Advertisement

Estuaries and Coasts

, Volume 36, Issue 3, pp 610–625 | Cite as

Ditching and Ditch-Plugging in New England Salt Marshes: Effects on Hydrology, Elevation, and Soil Characteristics

  • Robert E. VincentEmail author
  • David M. Burdick
  • Michele Dionne
Article

Abstract

Anthropogenic activities in New England salt marshes have altered hydrologic flows in various ways, but unintended consequences from some types of habitat modifications have received little attention. Specifically, ditches have existed on salt marshes for decades, but the effects of these hydrologic alterations are only poorly understood. Ditch-plugging is a more recent methodology used for salt marsh habitat enhancement and mosquito control, but the long-term effects from this management practice are also unclear. The interactions involving marsh surface elevation, soil characteristics, and hydrologic regimes result in feedbacks that regulate the salt marsh self-maintenance process, and these interactions vary with hydrologic modification. Using natural tidal creeks and pools as controls, we examined the effects of ditching and plugging, respectively, on hydrology, surface elevations, and soils. Results showed the most apparent effects of altered hydrology from ditching are prolonged pore-water retention in the rooting zone and significantly lower soil bulk density and mineral content when compared with natural creek habitat. From a management perspective, the important question is whether the combined alterations to physical and biological processes will hinder the marsh’s ability to keep pace with increasing rates of sea level rise, especially in more heavily ditched marshes. In contrast, ditch-plugging results in the decoupling of feedback processes that promote salt marsh self-maintenance and in doing so, threatens marsh stability and resilience to climate change. High surface water levels, permanently saturated soils, marsh subsidence, and significantly lower bulk density, carbon storage, soil strength, and redox levels associated with hydrologic alterations from ditch-plugging all support this conclusion.

Keywords

Hydrologic alteration Self-maintenance Subsidence Carbon storage Sea level 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Beth Lambert at the New Hampshire Coastal Program and Matt Collins at the NOAA Restoration Center for help with data collection and use of equipment. Additional equipment used for this study was funded in part by the University of New Hampshire Marine Program, and the Wells National Estuarine Research Reserve provided lab space. We thank faculty and students at the University of New Hampshire Jackson Estuarine Laboratory for their assistance, especially Fred Short, Greg Moore, Alyson Eberhardt, and Chris Peter. Additional thanks go to Ray Konisky at The Nature Conservancy. The US Fish and Wildlife Service provided special use permits for work at Chauncey Creek and Parker River marshes, and Bates College and The Nature Conservancy granted permission to work at Sprague River Marsh. This work is dedicated to our co-author, Michele Dionne, a talented scientist, mentor, colleague, and friend who contributed greatly to estuarine research and conservation. Dr. Dionne sadly passed away on July 4, 2012. Jackson Estuarine Laboratory Contribution #512.

References

  1. Adamowicz, S.C., and C.T. Roman. 2002. Initial ecosystem response of salt marshes to ditch-plugging and pool creation: experiments at Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge (Maine). Final Report. Narragansett: USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Costal Research Field Station, University of Rhode Island.Google Scholar
  2. Adamowicz, S.C., and C.T. Roman. 2005. New England salt marsh pools: a quantitative analysis of geomorphic and geographic features. Wetlands 25(2): 279–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anisfeld, S.C. 2012. Biogeochemical responses to tidal restoration. In, Tidal Marsh Restoration: a synthesis of science and management, eds. Charles T. Roman and David M. Burdick. Island Press Publishers, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  4. Bertness, M.D., and A.M. Ellison. 1987. Determinants of pattern in a New England salt marsh plant community. Ecological Monographs 57: 129–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bertness, M.D., and S.C. Pennings. 2000. Spatial variation in process and pattern in salt marsh plant communities in eastern North America. In, Concepts and Controversies in Tidal Marsh Ecology, eds. Michael P. Weinstein and Daniel A. Kreeger. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  6. Bohlen, C. 2007. Sixty years of change in a Maine salt marsh landscape: implications for restoration. http://abacus.bates.edu/cbohlen/research.htm. Accessed November 2011.
  7. Bourn, W.S., and C. Cottam. 1950. Some biological effects of ditching tidewater marshes. Research report 19. Washington: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of Interior.Google Scholar
  8. Burdick, D.M and C.T. Roman. 2012. Salt marsh responses to tidal restriction and restoration: a summary of experiences. In, Tidal Marsh Restoration: a synthesis of science and management, eds. Charles T. Roman and David M. Burdick. Island Press Publishers, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  9. Burdick, D.M., I.A. Mendelssohn, and K.L. McKee. 1989. Live standing crop and metabolism of the marsh grass Spartina patens as related to edaphic factors in a brackish, mixed marsh community in Louisiana. Estuaries 12(3): 195–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cahoon, D.R., and D.J. Reed. 1995. Relationships among marsh surface topography, hydroperiod, and soil accretion in deteriorating Louisiana salt marsh. Journal of Coastal Research 11(2): 357–369.Google Scholar
  11. Chapman, V.J. 1960. Salt marshes and salt deserts of the world. Leonard Hill Books Limited, Interscience Publishers, Inc, London.Google Scholar
  12. Chmura, G.L., and G.A. Hung. 2004. Controls on salt marsh accretion: a test in salt marshes of eastern Canada. Estuaries 27(1): 70–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chmura, G.L., A. Coffey, and R. Crago. 2001. Variation in surface soil deposition on salt marshes in the Bay of Fundy. Journal of Coastal Research 17(1): 221–227.Google Scholar
  14. Craft, C.B., E.D. Seneca, and S.W. Broome. 1991. Loss on ignition and Kjeldahl digestion for estimating organic carbon and total nitrogen in estuarine marsh soils: calibration with dry combustion. Estuaries 14(2): 175–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. CST/Berger 2005. Laser Mark CST LMH-CU laser with LD400 universal laser detector and sighting rod. Watseka, IL, USA.Google Scholar
  16. Daiber, F.C. 1986. Conservation of tidal marshes. Van Norstrand Reinhold Company, New York.Google Scholar
  17. DeLaune, R.D., J.A. Nyman, and W.H. Patrick Jr. 1994. Peat collapse, ponding and wetland loss in rapidly submerging coastal marsh. Journal of Coastal Research 10(4): 1021–1030.Google Scholar
  18. Ewing, K., K.L. McKee, and I.A. Mendelssohn. 1997. A field comparison of indicators of sublethal stress in the salt-marsh grass Spartina patens. Estuaries 20: 48–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fagherazzi, S., and T. Sun. 2004. A stochastic model for the formation of channel networks in tidal marshes. Geophysical Research Letters 31(L21503): 1–4.Google Scholar
  20. Faulkner, S.P., W.H. Patrick Jr., and R.P. Grambrell. 1989. Field techniques for measuring wetland soil parameters. Soil Science Society of America Journal 53: 883–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Goodman, J.E., M.E. Wood, and W.R. Gehrels. 2007. A 17-yr record of soil accretion in the salt marshes of Maine (USA). Marine Geology 242: 109–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hacker, S.D., and M.D. Bertness. 1995. Morphological and physiological consequences of a positive plant interaction. Ecology 76: 2165–2175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Harshberger, J.W. 1911. A hydrometric investigation of the influence of sea water on the distribution of salt marsh and estuarine plants. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 50: 457–496.Google Scholar
  24. Howarth, R.W., and J.M. Teal. 1979. Sulfate reduction in a New England salt marsh. Limnology and Oceanography 24(6): 999–1013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hruby, T., and W.G. Montgomery. 1988. Open marsh water management for open tidal marshes in the northeast: a manual of methods. Massachusetts Audubon Society.Google Scholar
