Wetlands

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 75–92 | Cite as

Vegetation type and the intertidal macroinvertebrate fauna of a brackish marsh: Phragmites vs. Spartina

  • Ted R. Angradi
  • Stacy M. Hagan
  • Kenneth W. Able
Article

Abstract

The responses of tidal marsh macroinvertebrate assemblages to the conversion of Spartina alterniflora marshes to marshes dominated by the invasive reed, Phragmites australis, are poorly understood Changes in edaphic, vegetative, hydrologic, and detrital conditions that attend conversion to Phragmites should produce changes in the intertidal fauna. We used core sampling (7.8-cm diameter, 4-cm deep) and litter packs to compare the intertidal macroinvertebrate fauna of Phragmites marshes and adjacent remnant Spartina marshes in a brackish reach of the Mullica River (0–17 ppt salinity during the study) in southern New Jersey, USA. Detrital and above-ground vegetative biomass and water velocity were greater in Phragmites marsh; stem density, microtopographic relief, and the density of standing-water microhabitats were greater in Spartina marsh. The intertidal assemblages varied between marsh types. Total macroinvertebrate density was greater in Spartina marsh (97,000 m−2) than in Phragmites marsh (82,000 m−2). Mean taxa richness (number of taxa per core sample) was greater in Spartina marsh (12.4 taxa sample−1) than in Phragmites marsh (9.4 taxa sample−1) and dominance (relative abundance of the three most abundant taxa) was lower. Oligochaeta, Nematoda, and the polychaete, Manayunkia aestuarina, dominanted the fauna (>75% of the total abundance) in both marsh types. Of these, oligochaetes were more abundant in Spartina marsh, and nematodes and polychaetes were slightly more abundant in Phragmites marsh. Most common subdominant taxa (100-4,000 m−2), including ceratopogonids, chironomids, mites, ostracods, isopods, and gastropods were more abundant in Spartina marsh. Collembolans were more abundant in Phragmites marsh; amphipods were about equally abundant in both marsh types. Invertebrate abundance and assemblage composition varied with distance from the edge of the marsh in both marsh types; overlap in assemblage composition between marsh types was greates at the edge of the marsh, where more frequent inundation may have moderated the influence of vegetation type on the marsh fauna. For mean taxa richness and for the density of most taxa, the effect of marsh type on density exceeded the effect of season, marsh position, or a local salinity gradient. We consider the greater density of intertidal standing-water microhabitats and probably of microalgal production as important sources of faunal variation between marsh types. Fewer refugia from predators during high tide in Phragmites marsh may also contribute to variation in faunal abundance and community structure between marsh types. Detritus biomass was probably a more important source of spatial variation in the fauna of the Phragmites marsh than in Spartina marsh.

