Advertisement

Wetlands Ecology and Management

, Volume 11, Issue 3, pp 157–165 | Cite as

Effects of Phragmites australis removal on marsh nutrient cycling

  • Stuart FindlayEmail author
  • Peter Groffman
  • Susan Dye
Article

Abstract

In the northeast US removal of exotic and invasive plant species is a common wetland restoration activity and the invasive common reed (Phragmites australis) is often the target of control efforts. We examined effects of reed removal on sediment nutrient pools and denitrification potential in a tidal freshwater marsh on the Connecticut River. In the first year after herbicide application and cutting of a reed stand, porewater ammonium concentrations in the removal area were about 4× higher relative to extant reed or cattail. Denitrification potentials were 50% lower than in a reference stand of reed. Denitrification activity had “recovered” by the second growing season after reed removal but porewater ammonium continued to accumulate. By the third growing season following reed removal, plant regrowth had occurred over approximately half the experimental plot and porewater ammonium had declined to pre-manipulation levels. Sediment organic content, moisture and porewater phosphate showed no significant response to reed removal over the four-year course of this study. Reed removal allowed regrowth of a more diverse plant community thereby achieving one of the goals of this restoration effort but patterns in ammonium accumulation and denitrification suggest a reduction in the capacity of this site to act as a sink for nitrogen.

