, Volume 21, Issue 4, pp 519–531 | Cite as

Hydrologic change and vegetation of tidal freshwater marshes: Field, greenhouse, and seed-bank experiments

  • Andrew H. Baldwin
  • Michael S. Egnotovich
  • Ernest Clarke


Plant communities of tidal freshwater marshes fluctuate in composition seasonally and among years, but the influence of changes in hydrology on vegetation of these systems has not been examined. We investigated the effects of hydrology on vegetation of tidal freshwater marshes along the Patuxent River in Maryland, USA with a two-year field experiment, a one-year greenhouse experiment, and a seed-bank experiment. In the field experiment, sections of marsh soil and vegetation (“sods”) were elevated 10 cm, lowered 10 cm, or placed level with the marsh surface to simulate different hydrologic regimes. In the greenhouse experiment, sods were raised 10 cm above water surface (nonflooded) or flooded by 10 cm of water in tanks continuously, and in two other treatments changed from nonflooded to flooded or vice-versa after the first 35 days. For the seed-bank experiment, soil samples were spread in a 1-cm-thick layer in pans subjected to flooding by 3.5–4 cm of water or nonflooded but moist conditions in the greenhouse, and emerging seedlings counted. We found that lowering marsh sods by 10 cm (i.e., wetter conditions) in the field reduced plant species richness by 26% compared to the sods placed level with the marsh surface, while raising sods by 10 cm (drier conditions) increased richness by 42%. Total stem length of a majority of the most common species, as well as for all species combined, was more than twice as great in raised sods as in lowered sods. We observed similar patterns in richness and total stem length in the greenhouse study, where continuously nonflooded sods had almost twice the richness and 55% greater total stem length as continuously flooded sods. Sods that were flooded initially and then shifted to nonflooded conditions had richness and total stem length similar to the continuously flooded sods, while sods that were nonflooded initially and then flooded had richness and total stem length intermediate to continuously nonflooded and continuously flooded sods. In the field and greenhouse studies, species that are annual or annnual/perennial were more inhibited by flooding than were perennials. In the seed-bank experiment, flooding reduced the number of species emerging by 50% and total densities of emerging seedlings by 80% compared to nonflooded conditions. Taken together, the results of the field, greenhouse, and seed-bank studies indicate that 3–10 cm of flooding can significantly reduce seedling recruitment and growth in many plant species of tidal freshwater marshes and result in lower plant diversity. The greenhouse study further indicates that shallow flooding early in the growing season can reduce the abundance of certain species, primarily annuals, for the remainder of the growing season, resulting in a less diverse community. These findings suggest that hydrology is a dominant environmental variable controlling interannual variation in plant species composition of tidal freshwater marshes. Additionally, this study suggests that small increases in frequency and duration of inundation, which might occur due to watershed land-use changes, sea-level rise, or land subsidence, will reduce the diversity of these plant communities.

Key Words

annual plants flooding hydrology hydroperiod plant communities seed bank seedling recruitment species richness tidal freshwater marsh vegetation wetlands 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Abernethy, V. J. and N. J. Willby. 1999. Changes along a disturbance gradient in the density and composition of propagule banks in floodplain aquatic habitats. Plant Ecology 140:177–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, R. R., R. G. Brown, and R. D. Rappleye. 1968. Water quality and plant distribution along the upper Patuxent River, Maryland. Chesapeake Science 9:145–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Armstrong, W., R. Brändle, and M. B. Jackson. 1994. Mechanisms of flood tolerance in plants. Acta Botanica Neerlandica 43:307–358.Google Scholar
  4. Baldwin, A. H., K. L. McKee, and I. A. Mendelssohn. 1996. The influence of vegetation, salinity, and inundation on seed banks of oligohaline coastal marshes. American Journal of Botany 83:470–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baldwin, A. H. and I. A. Mendelssohn. 1998. Response of two oligohaline marsh communities to lethal and nonlethal disturbance. Oecologia 116:543–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baldwin, A. H. and E. F. DeRico. 1999. The seed bank of a restored tidal freshwater marsh in Washington, DC. Urban Ecosystems 3:5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bertness, M. D. and A. M. Ellison. 1987. Determinants of pattern in a New England salt marsh community. Ecological Monographs 57:129–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boesch, D. F., M. N. Josselyn, A. J. Mehta, J. T. Morris, W. K. Nuttle, C. A. Simenstad, and D. J. P. Swift. 1994. Scientific assessment of coastal weland loss, restoration and management in Louisiana. Journal of Coastal Research SI 20:1–103.Google Scholar
