Advertisement

Wetlands

, Volume 31, Issue 2, pp 309–318 | Cite as

Mapping Soil Pore Water Salinity of Tidal Marsh Habitats Using Electromagnetic Induction in Great Bay Estuary, USA

  • Gregg E. MooreEmail author
  • David M. Burdick
  • Chris R. Peter
  • Donald R. Keirstead
Article

Abstract

Electromagnetic induction was used to measure apparent conductivity of soil pore water within 15 oligohaline to polyhaline tidal marshes of the Great Bay Estuary in New Hampshire, USA. The instrument was linked to a differential global positioning system via a hand-held field computer to geo-reference data. Apparent conductivity was converted to salinity using a regression derived from field data, and mapped to illustrate spatial salinity gradients throughout the marshes. Plant communities occurring at the study sites included native low marsh, high marsh, and brackish tidal riverbank marsh, as well as communities dominated by native and non-native common reed, Phragmites australis. Results revealed mean salinity values were significantly different between each of the community categories sampled within the Estuary. Due to management concerns over expansion of Phragmites within the Estuary, we mapped the salinity range for this community and provided graphic and numerical estimates of potential Phragmites habitat based on salinity alone (26% of the total acreage surveyed). Electromagnetic induction is an efficient tool for rapid reconnaissance of apparent conductivity and salinity gradients in tidal marsh soils that can be superimposed on aerial imagery to estimate suitable habitat for restoration or invasive control based on salinity ranges.

Keywords

Apparent conductivity Management Phragmites australis Tidal marsh pools 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank James Doolittle of the United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service National Soil Survey Center for technical assistance with the EM38 instrument and for helpful comments on the manuscript, as well as Don Richard for technical support with modeling data output in GIS. We thank David Shay of Jackson Estuarine Laboratory for tireless field assistance, and four anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions to improve the manuscript. This work was supported by the United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (Federal Award # 721428–6A380) and the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department. Published as Scientific Contribution Number 501 from the Jackson Estuarine Laboratory and Center for Marine Biology at the University of New Hampshire.