Denitrification Restoration Sediment nutrients Wetland 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ailstock M.S., Norman C.M. and Bushman P.J. 2001. Common reed Phragmites australis: Control and effects upon biodiversity sediin freshwater nontidal wetlands. Restoration Ecology 9: 49–59.Google Scholar
  2. Alpkem Corporation 1986. Operator's Manual and Methodologies for the RFA-300. Clackamas, OR, USA.Google Scholar
  3. Armstrong J., Armstrong W. and Beckett P.M. 1992. Phragmites australis: Venturi-and humidity-induced pressure flows enhance rhizome aeration and rhizosphere oxidation. New Phytology 120: 197–207.Google Scholar
  4. Barrett N.E. and Niering W.A. 1993. Tidal marsh restoration trends in vegetation change using a geographical information system (GIS). Restoration Ecology 1: 18–28.Google Scholar
  5. Bart D. and Hartman J.M. 2000. Environmental determinants of Phragmites australisexpansion in a New Jersey salt marsh: an experimental approach. Oikos 89: 59–69.Google Scholar
  6. Benoit L.K. and Askins R.A. 1999. Impact of the spread of Phragmites on the distribution of birds in Connecticut tidal marshes. Wetlands 19: 194–208.Google Scholar
  7. Chambers R.M. 1997. Porewater chemistry associated with Phrag-mites andSpartina in a Connecticut tidal marsh. Wetlands 17: 360–367.Google Scholar
  8. Chambers R.M., Meyerson L.A. and Saltonstall K. 1999. Expan-sion of Phragmites australis into tidal wetlands of North America. Aquatic Botany 64: 261–273.Google Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Farnsworth E. and Meyerson L. 1999. Species composition and freshinter-annual dynamics of a freshwater tidal plant community following removal of the invasive grass, Phragmites australis: a four-year study.Biological Invasions 1: 115–127.Google Scholar
  11. Galatowitsch S.M., Anderson N.O. and Ascher P.D. 1999. Invasive-ness in wetland plants in temperate North America.Wetlands 19: 733–755.Google Scholar
  12. Gold A.J., DeRagon W.R., Sullivan W.M. and LeMunyon J.L. 1990. Nitrate-nitrogen losses to groundwater from rural and suburban land uses. Journal of soil and Water Conservation 45: 305–310.Google Scholar
  13. Green E.K. and Galatowitsch S.M. 2000. Differences in wetland plant community establishment with additions of nitrate-N and invasive species (Phalaris arundinacea andTypha x glauca). Canadian Journal of Botany 79: 170–178.Google Scholar
  14. Groffman P.M. 1994. Denitrification in freshwater wetlands. Cur-rent Topics in Wetland Biogeochemistry 1: 15–35.Google Scholar
  15. Groffman P.M., Hanson G.C., Kiviat E. and Stevens G. 1996. Variation in microbial biomass and activity in four different wetland types. Soil Science Society of America Journal 60: 622–629.Google Scholar
  16. Hellings S.E. and Gallagher J.L. 1992. The effects of salinity and flooding on Phragmites australis. Journal of Applied Ecology 29: 41–49.Google Scholar
  17. Hesslein R.H. 1976. An in situ sampler for close interval porewater studies. Limnology and Oceanography 21: 912–914.Google Scholar
  18. Jansson A., Folke C. and Langaas S. 1998. Quantifying the nitrogen manuretention capacity of natural wetlands in the large-scale drainage basin of the Baltic Sea. Landscape Ecology 13: 249–262.Google Scholar
  19. Johnston C.A., Detenbeck N.E. and Niemi G.J. 1990. The cumulative effect of wetlands on stream water quality and quantity: A landscape approach. Biogeochemistry 10: 105–142.Google Scholar
  20. Jordan T.E., Whigham D.F. and Correll D.L. 1989. The role of litter in nutrient cycling in a brackish tidal marsh. Ecology 70: 1906– 1915.Google Scholar
  21. Krom M.D. and Berner R.A. 1980. The diffusion coefficients of sulfate, ammonium, and phosphate ions in anoxic marine sediin ments. Limnology and Oceanography 25: 327–337.Google Scholar
  22. Lippert I., Rolletschek H., Kuhl H. and Kohl J.G. 1999. Internal and external nutrient cycles in stands of Phragmites australis – a model for two ecotypes. Hydrobiologia 408: 343–348.Google Scholar
  23. Malecki R.A., Blossey B., Hight S.D., Schroeder D., Kok L.T. and Coulson J.R. 1993. Biological control of purple loosestrife. Bioscience 43: 680–686.Google Scholar
  24. Marks M., Lapin B. and Randall J. 1994. Phragmites australis (P. communis ): Threats, management, and monitoring. Natural Areas Journal 14: 285–294.Google Scholar
  25. Merrill J.Z. and Cornwell J.C. 2000. The role of oligohaline marshes in estuarine nutrient cycling. In: Weinstein M.P. and Kreeger D.A. (eds), Concepts and Controversies in Tidal Marsh Ecology. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Nether-lands, pp. 425–441.Google Scholar
  26. Meyerson L., Saltonstall K., Windham L., Kiviat E. and Findlay S. 2000. A comparison of Phragmites australis in freshwater and brackish marsh environments in North America.Wetlands Ecolo-gy and Management 8: 89–103.Google Scholar
  27. Nijburg J.W. and Laanbroek H.J. 1997. The fate of 15N-nitrate in healthy and decliningPhragmites australis stands. Microbial Ecology 34: 254–262.Google Scholar
  28. Orson R.A., Warren R.S. and Niering W.A. 1987. Development of a tidal marsh in a New England river valley. Estuaries 10: 20–27.Google Scholar
  29. Otto S., Groffman P.M., Findlay S.E.G. and Arreola A.E. 1999. Invasive plant species and microbial processes in a tidal freshinter-water marsh. Journal of Environmental Quality 28: 1252–1257.Google Scholar
  30. Picek T., Lusby F., Cizkova H., Santruckova H., Simek M., Kvet J. et al. 2000. Microbial activities in soils of a healthy and a declining reed stand. Hydrobiologia 418: 45–55.Google Scholar
  31. Reddy K.R., Patrick W.H. and Lindau C.W. 1989. Nitrification-denitrification at the plant root-sediment interface in wetlands. Limnology and Oceanography 34: 1004–1013.Google Scholar
  32. Rice D., Rooth J. and Stevenson C.J. 2000. Colonization and expansion of Phragmites australisin upper Chesapeake Bay tidal marshes. Wetlands 20: 280–299.Google Scholar
  33. Roman C.T., Niering W.A. and Warren R.S. 1984. Salt marsh vegetation change in response to tidal restriction. Environmental Management 8: 141–150.Google Scholar
  34. Sinicrope T.L., Hine P.G., Warren R.S. and Niering W.A. 1990. Restoration of an impounded salt marsh in New England. Es-tuaries 13: 25–30.Google Scholar
  35. Smith M.S. and Tiedje J.M. 1979. Phases of denitrification follow ing oxygen depletion in soil. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 11: 262–267.Google Scholar
  36. Templer P., Findlay S. and Wigand C. 1998. Sediment chemistry auassociated with native and non-native emergent macrophytes of a Hudson River marsh ecosystem. Wetlands 18: 70–78.Google Scholar
  37. Weinstein M.P., Balletto J.H., Teal J.M. and Ludwig D.F. 1997. Success criteria and adaptive management for a large-scale wetland restoration project.Wetlands Ecology and Management 4: 111–127.Google Scholar
  38. Windham L. and Lathrop R.G. 1999. Effects of Phragmites auassociated stralis (common reed) invasion on aboveground biomass and soil properties in a brackish tidal marsh of the Mullica River, New Jersey. Estuaries 22: 927–935.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Ecosystem StudiesMillbrookUSA

Personalised recommendations