Skip to main content

Local and regional disturbances associated with the invasion of Chesapeake Bay marshes by the common reed Phragmites australis

Biological Invasions volume 18, pages 2661–2677 (2016)Cite this article

Abstract

The invasion of wetlands by Phragmites australis is a conservation concern across North America. We used the invasion of Chesapeake Bay wetlands by P. australis as a model system to examine the effects of regional and local stressors on plant invasions. We summarized digital maps of the distributions of P. australis and of potential stressors (especially human land use and shoreline armoring) at two spatial scales: for 72 subestuaries of the bay and their local watersheds and for thousands of 500 m shoreline segments. We developed statistical models that use the stressor variables to predict P. australis prevalence (% of shoreline occupied) in subestuaries and its presence or absence in 500 m segments of shoreline. The prevalence of agriculture was the strongest and most consistent predictor of P. australis presence and abundance in Chesapeake Bay, because P. australis can exploit the resulting elevated nutrient levels to enhance its establishment, growth, and seed production. Phragmites australis was also positively associated with riprapped shoreline, probably because it creates disturbances that provide colonization opportunities. The P. australis invasion was less severe in areas with greater forested land cover and natural shorelines. Surprisingly, invasion was low in highly developed watersheds and highest along shorelines with intermediate levels of residential land use, possibly indicating that highly disturbed systems are uninhabitable even to invasive species. Management strategies that reduce nutrient pollution, preserve natural shorelines, and limit nearshore disturbance of soils and vegetation may enhance the resilience of shorelines to invasion.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

References

  • Anderson DM, Glibert PM, Burkholder JM (2002) Harmful algal blooms and eutrophication: nutrient sources, composition, and consequences. Estuaries 25:704–726

    Google Scholar 

  • Bastlova D, Cizkova H, Bastl M, Kvet J (2004) Growth of Lythrum salicaria and Phragmites australis plants originating from a wide geographical area: response to nutrient and water supply. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 13:259–271

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertness MD, Ewanchuk PJ, Silliman BR (2002) Anthropogenic modification of New England salt marsh landscapes. Proc Natl Acad Sci 99:1395–1398

    PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Biau G (2012) Analysis of a random forests model. J Mach Learn Res 13:1063–1095

    Google Scholar 

  • Boesch DF, Brinsfield RB, Magnien RE (2001) Chesapeake Bay eutrophication: scientific understanding, ecosystem restoration, and challenges for agriculture. J Environ Qual 30:303–320

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Breiman L, Cutler A (2014) Package ‘randomForest’ http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/randomForest/randomForest.pdf

  • Burdick DM, Konisky RA (2003) Determinants of expansion for Phragmites australis, common reed, in natural and impacted coastal marshes. Estuaries 26:407–416

    Google Scholar 

  • Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference, 2nd edn. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • CBP (Chesapeake Bay Program) (2015) The Chesapeake Bay watershed. http://www.chesapeakebay.net/discover/baywatershed. Accessed 3 Feb 2016

  • Chambers RM, Meyerson LA, Saltonstal K (1999) Expansion of Phragmites australis into tidal wetlands of North America. Aquat Bot 64:261–273

    Google Scholar 

  • Chambers RM, Havens KJ, Killeen S, Berman M (2008) Common reed Phragmites australis occurrence and adjacent land use along estuarine shoreline in Chesapeake Bay. Wetlands 28:1097–1103

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen J (1960) A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas 20:37–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Colautti RI, Grigorovich IA, MacIsaac HJ (2006) Propagule pressure: a null model for biological invasions. Biol Invasions 8:1023–1037

    Google Scholar 

  • Comeleo RL, Paul JF, August PV, Copeland J, Baker C, Hale SS, Latimer RW (1996) Relationships between watershed stressors and sediment contamination in Chesapeake Bay estuaries. Land Ecol 11:307–319

    Google Scholar 

  • Conley DJ, Paerl HW, Howarth RW, Boesch DF, Seitzinger SP, Havens KE, Lancelot C, Likens GE (2009) Controlling eutrophication: nitrogen and phosphorus. Science 323:1014–1015

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cutler DR, Edwards TC Jr, Beard KH, Cutler A, Hess KT, Gibson J, Lawler JJ (2007) Random forests for classification in ecology. Ecology 88:2783–2792

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • De’Ath G, Fabricius KE (2000) Classification and regression trees: a powerful yet simple technique for ecological data analysis. Ecology 8:3178–3192

    Google Scholar 

  • DeSimone J, Macrae ML, Bourbonniere RA (2010) Spatial variability in surface N2O fluxes across a riparian zone and relationships with soil environmental conditions and nutrient supply. Agric Ecosyst Environ 138:1–9

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dibble KL, Penelope SP, Meyerson LA (2013) Impacts of plant invasions can be reversed through restoration: a regional meta-analysis of faunal communities. Biol Invasions 15:1725–1737

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillon PJ, Kirchner WB (1975) The effects of geology and land use on the export of phosphorus from watersheds. Water Res 9:135–148

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ellison GN, Gotelli NJ (2004) A primer of ecological statistics. Sinauer, Sunderland

    Google Scholar 

  • Engloner AI (2009) Structure, growth dynamics and biomass of reed (Phragmites australis)—a review. Flora Morphol Distrib Funct Ecol Plants 204(5):331–346

    Google Scholar 

  • ESRI (Environmental Systems Research Institute) (2011) ArcGIS desktop release 10. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands

    Google Scholar 

  • Finnegan J, Regan JT, de Eyto E, Ryder E, Tiernan D, Healy MG (2012) Nutrient dynamics in a peatland forest riparian buffer zone and implications for the establishment of planted saplings. Ecol Eng 47:155–164

    Google Scholar 

  • Gornitz V, White TW (1992) A coastal hazards database for the US West Coast: ORNL CDIAC-81 NDP-043C. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN

  • Guo W-Y, Lambertini C, Li X-Z, Meyerson LA (2013) Invasion of Old World Phragmites australis in the New World: precipitation and temperature patterns combined with human influences redesign the invasive niche. Glob Change Biol 19:3406–3422

    Google Scholar 

  • Haslam SM (2010) A book of reed:(Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. ex Steudel, Phragmites communis Trin.). Forrest Text, Cardigan

    Google Scholar 

  • 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:plu001

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Homer C, Huang C, Yang L, Wylie B, Coan M (2004) Development of a 2001 national land-cover database for the United States. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 70:829–840

    Google Scholar 

  • Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S (2000) Applied logistic regression. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Hosmer DW, Jovanovic B, Lemeshow S (1989) Best sub-sets logistic regression. Biometrics 45:1265–1270

    Google Scholar 

  • Hubertz JM, Thompson EF, Wang HV (1996) Wave information studies of U.S. coastlines: annotated bibliography on coastal and ocean data assimilation. WIS Report 36, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS

  • Jordan TE, Correll DL, Weller DE (1997a) Effects of agriculture on discharges of nutrients from coastal plain watersheds of Chesapeake Bay. J Environ Qual 26:836–848

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan TE, Correll DL, Weller DE (1997b) Nonpoint source discharges of nutrients from Piedmont watersheds of Chesapeake Bay. J Am Water Res Assoc 33:631–645

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kemp W, Boynton W, Adolf J, Boesch D, Boicourt W, Brush G, Stevenson J (2005) Eutrophication of Chesapeake Bay: historical trends and ecological interactions. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 303:1–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Kettenring KM, McCormick MK, Baron HM, Whigham DF (2011) Mechanisms of Phragmites australis invasion: feedbacks among genetic diversity, nutrients, and sexual reproduction. J Appl Ecol 48:1305–1313

