Skip to main content
NCBI home page
AoB Plants logoLink to AoB Plants
. 2022 Mar 4;14(2):plac009. doi: 10.1093/aobpla/plac009

High-light inhibition of two submerged macrophytes in a shallow water experiment

Jin-Rui Yuan 1, Zhong-Xi Bai 1, Shi-Yun Ye 1, Hui Liu 1, Yan-Hong Wang 2, Feng Li 3, Yong-Hong Xie 3, An-Guo Gao 4,✉, Ai-Ping Wu 1,✉
Editor: Kate McCulloh
PMCID: PMC8994855  PMID: 35414861

Abstract

The negative effects, caused by high light, on algae, terrestrial and marine aquatic plants are well documented; those negative effects on freshwater submerged plants are, however, not well known. We determined the negative effects of two common submerged species, Myriophyllum spicatum and Vallisneria natans, on their growth and reproduction in a shallow water experiment along an irradiance gradient. Our results highlighted that the plant mass, relative growth rate and shoot height of V. natans and M. spicatum, and root mass and root length:root mass of M. spicatum and leaf mass and shoot height:shoot mass of V. natans were significantly negatively affected in shallow water with high-light regime (>50 % of full light). While the ramet number of the two species was stimulated by from 20.0 to 36.4 %, and root length, root:shoot, chlorophyll (a:b), chlorophyll (a + b), leaf carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus contents of the two studied macrophytes were not significantly impacted by light. Our results indicated that the high-light inhibition of plant growth was greater on the shoots than on the roots of the plants, although these effects were significantly different between the two studied submerged species and among the measured traits. Accordingly, we should avoid negative effects caused by high light to improve the performance of submerged species when we conduct submerged aquatic vegetation restoration programmes in eutrophic lakes.

Keywords: Eutrophication, high-light inhibition, negative growth, photo-damage, photoinhibition, restoration, submerged species

Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) restoration is an important and applicable technology to retard the eutrophication process of lakes. Accordingly, planting submerged plants in habitats with shallow water is recommended as submerged species are often limited by low light in these eutrophic water bodies. We found that submerged plants could be inhibited by high light if the water was too shallow. Thus, we should trade-off the water level to avoid high-light inhibition effects on submerged species when we conduct SAV restoration programmes in eutrophic lakes.

Introduction

Aquatic ecosystems are very important to human societies due to their valuable goods and services (Strayer and Dudgeon 2010; Geist 2011; Hilt et al. 2017). However, these ecosystems and even the organisms within them are greatly threatened worldwide because of many environmental and anthropogenic factors (Strayer and Dudgeon 2010; Geist 2011; Liu et al. 2020). Accordingly, many aquatic plants are rapidly declining and even disappearing from water bodies, especially due to water eutrophication globally (Geist 2011; Zhang et al. 2017; O’Hare et al. 2018). This is largely because the growth and reproduction of submerged species are limited by low-light availability in eutrophic lakes (Lacoul and Freedman 2006; Schelske et al. 2010; Bornette and Puijalon 2011). Similarly, the failure of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) restoration and plantings is mainly attributed to low water transparency in these eutrophic lakes (Chen et al. 2009; Liu et al. 2016; Brezonik et al. 2019). Accordingly, planting submerged macrophytes in habitats with shallow water by lowing water is recommended to ensure enough available light for their growth and convenient planting, especially in some ultra-eutrophic lakes (Chen et al. 2009; Li and Wang 2013). However, some submerged macrophytes are negatively affected by photo-damage (especially of photoinhibition) even though the light is relatively low at 100 μmol photons m−2 s−1 (Su et al. 2004; Hussner et al. 2010; Zefferman 2014). Thus, photo-damage or high-light inhibition of submerged species in shallow water should be considered when SAV restoration is conducted in eutrophic lakes.

