, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 90–107 | Cite as

Rates, patterns, and impacts ofPhragmites australis expansion and effects of experimentalPhragmites control on vegetation, macroinvertebrates, and fish within tidelands of the lower Connecticut River

  • R. Scott Warren
  • Paul E. Fell
  • Jonna L. Grimsby
  • Erika L. Buck
  • G. Chris Rilling
  • Rachel A. Fertik


Phragmites expansion rates (linear at 1–3% yr−1) and impacts of this expansion on high marsh macroinvertebrates, aboveground production, and litter decomposition fromPhragmites and other marsh graminoids were studied along a polyhaline to oligohaline gradient. These parameters, and fish use of creeks and high marsh, were also studied inPhragmites control sites (herbicide, mowing, and combined herbicide/mow treatments).Phragmites clones established without obvious site preferences on oligohaline marshes, expanding radially. At higher salinities,Phragmites preferentially colonized creekbank levees and disturbed upland borders, then expanded into the central marsh. Hydroperiods, but not salinities or water table, distinguishedPhragmites-dominated transects. Pooled samples ofPhragmites leaves, stems, and flowers decompose more slowly than other marsh angiosperms;Phragmites leaves alone decompose as or more rapidly than those of cattail. AbovegroundPhragmites production was 1,300 to 2,400 g m−2 (about 23% of this as leaves), versus 600–800 g m−2 for polyhaline to mesohaline meadow and 1,300 g m−2 for oligohaline cattail-sedge marsh. Macroinvertebrates appear largely unaffected byPhragmites expansion or control efforts; distribution and densities are unrelated to elevation or hydroperiod, but densities are positively related to litter cover. Dominant fish captured leaving flooded marsh wereFundulus heteroclitus andAnguilla rostrata; both preyed heavily on marsh macroinvertebrates.A. rostrata andMorone americana tended to be more common inPhragmites, but otherwise there were no major differences in use patterns betweenPhragmites and brackish meadow vegetation. SAV and macroalgal cover were markedly lower within aPhragmites-dominated creek versus one withSpartina-dominated banks. The same fish species assemblage was trapped in both plus a third within the herbicide/mow treatment. Fish biomass was greatest from theSpartina creek and lowest from thePhragmites creek, reflecting abundances ofF. heteroclitus. Mowing depressedPhragmites aboveground production and increased stem density, but was ineffective for control.Phragmites, Spartina patens, andJuncus gerardii frequencies after herbicide-only treatment were 0.53-0.21; total live cover was <8% with a heavy litter and dense standing dead stems. After two growing seasonsAgrostis stolonifera/S. patens/J. gerardii brackish meadow characterized most of the herbicide/mow treatment area;Phragmites frequency here was 0.53, contributing 3% cover. Both values more than doubled after four years; a single treatment is ineffective for long-termPhragmites control.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Allen, E. A., P. E. Fell, M. A. Peck, J. A. Gieg, C. R. Guthke, andM. D. Newkirk. 1994. Gut contents of common mumichogs,Fundulus heteroclitus L., in a restored impounded marsh and in natural reference marshes.Estuaries 17:462–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bart, D. andJ. M. Hartman. 2000. Environmental determinants ofPhragmites australis expansion in a New Jersey salt marsh: An experimental approach.Oikos 89:59–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benoit, L. K. andR. A. Askins. 1999. Impact of the spread ofPhragmites on the distribution of birds in Connecticut tidal marshes.Wetlands 19:194–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Besitka, M. R. A. 1996. An ecological and historical study ofPhragmites australis along the Atlantic coast. Masters Thesis, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  5. Blake, E. F. andC. A. Simenstad. 2000. Expansion rates and recruitment frequency of exotic smooth cordgrass,Spartina allerniflora (Loisel), colonizing unvegetated littoral flats in Willapa Bay, Washington.Estuaries 23:267–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Callaway, J. C. andM. N. Josselyn. 1992. The introduction and spread of smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) in south San Francisco Bay.Estuaries 15:218–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chambers, R. M., L. A. Meyerson, andK. Saltonstall. 1999. Expansion ofPhragmites australis into tidal wetlands of North America.Aquatic Botany 64:261–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clark, J. S. 1986. Late-Holocene vegetation and coastal processes at a Long Island tidal marsh.Journal of Ecology 74:561–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dame, L. L. andF. S. Collins. 1888. Flora of Middlesex County, Massachusetts. Middlesex Institute, Malden, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  10. Feist, B. E. andC. A. Simenstad. 2000. Expansion rates and recruitment frequency of exotic smooth cordgrass,Spartina alterniflora (Loisel), colonizing unvegetated littoral flats in Willapa Bay, Washington.Estuaries 23:267–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fell, P. E., S. P. Weissbauch, S. P. Jones, D. A. Fallon, J. A. Zeppieri, J. A. Fason, E. K. Lennon, K. A. Newburry, andL. K. Reddington. 1998. Does invasion of oligohaline tidal marshes by reed grass,Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin ex Steud., affect the availability of prey resources for the mummichog,Fundulus heteroclitus L.?Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 222:59–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ferren, W. R., R. E. Good, R. Walker, andJ. Arsenault. 1981. Vegetation and flora of Hog Island, a brackish wetland in the Mullica River, New Jersey.Bartonia 48:1–10.Google Scholar
  13. Frenkel, R. E. 1987. Introduction and spread of cordgrass (Spartina) into the Pacific Northwest.Northwest Environmental Journal 3:152–154.Google Scholar
  14. Galatowitsch, S. M., N. O. Anderson, andP. D. Ascher. 1999. Invasiveness in wetland plants in temperate North America.Wetlands 19:733–755.Google Scholar
  15. Graves, C. B., E. H. Eames, C. H. Bissell, L. Andrews, E. B. Hager, and C. A. Weatherby. 1910. Connecticut Geological and Natural History Survey Bulletin No. 14. Connecticut Public Document No. 47. Hartford, Connecticut.Google Scholar
  16. Hellings, S. E. andJ. L. Gallagher. 1992. The effects of salinity and flooding onPhragmites australis.Journal of Applied Ecology 29:41–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hettler, Jr.,W. F. 1989. Nekton use of regularly-flooded salt-marsh cordgrass habitat in North Carolina, United States of America.Marine Ecology Progress Series 56:111–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kneib, R. T. 1986. The role ofFundulus heteroclitus in salt marsh trophic dynamics.American Zoologist 26:259–269.Google Scholar
  19. Marks, M., B. Lapin, andJ. Randall. 1994.Phragmites australis (P. communis): Threats, management and monitoring.Natural Areas Journal 14:285–294.Google Scholar
  20. Morris, J. T. andB. Haskin. 1990. A 5-year record of aerial primary production and stand characteristics ofSpartina alterniflora.Ecology 71:2209–2217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nichols, G. E. 1920. The vegetation of Connecticut VI. The plant association of depositing areas along the seacoast.Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 47:511–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Niering, W. A. andR. S. Warren. 1980. Vegetation patterns and processes in New England salt marshes.BioScience 30:301–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Niering, W. A. andR. S. Warren (eds.). 1975. Tidal Wetlands of Connecticut, Volume II, Parts 1–4: Vegetation and Microrelief. Department of Environmental Protection, State of Connecticut and United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. Hartford, Connecticut.Google Scholar
  24. Niering, W. A., R. S. Warren, and C. Weymouth. 1977. Our Dynamic Tidal Marshes: Vegetation Changes as Revealed by peat Analysis. Connecticut College Arboretum Bulletin No. 22. New London, Connecticut.Google Scholar
  25. Orson, R. A. 1999. A paleoecological assessment ofPhragmites australis in New England tidal marshes: Changes in plant community structure during the last few millennia.Biological Invasions 1:149–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Orson, R., R. S. Warren, andW. A. Niering. 1987. Development of a southern New England drowned valley tidal marsh.Estuaries 10:6–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rice, D., J. Rooth, andJ. C. Stevenson. 2000. Colonization and expansion ofPhragmites australis in upper Chesapeake Bay tidal marshes.Wetlands 20:280–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Roman, C. T., W. A. Niering, andR. S. Warren. 1984. Salt marsh vegetation change in response to tidal restriction.Environmental Management 8:141–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rozsa, R. 1995. Human impacts of tidal wetlands: History and regulations, p. 42–50.In G. D. Dreyer and W. A. Niering (eds.), Tidal Marshes of Long Island Sound: Ecology, History, and Restoration. Connecticut College Arboretum Bulletin No. 34. New London, Connecticut.Google Scholar
  30. Steever, E. Z. 1972. Productivity and Vegetation Studies of a Tidal Salt Marsh in Stonington, Connecticut: Cottrell Marsh. M.S. Thesis, Connecticut College, New London, Connecticut.Google Scholar
  31. Thompson, L. S. 1984. Comparison of the diets of the tidal marsh snail,Melampus bidentatus, and the amphipodOrchestia grillus.Nautilus 98:44–53.Google Scholar
  32. Torrey, J. 1843. Flora of the State of New York. Volume II. Carroll and Cook, Albany, New York.Google Scholar
  33. Weisberg, S. B. andV. A. Lotrich. 1982. The importance of an infrequently flooded intertidal marsh surface as an energy source for the common mummichogFundulus heteroclitus: An experimental approach.Marine Biology 66:307–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Windham, L. andR. G. Lathrop, Jr. 1999. Effects ofPhragmites australis (common reed) invasion on aboveground biomass and soil properties in brackish tidal marsh of the Mullica River, New Jersey.Estuaries 22:927–935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Estuarine Research Federation 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Scott Warren
    • 1
  • Paul E. Fell
    • 1
  • Jonna L. Grimsby
    • 1
  • Erika L. Buck
    • 1
  • G. Chris Rilling
    • 1
  • Rachel A. Fertik
    • 1
  1. 1.Connecticut CollegeGoodwin-Niering Center for Conservation Biology and Environmental StudiesNew London

Personalised recommendations