  9. Bonham, C. D. 1989. Measurements for Terrestrial Vegetation. Wiley, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  10. Boynton, W. R., J. H. Garber, R. Summers, and W. M. Kemp. 1995. Inputs, transformations, and transport of nitrogen and phosphorus in Chesapeake Bay and selected tributaries. Estuaries 18:285–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brown, S. C. 1998. Remnant seed banks and vegetation as predictors of restored marsh vegetation. Canadian Journal of Botany 76:620–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Britsh, L. D. and J. B. Dunbar. 1993. Land loss rates: Louisiana coastal plain. Journal of Coastal Research 9:324–338.Google Scholar
  13. Butt, A. J. and B. L. Brown. 2000. The cost of nutrient reduction: A case study of Chesapeake Bay. Coastal Management 28:175–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Casanova, M. T. and M. A. Brock. 2000. How do depth, duration and frequency of flooding influence the establishment of wetland plant communities? Plant Ecology 147:237–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Childers, D. L., F. H. Sklar, B. Drake, and T. Jordan. 1993. Seasonal measurements of sediment elevation in three mid-Atlantic estuaries. Journal of Coastal Research 9:986–1003.Google Scholar
  16. Coops, H., N. Geilen, and G. van der Velde. 1999. Helophyte zonation in two regulated estuarine areas in the Netherlands: Vegetation analysis and relationships with hydrological factors. Estuaries 22:657–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Costanza, R. and M. Ruth. 1998. Using dynamic modeling to scope environmental problems and build consensus. Environmental Management 22:183–195.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Davis, J. H., Jr. 1940. The ecology and geologic role of mangroves in Florida. Papers from the Tortugas Laboratory 32. Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication 517:307–412.Google Scholar
  19. Downs, L. L., R. J. Nicholls, S. P. Leatherman, and J. Hautzenroder. 1994. Historic evolution of a marsh island: Bloodsworth Island, Maryland. Journal of Coastal Research 10:1031–1044.Google Scholar
  20. Ernst, W. H. O. 1990. Ecophysiology of plants in waterlogged and flooded environments. Aquatic Botany 38:73–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Farney, R. A. and T. A. Bookhout. 1982. Vegetation changes in a Lake Erie marsh (Winous Point, Ottawa County, Ohio) during high water years. Ohio Journal of Science 82:103–107.Google Scholar
  22. Faulkner, S. P., W. H. Patrick, Jr., and R. P. Gambrell. 1989. Field techniques for measuring wetland soil parameters. Soil Science Society of America Journal 53:883–890.Google Scholar
  23. Fenner, M. W. 1985. Seed Ecology. Chapman and Hall, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  24. Fernald, M. L. 1950. Gray’s Manual of Botany. American Book Company, Boston, MA, USA.Google Scholar
  25. Galinato, M. I. and A. G. van der Valk. 1986. Seed germination traits of annuals and emergents recruited during drawdowns in the Delta Marsh, Manitoba, Canada. Aquatic Botany 26:89–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Godfrey, R. K. and J. W. Wooten. 1979. Aquatic and Wetland Plants of Southeastern United States. Monocotyledons. University of Georgia Press, Athens, GA, USA.Google Scholar
  27. Godfrey, R. K. and J. W. Wooten. 1981. Aquatic and Wetland Plants of Southeastern United States. Dicotyledons. University of Georgia Press. Athens, GA, USA.Google Scholar
  28. Gornitz, V. 1995. Sea level rise: a review of recent past and nearfuture trends. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 20:7–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gough, L. and J. B. Grace. 1998. Effects of flooding, salinity and herbivory on coastal plant communities, Louisiana, United States. Oecologia 117:527–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gross, K. L. 1990. A comparison of methods for estimating seed numbers in the soil. Journal of Ecology 78:1079–1093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Johnson, S. A., W. J. Mitsch, and N. L. Christensen. 2000. Unpublished data. p. 394–395. In W. J. Mitsch and J. G. Gosselink, Wetlands, Third Edition. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  32. Kearney, M. S., R. E. Grace, and J. C. Stevenson. 1988. Marsh loss in Nanticoke Esturary, Chesapeake Bay. Geographical Review 78:206–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kearney, M. S. and J. C. Stevenson. 1991. Island land loss and marsh vertical accretion rate evidence for historical sea-level changes in Chesapeake Bay. Journal of Coastal Research 7:403–415.Google Scholar
  34. Keddy, P. A. and A. A. Reznicek. 1982. The role of seed banks in the persistence of Ontario’s coastal plain flora. American Journal of Botany 69:13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Keddy, P. A. and A. A. Reznicek. 1986. Great lakes vegetation dynamics: the role of fluctuating water levels and buried seeds. Journal of Great Lakes Research 12:25–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kozlowski, T. T. 1984. Plant responses to flooding of soil. Bio-Science 34:162–167.Google Scholar
  37. Leck, M. A. and R. L. Simpson. 1993. Seeds and seedlings of the Hamilton marshes, a Delaware River tidal freshwater wetland. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 144:267–281.Google Scholar
  38. Leck, M. A. and R. L. Simpson. 1995. Ten-year seed bank and vegetation dynamics of a tidal freshwater marsh. American Journal of Botany 82:1547–1557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lenssen, J. P. M., G. E. ten Dolle, and C. W. P. M. Blom. 1998. The effect of flooding on the recruitment of reed marsh and tall forb plant species. Plant Ecology 139:13–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McKee, K. L. and I. A. Mendelssohn. 1989. Response of a freshwater marsh plant community to increased salinity and increased water level. Aquatic Botany 34:301–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mendelssohn, I. A. and K. L. McKee. 1987. Experimental field and greenhouse verification of the influence of saltwater intrusion and submergence on marsh deterioration: mechanisms of action. p. 145–178. In R. E. Turner and D. R. Cahoon (eds.) Causes of wetland loss in the coastal central Gulf of Mexico: Volume II: Technical narrative. Minerals Management Service. New Orleans, LA, USA.Google Scholar
  42. Mendelssohn, I. A. and D. M. Burdick. 1988. The relationship of soil parameters and root metabolism to primary production in periodically inundated soils. p. 398–428. In D. D. Hook, W. H. McKee, Jr., H. K. Smith, J. Gregory, V. G. Burrell, Jr., M. R. DeVoe, R. E. Sojka, S. Gilbert, R. Banks, L. H. Stolzy, C. Brooks, T. D. Matthews, and T. H. Shear (eds.) The Ecology and Management of Wetlands, Volume 1: Ecology of Wetlands. Croom Helm Ltd., Breckenham, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
  43. Mendelssohn, I. A. and K. L. McKee. 1992. Indicators of environmental stress in wetland plants. p. 603–624. In D. H. McKenzie, D. E. Hyatt and V. J. McDonald (eds.) Ecological Indicators, vol. 1. Elsevier Applied Science, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  44. Middleton, B. 1999. Wetland Restoration, Flood Pulsing, and Disturbance Dynamics. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  45. Mitsch, W. J. and J. G. Gosselink. 2000. Wetlands, third edition. John Wiley and Sons. New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  46. Niering, W. A. 1970. The ecology of wetlands in urban areas. p. 199–208. In P. Danserau (ed.) Challenge for Survival: Land, Air, and Water for Man in Megalopolis. Columbia University Press, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  47. Odum, W. E., T. J. Smith III, J. K. Hoover, and C. C. McIvor, 1984. The ecology of tidal freshwater marshes of the United States east coast: a community profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC, USA. FWS/OBS-83/17.Google Scholar
  48. Odum, W. E. 1988. Comparative ecology of tidal freshwater and salt marshes. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 19:147–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Parker, V. T. and M. A. Leck. 1985. Relationships of seed banks to plant distribution patterns in a freshwater tidal wetland. American Journal of Botany 72:161–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Patrick, W. H., R. P. Gambrell, and S. P. Faulkner. 1996. Redox measurements of soils. p. 1255–1273. In A. Klute (ed.) Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 3. Chemical Methods. Soil Science Society of America and American Society of Agronomy. Madison, WI, USA.Google Scholar
  51. Poiani, K. A. and W. C. Johnson. 1988. Evaluation of the emergence method in estimating seed bank composition of prairie wetlands. Aquatic Botany 32:91–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Radford, A. E., H. E. Ahles, and C. R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.Google Scholar
  53. 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
