, Volume 139, Issue 2, pp 309–317 | Cite as

Plant biomass and species composition along an environmental gradient in montane riparian meadows

  • Kathleen A. Dwire
  • J. Boone Kauffman
  • E. N. Jack Brookshire
  • John E. Baham
Community Ecology


In riparian meadows, narrow zonation of the dominant vegetation frequently occurs along the elevational gradient from the stream edge to the floodplain terrace. We measured plant species composition and above- and belowground biomass in three riparian plant communities—a priori defined as wet, moist, and dry meadow—along short streamside topographic gradients in two montane meadows in northeast Oregon. The objectives were to: (1) compare above- and belowground biomass in the three meadow communities; (2) examine relations among plant species richness, biomass distribution, water table depth, and soil redox potential along the streamside elevational gradients. We installed wells and platinum electrodes along transects (perpendicular to the stream; n=5 per site) through the three plant communities, and monitored water table depth and soil redox potential (10 and 25 cm depth) from July 1997 to August 1999. Mean water table depth and soil redox potential differed significantly along the transects, and characterized a strong environmental gradient. Community differences in plant species composition were reflected in biomass distribution. Highest total biomass (live+dead) occurred in the sedge-dominated wet meadows (4,311±289 g/m2), intermediate biomass (2,236±221 g/m2) was seen in the moist meadow communities, dominated by grasses and sedges, and lowest biomass (1,403±113 g/m2) was observed in the more diverse dry meadows, dominated by grasses and forbs. In the wet and moist communities, belowground biomass (live+dead) comprised 68–81% of the totals. Rhizome-to-root ratios and distinctive vertical profiles of belowground biomass reflected characteristics of the dominant graminoid species within each community. Total biomass was positively correlated with mean water table depth, and negatively correlated with mean redox potential (10 cm and 25 cm depths; P <0.01) and species richness (P <0.05), indicating that the distribution of biomass coincided with the streamside edaphic gradient in these riparian meadows.


Aboveground biomass Belowground biomass Species richness Water table depth Soil redox potential 

Supplementary material

Table A1

tableA1.pdf (13 kb)
(PDF 13 KB)

Table A2

tableA2.pdf (13 kb)
(PDF 14 KB)


  1. Aerts RH, Berendse F, Klerk NM, Bakker C (1989) Root production and root turnover in two dominant species of wet heathlands. Oecologia 81:374–378Google Scholar
  2. Aerts RH, De Caluwe H, Konings H (1992) Seasonal allocation of biomass and nitrogen in four Carex species from mesotrophic and eutrophic fens as affected by nitrogen supply. J Ecol 80:653–664Google Scholar
  3. Allen-Diaz BH (1991) Water table and plant species relationships in Sierra Nevada meadows. Am Midl Nat 126:30–43Google Scholar
  4. Auble GT, Scott, ML (1998) Fluvial disturbance patches and cottonwood recruitment along the Upper Missouri River, Montana. Wetlands 18:546–556Google Scholar
  5. Auble GT, Doff DA, Scott ML (1994) Relating riparian vegetation to present and future streamflow. Ecol Appl 4:544–554Google Scholar
  6. Baker MA, Dahm CN, Valett HM (2000) Anoxia, anaerobic metabolism, and biogeochemistry of the stream-water-ground-water interface. In: Jones JB, Mulholland PJ (eds) Streams and ground waters. Academic Press, London, pp 259–283Google Scholar
  7. Bennett SJ, Pirim T, Barkdoll BD (2002) Using simulated emergent vegetation to alter stream flow direction within a straight experimental channel. Geomorphology 44:115–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bernard JM (1990) Life history and vegetative reproduction in Carex. Can J Bot 68:1441–1448Google Scholar
  9. Bernard JM, Hankinson G (1979) Seasonal changes in standing crop, primary production, and nutrient levels in a Carex rostrata wetland. Oikos 32:328–336Google Scholar
  10. Bernard JM, Solander D, Kvet J (1988) Production and nutrient dynamics in Carex wetlands. Aquat Bot 30:127–147Google Scholar
  11. Bohn HL (1971) Redox potentials. Soil Sci 112:39–45Google Scholar
  12. Böhn W (1979) Methods of studying root systems. In: Billings WD, Golley F, Lange OL, Olson JS (eds) Ecological studies, vol 33. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Brinson MM, Lugo AE, Brown S (1981) Primary production, decomposition and consumer activity in freshwater wetlands. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 12:123–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brix H, Sorrell BK (1996) Oxygen stress in wetland plants: comparisons of de-oxygenated and reducing root environments. Funct Ecol 10:521–526Google Scholar
  15. Brookshire ENJ, Dwire KA (2003) Controls on patterns of coarse organic particle retention in headwater streams. J North Am Benthol Soc 22:17–34Google Scholar
  16. Castelli, RM, Chambers JC, Tausch RJ (2000) Soil-plant relations along a soil-water gradient in Great Basin riparian meadows. Wetlands 20:251–266Google Scholar
  17. Clarke SE, Garner MW, McIntosh BA, Sedell JR (1997) Landscape-level ecoregions for seven contiguous watersheds, northeast Oregon and southeast Washington. In: Clarke SE, Bryce SA (eds) Hierarchical subdivisions of the Columbia Plateau and Blue Mountains ecoregions, Oregon and Washington. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-395. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oreg., pp 53–113Google Scholar
  18. Cogger CG, Kennedy PE, Carlson D (1992) Seasonally saturated soils in the Puget Lowland. II. Measuring and interpreting redox potentials. Soil Sci 154:50–57Google Scholar
  19. Crowe EA, Clausnitzer RR (1997) Mid-montane wetland plant associations of the Malhuer, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests. R6-NR-ECOL-TP-22–97. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oreg.Google Scholar
  20. Daubenmire R (1959) A canopy-coverage method of vegetation analysis. Northwest Sci 33:43–64Google Scholar
  21. Drew MC (1992) Soil aeration and plant root metabolism. Soil Sci 154:259–268Google Scholar
  22. Dwire KA (2001) Relations among hydrology, soils, and vegetation in riparian meadows: Influence on organic matter distribution and storage. PhD thesis. Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oreg.Google Scholar
  23. Dwire KA, Kauffman JB, Baham J (2000) Relations among redox potentials, water levels, and riparian vegetation. In: Wigington PJ, Beschta RL (eds) Riparian ecology and management in multi-land use watersheds. TPS-00–2. American Water Resources Association, Middleburg, Va., pp 23–28Google Scholar
  24. Eissenstat DM, Yanai RD (1997) The ecology of root life span. Adv Ecol Res 27:1–60Google Scholar
  25. Fagerstedt K (1992) Development of aerenchyma in roots and rhizomes of Carex rostrata (Cyperaceae). Nord J Bot 12:115–120Google Scholar
  26. Faulkner SP, Patrick WH Jr (1992) Redox processes and diagnostic wetland soil indicators in bottomland forests. Soil Sci Soc Am J 56:856–865Google Scholar
  27. Faulkner SP, Patrick WH Jr, Gambrell RP (1989) Field techniques for measuring wetland soil parameters. Soil Sci Soc Am J 53:883–890Google Scholar
  28. Ferns ML (1998) Geology of the Fly Valley Quadrangle, Union County, Oregon. (Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Resources geological map series GMS-113) Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Resources, Oreg.Google Scholar
  29. Ferns ML, Taubeneck WH (1994) Geology and mineral resources map of the Limber Jim Creek quadrangle, Union County, Oregon. (Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Resources geological map series GMS-82) Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Resources, Oreg.Google Scholar
  30. Fiala K (1993) Underground biomass in meadow stands. In: Rychnovská M (ed) Structure and functioning of seminatural meadows. (Developments in Agricultural and Managed-Forest Ecology 27) Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 133–153Google Scholar
  31. Fisk MC, Schmidt SK, Seastedt TR (1998) Topographic patterns of above-and-below-ground production and nitrogen cycling in alpine tundra. Ecology 79:2253–2266Google Scholar
  32. Gambrell RP, DeLaune RD, Patrick WH Jr (1991) Redox processes in soils following oxygen depletion. In: Jackson MB, Davies DD, Lambers H (eds) Plant life under oxygen deprivation: ecology, physiology and biochemistry. Pergamon Press, Oxford, pp 101–117Google Scholar
  33. Garcia LV, Maranon T, Moreno A, Clemente L (1993) Above-ground biomass and species richness in a Mediterranean salt marsh. J Veg Sci 4:417–424Google Scholar
  34. Gough L, Grace JB, Taylor KL (1994) The relationship between species richness and community biomass: the importance of environmental variables. Oikos 70:271–279Google Scholar
  35. Grace JB (1999) The factors controlling species density in herbaceous plant communities: an assessment. Perspect Plant Ecol Evol Syst 2:1–28Google Scholar
  36. Gregory SV, Swanson FJ, McKee WA, Cummins KW (1991) An ecosystem perspective of riparian zones. BioScience 41:540–551Google Scholar
  37. Grime JP (1979) Plant strategies and vegetation processes. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  38. Henry GHR, Svoboda J, Freedman B (1990) Standing crop and net production of sedge meadows of an ungrazed polar desert oasis. Can J Bot 68:2660–2667Google Scholar
  39. Hickman JC (ed) (1993) The Jepson manual of higher plants of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, Calif.Google Scholar
  40. Hitchcock CL, Cronquist A (1973) Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Wash.Google Scholar
  41. Hochberg Y, Tamhane AC (1987) Multiple comparison procedures. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  42. Hultgren ABC (1989) Growth length of Carex rostrata Stokes shoots in relation to water level. Aquat Bot 34:353–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Jakrlová J (1993) Primary producers of the natural stand. In: Rychnovská M (ed) Structure and functioning of seminatural meadows. (Developments in Agricultural and Managed-Forest Ecology 27) Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 99–132Google Scholar
  44. Kauffman JB, Beschta RL, Otting N, Lytjen D (1997) An ecological perspective of riparian and stream restoration in the western United States. Fisheries 22:12–24Google Scholar
  45. Kauffman JB, Marht M, Marht LA, Edge WD (2001) Wildlife of riparian habitats. In: Johnson DH, O’Neil TA (eds) Wildlife-habitat relationships in Oregon and Washington: building a common understanding for management. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oreg., pp 361–388Google Scholar
  46. Keddy PA (1992) Assembly and response rules: two goals for predictive community ecology. J Veg Sci 3:157–264Google Scholar
  47. Maarel E van der, Tityanova AA (1989) Above-ground and below-ground biomass relations in steppes under different grazing conditions. Oikos 56:364–370Google Scholar
  48. Manning ME, Swanson SR, Svejcar T, Trent J (1989) Rooting characteristics of four intermountain meadow community types. J Range Manage 42:309–312Google Scholar
  49. Mittelbach GG, Steiner CF, Scheiner SM, Gross KL, Reynolds HL, Waide RB, Willig MR, Dodson SI, Gough L (2001) What is the observed relationship between species richness and productivity? Ecology 82:2381–2396Google Scholar
  50. Moore DR, Keddy PA (1989) The relationship between species richness and standing crop in wetlands: the importance of scale. Vegetatio 79:99–106Google Scholar
  51. Mueller SC, Stolzy LH, Fick GW (1985) Constructing and screening platinum microelectrodes for measuring soil redox potential. Soil Sci 139:558–560Google Scholar
  52. Naiman RJ, Decamps H (1997) The ecology of interfaces: riparian zones. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 28:621–658Google Scholar
  53. Otting NJ (1998) Ecological characteristics of montane floodplain plant communities in the Upper Grande Ronde River Basin, Oregon. MS thesis. Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oreg.Google Scholar
  54. Perata P, Alpi A (1993) Plant responses to anaerobiosis. Plant Sci 93:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Roberts J, Ludwig JA (1991) Riparian vegetation along current-exposure gradients in floodplain wetlands of the River Murray, Australia. J Ecol 79:117–127Google Scholar
  56. Saarinen T (1996) Biomass and production of two vascular plants ina boreal mesotrophic fen. Can J Bot 74:934–938Google Scholar
  57. SAS Institute (1990) SAS/STAT user’s guide, Release 6.14 edn. SAS Institute, Cary, N.C.Google Scholar
  58. Schipper LA, Cooper AB, Harfoot CG, Dyck WJ (1993) Regulators of denitrification in an organic soil. Soil Bio Biochem 25:925–933CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Shafroth PB, Stromberg JC, Patten DT (2000) Woody riparian vegetation response to different alluvial water table regimes. North Am Nat 60:6–76Google Scholar
  60. Simon A, Collison AJC (2002) Quantifying the mechanical and hydrologic effects of riparian vegetation on streambank stability. Earth Surf Proc Landforms 27:527–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Stromberg JC, Tiller R, Richter B (1996) Effects of groundwater decline on riparian vegetation of semiarid regions: the San Pedro River, Arizona. Ecol Appl 6:113–131Google Scholar
  62. Tabacchi E, Correll DL, Hauer R, Pinay G, Planty-Tabacchi A, Wissmar RC (1998) Development, maintenance and role of riparian vegetation in the river landscape. Freshwater Biol 40:497–516Google Scholar
  63. Thormann MN, Bayley S (1997) Aboveground net primary productivity along a bog-fen-marsh gradient in southern boreal Alberta, Canada. Ecoscience 4:374–384Google Scholar
  64. Tilman D, Wedin D (1991) Plant traits and resource reduction for five grasses growing on a nitrogen gradient. Ecology 72:685–700Google Scholar
  65. Titlyanova AA, Romanova IP, Kosykh NP, Mironycheva-Tokareva NP (1999) Pattern and process in above-ground and below-ground components of grassland ecosystems. J Veg Sci 10:307–320Google Scholar
  66. Toledo ZO, Kauffman, JB (2001) Root biomass in relation to channel morphology of headwater streams. J Am Water Resour Assoc 37:1653–1663Google Scholar
  67. Van der Krift TAJ, Berendse F (2002) Root life spans of four grass species from habitats differing in nutrient availability. Funct Ecol 16:198–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kathleen A. Dwire
    • 1
    • 2
  • J. Boone Kauffman
    • 1
    • 3
  • E. N. Jack Brookshire
    • 1
    • 4
  • John E. Baham
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Fisheries and WildlifeOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA
  2. 2.Rocky Mountain Research StationU.S.D.A. Forest ServiceLaramie USA
  3. 3.Institute of Pacific Islands ForestryPacific Southwest Research StationHonoluluUSA
  4. 4.Department of BiologyVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State UniversityBlacksburgUSA
  5. 5.Department of Crop and Soil ScienceOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA

Personalised recommendations