Threshold effects of coastal urbanization onPhragmites australis (common reed) abundance and foliar nitrogen in Chesapeake Bay
Purchase on Springer.com
$39.95 / €34.95 / £29.95*
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.
The invasion of North American tidal marshes byPhragmites australis, or common reed, is a large-scale ecological problem that has been primarily studied at small spatial scales. Previous local-scale studies have provided evidence that the expansion ofPhragmites is facilitated by disturbance and increased nitrogen (N) associated with agricultural and urban-suburban (developed) land uses along wetland-upland borders. We tested the generality of previous findings across a larger spatial scale and wider range of environmental conditions in Chesapeake Bay, the largest estuarine ecosystem in the USA. We sampled 90 tidal wetlands nested within 30 distinct subestuarine watersheds and examined the relationship between land use andPhragmites abundance and foliar N, an indicator of nitrogen availability. We estimated land use adjacent to wetland borders and within subestuary watersheds and explored the importance of spatial proximity by weighting land use by its distance from the wetland border or subestuary shoreline, respectively. Regression tree and changepoint analyses revealed thatPhragmites abundance sharply increased in almost every wetland where development adjacent to borders exceeded 15%. Where development was <15% but natural land cover at the near the subestuary shoreline was low (<∼35%),Phragmites was abundant, suggesting that wetlands in highly modified watersheds also were susceptible to invasion, regardless of land use adjacent to wetlands.Phragmites foliar N was markedly elevated in watersheds with >14–22% shoreline development, the same level of development that corresponded to high levels of invasion. Our results suggest that development near wetlands is at least partially responsible for patterns of invasion across Chesapeake Bay. Larger-scale phenomena, such as nitrogen pollution at the watershed-subestuary scale, also may be facilitating invasion. Urbanization near coastlines appears to play an important role in the invasion success ofPhragmites in coastal wetlands of Chesapeake Bay and probably much of eastern North America.
- Amsberry, L., M. A. Baker, P. J. Ewanchuk, andM. D. Bertness. 2000. Clonal integration and the expansion ofPhragmites australis.Ecological Applications 10:1110–1118. CrossRef
- Bart, D. andJ. M. Hartman. 2003. The role of large rhizome dispersal and low salinity windows in the establishment of common reed,Phragmites australis, in salt marshes: New links to human activities.Estuaries 26:436–443. CrossRef
- Benoit, L. K. andR. A. Askins. 1999. Impact of the spread ofPhragmites on the distribution of birds in Connecticut tidal marshes.Wetlands 19:194–208.
- Bertness, M. D., P. J. Ewanchuk, andB. R. Silliman. 2002. Anthropogenic modification of New England salt marsh landscapes.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 99:1395–1398. CrossRef
- Bilkovic, D. M., C. H. Hershner, M. R. Berman, K. J. Havens, andD. M. Stanhope. 2005. Evaluating nearshore communities as indicators of ecosystem health, p. 365–379.In S. Bortone (ed.), Estuarine Indicators. CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, Florida.
- Bilkovic, D. M., M. Roggero, C. H. Hershner, andK. H. Havens. 2006. Influence of land use on macrobenthic communities in nearshore estuarine habitats.Estuaries and Coast 29:1185–1195.
- Boesch, D. F., R. B. Brinsfield, andR. E. Magnien. 2001. Chesapeake Bay eutrophication: Scientific understanding, ecosystem restoration, and challenges for agriculture.Journal of Environmental Quality 30:303–320. CrossRef
- Breiman, L., J. H. Friedman, R. A. Olshen, andC. J. Stone. 1984. Classification and Regression Trees. Wadsworth and Brooks/Cole, Monterey, California.
- Burdick, D. M., R. Buchsbaum, andE. Holt. 2001. Variation in soil salinity associated with expansion ofPhragmites australis in salt marshes.Environmental and Experimental Botany 46:247–261. CrossRef
- Burdick, D. M. andR. A. Konisky. 2003. Determinants of expansion forPhragmites australis, common reed, in natural and impacted coastal marshes.Estuaries 26:407–416. CrossRef
- Carpenter, S. R. 2005. Eutrophication of aquatic ecosystems: Bistability and soil phosphorus.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102:10,002–10,005. CrossRef
- Castro, M. S., C. T. Driscoll, T. E. Jordan, W. G. Reay, andW. R. Boynton. 2003. Sources of nitrogen to estuaries in the United States.Estuaries 26:803–814. CrossRef
- Chambers, R. M., L. A. Meyerson, andK. Saltonstall. 1999. Expansion ofPhragmites australis into tidal wetlands of North America.Aquatic Botany 64:261–273. CrossRef
- Comeleo, R. L., J. F. Paul, andP. V. August. 1996. Relationships between watershed stressors and sediment contamination in Chesapeake Bay estuaries.Landscape Ecology 11:307–319. CrossRef
- De’Ath, G. andK. E. Fabricius. 2000. Classification and regression trees: A powerful yet simple technique for ecological data analysis.Ecology 81:3178–3192. CrossRef
- Deluca, W. V., C. E. Studds, L. L. Rockwood, andP. P. Marra. 2004. Influence of land use on the integrity of marsh bird communities of Chesapeake Bay, USA.Wetlands 24:837–847. CrossRef
- Hale, S. S., J. F. Paul, andJ. F. Heltshe. 2004. Watershed landscape indicators of estuarine benthic condition.Estuaries 27:283–295. CrossRef
- Hellings, S. E. andJ. L. Gallacher. 1992. The effects of salinity and flooding onPhragmites australis.Journal of Applied Ecology 29: 41–49. CrossRef
- Huggett, A. J. 2005. The concept and utility of ‘ecological thresholds’ in biodiversity conservation.Biological Conservation 124:301–310. CrossRef
- Jordan, T. E., D. L. Correll, andD. E. Weller. 1997. Relating nutrient discharges from watersheds to land use and streamflow variability.Water Resources Research 33:2579–2590. CrossRef
- Jordan, T. E., D. E. Weller, andD. L. Correll. 2003. Sources of nutrient inputs to the Patuxent River estuary.Estuaries 26:226–243. CrossRef
- King, R. S., M. E. Baker, D. F. Whigham, D. E. Weller, T. J. Jordan, P. F. Kazyak, andM. K. Hurd. 2005b. Spatial considerations for linking watershed land cover to ecological indicators in streams.Ecological Applications 15:137–153. CrossRef
- King, R. S., J. R. Beaman, D. F. Whigham, A. H. Hines, M. E. Baker, andD. E. Weller. 2004a. Watershed land use is strongly linked to PCBs in white perch in Chesapeake Bay subestuaries.Environmental Science and Technology 38:6546–6552. CrossRef
- King, R. S., A. H. Hines, F. D. Craige, andS. Grap. 2005a. Regional, watershed, and local correlates of blue crab and bivalve abundances in subestuaries of Chesapeake Bay, USA.Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 319:101–116. CrossRef
- King, R. S. andC. J. Richardson. 2003. Integrating bioassessment and ecological risk assessment: An approach to developing numerical water-quality criteria.Environmental Management 31: 795–809. CrossRef
- King, R. S., C. J. Richardson, D. L. Urban, andE. A. Romanowicz. 2004b. Spatial dependency of vegetation-environment linkages in an anthropogenically influenced wetland ecosystem.Ecosystems 7:75–97. CrossRef
- Leps, J. andV. Hadincova. 1992. How reliable are our vegetation analysis?Journal of Vegetation Science 3:119–124. CrossRef
- Meyerson, L. A., K. Saltonstall, L. Windham, E. Kiviat, andS. Findlay. 2000. A comparison ofPhragmites australis in freshwater and brackish marsh environments in North America.Wetlands Ecology and Management 8:89–103. CrossRef
- Minchinton, T. E. andM. D. Bertness. 2003. Disturbance-mediated competition and the spread ofPhragmites australis in a coastal marsh.Ecological Applications 13:1400–1416. CrossRef
- Minchinton, T. E., J. C. Simpson, andM. D. Bertness. 2006. Mechanisms of exclusion of native coastal marsh plants by an invasive grass.Journal of Ecology 94:342–354. CrossRef
- Muradian, R. 2001. Ecological thresholds: A survey.Ecological Economics 38:7–24. CrossRef
- Philipp, K. R. andR. T. Field. 2005.Phragmites australis expansion in Delaware Bay salt marshes.Ecological Engineering 25:275–291. CrossRef
- Philips, E. A. 1959. Methods in Vegetation Study. Holt, New York.
- Qian, S. S., R. S. King, andC. J. Richardson. 2003. Two statistical methods for the detection of environmental thresholds.Ecological Modelling 166:87–97. CrossRef
- Rice, D., J. Rooth, andJ. C. Stevenson. 2000. Colonization and expansion ofPhragmites australis abundance in upper Chesapeake Bay tidal marshes.Wetlands 20:280–299. CrossRef
- Rickey, M. A. andR. C. Anderson. 2004. Effects of nitrogen addition on the invasive grassPhragmites australis and a native competitorSpartina pectinata.Journal of Applied Ecology 41:888–896. CrossRef
- Saltonstall, K. 2002. Cryptic invasion by a non-native genotype of the common reed,Phragmites australis, into North America.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 99:2445–2449. CrossRef
- Silliman, B. R. andM. D. Bertness. 2004. Shoreline development drives invasion ofPhragmites australis and the loss of plant diversity on New England salt marshes.Conservation Biology 18: 1424–1434. CrossRef
- Soranno, P. A., S. L. Hubler, andS. R. Carpenter. 1996. Phosphorous loads to surface waters: A simple model to account for spatial pattern of land use.Ecological Applications 6:865–878. CrossRef
- Steele, M. A. andG. E. Forrester. 2005. Small-scale field experiments accurately scale up to predict density dependencies in reef fish populations at large-scales.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102: 13,513–13,516. CrossRef
- Urban, D. L. 2002. Classification and regression trees, p. 222–232.In B. McCune and J. B. Grace (eds.), Analysis of Ecological Communities. MjM Software Design, Gleneden Beach, Oregon.
- Vasquez, E. A., E. P. Glenn, J. J. Brown, G. R. Guntenspergen, andS. G. Nelson. 2005. Salt tolerance underlies the cryptic invasion of North American salt marshes by an introduced haplotype of the common reedPhragmites australis (Poaceae).Marine Ecology Progress Series 298:1–8. CrossRef
- Weinstein, M. P. andJ. H. Balletto. 1999. Does common reed,Phragmites australis, affect essential fish habitat?Estuaries 22:793–802. CrossRef
- Weis, J. S., L. Windham, andP. Weis. 2003. Patterns of metal accumulation in leaves of the tidal marsh plantsSpartina alterniflora Loised andPhragmites australis Cav. Trin. ex. Steud. over the growing season.Wetlands 23:459–465. CrossRef
- Weller, D. E., T. J. Jordan, D. L. Correll, andZ.-J. Liu. 2003. Effects of land use change on nutrient discharges from the Patuxent River watershed.Estuaries 26:244–266. CrossRef
- Windham, L. andJ. G. Ehrenfeld. 2003. Net impact of a plant invasion on nitrogen-cycling processes within a brackish tidal marsh.Ecological Applications 13:883–897. CrossRef
- Windham, L. andL. A. Meyerson. 2003. Effects of common reed (Phragmites australis) expansions on nitrogen dynamics of tidal marshes of the northeastern U.S.Estuaries 26:452–464. CrossRef
- Wootton, J. T. 2001. Local interactions predict large-scale pattern in empirically derived cellular automata.Nature 413: 841–844. CrossRef
- Chesapeake Bay Program. 2006. Population trends. http:// www.chesapeakebay.net/info/pop.cfm
- Regional Earth Sciences Application Center (RESAC). 2003. Land cover mapping of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. http://www. geog.umd.edu/resac/pdf/resac_mapping_primer_april2003.pdf.
- Therneau, T. M. and B. Atkinson. unpublished data. Mayo Foundation, Rochester, Minnesota. http://mayoresearch. mayo.edu/mayo/research/biostat/splusfunctions.cfm
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2000. Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium (MRLC) database, http://www.epa.gov/mrlcpage.
- Threshold effects of coastal urbanization onPhragmites australis (common reed) abundance and foliar nitrogen in Chesapeake Bay
Estuaries and Coasts
Volume 30, Issue 3 , pp 469-481
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Additional Links
- Industry Sectors
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Center for Reservoir and Aquatic Systems Research, Department of Biology, Baylor University, One Bear Place #97388, 76798-7388, Waco, Texas
- 2. Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Box 28, 21037, Edgewater, Maryland