Estuaries and Coasts

, Volume 33, Issue 1, pp 118–126 | Cite as

Phragmites australis (Common Reed) Invasion in the Rhode River Subestuary of the Chesapeake Bay: Disentangling the Effects of Foliar Nutrients, Genetic Diversity, Patch Size, and Seed Viability

  • Karin M. Kettenring
  • Melissa K. McCormick
  • Heather M. Baron
  • Dennis F. Whigham
Article

Abstract

The invasion and expansion of the introduced haplotype of Phragmites australis across North America is of growing concern. Previous studies in the Chesapeake Bay region found that Phragmites was more abundant, had higher foliar nitrogen, and produced more viable seeds in brackish wetland subestuaries with more anthropogenic development of the watershed. Here, we focus on a different scale and address issues related to the invasion of Phragmites within a single subestuary, the Rhode River. We evaluated patterns in seed viability, foliar nutrient concentrations, patch size, and genetic variation in ten Phragmites patches in wetlands that occur in the side of the subestuary that is surrounded by forest and 10 patches in wetlands that are in the side of the subestuary that has extensive anthropogenic development. Seed viability varied from 0–60% among the 20 patches but did not differ significantly between patches on the developed vs. forested sides of the Rhode River. Foliar nutrients also did not differ between patches on the two sides of the Rhode River. Seed viability, however, was negatively related to foliar nutrients. Most Phragmites patches consisted of >1 genotype. Larger patches had multiple genotypes, and patches with more genotypes produced more viable seeds. Our study indicates that the Rhode River subestuary behaves as one system with no differences in the measured Phragmites variables between the forested vs. developed sides of the watershed. Our findings also suggest a cyclical process by which Phragmites can spread: larger patches contain more genetic diversity, which increases the chances for cross-fertilization. The subsequent increased production of viable seeds can increase local levels of genetic diversity, which can further facilitate the spread of Phragmites by seed.

Keywords

Chesapeake Bay Foliar nutrients Genetic diversity Invasive species Microsatellite markers Seed viability 

References

  1. Able, K.W., S.M. Hagan, and S.A. Brown. 2003. Mechanisms of marsh habitat alteration due to Phragmites: response of young-of-the-year mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus) to treatment for Phragmites removal. Estuaries and Coasts 26: 484–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amsberry, L., M.A. Baker, P.J. Ewanchuk, and M.D. Bertness. 2000. Clonal integration and the expansion of Phragmites australis. Ecological Applications 10: 1110–1118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bart, D., and J.M. Hartman. 2000. Environmental determinants of Phragmites australis expansion in a New Jersey salt marsh: an experimental approach. Oikos 89: 59–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bart, D., and J.M. Hartman. 2003. The role of large rhizome dispersal and low salinity windows in the establishment of common reed, Phragmites australis, in salt marshes: new links to human activities. Estuaries and Coasts 26: 436–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bart, D., D. Burdick, R. Chambers, and J. Hartman. 2006. Human facilitation of Phragmites australis invasions in tidal marshes: a review and synthesis. Wetlands Ecology and Management 14: 53–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bertness, M.D., P.J. Ewanchuk, and B.R. Silliman. 2002. Anthropogenic modification of New England salt marsh landscapes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99: 1395–1398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Daehler, C.C., and D.R. Strong. 1994. Variable reproductive output among clones of Spartina alterniflora (Poaceae) invading San Francisco Bay, California: the influence of herbivory, pollination, and establishment site. American Journal of Botany 81: 307–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Galatowitsch, S.M., N.O. Anderson, and P.D. Ascher. 1999. Invasiveness in wetland plants in temperate North America. Wetlands 19: 733–755.Google Scholar
  9. Gallegos, C.L., T.E. Jordan, and D.L. Correll. 1992. Event-scale response of phytoplankton to watershed inputs in a subestuary: timing, magnitude, and location of blooms. Limnology and Oceanography 37: 813–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gervais, C., R. Trahan, D. Moreno, and A.-M. Drolet. 1993. Phragmites australis in Quebec: geographical distribution, chromosome number, and reproduction. Canadian Journal of Botany 71: 1386–1393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Haslam, S.M. 1972. Phragmites communis Trin. (Arundo phragmites L.,? Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. ex Steudel). Journal of Ecology 60: 585–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ishii, J., and Y. Kadono. 2002. Factors influencing seed production of Phragmites australis. Aquatic Botany 72: 129–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Keller, B.E.M. 2000. Plant diversity in Lythrum, Phragmites, and Typha marshes, Massachusetts, U.S.A. Wetlands Ecology and Management 8: 391–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kettenring, K.M., and D.F. Whigham. 2009. Seed viability and seed dormancy of non-native Phragmites australis in suburbanized and forested watersheds of the Chesapeake Bay, USA. Aquatic Botany 91: 199–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. King, R.S., W.V. DeLuca, D.F. Whigham, and P.P. Marra. 2007. Threshold effects of coastal urbanization on Phragmites australis (common reed) abundance and foliar nitrogen in Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries and Coasts 30: 469–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lambert, A.M., and R.A. Casagrande. 2007. Characteristics of a successful estuarine invader: evidence of self-compatibility in native and non-native lineages of Phragmites australis. Marine Ecology Progress Series 337: 299–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. League, M.T., E.P. Colbert, D.M. Seliskar, and J.L. Gallagher. 2006. Rhizome growth dynamics of native and exotic haplotypes of Phragmites australis (common reed). Estuaries and Coasts 29: 269–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lelong, B., C. Lavoie, Y. Jodoin, and F. Belzile. 2007. Expansion pathways of the exotic common reed (Phragmites australis): a historical and genetic analysis. Diversity and Distributions 13: 430–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Marks, M., B. Lapin, and J. Randall. 1994. Phragmites australis (Phragmites communis): threats, management, and monitoring. Natural Areas Journal 14: 285–294.Google Scholar
  20. McCormick, J., and J. A. Somes, Jr. 1982. Coastal wetlands of Maryland. In Maryland Department of Natural Resources, p. 141.Google Scholar
  21. McCormick, M.K., K.M. Kettenring, H.M. Baron, and D.F. Whigham. 2010. Extent and mechanisms of Phragmites australis spread in brackish wetlands in a subestuary of the Chesapeake Bay, Maryland (USA). Wetlands.Google Scholar
  22. McKee, J., and A.J. Richards. 1996. Variation in seed production and germinability in common reed (Phragmites australis) in Britain and France with respect to climate. New Phytologist 133: 233–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Meyerson, L.A., R.M. Chambers, and K.A. Vogt. 1999. The effects of Phragmites removal on nutrient pools in a freshwater tidal marsh ecosystem. Biological Invasions 1: 129–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Minchinton, T.E., and M.D. Bertness. 2003. Disturbance-mediated competition and the spread of Phragmites australis in a coastal marsh. Ecological Applications 13: 1400–1416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Minchinton, T.E., J.C. Simpson, and M.D. Bertness. 2006. Mechanisms of exclusion of native coastal marsh plants by an invasive grass. Journal of Ecology 94: 342–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pellegrin, D., and D.P. Hauber. 1999. Isozyme variation among populations of the clonal species, Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. ex Steudel. Aquatic Botany 63: 241–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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 Science 99: 2445–2449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Saltonstall, K. 2003a. Genetic variation among North American populations of Phragmites australis: implications for management. Estuaries and Coasts 26: 444–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Saltonstall, K. 2003b. Microsatellite variation within and among North American lineages of Phragmites australis. Molecular Ecology 12: 1689–1702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Silliman, B.R., and M.D. Bertness. 2004. Shoreline development drives invasion of Phragmites australis and the loss of plant diversity on New England salt marshes. Conservation Biology 18: 1424–1434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Talley, T.S., and L.A. Levin. 2001. Modification of sediments and macrofauna by an invasive marsh plant. Biological Invasions 3: 51–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tucker, G.C. 1990. The genera of Arundinoideae (Gramineae) in the southeastern United States. Journal of the Arnold Arboretum 71: 145–177.Google Scholar
  33. Windham, L., and J.G. Ehrenfeld. 2003. Net impact of a plant invasion on nitrogen-cycling processes within a brackish tidal marsh. Ecological Applications 13: 883–897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karin M. Kettenring
    • 1
    • 2
  • Melissa K. McCormick
    • 1
  • Heather M. Baron
    • 1
    • 3
  • Dennis F. Whigham
    • 1
  1. 1.Smithsonian Environmental Research CenterEdgewaterUSA
  2. 2.Ecology Center and Department of Watershed SciencesUtah State UniversityLoganUSA
  3. 3.College of Oceanic and Atmospheric SciencesOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA

Personalised recommendations