderate amount of
aquatic plants. Several studies have suggested optimum vegetative coverages for
healthy fish populations ranging from 15-85% (Canfield and Hoyer 1992; Kilgore
et al. 1993). It is important to note, however, that lakes with no aquatic
plants and those with 100% volume infested with aquatic plants will both support
fish populations. The problem is that some of these populations do not occur in
the desired abundances or species compositions. Similar to fish, the interaction between wildlife and aquatic plants is
highly variable which makes discussing generalities difficult. Relationships
vary by differences in the aquatic system, plant form and abundance, species of
animal, life stage, and geographic area. Herbivory of macrophytes by wildlife species is much more common than with
fish and is probably an under appreciated aspect of energy and nutrient transfer
in the littoral zone. Pelikan et al. (1971) reported that 9-14% of the net
annual cattail production is consumed or used as lodge construction by muskrats.
Smith and Kadlec (1985) reported that waterfowl and mammalian grazers reduced
cattail production by 48% in the Great Salt Lake marsh. Muskrat grazing or "eat
out" is important for maintaining diversity in the emergent zone. Open areas in
the cattail marsh are produced that increase edge effect and allow submersed
species and other emergent species to invade areas previously occupied by a
single species of dense emergent vegetation. Seeds, tubers, and foliage of submersed species are used as food by a variety
of wildlife, especially waterfowl (Nichols and Vennie 1991). Plant material is
often high in carbohydrates, which provide energy for long migratory flights.
Anderson and Low (1976) estimated that waterfowl consumed 40% of the peak
standing crop of sago pondweed in Delta Marsh, Manitoba. The scientific name of
canvasback ducks (Aythya valisinera shows their close association with
wild celery or eel-grass (Vallisneria americana) that they eat in
abundance during fall migration and on their wintering grounds in Chesapeake
Bay. A major concern about the Eurasian watermilfoil invasion is its
displacement of wild celery in large shallow lakes in Minnesota, the upper
Mississippi River, Wisconsin, and Chesapeake Bay--traditional resting areas for
canvasbacks, a species with generally declining numbers. Invertebrates produced in macrophyte beds are also important to wildlife
production. They produce the protein that is vital to laying hens and chicks of
many waterfowl and related waterbirds. Higher up the food chain eagles, osprey,
loons, mergansers, cormorants, mink, otter, raccoons, and herons, to name a few,
feed on fish or shellfish which dined on invertebrates that lived in aquatic
plant beds. Nesting sites in, or nesting materials from the emergent zone are important
to species like red-winged and yellow headed blackbirds, marshwrens, grebes,
bitterns, Canada geese, and muskrats. Sometimes the importance is not direct.
Geese and other waterfowl sometime nest on top of muskrat houses or muskrat food
piles made of cattails. Richness of bird species is positively correlated to area and trophic status
of Florida lakes but not with macrophytes (Hoyer and Canfield 1994b). As
macrophyte abundance increases, however, birds that used open-water habitats are
replaced by species that use macrophytes communities. Some bird species require
specific types of aquatic vegetation and removal of that type may exclude
individual bird species from a lake system. A topic seldom discussed is the nutrient import and recycling ability of
animals. Hoyer and Canfield (1994b) estimated that phosphorus loads into 14
Florida lakes by birds ranged from 0.1% to 9.1% of the annual phosphorus budget,
an amount they thought was insignificant. The nutrient inputs to a small lake by
a few hundred resting Canada geese after feeding all morning in a nearby
cornfield may be a different matter. Nutrient budgets need to be analyzed on an
individual lake basis to determine the significance of wildlife inputs. A wildlife relationship of special concern is that between aquatic plants and
mosquitoes. Prior to the invention of chemicals for mosquito control, the
removal of aquatic plants was the dominant method of control. Some aquatic plant
management is still done for mosquito control. Certainly anything that causes
stagnant water and has no predators or offers protection from predators of
mosquito larvae has the potential to support a mosquito nuisance. This includes
temporary ponds, knotholes in trees, and old tires lying in the backyard. Where
aquatic plants exacerbate these conditions they may contribute to the mosquito
problem. If water circulation and predators are present, mosquitoes are much
less of a nuisance. Certain aquatic plants can prevent mosquitoes from laying eggs and others can
prevent the development of adult mosquitoes (Angerilli and Beirne 1980; Matheson
1930). The presence of aquatic plants, however, does not necessarily mean there
will be mosquito problems. Even the elimination of aquatic plants will not
guarantee the control mosquitoes, so other mosquito control methods may be more
suitable.