Plant Ecology

, Volume 215, Issue 4, pp 467–478 | Cite as

The effects of habitat and competitive/facilitative interactions on reintroduction success of the endangered wetland herb, Arenaria paludicola

  • Megan Bontrager
  • Kelsey Webster
  • Mark Elvin
  • Ingrid M. Parker


Establishing new populations is essential for preventing the extinction of critically endangered plant species. However, defining the range of environmental conditions suitable for the most severely endangered species is challenging, since few wild populations remain for study. Experimental reintroductions of these species can achieve multiple conservation goals by improving our understanding of habitat and management requirements while simultaneously establishing new populations. We demonstrate this with Arenaria paludicola, a critically endangered wetland plant species now known from a single wild population in coastal California. Before transplanting, we tested salinity tolerance in the greenhouse, and found tolerance of a broader range of soils than expected based on the current distribution. We then transplanted A. paludicola in three different habitat types, with and without neighbor removal. Success of A. paludicola transplants differed dramatically between the three habitat types, indicating the importance of variation at the habitat and microhabitat level. The best practices for transplant management are context-dependent: neighbor removal may promote the growth of A. paludicola, but neighbors may also facilitate transplant establishment in unstable substrates. After one year, A. paludicola continued to thrive in habitats dominated by Oenanthe sarmentosa with open canopies and moist soil. This habitat differs from that of the remaining wild population. Our discovery of an additional habitat type suitable for A. paludicola will allow more effective selection of future transplant sites.


Indicator species Endangered species Marsh sandwort Experimental transplant Competition Facilitation 



We would like to thank Connie Rutherford of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Tim Hyland of California State Parks, and Jim Velzy and Denise Polk from the University of California, Santa Cruz greenhouses, and Chris Muir for statistical advice. We also greatly appreciate the helpful comments of two anonymous reviewers. Funding was provided by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.

Supplementary material

11258_2014_317_MOESM1_ESM.doc (26 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 25 kb)


  1. Acierto KR, Hendricks RS, Bontrager M, Parker IM (2012) Transplant success for the endangered herb Arenaria paludicola at Golden Gate National Recreation Area: Effect of site, propagation type, and competition. Technical Report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura.
  2. Allen WH (1994) Reintroduction of endangered plants—biologists worry that mitigation may be considered an easy option in the political and legal frameworks of conservation. Bioscience 44:65–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baldwin BG, Goldman DH, Keil DJ, Patterson R, Rosatti TJ, Wilken DH (eds) (2012) The Jepson Manual: vascular plants of California, 2nd edn. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  4. Baumberger T, Croze T, Affre L, Mesleard F (2012) Co-occurring species indicate habitats of the rare Limonium girardianum. Plant Ecol Evol 145:31–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bertness MD, Callaway R (1994) Positive interactions in communities. Trends Ecol Evol 9:191–193PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bertness MD, Hacker SD (1994) Physical stress and positive associations among marsh plants. Am Nat 144:363–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boughton EH, Quintana-Ascencio PF, Bohlen PJ, Nickerson D (2011) Differential facilitative and competitive effects of a dominant macrophyte in grazed subtropical wetlands. J Ecol 99:1263–1271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brummitt N, Bachman S (2010) Plants under pressure—a global assessment. The first report of the IUCN sampled red list index for plants. Royal Botanic Gardens, KewGoogle Scholar
  9. Budelsky RA, Galatowitsch SM (2000) Effects of water regime and competition on the establishment of a native sedge in restored wetlands. J Appl Ecol 37:971–985CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Buisson E, Anderson S, Holl KD, Corcket E, Hayes GF, Peeters A, Dutoit T (2008) Reintroduction of Nassella pulchra to California coastal grasslands: effects of topsoil removal, plant neighbour removal and grazing. Appl Veg Sci 11:195–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. de Mendiburu F (2014). Agricolae: statistical procedures for Agricultural Research. R package version 1.1-7.
  12. Drayton B, Primack RB (2012) Success rates for reintroductions of eight perennial plant species after 15 years. Restoration Ecol 20:299–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ervin GN (2005) Spatio-temporally variable effects of a dominant macrophyte on vascular plant neighbors. Wetlands 25:317–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fowler NL, Center A, Ramsey EA (2012) Streptanthus bracteatus (Brassicaceae), a rare annual woodland forb, thrives in less cover: evidence of a vanished habitat? Plant Ecol 213:1511–1523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Frazer GW, Canham CD, Lertzman KP (1999) Gap light analyzer (GLA): imaging software to extract canopy structure and gap light transmission indices from true-colour photographs. Users Manual and Program Documentation. Simon Fraser University, BurnabyGoogle Scholar
  16. Godefroid S, Piazza C, Rossi G et al (2011) How successful are plant species reintroductions? Biol Conserv 144:672–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Guerrant EO, Kaye TN (2007) Reintroduction of rare and endangered plants: common factors, questions and approaches. Aust J Bot 55:362–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Halme P, Monkkonen M, Kotiaho JS, Ylisirnio AL, Markkanen A (2009) Quantifying the indicator power of an indicator species. Conserv Biol 23:1008–1016PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. IUCN (1998) Guidelines for re-introductions. Prepared by the IUCN/SSC Reintroduction Specialist Group, IUCN, GlandGoogle Scholar
  20. Kissel DE, Vendrell PF (2006) Soil testing: soil pH and salt concentration. Circular 875. University of Georgia Cooperative Extension, AthensGoogle Scholar
  21. Larsen FW, Bladt J, Rahbek C (2009) Indicator taxa revisited: useful for conservation planning? Divers Distrib 15:70–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lindenmayer DB, Likens GE (2011) Direct measurement versus surrogate indicator species for evaluating environmental change and biodiversity loss. Ecosystems 14:47–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Luo WB, Xie YH, Chen XS, Li F, Qin XY (2010) Competition and facilitation in three marsh plants in response to a water-level gradient. Wetlands 30:525–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ma Y, Chen G, Edward Grumbine R, Zhiling D, Weibang S, Guo H (2013) Conserving plant species with extremely small populations (PSESP) in China. Biodivers Conserv 22:803–809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Maunder M (1992) Plant reintroduction—an overview. Biodivers Conserv 1:51–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Menges ES (2008) Restoration demography and genetics of plants: when is a translocation successful? Aust J Bot 56:187–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Montalvo AM, Williams SL, Rice KJ, Buchmann SL, Cory C, Handel SN, Nabhan GP, Primack R, Robichaux RH (1997) Restoration biology: a population biology perspective. Restor Ecol 5:277–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pimm SL, Russell GJ, Gittleman JL, Brooks TM (1995) The future of biodiversity. Science 269:347–350PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ren H, Ma GH, Zhang QM, Guo QF, Wang J, Wang ZF (2010) Moss is a key nurse plant for reintroduction of the endangered herb Primula tabacum Hance. Plant Ecol 209:313–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Richards LA (ed) (1954) Diagnosis and improvement of saline and alkali soils. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  31. Roncal J, Maschinski J, Schaffer B, Michael Gutierrez S, Walters D (2012) Testing appropriate habitat outside of historic range: the case of Amorpha herbacea var. crenulata (Fabaceae)Google Scholar
  32. R Core Development Team (2013). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. URL
  33. Sarrazin F, Barbault R (1996) Reintroduction: challenges and lessons for basic ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 11:474–478PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schemske DW, Husband BC, Ruckelshaus MH, Goodwillie C, Parker IM, Bishop JG (1994) Evaluating approaches to the conservation of rare and endangered plants. Ecology 75:584–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Steppuhn H, van Genuchten MT, Grieve CM (2005) Root-zone salinity: II. Indices for tolerance in agricultural crops. Crop Sci 45:221–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Therneau T (2014) A package for survival analysis in S. R package version 2.37-7.
  37. Thuiller W (2007) Biodiversity—climate change and the ecologist. Nature 448:550–552PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (1993) Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of endangered status for two plants, Arenaria paludicola (marsh sandwort) and Rorippa gambelii (Gambel’s watercress). FR 58:41378Google Scholar
  39. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (1998) Recovery plan for marsh sandwort (Arenaria paludicola) and Gambel’s watercress (Rorippa gambelii). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland, OregonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht (outside the USA) 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Megan Bontrager
    • 1
    • 2
  • Kelsey Webster
    • 1
  • Mark Elvin
    • 3
  • Ingrid M. Parker
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of California Santa CruzSanta CruzUSA
  2. 2.Department of BotanyUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  3. 3.U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceVenturaUSA

Personalised recommendations