  26. Hughes, Z.J., D.M. FitsGerald, C.A. Wilson, S.C. Pennings, K. Wieski, and A. Mahadevan. 2009. Rapid headward erosion of marsh creeks in response to relative sea level rise. Geophysical Research Letters 36(L03602): 1–5.Google Scholar
  27. James-Pirri, M.J., R.M. Erwin, D.J. Prosser, and J.D. Taylor. 2012. Responses of salt marsh ecosystems to mosquito control management practices along the Atlantic coast (U.S.A). Restoration Ecology 20(3): 395–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kirwan, M.L., and S.M. Mudd. 2012. Response of salt-marsh carbon accumulation to climate change. Nature 489: 550–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. LeMay, L. 2007. Impact of drainage ditches on salt marsh flow patterns, sedimentation and morphology: Rowley River, Massachusetts. M.Sc. Thesis. Virginia: College of William and Mary.Google Scholar
  30. Lesser, C.R. 1982. Standards for Maryland Open Marsh Water Management (OMWM). Proceedings of New Jersey Mosquito Control Association 70: 29–34.Google Scholar
  31. Mendelssohn, I.A., and K.L. McKee. 1988. Spartina alterniflora die-back in Louisiana: time-course investigation of sediment waterlogging effects. Journal of Ecology 76: 509–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Meredith, W.H., D.E. Saveikis, and C.J. Stachecki. 1985. Guidelines for “open marsh water management” in Delaware’s salt marshes—objectives, system designs, and installation procedures. Wetlands 5: 119–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Morris, J.T., P.V. Sundareshwar, C.T. Nietch, B. Kjerfve, and D.R. Cahoon. 2002. Responses of coastal wetlands to rising sea level. Ecology 83(10): 2869–2877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Neckles, H., M. Dionne, D.M. Burdick, C.T. Roman, R. Buchsbaum, and E. Hutchins. 2002. A monitoring protocol to assess tidal restoration of salt marshes on local and regional scales. Restoration Ecology 10(3): 556–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Northeastern Massachusetts Mosquito Control and Wetlands Management District. 2011. Standard for Open Marsh Water Management, OMWM. Newburyport, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  36. Odyssey Data Recording. 2005. Data flow systems PTY limited. Burnside, Christchurch, New Zealand. dataflow@odysseydatarecording.com.Google Scholar
  37. Redfield, A.C. 1972. Development of a New England salt marsh. Ecological Monographs 42: 201–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Redfield, A.C., and M. Rubin. 1962. The age of salt marsh peat and its relation to recent changes in sea level at Barnstable, Massachusetts. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 8(10): 1728–1735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Reed, D.J., and D.R. Cahoon. 1992. The relationship between marsh surface topography, hydroperiod, and growth of Spartina alterniflora in a deteriorating Louisiana salt marsh. Journal of Coastal Research 8(1): 77–87.Google Scholar
  40. SAS Institute. 2010. JMP 9 statistical software. Cary, NC.Google Scholar
  41. Sebold, K.R. 1998. The low green prairies of the sea: economic usage and cultural construction of the Gulf of Maine salt marshes. Ph.D. Dissertation. Orono: University of Maine.Google Scholar
  42. Silliman, B.R., E.D. Grosholz, and M.D. Bertness. 2009. Human impacts on salt marshes: a global perspective. University of California Press.Google Scholar
  43. Spectrum Technologies, Inc. 2005. Field Scout SC-900 soil compaction meter. Plainfield, IL.Google Scholar
  44. Stumpf, R.P. 1983. The process of accretion on the surface of a salt marsh. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 17: 495–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Taylor, J. 1998. Guidance for Meeting U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service trust resource needs when conducting coastal marsh management for mosquito control on Region 5 national wildlife refuges. Newington: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 5, Great Bay National Wildlife Refuge. 20 pp.Google Scholar
  46. Turner, R.E. 2010. Beneath the salt marsh canopy: loss of sediment strength with increasing nutrients. Estuaries and Coasts. doi: 10.1007/s12237-010-9341-y.
  47. Turner, R.E, E.M. Swenson and C.S. Milan. 2000. Organic and inorganic contributions to vertical accretion in salt marsh soils. In: Concepts and controversies in tidal marsh ecology, eds. Michael P. Weinstein and Daniel A. Kreeger. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  48. Vincent, R.E., D.M. Burdick, and M. Dionne. 2012. Ditching and ditch-plugging in New England salt marshes: effects on plant communities and self-maintenance. Estuaries and Coasts. In review.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert E. Vincent
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • David M. Burdick
    • 2
  • Michele Dionne
    • 3
  1. 1.NOAA Fisheries ServiceGloucesterUSA
  2. 2.Jackson Estuarine LaboratoryUniversity of New HampshireDurhamUSA
  3. 3.Wells National Estuarine Research ReserveWellsUSA

Personalised recommendations