, Volume 27, Issue 3, pp 620–630 | Cite as

An experimental study on the facilitative effects of tussock structure among wetland plants

  • Gary N. ErvinEmail author


Although most investigations of clonal plants have focused on negative aspects of interactions with neighbors, some studies have shown positive effects of clonal plants on other species, especially clonal plants with a compact, or phalanx, growth habit. For example, several plant species have been observed to grow directly upon tussocks of the freshwater rush Juncus effusus L., and the phenology of those species appeared to correlate with seasonal dynamics of the Juncus canopy. The present experimental study was conducted to enable distinction among four aspects of the Juncus tussock microhabitat: 1) collapse of the Juncus canopy, typical of summer conditions, 2) springtime pre-collapse erect architecture of the Juncus canopy, 3) availability of a living tussock platform in the absence of a canopy, and 4) simple physical provision of an elevated, organic surface for colonization in the form of artificial rooting platforms. Several species responded to particular features of the Juncus effusus canopy; three of those species, Boehmeria cylindrica, Leersia oryzoides, and Lonicera japonica, were identified as facilitated species in previous research on facilitation by Juncus. Particular features of the Juncus tussocks that appeared to correlate with increased cover of colonizing species were Juncus canopy height, tussock basal diameter, and relative water depth atop the tussock. Thus, results of this experimental study support conclusions from prior work on facilitation by Juncus effusus and other tussock-forming species regarding the importance of tussock physical structure in providing sites for plant colonization in freshwater wetlands.

Key Words

competition facilitation Juncus effusus plant interactions tussock-forming plants 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Armas, C., R. Ordiales, and F. I. Pugnaire. 2004. Measuring plant interactions: a new comparative index. Ecology 85: 2682–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bertness, M. D. 1991. Interspecific interactions among high marsh perennials in a New England salt marsh. Ecology 72: 125–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bertness, M. D. and P. J. Ewanchuk. 2002. Latitudinal and climate-driven variation in the strength and nature of biological interactions in New England salt marshes. Oecologia 132: 392–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bruno, J. F. 2000. Facilitation of cobble beach plant communities through habitat modification by Spartina alterniflora. Ecology 81: 1179–92.Google Scholar
  5. Bruno, J. F., J. J. Stachowicz, and M. D. Bertness. 2003. Inclusion of facilitation into ecological theory. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18: 119–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Callaway, R. M. 1992. Effect of shrubs on recruitment of Quercus douglasii and Quercus lobata in California. Ecology 73: 2118–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Callaway, R. M. and L. King. 1996. Temperature-driven variation in substrate oxygenation and the balance of competition and facilitation. Ecology 77: 1189–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Castellanos, E. M., M. E. Figueroa, and A. J. Davy. 1994. Nucleation and facilitation in saltmarsh succession: interactions between Spartina maritima and Arthrocnemum perenne. Journal of Ecology 82: 239–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chapin, III, F. S., K. Van Cleve, and M. C. Chapin. 1979. Soil temperature and nutrient cycling in the tussock growth form of Eriophorum vaginatum. Journal of Ecology 67: 169–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crain, C. M. and M. D. Bertness. 2005. Community impacts of a tussock sedge: is ecosystem engineering important in benign habitats? Ecology 86: 2695–2704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ervin, G. N. 2005. Spatio-temporally variable effects of a dominant macrophyte on vascular plant neighbors. Wetlands 25: 317–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gough, L., D. E. Goldberg, C. Hershock, N. Pauliukonis, and M. Petru. 2002. Investigating the community consequences of competition among clonal plants. Evolutionary Ecology 15: 547–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hacker, S. D. and M. D. Bertness. 1995. Morphological and physiological consequences of a positive plant interaction. Ecology 76: 2165–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Humphrey, L. D. and D. A. Pyke. 1998. Demographic and growth responses of a guerilla and a phalanx perennial grass in competitive mixtures. Journal of Ecology 86: 854–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. King, S. L. and T. J. Antrobus. 2001. Canopy disturbance patterns in a bottomland hardwood forest in northeastern Arkansas, USA. Wetlands 21: 543–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. King, W. 1685. On the bogs and loughs of Ireland. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 15: 948–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kuehn, K. A., M. J. Lemke, K. Suberkropp, and R. G. Wetzel. 2000. Microbial biomass and production associated with decaying leaf litter of the emergent macrophyte Juncus effusus. Limnology and Oceanography 45: 862–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lavoie, C., K. Marcoux, A. Saint-Louis, and J. S. Price. 2005. The dynamics of a cotton-grass (Eriophorum vaginatum L.) cover expansion in a vacuum-mined peatland, southern Québec, Canada. Wetlands 25: 64–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lovett-Doust, L. 1981. Population dynamics and local specialization in a clonal perennial (Ranunculus repens). Journal of Ecology 69: 743–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McCune, B. and J. B. Grace. 2002. Analysis of Ecological Communities. MjM Software Design, Gleneden Beach, Oregon, USA.Google Scholar
  21. Peach, M. and J. B. Zedler. 2006. How tussocks structure sedge meadow vegetation. Wetlands 26: 322–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Schat, H. 1984. A comparative ecophysiological study on the effects of waterlogging on dune slack plants: growth, survival and mineral nutrition in sand culture experiments. Oecologia 62: 279–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schmid, B. and J. L. Harper. 1985. Clonal growth in grassland perennials: I. density and pattern-dependent competition between plants with different growth forms. Journal of Ecology 73: 793–808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Steenbergh, W. F. and C. H. Lowe. 1969. Critical factors during the first years of life of the saguaro (Cereus giganteus) at Saguaro National Monument, Arizona. Ecology 50: 825–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tuitilla, E.-S., H. Rita, H. Vasander, and J. Laine. 2000. Vegetation patterns around Eriophorum vaginatum L. tussocks in a cut-away peatland in southern Finland. Canadian Journal of Botany 78: 47–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. USDA, NRCS. 2004. The PLANTS Database, Version 3.5 ( National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA, USA.Google Scholar
  27. Visser, E. J. W. and G. M. Bögemann. 2006. Aerenchyma formation in the wetland plant Juncus effusus is independent of ethylene. New Phytologist 171: 305–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Weiher, E. and P. A. Keddy. 1995. The assembly of experimental wetland plant communities. Oikos 73: 323–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Werner, K. J. and J. B. Zedler. 2002. How sedge meadow soils, microtopography, and vegetation respond to sedimentation. Wetlands 22: 451–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wetzel, R. G. and M. J. Howe. 1999. High production in a herbaceous perennial plant achieved by continuous growth and synchronized population dynamics. Aquatic Botany 64: 111–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wilson, J. B. and A. D. Q. Agnew. 1992. Positive-feedback switches in plant communities. Advances in Ecological Research 23: 263–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wilson, S. D. and P. A. Keddy. 1986. Measuring diffuse competition along an environmental gradient: results from a shoreline plant community. American Naturalist 127: 862–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Yapp, R. H. and D. Johns. 1917. The salt marshes of the Dovey Estuary. Journal of Ecology 5: 65–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Wetland Scientists 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesMississippi State UniversityMississippi StateUSA

Personalised recommendations