, Volume 38, Issue 6, pp 1259–1268 | Cite as

The Role of Propagule Type, Resource Availability, and Seed Source in Phragmites Invasion in Chesapeake Bay Wetlands

  • Karin M. Kettenring
  • Dennis F. Whigham
General Wetland Science


The relative importance of sexual vs. asexual propagules in wetland plant invasions is poorly understood, particularly for their importance in increasingly disturbed, resource-rich environments. Using the invasive wetland grass Phragmites australis as a model, we evaluated the resource needs of its seeds and rhizome fragments. In a greenhouse experiment where we manipulated nitrogen and propagule type, we found that Phragmites seedlings, but not rhizome fragments, responded positively to nutrient enrichment. In a second experiment, where we focused on seedling resource needs and manipulated light, nitrogen, and seed source, we found that seedlings were inhibited by heavy shade with no additional benefit of nutrient additions. Different seed sources (wetlands surrounded by different dominant land-use types, a proxy for disturbance) had variable leaf production and stem height (biomass did not vary). Understanding the mechanisms of Phragmites recruitment via seeds and rhizomes is critical for informing how a clonal species—now understood to disperse largely by seeds—can invade increasingly disturbed, resource-rich habitats. Our study suggests that Phragmites invasion by seed is being fueled, in part, by the positive effects of increased nutrients and light on Phragmites seedling performance and potentially by varying performance of seedlings derived from different watersheds.


Clonality Disturbance dynamics Phragmites australis Recruitment limitation Rhizomes Seedlings 



We thank Jay O’Neill, Mike Taylor, Melissa McCormick, and Lori Davias Maloney for assistance in the field and/or greenhouse. Susan Durham provided statistical advice. We thank Melissa McCormick for her review of an earlier version of this manuscript. This research was funded by Environmental Protection Agency STAR grant # 692105 to D. Wardrop and a Smithsonian Postdoctoral Fellowship and award NA09NOS4780214 from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Center for Sponsored Coastal Ocean Research (CSCOR) to KK.

Supplementary material

13157_2018_1034_MOESM1_ESM.docx (47 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 47.2 kb)
13157_2018_1034_MOESM2_ESM.docx (17 kb)
ESM 2 (DOCX 17.1 kb)
13157_2018_1034_MOESM3_ESM.docx (18 kb)
ESM 3 (DOCX 17.7 kb)
13157_2018_1034_MOESM4_ESM.docx (19 kb)
ESM 4 (DOCX 18.6 kb)
13157_2018_1034_MOESM5_ESM.docx (19 kb)
ESM 5 (DOCX 18.7 kb)


