Estuaries and Coasts

, Volume 31, Issue 2, pp 300–312 | Cite as

How Waterlogged Microsites Help an Annual Plant Persist Among Salt Marsh Perennials

Article

Abstract

Annual plants that coexist among perennial dominants might persist in microsites that are stressful to their competitors. In Californian salt marshes, where cover of annual and perennial Salicornia species are negatively correlated, we hypothesized that waterlogged depressions support the annual (Salicornia bigelovii) but not the region’s dominant perennial (Salicornia virginica). In a large restoration site, S. virginica cover was low in naturally formed pools, and our 10-cm depressions decreased its cover by approximately 30% compared to the controls. S. bigelovii grew taller and produced more flowers in waterlogged sites with low soil redox potential, and it completed its life cycle in the 5-cm-deep depressions that we created. Experimentally reducing S. virginica canopy cover in shallow depressions also increased the survival of the annual. In the greenhouse, rhizosphere oxidation was indicated as a mechanism for tolerating waterlogging, as S. bigelovii elevated the soil redox potential by 50 mV more than S. virginica did. Also, in the greenhouse, S. bigelovii seedlings actually suppressed the growth of S. virginica seedlings under increased flooding. We conclude that waterlogged microsites help sustain S. bigelovii in Californian salt marshes and that this increasingly rare plant could be managed by adding shallow depressions to restoration sites.

Keywords

Depressions Microtopography Restoration Tidal pools Salicornia bigelovii Salicornia virginica Topographic heterogeneity 

References

  1. Adam, P. 1990. Salt marsh ecology. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Armitage, A. R., K. E. Boyer, R. R. Vance, and R. F. Ambrose. 2006. Restoring assemblages of salt marsh halophytes in the presence of a rapidly colonizing dominant species. Wetlands 26: 667–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Armstrong, W. 1982. Waterlogged soilsIn Environment and plant ecology, ed. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  4. Ayala, F., W. J., and O’Leary. 1995. Growth and physiology of Salicornia bigelovii Torr. at suboptimal salinity. International Journal of Plant Sciences 156: 197–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bazzaz, F. A. 1979. The physiological ecology of plant succession. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 10: 351–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Bonin, C. 2007. Plant traits explain abundance rank in salt marsh vegetation. M.S. Thesis, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin.Google Scholar
  8. Boyer, K. E., and J. B. Zedler. 1999. Nitrogen addition could shift plant community composition in a restored California salt marsh. Restoration Ecology 7: 74–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boyer, K. E., P. Fong, R. R. Vance, and R. F. Ambrose. 2001. Salicornia virginica in a southern California salt marsh: Seasonal patterns and a nutrient enrichment experiment. Wetlands 21: 315–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brewer, J. S., J. M. Levine, and M. D. Bertness. 1997. Effects of biomass removal and elevation on species richness in a New England salt marsh. Oikos 80: 333–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Callaway, J. C., G. Sullivan, and J. B. Zedler. 2003. Species-rich plantings increase biomass and nitrogen accumulation in a wetland restoration experiment. Ecological Applications 13: 1626–1639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cantilli, J. F. 1989. Sulfide phytotoxicity in salt marshes. M.S. Thesis, San Diego State University, San Diego, California.Google Scholar
  13. Chapman, V. J. 1974. Salt marshes and salt deserts of the world. Lehre, Germany: J. Cramer.Google Scholar
  14. Covin, J. D., and J. B. Zedler. 1988. Nitrogen effects on Spartina foliosa and Salicornia virginica in the salt marsh at Tijuana Estuary, California. Wetlands 8: 51–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Drew, M. C., and L. H. Stolzy. 1991. Growth under oxygen stressIn Plant roots: the hidden half, eds. , A. Eshel, and U. KafkafiNew York: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
  16. Ellison, A. M. 1987. Effects of competition, disturbance, and herbivory on Salicornia europaea. Ecology 68: 576–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Faulkner, S. P., W. H. Patrick Jr, and P. R. Gambrell. 1989. Field techniques for measuring wetland soil parameters. Journal of Soil Science Society of America 53: 883–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Floyd, D. A., and J. E. Anderson. 1982. A new point interception frame for estimating cover of vegetation. Vegetatio 50: 185–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grime, J. P. 1977. Evidence for the existence of three primary strategies in plants and its relevance to ecological and evolutionary theory. American Naturalist 111: 1169–1194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hartman, J. M. 1988. Recolonization of small disturbance patches in a New England salt marsh. American Journal of Botany 11: 1625–1631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hutchinson, G. E. 1951. Copepodology for the ornithologist. Ecology 32: 571–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ingold, A., and D. C. Havill. 1984. The influence of sulphide on the distribution of higher plants in salt marshes. Journal of Ecology 72: 1043–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Larkin, D. J., G. Vivian-Smith, and J. B. Zedler. 2006. Topographic heterogeneity theory and ecological restorationIn Foundations of Restoration Ecology, eds. , M. Palmer, and J. B. Zedler, 144–164. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  24. Lindig-Cisneros, R., and J. B. Zedler. 2002. Halophyte recruitment in a salt marsh restoration site. Estuaries 25: 1174–1183.Google Scholar
  25. Mahall, B. E., and R. B. Park. 1976. The ecotone between Spartina foliosa Trin. and Salicornia virginica L. in salt marshes of northern San Francisco Bay. Journal of Ecology 64: 811–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Morzaria-Luna, H. N., J. C. Callaway, G. Sullivan, and J. B. Zedler. 2004. Relationship between topographic heterogeneity and vegetation patterns in a Californian salt marsh. Journal of Vegetation Science 15: 523–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Morzaria-Luna, H. N. 2005. Determinants of plant species assemblages in the California marsh plain: Implication for restoration of ecosystem function. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin.Google Scholar
  28. Neuenschwander, L. F., T. H. Thorsted Jr., and R. J. Vogl. 1979. The salt marsh and transitional vegetation of Bahia de San Quintin. Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Sciences 78: 163–182.Google Scholar
  29. O’Brien, E. L., and J. B. Zedler. 2006. Accelerating the restoration of vegetation in a southern California salt marsh. Wetlands Ecology and Management 14: 269–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Platt, W. J., and J. H. Connell. 2003. Natural disturbance and directional replacement of species. Ecological Monographs 73: 507–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Purer, E. A. 1942. Plant ecology of the coastal salt marshlands of San Diego county, California. Ecological Monographs 12: 82–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ranwell, D. S. 1972. Ecology of salt marshes and sand dunes. London, England: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  33. SCWRP (Southern California Wetland Recovery Project). 2007. http://www.scwrp.org.
  34. Seliskar, D. M. 1985. Effect of reciprocal transplanting between extremes of plant zones on morphometric plasticity of five plant species in an Oregon salt marsh. Canadian Journal of Botany 63: 2254–2262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sullivan, G. J., and J. B. Zedler. 1999. Functional redundancy among halophytes: a test. Oikos 84: 246–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sullivan, G., J. Callaway, and J.B. Zedler. 2007. Biodiversity effects among 32 salt marsh assemblages are largely due to species. Ecological Monographs in press.Google Scholar
  37. Tessier, M., J. Gloaguen, and J. C. Lefeuvre. 2000. Factors affecting the population dynamics of Suaeda maritima at initial states of development. Plant Ecology 147: 193–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tessier, M., J. Gloaguen, and V. Bouchard. 2002. The role of spatio-temporal heterogeneity in the establishment and maintenance of Suaeda maritima in salt marshes. Journal of Vegetation Science 13: 115–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Thibodeau, P. M., L. R. Gardner, and H. W. Reeves. 1998. The role of groundwater flow in controlling the spatial distribution of soil salinity and rooted macrophytes in a southeastern salt marsh, USA. Mangroves and Salt Marshes 2: 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Valiela, I., J. M. Teal, C. Cogswell, J. Hartman, S. Allen, R. van Etten, and D. Goehringer. 1985. Some long-term consequences of sewage contamination in salt marsh ecosystemsIn Ecological considerations in wetlands treatment of municipal wastewaters, eds. , E. R. Kaynor, S. Pelczarski, and J. Benforado, 301–316. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
  41. Vartapetian, B. B., and M. B. Jackson. 1997. Plant adaptations to anaerobic stress. Annals of Botany 79: 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Varty, A. K. 2007. The role of waterlogged refuges in the persistence of an annual plant in a perennial-dominated salt marsh. M. S. Thesis, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin.Google Scholar
  43. Vivian-Smith, G. 1997. Microtopographic heterogeneity and floristic diversity in experimental wetlands. Journal of Ecology 85: 71–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wallace, K. J., J. C. Callaway, and J. B. Zedler. 2005. Evolution of tidal creek networks in a high sedimentation environment: A 5-year experiment at Tijuana Estuary. Estuaries 28: 795–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Webb, K. L. 1966. NaCl effects on growth and transpiration in Salicornia bigelovii a salt-marsh halophyte. Plant and Soil 24: 261–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Weis, D. A., J. C. Callaway, and R. M. Gersberg. 2001. Vertical accretion rates and heavy metal chronologies in wetland sediment of the Tijuana Estuary. Estuaries 24: 840–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wetzel, R. G. 1983. Limnology, second edition. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.Google Scholar
  48. Williams, A. C., and B. C. McCarthy. 2001. A new index of interspecific competition for replacement and additive designs. Ecological Research 16: 29–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Winfield, T. P. 1980. Dynamics of nitrogen and carbon in a southern California salt marsh. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California Riverside and San Diego State University, San Diego, California.Google Scholar
  50. Zedler, J. B. 1977. Salt marsh community structure in the Tijuana Estuary, California. Estuarine and Coastal Marine Science 5: 39–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zedler, J. B. 1980. Algal mat productivity: Comparisons in a salt marsh. Estuaries 3: 122–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zedler, J. B., J. C. Callaway, J. S. Desmond, G. Vivian-Smith, G. D. Williams, G. Sullivan, A. E. Brewster, and B. K. Bradshaw. 1999. Californian salt-marsh vegetation: An improved model of spatial pattern. Ecosystems 2: 19–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zedler, J. B., J. C. Callaway, and G. Sullivan. 2001. Declining biodiversity: Why species matter and their functions might be restored in California tidal marshes. BioScience 51: 1005–1017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zedler, J. B., H. N. Morzaria-Luna, and K. Ward. 2003. The challenge of restoring vegetation on tidal, hypersaline substrates. Plant and Soil 253: 259–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zedler, J. B., and J. M. West. 2007. Declining diversity in natural and restored salt marshes: A 30-year study of Tijuana Estuary. Restoration Ecology in press. DOI 10.1111/j.1526-100X.2007.00268.x.

Copyright information

© Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Botany Department and ArboretumUniversity of WisconsinMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations