Appendix 1. Two-way ANOVAs for flow and habitat effect on plant biomass per area for three Everglades plant species.
Significant effects at p < 0.05 are in bold type.
Species
Treatment
df
Cladium
jamaicense
Flow
Habitat
Flow x Habitat
1
2
2
Eleocharis
cellulosa
Flow
Habitat
Flow x Habitat
1
2
2
Nymphaea
odorata
Flow
Habitat
Flow x Habitat
1
2
1
Live biomass
p
F
p
Leaves
Stems
8.72
0.012 2.89 0.115
17.39 <0.001 6.61 0.012
0.15
0.866 0.83 0.461
Photo. Stems
Hor. Stems
11.76 0.005 13.30 0.004
6.06
0.015 0.11 0.894
1.57
0.248 5.50 0.024
Leaves
Stems
1.91
0.239 1.70 0.240
0.19
0.833 0.71 0.528
1.72
0.260 0.79 0.495
F
1
Dead biomass
Root biomass Total biomass
p
F
p
F
p
F
p
Leaves
Stems
Roots
3.93 0.071 1.60 0.230 9.66
0.009 7.03 0.021
8.43 0.005 1.37 0.292 16.02 <0.001 13.17 0.001
0.58 0.577 0.60 0.564 0.24
0.791 0.38 0.694
Photo. Stems
Hor. Stems
Roots
2.90 0.114 16.31 0.002 7.24
0.020 6.80 0.023
3.83 0.052 0.17 0.849 11.37 0.002 4.25 0.040
0.93 0.423 1.72 0.220 0.81
0.469 1.10 0.366
Leaves
Stems
Roots
0.33 0.591 5.99 0.092 0.05
0.830 0.01 0.909
0.25 0.791 0.43 0.557 1.08
0.420 0.37 0.703
0.52 0.504
2.48
0.200 0.59 0.579
F
Appendix 2. Nutrient concentrations and nutrient molar ratios for Cladium jamaicense plant parts. Data (mean ± 1SD) are from
the no-flow (FM) and flowing (FM) macrocosms combined in the deep slough (DS), shallow slough (SS), and the mid-ridge
(MR). Within a habitat in each column, values followed by different superscripts are significantly different among plant parts at
p < 0.05.
Habitat
Plant Part
DS
Live leaves
Dead leaves
Live stems
Dead stems
Roots
Live leaves
Dead leaves
Live stems
Dead stems
Roots
Live leaves
Dead leaves
Live stems
Dead stems
Roots
SS
MR
n
TC (mg g-1)
TN (mg g-1)
TP (mg g-1)
C/N
C/P
N/P
5-6
4-6
6
5-6
6
6
5-6
5
6
6
5-6
6
6
5-6
6
425 ± 21 a,b
448 ± 21 ab
409 ± 28 a
459 ± 43 b
443 ± 13 a,b
442 ± 12 a,b
466 ± 21 a
424 ± 13 b
443 ± 23 a,b
454 ± 25 a,b
438 ± 24
450 ± 11
439 ± 15
435 ± 23
449 ± 17
4.1 ± 1.7 a,b
2.4 ± 0.4 a
5.3 ± 1.2 b
4.1 ± 1.0 a,b
5.8 ± 2.0 b
6.5 ± 1.8 a
3.6 ± 0.7 b
4.3 ± 1.9 a,b
4.5 ± 1.3 a,b
5.4 ± 0.8 a,b
5.8 ± 1.1 a
3.2 ± 1.3 b
4.4 ± 1.7 a,b
3.4 ± 1.7 b
5.1 ± 0.9 a,b
0.26 ± 0.11 a
0.07 ± 0.01 b
0.31 ± 0.08 a
0.19 ± 0.09 a
0.21 ± 0.04 a
0.40 ± 0.07 a
0.12 ± 0.03 b
0.21 ± 0.15 b
0.14 ± 0.02 b
0.19 ± 0.04 b
0.36 ± 0.10 a
0.13 ± 0.04 b
0.28 ± 0.20 a,c
0.16 ± 0.04 b,c
0.23 ± 0.03 a,c
147 ± 86 a,b
216 ± 38 a
94 ± 27 b
140 ± 37 a,b
98 ± 36 b
84 ± 24 a
154 ± 27 b
141 ± 87 a,b
121 ± 32 a,b
99 ± 14 a,b
90 ± 18 a
191 ± 87 b
136 ± 66 b
185 ± 90 b
110 ± 17 b
3633 ± 947 a
16101 ± 3261 b
3558 ± 965 a
7298 ± 2952 c
5664 ± 1163 a,c
2928 ± 581 a
10919 ± 2684 b
7010 ± 3770 b
8727± 1974 b
6577 ± 1560 b
3316 ± 815 a
9977 ± 3446 b
5086 ± 2073 a,c
7713 ± 2141 b,c
5393 ± 829 a,c
36 ± 7 a
74 ± 17 b
39 ± 8 a,c
47 ± 15 a,c
62 ± 17 b,c
37 ± 9 a
67 ± 14 b
56 ± 26 a,b
74 ± 15 b
66 ± 13 b
37 ± 6
56 ± 17
41 ± 20
49 ± 22
50 ± 11
2
Appendix 3. Nutrient concentrations and nutrient molar ratios for Eleocharis cellulosa plant parts. Data (mean ± 1SD) are from
the no-flow (FM) and flowing (FM) macrocosms combined in the deep slough (DS), shallow slough (SS), and mid-ridge (MR).
Abbreviations: photo. stems = photosynthetic stems; hor. stems = horizontal stems. Within a habitat in each column, values
followed by different superscripts are significantly different among plant parts at p < 0.05.
Habitat
Plant Part
DS
Live photo. stems
Dead photo. stems
Live hor. stems
Dead hor. stems
Roots
Live photo. stems
Dead photo. stems
Live hor. stems
Dead hor. stems
Roots
Live photo. stems
Dead photo. stems
Live hor. stems
Dead hor. stems
Roots
SS
MR
n
TC (mg g-1)
TN (mg g-1)
TP (mg g-1)
C/N
C/P
N/P
5-6
6
4-5
3-4
5-6
6
6
6
4-6
5-6
6
4-5
6
6
6
408 ± 26 a
427 ± 17 a,b
445 ± 11 b
436 ± 13 a,b
423 ± 20 a,b
411 ± 23
427 ± 9
433 ± 15
421 ± 40
405 ± 25
439 ± 28
427 ± 14
426 ± 21
448 ± 18
428 ± 15
7.6 ± 1.6 a
3.3 ± 1.1 b
3.6 ± 2.0 b
4.5 ± 0.4 b
5.5 ± 0.9 a,b
6.5 ± 0.8 a
4.7 ± 0.9 a,b
3.9 ± 1.1 b
6.0 ± 5.1 a,b
6.2 ± 2.1 a,b
5.5 ± 1.3 a
3.3 ± 1.1 b,c
2.2 ± 0.8 c
4.1 ± 1.1 a,b
5.6 ± 0.6 a
0.40 ± 0.04 a
0.12 ± 0.05 b
0.26 ± 0.15 a,c
0.11 ± 0.02 b
0.19 ± 0.05 b,c
0.35 ± 0.06 a
0.12 ± 0.03 b
0.16 ± 0.05 b
0.15 ± 0.03 b
0.16 ± 0.06 b
0.45 ± 0.10 a
0.20 ± 0.09 b
0.20 ± 0.10 b
0.19 ± 0.08 b
0.31 ± 0.11 a,b
64 ± 11 a
167 ± 66 b
154 ± 112 a,b
116 ± 12 a,b
93 ± 18 a,b
75 ± 7
110 ± 28
140 ± 41
118 ± 67
136 ± 66
100 ± 31 a,b
157 ± 50 a,c
257 ± 89 c
134 ± 38 a,b
90 ± 10 b
2398 ± 821 a
11141 ± 5633 b
5565 ± 2587 a,c
10242 ± 1531 b,c
5079 ± 1105 b,c
3138 ± 744 a
10119 ± 3682 b
7656 ± 2322 b
7384 ± 1500 b
6067 ± 3674 b
2684 ± 790 a
6194 ± 2271 b
6971 ± 3789 b
6940 ± 2371 b
4015 ± 1475 a,b
38 ± 17
69 ± 29 b
29 ± 2 a
86 ± 22 b
64 ± 13 b
42 ± 9
91 ± 10
60 ± 32
88 ± 27
71 ± 41
27 ± 5 a,b
45 ± 26 a,b
26 ± 7 b
51 ± 11 a
45 ± 18 a,b
3
Appendix 4. Nutrient concentrations and nutrient molar ratios for Nymphaea odorata plant parts. Data (mean ± 1SD) are from
the no-flow (FM) and flowing (FM) macrocosms combined in the deep slough (DS), shallow slough (SS), and the mid-ridge
(MR). In each column and within a habitat, values followed by different superscripts are significantly different among plant parts
at p < 0.05.
Habitat
Plant Part
n
TC (mg g-1)
TN (mg g-1)
Live leaves
1
419
10.3 a,b
Dead leaves
2
410 ± 45
11.2 ± 1.9 a
Live rhizomes
3
384 ± 30
2.8 ± 1.0 c
Dead rhizomes
2
398 ± 2
2.9 ± 2.2 c
Roots
4
434 ± 18
5.5 ± 2.5 b,c
SS
Live leaves
1
426
17.1a
Dead leaves
4
417 ± 2
12.2 ± 2.4 b
Live rhizomes
6
405 ± 9
4.4 ± 1.6 c,d
Dead rhizomes
4-5
440 ± 34
1.7 ± 1.3 c
Roots
5
430 ± 20
6.6 ± 1.8 d
MR
Live leaves‡
2
a
Dead leaves
2
441 ± 7
13.3 ± 3.7
Live stems
1-3
341 ± 17 b
7.6 ± 1.2
Dead stems‡
1
Roots
2
442 ± 18 a
7.8 ± 0.2
‡ insufficient material for nutrient analysis (see footnote in Table 1)
DS
TP (mg g-1)
C/N
C/P
N/P
0.59 a
0.19 ± 0.06 b
0.25 ± 0.08 b
0.09 ± 0.01 c
0.26 ± 0.09 b
1.00 a
0.07 ± 0.12 b
0.27 ± 0.44 a,b
0.03 ± 0.07 c
0.05 ± 0.09 b
0.20 ± 0.05 a
0.91 b
0.54 ± 0.16 a,b
48 a,b
43 ± 3 a
174 ± 53 b
228 ± 172 b
113 ± 64 a,b
29 a
42 ± 8 a
107 ± 30 b
297 ± 127 c
76 ± 18 b
40 ± 11
53 ± 9
66 ± 4
1835 a
5876 ± 1212 b
4089 ± 929 b
12064 ± 1872 c
4559 ± 1226 b
1209 a
5819 ± 934 b
4392 ± 2599 a,b
15195 ± 5195 c
5209 ± 121 b
5958 ± 1485 a
754 ± 205 b
221 ± 737 a
39 a,b
137 ± 21 c
24 ± 5 a
70 ± 44 b,c
45 ± 12 a,b
42 a,b
144 ± 37 a
42 ± 30 b
52 ± 3 b,c
68 ± 6 a,c
148 ± 3 a
14 ± 2 b
33 ± 9 c
4
Appendix 5. Three-way ANOVAs for flow, habitat and plant part effect on nutrient concentrations and nutrient molar ratios for three
Everglades plant species. Significant effects at p < 0.05 are in bold type.
Species
Treatment
Cladium
jamaicense
Flow
Habitat
Plant part (PP)
Flow x Habitat
Flow x PP
Habitat x PP
Flow x Habitat x PP
Flow
Habitat
Plant part (PP)
Flow x Habitat
Flow x PP
Habitat x PP
Flow x Habitat x PP
Flow
Habitat
Plant part (PP)
Flow x Habitat
Flow x PP
Habitat x PP
Flow x Habitat x PP
Eleocharis
cellulosa
Nymphaea
odorata
TC
df
1
2
4
2
4
8
8
1
2
4
2
4
8
8
1
2
4
2
3
6
3
F
0.074
1.758
6.780
0.731
5.706
1.807
1.059
0.752
2.611
4.311
7.716
1.045
1.823
0.719
0.176
0.319
6.744
0.474
0.429
0.904
2.247
TN
TP
C/N
p
F
p
F
p
F
p
0.787 7.374 0.009 0.580 0.449 8.412 0.005
0.181 2.036 0.139 1.485 0.234 1.734 0.186
<0.001 10.358 <0.001 31.048 <0.001 13.574 <0.001
0.486 0.587 0.559 0.943 0.395 2.113 0.130
0.001 1.119 0.356 1.195 0.322 1.556 0.198
0.092 1.935 0.071 2.962 0.007 1.450 0.196
0.403 1.551 0.159 0.470 0.873 1.548 0.161
0.390 0.121 0.729 4.376 0.041 0.105 0.748
0.083 4.420 0.017 8.880 0.000 4.017 0.024
0.004 24.509 <0.001 32.950 0.000 8.222 0.000
0.001 4.086 0.022 4.760 0.012 1.334 0.272
0.393 1.257 0.299 2.266 0.074 0.347 0.845
0.093 2.063 0.056 2.398 0.027 1.110 0.371
0.674 1.899 0.079 1.344 0.242 0.331 0.950
0.680 0.002 0.961 1.538 0.232 0.017 0.897
0.731 1.989 0.167 6.983 0.006 4.805 0.022
0.002 10.867 <0.001 11.861 <0.001 16.115 0.000
0.630 0.824 0.455 0.965 0.401 0.879 0.433
0.735 1.111 0.372 1.024 0.407 2.427 0.101
0.515 2.363 0.076 0.916 0.507 1.779 0.164
0.120 0.551 0.655 2.329 0.128 0.408 0.749
5
C/P
N/P
F
p
F
p
0.610 0.438 7.956 0.006
1.367 0.262 7.627 0.001
33.665 <0.001 12.500 <0.001
0.844 0.435 5.769 0.005
1.206 0.317 4.450 0.003
2.833 0.009 1.617 0.139
0.496 0.855 0.750 0.648
3.573 0.064 0.709 0.403
6.586 0.003 9.658 0.000
30.048 <0.001 6.677 <0.001
4.663 0.014 3.277 0.045
1.875 0.129 1.304 0.280
2.190 0.043 0.499 0.852
1.133 0.357 1.003 0.444
1.022 0.326 1.108 0.307
11.763 0.001 3.632 0.049
14.868 <0.001 17.851 <0.001
0.476 0.629 0.351 0.709
0.612 0.616 0.332 0.802
1.827 0.150 1.121 0.391
1.706 0.202 1.786 0.188
Appendix 6. Summary of nutrient data reported for Cladium jamaicense, Eleocharis cellulosa and Nymphaea odorata.
Species
C. jamicense
E. cellulosa
N. odorata
Plant part
Total P content of
leaves, rhizomes
and roots
Site
Various
Reference
Miao and Sklar, 1998; Miao and DeBusk, 1999; Richardson et al.,
1999; Chiang et al., 2000; Lissner et al., 2003
Total P content of
leaves
reference or unenriched field sites
or in low P in experimental
conditions
Steward and Ornes, 1975; Volk et al., 1975; Toth, 1987; Miao and
Sklar, 1998; Miao and DeBusk, 1999; Richardson et al., 1999; Chiang
et al., 2000; Lissner et al., 2003; Miao, 2004; Smith et al., 2009,
Miao and Zhou, 2012
Total P for dead
leaves
Volk et al., 1975; Toth, 1987; Richardson et al., 1999; Miao, 2004
rhizomes and roots
Miao and Sklar, 1998; Miao and DeBusk, 1999; Lissner et al., 2003;
Miao, 2004; Smith et al., 2009; Miao and Zhou, 2012
photosynthetic
stems
Craft et al., 1995; Vaithiyanathan and Richardson, 1998; Chiang et
al., 2000; Noe et al., 2002
roots and rhizomes
leaves
leaves
LILA
WCA 3A
Chen et al., 2005; Miao and Zhou, 2012
Serna et al., 2013
Troxler and Richards, 2009
leaves
unenriched sites in WCA 2A
Vaithiyanathan and Richardson, 1998; Newman et al., 2004;
Hagerthey et al., 2008
Total P in shoot
Everglades National Park
Noe et al., 2002
Phosphorus in
leaves, stems and
roots
Plants grown in pots of native soil in
mesocosms
Miao and Zhou, 2012
6
Appendix 7. References in Appendices that were not cited in the Literature Cited.
Chen, H., I.A. Mendelssohn, B. Lorenzen, H. Brix, and S. Miao. 2005. Growth and nutrient responses of
Eloecharis cellulosa (Cyperaceae) to phosphate level and redox intensity. American Journal of Botany
92:1457-1466.
Chiang, C., C.B. Craft, D W. Rogers, and C J. Richardson. 2000. Effects of 4 years of nitrogen and
phosphorus additions on Everglades plant communities. Aquatic Botany 68:61-78.
Craft, C.B., J. Vymazal, and C.J. Richardson. 1995. Response of Everglades plant communities to nitrogen
and phosphorus additions. Wetlands 15:258-271.
Lissner, J., I.A. Mendelssohn, B. Lorenzen, H. Brix, K.L. McKee, and S.L. Miao. 2003. Interactive effects of
redox intensity and phosphate availability on growth and nutrient relations of Cladium jamaicense
(Cyperaceae). American Journal of Botany 90:736-748.
Miao, S. 2004. Rhizome growth and nutrient resorption: mechanisms underlying the replacement of two
clonal species in Florida Everglades. Aquatic Botany 78:55-66.
Miao, S.L., and W.F. DeBusk. 1999. Effects of phosphorus enrichment on structure and function of sawgrass
and cattail communities in the Everglades. p. 275-299. In K.R. Reddy, G.A. O'Connor, and C.L. Schelske,
(ed.). Phosphorus biogeochemistry in subtropical ecosystems. Lewis Publ., CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton,
FL.
Miao, S.L., and F.H. Sklar. 1998. Biomass and nutrient allocation of sawgrass and cattail along a nutrient
gradient in the Florida Everglades. Wetlands Ecology and Management 5:245-263.
Smith, S.M., J.A. Leeds, P.V. McCormick, P.B. Garrett, and M. Darwish. 2009. Sawgrass (Cladium
jamaicense) responses as earlyindicators of low-level phosphorus enrichment in the Florida Everglades.
Wetlands Ecology and Management 17:291-302.
Steward, K.K., and W.H. Ornes. 1975. The autecology of sawgrass in the Florida Everglades. Ecology
56:162-171.
Toth, L.A. 1987. Effects of hydrologic regimes on lifetime production and nutrient dynamics of sawgrass.
South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL.
7
Troxler, T.G., and J.H. Richards. 2009. δ13C, δ15N, carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus as indicators of plant
ecophysiology and organic matter pathways in Everglades deep slough, Florida, USA. Aquatic Botany
91:157-165.
Vaithiyanathan, P. and C.J. Richardson. 1998. Biogeochemical characteristics of the Everglades sloughs.
Journal of Environmental Quality 27:1439-1450.
Volk, B.G., S.D. Schemnitz, J.F. Gamble, and J.B. Sartain. 1975. Baseline data on Everglades soil-plant
systems: Elemental composition, biomass, and soil depth. p. 658-672 in F.G. Howell, J.B. Gentry, and
M.H. Smith (ed.) Mineral cycling in Southeastern ecosystems. National Technical Information Service,
Office of Public Affairs, U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration, Springfield, VA.
8