Plant Ecology

, Volume 131, Issue 2, pp 199–206 | Cite as

Plants as indicators of wetland water source

  • S. C. Goslee
  • R. P. Brooks
  • C. A. Cole


At the local scale, plant species distribution is determined primarily by the environmental characteristics of a site. In a wetland, water chemistry and hydroperiod are two of the most important of these environmental characteristics. Both are functions of water source. In central Pennsylvania, groundwater input tends to be continuous, while surface water may be permanent or seasonal. The chemistry of groundwater and surface water differs since groundwater is influenced by the substrate through which it flows. Because of these differences, and because of their effects on plant species distribution, it is possible to use vegetation as an indicator of the dominant water source of a site. Plots within 28 wetlands in central Pennsylvania were sampled, and the plots were classified by water source. The three hydrologic categories were groundwater, seasonal surface water, and permanent surface water. The core of the study was the analysis of half of the plots to identify species that were associated with a particular water source. Several groups of indicator species were identified. Some species, including Nyssa sylvatica, were strongly associated with the presence of groundwater. Others, such as Symplocarpus foetidus, were strongly associated with the presence of seasonal surface water. Several aquatic species were associated with permanent surface water. The remainder of the plots were used to test the predictive ability of the indicator species identified. The vegetation of a wetland plot predicted its hydrologic category with 72% accuracy. The identification of more indicator species could lead to the development of a useful tool for wetland research and management, since monitoring hydrology is often both expensive and time-consuming.

Groundwater Hydrology Indicator species Pennsylvania Surface water 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Billings, W. D. 1952 The environmental complex in relation to plant growth and distribution. Quarterly Review of Biology 27: 251–265.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bridgham, S. D., Pastor J. Janssens J. A., Chapin C. & Malterer T. J. 1996 Multiple limiting gradients in peatlands: a call for a new paradigm. Wetlands 16: 45–65.Google Scholar
  3. Brinson, M. M. 1993 Changes in the functioning of wetlands along environmental gradients. Wetlands 13: 65–74.Google Scholar
  4. Brooks, R. P., Cole C. A., Bishel L., Wardrop D. H., Prosser D. J., Arnold D. E. & Petersen G. W. 1995 Evaluating and implement-ing watershed approaches for protecting Pennsylvania's wetlands. Final Report, 1995 Volume I. Penn State Cooperative Wetland Center Report No. 5, Environmental Resources Research Insti-tute, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.Google Scholar
  5. Brooks, R. P., Cole C. A., Bishel-Machung L., Wardrop D. H., Pross-er D. J., Campbell D. A. & Gaudette M. T., 1996 Evaluating and implementing watershed approaches for protecting Pennsylvani-a's wetlands. Final Report for the Project. Penn State Cooperative Wetland Center Report No. 96–2, Forest Resources Laboratory, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.Google Scholar
  6. Carter, V. 1986 An overview of the hydrologic concerns related to wetlands in the United States. Can. J. Bot. 64: 364–374.Google Scholar
  7. Clements, F. E. 1928 Plant succession and indicators: A definitive edition of plant succession and plant indicators. H. W. Wilson Company, New York.Google Scholar
  8. Gleason, H. A. & Cronquist A. 1991 Manual of vascular plants of the Northeastern United States and adjacent Canada. New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, New York.Google Scholar
  9. Glaser, P. H., Janssens J. A. & Siegel D. I., 1996 The response of vegetation to chemical and hydrologic gradients in the Lost River peatland, northern Minnesota. J. Ecol. 78: 1021–1048Google Scholar
  10. Glaser, P. H., Wheeler G. E., Gorham E. & Wright H. E. Jr. 1981 The patterned mires of the Red Lake peatland, northern Minnesota: vegetation, water chemistry and landforms. J. Ecol. 69: 575–595.Google Scholar
  11. Goslee, S. C. 1994 Plant indicators of wetland hydrology in Central Pennsylvania. M.S. thesis, Pennsylvania State University, Uni-versity Park, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  12. Grootjans, A. P., van Diggelen R., Wassen M. J. & Wiersirga W. A., 1988 The effects of drainage on groundwater quality and plant species distribution in stream valley meadows. Vegetatio 75: 37–48Google Scholar
  13. Hanks, J. P. 1985 Plant communities and ground-water levels in southern Nassau County, Long Island, New York. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 112: 79–86.Google Scholar
  14. Jeglum, J. K. 1971 Plant indicators of pHand water level in peatlands at Candle Lake, Saskatchewan. Can. J. Bot. 49: 1661–1676.Google Scholar
  15. Khudyakov, I. I. 1965 The vegetation cover as an indicator of the chemical composition and depth of groundwaters. Pp. 16–18. In: Chikichev A. G. (ed.), Plant indicators of soils, rocks and subsurface waters. Conference on indicator geobotany, Moscow, 1961Consultants Bureau, New York.Google Scholar
  16. Kooijman, A. M. & Bakker C., 1995 Species replacement in the bryophyte layer in mires: the role of water type, nutrient supply and interspecific interactions. J. Ecol 83: 1–8Google Scholar
  17. Malmer, N. 1986 Vegetational gradients in relation to environmental conditions in northeastern European mires. Can. J. Bot. 64: 375–385.Google Scholar
  18. Mitsch, W. J. & Gosselink J. G., 1993 Wetlands. Second Edition. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.Google Scholar
  19. Moyle, J. B. 1945 Some chemical factors influencing the distribution of aquatic plants in Minnesota. Am. Midland Nat. 34: 402–420.Google Scholar
  20. Novitski, R. 1979 An introduction to Wisconsin wetlands-plants, hydrology and soils. University of Wisconsin Extension, Geolo-gical and Natural History Survey Publication. Madison, Wiscon-sin.Google Scholar
  21. Novitski, R. P. 1989 Wetland hydrology. Pp. 47–64. In: Majumdar S. K., Brooks R. P., Brenner F. J. & Tiner R. W., Jr. (eds.) Wetlands ecology and conservation: Emphasis in Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Academy of Science, Easton, PA.Google Scholar
  22. Reed, P. B., Jr. 1988 National list of plant species that occur in wet-lands: 1988 Pennsylvania. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory.Google Scholar
  23. Sjors, H. 1950 On the relation between vegetation and electrolytes in north Swedish mire waters. Oikos 2: 241–257.Google Scholar
  24. Strahler, A. H. 1978 Binary discriminant analysis: A new method for investigating species-environment relationships. Ecology 59: 108–116.Google Scholar
  25. Tiner, R. W. 1993 The primary indicators method-a practical approach to wetland recognition and delineation in the United States. Wetlands 13: 50–64.Google Scholar
  26. Viktorov, S. V., Vostokova E. A. & Vyshkivin D. D. 1965 Some problems in the theory of geobotanical indicator research. Pp. 1–4. In: Chikichev A. G. (ed.), Plant indicators of soils, rocks and subsurface waters. Conference on indicator geobotany, Moscow, 1961 Consultants Bureau, New York.Google Scholar
  27. Vostokova, E. A. 1965 The present state of hydrologic indicator research. Pp. 5–10. In: Chikichev A. G. (ed.), Plant indicators of soils, rocks and subsurface waters. Conference on indicator geobotany, Moscow, 1961 Consultants Bureau, New York.Google Scholar
  28. Wassen, M. J., Barendreght A., Bootsma J. L. & Schot P. P., 1989 Groundwater chemistry and vegetation of gradients from rich fen to poor fen in the Naardermeer (the Netherlands). Vegetatio 79: 117–132.Google Scholar
  29. Wentworth, T. R., Johnson G. P. & Kologiski R. L., 1988 Desig-nation of wetlands by weighted averages of vegetation data: A preliminary evaluation. Water Res. Bull. 24: 389–396.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. C. Goslee
    • 1
  • R. P. Brooks
    • 1
  • C. A. Cole
    • 1
  1. 1.Penn State Cooperative Wetland Center, Forest Resources LaboratoryPennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA
  2. 2.Nicholas School of the EnvironmentDuke UniversityDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations