Advertisement

Wetlands

, Volume 24, Issue 2, pp 434–447 | Cite as

Effects of stressors on invasive and halophytic plants of New England salt marshes: A framework for predicting response to tidal restoration

  • Raymond A. Konisky
  • David M. Burdick

Abstract

Salt marsh restoration practices based on the reintroduction of tides to hydrologically-altered wetlands may be hindered by a lack of specific knowledge regarding plant community response to environmental change. Since saltmarsh plant communities are controlled by physical stress tolerance and competition, we conducted a field experiment that measured effects of saltwater flooding and competitive interactions on plants as a guide for predicting habitat response to tidal restoration. Six plant species of New England salt marshes were studied: halophytes Spartina alterniflora, Spartina patens, and Juncus gerardii and brackish invasive species Phragmites australis, Typha angustifolia, and Lythrum salicaria. Plant shoots were transplanted across a gradient of three flooding and three salinity regimes and arranged into pair-wise competitive combinations. After one growing season, saltwater flooding was found to decrease transplant survival, biomass production, and/or relative growth for all species. Reduction in halophyte growth was largely due to increased flood duration; brackish species were most reduced by increased salinity. Interspecific competition also influenced species growth, although the short duration of the study may have weakened these effects. Transplants paired with S. alterniflora had reduced growth, but combinations with Juncus produced increased growth. Standardized factors of stress tolerance and relative competitive strength were derived for the six study species as a framework for understanding community-level changes in marshes. As an aid to resource managers, experimental results can be used to predict plant community response to existing and potential alterations in saltmarsh tidal hydrology.

Key Words

salt marsh halophyte brackish stress tolerance competition Spartina Phragmites Typha Lythrum Juncus 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Abacus Concepts. 1989. SuperANOVA. Accessible General Linear Modeling. Abacus, Berkeley, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Beare, P. A. and J. B. Zedler. 1987. Cattail invasion and persistence in a coastal salt marsh: The role of salinity reduction. Estuaries 10:165–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bertness, M. D. 1988. Peat accumulation and the success of marsh plants. Ecology 69:703–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bertness, M. D. 1991a. Interspecific interactions among high marsh perennials in a New England salt marsh. Ecology 72:125–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bertness, M. D. 1991b. Zonation of Spartina patens and Spartina alterniflora in a New England salt marsh. Ecology 72:138–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bertness, M. D. 1992. The ecology of a New England salt marsh. American Scientist 80:260–268.Google Scholar
  8. Bertness, M. D., and A. M. Ellison. 1987. Determinants of pattern in a New England salt marsh plant community. Ecological Monographs 57:129–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bertness, M. D. and S. D. Hacker. 1994. Physical stress and positive interactions among marsh plants. American Naturalist 144:363–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bertness, M. D. and S. M. Yeh. 1994. Cooperative and competitive interactions in the recruitment of marsh elders. Ecology 75:2416–2429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boumans, R. M. J., D. M. Burdick, and M. Dionne. 2002. Modeling habitat change in salt marshes after tidal restoration. Restoration Ecology 10:543–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Burdick, D. M., R. M. Boumans, M. Dionne, and F. T. Short. 1999. Impacts to salt marshes from tidal restrictions and ecological responses to tidal restoration. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, DC, USA. NA570R0343.Google Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Burdick, D. M., M. Dionne, R. M. Boumans, and F. T. Short. 1997. Ecological responses to tidal restoration of two New England salt marshes. Wetlands Ecology and Management 4:129–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Burdick, D. M., I. A. Mendelssohn, and K. L. McKee. 1989. Live standing crop and metabolism of the marsh grass Spartina patens as related to edaphic factors in a brackish, mixed marsh community in Louisiana. Estuaries 12:195–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chambers, R. M., L. A. Meyerson, and K. Saltonstall. 1999. Expansion of Phragmites australis into tidal wetlands of North America. Aquatic Botany 64:261–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chambers, R. M., T. J. Mozdzer, and J. C. Ambrose. 1998. Effects of salinity and sulfide distribution on Phragmites australis and Spartina alterniflora in a tidal saltmarsh. Aquatic Botany 62:161–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dormann, C. F., R. Van Der Wal, and J. P. Bakker. 2000. Competition and herbivory during salt marsh succession: The importance of forb growth strategy. Journal of Ecology 88:571–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dzierzeski, M. J. 1991. Factors controlling the invasion of Lythrum salicaria (purple loosestrife) in a hydrologically altered salt marsh. Masters Thesis. University of New Hamphire, Durham, NH, USA.Google Scholar
  20. Emery, N. C., P. J. Ewanchuk, and M. D. Bertness. 2001. Competition and salt-marsh plant zonation: Stress tolerators may be dominant competitors. Ecology 82:2471–2485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hellings, S. E. and J. L. Gallagher. 1992. The effects of salinity and flooding on Phragmites australis. Journal of Applied Ecology 29: 41–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Helsel, D. R. and R. M. Hirsch. 1997. Statistical Methods in Water Resources. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  23. Jaworski, N. A., R. W. Howarth, and L. J. Hetling. 1997. Atmospheric deposition of nitrogen oxides onto the landscape contributes to coastal eutrophication in the northeast United States. Environmental Science and Technology 31:1995–2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Keddy, P. A. 1989. Competition. Chapman & Hall, London, UK.Google Scholar
  25. Keddy, P. A., L. Twolan-Strutt, and I. C. Wisheu. 1994. Competitive effect and response rankings in 20 wetland plants: are they consistent across three environments? Journal of Ecology 82:635–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Levine, J. M, J. S. Brewer, and M. D. Bertness. 1998. Nutrient, competition and plant zonation in a New England salt marsh. Journal of Ecology 86:285–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McKee, K. L. and W. H. Patrick. 1988. The relationship of smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) to tidal datums: a review. Estuaries 22:143–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Meyerson, L. A., K. Saltonstall, L. Windham, E. Kiviat, and S. Findlay. 2000. A comparison of Phragmites australis in freshwater and brackish marsh environments in North America. Wetlands Ecology and Management 8:89–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mitsch, W. J. and J. G. Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands, second edition. Wiley, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  30. Neckles, H. A., M. Dionne, D. M. Burdick, C. T. Roman, R. Buchsbaum, and E. Hutchins. 2002. A monitoring protocol to assess tidal restoration of salt marshes on local and regional scales. Restoration Ecology 10:556–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nestler, J. 1977. Interstitial salinity as a cause of ecophenic variation in Spartina alterniflora. Estuarine Coastal Marine Sciences 16: 103–109.Google Scholar
  32. Niering, W. A. and R. S. Warren. 1980. Vegetation patterns and processes of New England salt marshes. Bioscience 30:301–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nixon, S. W. 1982. The ecology of New England high salt marshes: a community profile. United States Department of the Interior, Washington, DC, USA. FWS/OBS-81/55.Google Scholar
  34. 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-87/17.Google Scholar
  35. Pennings, S. C. and R. M. Callaway. 1992. Salt marsh zonation: The relative importance of competition and physical factors. Ecology 73:681–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Redfield, A. C. 1972. Development of a New England salt marsh. Ecological Monographs 42:201–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Roman, C. T., W. A. Niering, and R. S. Warren. 1984. Salt marsh vegetation change in response to tidal restrictions. Environmental Management 8:141–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Roman, C. T., K. B. Raposa, S. C. Adamowicz, M. James-Pirri, and J. G. Catena. 2002. Quantifying vegetation and nekton response to tidal restoration of a New England salt marsh. Restoration Ecology 10:450–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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 99:2445–2449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. SAS Institute. 1997. JMP statistics software, version 3.1. SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
  41. Schat, M. 1984. A comparative ecophysiologic study of the effects of waterlogging and submergence on dune slack plants: growth, survival and mineral nutrition in sand culture experiments. Oecologia (Berlin) 62:279–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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
  43. Streever, W. J. and A. J. Genders. 1997. Effect of tidal flushing and competitive interactions at the boundary between salt marsh and pasture. Estuaries 20:807–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tilman, D. 1982. Resource Competition and Community Structure. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, USA.Google Scholar
  45. USDA SCS (U. S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service). 1994. Evaluation of restorable salt marshes in New Hampshire. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Durham, NH, USA.Google Scholar
  46. Warren, R. S., P. E. Fell, J. L. Grimsby, E. L. Buck, G. C. Rilling, and R. A. Fertek. 2001. Rates, patterns, and impacts of Phragmites australis expansion and effects of experimental Phragmites control on vegetation, macroinvertibrates, and fish within tidelands of the lower Connecticut River. Estuaries 24:90–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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 10:497–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Webb, J. W. 1983. Soil water salinity variations and their effects on Spartina alterniflora. Contributions of Marine Science 26:1–13.Google Scholar
  49. Whigham, D. F., J. McCormick, R. E. Good, and R. L. Simpson. 1978. Biomass and primary production in freshwater tidal wetlands of the middle Atlantic coast. p. 3–20. In D. F. Whigham (ed.) Freshwater Wetlands: Ecological Processes and Management Potential. New Academic Press, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  50. Williams, P. B. and M. K. Orr. 2002. Physical evolution of restored breached levee salt marshes in the San Francisco Bay Estuary. Restoration Ecology 10:527–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zedler, J. B. 2000. Progress in wetland restoration ecology. TREE 15:402–407.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Wetland Scientists 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Raymond A. Konisky
    • 1
  • David M. Burdick
    • 2
  1. 1.Wells National Estuarine Research ReserveWellsUSA
  2. 2.Jackson Estuarine Laboratory Department of Natural ResourcesUniversity of New HampshireDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations