Advertisement

Estuaries and Coasts

, Volume 41, Issue 5, pp 1370–1380 | Cite as

Characterizing the Pathway and Rate of Salt Marsh Vegetation Dynamics: a Multivariate Approach

  • Daehyun Kim
Article

Abstract

The ability of plants to enhance sedimentation is a critical factor in modeling the evolution and fate of salt marshes under future scenarios of climate change. Most eco-geomorphic models have been developed based on the changing biomass of a single species (e.g., Spartina alterniflora) through time; therefore, it still remains a challenge to predict how a vegetation cover consisting of multiple species will change through interspecific competition and facilitation under sea-level variations. In a temperate marsh of the Danish Wadden Sea, the plant species composition across a total of 402 quadrats (1 m2) was compared between 2006 and 2012 using multivariate ordination techniques. At low-elevation sites (< 0.8 m Danish Ordnance Zero), where many stress-tolerant species coexisted in 2006, the direction of vegetation changes was dominantly progressive, indicating decreases in stress-tolerant plants and increases in high-marsh competitors over the 6-year study interval. In contrast, whenever the competitive shrubby species Atriplex portulacoides was dominant in 2006 (> 80% relative proportion), the rate of vegetation change was nearly zero, due to little encroachment of other species into this already stable, dense matrix. These discussions imply that the direction and rate of multi-species interactions can be predicted by the initial environmental (i.e., marsh surface elevation, soil bulk density, distance from tidal creek) and biological conditions (i.e., plant species richness and abundance). Based on these findings, it is proposed that the evolution of salt marshes will be better understood by more explicit incorporation of multi-species interactions into future eco-geomorphic modeling efforts.

Keywords

Ordination Community structure Habitat condition Salt marsh evolution Skallingen 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The logistical support from Jesper Bartholdy in the Skallingen field station is greatly appreciated.

Funding Information

Financial support was provided by (1) the National Science Foundation (#0825753) of the USA, (2) the National Research Foundation of South Korea (NRF-2017R1C1B5076922), (3) the Research Resettlement Fund for the new faculty of Seoul National University, and (4) the 4-Zero Land Space Creation of the Ministry of Education and the NRF (#1345258304).

References

  1. Aagaard, T., N. Nielsen, and J. Nielsen. 1995. Skallingen—origin and evolution of a barrier spit, 35. Copenhagen: Meddelelser fra Skalling-Laboratoriet Bind.Google Scholar
  2. Adam, P. 1990. Saltmarsh ecology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511565328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Austin, M.P. 2013. Inconsistencies between theory and methodology: A recurrent problem in ordination studies. Journal of Vegetation Science 24 (2): 251–268.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1654-1103.2012.01467.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bakker, J.P., J. de Leeuw, K.S. Dijkema, P.C. Leendertse, H.H.T. Prins, and J. Rozema. 1993. Salt marshes along the coast of the Netherlands. Hydrobiologia 265 (1-3): 73–95.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00007263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bakker, J.P., H. Olff, J.H. Willems, and M. Zobel. 1996. Why do we need permanent plots in the study of long-term vegetation dynamics? Journal of Vegetation Science 7 (2): 147–156.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3236314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bartholdy, J., C. Christiansen, and H. Kunzendorf. 2004. Long term variations in back-barrier salt marsh deposition on the Skallingen peninsulathe Danish Wadden Sea. Marine Geology 203 (1-2): 1–21.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0025-3227(03)00337-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beeftink, W.G. 1987. Vegetation responses to changes in tidal inundation of salt marshes. In Disturbance in grasslands, ed. J. van Andel, J.P. Bakker, and R.W. Snaydon, 97–117. Dordrecht: Dr. W. Junk Publishers.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-4055-0_7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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 of the United States of America 99 (3): 1395–1398.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.022447299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boorman, L.A., A. Garbutt, and D. Barrat. 1998. The role of vegetation in determining patterns of the accretion in salt marsh sediment. In Sedimentary processes in the intertidal zone, ed. K.S. Black, D.M. Paterson, and A. Cramp, 389–399. London: Geological Society.Google Scholar
  10. Borcard, D., P. Legendre, and P. Drapeau. 1992. Partialling out the spatial component of ecological variation. Ecology 73 (3): 1045–1055.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1940179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bouma, T.J., M.B. de Vries, E. Low, G. Peralta, I.C. Tánczos, J. van de Koppel, and P.M.J. Herman. 2005. Trade-offs related to ecosystem engineering: A case study on stiffness of emerging macrophytes. Ecology 86 (8): 2187–2199.  https://doi.org/10.1890/04-1588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clarke, K.R. 1993. Non-parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure. Australian Journal of Ecology 18 (1): 117–143.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-9993.1993.tb00438.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Collins, S.L., S.M. Glenn, and D.J. Gibson. 1995. Experimental analysis of intermediate disturbance and initial floristic composition: Decoupling cause and effect. Ecology 76 (2): 486–492.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1941207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. D’Alpaos, A., S. Lanzoni, M. Marani, and A. Rinaldo. 2007. Landscape evolution in tidal embayments: Modeling the interplay of erosion, sedimentation, and vegetation dynamics. Journal of Geophysical Research 112 (F1): F01008.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JF000537.Google Scholar
  15. Davy, A.J., M.J.H. Brown, H.L. Mossman, and A. Grant. 2011. Colonization of a newly developing salt marsh: Disentangling independent effects of elevation and redox potential on halophytes. Journal of Ecology 99 (6): 1350–1357.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2011.01870.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Diamond, J.M. 1975. Assembly of species communities. In Ecology and evolution of communities, ed. M.L. Cody and J.M. Diamond, 342–444. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Dufrêne, M., and P. Legendre. 1997. Species assemblages and indicator species: The need for a flexible asymmetrical approach. Ecological Monographs 67: 345–366.Google Scholar
  18. Fagherazzi, S., M.L. Kirwan, S.M. Mudd, G.R. Guntenspergen, S. Temmerman, A. D’Alpaos, J. van de Koppel, J.M. Rybczyk, E. Reyes, C. Craft, and J. Clough. 2012. Numerical models of salt marsh evolution: Ecological, geomorphic, and climatic factors. Reviews of Geophysics 50:RG1002.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2011RG000359.
