A lot of these so called interactions are wrong and in many cases, useless without quanatative data, eg, ppms of K+, or Ca++ ppms.
There's also a "nutrient" missing from this that's not normally a nutrient in terrestrial systems, but is the most limiting nutrients in submersed system.
Why is this missing?
Some rather huge massive errors are going on here, many of them and pure speculation at best.
Limiting critical concentrations, see Liebig's law of the minimum and Gerloff's 1966 paper are far more important, and also apply to to the observations and test, not mere dogma and speculation from folks with little plant Science background.
I have never seen a single excess NO3 study for example on any submersed plant. But it's suggested here. Without any evidence, without a single shed of experimental testing etc.
What good is this table without such basic information?
I can go on and on and pick this table apart for virtually every nutrient.
These appear to be mostly from ag studies on specific crops.
Not submersed plants.
Preference does not imply an effect on rate of growth, just where most of the nutrients came from, the research on aquatic plants is not definite there, Cedergreen and Madsen (2001) suggested no difference in rates of growth for N or P in the water column or the roots for example, they even cut the roots off and still had similar rates of growth. Barko and smart are often cited for sediment difference/preference, but this was for only a few species of weeds. the other researchers found that most aquatic plants are opportunistic, and that is the general opinion held today.
Careful with visual aids and how you think they mean something.
This can lead to more issues than less ones.