  1. Albert A, Brisson J, Belzile F, Turgeon J, Lavoie C (2015) Strategies for a successful plant invasion: the reproduction of Phragmites australis in northeastern North America. Journal of Ecology 103:1529–1537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amsberry L, Baker MA, Ewanchuk PJ, Bertness MD (2000) Clonal integration and the expansion of Phragmites australis. Ecological Applications 10:1110–1118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baldwin AH, Kettenring KM, Whigham DF (2010) Seed banks of Phragmites australis-dominated brackish wetlands: relationships to seed viability, inundation, and land cover. Aquatic Botany 93:163–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bart D, Hartman JM (2000) Environmental determinants of Phragmites australis expansion in a New Jersey salt marsh: an experimental approach. Oikos 89:59–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bart D, Hartman JM (2002) Environmental constraints on early establishment of Phragmites australis in salt marshes. Wetlands 22:201–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Belzile F, Labbé J, LeBlanc M-C, Lavoie C (2010) Seeds contribute strongly to the spread of the invasive genotype of the common reed (Phragmites australis). Biological Invasions 12:2243–2250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bolnick DI, Amarasekare P, Araújo MS, Bürger R, Levine JM, Novak M, Rudolf VH, Schreiber SJ, Urban MC, Vasseur DA (2011) Why intraspecific trait variation matters in community ecology. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 26:183–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Byun C, Blois S, Brisson J (2013) Plant functional group identity and diversity determine biotic resistance to invasion by an exotic grass. Journal of Ecology 101:128–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Caplan JS, Wheaton CN, Mozdzer TJ (2014) Belowground advantages in construction cost facilitate a cryptic plant invasion. AoB plants 6:plu020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chambers R, Osgood D, Bart D, Montalto F (2003) Phragmites australis invasion and expansion in tidal wetlands: interactions among salinity, sulfide, and hydrology. Estuaries 26:398–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chambers RM, Meyerson LA, Saltonstall K (1999) Expansion of Phragmites australis into tidal wetlands of North America. Aquatic Botany 64:261–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davis MA, Grime JP, Thompson K (2000) Fluctuating resources in plant communities: a general theory of invasibility. Journal of Ecology 88:528–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Day RW, Quinn GP (1989) Comparisons of treatments after an analysis of variance in ecology. Ecological Monographs 59:433–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Diez JM, D'Antonio CM, Dukes JS, Grosholz ED, Olden JD, Sorte CJ, Blumenthal DM, Bradley BA, Early R, Ibáñez I (2012) Will extreme climatic events facilitate biological invasions? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 10:249–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dong M, Lu BR, Zhang HB, Chen JK, Li B (2006) Role of sexual reproduction in the spread of an invasive clonal plant Solidago canadensis revealed using intersimple sequence repeat markers. Plant Species Biology 21:13–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dukes JS, Mooney HA (1999) Does global change increase the success of biological invaders? Trends in Ecology & Evolution 14:135–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Eller F, Skálová H, Caplan JS, Bhattarai GP, Burger MK, Cronin JT, Guo WY, Guo X, Hazelton EL, Kettenring KM, Lambertini C, McCormick MK, Meyerson LA, Mozdzer TJ, Pysek P, Sorrell BK, Whigham DF, Brix H (2017) Cosmopolitan species as models for ecophysiological responses to global change: the common reed Phragmites australis. Frontiers in Plant Science 8:1833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eriksson O, Ehrlen J (2008) Seedling recruitment and population ecology. In: Leck MA, Parker VT, Simpson RL (eds) Seedling ecology and evolution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 239–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eschtruth AK, Battles JJ (2009) Assessing the relative importance of disturbance, herbivory, diversity, and propagule pressure in exotic plant invasion. Ecological Monographs 79:265–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gedan KB, Crain CM, Bertness MD (2009) Small-mammal herbivore control of secondary succession in New England tidal marshes. Ecology 90:430–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gioria M, Osborne BA (2014) Resource competition in plant invasions: emerging patterns and research needs. Frontiers in Plant Science 5:501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Grace JB (1993) The adaptive significance of clonal reproduction in angiosperms: an aquatic perspective. Aquatic Botany 44:159–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Guo WY, Lambertini C, Li XZ, Meyerson LA, Brix H (2013) Invasion of old world Phragmites australis in the new world: precipitation and temperature patterns combined with human influences redesign the invasive niche. Global Change Biology 19:3406–3422PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Hazelton EL, Mozdzer TJ, Burdick DM, Kettenring KM, Whigham DF (2014) Phragmites australis management in the United States: 40 years of methods and outcomes. AoB plants 6:plu001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kettenring KM, de Blois S, Hauber DP (2012) Moving from a regional to a continental perspective of Phragmites australis invasion in North America. AoB plants, 2012:pls040Google Scholar