  19. Feagin, R.A., M.L. Martinez, G. Mendoza-Gonzalez, and R. Costanza. 2010. Salt marsh zonal migration and ecosystem service change in response to global sea level rise: A case study from an urban region. Ecology and Society 15: 14. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art14/.  https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03724-150414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. French, J.R., and T. Spencer. 1993. Dynamics of sedimentation in a tide-dominated backbarrier salt marsh, Norfolk, UK. Marine Geology 110 (3-4): 315–331.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0025-3227(93)90091-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fukami, T., T.M. Bezemer, S.R. Mortimer, and W.H. van der Putten. 2005. Species divergence and trait convergence in experimental plant community assembly. Ecology Letters 8 (12): 1283–1290.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00829.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Inouye, R., and D. Tilman. 1995. Convergence and divergence of old-field vegetation after 11 yr of nitrogen addition. Ecology 76 (6): 1872–1887.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1940720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kim, D. 2012. Biogeomorphic feedbacks drive dynamics of vegetation–landform complex in a coastal riparian system. Ecosphere 3 (8): 74.  https://doi.org/10.1890/ES12-00028.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kim, D. 2013. Incorporation of multi-scale spatial autocorrelation in soil moisture–landscape modeling. Physical Geography 34: 441–455.Google Scholar
  25. Kim, D. 2014. Rates of vegetation dynamics along elevation gradients in a backbarrier salt marsh of the Danish Wadden Sea. Estuaries and Coasts 37 (3): 610–620.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-013-9697-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kim, D., and Y.H. Shin. 2016. Spatial autocorrelation potentially indicates the degree of changes in the predictive power of environmental factors for plant diversity. Ecological Indicators 60: 1130–1141.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.09.021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kim, D., D.M. Cairns, and J. Bartholdy. 2010. Environmental controls on multiscale spatial pattern of salt marsh vegetation. Physical Geography 31 (1): 58–78.  https://doi.org/10.2747/0272-3646.31.1.58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kim, D., D.M. Cairns, and J. Bartholdy. 2011. Wind-driven sea-level variation influences dynamics of salt marsh vegetation. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 101 (2): 231–248.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2010.544933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kim, D., D.M. Cairns, J. Bartholdy, and C.L.S. Morgan. 2012. Scale-dependent correspondence of floristic and edaphic gradients across salt marsh creeks. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 102 (2): 276–294.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2011.620520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kim, D., D.M. Cairns, and J. Bartholdy. 2013. Tidal creek morphology and sediment type influence spatial trends in salt marsh vegetation. The Professional Geographer 65 (4): 544–560.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00330124.2013.820617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kirwan, M.L., and A.B. Murray. 2007. A coupled geomorphic and ecological model of tidal marsh evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104 (15): 6118–6122.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0700958104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kirwan, M.L., G.R. Guntenspergen, A. D'Alpaos, J.T. Morris, S.M. Mudd, and S. Temmerman. 2010. Limits on the adaptability of coastal marshes to rising sea level. Geophysical Research Letters 37 (23): L23401.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GL045489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Langlois, E., A. Bonis, and J.B. Bouzillé. 2003. Sediment and plant dynamics in saltmarshes pioneer zone: Puccinellia maritima as a key species? Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 56 (2): 239–249.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7714(02)00185-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Leendertse, P.C., A.J.M. Roozen, and J. Rozema. 1997. Long-term changes (1953-1990) in the salt marsh vegetation at the Boschplaat on Terschelling in relation to sedimentation and flooding. Plant Ecology 132 (1): 49–58.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009795002076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Li, H., and S.L. Yang. 2009. Trapping effect of tidal marsh vegetation on suspended sediment, Yangtze Delta. Journal of Coastal Research 25: 915–924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mather, P.M. 1976. Computational methods of multivariate analysis in physical geography. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc..Google Scholar
  37. McCune, B., and J.B. Grace. 2002. Analysis of ecological communities. Oregon: MjM Software Design.Google Scholar
  38. Meehl, G.A., T.F. Stocker, W. Collins, P. Friedlingstein, A. Gaye, J. Gregory, A. Kitoh, R. Knutti, J. Murphy, A. Noda, S. Raper, I. Watterson, A. Weaver, and Z.-C. Zhao. 2007. Global climate projections. Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. In Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ed. S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H.L. Miller, 747–845. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Morris, J.T., P.V. Sundareshwar, C.T. Nietch, B. Kjerfve, and D.R. Cahoon. 2002. Responses of coastal wetlands to rising sea level. Ecology 83 (10): 2869–2877. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083[2869:ROCWTR]2.0.CO;2.Google Scholar
  40. Morzaria-Luna, H., 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 14: 523–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mossman, H.L., A.J. Davy, and A. Grant. 2012. Quantifying local variation in tidal regime using depth-logging fish tags. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 96: 122–128.Google Scholar
