An update on the knowledge of aquatic macrophytes in Northeast Brazil

Abstract

We updated the first checklist of aquatic macrophytes from Northeast Brazil (First Flora), which included data collected up to 2010, with a new checklist based on data from works published between 2011 and 2017 (New Flora). Together, these checklists record 637 species of 89 families, with an emphasis on strictly amphibious or emergent species, with 392 and 115 species, respectively. We found differences in observed richness between New Flora and First Flora, with an increase of 106 species in the New Flora. The rarefaction curve shows that a considerable increase in collection effort is necessary to determine the aquatic flora of the studied region. From the compiled data, we suggest new perspectives for floristic inventories of aquatic macrophytes, highlighting the prioritization of poorly studied areas; the exploration of ecological information of the species (e.g., endemism, rarity, threat of extinction or invasive potential); and the promotion of projects on a regional scale.

Key words:
aquatic plants; biotic limnology; Caatinga

Resumo

Atualizamos o primeiro checklist de macrófitas aquáticas do Nordeste do Brasil (Primeira Flora), que incluiu dados coletados até 2010, com uma nova lista de espécies baseada em dados de trabalhos publicados entre 2011 e 2017 (Nova Flora). Juntas, estas listagens registram 637 espécies de 89 famílias, com ênfase em espécies estritamente anfíbias ou emergentes, com 392 e 115 espécies, respectivamente. Encontramos diferenças na riqueza observada entre a Nova Flora e Primeira Flora, com aumento de 106 espécies na Nova Flora. A curva de rarefação mostrou que é necessário um aumento considerável no esforço de coleta para que possamos determinar a flora aquática da região estudada. A partir dos dados compilados, sugerimos novas perspectivas para inventários florísticos de macrófitas aquáticas, destacando a priorização de áreas mal estudadas, a exploração de informações ecológicas das espécies (e.g., endemismo, raridade, ameaça de extinção ou potencial invasivo), e a promoção de projetos em escala regional.

Palavras-chave:
plantas aquáticas; limnologia biótica; Caatinga

Introduction

Although the Northeast Region of Brazil encompasses substantial watersheds (e.g., Apodi, Parnaiba, Recôncavo Bahiano, São Francisco), until recently there has been a lack of knowledge regarding the aquatic vegetation of the area (Moura-Júnior et al. 2013). Some researchers relate this poor knowledge to the lack of macrophytes specialists in the region (Thomaz & Bini 2003; Machado-Filho et al. 2014). This scarcity of knowledge was most pronounced during the 1980s and 1990s, a period when only two papers were published for the region, according to the scientometric work on aquatic macrophytes by Thomaz & Bini (2003).

However, between the years 2000 and 2010, the number of papers published relating to floristic surveys of aquatic macrophytes in Northeast Brazil increased significantly, as noted by the first checklist of macrophytes for this region. This checklist was developed with metadata obtained from scientific works and the SpeciesLink network (Moura-Júnior et al. 2013), and noted 13 publications during the 2000s with a floristic focus of aquatic macrophytes. In total it recorded 412 species distributed among 27 genera and 72 families.

The number of specialists on aquatic macrophytes working in Northeast Brazil seems to have increased in the same proportion as the number of works published in this region, after the year 2000. According to information provided by the Núcleo de Especialistas em Plantas Aquáticas do Brasil - NEPA (Brazilian Aquatic Plants Specialist Group), 42 researchers from eight states of the region have registered with the NEPA after the year 2008 (NEPA 2019). In this context, it is important that we recognize how much the new specialists and research groups focused on aquatic macrophytes of Northeast Brazil are contributing to the expansion of knowledge on these plants.

The lack of knowledge regarding the aquatic macrophytes of Northeast Brazil, as pointed out by Moura-Júnior et al. (2013), highlights the need to update data on these plants. According to those authors, there were no publications on the floristics of aquatic plants for the states of Alagoas, Sergipe, Maranhão and Piauí until 2010.

In addition, the use of data from the SpeciesLink network for the preparation of the first checklist of aquatic macrophytes in Northeast Brazil may result in a biased knowledge of these plants. The possibility of errors in taxonomic identification of specimens deposited in the herbaria that provide data to the SpeciesLink network may result in an underestimation of species richness or an imprecise description of the floristic composition of a given region (Moura-Júnior et al. 2015). Therefore, it is recommended that species surveys or macroecological studies based on metadata prioritize information published in scientific articles or book chapters, with fewer misidentifications due to deeper research by the authors combined with thorough peer review (Moura-Júnior et al. 2015).

The Flora do Brazil 2020 (2017) network is a botanical data platform that can complement these regional surveys of aquatic macrophytes (Moura-Júnior et al. 2015), since in addition to updated taxonomic classifications, it provides ecological and biogeographic information for the species. The updated taxonomic information in the Flora do Brazil network implies an upgrade in the floristic knowledge of the states of Brazil, which reiterates the need to update the first checklist of the macrophytes in the Northeast Region.

Therefore, the objectives of the present study were to: i - evaluate the progress of acquiring knowledge regarding the aquatic macrophytes for the states of Northeast Brazil based on scientific studies published since 2010; ii - compile data from these two historical collection periods to update the checklist of aquatic macrophytes in the region, including complementing species data with information from Flora do Brazil 2020; and iii - use the collected data to suggest new perspectives for floristic inventories of aquatic macrophytes in the region.

Material and Methods

We performed a comprehensive search for articles, book chapters and doctoral theses containing floristic surveys of aquatic macrophytes in the states of the Northeast Region published between January 2010 and June 2017. For this purpose, we visited the websites of the main indexers of scientific journals (Web of Science, Scopus, Scielo, Springer, Elsevier), of Google Scholar and of graduate programs in ecology, biodiversity, botany and plant ecology located in Northeast Brazil. The words used in these searches were: aquatic macrophytes, aquatic plants, aquatic ferns, aquatic angiosperms, aquatic herbaceous plants and wetland plants (in Portuguese and English). The list of works consulted and the location of the studied areas are shown in Table 1 and Figure 1, respectively.

Table 1
Lists of works consulted for the development of Cumulative Flora (CF), including types of environment and states or region where the studies were carried out. Legend: (BA) Bahia; (CE) Ceará; (PB) Paraíba; (PE) Pernambuco; (PI) Piauí; (RN) Rio Grande do Norte; (NO) Northeast of the Brazil.

ID	References	State or region	Type of data of enviroment
1	Mathias & Nunes (2001)	CE	Coastal lagoon
2	França et al. (2003)	BA	Reservoir
3	Matias et al. (2003)	CE	Coastal lagoon
4	Neves et al. (2006)	BA	Coastal lagoon
5	Pedro et al. (2006)	PB	River
6	Moura-Júnior et al. (2009)	PE	Reservoir
7	Lima et al. (2009)	PE	Herbarium compilation
8	Nascimento (2009)	PE	Reservoir
9	Henry-Silva et al. (2010)	RN	Rivers
10	Matias (2010)	NO	Shallow lakes, rivers, floodplains, oxbow lakes, temporary ponds, permanent ponds, coastal lagoons, lakes, permanent and temporary swamps, reservoir
11	Moura-Júnior et al. (2010)	BA	Reservoir
12	Sobral-Leite et al. (2010)	PE	Herbarium compilation
13	França et al. (2010)	BA	River, temporary and permanent ponds
14	Moura-Júnior et al. (2011a)	PI	Metadata compilation
15	Moura-Júnior et al. (2011b)	BA	Reservoir
16	Lima et al. (2011)	PE	Reservoir
17	Silva (2011)	PE	Reservoir
18	Campelo et al. (2012)	PE,PB,CE	Lakes,permanent and temporary swamps, reservoir
19	Araújo et al. (2012)	PE,PB,CE	Reservoir
20	Xavier et al. (2012)	PE	Reservoir
21	Lima et al. (2013)	PB	Permanent and temporary ponds
22	Campelo et al. (2013)	PE,PB,CE	Reservoir
23	Cordeiro et al. (2013)	PE	Temporary ponds
24	Andrade et al. (2014)	PI	River, temporary ponds and permanent ponds
25	Lacet et al. (2014)	PB	Reservoir
26	Santos et al. (2014)	BA	River, reservoir
27	Aona et al. (2015)	BA	Rivers, floodplains, temporary ponds, permanent ponds, permanent and temporary swamps
28	Sabino et al. (2015)	PE,PB,CE	Reservoir
29	Sousa et al. (2016)	PI	River
30	Xavier et al. (2016)	PE	River
31	Moura-Júnior et al. (2016)	PE	Reservoir
32	Torres et al. (2016)	PB	Rivers, temporary and permanent ponds, permanent and temporary swamps, reservoir

Figure 1
Map of the Northeast Region of Brazil and the location of the sites where the consulted scientific works were performed. Legend: (AL) Alagoas; (BA) Bahia; (CE) Ceará; (MA) Maranhão; (PB) Paraíba; (PE) Pernambuco; (PI) Piauí; (RN) Rio Grande do Norte; (SE) Sergipe; (1,2,3 ... 32) identification of the scientific work consulted (see Table 1).

Next, we developed a checklist of the species mentioned in these scientific works adding the species mentioned in previous checklist (Moura-Júnior et al. 2013). Thus, we generate the Cumulative Flora (CF). We did not include taxa in CF that were identified only to generic level or that needed their identity confirmed. We included information regarding endemism (to Brazil), origin (native, cultivated or naturalized) and species geographic distribution amont the states of the Northeast Region from the Flora do Brazil 2020 (2017) network. We reported the biological forms of the species of CF based on the works consulted for the development of this checklist or published works for other regions (Pott & Pott 2000; Amaral et al. 2008; Ferreira et al. 2011; Moura-Júnior et al. 2015).

The taxonomic classification was based on APG IV (2016) for angiosperms, Smith et al. (2006) for ferns, Buck & Goffinet (2000) for mosses and hepatics, and Lee (2008) for green macroalgae. Flora do Brazil 2020 (2017) was used to check the correct spelling of the valid taxa names and their authors, as well as to evaluate synonymy. We chose to eliminate from CF species that had no record for Brazil or for the Northeast Region of the country, as well as names with dubious spelling, according to Flora do Brazil 2020 (2017). In the future, these taxa can be new records for the country or the region, and so we decided to list them in the Table S1, available on supplementary material <https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.10142789.v1>.

We use our experience with aquatic macrophytes in natural environments to eliminate from CF some species erroneously termed macrophytes (Eliminated species checklist), for example, trees, subshrubs or hemiparasites with terrestrial habit strictly and typical of marine or xerophytic areas.

We used a matrix of presence/absence of species per state (P/A sta) to estimate richness of species noted in the current checklist (New Flora - NF) and the initial checklist of Moura-Júnior et al. (2013) (First Flora - FF). We used CHAO 2 to estimate richness and compared the estimated richness of NF and FF using their maximum and minimum confidence intervals (CI). We also computed rarefaction curves to evaluate the increase in the number of macrophyte species compiled through the sampling effort of these two checklists. In order to compute the rarefaction curve, we used a matrix of presence/absence of species per consulted scientific work (P/A wrk). We used the software Estimates 9.1 (Colwell 2013) to compute richness estimates and the rarefaction curve.

Results

Cumulative Flora

The CF included 637 species distributed among 320 genera and 89 families (Tab. S2, available on supplementary material <https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.10142789.v1>). Of this total richness, 586 species (92%) are native to Brazil, 49 species (7.69%) naturalized and two species (0.31%) cultivated. Of the native CF species, 92 (14.42%) are endemic to Brazil.

The states with the greatest observed richness were Bahia and Pernambuco with 593 and 531 species, respectively. The other states, in sequence, are Ceará (479 species), Paraíba (445 species), Alagoas (387 species), Piauí (376 species), Maranhão (373 species), Sergipe (366 species) and Rio Grande do Norte (350 species).

The families with the greatest observed richness were Cyperaceae with 80 species, followed by Poaceae (59 species), Fabaceae (50 species), Asteraceae (36 species), Malvaceae (25 species), Convolvulaceae (21 species), Rubiaceae (19 species) and Plantaginaceae (16 species), which together account for 48.03% of the total encountered species. Twenty-six families were represented only by a single species (Tab. S2, available on supplementary material <https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.10142789.v1>).

The genera with the greatest observed richness were Cyperus with 24 species, followed by Eleocharis (15 species), Rhynchospora (11 species), Utricularia (10 species), Nymphea (10 species), Ipomoea (9 species), Solanum (8 species), Ludwigia (8 species), Cuphea (8 species), Echinodorus (7 species), Chara (7 species), Stylosanthes (7 species).

Two hundred and eight species had records for all nine states of the Northeast Region. Of this total, four species were recorded in more than half of the consulted articles: Salvinia auriculata Aubl. with 21 records, Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms and Nymphoides indica (L.) Kuntze with 20 records (each species) and Pistia stratiotes L. with 17 records. There were 312 species cited in only one of the consulted articles. Of this total, 40 species were recorded for only one state, seven of which are endemic to Brazil (Tab. S2, available on supplementary material <https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.10142789.v1>): Acmella paniculata (Wall. ex DC.) R.K.Jansen, Eriocaulon aquatile Körn., Schultesia gracilis Mart., Scleria myricocarpa Kunth, Utricularia laciniata St-Hil. & Girard, Achetaria ocymoides (Cham. & Schltdl.) Wettst. and Stachytarpheta bicolor Hook.f.

The species with strictly amphibious or emergent biological form represented 61.54% or 18.05% of the CF richness, respectively. In contrast, the species with strictly submerged or floating biological form represented 5.97% or 5.65% of the CF richness, respectively (Tab. S2, available on supplementary material <https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.10142789.v1>). Fifty-six species can occur as more than one biological form in nature, particularly those with the potential of being amphibious or emergent (Tab. S2, available on supplementary material <https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.10142789.v1>). The predominance of species with an amphibious or emergent biological form occurred in all states of the Northeast Region.

Eliminated species

We eliminated 60 species form the final list because they were erroneously termed macrophytes, Calotropis procera (Aiton) W. T. Aiton, Tabebuia aurea (Silva Manso) Benth. & Hook.f. ex S.Moore, Cordia superba Cham., Cynophalla flexuosa (L.) J.Presl, Maytenus gonoclada Mart., Licania leptostachya Benth., Hirtella glandulosa Spreng., Vismia guianensis (Aubl.) Choisy, Combretum fruticosum (Loefl.) Stuntz, Conocarpus erectus L., Laguncularia racemosa (L.) C.F.Gaertn., Erythroxylum macrocalyx Mart., Croton heliotropiifolius Kunth, Jatropha gossypiifolia L., Ricinus communis L., Pogonophora schomburgkiana Miers ex Benth., Anadenanthera colubrina (Vell.) Brenan, Lonchocarpus cultratus (Vell.) A.M.G.Azevedo & H.C.Lima, L. sericeus (Poir.) Kunth ex DC., Machaerium lunatum (L.f.) Ducke, Mimosa arenosa (Willd.) Poir., M. hexandra Micheli, M. ophthalmocentra Mart. ex Benth., M. tenuiflora (Willd.) Poir., M. bimucronata (DC.) Kuntze, Parkinsonia aculeata L., Muellera monilis (L.) M.J. Silva & A.M.G. Azevedo, Pithecellobium dulce (Roxb.) Benth., Poincianella pyramidalis (Tul.) L.P. Queiroz, Prosopis juliflora (Sw.) DC., Sesbania exasperata Kunth, Vachellia farnesiana (L.) Wight & Arn., Aegiphila verticillata Vell., Vitex megapotamiga (Spreng.) Moldenke, Myrcia guianensis (Aubl.) DC., M. splendens (Sw.) DC., Ouratea hexasperma (A.St.-Hil.) Baill., Coccoloba alnifolia Casar., C. declinata (Vell.) Mart., C. parimensis Benth., C. striata Benth., Ruprechtia laxiflora Meisn., Coutarea hexandra (Jacq.) K. Schum., Genipa americana L., Gonzalagunia dicocca Cham. & Schltdl., Machaonia acuminata Bonpl., Tocoyena formosa (Cham. & Schltdl.) K.Schum., Nicotiana glauca Graham, Solanum stipulaceum Willd. ex Roem. & Schult., Cecropia pachystachya Trécul , Vochysia pyramidalis Mart., Dialium guianense (Aubl.) Sandwith, Zygia latifolia (L.) Fawc. & Rendle, Cassytha filiformis L., Struthanthus flexicaulis Mart., Byrsonima sericea DC., Ruppia maritima L., Halodule emarginata Hartog, Halodule wrightii Asch and Avicennia germinans (L.) L. Of these species, R. maritima, H. emarginata and H. wrightii are rooted submerged, C. filiformis is a holoparasite, S. flexicaulis is a hemiparasite and 55 species are amphibious.

Comparison between New Flora (NF) and First Flora (FF)

Comparing NF with FF, 311 species, 21 families and 129 genera were exclusive to NF, and there were 26 name updates. We recorded 282 native species and 52 endemic species in NF. Annual accumulation of richness recorded the greatest increases in 2012 and 2015 (Fig. 2). The works of Campelo et al. (2012) and Aona et al. (2015) made the greatest contributions to NF with 58 and 96 species, respectively (Fig. 1 nº 18 and 26, respectively).

Figure 2
Annual accumulated richness, according to the consulted scientific works.

The families with the greatest number of species exclusive to NF were Fabaceae and Poaceae (29 species), Malvaceae (19 species), Asteraceae (19 species), Malvaceae (19 species), Asteraceae (19 species), Cyperaceae (15 species) and Convolvulaceae (15 species). The genus Chara and Nymphaea were the most representative with six species each and Cuphea with five species. Together amphibian and emergent species predominate (90.68%) of the NF richness. This predominance of species with an amphibious or emergent biological form of the NF richness occurred in all states of the Northeast Region.

We found a difference between the observed richness of FF and NF, with 106 species increase of the NF (Tab. 2). All of the states exhibited increased observed richness in NF compared with FF (Tab. 2). The state that exhibited the highest increase in observed richness in NF was Piauí with 161 species.

Table 2
Observed richness of the states of Northeast Brazil for Cumulative Flora (CF), First Flora (FF) and New Flora (NF). Legend: (AL) Alagoas; (BA) Bahia; (CE) Ceará; (MA) Maranhão; (PB) Paraíba; (PE) Pernambuco; (PI) Piauí; (RN) Rio Grande do Norte; (SE) Sergipe.

	AL	BA	CE	MA	PB	PE	PI	RN	SE	Total
First Flora (Moura-Júnior et al. 2013)	197	347	256	181	252	357	149	186	172	402
New Flora	304	473	385	309	355	423	310	295	289	508
Cumulative Flora	387	593	479	373	445	531	376	350	366	637

The CHAO 2 confidence intervals for NF and FF exhibited significant differences in estimated richness, with an increase for NF (Fig. 3). The rarefaction curve showed continuous growth in aquatic macrophyte richness considering the works used to compile the checklists (Fig. 4).

Figure 3
Estimated richness (CHAO 2) and confidence intervals for First Flora (FF) and New Flora (NF).

Figure 4
Species rarefaction curve and the maximum (dotted line) and minimum (dashed line) confidence intervals of the aquatic macrophytes richness, according to the consulted scientific works to compile the checklists.

Discussion

The most represented families in CF were the same as those in the first checklist (Moura-Júnior et al. 2013). Most of the species of Cyperaceae and Poaceae possess vegetative propagation and fast-growing root systems (Souza & Lorenzi 2012). This finding may explain the strong representation of these families in CF and NF, as well as the observed richness of Cyperus, Eleocharis and Rhynchospora in CF. In addition, species of Cyperaceae and Poaceae well suited to floodable areas or ecotones between terrestrial and aquatic environments (Souza & Lorenzi 2012), what explains the representation of amphibious species of these families in CF. The shallow depth, minimal influence of winds and long presence of water in the Aquatic/Terrestrial Transition Zone - ATTZ (Wantzen et al. 2008) make this zone more favorable to amphibious and emergent aquatic macrophytes, as compared to the more central and deeper zones of aquatic environments (Esteves 2011). Given the recognized predominance of emerging amphibious species in surveys with macrophytes in the Neotropics (Machado-Filho et al. 2014), the high number of species of Chara (fixed submerged, but not rooted) and Nymphaea (rooted floating) with occurrence restricted to NF caught our attention. Such results led us to the understanding that researchers observed submerged and floating aquatic macrophytes with greater detail in the floristic inventories they undertook in Northeast Brazil, after the year 2010.

Fabaceae is one of most represented families in the majority of natural ecosystems in Brazil, mainly due to the extensive morphophysiological plasticity possessed by the species of this family (Souza & Lorenzi 2012). Fabaceae predominates in different vegetation types of the Caatinga domain (Moro et al. 2014, 2015), which covers more than 70% of the Northeast Region of Brazil (Prado 2003). These findings may explain the high level of observed richness of Fabaceae in CF and NF.

The most frequently encountered species of CF (E. crassipes, S. auriculata, N. indica and P. stratiotes) are cited as invasive or very frequent in several aquatic ecosystems of Brazil (Ferreira et al. 2011; Amaral et al. 2008; Pereira et al. 2012; Moura-Júnior et al. 2015), especially those with high trophic degree (Pott & Pott 2000; Pompêo 2017). Two species endemics to Brazil, exclusive of a state and cited by only one consulted papers (Eriocaulon aquatile and Stachytarpheta bicolor), are on the Red List of species threatened with extinction of the International Union for Conservation of Nature - IUCN (IUCN 2017).

Although biological and/or ecological information about species can help to characterize a studied environment, this type of discussion is uncommon among the floristic surveys of macrophytes in Northeast Brazil. Information on endemism, rarity, invasive potential and threat of extinction for species is easily obtained from the literature and can enrich the content of floristic works. Therefore, we encourage macrophyte specialists to explore biological and/or ecological information for the species in their floristic inventories.

The mistaken inclusion of amphibious species in aquatic macrophyte inventories is another point that deserves special attention. Many of the eliminated species are pioneer or invasive trees and shrubs. Our "eliminated species" checklist considered many species whose physiology is well suited to dry areas and xerophytic environments (Souza & Rodal 2010; Barbosa et al. 2012; Moro et al. 2015). The inclusion of records of these species in floristic inventories of aquatic macrophytes is often caused by difficulty in recognizing the physical boundary between wetland and dry areas. In many cases, the erroneous collection of terrestrial plants in aquatic macrophyte inventories is due to environmental changes that occurred few days before field sampling (e.g., rapid increase accumulated water in wet ecosystem due to heavy rainfall).

The problem with the classification of amphibious macrophytes in floristic macrophyte inventories can be mitigated by increasing the number of collection expeditions. The greater the number of collections, the better understanding of the ecology of the species that survive in terrestrial/aquatic ecotones. The regime of water level fluctuation can change daily (e.g., Amazonian ecosystems), seasonally or annually (e.g., intermittent lagoons of the semi-arid region of Brazil). Thus, it is important to understand the regime of the hydrological cycle of the ecosystem being studied to establish the number of expedition necessary to properly sample and sufficiently understand, with a high degree of confidence, the amphibious macrophyte flora of a given study area. Therefore, in general, we recommend, a minimum of three collection expeditions to sites for aquatic macrophyte inventories in order to encompass an entire hydrological cycle (flood, ebb and dry).

The scale of study is another relevant aspect of inventories of aquatic macrophytes. Of the works we consulted for this checklist, the greatest contribution to richness in NF was made by those developed on a regional scale, such as Campelo et al. (2012) for the area of influence of the São Francisco river transposition project, and Aona et al. (2015) for the Recôncavo basin of Bahia. Moro et al. (2015) found that point surveys can underestimate plant richness in the Caatinga domain. We also highlight the considerable increase in species richness for the state of Piauí in NF. This state had the smallest number of species sampled in FF and there had been no floristic surveys of aquatic macrophytes until 2010 (Moura-Júnior et al. 2013). The first floristic inventories undertaken for Piauí after 2010 certainly explain the increase in richness of this state in NF.

Increased collection effort in floristic inventories of aquatic macrophytes and/or the selection of less explored areas may bring unprecedented data for the knowledge on these plants in the Northeast Region of Brazil (Campelo et al. 2012). Increased sampling effort can also help to understand the biogeography of species, and avoid false indications of rarity, endemism or threat with extinction (Ladle & Whittaker 2011). The high number of species cited by only one consulted work and exclusively for a single state in the Northeast Region reiterates the need to expand the collection effort in this region, and especially in poorly sampled areas.

The expansion of regional knowledge on aquatic plants can refine the delineation of the actual flora in the region and enable reliable floristic comparisons to be made with other regions (Moura-Júnior et al. 2015). However, many centric areas in Northeast of Brazil need research about aquatic macrophytes, especially in the states of Maranhão, Piauí, Rio Grande do Norte Alagoas and Sergipe.

With the aim of characterize the aquatic macrophyte flora of the different ecosystems of Brazil and fostering macroecological studies in the country, NEPA established its main objective for the current decade of compiling regional checklists of data on these plants in a digital platform available to the scientific community (NEPA 2019). Our manuscript is part of this NEPA objective and will certainly contribute to future comprehensive investigations on aquatic macrophytes in Brazil and other Neotropical regions. For this reason, we suggest some new directions for floristic surveys on aquatic plants, among which we highlight: the exploration of poorly studied areas; the incorporation of available information on endemism, rarity, threat of extinction or invasive potential of species; discussion of the conservation status of areas studied; and the promotion of projects on regional and long-term scales.

The simple comparison of our results with the data available in Flora do Brazil 2020 (2017) shows the relevance of species survey to obtaining knowledge for a particular biological group. According to Flora do Brazil 2020 (2017), the aquatic vegetation of the Northeast Region is composed of 378 species of 59 families, which underestimates 41% of the observed richness by our checklist. However, our rarefaction curve shows that a larger sampling effort than the current one is still necessary to determine, with some degree of confidence, the size of the aquatic flora of the studied region.

• See supplementary material at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.10142789.v1
• Editora de área: Dra. Daniela Zappi

References

• Amaral MCE, Bittrich V, Faria AP, Anderson LO & Aona LYS (2008) Guia de campo para plantas aquáticas e palustres do estado de São Paulo. Holos Editora, Ribeirão Preto. 452p.
• Andrade IM, Silva MFS, Costa MCA & Mayo SJ (2014)Guia de campo macrófitas aquáticas do Delta do Parnaíba. EDUFPI, Parnaiba. 143p.
• Aona LYS, Costa GMC, Amaral MCA, Faria AD, Duarte EF & Bittrich V (2015) Aquatic and marsh plants from the Recôncavo basin of Bahia state, Brazil: checklist and life forms. CheckList 11: 1-10.
• APG - The Angiosperm Phylogeny Group (2016) An update of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classification for the orders and families of flowering plants: APG IV. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 181: 1-20.
• Araújo ES, Sabino JHF, Cotarelli VM, Siqueira-Filho JA & Campelo MJA (2012) Riqueza e diversidade de macrofitas aquáticas em mananciais da Caatinga. Diálogos & Ciência 10: 229-232.
• Barbosa MD, Marangon LC, Feliciano ALP, Freire FJ & Duarte GMT (2012) Florística e fitossociologia de espécies arbóreas e arbustivas em uma área de Caatinga em Arcoverde, PE, Brasil. Revista Arvore 36: 851-858.
• Buck WR & Goffinet B (2000) Morphology and classification of mosses. In: Shaw JA & Goffinet B (eds.) Bryophyte Biology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Pp.72-124.
• Campelo JAA, Siqueira-Filho JA & Cotarelli VM (2013) Structure community of aquatic macrophytes in springs of the semiarid, Northeast Brazil. International Journal of Scientific Knowledge 4:14-22.
• Campelo MJA, Siqueira-Filho JA, Cotarelli VM, Souza EB & Pott VJ (2012) Macrófitas aquáticas nas áreas do projeto de integração do rio São Francisco. In: Siqueira-Filho JA (eds.) Flora das caatingas do rio São Francisco: história natural e conservação. Andrea Jakobsson, Rio de Janeiro. Pp. 193-229.
• Colwell RK (2013) EstimateS: statistical estimation of species richness and shared species from samples. User's guide and application of EstimateS. Available at <http://purl.oclc.org/estimates>. Access on 25 July 2017.
  » http://purl.oclc.org/estimates
• Cordeiro WPFS, Zickel CS, Matos SS, Caldas DRM, Melo-Júnior M, Gomes APS & Melo AL (2013) Flora aquática de duas lagoas temporárias. In: Santos EM, Melo-Junior M, Silva-Cavalcanti JS & Almeida GVL (eds.) Parque Estadual Mata da Pimenteira - Riqueza natural e conservação da Caatinga. EDUFRPE, Recife. Pp. 65-80.
• Esteves FA (2011) Fundamentos da limnologia. 3ª ed. Interciência, Rio de Janeiro. 826 p.
• Ferreira FA, Mormul RP, Thomaz SM, Pott A & Pott VJ (2011) Macrophytes in the upper Paraná river floodplain: checklist and comparison with other large South American wetlands. Revista de Biologia Tropical 59: 541-556.
• Flora do Brazil 2020 [em construção] (2017) Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de janeiro. Available at <http://floradobrasil.jbrj.gov.br/>. Access on 25 July 2017.
  » http://floradobrasil.jbrj.gov.br/
• França F, Melo E, Oliveira IB, Reis ATCC, Alves GL & Costa MF (2010) Plantas vasculares das áreas alagadas dos Marimbus Chapada Diamantina, BA, Brasil. Hoehnea 37: 719-730.
• França F, Melo E, Neto AG, Araújo D, Bezerra M, Ramos HM, Castro I & Gomes D (2003) Flora vascular de açudes de uma região do semiárido da Bahia, Brasil. Acta Botanica Brasilica 17: 549-559.
• Henry-Silva GG, Moura RST & Dantas LLO (2010) Richness and distribution of aquatic macrophytes in Brazilian semi-arid aquatic ecosystems. Acta Limnologica Brasiliensis 22: 147-156.
• IUCN - The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (2017) IUCN Red List Unit. Available at <http://www.iucnredlist.org/>. Access on 25 July 2017.
  » http://www.iucnredlist.org/
• Lacet JB, Lycarião TA & Dantas EW (2014) Community structure In: Aquatic macrophytes in the Mares Reservoir, João Pessoa, PB. Brazilian Journal of Ecology 1: 82-88.
• Ladle RR & Whittaker RJ (2011) Conservation biogeography. Wiley-Blackwell, New Jersey. 320 p.
• Lee RE (2008) Phycology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 547p.
• Lima EA, Machado-Filho HO & Melo JIM (2013) Angiospermas aquáticas da Área de Proteção Ambiental (APA) do Cariri, Paraíba, Brasil. Rodriguésia 64: 667-683.
• Lima LF, Silva SSL, Moura-júnior EG & Zickel CS (2011) Composição florística e chave de identificação das macrófitas aquáticas ocorrentes em reservatórios do estado de Pernambuco. Rodriguésia 62: 771-783.
• Lima LF, Lima PB, Soares-Júnior RC, Pimentel RMM & Zickel CS (2009) Diversidade de macrófitas aquáticas no estado de Pernambuco: levantamento em herbário. Revista de Geografia 26: 307-319.
• Machado-Filho HO, Cabral LL, Melo JIM, Zikel ZS & Moura AN (2014) Macrófitas aquáticas da região Neotropical: uma abordagem cientométrica. Revista Biociências 20: 90-106.
• Matias LG (2010) A synopsis of Alismataceae from the semi-arid region of Northeastern Brazil. Revista Caatinga 23: 46-53.
• Matias LQ, Amado ER & Nunes EP (2003) Macrófitas aquáticas da lagoa de Jijoca de Jericoacoara, Ceará, Brasil. Acta Botanica Brasilica 4: 623-631.
• Matias LQ & Nunes EP (2001) Levantamento florístico da área de proteção ambiental de Jericoacoara, Ceará. Acta Botanica Brasilica 15: 35-43.
• Moro MF, Araújo FS, Rodal MJN & Martins FR (2015) Síntese dos estudos florísticos e fitossociológicos realizados no semiárido brasileiro. In: Eisenlohr PV, Felfili JM, Melo MMRF, Andrade LA & Meira-Neto JA (eds.) Fitossociologia no Brasil: métodos e estudos de casos. Vol. II. Editora da Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Viçosa. Pp. 412-451.
• Moro MF, Lughadha EN, Filer DL, Araújo FS & Martins FR (2014) A catalogue of the vascular plants of the Caatinga phytogeographical domain: a synthesis of floristic and phytosociological surveys. Phytotaxa 160: 1-118.
• Moura-Júnior EG, Pott A, Severi W & Zickel CS (2016) Water level rise induced limnological changes indirectly influencing the structure of aquatic macrophyte communities in a tropical reservoir. Journal of Plant Sciences 4: 195-201.
• Moura-Júnior EG, Paiva RMS, Ferreira AC, Pacopahyba LD, Tavares AS, Ferreira FA & Pott A (2015) Updated checklist of aquatic macrophytes from Northern Brazil. Acta Amazonica 45: 111-132.
• Moura-Júnior EG, Lima LF, Silva SSL, Paiva RMS, Ferreira FA, Zickel CS & Pott A (2013) Aquatic macrophytes of Northeastern Brazil: checklist, richness, distribution and life forms. CheckList 9: 298-312.
• Moura-Júnior EG, Lima LF, Lima PB, Almeida-Júnior EB & Santos-Filho FS (2011a) Análise crítica do conhecimento das macrófitas aquáticas no estado do Piauí. In: Santos-Filho FS & Soares AFCL (eds.) Biodiversidade do Piauí: pesquisas e perspectivas. Vol. 1. Editora CRV, Curitiba. Pp. 173-190.
• Moura-Júnior EG, Abreu MC, Severi W & Lira GAST (2011b) O gradiente rio-barragem do reservatório de Sobradinho afeta a composição florística, riqueza e formas biológicas das macrófitas aquáticas? Rodriguesia 62: 731-742.
• Moura-Júnior EG, Abreu MC, Severi W & Lira GAST (2010) Macroflora aquática do Reservatório Sobradinho - BA, trecho submédio do Rio São Francisco. In: Moura AM, Araújo EL, Bittencourt-Oliveira MC, Pimentel RMM & Albuquerque UP (eds.) Reservatórios do Nordeste do Brasil: biodiversidade, ecologia e manejo. Nupea, Recife. Pp. 189-212.
• Moura-Júnior EG, Silva SSL, Lima LF, Lima PB, Almeida-Jr. EB, Pessoa LM, Santos-Filho FS, Medeiros DPW, Pimentel RMM & Zickel CS (2009) Diversidade de plantas aquáticas vasculares em açudes do Parque Estadual de Dois Irmãos (PEDI), Recife-PE. Revista de Geografia 26: 178-293.
• Nascimento PRF (2009) Levantamento florístico e produtividade de macrófitas aquáticas ocorrentes em ambientes limnéticos do estado de Pernambuco - Brasil. Tese de Doutorado. Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco, Recife. 55p.
• NEPA - Núcleo de Especialista em Plantas Aquáticas (2019) NEPA. Available at <http://nepa.site.com.br/>. Access on 25 July 2019.
  » http://nepa.site.com.br/
• Neves EL, Leite KRB, França F & Melo E (2006) Plantas aquáticas vasculares em uma lagoa de planície costeira no município de Candeias, Bahia, Brasil. Sitientibus, Série Ciências Biológicas 6: 24-29.
• Pedro F, Maltchik L & Bianchini Jr I (2006) Hydrologic cycle and dynamics of aquatic macrophytes in two intermittent rivers of the semi-arid region of Brazil. Brazilian Journal of Biology 2: 575-585.
• Pompêo M (2017) Monitoramento e manejo de macrófitas aquáticas em reservatórios tropicais brasileiros. Instituto de Biociências da USP, São Paulo. 138p.
• Pott VJ & Pott A (2000) Plantas aquáticas do Pantanal. Embrapa Comunicação, Brasília. 404p.
• Prado D (2003) As caatingas da América do Sul. In: Leal IR, Tabarelli M & Silva JMC (eds.) Ecologia e conservação da Caatinga. Editora Universitária da Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife. Pp. 3-73.
• Santos VV, Barros ICL, Moura-Júnior AM, Severi W & Magalhães KM (2014) Samambaias aquáticas da bacia do rio de Contas, Bahia, Brasil. Neotropical Biology and Conservation 9: 42-48.
• Sabino JHF, Araújo ES, Cotarelli VM, Siqueira-Filho JA & Campelo MJA (2015) Riqueza, composição florística, estrutura e formas biológicas de macrófitas aquáticas em reservatórios do semiárido nordestino, Brasil. Natureza online 19:184-194.
• Silva SSL (2011) Caracterização ecológica estrutural de macrófitas em reservatórios no estado de Pernambuco. Tese de Doutorado. Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco, Recife. 108p.
• Smith AR, Pryer KM, Schuettpelz E, Korall P, Schneider H & Wolf PG (2006) A classification for extant ferns. Taxon 55: 705-731.
• Sobral-Leite M, Campelo MJA, Siqueira-Filho JA & Silva SI (2010) Checklist das macrófitas vasculares de Pernambuco: riqueza de espécies, formas biológicas e considerações sobre distribuição. In: Albuquerque UP, Moura AN & Araujo EL (eds.) Biodiversidade, potencial econômico e processos ecofisiológicos em ecossistemas nordestinos. Vol. II. Nuppea, Recife. Pp. 253-280.
• Sousa PS, Rodrigues PS, Silva APJ, Moura AI, Almeida-Júnior EB & Abreu MC (2016) Inventário de marófitas aquáticas ocorrentes no Rio Guaribas, zona urbana de Picos-Piauí. In: Almeida-Júnior EB & Santos-Filho FS (eds.) Biodiversidade do Meio Norte do Brasil: conhecimentos ecológicos e aplicações. Vol. 1. Editora CRV, Curitiba. Pp. 111-124.
• Souza JAN & Rodal MJN (2010) Levantamento florístico em trecho de vegetação ripária de caatinga no rio Pajeú, Floresta/Pernambuco - Brasil. Revista Caatinga 4: 54-62.
• Souza VC & Lorenzi H (2012) Botânica Sistemática: guia ilustrado para identificação das famílias de fanerógamas nativas e exóticas no Brasil, baseado em APG III. 3ª ed. Instituto Plantarum, Nova Odessa. 768p.
• Thomaz SM & Bini LM (2003) Análise crítica dos estudos sobre macrófitas aquáticas desenvolvidos no Brasil. In: Thomaz SM & Bini LM (eds.) Ecologia e manejo de macrófitas aquáticas. EDUEM, Maringá. Pp. 19-38.
• Torres CRM, Fernando EMP & Lucena MFA (2016) Checklist de plantas aquáticas em trechos de caatinga do semiárido paraibano, nordeste do Brasil. Gaia Scientia 10: 284-296.
• Xavier LRCC, Scherner F, Burgos DC, Barreto RC & Pereira SMB(2016) Urbanization effects on the composition and structure of macrophytes communities in a lotic ecosystem of Pernambuco state, Brazil. Brazilian Journal of Biology 76: 888-897.
• Xavier LRCC, Araújo TO, Nascimento PRF & Pereira SMB (2012) Floristic surveys of aquatic macrophytes in reservoirs in the agreste zone of Pernambuco state, Brazil. Brazilian Journal of Botany 35: 313-318.
• Wantzen KM, Junk WJ & Rothhaupt KO (2008) An extension of the flood pulse concept (FPC) for lakes. Hydrobiologia 613: 151-170.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  20 Dec 2019
• Date of issue
  2019

History

• Received
  15 Dec 2017
• Accepted
  25 May 2018