The Ecophysiological Response of Two Invasive Submerged Plants to Light and Nitrogen

Abstract

Two submerged Elodea species have small differences in their ecophysiological responses when exposed to individual environmental factors. However, field observations showed that under eutrophic conditions with low light availability, Elodea canadensis could be displaced by Elodea nuttallii. Here we investigated the combined effect of environmental factors on the ecophysiological response of the two species in order to explain the differences in their invasion successes. We cultivated the plants in aquaria containing five different nitrogen (N) concentrations and incubated at five different light intensities. For both species increasing nitrogen concentrations resulted in increased relative growth rate, chlorophyll concentration, and actual photochemical efficiency of photosystem II (Φ_PSII), however, they produced less roots. Lowering light intensity resulted in a lower relative growth rate, root production, and nutrient removal. In contrast, chlorophyll concentration in the leaves, and Φ_PSII increased. The main difference between the two Elodea species was that the light compensation point (I _c) and weight loss in the dark were significantly higher and photochemical efficiency and chlorophyll concentration were significantly lower for E. canadensis than for E. nuttallii, indicating that the latter can survive under much more shady and hypertrophic conditions. The change in nitrogen concentration of the media and in tissue concentration of the plants indicated that E. nuttallii has a higher nitrogen removal capacity. The ecophysiological differences between the two species can be an explanation for invasion success of E. nuttallii over E. canadensis and thus may explain why the latter is replaced by the first.

Keywords: Elodea; growth rate; interaction; nutrient removal; photochemical efficiency.

Figure 1

Relative growth rate (RGR) of E. canadensis (A) and E. nuttallii (B) cultures grown at different nitrogen concentrations and light levels (mean ± SD, n = 4).

Figure 2

Light compensation point (I_c) of E. canadensis and E. nuttallii cultures grown at different nitrogen concentrations. I_c values were estimated according to Sand-Jensen and Madsen (1991).

Figure 3

Actual photochemical efficiency of photosystem II (Φ_II) of E. canadensis (A) and E. nuttallii (B) cultures grown at different nitrogen concentrations and light levels (mean ± SD, n = 4).

Figure 4

Chlorophyll concentration (μg mg^-1) in the leaves of E. canadensis (A) and E. nuttallii (B) cultures grown at different nitrogen concentrations and light levels, (mean ± SD, n = 4).

Figure 5

Root–shoot ratio of Elodea canadensis (A) and E. nuttallii (B) cultures grown at different nitrogen concentrations and light levels, (mean ± SD, n = 4).

Figure 6

Carbon/nitrogen ratio (C/N ratio) of E. canadensis (A) and E. nuttallii (B) cultures grown at different nitrogen concentrations and light levels (mean ± SD, n = 4).

Figure 7

Plant tissue nitrogen concentration of Elodea species grown at different nitrogen concentrations at the highest light intensity (180 µmol m⁻² s⁻¹) (mean ± SD, n = 4).

Figure 8

Total nitrogen concentration of the medium with Elodea species grown under 5 mg L⁻¹ initial N concentration at different light levels (mean ± SD, n = 4).

Figure 9

The effect of light levels and nitrogen on the ecophysiological and phenotypic traits of Elodea nuttallii resulting in invasion success. Solid lines represent stimulation, dashed lines represent inhibition processes. N+ and N− indicate the stimulating or inhibitory impacts of increased nitrogen supply, I₀ light compensation point.