Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 494

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Herbivory on freshwater macrophytes

Open access
Lodge, David M.·1991·Aquatic Botany

Abstract

Conventional wisdom holds that live macrophytes are rarely consumed and are functionally unimportant in aquatic food webs. With a review of the literature, I first demonstrate that macrophyte biomass, productivity, and species composition is often influenced by a variety of vertebrate and invertebrate grazers. Many grazers destroy much more macrophyte tissue than they eat. Contrary to conventional wisdom, live macrophytes are engaged in aquatic food webs, but the functional importance of grazing remains largely untested. Second, I evaluate the hypothesis that macrophytes are a poor quality food (low in protein). Nitrogen content (as a percentage of dry weight), as summarized from published literature, differs little among algae, emergent macrophytes, floating macrophytes, submersed macrophytes, trees, terrestrial forbs, and terrestrial grasses. Thus, nitrogen content could not be a reason to expect low herbivory on macrophytes. Third, I present previously unpublished data on the selectivity of crayfish grazing. A correlational analysis of the grazing hierarchy of crayfish and published hierarchies of other grazers (moose, carp, snails, and crayfish) suggest that herbivores have apparently similar selectivities among macrophyte species. Previously unpublished (for crayfish) and published proximate and mineral analyses of macrophytes eaten by grazers suggest no basis for selectivity by crayfish and other grazers, with the exception of a preference by moose for high sodium and protein. However, a correlational analysis of independently published grazer preferences and plant tissue phenolic and alkaloid concentrations suggests that phenolic, but not alkaloid, content is negatively related to grazing preference. Finally, I point out the need for unifying approaches in the study of freshwater herbivory. To understand the influence of herbivory (relative to other biotic and abiotic factors) on macrophyte populations and assemblages, extensive comparisons of grazing damage across environmental gradients and across macrophyte and grazer species must be made. Susceptibility to grazers must be evaluated in light of the contrasting life history strategies evident in different macrophytes. Reasonable starting points for general approaches to macrophyte-herbivore interactions may include the apparency and resource availability models developed for terrestrial plant-herbivore interactions. Given the apparently negative relationship between grazing preference and phenolic content of macrophytes, more investigation of the role of secondary compounds is necessary.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/0304-3770(91)90044-6

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 494

Metadata

Authors
Lodge, D. M.
Venue
Aquatic Botany
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1991
Volume
41
Issue
1-3
Pages
195-224
ISSN
0304-3770 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2080351823
Cited by
494
References
2
FWCI
14.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Herbivory on freshwater macrophytes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/0304-3770(91)90044-6
The paper
Lodge, D. M. (1991). Herbivory on freshwater macrophytes. Aquatic Botany. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3770(91)90044-6

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.