    Google Scholar 

  • Kettenring KM, Whigham DF, Hazelton ELG, Gallagher SK, Baron HM (2015) Biotic resistance, disturbance, and mode of colonization impact the invasion of a widespread, introduced, wetland grass. Ecol Appl 25:466–480

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • King RS, Beaman JR, Whigham DF, Hines AH, Baker ME, Weller DE (2004) Watershed land use is strongly linked to PCBs in white perch in Chesapeake Bay subestuaries. Environ Sci Technol 38:6546–6552

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 Coasts 30:469–481

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Li X, Weller DE, Gallegos CL, Jordan TE, Kim HC (2007) Effects of watershed and estuarine characteristics on the abundance of submerged aquatic vegetation in Chesapeake Bay subestuaries. Estuaries Coasts 30:840–854

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu ZJ, Weller DE, Correll DL, Jordan TE (2000) Effects of land cover and geology on stream chemistry in watersheds of Chesapeake Bay. J Am Water Res Assn 36:1349–1365

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Long WC, Grow JN, Majoris JE, Hines AH (2011) Effects of anthropogenic shoreline hardening and invasion by Phragmites australis on habitat quality for juvenile blue crabs (Callinectes sapidus). J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 409:215–222

    Google Scholar 

  • Manel S, Williams HC, Ormerod SJ (2001) Evaluating presence–absence models in ecology: the need to account for prevalence. J Appl Ecol 38:921–931

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazur MLC, Kowalski KP, Galbraith D (2014) Assessment of suitable habitat for Phragmites australis (common reed) in the Great Lakes coastal zone. Aquat Invasions 9:1–19

    Google Scholar 

  • McCormick MK, Kettenring KM, Baron HM, Whigham DF (2010a) Extent and reproductive mechanisms of Phragmites australis spread in brackish wetlands in Chesapeake Bay, Maryland (USA). Wetlands 30:67–74

    Google Scholar 

  • McCormick MK, Kettenring KM, Baron HM, Whigham DF (2010b) Spread of invasive Phragmites australis in estuaries with differing degrees of development: genetic patterns, Allee effects and interpretation. J Ecol 98:1369–1378

    Google Scholar 

  • McCormick MK, Brooks HEA, Whigham DF (2016) Microsatellite analysis to estimate realized dispersal distance in Phragmites australis. Biol Invasions. doi:10.1007/s10530-016-1126-1

  • Meadows RE, Saltonstall K (2007) Distribution of native and introduced Phragmites australis in freshwater and oligohaline tidal marshes of the Delmarva peninsula and southern New Jersey. J Torrey Bot Soc 134:99–107

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyerson LA, Chambers RM, Vogt KA (1999) The effects of Phragmites removal on nutrient pools in a freshwater tidal marsh ecosystem. Biol Invasions 1:129–136

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyerson LA, Cronin JT, Pysek P (2016) Phragmites australis as a model organism for studying plant invasions. Biol Invasions. doi:10.1007/s10530-016-1132-3

  • Meyerson LA, Saltonstall K, Windham L, Kiviat E, Findlay S (2000) A comparison of Phragmites australis in freshwater and brackish marsh environments in North America. Wetl Ecol Manag 8:89–103

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Meyerson LA, Saltonstall K, Chambers RM, Silliman BR, Bertness MD, Strong D (2009) Phragmites australis in eastern North America: a historical and ecological perspective. In: Silliman BR, Bertness MD, Grosholz ED (eds) Human impacts on salt marshes: a global perspective. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 57–82

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyerson LA, Lambert AM, Saltonstall K (2010) A tale of three lineages: expansion of common reed (Phragmites australis) in the US Southwest and Gulf Coast. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 8:515–520

    Google Scholar 

  • Moles AT, Flores-Moreno H, Bonser SP, Warton DI, Helm A et al (2012) Invasions: the trail behind, the path ahead, and a test of a disturbing idea. J Ecol 100:116–127

