Advertisement

Wetlands

, Volume 26, Issue 2, pp 544–557 | Cite as

Changes in salt marsh vegetation, Phragmites australis, and nekton in response to increased tidal flushing in a New England salt marsh

  • Robert N. BuchsbaumEmail author
  • John Catena
  • Eric Hutchins
  • Mary-Jane James-Pirri

Abstract

This study examined the response of Argilla Marsh in Ipswich, Massachusetts, USA to increased tidal flushing instituted to restore a salt marsh invaded by Phragmites australis. In late fall 1998, we replaced the old 0.9-m-diameter culvert feeding this marsh with a 2.4 × 1.5-m box culvert, thus increasing both the volume of tidal exchange and porewater salinity. We carried out yearly sampling of vegetation for two years pre-restoration and for four years after restoration. Analysis of Similarities (ANOSIM) showed that the plant community on the restored marsh had changed after restoration but that on the reference marshes had not. Over 80% of the change in the restored marsh was attributed to an increase in Spartina alterniflora cover and decreases in the cover of Phragmites australis, Typha angustifolia, and Solidago sempervirens. The two brackish species, P. australis and T. angustifolia showed an immediate negative response to the increased flooding and salinity. Surviving P. australis culms in the restored marsh were shorter in stature than they were prior to restoration, suggesting that the increased flooding and porewater salinities had lowered the productivity of this species. The increase in S. alterniflora post-restoration fit an exponential curve, indicating that there was a lag in its response initially, but then it expanded rapidly and was still in a very rapid expansion phase after four years. Despite an overall decline of P. australis on the scale of the whole marsh, there was a great deal of variation in responses of individual patches of P. australis to the restoration. Some declined, some were unchanged, and some even increased. The response of nekton to the restoration was less obvious than that of vegetation. Before restoration, the creek system in the tidally restricted marsh functioned like an impoundment that was only marginally connected to the larger salt marsh ecosystem. At that time, seining indicated that more species of nekton occurred at greater densities in creeks in the tidally restricted marsh than in the downstream reference. Increasing the tidal amplitude in the restored marsh resulted in an overall decline in the catch per unit effort there. In contrast to the creeks, the Spartinadominated section of the flooded marsh surface in the restored marsh did harbor more Fundulus heteroclitus, particularly the smaller size class, than did the downstream reference marsh or a P. australis patch in the restored marsh. Our analysis of vegetation and nekton suggests that Argilla Marsh was still adjusting to hydrologic changes four years after restoration.

Key Words

salt marsh coastal wetland wetland restoration Phragmites australis Spartina alterniflora salt marsh fish tidal restriction 

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) on marsh surface macrofauna: Response of fishes and decapod crustaceans. Estuaries 23: 633–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Able, K. W., S. M. Hagan, and S. A. Brown. 2003. Mechanisms of marsh habitat alteration due to Phragmites: Response of young-of-the-year mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus) to treatment for Phragmites removal. Estuaries 26: 484–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barbour, M. G., J. H. Burk, and W. D. Pitts. 1987. Terrestrial Plant Ecology. Benjamin Cummings Publishing Company, Menlo Park, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  4. Bart, D. and J. M. Hartmann. 2002. The role of large rhizome dispersal and low salinity windows in the establishment of common reed, Phragmites australis, in salt marshes: new links to human activities. Estuaries 26: 436–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benoit, L. K. and R. A. Askins. 1999. Impact of Phragmites australis on the distribution of birds in Connecticut tidal marshes. Wetlands 19: 194–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brauer, J. and M. A. Geber. 2002. Population differentiation in the range expansion of a native maritime plant, Solidago sempervirens L. International Journal of Plant Science 163: 141–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burdick, D. M., M. Dionne, R. M. Boumans, and F. T. Short. 1997. Ecological responses to tidal restorations of two northern New England salt marshes. Wetlands Ecology and Management 4: 129–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burdick, D. M. and R. Konisky. 2003. Determinants of expansion for Phragmites australis, common reed, in natural and impacted coastal marshes. Estuaries 26: 407–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burdick, D. M., R. Buchsbaum, and E. Holt. 2001. Variation in soil salinity associated with expansion of Phragmites australis in salt marshes. Environmental and Experimental Botany 46: 247–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chambers, R. M. 1997. Porewater chemistry associated with Phragmites and Spartina in a Connecticut tidal marsh. Wetlands 17: 360–367.Google Scholar
  11. Chambers, R. M., L. A. Meyerson, and K. Saltonstall. 1999. Expansion of Phragmites australis into tidal wetlands of North America. Aquatic Botany 64: 261–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chambers, R. M., D. T. Osgood, D. J. Bart, and F. Montalto. 2003. Phragmites australis invasion and expansion in tidal wetlands: Interactions among salinity, sulfides, and hydrology. Estuaries 26: 298–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clarke, K. R. and R. H. Green. 1988. Statistical design and analysis for a ‘biological effects’ study. Marine Ecology Progress Series 92: 205–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clarke, K. R. and R. M. Warwick. 2001. Change in marine communities: an approach to statistical analysis and interpretation 2nd Edition. PRIMER-E: Plymouth. Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Plymouth, UK.Google Scholar
  15. Clarke, K. R. and R. N. Gorley. 2006. PRIMER v6: User Manual/ Tutorial. PRIMER-E: Plymouth. Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Plymouth, UK.Google Scholar
  16. Collette, B. B. and G. Klein-MacPhee. 2002. Bigelow and Schroeder’s Fishes of the Gulf of Maine (Third Edition). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  17. Dionne, M., F. T. Short, and D. M. Burdick. 1999. Fish utilization of restored, created, and reference salt marsh habitat in the Gulf of Maine. American Fisheries Society Symposium 22: 384–404.Google Scholar
  18. Fell, P. E., R. S. Warren, J. K. Light, R. L. Rawson, Jr., and S. M. Fairley. 2003. Comparison of fish and macroinvertebrate use of Typha angustifolia, Phragmites australis, and treated Phragmites marshes along the lower Connecticut River. Estuaries 28: 534–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fernald, M. L. 1950. Gray’s Manual of Botany, 18th Edition. American Book Company, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  20. Hruby, T., W. G. Montgomery, R. A. Lent, and N. Dobson. 1985. Open marsh water management in Massachusetts: Adapting the technique to local conditions and its impact on mosquito larvae during the first season. Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association 1: 85–88.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Ludwig, D. F., T. J. Iannuzzi, and A. N. Esposito. 2003. Phragmites and environmental management: a question of values. Estuaries 26: 624–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lundgren, S. R. 2001. Correlation of porewater factors with Phragmites australis presence and vigor in a New England salt marsh. M.S. Thesis. Harvard University Extension Studies, Cambridge, MA, USA.Google Scholar
  23. Orson, R. 1999. A paleoecological assessment of Phragmites australis in New England tidal marshes: Changes in plant community structure during the last millennium. Biological Invasions 1: 149–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Osgood, D. T., D. J. Yozzo, R. M. Chambers, D. Jacobson, T. Hoffman, and J. Wnek. 2003. Tidal hydrology and habitat utilization by resident nekton in Phragmites and non-Phragmites marshes. Estuaries 26: 522–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pollock, L. W. 1997. A Practical Guide to the Marine Animals of Northeastern North America. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.Google Scholar
  26. Raposa, K. B. and C. T. Roman. 2001. Seasonal habitat-use patterns of nekton in a tide-restricted and unrestricted New England salt marsh. Wetlands 21: 451–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Raposa, K. B. and C. T. Roman. 2003. Using gradients of tidal restriction to evaluate nekton community response to salt marsh restoration. Estuaries 26: 98–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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
  29. Roman, C. T., W. Niering, and R. S. Warren. 1984. Salt marsh vegetation changes in response to tidal restrictions. Environmental Management 8: 140–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Roman, C. T., K. B. Raposa, S. C. Adamowicz, M.-J. James-Pirri, and J. G. Catena. 2002. Quantifying vegetation and nekton response to tidal restoration of a New England salt marsh. Restoration Ecology 10: 450–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rozas, L. P. 1992. Bottomless lift net for quantitatively sampling nekton on intertidal marshes. Marine Ecology Progress Series 89: 287–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Saltonstall, K. 2002. Cryptic invasion by a non-native genotype of the common reed, Phragmites australis, into North America. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 99: 2445–2449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sinicrope, T. L., P. G. Hine, R. S. Warren, and W. A. Niering. 1990. Restoration of an impounded salt marsh in New England. Estuaries 13: 25–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sokal, R. R. and F. J. Rohlf. 1995. Biometry, 3rd ed. W.H. Freeman and Company, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  35. Sorrie, B. A. and P. Somers. 1999. The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts: A County Checklist. Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program, Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife. Westborough, MA, USA.Google Scholar
  36. Warren, R. S., P. E. Fell, J. L. Grimsby, E. L. Buck, G. C. Rilling, and R. A. Fertik. 2001. Rates, patterns, and impacts of Phragmites australis expansion and effects of experimental Phragmites removal on vegetation, macroinvertebrates, and fish within tidelands of the lower Connecticut River. Estuaries 24: 90–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Warren, R. S., P. E. Fell, R. Rozsa, A. H. Brawley, A. C. Orsted, E. T. Olson, V. Swamy, and W. A. Niering. 2002. Salt marsh restoration in Connecticut: 20 years of science and management. Restoration Ecology 10: 497–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Wetland Scientists 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert N. Buchsbaum
    • 1
    Email author
  • John Catena
    • 2
  • Eric Hutchins
    • 2
  • Mary-Jane James-Pirri
    • 3
  1. 1.Massachusetts Audubon SocietyWenhamUSA
  2. 2.National Marine Fisheries ServiceGloucesterUSA
  3. 3.Graduate School of OceanographyUniversity of Rhode IslandNarragansettUSA

Personalised recommendations