, Volume 78, Issue 3, pp 289–296 | Cite as

Water relations and growth responses of Uniola paniculata (sea oats) to soil moisture and water-table depth

  • Mark W. Hester
  • Irving A. Mendelssohn
Original Papers


This study examined the water relations and growth responses of Uniola paniculata (sea oats) to (1) three watering regimes and (2) four controlled water-table depths. Uniola paniculata is frequently the dominant foredune grass along much of the southeastern Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the United States, but its distribution is limited in Louisiana. Throughout most of its range, U. paniculata tends to dominate and be well adapted to the most exposed areas of the dune where soil moisture is low. Dune elevations in Louisiana, however, rarely exceed 2 m, and as a result the depth to the water table is generally shallow. We hypothesized that if U. paniculata grows very near the water-table, as it may in Louisiana, it will display signs of water-logging stress. This study demonstrated that excessive soil moisture resulting from inundation or shallow water-table depth has a greater negative effect on plant growth than do low soil moisture conditions. Uniola paniculata's initial response to either drought or inundation was a reduction of leaf (stomatal) conductance and a concomitant decrease in leaf elongation. However, plants could recover from drought-induced leaf xylem pressures of less than-3.3 MPa, but prolonged inundation killed the plants. Waterlogging stress (manifested in significantly reduced leaf stomatal conductances and reduced biomass production) was observed in plants grown at 0.3 m above the water table. This stress was relieved, however, at an elevation of 0.9 m above the water table. As the elevation was increased from 0.9 to 2.7 m, there were no signs of drought stress nor a stimulation in growth due to lower soil moisture. We concluded that although U. paniculata's moisture-conserving traits adapt it well to the dune environment, this species can grow very well at an elevation of only 0.9 m above the water table. Field measurements of water-table depth in three Louisiana populations averaged about 1.3 m. Therefore, the observed limited distribution of U. paniculata along the Louisiana coast apparently cannot be explained by water-logging stress induced by the low dune elevations and the corresponding shallow water-table depth.

Key words

Coastal vegetation Louisiana Uniola paniculata Water relations Water table 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Au Shu-Fun (1970) Vegetation and ecological processes on Shackleford Banks, North Carolina. Ph.D. disseration, Duke UniversityGoogle Scholar
  2. Brown WV, Smith BN (1974) The Kranz syndrome in Uniola (Graminae). Bull Torrey Bot Club 101:117–120Google Scholar
  3. Coultas CL, Breitenbeck GA, Kruczynski WL, Subrahmanyam CB (1978) Vegetative stabilization of dredge spoil in North Florida. Soil Water Conserv 33(4):183–185Google Scholar
  4. Dahl BE, Woodard DW (1977) Construction of Texas coastal foredunes with sea oats (Uniola Paniculata) and bitter panicum (Panicum amarum). Int J Biom 21:267–275Google Scholar
  5. De Jong TM (1979) Water and salinity relations of Californian beach species. J Ecol 67:647–663Google Scholar
  6. Hester MW (1985) Investigations of factors affecting the distribution and growth of Uniola paniculata (sea oats) along the Louisiana coast: status of natural populations, seed ecology, and plant responses to water availability. M.S. thesis, Louisiana State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  7. Hosier PE (1973) The effects of oceanic overwash on the vegetation of Core and Shackleford Banks, North Carolina. Ph.D. dissertation, Duke UniversityGoogle Scholar
  8. Hurd EA (1974) Phenotype and drought tolerance in wheat. Agr Metaorol 14:39–55Google Scholar
  9. Kramer PJ (1963) Water stress and plant growth. Agr J 55:31–35Google Scholar
  10. Mendelssohn IA, Hester MW (1985) Texaco USA coastal vegetation project, 1984 annual report. Laboratory for Wetland Soils and Sediments, Center for Wetland Resources, Louisiana State University, Baton RougeGoogle Scholar
  11. Mendelssohn IA, Jordan JW, Talbot F, Starkovich CJ (1983) Dune building and vegetative stabilization in a sand deficient barrier island environment. Proc 3rd Symp on Coastal and Ocean Management, San Diego, CAGoogle Scholar
  12. Mendelssohn IA, Penland S, Patrick WH Jr (eds) (1987) Barrier islands and beaches of the Mississippi River delta plain. Report submitted to the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Baton RougeGoogle Scholar
  13. Monteferrante FJ (1986) Water relations of sand dune and swale vegetation in Louisiana. Ph.D. dissertation, Louisiana State University, Baton RougeGoogle Scholar
  14. Monteferrante FJ, Mendelssohn IA, Hester MW (1982) Vegetative investigations for the management of barrier islands and beaches in Louisiana. In: Proc Coast Soc 8, pp 231–239Google Scholar
  15. Oertel GF, Larson M (1976) Developmental sequences in Georgia coastal dunes and distribution of dune plants. Bull Georgia Acad Science 34:35–48Google Scholar
  16. Olsson-Seffer P (1909) Hydrodynamic factors influencing plant life on sandy seashores. New Phytol 8:39–49Google Scholar
  17. Oosting HJ (1954) Ecological processes and vegetation of the maritime strand in the southeastern United States. Bot Rev 20:226–262Google Scholar
  18. Oosting HJ, Billings WD (1942) Factors affecting vegetational zonation on coastal dunes. Ecology 23:131–142Google Scholar
  19. Pavlik BM (1980) Patterns of water potential and photosynthesis of desert and sand dune plants, Eureka Valley, California. Oecologia 46:147–154Google Scholar
  20. Penland S, Boyd R (1985) Transgressive depositional environments of the Mississippi River delta plain. Guidebook Series No. 3. Louisiana Geological Survey, Baton Rouge, Louisiana p 233Google Scholar
  21. SAS Institute, Inc. 1982. SAS User's Guide. SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NCGoogle Scholar
  22. Scholander PF, Hammel HT, Bradstreet ED, Hemmingsen EA (1965) Sap pressure in vascular plants. Science 148:339–346Google Scholar
  23. Seneca ED (1972) Germination and seedling response of Atlantic and Gulf Coast populations of Uniola paniculata. Am J Bot 59:290–296Google Scholar
  24. Steel RGD, Torrie JH (1980) Principles and procedures of statistics. McGraw-Hill, New York, p 481Google Scholar
  25. Travis R (1977) The effects of aspect and exposure on the growth of dune grasses in Cape Hatteras National Seashore. Int J Biomet 21:217–226Google Scholar
  26. Turner NC, Burch GJ (1983) The role of water in plants. In: Crop water relations. John Wiley and Sons, New York, pp 73–76Google Scholar
  27. Wagner RH (1964) The ecology of Uniola paniculata L. in the dune strand habitat of North Carolina. Ecol Monogr 345:79–96Google Scholar
  28. Woodhouse WW Jr, Hanes RE (1966) Dune stabilization and vegetation on the Outer Banks of North Carolina. Dept. of Soil Science, North Carolina State Univ. at Raleigh. Soil Sci Ser 8Google Scholar
  29. Woodhouse WW Jr, Seneca ED, Cooper AW (1968) Use of sea oats for dune stabilization in the southeast. Shore and Beach, October, pp 25–21Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark W. Hester
    • 1
  • Irving A. Mendelssohn
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory for Wetland Soils and Sediments, Center for Wetland ResourcesLouisiana State UniversityBaton RougeUSA

Personalised recommendations