    Google Scholar 

  • Mozdzer TJ, Megonigal JP (2012) Jack-and-Master trait responses to elevated CO2 and N: a comparison of native and introduced Phragmites australis. Public Libr Sci One 7:e42794

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mozdzer TJ, Zieman JC (2010) Ecophysiological differences between genetic lineages facilitate the invasion of non-native Phragmites australis in North American Atlantic coast wetlands. J Ecol 98:451–458

    Google Scholar 

  • Mozdzer TJ, Brisson J, Hazelton ELG (2013) Physiological ecology and functional traits of North American native and Eurasian introduced Phragmites australis lineages. AoB Plants 5:plt048

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Nixon S (1995) Coastal marine eutrophication: a definition, social causes, and future concerns. Ophelia 41:199–219

    Google Scholar 

  • NOAA (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration) (1998) Chesapeake Bay, VA/MD (M130) Bathymetric ditigal elevation model (30 meter resolution) derived from source hydrogrpahic survey soundings collected by NOAA. https://data.noaa.gov/dataset/chesapeake-bay-va-md-m130-bathymetric-digital-elevationmodel-30-meter-resolution-derived-from-s. Accessed 3 Feb 2016

  • Osgood DT, Yozzo DJ, Chambers RM, Jacobson D, Hoffman T, Wnek J (2003) Tidal hydrology and habitat utilization by resident nekton in Pragmites and non-Phragmites marshes. Estuaries 26:522–533

    Google Scholar 

  • Patrick CJ, Weller DE (2015) Interannual variation in submerged aquatic vegetation and its relationship to water quality in subestuaries of Chesapeake Bay. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 537:121–135

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Patrick CJ, Weller DE, Li X, Ryder M (2014) Effects of shoreline alteration and other stressors on submerged aquatic vegetation in subestuaries of Chesapeake Bay and mid-Atlantic coastal bays. Estuaries Coasts 37:1516–1531

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Patrick CJ, Weller DE, Ryder M (2016) The relationship between shoreline armoring and adjacent submerged aquatic vegetation in Chesapeake Bay and nearby Atlantic Coastal Bays. Estuaries Coasts 39:158–170

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Paul JF, Comeleo RL, Copeland J (2002) Landscape metrics and estuarine sediment contamination in the mid-Atlantic and southern New England regions. J Environ Qual 31:836–845

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pysek P, Jarosık V, Hulme PE, Kuhn I, Wild J et al (2010) Disentangling the role of environmental and human pressures on biological invasions across Europe. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107:12157–12162

    PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • R Core Team (2014) R: a language and environment for statistical computing R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/. Accessed 16 Feb 2016

  • Robertson TL, Weis JS (2005) A comparison of epifaunal communities associated with the stems of salt marsh grasses Phragmites australis and Spartina alterniflora. Wetlands 25:1–7

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez W, August PV, Wang YQ, Paul JF, Gold A, Rubinstein N (2007) Empirical relationships between land use/cover and estuarine condition in the Northeastern United States. Land Ecol 22:403–417

    Google Scholar 

  • Saltonstall K (2002) Cryptic invasion by a non-native genotype of the common reed, Phragmites australis, into North America. Proc Natl Acad Sci 99:2445–2449

    PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Saltonstall K, Stevenson JC (2007) The effect of nutrients on seedling growth of native and introduced Phragmites australis. Aquat Bot 86:331–336

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Savage C, Leavitt PR, Elmgren R (2010) Effects of land use, urbanization, and climate variability on coastal eutrophication in the Baltic Sea. Limnol Oceanogr 55:1033–1046

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Shuster WD, Bonta J, Thurston H, Warnemuende E, Smith DR (2005) Impacts of impervious surface on watershed hydrology: a review. Urban Water J 2:263–275

    Google Scholar 

  • Silliman BR, Bertness MD (2004) Shoreline development drives invasion of Phragmites australis and the loss of plant diversity on New England salt marshes. Conserv Biol 18:1424–1434