References

  1. Adamowicz SC, Roman CT (2005) New England salt marsh pools: a quantitative analysis of geomorphic and geographic features. Wetlands 25:279–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baldwin AH, McKee KL, Mendelssohn IA (1996) The influence of vegetation, salinity, and inundation on seed banks of oligohaline costal marshes. American Journal of Botany 83:470–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bart D, Burdick D, Chambers R, Hartman JM (2006) Human facilitation of Phragmites australis invasions in tidal marshes: a review and synthesis. Wetlands Ecology and Management 14:53–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bork EW, West NE, Doolittle JA, Boettinger JL (1998) Soil depth assessment of sagebrush grazing treatments using electromagnetic induction. Journal of Range Management 51:469–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bradley PM, Morris JT (1991) The influence of salinity on the kinetics of NH4+ uptake in Spartina alterniflora. Oecology 85:375–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brevik EC, Fenton TE, Horton R (2004) Effect of daily soil temperature fluctuations on soil electrical conductivity as measured with the Geonics(R) EM-38. Precision Agriculture 5:145–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Broome SW, Mendelssohn IA, McKee KL (1995) Relative growth of Spartina patens (Ait.) Muhl. and Scirpus olneyi Gray occurring in a mixed stand as affected by salinity and flooding depth. Wetlands 15:20–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burdick DM, Dionne M, Boumans RM, Short FT (1997) Ecological responses to tidal restorations of two northern New England salt marshes. Wetlands Ecology and Management 4:129–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burdick DM, Buschbaum R, Holt E (2001) Variation in soil salinity associated with expansion of Phragmites australis in salt marshes. Environmental and Experimental Botany 46:247–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chambers RM (1997) Porewater chemistry associated with Phragmites and Spartina in a Connecticut tidal marsh. Wetlands 17:360–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chambers RM, Mozdzer TJ, Ambrose JC (1998) Effects of salinity and sulfide on the distribution of Phragmites australis and Spartina alterniflora in a tidal saltmarsh. Aquatic Botany 62:161–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chambers RM, Ozgood DT, Bart DJ, Montalto F (2002) Phragmites australis invasion and expansion in tidal wetlands: Interactions among salinity, sulfide, and hydrology. Estuaries 26:298–406Google Scholar
  13. Cook PG, Walker GR (1992) Depth profiles of electrical conductivity from linear combinations of electromagnetic induction measurements. Soil Science Society of America Journal 56:1015–1022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Corwin DL, Lesch SM (2005) Apparent soil electrical conductivity measurements in agriculture. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 46:11–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Diaz L, Herrero J (1992) Salinity estimates in irrigated soils using electromagnetic induction. Soil Science 154:151–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Doolittle J, Petersen M, Wheeler T (2001) Comparison of two electromagnetic induction tools in salinity appraisals. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 56:257–262Google Scholar
  17. ESRI (Environmental Systems Resource Institute) (2009) ArcMap 9.3. ESRI, RedlandsGoogle Scholar
  18. Geonics Limited (2005) DAT38W software for field computer Allegro CX Field PC, Version 1.00. Mississauga, Ontario, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  19. Geonics Limited (2006) EM38 ground conductivity meter operating manual. Mississauga, Ontario, Canada, p 33Google Scholar
  20. Greenhouse JD, Slaine DD (1983) The use of reconnaissance electromagnetic methods to map contaminant migration. Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation 3:47–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hanson BR, Kaita K (1997) Response of electromagnetic conductivity meter to soil salinity and soil-water content. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering 123:141–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hendrickx JMH, Borchers B, Corwin DL, Lesch SM, Hilgendorf AC, Schlue K (2002) Inversion of soil conductivity profiles from electromagnetic induction measurements: theory and experimental verification. Soil Sciences Society of America Journal 66:673–686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lissner J, Schierup HH (1997) Effects of salinity on the growth of Phragmites australis. Aquatic Botany 55:247–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mitsch WJ, Gosselink JG (2007) Wetlands, 4th edn. Wiley, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  25. Morris ER (2009) Height-above-ground effects on penetration depth and response of electromagnetic induction soil conductivity meters. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 68:150–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Morris JT, Mendelssohn IA (2000) Eco-physiological controls on the productivity of Spartina alterniflora Loisel. In: Weinstien MP, Kreeger DA (eds) Concepts and controversies in tidal marsh ecology. Kluwer Academic Publishers, New York, pp 59–80Google Scholar
  27. Neckles H, Dionne M, Burdick D, Roman C, Buchsbaum R, Hutchins E (2002) A monitoring protocol to assess tidal restoration of salt marshes on local and regional scales. Restoration Ecology 10:556–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Niedowski NL (2000) New York State salt marsh restoration and monitoring guidelines. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, East Setauket, p 137Google Scholar
  29. Nogues J, Robinson DA, Herrero J (2006) Incorporating electromagnetic induction methods into regional soil salinity survey of irrigation districts. Soil Science Society of America Journal 70:2075–2085CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Odell J, Eberhardt A, Burdick D, Ingraham P (2006) Great Bay Estuary restoration compendium. Report to the New Hampshire Coastal Program and the New Hampshire Estuaries ProjectGoogle Scholar
  31. Odum WE (1988) Comparative ecology of tidal freshwater and salt marshes. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 19:147–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Paine JG, White WA, Smyth RC, Andrews JR, Gibeaut JC (2004) Mapping coastal environments with lidar and EM on Mustang Island, Texas, U.S. The Leading Edge Summer: 894–898Google Scholar
  33. PERL (Pacific Estuarine Research Laboratory) (1990) A manual for assessing restored and natural coastal wetlands with examples from southern California. California Sea Grant Report No. T-CSGCP-021. La Jolla, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  34. Portnoy JW, Valiela I (1997) Short-term effects of salinity reduction and drainage on salt-marsh biogeochemical cycling and Spartina (cordgrass) production. Estuaries 20:569–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Reedy RC, Scanlon BR (2003) Soil water content monitoring using electromagnetic induction. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 129:1028–1039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rhoades JD (1993) Electromagnetic induction methods for measuring and mapping soil salinity. Advances in Agronomy 49:201–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rhoades JD, Corwin DL (1981) Determining soil electrical conductivity-Depth relations using an inductive electromagnetic soil conductivity meter. Soil Science Society of America Journal 45:255–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rhoades JD, Lesch SM, Shouse PJ, Alves WJ (1989) New calibrations for determining soil electrical conductivity-Depth relations from electromagnetic measurements. Soil Science Society of America Journal 53:74–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Saltonstall K, Peterson PM, Soreng R (2004) Recognition of Phragmites australis subsp. americanus (Poaceae: Arundinaceae) in North America: evidence from morphological and genetic analyses. SIDA 21:683–692Google Scholar
  40. Schultz G, Ruppel C (2005) Inversion of inductive electromagnetic data in high induction number terrains. Geophysics 70:G16–G28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schultz G, Ruppel C, Fulton P (2007) Integrating hydrologic and geophysical data to constrain coastal surficial aquifer processes at multiple spatial and temporal scales. In: Hyndman DW, Day-Lewis FD, Singha K (eds) Subsurface hydrology: data integration for properties and processes. American Geophysical Union, Geophysical Monograph Series 171:161–182Google Scholar
  42. Sheets KR, Taylor JP, Hendrickx JMH (1994) Rapid salinity mapping by electromagnetic induction for determining riparian restoration potential. Restoration Ecology 2:242–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Slavish PG (1990) Determining ECa depth profiles from electromagnetic induction measurements. Australian Journal of Soil Research 28:443–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Slavish PG, Petterson GH (1990) Estimating average root zone salinity from electromagnetic induction (EM 38) measurements. Australian Journal of Soil Research 28:453–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sperduto DD, Nichols WF (2004) Natural Communities of New Hampshire. NH Natural Heritage Bureau, Concord, NH. Pub. UNH Cooperative Extension, Durham, NHGoogle Scholar
  46. Triantafilis J, Laslett GM, McBratney AB (2000) Calibrating and electromagnetic induction instrument to measure salinity in soil under irrigated cotton. Soil Science Society of America Journal 64:1009–1017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wijte ABH, Gallagher J (1996) Effects of oxygen availability and salinity on early life history stages of salt marsh plants. II. Early seedling development advantage of Spartina alterniflora and Phragmites australis (Poaceae). American Journal of Botany 83:1343–1350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Williams BG, Baker GC (1982) An electromagnetic induction technique for reconnaissance surveys of soil salinity hazards. Australian Journal of Soil Research 20:107–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wittler JM, Cardon GE, Gates TK, Cooper CA, Sutherland PL (2006) Calibration of electromagnetic induction for regional assessment of soil water salinity in an irrigated valley. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering 132:436–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Wetland Scientists 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gregg E. Moore
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • David M. Burdick
    • 1
    • 3
  • Chris R. Peter
    • 1
  • Donald R. Keirstead
    • 4
  1. 1.Jackson Estuarine LaboratoryUniversity of New HampshireDurhamUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biological SciencesDurhamUSA
  3. 3.Department of Natural Resources and the EnvironmentDurhamUSA
  4. 4.United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation ServiceDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations