Distribution ofJuncus roemerianus in North Carolina tidal marshes: The importance of physical and biotic variables
- 166 Downloads
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 Wordszonation tidal marsh physical gradient edaphic conditions competition Juncus roemerianus elevation soil salinity Spartina alterniflora
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Eleuterius, L.N. and J.D. Caldwell. 1985. Soil characteristics of fourJuncus roemerianus populations in Mississippi. Gulf Research Reports 8:9–13.Google Scholar
- Eleuterius, L.N. and C.K. Eleuterius. 1979. Tide levels and salt marsh zonation. Bulletin of Marine Science 29:394–400.Google Scholar
- Folk, R.L. 1974. Petrology of Sedimentary Rock. Hemphill’s, Austin, TX, USA.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Johnson, D.E. 1994. Applied Multivariate Methods. Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA.Google Scholar
- Mardia, K.V., J.T. Kent, and J.M. Bibby. 1979. Multivariate Analysis. Academic Press, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
- Mitsch, W.J. and J.G. Gosselink. 1986. Wetlands. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
- 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
- NOAA. 1995. Tide Tables for North Carolina. Office of Oceanography and Marine Assessment. Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
- 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
- Rice, E.L. 1974. Allelopathy, Academic Press, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
- SAS Institute Incorporated. 1989. SAT/STAT User’s Guide, Version 6, 4th Edition. Vol. 1. Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
- 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
- Waisel, Y. 1972. Biology of Halophytes. Academic Press, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
- 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