  42. Mudd, S.M., S. Fagherazzi, J.T. Morris, and D.J. Furbish. 2004. Flow, sedimentation, and biomass production on a vegetated salt marsh in South Carolina: Toward a predictive model of marsh morphologic and ecologic evolution. In The ecogeomorphology of salt marshes, ed. S. Fagherazzi, M. Marani, and L.K. Blum, vol. 59, 165–188. Washington D.C.: AGU, Coastal and Estuarine Studies.Google Scholar
  43. Økland, R.H. 1986. Reseating of ecological gradients. III. The effect of scale on niche breadth measurements. Nordic Journal of Botany 6: 671–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Orlóci, L. 1967. Data centering: A review and evaluation with reference to component analysis. Systematic Zoology 16 (3): 208–212.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2412067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Palmer, M.W. 1993. Putting things in even better order: The advantages of canonical correspondence analysis. Ecology 74 (8): 2215–2230.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1939575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pennings, S.C., and R.M. Callaway. 1992. Salt marsh plant zonation: The relative importance of competition and physical factors. Ecology 73 (2): 681–690.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1940774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Peres-Neto, P.R., P. Legendre, S. Dray, and D. Borcard. 2006. Variation partitioning of species data matrices: Estimation and comparison of fractions. Ecology 87 (10): 2614–2625. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2006)87[2614:VPOSDM]2.0.CO;2.Google Scholar
  48. Pielou, E.C. 1984. The interpretation of ecological data: A primer on classification and ordination. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  49. Rangel, T.F., J.A.F. Diniz, and L.M. Bini. 2010. SAM: A comprehensive application for spatial analysis in macroecology. Ecography 33 (1): 46–50.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2009.06299.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Reed, D.J. 1995. The response of coastal marshes to sea-level rise: Survival or submergence? Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 20 (1): 39–48.  https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.3290200105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rupprecht, F., A. Wanner, M. Stock, and K. Jensen. 2015. Succession in salt marsheslarge-scale and long-term patterns after abandonment of grazing and drainage. Applied Vegetation Science 18 (1): 86–98.  https://doi.org/10.1111/avsc.12126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rydin, H., and S.O. Borgegård. 1988. Primary succession over sixty years on hundred-year old islets in Lake Hjälmaren, Sweden. Plant Ecology 77 (1-3): 159–168.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00045761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Samuels, C.L., and J.A. Drake. 1997. Divergent perspectives on community divergence. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 12 (11): 427–432.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(97)01182-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schmitt, C., N. Weston, and C. Hopkinson. 1998. Preliminary evaluation of sedimentation rates and species distribution in Plum Island Estuary, Massachusetts. Biological Bulletin 195 (2): 232–233.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1542855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sokal, R.R., and F.J. Rohlf. 1995. Biometry: The principles and practice of statistics in biological research. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
  56. Suchrow, S., and K. Jensen. 2010. Plant species responses to an elevational gradient in German North Sea salt marshes. Wetlands 30 (4): 735–746.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-010-0073-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. ter Braak, C.J.F., and I.C. Prentice. 1988. A theory of gradient analysis. Advances in Ecological Research 18: 271–317.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2504(08)60183-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tind, K. 2003. Danmarks flora. Copenhagen: Gyldendal.Google Scholar
  59. Vélez-Martín, A., A.J. Davy, C.J. Luque, and E.M. Castellanos. 2018. Reference conditions for restoration of heterogeneous Mediterranean wetland are best defined by multiple, hydrologically diverse sites. Restoration Ecology 26:145–155..  https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12549.
  60. Warren, R.S., and W.A. Niering. 1993. Vegetation change on a northeast tidal marsh: Interaction of sea-level rise and marsh accretion. Ecology 74 (1): 96–103.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1939504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Westhoff, V. 1987. Salt marsh communities of three West Frisian Islands, with some notes on their long-term succession during half a century. In Vegetation between land and sea: Structure and processes, ed. A.H.L. Huiskes, C.W.P.M. Blom, and J. Rozema, 16–40. Dordrecht: Dr. W. Junk Publishers.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-4065-9_3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wilson, J.B. 1999. Assembly rules in plant communities. In Ecological assembly rules: Perspectives, advances, retreats, ed. E. Weiher and P.A. Keddy, 130–164. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511542237.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 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 (1): 19–35.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s100219900055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Biogeomorphology Research and Analysis Group, Department of GeographySeoul National UniversitySeoulSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations