Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Analysis of tidal marsh vegetation patterns in two Georgia estuaries using aerial photography and GIS

  • Published:
Estuaries Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Aerial photographs and GIS analysis were used to map the distribution of tidal marsh vegetation along the salinity gradients of the estuaries of the Altamaha and Satilla Rivers in coastal Georgia. Vegetation maps were constructed from 1993 U.S. Geological Survey Digital Orthophoto Quarter Quads, 1∶77,000-scale color infrared photographs taken in 1974 and 1∶24,000-scale black and white photographs taken in 1953, Changes between years were identified using a GIS overlay analysis. Four vegetation classifications were identified and groundtruthed with field surveys: salt marsh (areas containing primarilySpartina alterniflora), brackish marsh (Spartina cynosuroides andS. alterniflora), Juncus (Juncus roemerianus), and fresh marsh (Zizania aquatica, Zizaniopsis miliacae, and others). There was no evidence for an upstream shift in marsh vegetation along the longitudinal axis of either estuary over the time frame of this analysis, which implies there has not been a long-term increase in salinity. Although the inland extent of each marsh zone was further upstream in the Satilla than the Altamaha, they corresponded to similar average high tide salinities in each estuary: areas classified as salt marsh occurred from the mouth up to where average high tide salinity in the water was approximately 15 psu;Juncus ranged from 21 to 1 psu; brackish marsh ranged from 15 to 1 psu; and fresh marsh was upstream of 1 psu. Approximately 63% of the 6,786 ha of tidal marsh vegetation mapped in the Altamaha and 75% of the 10,220 ha mapped in the Satilla remained the same in all 3 yr.Juncus was the dominant classification in the intermediate regions of both estuaries, and shifts between areas classified asJuncus and either brackish or salt marsh constituted the primary vegetation change between 1953 and 1993 (87% of the changes observed in the Altamaha and 95% of those in the Satilla). This analysis suggests that the broad distribution of tidal marsh vegetation along these two estuaries is driven by salinity, but that at the local scale these are dynamic systems with a larger number of factors affecting the frequently changing borders of vegetation patches.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Literature Cited

  • Alber, M. andJ. E. Sheldon. 1999a. Use of a date specific method to examine variability in the flushing times of Georgia estuaries.Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 49:469–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alber, M. andJ. E. Sheldon. 1999b. Trends in salinities and flushing times of Georgia estuaries, p. 528–531.In K. Hatcher (ed.), Proceedings of the 1999 Georgia Water Resources Conference. The Institute of Ecology, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertness, M. D. andA. M. Ellison. 1987. Determinants of pattern in a New England salt marsh plant community.Ecological Monographs 57:129–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brinson, M. M. andR. R. Christian. 1999. Stability ofJuncus roemerianus patches in a salt marsh.Wetlands 19:65–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bureau of the Budget. 1947. U.S. National Map Accuracy Standards. U.S. Geological Survey website http://rockyweb.cr.usgs.gov/nmpstds/nmas647.html

  • Clewell, A. F. 1997. Vegetation, pp. 77–109.In C. L. Coultas and Y. P. Hsieh (eds.), Ecology and Management of Tidal Marshes: A Model from the Gulf of Mexico. St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, Florida.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowen, D. J., J. R. Jensen, P. J. Bresnahan, G. B. Ehler, D. Graves, X. Q. Huang, C. Wiesner andH. E. Mackey. 1995. The design and implementation of an integrated Geographic Information System for environmental applications.Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 61:1393–1404.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cracknell, A. P. 1999. Remote sensing techniques in estuaries and coastal zones—An update.International Journal of Remote Sensing 19:485–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eleuterius, L. N. 1976. The distribution ofJuncus roemerianus in the salt marshes of North America.Chesapeake Science 17:289–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eleuterius, L. N. andC. K. Eleuterius. 1979. Tide levels and salt marsh zonation.Bulletin of Marine Science 29:394–400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eleuterius, L. N. 1984. Autoecology of the black needlerush,Juncus roemerianus.Gulf Research Reports 7:339–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Field, R. T. andK. R. Phillipp. 2000. Vegetation changes in the freshwater tidal marsh of the Delaware estuary.Wetlands Ecology and Management 8:79–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher, J. L. andR. J. Reimold. 1973. Tidal marsh plant distribution and productivity patterns from the sea to fresh water—A challenge in resolution and discrimination, p. 166–183.In Proceedings 4th Biennial Workshop on Color Aerial Photography. American Society of Photogrammetry, Falls Church, Virginia and University of Maine, Orono, Maine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenland, D. 2001. Multiyear variation of temperature and precipitation in the coastal states of the southeastern U.S.Southeastern Geographer 41:36–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hackney, C. T. andA. A. de la Cruz. 1980. In situ decomposition of roots and rhizomes of two tidal marsh plants.Ecology 61:226–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hackney, C. T., S. Brady, L. Stemmy, M. Boris, C. Dennis, T. Hancock, M. O'Bryon, C. Tilton, andE. Barbee. 1996. Does intertidal vegetation indicate specific soil and hydrologic conditions.Wetlands 16:89–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardisky, M. A., M. F. Gross, andV. Klemas. 1986. Remote sensing of coastal wetlands.Bioscience 36:453–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, J. R., D. J. Cowen, J. D. Althausen, S. Narumalani, andO. Weatherbee. 1993. An evaluation of the CoastWatch change detection protocol in South Carolina.Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 59:1039–1046.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klemas, V. V., J. E. Dobson, R. L. Ferguson, andK. D. Haddad. 1993. A coastal land cover classification system for the NOAA coastwatch change analysis project.Journal of Coastal Research 9:862–872.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latham, P. J., L. G. Pearlstine, andW. M. Kitchens. 1994. Species association changes across a gradient of freshwater, oligohaline, and mesohaline tidal marshes along the lower Savannah River.Wetlands 14:174–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCormick, C. M. 1999. Mapping exotic vegetation in the Everglades from large-scale aerial photographs.Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 65:179–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Coastal Services Center. “Descriptive Summary of the Changes in Coastal Georgia, January 20, 1992, to December 19, 1997.” http://www.csc.noaa/gov/crs/lca/georgia.html.

  • NOAA. 2001 Sea Level Variations of the U.S. 1854–1999. National Ocean Service Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services (NOS CO-OPS). NOAA Technical Report 36. Silver Spring, Maryland. http://co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/publication/techrpt36doc.pdf

  • Odum, W. E. 1988. Comparative ecology of tidal fresswater and salt marshes.Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 19:147–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearlstine, L. G., W. M. Kitchens, P. J. Latham, andR. D. Bartleson. 1993. Tide gate influences on a tidal marsh.Water Resources Bulletin 29:1009–1019.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perry, J. E. andC. H. Hershner. 1999. Temporal changes in the vegetation pattern in a tidal freshwater marsh.Wetlands 19:90–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramsey, E. W., G. A. Nelson, andS. K. Sapkota. 2001. Coastal change analysis program implemented in Louisiana.Journal of Coastal Research 17:53–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rice, D., J. Rooth, andJ. C. Stevenson. 2000. Colonization and expansion ofPhragmites australis in upper Chesapeake Bay tidal marshes.Wetlands 10:280–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roman, C. T., W. A. Niering, andR. S. Warren. 1984. Salt marsh vegetation change in response to tidal restriction.Environmental Management 8:141–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandifer, P. A., J. V. Miglarese, D. R. Calder, J. J. Manzi, andL. A. Barclay. 1980. Ecological Characterization of the Sea Island Coastal Region of South Carolina and Georgia, Volume 3, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schubauer, J. P. andC. S. Hopkinson. 1984. Above-and belowground emergent macrophyte production and turnover in a coastal marsh ecosystem, Georgia.Limnology and Oceanography 29:1052–1065.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuyler, A. E., S. B. Andersen, andV. J. Kolaga. 1993. Plant zonation in the tidal protion of the Delaware River.Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 144:263–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shay, J. M., P. M. de Geus, andM. R. Kapinga. 1999. Changes in shoreline vegetation over a 50-year period in the Delta Marsh, Manitoba in response to water levels.Wetlands 19:413–425.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ungar, I. A. 1998. Are biotic factors significant in influencing the distribution of halophytes in saline habitats?The Botanical Review 64:176–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Visser, J. M., C. E. Sasser, R. H. Chabreck, andR. G. Linscombe. 2002. The impact of a severe drought on the vegetation of a subtropical estuary.Estuaries 25:1184–1195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, D. A., T. E. Weiss, J. M. Trapani, andL. B. Thien. 1979. Productivity and decomposition of the dominant salt marsh plants in Louisiana.Ecology 59:751–759.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiegert, R. G. andB. J. Freeman. 1990. Tidal salt marshes of the southeast Atlantic coast: A community profiles. Biological Report 85. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woerner, L. S. andC. T. Hackney. 1997. Distribution ofJuncus roemerianus in North Carolina tidal marshes: The importance of physical and biotic variables.Wetlands 17:284–291.

    Google Scholar 

Source of Unpublished Materials

  • Blanton, J. unpublished data. Skidaway Institute of Oceanography, 10 Ocean Science Circle, Savannah, Georgia 31411.

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Carrie B. Higinbotham

    Present address: Post, Buckley, Schuh, and Jernigan, 12101 Indian Creek Court, 20705, Beltsville, Maryland

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Marine Sciences, University of Georgia, 30602, Athens, Georgia

    Carrie B. Higinbotham, Merryl Alber & Alice G. Chalmers

Authors
  1. Carrie B. Higinbotham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Merryl Alber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alice G. Chalmers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Higinbotham, C.B., Alber, M. & Chalmers, A.G. Analysis of tidal marsh vegetation patterns in two Georgia estuaries using aerial photography and GIS. Estuaries 27, 670–683 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02907652

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02907652

Keywords

Search

Navigation