Factors shaping submerged bryophyte communities: A conceptual model for small mountain streams in Germany

• Published in: Limnologica Vol. 42; no. 3; pp. 242 - 250
• Main Authors: Tremp, Horst, Kampmann, Dorothea, Schulz, Ralf
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Elsevier GmbH 01-09-2012
• Subjects: altitude; Aquatic bryophytes; bicarbonates; biomass; botanical composition; Bryopsida; Bryum argenteum; carbon dioxide; data collection; Distribution patterns; Fontinalis antipyretica; Freshwater; Grimmia pulvinata; growth factors; ionic strength; monitoring; Species response curves; stream channels; Water Framework Directive; Germany; Water Framework Directive; Species response curves; Aquatic bryophytes; Distribution patterns
• ISSN: 0075-9511; 1873-5851
• DOI: 10.1016/j.limno.2012.01.003

Several models explaining species composition of aquatic bryophytes are available for specific regions. However, a more general, conceptual model applicable to a broader range of regions is lacking.
We present a conceptual model ranking environmental factors determining submerged bryophyte communities in small mountain streams. It was tested on a dataset of 54 stream sections after removing the effect of stream size and altitude. Species responses were modeled with pH as predictor variable based on 97 stream sites covering six mountain regions all over Germany. Multiple regressions revealed the importance of primary growth factors (light, Ep(CO2)) and substrate for the total submerged bryophyte coverage.
The known distinction of hard- and softwater bryoflora was clearly supported. The floristic composition of headwaters was predominantly determined by the bicarbonate/ionic strength complex. Species response to pH values supported this result and thus our conceptual model. The primary growth resources light, Ep(CO2) and availability of coarse streambed material explained one third (Radjusted2=0.34) of total submerged bryophyte cover. Disturbances, predominantly spates, reduce biomass but do not affect the basic floristic structure.
In conclusion, conceptual models and monitoring methods focusing on aquatic bryophytes need to clearly distinguish “aquatic” from “submersed by chance”. All “aquatic bryophytes” found in Germany can also occur at least temporarily at non-submerged sites. Therefore, a distinction between primary growth factors and additional resources is recommended to disentangle factors determining aquatic bryophyte communities.