Estuaries and Coasts

, Volume 30, Issue 3, pp 469–481 | Cite as

Threshold effects of coastal urbanization onPhragmites australis (common reed) abundance and foliar nitrogen in Chesapeake Bay

  • Ryan S. King
  • William V. Deluca
  • Dennis F. Whigham
  • Peter P. Marra
Article

Abstract

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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Amsberry, L., M. A. Baker, P. J. Ewanchuk, andM. D. Bertness. 2000. Clonal integration and the expansion ofPhragmites australis.Ecological Applications 10:1110–1118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.Google Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.Google Scholar
  6. 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.Google Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Breiman, L., J. H. Friedman, R. A. Olshen, andC. J. Stone. 1984. Classification and Regression Trees. Wadsworth and Brooks/Cole, Monterey, California.Google Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burdick, D. M. andR. A. Konisky. 2003. Determinants of expansion forPhragmites australis, common reed, in natural and impacted coastal marshes.Estuaries 26:407–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chambers, R. M., L. A. Meyerson, andK. Saltonstall. 1999. Expansion ofPhragmites australis into tidal wetlands of North America.Aquatic Botany 64:261–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. De’Ath, G. andK. E. Fabricius. 2000. Classification and regression trees: A powerful yet simple technique for ecological data analysis.Ecology 81:3178–3192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hale, S. S., J. F. Paul, andJ. F. Heltshe. 2004. Watershed landscape indicators of estuarine benthic condition.Estuaries 27:283–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hellings, S. E. andJ. L. Gallacher. 1992. The effects of salinity and flooding onPhragmites australis.Journal of Applied Ecology 29: 41–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Huggett, A. J. 2005. The concept and utility of ‘ecological thresholds’ in biodiversity conservation.Biological Conservation 124:301–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jordan, T. E., D. E. Weller, andD. L. Correll. 2003. Sources of nutrient inputs to the Patuxent River estuary.Estuaries 26:226–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Leps, J. andV. Hadincova. 1992. How reliable are our vegetation analysis?Journal of Vegetation Science 3:119–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Minchinton, T. E. andM. D. Bertness. 2003. Disturbance-mediated competition and the spread ofPhragmites australis in a coastal marsh.Ecological Applications 13:1400–1416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Muradian, R. 2001. Ecological thresholds: A survey.Ecological Economics 38:7–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Philipp, K. R. andR. T. Field. 2005.Phragmites australis expansion in Delaware Bay salt marshes.Ecological Engineering 25:275–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Philips, E. A. 1959. Methods in Vegetation Study. Holt, New York.Google Scholar
  34. Qian, S. S., R. S. King, andC. J. Richardson. 2003. Two statistical methods for the detection of environmental thresholds.Ecological Modelling 166:87–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rice, D., J. Rooth, andJ. C. Stevenson. 2000. Colonization and expansion ofPhragmites australis abundance in upper Chesapeake Bay tidal marshes.Wetlands 20:280–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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.Google Scholar
  42. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Weinstein, M. P. andJ. H. Balletto. 1999. Does common reed,Phragmites australis, affect essential fish habitat?Estuaries 22:793–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wootton, J. T. 2001. Local interactions predict large-scale pattern in empirically derived cellular automata.Nature 413: 841–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sources of Unpublished Materials

  1. Chesapeake Bay Program. 2006. Population trends. http:// www.chesapeakebay.net/info/pop.cfmGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.Google Scholar
  3. Therneau, T. M. and B. Atkinson. unpublished data. Mayo Foundation, Rochester, Minnesota. http://mayoresearch. mayo.edu/mayo/research/biostat/splusfunctions.cfmGoogle Scholar
  4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2000. Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium (MRLC) database, http://www.epa.gov/mrlcpage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Estuarine Research Federation 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ryan S. King
    • 1
  • William V. Deluca
    • 2
  • Dennis F. Whigham
    • 2
  • Peter P. Marra
    • 2
  1. 1.Center for Reservoir and Aquatic Systems Research, Department of BiologyBaylor UniversityWaco
  2. 2.Smithsonian Environmental Research CenterEdgewater
  3. 3.Holdsworth Natural Resources Center, Department of Natural Resources ConservationUniversity of MassachusettsAmherst
  4. 4.Smithsonian Migratory Bird CenterNational Zoological ParkWashington, D.C.

Personalised recommendations