  26. Kettenring KM, McCormick MK, Baron HM, Whigham DF (2011) Mechanisms of Phragmites australis invasion: feedbacks among genetic diversity, nutrients, and sexual reproduction. Journal of Applied Ecology 48:1305–1313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kettenring KM, Mock KE (2012) Genetic diversity, reproductive mode, and dispersal differ between the cryptic invader, Phragmites australis, and its native conspecific. Biological Invasions 14:2489–2504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kettenring KM, Mock KE, Zaman B, McKee M (2016) Life on the edge: reproductive mode and rate of invasive Phragmites australis patch expansion. Biological Invasions 18:2475–2495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kettenring KM, Whigham DF (2009) Seed viability and seed dormancy of non-native Phragmites australis in suburbanized and forested watersheds of the Chesapeake Bay, USA. Aquatic Botany 91:199–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kettenring KM, Whigham DF, Hazelton EL, Gallagher SK, Weiner HM (2015) Biotic resistance, disturbance, and mode of colonization impact the invasion of a widespread, introduced wetland grass. Ecological Applications 25:466–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. King RS, Deluca WV, Whigham DF, Marra PP (2007) Threshold effects of coastal urbanization on Phragmites australis (common reed) abundance and foliar nitrogen in Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries and Coasts 30:469–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lavergne S, Molofsky J (2004) Reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) as a biological model in the study of plant invasions. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 23:415–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Leck MA, Parker VT, Simpson RL (2008) Seedling ecology and evolution. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  34. Liu H, Lin Z, Qi X, Zhang M, Yang H (2014) The relative importance of sexual and asexual reproduction in the spread of Spartina alterniflora using a spatially explicit individual-based model. Ecological Research 29:905–915CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McCormick MK, Kettenring KM, Baron HM, Whigham DF (2010) Spread of invasive Phragmites australis in estuaries with differing degrees of development: genetic patterns, Allee effects and interpretation. Journal of Ecology 98:1369–1378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Meyerson LA, Cronin JT (2013) Evidence for multiple introductions of Phragmites australis to North America: detection of a new non-native haplotype. Biological Invasions 15:2605–2608Google Scholar
  37. Meyerson LA, Cronin JT, Pyšek P (2016) Phragmites australis as a model organism for studying plant invasions. Biological Invasions 18:2421–2431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Milchunas DT, Lauenroth W (1995) Inertia in plant community structure: state changes after cessation of nutrient-enrichment stress. Ecological Applications 5:452–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Minchinton TE (2006) Rafting on wrack as a mode of dispersal for plants in coastal marshes. Aquatic Botany 84:372–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Minchinton TE, Bertness MD (2003) Disturbance-mediated competition and the spread of Phragmites australis in a coastal marsh. Ecological Applications 13:1400–1416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Minchinton TE, Simpson JC, Bertness MD (2006) Mechanisms of exclusion of native coastal marsh plants by an invasive grass. Journal of Ecology 94:342–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mozdzer TJ, Zieman JC (2010) Ecophysiological differences between genetic lineages facilitate the invasion of non-native Phragmites australis in north American Atlantic coast wetlands. Journal of Ecology 98:451–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mozdzer TJ, Zieman JC, McGlathery KJ (2010) Nitrogen uptake by native and invasive temperate coastal macrophytes: importance of dissolved organic nitrogen. Estuaries and Coasts 33:784–797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Peter CR, Burdick DM (2010) Can plant competition and diversity reduce the growth and survival of exotic Phragmites australis invading a tidal marsh? Estuaries and Coasts 33:1225–1236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Price J, Berney P, Ryder D, Whalley R, Gross C (2011) Disturbance governs dominance of an invasive forb in a temporary wetland. Oecologia 167:759–769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pyšek P, Richardson DM (2008) Traits associated with invasiveness in alien plants: where do we stand? In: Nentwig W (eds) Biological invasions. Ecological studies (Analysis and synthesis), vol 193. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 97–125Google Scholar
  47. Saltonstall K (2002) Cryptic invasion by a non-native genotype of the common reed, Phragmites australis, into North America. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99:2445–2449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Saltonstall K, Stevenson JC (2007) The effect of nutrients on seedling growth of native and introduced Phragmites australis. Aquatic Botany 86:331–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. SAS Institute Inc. (2016) JMP© 130.0Google Scholar
  50. Sciance MB, Patrick CJ, Weller DE, Williams MN, McCormick MK, Hazelton EL (2016) Local and regional disturbances associated with the invasion of Chesapeake Bay marshes by the common reed Phragmites australis. Biological Invasions 18:2661–2677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Silvertown J (2008) The evolutionary maintenance of sexual reproduction: evidence from the ecological distribution of asexual reproduction in clonal plants. International Journal of Plant Sciences 169:157–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Vasquez EA, Glenn EP, Guntenspergen GR, Brown JJ, Nelson SG (2006) Salt tolerance and osmotic adjustment of Spartina alterniflora (Poaceae) and the invasive M haplotype of Phragmites australis (Poaceae) along a salinity gradient. American Journal of Botany 93:1784–1790Google Scholar
  53. Wijte AH, Gallagher JL (1996) Effect of oxygen availability and salinity on early life history stages of salt marsh plants. II. Early seedling development advantage of Spartina alterniflora over Phragmites australis (Poaceae). American Journal of Botany 83:1343–1350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Yang LH, Bastow JL, Spence KO, Wright AN (2008) What can we learn from resource pulses? Ecology 89:621–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Wetland Scientists 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ecology Center and Department of Watershed SciencesUtah State UniversityLoganUSA
  2. 2.Smithsonian Environmental Research CenterEdgewaterUSA

Personalised recommendations