Estuaries and Coasts

, Volume 33, Issue 5, pp 1237–1246 | Cite as

Responses of Uniola paniculata L. (Poaceae), an Essential Dune-Building Grass, to Complex Changing Environmental Gradients on the Coastal Dunes

Article

Abstract

Coastal dunes are well known for plant species zonation but less is known about species-specific responses to underlying environmental gradients. We investigated variation in morphological traits and tissue nutrient concentration in Uniola paniculata, along a shoreline-to-landward gradient (transects spanning from the dunes directly behind the high tide mark to 40–100 m inland) in the southeast USA. Several environmental factors decreased with distance from the shoreline (soil B, K, Mg, Na; salinity, pH, and sand accretion), and differences were most pronounced between the 10 m closest to the shoreline and the remainder of the transect. In the 10 m closest to the shoreline, 94% more sand accumulated, which was 31% more saline. Additionally, plants here were taller, contained higher aboveground tissue N and K, and a higher percentage tended to flower. This contrasts with patterns found in salt marshes and saline desert dunes, where plant size is often negatively correlated with salinity. During the 2 years following the planned study, storms washed out ≤25 m of the transects. Resampling of the remaining sites demonstrated that even after erosion of the dune profile, a higher percentage of the plants in the 10 m closest to the shoreline plants tended to flower, relative to populations located further from the shore. Our findings suggested that the environment and plant response in the shoreward 10 m can re-establish relatively quickly.

Keywords

Environmental gradients Intraspecific variation Phenotypic plasticity Coastal sand dunes Sand accretion and erosion Salinity Nutrients Uniola paniculata 

References

  1. Barbour, M.G. 1978. Salt spray as a microenvironmental factor in the distribution of beach plants at Point Reyes, California. Oecologia 32: 213–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barbour, M.G., T.M. DeJong, et al. 1976. Synecology of beach vegetation along the Pacific Coast of the United States of America: A first approximation. Journal of Biogeography 3: 55–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barbour, M.G., T.M. DeJong, et al. 1985. Marine beach and dune plant communities. In Physiological ecology of North American plant communities, ed. B.F. Chabot and H.A. Mooney. New York: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
  4. Barbour, M.G., M. Rejmanek, et al. 1987. Beach vegetation and plant distribution patterns along the northern Gulf of Mexico. Phytocoenologia 15(2): 201–233.Google Scholar
  5. Barbour, M.G., J.H. Burk, et al. (eds.). 1999. Terrestrial plant ecology. Menlo Park: Benjamin Cummings.Google Scholar
  6. Boyce, S.G. 1954. The salt spray community. Ecological Monographs 24(1): 29–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown, J.F. 1997. Effects of experimental burial on survival, growth, and resource allocation of three species of dune plants. Journal of Ecology 85: 151–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cheplick, G.P., and H. Demetri. 1999. Impact of saltwater spray and sand deposition on the coastal annual Triplasis purpurea (Poaceae). American Journal of Botany 86: 703–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clements, F.E. 1904. Plant succession, 242. Washington: An analysis of the development of vegetation. Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication.Google Scholar
  10. Cowles, H.C. 1899. The ecological relations of the vegetation of the sand dunes of Lake Michigan. Botanical Gazette 27: 95–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dech, J.P., and M.A. Maun. 2005. Zonation of vegetation along a burial gradient on the leeward slopes of Lake Huron sand dunes. Canadian Journal of Botany 83: 227–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dilustro, J.J., and F.P. Day. 1997. Aboveground biomass and net primary production along a Virginia barrier island dune chronosequence. American Midland Naturalist 137(1): 27–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Doing, H. 1985. Coastal fore-dune zonation and succession in various parts of the world. Vegetatio 61(1): 65–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Donovan, L.A., J.H. Richards, et al. 1997. Nutrient relations of the halophytic shrub, Sarcobatus vermiculatus, along a soil salinity gradient. Plant and Soil 190: 105–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dubois, S.J. 1977. Comparative ecophysiology of C 3 and C 4 sand dune plant species of the Georgia coast, 53. Athens: Department of Botany, University of Georgia.Google Scholar
  16. Franks, S.J. 2003. Burial disturbance leads to facilitation among coastal dune plants. Plant Ecology 168: 13–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Franks, S.J., C.L. Richards, et al. 2004. Multi-scale genetic analysis of Uniola paniculata (Poaceae): A coastal species with a linear, fragmented distribution. American Journal of Botany 91(9): 1345–1351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Griffiths, M.E. 2006. Salt spray and edaphic factors maintain dwarf stature and community composition in coastal sandplain heathlands. Plant Ecology 186: 69–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Habte, M., and M. Soedarjo. 1995. Limitation of vesicular arbuscular mycorrhizal activity in Leucaena leucocephala by Ca insufficiency in an acid Mn rich oxisol. Mycorrhiza 5: 387–394.Google Scholar
  20. Haines, B.L., and E.L. Dunn. 1985. Coastal marshes. In Physiological ecology of North American plant communities, ed. B.F. Chabot and H.A. Mooney. New York: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
  21. Houle, G. 1997. Interactions between resources and abiotic conditions control plant performance on subartic coastal dunes. American Journal of Botany 84(12): 1729–1737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Houle, G. 2002. Trade-off between growth ability and stress tolerance in Leymus mollis (Poaceae) along a subarctic coastal dune sequence in northern Quebec. Canadian Journal of Botany 80: 869–874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Johnson, A.F., and M.G. Barbour. 1990. Dunes and maritime forests. In Ecosystems of Florida, ed. R.L. Myers and J.J. Ewel. Orlando: University of Central Florida.Google Scholar
  24. Kawecki, T.J., and D. Ebert. 2004. Conceptual issues in local adaptation. Ecology Letters 7: 1225–1241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Knight, T.M., and T.E. Miller. 2004. Local adaptation within a population of Hydrocotyle bonariensis. Evolutionary Ecology Research 6: 103–114.Google Scholar
  26. Lambers, H., F.S.C. III, et al. 1998. Plant physiological ecology. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  27. Lane, C., S.J. Wright, et al. 2008. Characterizing environmental gradients and their influence on vegetation zonation in a subtropical coastal sand dune system. Journal of Coastal Research 24(4C): 213–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Larcher, W. 2003. Physiological plant ecology. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  29. Lee, J.A., and R. Ignaciuk. 1985. The physiological ecology of strandline plants. Vegetatio 62: 319–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lortie, C.J., and J.H. Cushman. 2007. Effects of a directional abiotic gradient on plant community dynamics and invasion in a coastal dune system. Journal of Ecology 95(3): 468–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lubke, R.A. 1983. A survey of the coastal vegetation near Port Alfred, eastern Cape. Bothalia 14(3 & 4): 725–738.Google Scholar
  32. Marschner, H. 2002. Mineral nutrition of higher plants. San Diego: Elsevier Academic.Google Scholar
  33. Martinez, M.L., and P. Moreno-Casasola. 1996. Effects of burial by sand on seedling growth and survival in six tropical sand dune species from the Gulf of Mexico. Journal of Coastal Research 12(2): 406–419.Google Scholar
  34. Martinez, M.L., G. Vazquez, et al. 2001. Spatial and temporal variability during primary succession on tropical coastal sand dunes. Journal of Vegetation Science 12: 361–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Maun, M.A., and J. LaPierre. 1984. The effects of burial by sand on Ammophila breviligulata. Journal of Ecology 72: 827–839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Maun, M.A., and J. Perumal. 1999. Zonation of vegetation on lacustrine coastal dunes: Effects of burial by sand. Ecology Letters 2: 14–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Moreno-Casasola, P. 1986. Sand movement as a factor in the distribution of plant communities in a coastal dune system. Vegetatio 65: 67–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Moreno-Casasola, P. 1988. Patterns of plant species distributions on coastal dunes along the Gulf of Mexico. Journal of Biogeography 15: 787–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Moreno-Casasola, P., and I. Espejel. 1986. Classification and ordination of coastal sand dune vegetation along the Gulf and Caribbean Sea of Mexico. Vegetatio 66: 147–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Olff, H., J. Huisman, et al. 1993. Species dynamics and nutrient accumulation during early primary succession in coastal sand dunes. Journal of Ecology 81: 693–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Oosting, H.J., and W.D. Billings. 1942. Factors affecting vegetational zonation on coastal dunes. Ecology 23: 131–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Orr, M., M. Zimmer, et al. 2005. Wrack deposition on different beach types: Spatial and temporal variation in the pattern of subsidy. Ecology 86(6): 1496–1507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Owen, N.W., M. Kent, et al. 2004. Plant species and community responses to sand burial on the machair of the Outer Hebrides, Scotland. Journal of Vegetation Science 15: 669–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pemadasa, M.A., and P.H. Lovell. 1974. The mineral nutrition of some dune annuals. Journal of Ecology 62(1): 647–657.Google Scholar
  45. Perumal, V.J., and M.A. Maun. 2006. Ecophysiological response of dune species to experimental burial under field and controlled conditions. Plant Ecology 184: 89–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pywell, R.F., J.M. Bullock, et al. 2003. Plant traits as predictors of performance in ecological restoration. Journal of Applied Ecology 40(1): 65–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Richards, C.L., S.N. White, et al. 2010. Plasticity, not adaptation to salt level, explains variation along a salinity gradient in a salt marsh perennial. Estuaries and Coasts. doi:10.1007/s12237-009-9186-4.Google Scholar
  48. Robertson, G.P., D.C. Coleman, et al. (eds.). 1999. Standard soil methods for long-term ecological research. Long-term ecological research network series. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Seliskar, D.M. 1994. The effect of accelerated sand accretion on growth, carbohydrate reserves, and ethylene production in Ammophila breviligulata (Poaceae). American Journal of Botany 81(5): 536–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Smith, R.L., and T.M. Smith. 2001. Ecology and field biology. New York: Benjamin Cummings.Google Scholar
  51. Stallins, J.A., and A.J. Parker. 2003. The influence of complex systems interactions on barrier island dune vegetation pattern and process. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 93(1): 13–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sykes, M.T., and J.B. Wilson. 1988. An experimental investigation into the response of some New Zealand sand dune species to salt spray. Annals of Botany 62: 159–166.Google Scholar
  53. van der Valk, A.G. 1974a. Environmental factors controlling the distribution of forbs on coastal foredunes in Cape Hatteras National Seashore. Canadian Journal of Botany 52: 1057–1073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. van der Valk, A.G. 1974b. Mineral cycling in coastal foredune plant communities in Cape Hatteras National Seashore. Ecology 55: 1349–1358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wagner, R.H. 1964. The ecology of Uniola paniculata L. in the dune-strand habitat of North Carolina. Ecological Monographs 34: 79–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wikelski, M., and S.J. Cooke. 2006. Conservation physiology. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 21(2): 38–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Willis, A.J. 1963. Braunton Burrows: The effects on the vegetation of the addition of mineral nutrients to the dune soils. Journal of Ecology 51: 353–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wilson, J.B., and M.T. Sykes. 1999. Is zonation on coastal sand dunes determined primarily by sand burial or by salt spray? A test in New Zealand dunes. Ecology Letters 2: 233–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zhang, J., and M.A. Maun. 1992. Effects of burial in sand on the growth and reproduction of Cakile edentula. Ecography 15(3): 296–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Plant BiologyUniversity of GeorgiaAthensUSA

Personalised recommendations