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