, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 284–291 | Cite as

Distribution ofJuncus roemerianus in North Carolina tidal marshes: The importance of physical and biotic variables

  • Lynn Stemmy Woerner
  • Courtney T. Hackney


The physical habitat ofJuncus roemerianus was examined at nine sites along a salinity gradient in the Cape Fear River Estuary, North Carolina. Soil salinity, drainage, redox potential, pH, elevation, percent sand, percent organic matter, and above-ground plant biomass and height were measured at each site, and from these data, the habitat ofJuncus roemerianus was determined. All parameters varied over the salinity gradient, with soils at upriver sites having, a high sand fraction, low organic fraction, and highest redox potentials. Downriver, well-established marshes had low sand fractions, high organic fractions, and lowest redox potentials. Canonical Discriminant Analysis indicated that each site was statistically different from other sites due to salinity, elevation, and percent organic matter.

Mean standing live biomass was 688 g m−2 and, despite differences in physical and chemical factors among sites, biomass ofJuncus roemerianus did not vary.Juncus roemerianus was found to grow equally well within a broad range of physical and chemical habitats but did not occupy the total expanse of its potential habitat at any one site.

Extensive overlap in physical habitat occurred betweenJuncus-dominated communities and adjacent communities dominated by other species, especially in the more established marshes. However, Canonical Discriminant Analysis statistically separated short and tall formSpartina alterniflora, Distichlis spicata, Scirpus robustus, andJuncus roemerianus microhabitats based on elevation and redox potential. Thus, we found zonation in tidal marshes of the Cape Fear, River Estuary was based on abiotic factors, but we recognize the importance of plant species interactions and marsh position within the landscape.

Key Words

zonation tidal marsh physical gradient edaphic conditions competition Juncus roemerianus elevation soil salinity Spartina alterniflora 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Adams, D.A. 1963. Factors influencing vascular plant zonation in North Carolina salt marshes. Ecology 44:445–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bertness, M.D. 1991. Zonation ofSpartina patens andSpartina alterniflora in a New England salt marsh. Ecology 72:138–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bertness, M.D. and A.M. Ellison. 1987. Determinants of pattern in a New England salt marsh community. Ecological Monographs 57:129–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Christian, R.R., W.L. Bryant, and M.M. Brinson. 1990.Juncus roemerianus production and decomposition along gradients of salinity and hydroperiod. Marine Ecology Progress Series 68:137–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cooper, A. 1982. The effects of salinity and waterlogging in the growth and cation uptake of salt marsh plants. New Phytologist 90:263–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Covin, J. D. and J. B. Zedler. 1988. Nitrogen effects onSpartina foliosa andSalicornia virginica in the salt marsh at Tijuana Estuary, CA. Wetlands 8:51–63.Google Scholar
  7. Dawe, N.K. and E.R. White. 1982. Some aspects of the vegetation ecology of the Little Qualicum River estuary, British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Botany 60:1447–1460.Google Scholar
  8. de la Cruz, A.A., C.T. Hackney, and N. Bhardwaj. 1989. Temporal and spatial patterns of redox potential (Eh) in three tidal marsh communities. Wetlands 9:181–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. DeLaune, R.D., S.R. Pezeshki, and W.H. Patrick, Jr. 1987. Responses of coastal plants to increase in submergence and salinity. Journal of Coastal Research 3:535–546.Google Scholar
  10. Earle, J.C. and K.A. Kershaw. 1988. Vegetation patterns in James Bay coastal marshes. III. Salinity and elevation as factors influencing plant zonations. Canadian Journal of Botany 67:2967–2974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eleuterius, L.N. and J.D. Caldwell. 1985. Soil characteristics of fourJuncus roemerianus populations in Mississippi. Gulf Research Reports 8:9–13.Google Scholar
  12. Eleuterius, L.N. and C.K. Eleuterius. 1979. Tide levels and salt marsh zonation. Bulletin of Marine Science 29:394–400.Google Scholar
  13. Folk, R.L. 1974. Petrology of Sedimentary Rock. Hemphill’s, Austin, TX, USA.Google Scholar
  14. Giese, G. L., H. B. Wilder, and G. G. Parker. 1985. Hydrology of major estuaries and sounds of North Carolina. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2221.Google Scholar
  15. Grace, J. B. 1987. The impact of preemption on the zonation of twoTypha, species along lakeshores. Ecological Monographs 57: 283–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hackney, C.T., S. Brady, L. Stemmy, M. Boris, C. Dennis, T. Hacock, M. O’Bryon, C. Tilton, and E. Barbee. 1996. Does intertidal vegetation indicate specific soil and hydrologic conditions. Wetlands 16:89–93.Google Scholar
  17. Hackney, C.T. and A.A. de la Cruz. 1978. Changes in intersitial water salinity of a Mississippi tidal marsh. Estuaries 1:185–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hackney, C.T. and G.F. Yelverton. 1990. Effect of human activities and sea level rise on wetland ecosystems in the Cape Fear River estuary, North Carolina. USA. p. 55–63.In D.F. Whigham, R.E. Good, and J. Kvet (eds.) Wetland Ecology and Management: Case Studies. Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Hague, Netherlands.Google Scholar
  19. Howes, B.L., J.H. Dacey, and D.D. Goehringer. 1986. Factors controlling the growth form ofSpartina, alterniflora: Feedbacks between above-ground production, sediment oxidation, nitrogen and salinity. Journal of Ecology 74:881–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jernigan, L.S. 1990. Factors influencing the distributional patterns ofJuncus roemerianus in two North Carolina salt marshes. Ph.D. Dissertation. North Carolina State University. Raleigh, NC, USA.Google Scholar
  21. Johnson, D.E. 1994. Applied Multivariate Methods. Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA.Google Scholar
  22. Linthurst, R.A. and E.D. Seneca. 1980. The effect of standing water and drainage potential on theSpartina alterniflora-substrate complex in a North Carolina salt marsh. Estuarine and Coastal Marine Science 11:27–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mardia, K.V., J.T. Kent, and J.M. Bibby. 1979. Multivariate Analysis. Academic Press, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  24. Mendelssohn, I.A. and E.D. Seneca. 1980. The influence of soil drainage on the growth of salt marsh cordgrassSpartina alterniflora in North Carolina. Estuarine and Coastal Marine Science 11: 27–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mendelssohn, I.A., K.L. McKee, and W.H. Patrick, Jr. 1981. Oxygen deficiency inSpartina alterniflora roots: Metabolic adaptation to anoxia. Science 214:439–441.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Miller, W.R. and F.E. Egler. 1950. Vegetation of the Wequetequock-Pawcatuck tidal marshes, Connecticut. Ecological Monographs 20:147–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mitsch, W.J. and J.G. Gosselink. 1986. Wetlands. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  28. Nixon, S.W. 1982. The ecology of New England high salt marshes: a community profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, Washington, DC, USA. FWS/OBS-81/55.Google Scholar
  29. NOAA. 1995. Tide Tables for North Carolina. Office of Oceanography and Marine Assessment. Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  30. Osgood, D.T. and J.C. Zieman. 1993. Spatial and temporal patterns of substrate physicochemical parameters in different-aged barrier island marshes. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 37:421–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pennings, S.C. and R.M. Callaway. 1992. Salt marsh plant zonation: the relative importance of competition and physical factors. Ecology 73:681–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pidwirny, M.J. 1989. Plant zonation in a brackish tidal marsh: descriptive verification of resource-based competition and community structure. Canadian Journal of Botany 68:1689–1697.Google Scholar
  33. Redfield, A.C. 1972. Development of a New England salt marsh. Ecological Monographs 42:201–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rice, E.L. 1974. Allelopathy, Academic Press, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  35. SAS Institute Incorporated. 1989. SAT/STAT User’s Guide, Version 6, 4th Edition. Vol. 1. Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
  36. Smart, R.M. and J.W. Barko. 1978. Influence of sediment salinity and nutrients on the physiological ecology of selected salt marsh plants. Estuarine and Coastal Marine Science 7:487–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Snow, A.A. and S.W. Vince. 1984. Plant zonation in an Alaskan salt marsh. Journal of Ecology 72:669–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stalter, R. and W.T. Batson. 1969. Transplantation of salt marsh vegetation, Georgetown, South Carolina. Ecology 50:1087–1089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stout, J.P. 1984. The ecology of irregularly flooded salt marshes of the northeastern Gulf of Mexico: a community profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, Washington, DC, USA FWS/OBS-85/7.1.Google Scholar
  40. van der Valk, A.G. 1981. Succession in wetlands: a Gleasonian approach. Ecology 62:688–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Waisel, Y. 1972. Biology of Halophytes. Academic Press, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  42. Warren, R.S. and W.A. Niering. 1993. Vegetation change on a northeast tidal marsh: interaction of sea-level rise and marsh accretion. Ecology 74:96–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wiegert, R.G. and B.F. Freeman. 1990. Tidal salt marshes of the Southeast Atlantic Coast: a community profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, Washington, DC, USA. FWS/OBS-85/7.29.Google Scholar
  44. Zedler, J.B. 1977. Salt marsh community structure in the Tijuana Estuary, California. Estuarine and Coastal Marine Science 5:39–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Wetland Scientists 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lynn Stemmy Woerner
    • 1
  • Courtney T. Hackney
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of North Carolina at WilmingtonWilmington

Personalised recommendations