  54. Roberts, W. P. and J. W. Pierce. 1976. Deposition in upper Patuxent estuary, Maryland, 1968–1969. Estuarine and Coastal Marine Science 4:267–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Schmid, J. 1994. Wetlands in the urban landscape of the United States. p. 106–133. In R. H. Platt, R. A. Rowntree, and P. C. Muick (eds.) The Ecological City—Preserving and Restoring Urban Biodiversity. University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst, MA, USA.Google Scholar
  56. Seabloom, E. W., A. G. van der Valk, and K. A. Moloney. 1998. The role of water depth and soil temperature in determining initial composition of prairie wetland coenoclines. Plant Ecology 138: 203–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Secor, D. H. and E. D. Houde. 1995. Temperature effects on the timing of striped bass egg production, larval viability, and recruitment potential in the Patuxent River (Chesapeake Bay). Estuaries 18:527–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Simpson, R. L., R. E. Good, M. A. Leck, and D. F. Whigham. 1983. The ecology of freshwater tidal wetlands. BioScience 33:255–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Soil Conservation Service. 1973. Soil survey of Anne Arundel County, Maryland. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  60. Stebbins, G. L. 1971. Adaptive radiation of reproductive characteristics of angiosperms, II: seeds and seedlings. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 2:237–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Stevenson, J. C., M. S. Kearney, and E. C. Pendleton. 1985. Sedimentation and erosion in a Chesapeake Bay brackish marsh system. Marine Geology 67:213–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Stevenson, J. C. and M. S. Kearney. 1996. Shoreline dynamics on the windward and leeward shores of a large temperate estuary. p. 233–259. In K. F. Nordstrom and C. T. Roman (eds.) Estuarine Shores: Evolution, Environments and Human Alterations: John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  63. Tiner, R. W. 1993. Field Guide to Coastal Wetland Plants of the Southeastern United States. The University of Massachusetts Press, Amherts, MA, USA.Google Scholar
  64. Titus, J. G. 1988. Greenhouse effect, sea level rise and coastal wetlands. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA. EPA-230-05-86-013.Google Scholar
  65. USDA, NRCS. 2000. The PLANTS database ( National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA, USA.Google Scholar
  66. van der Valk, A. G. and C. B. Davis. 1976. The seed banks of prairie glacial marshes. Canadian Journal of Botany 54:1832–1838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. van der Valk, A. G. and C. B. Davis. 1978. The role of seed banks in the vegetation dynamics of prairie glacial marshes. Ecology 59: 322–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. van der Valk, A. G. and C. B. Davis. 1979. A reconstruction of the recent vegetational history of a prairie marsh, Eagle Lake, Iowa, from its seed bank. Aquatic Botany 6:29–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. van der Valk, A. G. and T. R. Rosburg. 1997. Seed bank composition along a phosphorus gradient in the northern Florida Everglades. Wetlands 17:228–236.Google Scholar
  70. Vitousek, P. M., J. D. Aber, R. W. Howarth, G. E. Likens, P. A. Matson, D. W. Schindler, W. H. Schlesinger, and D. G. Tilman. 1997. Human alteration of the global nitrogen cycle: sources and consequences. Ecological Applications 7:737–750.Google Scholar
  71. Webb, E. C., I. A. Mendelssohn, and B. J. Wilsey. 1995. Causes for vegetation dieback in a Louisiana salt marsh: a bioassay approach. Aquatic Botany 51:281–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Whigham, D. and R. Simpson. 1977. Growth, mortality, and biomass partitioning in freshwater tidal wetland populations of wild rice (Zizania aquatica var. aquatica). Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 104:347–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Whigham, D. F. and R. L. Simpson. 1978. The relationship between aboveground and belowground biomass of freshwater tidal wetland macrophytes. Aquatic Botany 5:355–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Whigham, D. F., R. L. Simpson, and M. A. Leck. 1979. The distribution of seeds, seedlings, and established plants of arrow arum (Peltandra virginica (L.) Kunth) in a freshwater tidal wetland. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 106:193–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Wetland Scientists 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrew H. Baldwin
    • 1
    • 2
  • Michael S. Egnotovich
    • 2
  • Ernest Clarke
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Biological Resources EngineeringUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA
  2. 2.Marine-Estuarine-Environmental Sciences ProgramUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations