, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 230–241 | Cite as

Long-term hydrologic effects on marsh plant community structure in the southern Everglades

  • David E. Busch
  • William F. Loftus
  • Oron L. Bass


Although large-scale transformation of Everglades landscapes has occurred during the past century, the patterns of association among hydrologic factors and southern Everglades freshwater marsh vegetation have not been well-defined. We used a 10-year data base on the aquatic biota of Shark Slough to classify vegetation and describe plant community change in intermediate- to long-hydroperiod Everglades marshes. Study area marsh vegetation was quantitatively grouped into associations dominated by 1)Cladium jamaicense, 2) a group of emergents includingEleocharis cellulosa, Sagittaria lancifolia, andRhyncospora tracyi, 3) taxa associated with algal mats (Utricularia spp. andBacopa caroliniana), and 4) the grassesPanicum hemitomon andPaspalidium geminatum. During the decade evaluated, the range of water depths that characterized our study sites approached both extremes depicted in the 40-year hydrologic record for the region. Water depths were near the long-term average during the mid-1980s, declined sharply during a late 1980s drought, and underwent a prolonged increase from 1991 through 1995. Overall macrophyte cover varied inversely with water depth, while the response of periphyton was more complex. An ordination analysis, based on plant species abundance, revealed that study area vegetation structure was associated with hydrologic patterns. Marsh plant community structure showed evidence of cyclic interannual variation corresponding to hydrologic change over the decade evaluated. Lower water depths, the occurrence of marl substrates, and high periphyton cover were correlated. These factors contributed to reduced macrophyte cover in portions of the study area from which water had been diverted.

Key Words

classification Florida hydroperiod macrophyte ordination periphyton Shark Slough water depth 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Armentano, T.V, R.F. Doren, W.J. Platt, and T. Mullins. 1995. Effects of Hurricane Andrew on coastal and interior forests of southern Florida: overview and synthesis. Journal of Coastal Research 21:111–144.Google Scholar
  2. Browder, J.A. 1981. Perspective on the ecological causes and effects of the variable algal composition of southern Everglades periphyton. U.S. National Park Service, Homestead, FL, USA. Report T-643.Google Scholar
  3. Browder, J.A., P.J. Gleason, and D.R. Swift. 1994. Periphyton in the Everglades: spatial, variation, environmental correlates, and ecological implications. p. 379–418.In J. Ogden and S. Davis (eds.) Everglades: the Ecosystem and Its Restoration. St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, FL, USA.Google Scholar
  4. Craft, C.B., J. Vymazal, and C.J. Richardson. 1995. Response of Everglades plant communities to nitrogen and phosphorus additions. Wetlands 15:258–271.Google Scholar
  5. Craighead, F.C. and V.C. Gilbert. 1962. The effects of Hurricane Donna on the vegetation of southern Florida. Quarterly Journal of the Florida Academy of Sciences 25:1–28.Google Scholar
  6. David, P.G. 1996. Changes in plant communities relative to hydrologic conditions in the Florida Everglades. Wetlands 16:15–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davis, S.M., L.H. Gunderson, W.A. Park, J.R. Richardson, and J.E. Mattson. 1994. Landscape dimension composition, and function in a changing Everglades ecosystem. p. 419–444.In J. Ogden and S. Davis (eds.) Everglades: the Ecosystem and Its Restoration St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, FL, USA.Google Scholar
  8. De Angelis, D.L., and P.S. White. 1994. Ecosystems as products of spatially and temporally varying driving forces, ecological processes, and landscapes: a theoretical perspective. p. 9–27.In: J. Ogden and S. Davis (eds.) Everglades: the Ecosystem and Its Restoration. St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, FL, USA.Google Scholar
  9. Gunderson, L.H., D.P. Brannon, and G. Irish. 1986. Vegetation cover types of Shark River Slough, Everglades National Park, derived from LANDSAT thematic mapper data. National Park Service. Everglades National Park. Homestead, FL, USA. SFRC-86/03.Google Scholar
  10. Gunderson, L.H. 1989 Historical Hydropatterns in wetland communities of Everglades National Park. p. 1099–1111.In R.R. Sharitz and J.W. Gibbons (eds.) Freshwater Wetlands and Wildlife. U.S. Department of Enegry, Oak Ridge, TN, USA.Google Scholar
  11. Gunderson, L.H. 1994. Vegetation of the Everglades: determinants of community composition. p. 323–340.In J. Ogden and S. Davis (eds.), Everglades: the Ecosystem and Its Restoration. St. Lucie Press. Delray Beach, FL, USA.Google Scholar
  12. Herndon, A., L. Gunderson, and J. Stenberg. 1991. Sawgrass (Cladium jamaicense) survival in a regime of fire and flooding. Wetlands 11:17–28.Google Scholar
  13. Hill, M.O. 1979a. DECORANA, a FORTRAN program for detrended correspondence analysis and reciprocal averaging. Microcomputer Power, Ithaca, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  14. Hill, M.O. 1979b. TWINSPAN, a FORTRAN program for arranging multivariate data in an ordered two-way table by classification of the individuals and attributes. Microcomputer Power, Ithaca, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  15. Jordan, F., H.L. Jelks, and W.M. Kitchens. 1997. Habitat structure and plant community composition in a northern Everglades wetland landscape. Wetlands 17:275–283.Google Scholar
  16. Kolipinski, M.C. and A.L. Higer. 1969. Some aspects of the effects of the quantity and quality of water on biological communities in Everglades National Park. U.S. Geological Survey, Tallahassee, FL, USA. Open File Report 69007.Google Scholar
  17. Kushlan, J.A. 1981. Sampling characteristics of enclosure fish traps. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 110:557–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Loftus, W.F. and A.M. Eklund. 1994. Long-term dynamics of an Everglades small-fish assemblage. p. 461–483.In J. Ogden and S. Davis (eds.) Everglades: the Ecosystem and Its Restoration. St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, FL, USA.Google Scholar
  19. Pimm, S.L., G.E. Davis, L. Loope, C.T. Roman, T.J. Smith III, and J.T. Tilmant. 1994. Hurricane Andrew. BioScience 44:224–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Potvin, C., M.J. Lechowicz, and S. Tardiff. 1990. The statistical analysis of ecophysiological response curves obtained from experiments involving repeated measures. Ecology 71:1389–1400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Roman, C.T., N.G. Aumon, J.C. Trexler, R.J. Fennema, W.F. Loftus, and M.A. Soukup. 1994 Hurricane Andrew’s impact on freshwater resources. BioScience 44:247–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rose, P.W., and P.C. Rosendahl. 1981. Landsat hydrobiological classification for an inland fresh water marsh within Everglades National Park. American Water Resources Association, Minneapolis, MN, USA.Google Scholar
  23. Steward, K.K. and W.H. Ornes. 1975. The autecology of sawgrass in the Florida Everglades. Ecology 56:162–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ulanowicz, R.E. 1995.Utricularia’s secret: the advantage of positive feedback in oligotrophic environments. Ecological Modelling 79:49–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Urban, N.H., S.M. Davis, and N.G. Aumen. 1993. Fluctuations in sawgrass and cattail densities in Everglades Water Conservation Area 2A under varying nutrient, hydrologic, and fire regimes. Aquatic Botany 46:203–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. White, P.S. 1994. Synthesis: vegetation pattern and process in the Everglades ecosystem. p. 445–458.In J. Ogden and S. Davis (eds.) Everglades: the Ecosystem and Its Restoration. St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, FL, USA.Google Scholar
  27. Wood, J.M. and G.W. Tanner. 1990. Graminoid community composition and structure within four Everglades management areas. Wetlands 10:127–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Zar, J.H. 1984. Biostatistical Analysis. Prentice-Hall. Englewood Hills, NJ, USA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Wetland Scientists 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • David E. Busch
    • 1
  • William F. Loftus
    • 2
  • Oron L. Bass
    • 1
  1. 1.Biological Resources DivisionNational Park ServiceEverglades National ParkUSA
  2. 2.Biological Resources DivisionUnited States Geological SurveyEverglades National ParkUSA
  3. 3.United States Geological Survey-Biological Resources Division Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science CenterRegional Ecosystem OfficePortlandUSA

Personalised recommendations