Wetlands Ecology and Management

, Volume 11, Issue 5, pp 291–303 | Cite as

Vegetation:environment relationships and water management in Shark Slough, Everglades National Park

  • M.S. Ross
  • D.L. Reed
  • J.P. Sah
  • P.L. Ruiz
  • M.T. Lewin


The hydrologic regime of Shark Slough, the most extensive long hydroperiod marsh in Everglades National Park, is largely controlled by the location, volume, and timing of water delivered to it through several control structures from Water Conservation Areas north of the Park. Where natural or anthropogenic barriers to water flow are present, water management practices in this highly regulated system may result in an uneven distribution of water in the marsh, which may impact regional vegetation patterns. In this paper, we use data from 569 sampling locations along five cross-Slough transects to examine regional vegetation distribution, and to test and describe the association of marsh vegetation with several hydrologic and edaphic parameters. Analysis of vegetation:environment relationships yielded estimates of both mean and variance in soil depth, as well as annual hydroperiod, mean water depth, and 30-day maximum water depth within each cover type during the 1990's. We found that rank abundances of the three major marsh cover types (Tall Sawgrass, Sparse Sawgrass, and Spikerush Marsh) were identical in all portions of Shark Slough, but regional trends in the relative abundance of individual communities were present. Analysis also indicated clear and consistent differences in the hydrologic regime of three marsh cover types, with hydroperiod and water depths increasing in the order Tall Sawgrass < Sparse Sawgrass < Spikerush Marsh. In contrast, soil depth decreased in the same order. Locally, these differences were quite subtle; within a management unit of Shark Slough, mean annual values for the two water depth parameters varied less than 15 cm among types, and hydroperiods varied by 65 days or less. More significantly, regional variation in hydrology equaled or exceeded the variation attributable to cover type within a small area. For instance, estimated hydroperiods for Tall Sawgrass in Northern Shark Slough were longer than for Spikerush Marsh in any of the other regions. Although some of this regional variation may reflect a natural gradient within the Slough, a large proportion is the result of compartmentalization due to current water management practices within the marsh. We conclude that hydroperiod or water depth are the most important influences on vegetation within management units, and attribute larger scale differences in vegetation pattern to the interactions among soil development, hydrology and fire regime in this pivotal portion of Everglades.

Bayhead swamps Hydrology Long hydroperiod wetlands Sawgrass marsh Soils South Florida Spikerush marsh Vegetation change 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Arabas K.B. 2000. Spatial and temporal relationships among fire frequency, vegetation, and soil depth in an eastern North Ameri-can serpentine barren. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society 127: 51–65.Google Scholar
  2. Brandt L.A., Portier K.M. and Kitchens W.M. 2000. Patterns of change in tree islands in Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee Nation-Georal Wildlife Refuge from 1950 to 1991. Wetlands 20: 1–14.Google Scholar
  3. Busch D.E., Loftus W.F. and Bass O.L. Jr 1998. Long-term hydro-comlogic effects on marsh plant community structure in the southern Everglades. Wetlands 18: 230–241.Google Scholar
  4. Carter V., Reel J.T., Rybicki N.B., Ruhl H.A., Gammon P.T. and Lee J.K. 1999. Vegetative Resistance to Flow in South Florida: Summary of Vegetation Sampling at Sites NESRS3 and P33, Shark River Slough, November, 1996. U. S. Geological Survey Open File Report OFR-99-218. U.S. Department of the Interior.Google Scholar
  5. Clarke K.R. 1993. Non-parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure. Australian Journal of Ecology 18: 117–143.Google Scholar
  6. Craft C.B. and Richardson C.J. 1993. Peat accretion and N, P, and organic C accumulation in nutrient-enriched and unenriched Everglades peatlands. Ecological Applications 3: 446–458.Google Scholar
  7. Craft C.B. and Richardson C.J. 1997. Relationships between soil nutrients and plant species composition in Everglades peatlands. Journal of Environmental Quality 26: 224–232.Google Scholar
  8. Craft C.B., Seneca E.D. and Broome S.W. 1993.Vertical accretion in microtidal regularly and irregularly flooded estuarine marshes. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 37: 371–386.Google Scholar
  9. Curnutt J.L., Mayer A.L., Brooks T.M., Manne L., Bass O.L. Jr, Fleming D.M. et al. 1998. Population dynamics of the en-dangered Cape Sable seaside-sparrow. Animal Conservation 1: 11–21.Google Scholar
  10. Daoust R.J. and Childers D.L. 1998. Quantifying aboveground biomass and estimating net aboveground primary production for wetland macrophytes using a non-destructive phenometric tech-Analynique. Aquatic Botany 62: 115–133.Google Scholar
  11. Davis S.M. 1991. Growth, decomposition, and nutrient retention of Cladium jamaicense Crantz and Typha domingensis Pers. in the Florida Everglades. Aquatic Botany 40: 203–224.Google Scholar
  12. Davis S.M., Gunderson L.H., Park W.A., Richardson J.R. and Matson J.E. 1994. Landscape dimension, composition, and func-tion in a changing Everglades ecosystem. In: Davis S.M. and Ogden J. (eds), Everglades: The Ecosystem and Its Restoration. St. Lucie Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA, pp. 419–444.Google Scholar
  13. Day J.W. Jr, Rybczyk J., Scarton F., Rismondo A., Are D. and Cecconi G. 1999. Soil accretionary dynamics, sea-level rise and the survival of wetlands inVenice Lagoon: a field and modelling approach. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 49: 607–628.Google Scholar
  14. Dolan T.J., Hermann A.J., Bayley S.E. and Zoltek J. Jr 1984. Evapotranspiration of a Florida, USA, freshwater wetland. Journal of Hydrology 74: 355–371.Google Scholar
  15. Doren R.F., Armentano T.V., Whiteaker L.D. and Jones R.D. 1997. Marsh vegetation patterns and soil phosphorus gradients in the Everglades ecosystem. Aquatic Botany 56: 145–163.Google Scholar
  16. Duever M.J., Carlson J.E., Meeder J.F., Dueverm L.C., Gunderson L.H., Riopelle L.A. et al. 1986. The Big Cypress National Preserve. National Audubon Society, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  17. Fourqurean J.W. and Robblee M.B. 1999. Florida Bay: a history of recent ecological changes. Estuaries 22: 345–357.Google Scholar
  18. Froehlich D.J. 1973. The Rock Reefs of the Everglades of South Florida, MS thesis, University of Miami, Miami, Florida, USA.Google Scholar
  19. German E.R. 2000. Regional Evaluation of Evapotranspiration in the Everglades. Report 00-4217. USGA Water-Resources In-vestigations, Tallahassee, Florida, USA.Google Scholar
  20. Godfrey R.K. and Wooten J.W. 1979. Aquatic and Wetland Plants of Southeastern United States: Monocotyledons. University of Georgia Press, Athens, USA, 712 pp.Google Scholar
  21. Godfrey R.K. and Wooten J.W. 1981. Aquatic and Wetland Plants of Southeastern United States: Dicotyledons. University of Georal gia Press, Athens, USA, 933 pp.Google Scholar
  22. Gunderson L.H. 1989. Historical hydropatterns in wetland comlogic munities in Everglades National Park. In: Sharitz R.R. and Gibbons J.W. (eds), Freshwater Wetlands and Wildlife. CONF 8603101, DOE Symposium Series No. 61., pp. 1099–1111.Google Scholar
  23. Hedman C.W. and Van Lear D.H. 1995. Vegetative structure and composition of Southern Appalachian riparian forests. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 122: 134–144.Google Scholar
  24. Herndon A., Gunderson L. and Stenberg J. 1991. Sawgrass (Cladium jamaicense) survival in a regime of fire and flooding. Wetlands 11: 17–27.Google Scholar
  25. Jongman R.H.G., ter Braak C.J.F. and van Tongeren O.F.R. 1995. Data Analysis in Community and Landscape Ecology. Cambridge University Press, UK, 299 pp.Google Scholar
  26. Legendre P., Vaudor A. and Casgrain P. 1996–99. The R Package 4.0. Departement de Sciences Biologiques, Universite de Montreal, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
  27. Leighty R.G. and Henderson J.R. 1958. Soil Survey (detailed-reconnaissance) of Dade County, Florida. Series 1947, No. 4. USDA Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  28. Light S.S. and Dineen J.W. 1994.Water control in the Everglades: a historical perspective. In: Davis S.M. and Ogden J.C. (eds), Everglades: The Ecosystem and Its Restoration. St. Lucie Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA, pp. 47–84.Google Scholar
  29. McCally D. 1999. The Everglades: An Environmental History. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA.Google Scholar
  30. McCune B. and Mefford M.J. 1999. PC-ORD. Multivariate Analynique. sis of Ecological Data, Version 4. MjM Software Design, Gleneden Beach, Oregon, USA.Google Scholar
  31. Mueller-Dombois D. and Ellenberg H. 1974. Aims and Methods of Vegetation Ecology. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, USA, 574 pp.Google Scholar
  32. Ogden J.C. 1994. A comparison of wading bird nesting colony dynamics (1931–1946 and 1974–1989) as an indication of ecosystem conditions in the southern Everglades. In: Davis S.M. and Ogden J.C. (eds), Everglades: The Ecosystem and Its Restoration. St. Lucie Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA, pp. 533–570.Google Scholar
  33. O'Hare N.K. and Dalrymple G.H. 1997. Wildlife in southern Everglades wetlands invaded by melaleuca (Melaleuca quinapproach. quenervia). Bulletin of the Florida Museum of Natural History 41: 1–68.Google Scholar
  34. Olmsted I. and Armentano T.V. 1997.Vegetation of Shark Slough, Everglades National Park. SFNRC Technical Report 97-001. South Florida Natural Resource Center, Everglades National Park, Homestead, Florida, USA.Google Scholar
  35. Peek J.M. 1970. Relation of canopy area and volume to production of three woody species. Ecology 51: 1098–1101.Google Scholar
  36. Powell G.V.N., Bjork R.D., Ogden J.C., Paul R.T., Powell A.H. and Robertson W.B. Jr 1989. Population trends in some Florida Bay wading birds. Wilson Bulletin 101: 436–457.Google Scholar
  37. Rejmankova E., Pope K.O., Post R. and Maltby E. 1996. Herbaceous wetlands of the Yucatan Peninsula: communities at extreme ends of environmental gradients. Int. Revue ges. Hydrobiol. 81: 223–252.Google Scholar
  38. Schmitz D.C. and Brown T.C. 1994. An Assessment of Invasive Non-Indigenous Species in Florida's Public Lands. Technical Report No. TSS-94-100. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, Florida, USA.Google Scholar
  39. USACE 1994. Central and Southern Florida Project Comprehen-sive Review Study. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District, Jacksonville, Florida, USA.Google Scholar
  40. Van Lent T., Snow R.W. and James F.E. 1999. An Examination of the ModifiedWater Deliveries Project, the C-111 Project, and the ExperimentalWater Deliveries Project: Hydrologic Analyses and Effects on Endangered Species. South Florida Natural Resources Center, Everglades National Park, Homestead, Florida, USA.Google Scholar
  41. Wade D.D., Ewel J.J. and Hofstetter R. 1980. Fire in South Florida Ecosystems. General Technical Report SE-17. SE Forest Experiment Station, Forest Service, USDA, Asheville, North Carolina, USA.Google Scholar
  42. Williams K., Ewel K.C., Stumpf R.P., Putz F.E. and Workman T.W. 1999. Sea-level rise and coastal forest retreat on the west coast of Florida, USA. Ecology 80: 2045–2063.Google Scholar
  43. Wu Y., Sklar F.H., Gopu K. and Rutchey K. 1996. Fire simulations in the Everglades landscape using parallel programming. Ecological Modeling 93: 113–124.Google Scholar
  44. Wu Y., Sklar F.H. and Rutchey K. 1997. Analysis and simulations of fragmentation patterns in the Everglades. Ecological Applications 7: 268–276Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • M.S. Ross
    • 1
  • D.L. Reed
    • 1
  • J.P. Sah
    • 1
    • 2
  • P.L. Ruiz
    • 1
  • M.T. Lewin
    • 1
  1. 1.Southeast Environmental Research CenterFlorida International UniversityUniversity Park OE-148USA
  2. 2.Central Department of BotanyTribhuvan UniversityKirtipurNepal

Personalised recommendations