, Volume 28, Issue 3, pp 656–665 | Cite as

Propagule banks: Potential contribution to restoration of an impounded and dewatered riparian ecosystem

  • Jere A. Boudell
  • Juliet C. Stromberg


The Agua Fria River in Arizona’s Sonoran Desert was impounded and diverted more than 70 years ago. Immediately below New Waddell dam there are semi-permanent pools, but water has been released into the channel only during rare wet years. To determine whether a propagule bank exists below the dam, and whether it could contribute to the revegetation of the Agua Fria riparian ecosystem should flow be restored to the dewatered reach, we collected 45 soil cores from four plant associations. We examined species in the samples in a growth chamber using the seedling emergence method. A total of 74 species (mostly herbaceous) and an abundance of individuals were present in propagule banks. The propagule banks were similar to those of a free-flowing reference river despite considerable differences in extant vegetation. Riparian species were present in propagule banks of all four associations and were the dominant type in three (Tamarix forests, Tamarix-Salix forests, and Baccharis-Bebbia shrublands). Propagule distribution varied with soil depth in three of the associations (Tamarix forests and the two xerophytic shrublands) with riparian species more prevalent in deep sediment and upland species more prevalent in surface soil and litter. Collectively these patterns suggest that a riparian legacy is present in Agua Fria propagule banks. However, riparian propagule density was low in the Hymenoclea-Bebbia shrublands, reflecting xerification of the riparian corridor. Given the physical barrier of the dam, continued diversion of stream flow, and rare flood releases, local inputs from xerophytes will dominate propagule bank dynamics in the future. Although propagule banks could contribute to redevelopment of the herbaceous component of the vegetation should stream flows be restored to this river reach, the riparian legacy likely will decline over time as riparian propagules reach the end of their lifespan while propagules of xerophytes continue to be replenished.

Key Words

arid region floodplain seed bank vegetation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Bagstad, K. J., S. J. Lite, and J. C. Stromberg. 2006. Vegetation, soils and hydrogeomorphology of riparian patch types of a dryland river. Western North American Naturalist 66: 23–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baskin, C. C. and J. M. Baskin. 1998. Seeds: Ecology, Biogeography, and Evolution of Dormancy and Germination. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  3. Boudell, J. A. 2004. Propagule banks as refugia for plant diversity in southwestern riparian ecosystems. Ph.D. Dissertation. Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA.Google Scholar
  4. Boudell, J. A. and J. C. Stromberg. 2008. Floodpulsing and metacommunity dynamics in a desert riparian ecosystem. Journal of Vegetation Science 19: 373–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, S. C. 1998. Remnant seed banks and vegetation as predictors of restored marsh vegetation. Canadian Journal of Botany 76: 620–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Busch, D. E. and S. D. Smith. 1995. Mechanisms associated with decline of woody species in riparian ecosystems of the southwestern U.S. Ecological Monographs 65: 347–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Capon, S. J. and M. A. Brock. 2006. Flooding, soil seed bank dynamics and vegetation resilience of a hydrologically variable desert floodplain. Freshwater Biology 51: 206–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Combroux, I. C. S., G. Bornette, and C. Amoros. 2002. Plant regenerative strategies after a major disturbance: the case of a riverine wetland restoration. Wetlands 22: 234–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dimmitt, M. A. 2000. Biomes & communities of the Sonoran desert region. p. 3–28. In S. J. Phillips and P. W. Comus (eds.) A Natural History of the Sonoran Desert. Tucson: Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum Press and London: University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  10. Dynesius, M., R. Jansson, M. E. Johansson, and C. Nilsson. 2004. Intercontinental similarities in riparian-plan diversity and sensitivity to river regulation. Ecological Applications 14: 173–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Elmore, A. J., J. F. Mustard, and S. J. Manning. 2003. Regional patterns of plant community response to changes in water: Owens Valley, California. Ecological Applications 13: 443–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Espinar, J. L., K. Thompson, and L. V. Garcia. 2005. Timing of seed dispersal generates a bimodal seed bank depth distribution. American Journal of Botany 92: 1759–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hughes, F. M. R. and S. B. Rood. 2003. Allocation of river flows for restoration of floodplain forest ecosystems: a review of approaches and their applicability in Europe. Environmental Management 32: 12–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Johnson, W. C. 2002. Riparian vegetation diversity along regulated rivers: contribution of novel and relict habitats. Freshwater Biology 47: 749–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Judd, J. B., J. M. Laughlin, H. R. Guenther, and R. Handergrade. 1971. The lethal decline of mesquite on the Casa Grande National Monument. Great Basin Naturalist 31: 153–59.Google Scholar
  16. Kearney, T. H. and R. H. Peebles. 1960. Arizona Flora. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  17. Krebs, C. J. 1999. Ecological Methodology, second edition. Benjamin/Cummings, Menlo Park, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  18. Leck, M. A. and W. Schutz. 2005. Regeneration of Cyperaceae, with particular reference to seed ecology and seed banks. Perspectives in Plant Ecology Evolution and Systematics 7: 95–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lite, S. J. and J. C. Stromberg. 2005. Surface water and ground-water thresholds for maintaining Populus — Salix forests, San Pedro River, Arizona. Biological Conservation 125: 153–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Matus, G., R. Verhagen, R. M. Bekker, and A. P. Grootjans. 2003. Restoration of the Cirsio dissecti-Molinietum in The Netherlands: can we rely on soil seed banks? Applied Vegetation Science 6: 73–84.Google Scholar
  21. McDonald, A. W., J. P. Bakker, and K. Vegelin. 1996. Seed bank classification and its importance for the restoration of speciesrich flood-meadows. Journal of Vegetation Science 7: 157–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Merritt, D. M. and E. E. Wohl. 2006. Plant dispersal along rivers fragmented by dams. River Research and Applications 22: 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Middleton, B. A. 1999. Wetland Restoration, Flood Pulsing, and Disturbance Dynamics. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  24. Middleton, B. A. 2003. Soil seed banks and the potential restoration of forested wetlands after farming. Journal of Applied Ecology 40: 1025–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Molles, M. C. Jr., C. S. Crawford, L. M. Ellis, H. M. Valett, and C. N. Dahm. 1998. Managed flooding for riparian ecosystem restoration. BioScience 48: 749–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Naiman, R. J. and H. Decamps. 1997. The ecology of interfaces: riparian zones. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 28: 621–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nilsson, C. and R. Jansson. 1995. Floristic differences between riparian corridors of regulated and free-flowing boreal rivers. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 11: 55–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nilsson, C., R. Jansson, and U. Zinko. 1997. Long-term responses of river-margin vegetation to water-level regulation. Science 276: 798–800.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Nilsson, C. and M. Svedmark. 2002. Basic principles and ecological consequences of changing water regimes: riparian plant communities. Environmental Management 30: 468–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Patten, D. T. 1998. Riparian ecosystems of semi-arid North America: diversity and human impacts. Wetlands 18: 498–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Penfound, W. T. 1952. An outline for ecological life histories of herbaceous vascular hydrophytes. Ecology 33: 123–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Poff, N. L., J. D. Allan, M. B. Bain, J. R. Karr, K. L. Prestegaard, B. D. Richter, and J. C. Stromberg. 1997. The natural flow regime: a paradigm for river conservation and restoration. BioScience 47: 769–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ramsey, P. H. 1989. Critical values for Spearman’s rank order correlation. Journal of Educational Statistics 14: 245–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Reed, P. B. 1997. Revision of the national list of plant species that occur in wetlands. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  35. Roberts, H. A. 1981. Seed banks in soils. Advances in Applied Biology 6: 1–55.Google Scholar
  36. Rood, S. B., C. R. Gourley, E. M. Ammon, L. G. Heki, J. R. Klotz, M. L. Morrison, D. Mosley, G. G. Scoppettone, S. Swanson, and P. L. Wagner. 2003. Flows for floodplain forests: a successful riparian restoration. BioScience 53: 647–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Salinas, M. J., G. Blanca, and A. T. Romero. 2000. Riparian vegetation and water chemistry in a basin under semiarid Mediterranean climate, Andarax River, Spain. Environmental Management 26: 539–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Schmidli, R. J. 1993. Climate of Phoenix, Arizona. NOAA, Department of Commerce, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. Technical Memorandum NWS WR-177.Google Scholar
  39. Shafroth, P. B., G. T. Auble, J. C. Stromberg, and D. T. Patten. 1998. Establishment of woody riparian vegetation in relation to annual patterns of streamflow, Bill Williams River, Arizona. Wetlands 18: 577–90.Google Scholar
  40. Shafroth, P. B., J. M. Friedman, and L. S. Ischinger. 1995. Effects of salinity on establishment of Populus fremontii (cottonwood) and Tamarix ramosissima (saltcedar) in southwestern United States. Great Basin Naturalist 55: 58–65.Google Scholar
  41. Shafroth, P. B., J. C. Stromberg, and D. T. Patten. 2002. Riparian vegetation response to altered disturbance and stress regimes. Ecological Applications 12: 107–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Smith, S. M., P. V. McCormick, J. A. Leeds, and P. B. Garrett. 2002. Constraints of seed bank species composition and water depth for restoring vegetation in the Florida Everglades, USA. Restoration Ecology 10: 138–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sokal, R. R. and F. J. Rohlf. 1995. Biometry, third edition. W.H. Freeman and Company, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  44. Springer, A. E., J. M. Wright, P. B. Shafroth, J. C. Stromberg, and D. T. Patten. 1999. Coupling groundwater and riparian vegetation models to assess effects of reservoir releases. Water Resources Research 35: 3621–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. SPSS Science. 1998. SYSTAT 8.0 for Windows. SPSS Science, Chicago, IL, USA.Google Scholar
  46. Stevens, L. E., T. J. Ayers, J. B. Bennett, K. Christensen, M. J. C. Kearsley, V. J. Meretsky, A. M. Phillips, R. A. Parnell, J. Spence, M. K. Sogge, A. E. Springer, and D. L. Wegner. 2001. Planned flooding and Colorado River riparian trade-offs downstream from Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona. Ecological Applications 11: 701–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Stromberg, J. C., J. Bagstad J. Leenhout, S. J. Lite, and E. Makings. 2005. Effects of stream flow intermittency on riparian vegetation of a semiarid region river (San Pedro River, Arizona). River Research and Application 21: 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stromberg, J. C., V. B. Beauchamp, M. D. Dixon, S. J. Lite, and C. Paradzick. 2007. Importance of low-flow and high-flow characteristics to restoration of riparian vegetation along rivers in arid southwestern United States. Freshwater Biology 52: 651–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stromberg, J. C., J. A. Boudell, and A. F. Hazelton. 2008. Differences in seed mass between hydric and xeric plants influence seed bank dynamics in a dryland riparian ecosystem. Functional Ecology 22: 205–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Stromberg, J. C., J. Fry, and D. T. Patten. 1997. Marsh development after large floods in an alluvial, arid-land river. Wetlands 17: 292–300.Google Scholar
  51. Thompson, K., J. P. Bakker, and R. M. Bekker. 1997. The Soil Seed Banks of North West Europe: Methodology, Density and Longevity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  52. Thompson, K. and J. P. Grime. 1979. Seasonal variation in the seed banks of herbaceous species in ten contrasting habitats. Journal of Ecology 67: 893–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Vandersande, M. W., E. P. Glenn, and J. L. Walworth. 2001. Tolerance of five riparian plants from the lower Colorado River to salinity drought and inundation. Journal of Arid Environments 49: 147–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Welch, B. L. 1937. The significance of the difference between two means when the population variances are unequal. Biometrika 29: 350–62.Google Scholar
  55. Wentworth, T. R., G. P. Johnson, and R. L. Kologiski. 1988. Designation of wetlands by weighted averages of vegetation data: a preliminary evaluation. Water Resources Bulletin 24: 389–96.Google Scholar
  56. Wetzel, P. R., A. G. van der Valk, and L. A. Toth. 2001. Restoration of wetland vegetation on the Kissimmee River floodplain: potential role of seed banks. Wetlands 21: 189–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wienhold, C. E. and A. G. van der Valk. 1989. The impact of duration of drainage on the seed banks of northern prairie wetlands. Canadian Journal of Botany 67: 1878–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wolden, L. G., J. C. Stromberg, and D. T. Patten. 1994. Flora and vegetation of the Hassayampa River Preserve Maricopa County, Arizona. Journal of the Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science 28: 76–111.Google Scholar
  59. Xiong, S. and C. Nilsson. 1999. The effects of plant litter on vegetation: a meta-analysis. Journal of Ecology 87: 984–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Zar, J. H. 1999. Biostatistical Analysis, fourth edition. Prentice Hall Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Wetland Scientists 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jere A. Boudell
    • 1
  • Juliet C. Stromberg
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Natural SciencesClayton State UniversityMorrowUSA
  2. 2.School of Life SciencesArizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations