4.1 Article

Between- and within-lake responses of macrophyte richness metrics to shoreline development

Journal

LAKE AND RESERVOIR MANAGEMENT
Volume 29, Issue 3, Pages 179-193

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/10402381.2013.828806

Keywords

docks; glacial lakes; macrophytes; mixed-effects models; scale; shoreline development

Funding

  1. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
  2. University of Minnesota

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aquatic habitat in littoral environments can be affected by residential development of shoreline areas. We evaluated the relationship between macrophyte richness metrics and shoreline development to quantify indicator response at 2 spatial scales for Minnesota lakes. First, the response of total, submersed, and sensitive species to shoreline development was evaluated within lakes to quantify macrophyte response as a function of distance to the nearest dock. Within-lake analyses using generalized linear mixed models focused on 3 lakes of comparable size with a minimal influence of watershed land use. Survey points farther from docks had higher total species richness and presence of species sensitive to disturbance. Second, between-lake effects of shoreline development on total, submersed, emergent-floating, and sensitive species were evaluated for 1444 lakes. Generalized linear models were developed for all lakes and stratified subsets to control for lake depth and watershed land use. Between-lake analyses indicated a clear response of macrophyte richness metrics to increasing shoreline development, such that fewer emergent-floating and sensitive species were correlated with increasing density of docks. These trends were particularly evident for deeper lakes with lower watershed development. Our results provide further evidence that shoreline development is associated with degraded aquatic habitat, particularly by illustrating the response of macrophyte richness metrics across multiple lake types and different spatial scales.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available