Key Words

Spartina alterniflora Phragmites australis common reed brackish marsh tidal marsh intertidal macroinvertebrates infauna epifauna Oligochaeta Polychaeta Nematoda biodiversity detritus invasive species 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Able, K. W. and S. M. Hagan. 2000. Effects of common reed (Phragmites australis) invasion on marsh surface macrofauna: response of fishes and decapod crustaceans. Estuaries 23:633–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Able, K. W., R. Lathrop, and M. P. DeLuca. 1999. Compendium of research and monitoring in the Jacques Cousteau National Estuarine Research Reserve at Mullica River-Great Bay. Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.Google Scholar
  3. Angradi, T. R. and R. H. Hood. 1998. An application of the plaster dissolution method for quantifying water velocity in the shallow hyporheic zone of an Appalachian stream system. Freshwater Biology 39:301–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bart, D. and J. M. Hartman. 2000. Environmental determinants of Phragmites australis expansion in a New Jersey salt marsh: an experimental approach. Oikos 89:59–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bell, S. S. 1979. Short- and long-term variation in a high marsh meiofauna community. Estuarine and Coastal Marine Science 9: 331–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bell, S. S. 1982. On the population biology and meiofaunal characteristics of Manayunkia aestuarina (Polychaeta: Sabellidae: Fabricinae) from a South Carolina salt marsh. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 14:215–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bell, S. S., M. C. Watzin, and B. C. Coull. 1978. Biogenic structure and its effects on the spatial heterogeneity of meiofauna in a salt marsh. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 35: 99–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Benoit, L. K. and R. A. Askins. 1999. Impact of the spread of Phragmites on the distribution of birds in Connecticut tidal marshes. Wetlands 19:194–208.Google Scholar
  9. Bertess, M. D. 1999. The Ecology of Atlantic Shorelines. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, MA, USA.Google Scholar
  10. Campbell, B. C. and R. F. Denno. 1978. The structure of the aquatic insect community associated with intertidal pools on a New Jersey salt marsh. Ecological Entomology 3:181–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Capehart, A. A. and C. T. Hackney. 1989. The potential role of roots and rhizomes in structuring salt-marsh benthic communities. Estuaries 12:119–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coull, B. C. and S. S. Bell. 1979. Perspectives in marine meiofaunal ecology. p. 189–216. In R. J. Livingston (ed.) Ecological Processes in Coastal and Marine Systems, Marine Science Vol. 10. Plenum Press, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  13. Coull, B. C., S. S. Bell, A. M. Savory, and B. W. Dudley. 1979. Zonation of meiobenthic copepods in a southeastern United States salt marsh. Estuarine and Coastal Marine Science 9:181–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Covi, M. P. and R. T. Kneib. 1995. Intertidal distribution, population dynamics and production of the amphipod Uhlorchestia spartinophila in a Georgia, USA, salt marsh. Marine Biology 121:447–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Currin, C. A., S. Y. Newell, and H. W. Paerl. 1995. The role of standing dead Spartina alterniflora and benthic microalgae in salt marsh food webs: considerations based on multiple stable isotope analysis. Marine Ecology Progress Series 121:99–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Davis, L. V. and I. E. Gray. 1966. Zonal and seasonal distribution of insects in North Carolina marshes. Ecological Monographs 36: 275–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. DePatra, K. D. and L. A. Levin. 1989. Evidence of the passive deposition of meiofauna into fiddler crab burrows. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 125:173–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fell, P. E., S. P. Weissbach, D. A. Jones, M. A. Fallon, J. A. Zeppieri, E. K. Faison, K. A. Lesson, K. J. Newberry, and L. K. Reddington. 1998. Does invasion of oligohaline tidal marshes by reed grass, Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. ex Steud., affect the availability of prey resources for the mummichog, Fundulus heteroclitus L? Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 222:59–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ferren, W. R., R. E. Good, R. Walker, and J. Arsenault. 1981. Vegetation and flora of Hog Island, a brackish wetland in the Mullica River, New Jersey. Bartonia 48:1–10.Google Scholar
  20. Flynn, M. N., Y. Wakabara, and A. S. Tararam. 1998. Macrobenthic associations of the lower and upper marshes of a tidal flat colonized by Spartina alterniflora in Cananeia Lagoon estuarine region (southeastern Brazil). Bulletin of Marine Science 63:427–442.Google Scholar
  21. Gauch, H. G. 1982. Multivariate Analysis in Community Ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.Google Scholar
  22. Healy, B. and K. Walters. 1994. Oligochaeta in Spartina stems: the microdistribution of Enchytraeidae and Tubificidae in a salt marsh, Sapelo Island, USA. Hydrobiologia 278:121–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hellings, S. E. and J. L. Gallagher. 1992. The effects of salinity and flooding on Phragmites. Journal of Applied Ecology 29:41–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jones, W. L. and W. C. Lehman. 1987. Phragmites control and revegetation following aerial applications of glyphosate in Delaware. p. 185–199. In W. R. Whitman and W. H. Meredith (eds.) Waterfowl and Wetlands Symposium. Delaware Coastal Management Program, Delaware Department of the Natural Resources and Environmental Control. Dover, DE, USA.Google Scholar
  25. Joose, N. G. 1976. Littoral apterygotes (Collembola and Thysanura). p. 151–186. In L. Cheng (ed.) Marine Insects. Elsevier Publishing Company, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  26. Kent, D. M., C. Tammi, and J. Kelly. 1996. Large-scale, humanmade disturbances have little effect on the amount of common reed in salt marshes (Massachusetts). Restoration and Management Notes 14:172–173.Google Scholar
  27. Kneib, R. T. 1984. Patterns of invertebrate distribution and abundance in the intertidal salt marsh: causes and questions. Estuaries 7:392–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kneib, R. T. 1997. The role of tidal marshes in the ecology of estuarine nekton. Oceanography and Marine Biology: an Annual Review 35:163–220.Google Scholar
  29. Kneib, R. T. 2000. Salt marsh ecoscapes and production transfers by estuarine nekton in the southeastern United States. p. 267–292 In M. P. Weinstein and D. A. Kreeger (eds.) Concepts and Controversies in Tidal Marsh Ecology, Kluwer Academic Publishing. Dordrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  30. Kreeger, D. A. and R. I. E. Newell. 2000 Trophic complexity between producers and invertebrate consumers in salt marshes. p. 187–220. In M. P. Weinstein and D. A. Kreeger (eds.) Concepts and Controversies in Tidal Marsh Ecology, Kluwer Academic Publishing. Dordrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  31. LaSalle, M. W. and A. A. De La Cruz. 1985. Seasonal abundance and diversity of spiders in two intertidal marsh plant communities. Estuaries 8:381–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Leland, H. V., J. L. Carter, and S. E. Fend. 1986. Use of detrended correspondence analysis to evaluate factors controlling spatial distribution of benthic insects. Hydrobiologia 132:113–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Leonard, L. A. and M. E. Luther. 1995. Flow hydrodynamics in tidal marsh canopies. Limnology and Oceanography 40:1474–1484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Levin, L. A. and T. S. Talley. 2000. Influence of vegetation and abiotic environmental factors on salt marsh invertebrates. p. 661–707. In M. P. Weinstein and D. A. Kreeger (eds.) Concepts and Controversies in Tidal Marsh Ecology. Kluwer Academic Publishing, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  35. Luxton, M. 1967. The ecology of saltmarsh acarina. Journal of Animal Ecology 36:257–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Marks, M., B. Lapin, and J. Randall. 1994. Phragmites australis (P. communis): threats, management and monitoring. Natural Areas Journal 14:285–294.Google Scholar
  37. Niering, W. A. and R. S. Warren. 1977. Our dynamic tidal marshes: vegetation changes as revealed by peat analysis. Connecticut Arboretum Bulletin 12.Google Scholar
  38. Niering, W. A. and R. S. Warren. 1980. Vegetation patterns and processes in New England salt marshes. Bioscience 30:301–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Odum, W. E. 1988. Comparative ecology of tidal freshwater and salt marshes. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 19:147–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Orson, R., R. S. Warren, and W. A. Niering. 1987. Development of a southern New England drowned valley tidal marsh. Estuaries 10:6–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Peterson, C. H., H. C. Summerson, and P. B. Duncan. 1984. The influence of seagrass cover on population structure and individual growth rate of a suspension feeding bivalve: Mercenaria mercenaria. Journal of Marine Research 42:123–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rader, D. N. 1984. Salt-marsh benthic invertebrates: small scale patterns of distribution and abundance. Estuaries 7:413–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rice, D., J. Rooth, and J. C. Stevenson. 2000. Colonization and expansion of Phragmites australis in upper Chesapeake Bay tidal marshes. Wetlands 20:280–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Roman, C. T., W. A. Niering, and R. S. Warren. 1984. Salt marsh vegetation change in response to tidal restriction. Environmental Management 8:141–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Simpson, R. L., D. F. Whigman, and K. Brannigan. 1979. The midsummer insect communities of freshwater tidal wetland macrophytes, Delaware River estuary, New Jersey. Bulletin of the New Jersey Academy of Science 24:22–28.Google Scholar
  46. Sullivan, M. J. and C. A. Moncreiff. 1990. Edaphic algae are an important component of salt marsh food-webs: evidence from a multiple stable isotope analyses. Marine Ecology Progress Series 62:149–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sullivan, M. J. and C. A. Currin. 2000. Community structure and functional dynamics of benthic microalgae in salt marshes. p. 81–106. In M. P. Weinstein and D. A. Kreeger (eds.) Concepts and Controversies in Tidal Marsh Ecology, Kluwer Academic Publishing, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  48. Teal, J. M. and W. Weiser. 1966. The distribution and ecology of nematodes in a Georgia salt marsh. Limnology and Oceanography 11:217–222.Google Scholar
  49. Wainright, S. C., M. P. Weinstein, K. W. Able, and C. A. Currin. 2000. Relative importance of benthic microalgae, phytoplankton and the detritus of smooth cordgrass (Spartina) and the common reed (Phragmites) to brackish marsh food webs. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 200:77–91.Google Scholar
  50. Weinstein, M. P. and J. H. Balletto. 1999. Does the common reed. Phragmites australis affect essential fish habitat? Estuaries 22: 793–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wieser, W. and J. Kanwisher. 1961. Ecological and physiological studies on marine nematodes from a small salt marsh near Woods Hole, Massachusetts. Limnology and Oceanography 6:262–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Williams, D. D. and N. E. Williams. 1998. Season variation, export dynamics and consumption of freshwater invertebrates in an estuarine environment. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 46: 393–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Windham, L. 1995. Effects of Phragmites australis on aboveground biomass and soil properties in brackish tidal marsh of the Mullica River, New Jersey. M.S. Thesis. Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.Google Scholar
  54. Windham, L. and R. G. Lathrop. 1999. Effects of Phragmites australis (common reed) on aboveground biomass and soil properties in brackish tidal marsh of the Mullica River, New Jersey. Estuaries 22:927–935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Yozzo, D. J. and D. E. Smith. 1995. Seasonality, abundance, and microhabitat distribution of meiofauna from a Chickahominy River, Virginia tidal freshwater marsh. Hydrobiologia 310:197–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Yozzo, D. J. and R. J. Diaz. 1999. Tidal freshwater wetlands. p. 889–918. In D. P. Batzer, R. B. Rader, and S. A. Wissinger (eds.) Invertebrates in Freshwater Wetlands of North America: Ecology and Management. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  57. Zipperer, V. T. 1996. Ecological effects of the introduced cordgrass. Spartina alterniflora, on the benthic community structure of Willapa Bay, Washington. M.S. Thesis. University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Wetland Scientists 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ted R. Angradi
    • 1
  • Stacy M. Hagan
    • 2
  • Kenneth W. Able
    • 2
  1. 1.U.S. Forest ServiceNortheastern Research StationParsonsUSA
  2. 2.Rutgers University Marine Field StationTuckertonUSA
  3. 3.Office of Research and DevelopmentU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyDenverUSA

Personalised recommendations