Photoinhibition or photoinhibition-dependent responses are the most evident photo-damage or high-light inhibition effects when plants are suffered high-light stress, though other physiological damages, genetic expression and morphological responses (photo-acclimation) occur simultaneously (Szymańska et al. 2017; Vialet-Chabrand et al. 2017; Patil et al. 2020). Photoinhibition occurs when an organism cannot mitigate photoinactivation due to the failure of photoprotection because the photorepair of photosystem (PS) II lags behind the damage of reaction centre proteins (Hanelt et al. 2006). Due to rapid light attenuation with water depth (Schelske et al. 2010), most research has concentrated on the impact of low light on the growth and photosynthesis of aquatic plants, and the impacts of high light are very scarce (Aguilera et al. 2008; Schubert et al. 2015). In addition, an apparent photoinhibition and a decline in photosynthetic capacity are frequently observed in higher irradiance investigations (Su et al. 2004; Hussner et al. 2010; Petrou et al. 2013). In these studies, photoinhibition of organisms across terrestrial plants (Míguez et al. 2015), algae (Zhang et al. 2019) and marine aquatic plants (Petrou et al. 2013; Schubert et al. 2015) is frequently investigated, while photoinhibition of freshwater submerged macrophytes is not well documented (Su et al. 2004; Hussner et al. 2010; Zefferman 2014). This might be because light sources in experimental studies are mostly from artificial light (Zefferman 2014). Artificial light, e.g. ultraviolet radiation (UVR), is often used to determine photoinhibition effects on aquatic plants, as photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) and UVR show similar effects of photoinhibition on all types of aquatic plants (Larkum and Wood 1993). Nevertheless, the mechanisms of photoinhibition between PAR and UVR are significantly different (Hanelt et al. 2006). Photoinhibition of PAR is directly correlated with a surplus of photosynthetic pigment absorption of radiation, resulting in a loss of active PS II reaction centres (Osmond 1994). However, photoinhibition of UVR is related to the spectral absorption of DNA and proteins rather than the absorption of photosynthetic pigments, causing direct molecular damage (Hanelt et al. 2006). Accordingly, the photoinhibition of submerged macrophytes studied by the use of artificial light (including UVR) rather than PAR cannot well demonstrate the actual photoinhibition of submerged macrophytes in nature (Su et al. 2004; Hussner et al. 2010; Zefferman 2014). Furthermore, photoinhibition effects on submerged macrophytes are focused on their photosynthetic responses, while photoinhibition effects on the growth and reproduction of submerged macrophytes are greatly neglected (Su et al. 2004; Zefferman 2014), possibly due to short experimental periods (Hanelt et al. 2006; Hussner et al. 2010). Moreover, photoinhibition of submerged macrophytes is not easy to observe in the field, as macrophytes can rapidly recover from photoinhibition through their effective photoprotective mechanisms (Hanelt et al. 2006; Hussner et al. 2010). To address this research gap, it is a need to account for photo-damage (which may include photoinhibition) or negative effects on the growth and reproduction of submerged macrophytes caused by high-light PAR.

In this study, we selected Myriophyllum spicatum and Vallisneria natans as our study plants, as Liu et al. (2020) noted that they could be used to restore submerged macrophytes in shallow eutrophic lakes in the Yangtze floodplain. We conducted a controlled experiment to determine the morphological, physiological and propagation responses of the two submerged species to a light gradient from May to July in 2018. Accordingly, plant mass, relative growth rate (RGR), shoot height, root length, leaf mass, stem mass, root mass, root:shoot, root length:root mass, shoot height:shoot mass, ramet number, chlorophyll (a:b), chlorophyll (a + b), leaf carbon (C) contents, nitrogen (N) contents and phosphorus (P) contents along the light gradient were measured. We hypothesized that (i) the first 13 indices for both species would be negatively affected by high-light conditions because of photo-damage in both the long and short term; (ii) plant chemical composition (C, N, P contents) will be significantly impacted by light conditions during growth; (iii) aquatic plants would accelerate clonal growth in high-light regimes.

Materials and Methods

Pot experiment

This experiment was conducted at the Yunyuan Experiment Station (28.11°N, 113.04°E) of Hunan Agricultural University, Changsha, Hunan Province, China, where the temperature ranged from 19 to 37 °C during the experimental period. Two common submerged macrophytes (V. natans and M. spicatum) were collected from our aquaculture pond. All collected submerged macrophytes were washed and brushed softly with enough distilled water, and then, robust apical unbranched shoots (15 cm in length and similar in morphology; clonal ramet with three leaves for V. natans) were cut for planting. Before planting, six individuals of each species were weighed to obtain their initial fresh mass for each individual (W0). In every pot, four individuals of the same plant species were planted 5 cm deep. Every pot had a circular area of 490 cm2 (soil surface), a 15-cm depth and preweighted 5.0 kg of sediment from a local pond (organic matter: 9.2–10.3 g kg−1; total N: 0.68–0.82 g kg−1, total P: 0.16–0.22 g kg−1 and pH: 6.85–7.12, ~18-cm-thick soil layer). Every pot was put in a plastic cylinder with a height of 1.0 m and a volume of 1000 L of water from a nearby pond, and a total of six pots were evenly put in every plastic cylinder. The pH, total N concentration, NO3-N concentration, NH4-N concentration, total P concentration and PO43-P concentration of the water were 7.2, 0.414 mg L−1, 0.075 mg L−1, 0.037 mg L−1, 0.028 mg L−1 and 0.009 mg L−1 at 25 °C, respectively. Both the total N and P concentrations in water indicated that the cultural water was eutrophic based on the lake trophic status by chemical analyses, especially of total N and P concentrations (Carlson 1977). Additionally, the sediment was collected from a local eutrophic pond and the N and P were very rich for the growth and development of macrophytes. Furthermore, the two studied submerged species take up nutrients mainly from the sediments although they can also gain N and P from the water (Carignan and Kalff 1980; Carignan 1982). Accordingly, we thought that the two macophytes were not nutrient-limited in our experiment. The pots were randomly treated with one of five levels of light using or not using black polyethylene shade cloth to maintain 100 (CK), 75, 50, 30 and 15 % of the full light. The actual amount of light of the 75, 50, 30 and 15 % light treatments, measured with a digital illuminometer ST-101 (SINTEK, China) in full sun, reached their incident PAR at an average of 75, 53, 30 and 17 % of the full light, respectively. Moreover, the PAR at the water surface in different weather conditions was shown in Supporting Information—Table S1. Each species for each light treatment was replicated six times (pots). In this experiment, we used two species, five light treatments and six replicates, resulting in a total of 60 pots (10 plastic cylinders).

Plants were harvested 10 weeks later when roots were separated from soil by soaking the pot in water for 40 min and softly washing the soil away. The fresh mass (W1) of each individual was weighed after rinsing off all sediment and removing the excess water. Then, every plant was separated into roots, stems (only for M. spicatum as the stem of V. natans is not easily separated) and leaves after its shoot height and root length were determined. Then, the root mass, stem mass and leaf mass of the plant were determined. The total mass of the plant (W1) was the sum of the root, stem and leaf mass. The root:shoot ratio of a plant was calculated as the root mass divided by the weight of the stem and leaf mass. The RGR of the species was calculated using the formula RGR = (lnW1 − lnW0)/t, where W0 and W1 are the initial mass and final mass of the plants in this experiment, respectively, and t is the experimental period (days). The mean value of the four individuals within a pot was considered the value of the pot. Then, the root, stem and leaf were dried at 105 °C for 30 min, oven-dried at 70 °C for 72 h and weighed.

Before drying, the pigments of 0.2 g fresh leaf for each pot were extracted by 80 % aqueous alcohol after grinding. Contents of chlorophyll a and chlorophyll b were measured at 645 and 663 nm after filtration, respectively (Lichtenthaler and Wellburn 1983). Then, all four individuals within a pot were mixed together, and ground to a fine powder with a mortar and pestle. The leaf N and P contents of each powered sample were analysed using the colorimetric method with a TU-1901 spectrophotometer (Beijing Purkinje General Instrument Co., Ltd, China) after being digested in H2SO4 and H2O2. The leaf C content of the plant was measured by the dichromate oxidation method of Walkey and Black (Nelson and Sommers 1982).

Data analysis

To assess the effects of light and species identity on the 15 measured characteristics (excluding stem mass due to no data for V. natans), two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used, and the Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference test (Tukey’s HSD) was used when the raw data were log-transformed. The 15 measured characteristics were categorized as dependent variables, and species and light were categorized as fixed factors when the two-way ANOVA was conducted. Similarly, the differences among the effects of the light treatment on the 16 or 15 measured indices for the two studied macrophytes were determined by one-way ANOVA, and post hoc Tukey’s test for light treatments was conducted at the same time. The ANOVA was analysed at the 95 % confidence level, and homogeneity of variances was tested by Levene’s test. Based on the sum of squares (SS) of the two-way ANOVA, variance partitioning can imply the contribution of each source to the variance in the studied indices (Güsewell and Koerselman 2002). The total SS of the ANOVA was equal to the sum of the SS of each factor: SStotal = SSspecies + SSlight + SSspecies × light + SSerror. Then, the variance contribution of each source was expressed as a percentage of the total SS. All statistical analyses were conducted using the software package R 3.5.2 (R Core Team 2018).

Results

Light effects on V. natans

Our results showed no differences among the effects of the five light treatments on the root length, root weight, root:shoot, chlorophyll (a:b), chlorophyll (a + b), root length:root mass, C contents, N contents and P contents of V. natans (Fig. 1, P > 0.05). However, the effects on plant mass, RGR, shoot height, leaf mass, shoot height:shoot mass and ramet number of V. natans showed significant differences among the five light treatments, although the patterns of these six measured indices were not consistent (Fig. 1, P < 0.05). Namely, the first five indices initially increased with the reduction in light and then decreased, although the decreases between the 30 and 15 % treatments were not significant (Fig. 1). The ramet number initially decreased with the reduction in light and then increased at lower light levels, although the ramet number between 30 and 15 % irradiance was not significantly different (Fig. 1F).

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

The photo-damage effects on the growth and reproduction of V. natans along the light gradient (only the significant traits are shown).

Light effects on M. spicatum

Our results indicated no differences among the effects of the five light treatments on the root length, leaf mass, stem mass, RGR, root:shoot, chlorophyll (a:b), shoot height:shoot mass, C contents, N contents and P contents of M. spicatum (Fig. 2, P > 0.05). However, the effects on plant mass, root mass, shoot height, root length:root mass, chlorophyll (a + b) and ramet number of M. spicatum showed significant differences among the five light treatments, although the trends of the six measured characteristics were not identical (Fig. 2, P < 0.05). Namely, the plant mass and root mass initially increased with the reduction in light and then decreased at low-light levels while shoot height, and chlorophyll (a + b) increased with the reduction in light (Fig. 2). Similar to that of V. natans, the ramet number of M. spicatum also decreased across the light gradient (Fig. 2I). The maximum values of plant mass and root mass for M. spicatum occurred in the 50 % light treatment and those of plant mass, RGR, shoot height and leaf mass for V. natans occurred in the 30 % light treatment (Figs 1 and 2).

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

The photo-damage effects on the growth and reproduction of M. spicatum along the light gradient (only the significant traits are shown).

Two-way ANOVA

The differences in plant mass, leaf mass and RGR were significantly different between the two species and among the five different light treatments (Table 1, P < 0.05), and no significant interactions between species and light treatment were observed (Table 1, P > 0.05), with species and light treatment explaining >58 % of the total variance. The differences in chlorophyll (a:b), shoot height and ramet number were significantly different between the two studied species and among the five different light treatments (except chlorophyll (a:b), Table 1, P < 0.05), and significant interactions between species and light treatment were observed (Table 1, P < 0.05), with species and light treatment explaining >96 % of the total variance. Root mass showed no significant difference between the two studied species (Table 1, P > 0.05), while significant difference between light treatments, and interactions between species and light treatment occurred (Table 1, P < 0.05), with light treatment and interactions between species and light treatment explaining >40 % of the total variance. In terms of root length, root:shoot, root length:root mass, shoot height:shoot mass, chlorophyll (a + b), C contents, N contents and P contents, differences were only significantly different between the two studied species (Table 1, P < 0.05), and no significant difference among the five different light treatments and interactions between species and light treatment were observed (Table 1, P > 0.05), with species explaining >60 % of the total variance except for the indices of shoot height:shoot mass (37.25%), C content (27.98%) and N content (7.33%).

Table 1.

ANOVA table and percentage (%) of explained variance based on two-way ANOVA for the 15 indices of the two study submerged species in response to the light gradient.

Factor Percentage (%) F P Factor Percentage (%) F P
Plant mass RGR
Species (S) 49.25 70.94 0.004 Species (S) 54.48 83.26 0.000
Light (L) 9.21 3.32 0.017 Light (L) 7.21 2.76 0.038
S × L 6.83 2.46 0.057 S × L 5.62 2.16 0.088
Error 34.71 Error 32.69
Shoot height Root length
Species (S) 90.00 1732.73 0.000 Species (S) 87.35 414.89 0.000
Light (L) 6.59 31.72 0.000 Light (L) 0.63 0.75 0.565
S × L 0.82 3.94 0.007 S × L 1.49 1.77 0.149
Error 2.60 Error 10.53
Ramet number Root mass
Species (S) 95.40 403.92 0.000 Species (S) 0.70 0.59 0.446
Light (L) 1.55 8.83 0.000 Light (L) 25.60 5.40 0.001
S × L 1.41 2.75 0.038 S × L 14.42 3.04 0.025
Error 1.64 Error 59.28
Shoot mass Root:shoot
Species (S) 85.10 402.02 0.000 Species (S) 63.73 106.81 0.000
Light (L) 2.60 3.07 0.025 Light (L) 3.75 1.57 0.197
S × L 1.72 2.04 0.104 S × L 2.71 1.14 0.351
Error 10.58 Error 29.81
Chlorophyll (a + b) Carbon content
Species (S) 80.41 106.81 0.000 Species (S) 27.98 218.22 0.000
Light (L) 0.30 1.57 0.197 Light (L) 5.33 0.202 0.936
S × L 0.86 1.14 0.351 S × L 5.76 0.583 0.676
Error 18.43 Error 60.93
Nitrogen content Phosphorus content
Species (S) 7.33 4.38 0.042 Species (S) 80.41 22.96 0.000
Light (L) 5.14 0.77 0.552 Light (L) 0.30 1.09 0.370
S × L 3.81 0.57 0.686 S × L 0.86 1.18 0.331
Error 83.73 Error 18.43
Chlorophyll (a:b) Root length:root mass
Species (S) 95.83 128.00 0.000 Species (S) 80.05 215.91 0.000
Light (L) 0.39 0.55 0.697 Light (L) 0.85 0.60 0.664
S × L 3.01 3.97 0.007 S × L 0.61 0.42 0.797
Error 0.77 Error 18.49
Shoot length:shoot mass
Species (S) 37.25 36.28 0.000
Light (L) 4.64 1.15 0.346
S × L 6.65 1.63 0.183
Error 51.47
Open in a new tab

Boldfaced values are significant at the P = 0.05 level. For all response variables, DF = 4 for light treatment level and light treatment × species, DF = 50 for error and DF = 1 for species.

Discussion

The measured characteristics of the two studied plants showed different responses along an increasing light gradient. These can be described as negative (possibly due to photo-damage including photoinhibition or to shade adaptation), neutral (no significant differences across the gradient) and positive effects where the measured indices were highest in the highest light. Accordingly, we discuss these three response patterns separately below.

Negative responses in high light

Consistent with our first hypothesis, our results highlighted that both submerged macrophytes were negatively affected at high light for some measured indices, which were different between the species. For both species, the plant mass, RGR and shoot height were reduced in high-light conditions (Figs 1 and 2) consistent with photo-damage (including photoinhibition) or high-light inhibition. Similarly, Zefferman (2014) found that the biomass (equal to plant mass in our study), RGR and length:biomass ratio of Elodea nuttallii were also photoinhibited at full light. These results indicate that the plant mass, RGR and shoot height of submerged plants might be relatively more sensitive to photo-damage than the other measured parameters. The root mass of M. spicatum rather than that of V. natans was inhibited by high light, which could be because of their different lifeforms. As a rosette-forming species, the effects of currents and waves on V. natans (Owens et al. 2008) are not as strong as those on a canopy-forming species, M. spicatum (Strand and Weisner 2001; Lu et al. 2013). Accordingly, M. spicatum must invest more resources to its root to anchor the plant avoiding uprooting or serious damage due to its larger canopy (Strand and Weisner 2001; Zhu et al. 2012; Lu et al. 2013). Thus, we can presume that the root mass of M. spicatum is indirectly affected by high-light inhibition based on our experiment. In contrast to the root mass, the leaf mass of V. natans rather than that of M. spicatum was affected by high-light inhibition (Figs 1 and 2). This might be because that leaf mass constitutes only a very small percentage of the whole shoot mass of M. spicatum, whose negative responses of photo-damage (especially of photoinhibition) are mainly through branching and shoot elongating (Zefferman 2014). In contrast, the leaf mass constitutes a great part of the whole shoot mass of V. natans, of which the leaf growth is greatly photo-damaged, as observed in our study (Fig. 1D). Additionally, based on the measured indices impacted by high light, it is very likely that the photo-damage effects of submerged macrophytes are mainly on the shoot of the species. It is very possible that photosynthesis occurs almost entirely in the shoot of the plant. However, we do not think that the lower values of chlorophyll (a:b) and chlorophyll (a + b) of M. spicatum under high light were caused by photo-damage (Fig. 2). This scenario possibly occurred because a plant should not invest more energy to chlorophyll to improve the effectiveness of its photosynthesis when the ambient light is sufficient, but it must increase its concentration of chlorophyll to enhance its photosynthesis efficiency when the ambient light is limited (Lu et al. 2013; Chen et al. 2016; He et al. 2019), as observed in our experiment (Fig. 2). Nevertheless, the contents of chlorophyll (a:b) and chlorophyll (a + b) of V. natans were not significantly affected by the light gradient, which was likely possible because the light compensation point of V. natans is much lower than that of M. spicatum (Lu et al. 2013; Chen et al. 2016; He et al. 2019). Furthermore, the maximum values of plant mass, RGR, stem mass and root mass of M. spicatum at the percentage of light treatment (50%) were higher than those of plant mass, RGR, shoot height and leaf mass of V. natans at the percentage of light treatment (30%), which also suggests that the light compensation point of V. natans is much lower than that of M. spicatum (Lu et al. 2013; Chen et al. 2016; He et al. 2019).

There may be, of course, other mechanisms for the reduced growth of the two studied macophytes in high light (Figs 1 and 2); our results suggest that photoinhibition effects partially result in their reduction of growth as photoinhibition or photoinhibition-dependent responses are the most evident photo-damage effects when plants are suffered high-light stress (Szymańska et al. 2017; Vialet-Chabrand et al. 2017; Patil et al. 2020). Actually, submerged macrophytes are intended to be planted in shallow water by lowing water for enough available light and convenient planting (Chen et al. 2009; Li and Wang 2013), although significant wave action occurs in shallow water on shorelines. Thus, these macrophytes may be more likely to suffer the effects of photo-damage (especially of photoinhibition) rather than wave action as observed in our experiment, where no wave action was involved. Accordingly, we should avoid high-light inhibition of aquatic plants when restoration of SAV is conducted, as submerged macrophytes may be impacted by photo-damage (especially of photoinhibition) or high-light inhibition by strong light in shallow water. Thus, we should plant only those species that can grow optimally in shallow water (high light) rather than species that respond negatively to high light.

Neutral response to the light gradient

Consistent with our second hypothesis, the leaf C, N and P concentrations of the two species were not significantly influenced by the light gradient (Figs 1 and 2; Table 1). Similar results were observed for some submerged macrophytes at different water depths (Li et al. 2013) as submerged plants respond similarly to sheltered environments as to deep water depths (Strand and Weisner 2001). This result indicates that the stoichiomestry of submerged species is very conservative (Li et al. 2013). As stated above, the contents of chlorophyll (a:b) and chlorophyll (a + b) of V. natans showed no significant differences among the light treatments, possibly because the minimum treatment light was far greater than its light compensation point (Morris et al. 2004; Lu et al. 2013; Chen et al. 2016; He et al. 2019). Furthermore, root length, root mass and root length:root mass (except for M. spicatum) and root:shoot of the studied species were not significantly different over the light gradient, which also suggests that the roots of submerged plants are not as susceptive to light as their shoots, which might be because the roots are underground and cannot directly obtain light.

Positive responses in high light

In contrast to high-light inhibition, the high-light treatment resulted in increased numbers of ramets in the two species (Figs 1 and 2). However, we do not think that clonal propagation of the studied macrophytes is promoted by high-light availability, as plants can allocate more resources to reproduction when they are exposed to stress (Bonser 2013; Yuan et al. 2016). Usually, submerged species can trade-off between their growth and reproduction under adverse conditions (Yuan et al. 2016), as observed in our experiment. Our results indicate that the asexual propagation of V. natans and M. spicatum is stimulated when their growth is inhibited by high light, which is a common strategy for submerged macrophytes to cope with harsh environments (Roff 1992; Bonser 2013; Yuan et al. 2016). Accordingly, our results suggest that the two submerged macrophytes trade-off between their growth and reproduction when they are negatively affected by high-light conditions, which is consistent with our third hypothesis.

Generally, our experiment indicated that the two studied species responded differently to light, and even the different determined characteristics of the same species showed different responses to light (Figs 1 and 2; Table 1). The results are in good agreement with the results of many former experiments due to the differences between species and the index specificity within a species (Rae et al. 2001; Hanelt et al. 2006; Wu et al. 2018, 2020; Qi et al. 2021). Our results highlighted that the plant mass, RGR, shoot height, ramet number (result because of trade-off between growth and reproduction) and leaf mass were significantly affected by high light although plant species explained most (>49 %) of the total variance in the above five measured indices (Table 1). Furthermore, the effects of high light on plant growth were mainly on the shoots of the plants, as stated above (Table 1). Moreover, we demonstrated that the effects of high light on growth and reproduction of submerged macrophytes could occur in shallow water even though the experimental period is relative long, as observed by Zefferman (2014).

In conclusion, our results highlighted that the plant mass, RGR and shoot height of V. natans and M. spicatum; root mass of M. spicatum; and leaf mass and shoot height:shoot mass of V. natans were significantly negatively affected by high light in shallow water. While the ramet number of the two species was stimulated, root length, root:shoot, chlorophyll (a:b), chlorophyll (a + b), leaf carbon, N and P contents of the two studied macrophytes were not significantly impacted by light. Our results indicated that the high-light inhibition of plant growth was mainly on the shoots rather than on the roots of the plants, although these effects were significantly different between the two studied submerged species and among the measured characteristics. Accordingly, we should avoid high-light inhibition effects to improve the performance of submerged species when we conduct SAV restoration programmes in eutrophic lakes.

Supporting Information

The following additional information is available in the online version of this article—

Table S1. The photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) at the water surface in different weather conditions.

plac009_suppl_Supplementary_Table_S1
Click here for additional data file. (14.8KB, docx)

Form & Function. Chief Editor: Kate McCulloh

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge Hui Fu for his sincere support in our experiment. We also sincerely thank two anonymous reviewers for making constructive comments on the manuscript.

Contributions by the Authors

J.R.Y., Z.X.B., Y.H.W. and A.P.W. initiated the study and wrote the main manuscript, J.R.Y., A.G.G., Z.X.B., H.L. and S.Y.Y. were responsible for the field experiment and laboratory analysis, F.L. and A.P.W. for data analysis, J.R.Y., A.G.G., Y.H.X. and Y.H.W. for literature search, all authors contributed to discussion on the experiment design and final version of the draft.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Data Availability

Please contact the author for data requests, and the data will be made available upon your request.

Sources of Funding

This study is financially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant numbers 31301725, 41401358 and 31200427), Hunan Provincial Natural Science Foundation (grant number 2018JJ2162) and Open Fund of Key Laboratory of Agro-ecological Processes in Subtropical Region, Chinese Academy of Sciences (grant number ISA 2019202).

Literature Cited

  1. Aguilera J, Figueroa FL, Hader DP, Jimenez C.. 2008. Photoinhibition and photosynthetic pigment reorganisation dynamics in light/darkness cycles as photoprotective mechanisms of Porphyra umbilicalis against damaging effects of UV radiation. Scientia Marina 72:87–97. [Google Scholar]
  2. Bonser SP. 2013. High reproductive efficiency as an adaptive strategy in competitive environments. Functional Ecology 27:876–885. [Google Scholar]
  3. Bornette G, Puijalon S.. 2011. Response of aquatic plants to abiotic factors: a review. Aquatic Science 73:1–14. [Google Scholar]
  4. Brezonik PL, Bouchard RW, Finlay JC, Griffin CG, Olmanson LG, Anderson JP, Arnold WA, Hozalski R.. 2019. Color, chlorophyll a, and suspended solids effects on Secchi depth in lakes: implications for trophic state assessment. Ecological Applications 29:e01871. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Carignan R. 1982. An experiment model to estimate the relative importance of roots in P uptake by aquatic macrophytes. The Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 39:243–247. [Google Scholar]
  6. Carignan R, Kalff J.. 1980. Phosphorus sources for aquatic weeds: water or sediments? Science 207:987–989. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Carlson R. 1977. A trophic state index for lakes. Limnology and Oceanography 22:361–369. [Google Scholar]
  8. Chen J, Cao T, Zhang X, Xi Y, Ni L, Jeppesen E.. 2016. Differential photosynthetic and morphological adaptations to low light affect depth distribution of two submersed macrophytes in lakes. Scientific Reports 6:34028. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Chen KN, Bao CH, Zhou WP.. 2009. Ecological restoration in eutrophic Lake Wuli: a large enclosure experiment. Ecological Engineering 35:1646–1655. [Google Scholar]
  10. Geist J. 2011. Integrative freshwater ecology and biodiversity conservation. Ecological Indicators 11:1507–1516. [Google Scholar]
  11. Güsewell S, Koerselman W.. 2002. Variation in nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations of wetland plants. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 5:37–61. [Google Scholar]
  12. Hanelt D, Hawes I, Rae R.. 2006. Reduction of UV-B radiation causes an enhancement of photoinhibition in high light stressed aquatic plants from New Zealand lakes. Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology B: Biology 84:89–102. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. He L, Zhu T, Wu Y, Li W, Zhang H, Zhang X, Hilt S.. 2019. Littoral slope, water depth and alternative response strategies to light attenuation shape the distribution of submerged macrophytes in a mesotrophic lake. Frontiers in Plant Science 10:169. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Hilt S, Brothers S, Jeppesen E, Veraart AJ, Kosten S.. 2017. Translating regime shifts in shallow lakes into changes in ecosystem functions and services. BioScience 67:928–936. [Google Scholar]
  15. Hussner A, Hoelken HP, Jahns P.. 2010. Low light acclimated submerged freshwater plants show a pronounced sensitivity to increasing irradiances. Aquatic Botany 93:17–24. [Google Scholar]
  16. Lacoul P, Freedman B.. 2006. Environmental influences on aquatic plants in freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Reviews 14:89–136. [Google Scholar]
  17. Larkum AWD, Wood WF.. 1993. The effect of UV-B radiation on photosynthesis and respiration of phytoplankton, benthic macroalgae and seagrasses. Photosynthesis Research 36:17–23. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Li Q, Wang GX.. 2013. The research on growth and restoration of submerged plants. Beijing, China: China Water Conservancy and Hydropower Press, 1–193. [Google Scholar]
  19. Li W, Cao T, Ni LY, Zhang XL, Zhu GR, Xie P.. 2013. Effects of water depth on carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus stoichiometry of five submersed macrophytes in an in situ experiment. Ecological Engineering 61:358–365. [Google Scholar]
  20. Lichtenthaler HK, Wellburn AR.. 1983. Determinations of total carotenoids and chlorophylls a and b of leaf extracts in different solvents. Biochemical Society Transactions 11:591–592. [Google Scholar]
  21. Liu H, Zhou W, Li XW, Chu QH, Tang N, Shu BZ, Liu GH, Xing W.. 2020. How many submerged macrophyte species are needed to improve water clarity and quality in Yangtze floodplain lakes? Science of the Total Environment 724:138267. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Liu X, Zhang Y, Shi K, Lin J, Zhou Y, Qin B.. 2016. Determining critical light and hydrologic conditions for macrophyte presence in a large shallow lake: the ratio of euphotic depth to water depth. Ecological Indicators 71:317–326. [Google Scholar]
  23. Lu J, Wang Z, Xing W, Liu G.. 2013. Effects of substrate and shading on the growth of two submerged macrophytes. Hydrobiologia 700:157–167. [Google Scholar]
  24. Míguez F, Fernández-Marín B, Becerril JM, García-Plazaola JI.. 2015. Activation of photoprotective winter photoinhibition in plants from different environments: a literature compilation and meta-analysis. Physiologia Plantarum 155:414–423. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Morris K, Harrison KA, Bailey PCE, Boon PI.. 2004. Domain shifts in the aquatic vegetation of shallow urban lakes: the relative roles of low light and anoxia in the catastrophic loss of the submerged angiosperm Vallisneria americana. Marine and Freshwater Research 55:749–758. [Google Scholar]
  26. Nelson DW, Sommers LE.. 1982. Total carbon, organic carbon and organic matter. In: Page AL, Miller RH, Keeney DR, eds. Methods of soil analysis. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy, 539–579. [Google Scholar]
  27. O’Hare MT, Aguiar FC, Asaeda T, Bakker ES, Chambers PA, Clayton JS, Wood KA.. 2018. Plants in aquatic ecosystems: current trends and future directions. Hydrobiologia 812:1–11. [Google Scholar]
  28. Osmond CB. 1994. What is photoinhibition? Some insights from comparisons of shade and sun plants. In: Baker NR, Bowyer JR, eds. Photoinhibition of photosynthesis, from the molecular mechanisms to the field. Oxford: BIOS Scientific Publication, 1–24. [Google Scholar]
  29. Owens C, Smart RM, Dick GO.. 2008. Effects of water level fluctuation on Vallisneria americana Michx growth. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 46:117–119. [Google Scholar]
  30. Patil S, Prakash G, Lali AM.. 2020. Reduced chlorophyll antenna 
mutants of Chlorella saccharophila for higher photosynthetic efficiency and biomass productivity under high light intensities. Journal of Applied Phycology 32:1559–1567. [Google Scholar]
  31. Petrou K, Jimenez-Denness I, Chartrand K, McCormack C, Rasheed M, Ralph PJ.. 2013. Seasonal heterogeneity in the photophysiological response to air exposure in two tropical intertidal seagrass species. Marine Ecology Progress Series 482:93–106. [Google Scholar]
  32. Qi L-Y, Zeng H-Y, Bai Z-X, Wang Y-H, Liu L, Zhong W, Ye S-Y, Fu H, Li F, Shao C-L, Wu A-P.. 2021. The effects of biodiversity gradient on plant mass and metabolism of individual submerged macrophytes. Ecological Process 10:38. [Google Scholar]
  33. R Core Team. 2018. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. [Google Scholar]
  34. Rae R, Hanelt D, Hawes I.. 2001. Sensitivity of freshwater macrophytes to UV radiation: relationship to depth zonation in an oligotrophic New Zealand lake. Marine and Freshwater Research 52:1023–1032. [Google Scholar]
  35. Roff DA. 1992. The evolution of life histories: Theory and analysis. New York: Chapman & Hall publication, 179–241. [Google Scholar]
  36. Schelske CL, Lowe EF, Kenney WF, Battoe LE, Brenner M, Coveney MF.. 2010. How anthropogenic darkening of Lake Apopka induced benthic light limitation and forced the shift from macrophyte to phytoplankton dominance. Limnology and Oceanography 55:1201–1212. [Google Scholar]
  37. Schubert N, Colombo-Pallota MF, Enriquez S.. 2015. Leaf and canopy scales characterization of the photoprotective response to high-light stress of the seagrass Thalassia testudinum. Limnology and Oceanography 60:286–302. [Google Scholar]
  38. Strand JA, Weisner SEB.. 2001. Morphological plastic responses to water depth and wave exposure in an aquatic plant (Myriophyllum spicatum). Journal of Ecology 89:166–175. [Google Scholar]
  39. Strayer DL, Dudgeon D.. 2010. Freshwater biodiversity conservation: recent progress and future challenges. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 29:344–358. [Google Scholar]
  40. Su W, Zhang G, Zhang Y, Xiao H, Xia F.. 2004. The photosynthetic characteristics of five submerged aquatic plants. Acta Hydrobiologica Sinica 28:395–400. [Google Scholar]
  41. Szymańska R, Ślesak I, Orzechowska A, Kruk J.. 2017. Physiological and biochemical responses to high light and temperature stress in plants. Environmental and Experimental Botany 139:165–177. [Google Scholar]
  42. Vialet-Chabrand S, Matthews JSA, Simkin AJ, Raines CA, Lawson T.. 2017. Importance of fluctuations in light on plant photosynthetic acclimation. Plant Physiology 173:2163–2179. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Wu AP, He Y, Ye SY, Qi LY, Liu L, Zhong W, Wang YH, Fu H.. 2020. Negative effects of a piscicide, rotenone, on the growth and metabolism of three submerged macophytes. Chemosphere 250:126246. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Wu AP, Liu J, He FF, Wang YH, Zhang XJ, Duan XD, Qian ZY.. 2018. Negative relationship between diversity and productivity under plant invasion. Ecological Research 33:949–957. [Google Scholar]
  45. Yuan G, Fu H, Zhong J, Lou Q, Ni L, Cao T.. 2016. Growth and C/N metabolism of three submersed macrophytes in response to water depths. Environmental and Experimental Botany 122:94–99. [Google Scholar]
  46. Zefferman E. 2014. Increasing canopy shading reduces growth but not establishment of Elodea nuttallii and Myriophyllum spicatum in stream channels. Hydrobiologia 734:159–170. [Google Scholar]
  47. Zhang Y, Fu F, Hutchins DA, Gao K.. 2019. Combined effects of CO2 level, light intensity, and nutrient availability on the coccolithophore Emiliania huxleyi. Hydrobiologia 842:127–141. [Google Scholar]
  48. Zhang YL, Jeppesen E, Liu IXH, Qin BQ, Shi K, Zhou YQ.. 2017. Global loss of aquatic vegetation in lakes. Earth-Science Reviews 173:259–265. [Google Scholar]
  49. Zhu G, Li W, Zhang M, Ni L, Wang S.. 2012. Adaptation of submerged macrophytes to both water depth and flood intensity as revealed by their mechanical resistance. Hydrobiologia 696:77–93. [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

plac009_suppl_Supplementary_Table_S1
Click here for additional data file. (14.8KB, docx)

Data Availability Statement

Please contact the author for data requests, and the data will be made available upon your request.

Articles from AoB Plants are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES