Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2024 Jun 25:931:172960.
doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.172960. Epub 2024 May 4.

Causes of macrophyte mass development and management recommendations

Affiliations
Free article
Review

Causes of macrophyte mass development and management recommendations

Susanne C Schneider et al. Sci Total Environ. .
Free article

Abstract

Aquatic plants (macrophytes) are important for ecosystem structure and function. Macrophyte mass developments are, however, often perceived as a nuisance and are commonly managed by mechanical removal. This is costly and often ineffective due to macrophyte regrowth. There is insufficient understanding about what causes macrophyte mass development, what people who use water bodies consider to be a nuisance, or the potential negative effects of macrophyte removal on the structure and function of ecosystems. To address these gaps, we performed a standardized set of in situ experiments and questionnaires at six sites (lakes, reservoirs, and rivers) on three continents where macrophyte mass developments occur. We then derived monetary values of ecosystem services for different scenarios of macrophyte management ("do nothing", "current practice", "maximum removal"), and developed a decision support system for the management of water courses experiencing macrophyte mass developments. We found that (a) macrophyte mass developments often occur in ecosystems which (unintentionally) became perfect habitats for aquatic plants, that (b) reduced ecosystem disturbance can cause macrophyte mass developments even if nutrient concentrations are low, that (c) macrophyte mass developments are indeed perceived negatively, but visitors tend to regard them as less of a nuisance than residents do, that (d) macrophyte removal lowers the water level of streams and adjacent groundwater, but this may have positive or negative overall societal effects, and that (e) the effects of macrophyte removal on water quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and biodiversity vary, and likely depend on ecosystem characteristics and macrophyte life form. Overall, we found that aquatic plant management often does not greatly affect the overall societal value of the ecosystem, and we suggest that the "do nothing" option should not be easily discarded in the management of perceived nuisance mass developments of aquatic plants.

Keywords: Aquatic plants; Disturbance; Invasive; Macrophyte removal; Nuisance growth; Nutrients.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of competing interest Susanne Schneider reports financial support was provided by Research Council of Norway. Jan Koehler reports financial support was provided by German Federal Ministry of Education and Research. Gabrielle Thiebaut reports financial support was provided by French National Research Agency. Julie Coetzee reports financial support was provided by Water Research Commission. Andre Padial reports financial support was provided by Araucaria Foundation. If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

LinkOut - more resources