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith VH (2006) Responses of estuarine and coastal marine phytoplankton to nitrogen and phosphorus enrichment. Limnol Oceanogr 51:377–384

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Smith VH, Schindler DW (2009) Eutrophication science: Where do we go from here? Trends Ecol Evol 24:201–207

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Strayer DL, Findlay SEG, Miller D, Malcom HM, Fischer DT, Coote T (2012) Biodiversity in Hudson River shore zones: influence of shoreline type and physical structure. Aquat Sci 74:597–610

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweeney BW, Newbold JD (2014) Streamside forest buffer width needed to protect stream water quality, habitat, and organisms: a literature review. J Am Water Res Assoc 50:560–584

    Google Scholar 

  • Thieler ER, Hammar-Klose ES (1999) National assessment of coastal vulnerability to sea-level rise: preliminary results for the U.S. Atlantic coast. U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 99-593

  • Tulbure MG, Ghioca-Robrecht DM, Johnston CA, Whigham DF (2012) Inventory and ventilation efficiency of nonnative and native Phragmites australis (common reed) in tidal wetlands of the Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries Coasts 35:1353–1359

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tumley T (2009) Package ‘leaps’ Version 2.9. http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/leaps/leaps.pdf. Accessed 3 Feb 2016

  • USEPA (U. S. Environmental Protection Agency) (2010) Chesapeake Bay total maximum daily load for nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment. http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-12/documents/cbay_final_tmdl_exec_sum_section_1_through_3_final_0.pdf. Accessed 3 Feb 2016

  • VIMS-CCRM (Virginia Institute of Marine Science Center for Coastal Resources Management) (2009) GIS data and maps: shoreline inventories. http://ccrm.vims.edu/gis_data_maps/shoreline_inventories/index.html. Accessed 3 Feb 2016

  • Weller DE, Baker ME (2014) Cropland riparian buffers throughout Chesapeake Bay watershed: spatial patterns and effects on nitrate loads delivered to streams. J Am Water Res Assoc 50:696–715

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Windham L, Meyerson LA (2003) Effects of common reed (Phragmites australis) expansions on nitrogen dynamics of tidal marshes of the northeastern U. S. Estuaries 26:452–464

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank the Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences, the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, and the Chesapeake Bay Program for providing data used in our analysis. This work was supported by award number NA09NOS4780214 from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Center for Sponsored Coastal Ocean Research (CSCOR).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Christopher J. Patrick

    Present address: Department of Life Sciences, Texas A&M University Corpus Christi, 6300 Ocean Dr., Corpus Christi, TX, 78412, USA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, 647 Contees Wharf Rd., Edgewater, MD, 21037, USA

    M. Benjamin Sciance, Christopher J. Patrick, Donald E. Weller, Meghan N. Williams, Melissa K. McCormick & Eric L. G. Hazelton

  2. Department of Geography and Geology, University of North Carolina Wilmington, 601 S. College Rd., Wilmington, NC, 28403, USA

    M. Benjamin Sciance

  3. Ecology Center and Department of Watershed Sciences, Utah State University, 5205 Old Main Hill-NR 314, Logan, UT, 84322, USA

    Eric L. G. Hazelton

Authors
  1. M. Benjamin Sciance
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christopher J. Patrick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Donald E. Weller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Meghan N. Williams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Melissa K. McCormick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Eric L. G. Hazelton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Donald E. Weller.

Additional information

Guest editors: Laura A. Meyerson and Kristin Saltonstall/Phragmites invasion.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sciance, M.B., Patrick, C.J., Weller, D.E. et al. Local and regional disturbances associated with the invasion of Chesapeake Bay marshes by the common reed Phragmites australis. Biol Invasions 18, 2661–2677 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-016-1136-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-016-1136-z

Keywords

  • Phragmites australis
  • Land use
  • Subestuary
  • Shoreline armoring
  • Invasion
  • Disturbance