Advertisement

Estuaries and Coasts

, Volume 42, Issue 1, pp 85–98 | Cite as

Vertical Zonation and Niche Breadth of Tidal Marsh Plants Along the Northeast Pacific Coast

  • Christopher N. JanousekEmail author
  • Karen M. Thorne
  • John Y. Takekawa
Article

Abstract

The distribution patterns of sessile organisms in coastal intertidal habitats typically exhibit vertical zonation, but little is known about variability in zonation among sites or species at larger spatial scales. Data on such heterogeneity could inform mechanistic understanding of factors affecting species distributions as well as efforts to assess and manage coastal species and habitat vulnerability to sea-level rise. Using data on the vertical distribution of common plant species at 12 tidal marshes across the US Pacific coast, we examined heterogeneity in patterns of zonation to test whether distributions varied by site, species, or latitude. Interspecific zonation was evident at most sites, but the vertical niches of co-occurring common species often overlapped considerably. The median elevation of most species varied across marshes, with site-specific differences in marsh elevation profiles more important than differences in latitude that reflect regional climate gradients. Some common species consistently inhabited lower or higher elevations relative to other species, but others varied among sites. Vertical niche breadth varied more than twofold among species. These results indicate that zonation varies by both site and species at the regional scale, and highlight the potential importance of local marsh elevation profiles to plant vertical distributions. Furthermore, they suggest that coastal foundation species such as marsh plants may differ in their vulnerability to sea-level rise by being restricted to specific elevation zones or by occurring in narrow vertical niches.

Keywords

Realized niche Salt marsh Sea-level rise Species distribution Tidal datums 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank K. Powelson, K. Lovett, K. Buffington, L. Curry, C. Freeman, L. Bellevue, M. Holt, and H. Robinson who conducted the extensive vegetation and elevation sampling in the field. We also thank C. Freeman (USGS) for producing Fig 1. and Supplementary Fig.1 and J. Callaway, J. Crooks, and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on the manuscript. The Northwest and Southwest Climate Adaptation Science Centers of the US Department of the Interior funded this study, with additional support from NOAA grant NA15NOS4780171. We thank the following agencies and individuals for site access: US Fish and Wildlife Service (A. Yuen, SDB; E. Nelson, MAD; D. Ledig, COQ; R. Lowe, SIL; G. Nakai, GRA), NOAA’s National Estuarine Research Reserve System (J. Crooks, TIJ; C. Cornu, COO), California State Parks (A. Kitajima, MOR), Marin County Parks (W. Carmen, BOL), California Department of Fish and Wildlife and Orange County Parks (C. Navarro, NEW), Skokomish Indian Tribe (S. Kirby, SKO), and the Nature Conservancy (J. Boyd, STI). Most raw data generated for this study are available as USGS data releases. Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the US government. The US government is authorized to reproduce and distribute reprints of this article for governmental purposes.

Supplementary material

12237_2018_420_MOESM1_ESM.doc (2.1 mb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 2.09 mb)

References

  1. Baldwin, B.G., D.H. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Patterson, T.J. Rosatti, and D.H. Wilken, eds. 2012. The Jepson Manual. Vascular Plants of California. 2nd ed. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bertness, M.D. 1991a. Interspecific interactions among high marsh perennials in a New England salt marsh. Ecology 72 (1): 125–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bertness, M.D. 1991b. Zonation of Spartina patens and Spartina alterniflora in a New England salt marsh. Ecology 72 (1): 138–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bertness, M.D., and A.M. Ellison. 1987. Determinants of pattern in a New England salt marsh plant community. Ecological Monographs 57 (2): 129–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bertness, M.D., and S.D. Hacker. 1994. Physical stress and positive associations among marsh plants. The American Naturalist 144 (3): 363–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bockelmann, A.-C., and R. Neuhaus. 1999. Competitive exclusion of Elymus athericus from a high-stress habitat in a European salt marsh. Journal of Ecology 87 (3): 503–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bonin, C.L., and J.B. Zedler. 2008. Southern California salt marsh dominance relates to plant traits and plasticity. Estuaries and Coasts 31 (4): 682–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Castillo, J.M., L. Fernández-Baco, E.M. Castellanos, C.J. Luque, M.E. Figueroa, and A.J. Davy. 2000. Lower limits of Spartina densiflora and S. maritima in a Mediterranean salt marsh determined by different ecophysiological tolerances. Journal of Ecology 88 (5): 801–812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chapman, V.J. 1939. Studies in salt-marsh ecology sections IV and V. Journal of Ecology 27 (1): 160–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chapman, V.J. 1940. Studies in salt-marsh ecology sections VI and VII. Comparison with marshes on the east coast of North America. Journal of Ecology 28 (1): 118–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chappuis, E., M. Terradas, M.E. Cefalì, S. Mariani, and E. Ballesteros. 2014. Vertical zonation is the main distribution pattern of littoral assemblages on rocky shores at a regional scale. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 147: 113–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Costa, C.S.B., J.C. Marangoni, and A.M.G. Azevedo. 2003. Plant zonation in irregularly flooded salt marshes: Relative importance of stress tolerance and biological interactions. Journal of Ecology 91 (6): 951–965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Doty, M.S. 1946. Critical tide factors that are correlated with the vertical distribution of marine algae and other organisms along the Pacific coast. Ecology 27 (4): 315–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eleuterius, L.N., and C.K. Eleuterius. 1979. Tide levels and salt marsh zonation. Bulletin of Marine Science 29: 394–400.Google Scholar
  15. Elmendorf, S.C., and K.A. Moore. 2007. Plant competition varies with community composition in an edaphically complex landscape. Ecology 88 (10): 2640–2650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Engels, J.G., F. Rink, and K. Jensen. 2011. Stress tolerance and biotic interactions determine plant zonation patterns in estuarine marshes during seedling emergence and early establishment. Journal of Ecology 99 (1): 277–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fariña, J.M., B.R. Silliman, and M.D. Bertness. 2009. Can conservation biologists rely on established community structure rules to manage novel systems? … not in salt marshes. Ecological Applications 19 (2): 413–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Feigelson, E., and G.J. Babu. 2017. Beware the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test! Astrostatistics and Astroinformatics Portal, The Pennsylvania State University. https://asaip.psu.edu/Articles/beware-the-kolmogorov-smirnov-test, accessed 25 Oct 2017.Google Scholar
  19. Griffin, P.J., T. Theodose, and M. Dionne. 2011. Landscape patterns of forb panes across a northern New England salt marsh. Wetlands 31 (1): 25–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hinde, H.P. 1954. The vertical distribution of salt marsh phanerograms in relation to tide levels. Ecological Monographs 24 (2): 209–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Janousek, C.N., and C.L. Folger. 2014. Variation in tidal wetland plant diversity and composition within and among coastal estuaries: Assessing the relative importance of environmental gradients. Journal of Vegetation Science 25 (2): 534–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Janousek, C.N., K.J. Buffington, K.M. Thorne, G.R. Guntenspergen, J.Y. Takekawa, and B.D. Dugger. 2016. Potential effects of sea-level rise on plant productivity: Species-specific responses in Northeast Pacific tidal marshes. Marine Ecology Progress Series 548: 111–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kim, D., D.M. Cairns, J. Bartholdy, and C.L.S. Morgan. 2012. Scale-dependent correspondence of floristic and edaphic gradients across salt marsh creeks. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 102 (2): 276–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kirwan, M.L., J.A. Langley, G.R. Guntenspergen, and J.P. Megonigal. 2013. The impact of sea-level rise on organic matter decay rates in Chesapeake Bay brackish tidal marshes. Biogeosciences 10 (3): 1869–1876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Levine, J.M., J.S. Brewer, and M.D. Bertness. 1998. Nutrients, competition and plant zonation in a New England salt marsh. Journal of Ecology 86 (2): 285–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mahall, B.E., and R.B. Park. 1976. The ecotone between Spartina foliosa Trin. and Salicornia virginica L. in salt marshes of northern San Francisco Bay III. Soil aeration and tidal immersion. Journal of Ecology 64: 811–819.Google Scholar
  27. McKee, K.L., and W.H. Patrick Jr. 1988. The relationship of smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) to tidal datums: A review. Estuaries 11: 143–151, 3.Google Scholar
  28. Niering, W.A., and R.S. Warren. 1980. Vegetation patterns and processes in New England salt marshes. BioScience 30 (5): 301–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Noto, A.E., and J.B. Shurin. 2017. Early stages of sea-level rise lead to decreased salt marsh plant diversity through stronger competition in Mediterranean-climate marshes. PLoS One 12 (1): e0169056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Osland, M.J., R.H. Day, C.T. Hall, M.D. Brumfield, J.L. Dugas, and W.R. Jones. 2017. Mangrove expansion and contraction at a poleward range limit: Climate extremes and land-ocean temperature gradients. Ecology 98 (1): 125–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Page, H.M., S. Schroeter, D. Reed, R.F. Ambrose, J. Callaway, and J. Dixon. 2003. An inexpensive method to identify the elevation of tidally inundated habitat in coastal wetlands. Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Sciences 102: 130–142.Google Scholar
  32. Pennings, S.C., and R.M. Callaway. 1992. Salt marsh plant zonation: The relative importance of competition and physical factors. Ecology 73 (2): 681–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pennings, S.C., M.-B. Grant, and M.D. Bertness. 2005. Plant zonation in low-latitude salt marshes: Disentangling the roles of flooding, salinity and competition. Journal of Ecology 93 (1): 159–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Piirainen, M., O. Liebisch, and G. Kadereit. 2017. Phylogeny, biogeography, systematics and taxonomy of Salicornioideae (Amaranthaceae/Chenopodiaceae) - A cosmopolitan, highly specialized hygrohalophyte lineage dating back to the Oligocene. Taxon 66:109–132.Google Scholar
  35. Russell, P.J., T.J. Flowers, and M.J. Hutchings. 1985. Comparison of niche breadths and overlaps of halophytes on salt marshes of differing diversity. Vegetatio 61 (1-3): 171–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sánchez, J.M., J. Izco, and M. Medrano. 1996. Relationships between vegetation zonation and altitude in a salt-marsh system in Northwest Spain. Journal of Vegetation Science 7 (5): 695–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schile, L.M., J.C. Callaway, V.T. Parker, and M.C. Vasey. 2011. Salinity and inundation influence productivity of the halophytic plant Sarcocornia pacifica. Wetlands 31 (6): 1165–1174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schile, L.M., J.C. Callaway, K.N. Suding, and N.M. Kelly. 2017. Can community structure track sea-level rise? Stress and competitive controls in tidal wetlands. Ecology and Evolution 7 (4): 1276–1285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sekhon, J. 2011. Multivariate and propensity score matching software with automated balance optimization: The Matching package for R. Journal of Statistical Software 42: 1–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Silvestri, S., A. Defina, and M. Marani. 2005. Tidal regime, salinity and salt marsh plant zonation. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 62 (1-2): 119–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Snedden, G.A., K. Cretini, and B. Patton. 2015. Inundation and salinity impacts to above- and belowground productivity in Spartina patens and Spartina alterniflora in the Mississippi River deltaic plain: Implications for using river diversions as restoration tools. Ecological Engineering 81: 133–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sokal, R.R., and F.J. Rohlf. 1995. Biometry. 3rd ed. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
  43. Swanson, K.M., J.Z. Drexler, D.H. Schoellhamer, K.M. Thorne, M.L. Casazza, C.T. Overton, J.C. Callaway, and J.Y. Takekawa. 2014. Wetland accretion rate model of ecosystem resilience (WARMER) and its application to habitat sustainability for endangered species in the San Francisco estuary. Estuaries and Coasts 37 (2): 476–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Thorne, K.M. 2015. Sea-level rise projections for and observational data of tidal marshes along the California coast. USGS ScienceBase Data Repository.  https://doi.org/10.5066/F7RX99V3.
  45. Thorne, K.M., K.J. Buffington, C.M. Freeman, K.W. Powelson, G.M. Block, and J.Y. Takekawa. 2014. Projecting tidal marsh response to sea-level rise using local site conditions: San Diego Bay National Wildlife Refuge: Sweetwater Unit. Unpublished data summary report. Vallejo, CA: U.S. Geological Survey, Western Ecological Research Center, 41 pp.Google Scholar
  46. Thorne, K.M., B. Dugger, J.Y. Takekawa, G.R. Guntenspergen, C. Janousek, K. Buffington, C.M. Freeman, and K. Powelson. 2015a. Marshes to mudflats: Climate change effects along coastal estuaries in the Pacific northwest. USGS ScienceBase Data Repository.  https://doi.org/10.5066/F7SJ1HNC.
  47. Thorne, K.M., B.D. Dugger, K.J. Buffington, C.M. Freeman, C.N. Janousek, K.W. Powelson, G.R. Guntenspergen, and J.Y. Takekawa. 2015b. Marshes to mudflats – effects of sea-level rise on tidal marshes along a latitudinal gradient in the Pacific Northwest. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2015–1204, 54 p. + appendices.Google Scholar
  48. Thorne, K.M., G.M. MacDonald, R.F. Ambrose, K.J. Buffington, C.M. Freeman, C.N. Janousek, L.N. Brown, J.R. Holmquist, G.R. Guntenspergen, K.W. Powelson, P.L. Barnard, J.Y. Takekawa. 2016. Effects of climate change on tidal marshes along a latitudinal gradient in California. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2016–1125, 75 p. + appendices.Google Scholar
  49. Thorne, K., G. MacDonald, G. Guntenspergen, R. Ambrose, K. Buffington, B. Dugger, C. Freeman, C. Janousek, L. Brown, J. Rosencranz, J. Holmquist, J. Smol, K. Hargan, and J. Takekawa. 2018. U.S. Pacific coastal wetland resilience and vulnerability to sea-level rise. Science Advances 4 (2): eaao3270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Van de Koppel, J., A.H. Altieri, B.R. Silliman, J.F. Bruno, and M.D. Bertness. 2006. Scale-dependent interactions and community structure on cobble beaches. Ecology Letters 9 (1): 45–50.Google Scholar
  51. Vince, S.W., and A.A. Snow. 1984. Plant zonation in an Alaskan salt marsh. I. Distribution, abundance and environmental factors. Journal of Ecology 72 (2): 651–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Watson, E.B., and R. Byrne. 2009. Abundance and diversity of tidal marsh plants along the salinity gradient of the San Francisco estuary: Implications for global change ecology. Plant Ecology 205 (1): 113–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. White, S.M., and E.A. Madsen. 2016. Tracking tidal inundation in a coastal salt marsh with Helikite airphotos: Influence of hydrology on ecological zonation at crab Haul Creek, South Carolina. Remote Sensing of Environment 184: 605–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zavaleta, E.S., M.R. Shaw, N.R. Chiariello, B.D. Thomas, E.E. Cleland, C.B. Field, and H.A. Mooney. 2003. Grassland responses to three years of elevated temperature, CO2, precipitation, and N deposition. Ecological Monographs 73 (4): 585–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zedler, J.B. 1977. Salt marsh community structure in the Tijuana estuary, California. Estuarine and Coastal Marine Science 5 (1): 39–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Zedler, J.B., J.C. Callaway, J.S. Desmond, G. Vivian-Smith, G.D. Williams, G. Sullivan, A.E. Brewster, and B.K. Bradshaw. 1999. Californian salt-marsh vegetation: An improved model of spatial pattern. Ecosystems 2 (1): 19–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Fisheries and WildlifeOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA
  2. 2.Western Ecological Research Center, U.S. Geological SurveyVallejoUSA
  3. 3.Suisun Resource Conservation DistrictSuisun CityUSA

Personalised recommendations