Advertisement

Wetlands

, Volume 19, Issue 1, pp 162–167 | Cite as

Distinguishing characteristics of temporary pond habitat of endangered northeastern bulrush,Scirpus ancistrochaetus

  • Kendra A. Lentz
  • William A. Dunson
Article

Abstract

Habitat characteristics of wetlands that contain the federally endangered sedge,Scirpus ancistrochaetus, were investigated in a one-point-in-time field survey. Sixteen adjacent seasonal ponds, four of which supported populations ofS. ancistrochaetus. were sampled for 26 habitat variables. Using only five of these variables, we were able to separate ponds with and withoutS. ancistrochaetus in a linear discriminant analysis. These five variables are wetland area, percent cover of overlying forest canopy, soil percent organic matter, soil exchangeable [Na], and water [H]. Ponds containingS. ancistrochaetus had higher soil organic matter content, highet soil [Na], greater area, lower water [H+], and lower percent forest canopy cover compared to ponds that did not support this species. This information can be used toward understanding factors that control the distribution of this species and also toward evaluating possible habitat for reintro-duction of this endangered species.

Key words

conservation biology emergent vegetation ephemeral pond pH sodium vernal pond water chemistry 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature cited

  1. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 1995. Annual Book of ASTM Standards. Vol. 4.09. ASTM designation # D5435-93. Philadelphia, PA, USA.Google Scholar
  2. Bartgis, R. L. 1992. The endangered sedgeScirpus ancistrochaetus and the flora of sinkhole ponds in maryland and West Virginia. Castanea 57:46–51.Google Scholar
  3. Boland W. and C. J. Burk. 1992. Some effects of acidic growing conditions on three emergent macrophytes:Zizania aquatica. Leersia oryzoides andPeltandra virginica. Environmental Pollution 76:211–217.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bremner, J. M. and C. S. Mulvaney. 1982. Nitrogen-total.In A. L. Page, R. H. Miller, and D. R. Keeney (eds.) Methods of Soil Analysis: Agronomy Monograph #9. American Socicty of Agronomy, Madison. WI, USA.Google Scholar
  5. Brussard, P. E. 1991. The role of ecology in biological conservation. Ecological Applications 1:6–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carter, R. 1993. Animal dispersal of the North American sedge,Cyperus plukenetii (Cyperaceae). American Midland Naturalist 129:352–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Catling, P. M., B. Freedman, C. Stewart, J. J. Kerekes, and L. P. Lefkovitch. 1986. Aquatic plants of acid lakes in Kejimkujik National Park, Nova Scotia; floristic composition and relation to water chemistry. Canadian Journal of Botany 64:724–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clee, W. and D. H. Vitt. 1989. the vegetation, surface water chemistry and peat chemistry of moderate-rich fens in central Alberta, Canada. Wetlands 9:227–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cole, J. J. and S. G. Fisher. 1979. Nutrient budgets of a temporary pond ecosystem. Hydrobiologia 63:213–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cooper, D. J. 1995. Water and soil chemistry, floristics, and phytosociology for the extrome rich High Creek fen, in South Park, Colorado, USA. Canadian Journal of Botany 74:1801–1811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eckert, D. and J. T. Sims. 1991. Recommended soil pH and Lime requirement tests.In. J. T. Sims and A. Wolf (eds.) Recommended Soil Testing Procedures for the Northeastern United States: Northeast. Regional Bulletin #493. Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA.Google Scholar
  12. Gacia, E., E. Ballesteros, L. Camerero, O. Delgado, A. Palau, J. L. Riera, and J. Catalan. 1994. Macrophytes from lakes in the eastern Pyrenees: community composition and ordination in relation to environmental factors. Freshwater Biology 32:73–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gleason, H. A. and A. Cronquist. 1991. Manual of the Vascular Plants of the Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada. The New York Botanical Garden, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  14. Griffin, G. 1991. Recommendel soil nitrate-N tests.In J. T. Sims and A. Wolf (eds.) Recommended Soil Testing Procedures for the Northeastern United States: Northeast Regional Bulictin #493. Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Delaware. Newark, DE, USA.Google Scholar
  15. Hach Company. 1992. Hach Water Analysis Handbook. Hach Company, Loreland, CO, USA.Google Scholar
  16. Hem, J. D. 1985. Study and interpretation of the chemical characteristics of natural water. U. S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2254.Google Scholar
  17. Kartesz, J. T. and R. Kartesz. 1980. A Synonomized Checklist of the Vascular Flora of the United States. Canada and Greenland (vol. II). University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, NC, USA.Google Scholar
  18. Keeney, D. R. and D. W. Nelson. 1982. Nitrogen-inorganic forms.In A. L. Page, R. H. Miller, and D. R. Keeney (eds.) Methods of Soil Analysis: Agronomy Monograph #9. American Society of Agronomy, Madison. WI, USA.Google Scholar
  19. Leck, M. A. 1989. Wetland seed banks. p.283–305.In M. A. Leck, V. T. Parker, and R. L. Simpson (eds.) Ecology of Soil Seed Banks. Academic Press, Inc., San Diego, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  20. Lentz, K. A. 1998. Ecology of endangered northeastern bulrush,Scirpus ancistrochaetus Schuyler. Ph. D. Dissertation. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA.Google Scholar
  21. Lentz, K. A. and D. F. Cipollini, Jr. 1998. Effect of light and simplated herbivory on growth of endangered northeastern bulrush,Scirpus ancistrochaetus Schuyler. Plant Ecology 139:125–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lentz, K. A. and W. A. Dunson. 1998. Water level affects growth of endangered northeastern bulrush,Scirpus ancistrochaetus Schuyler. Aquatic Botany 60:213–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lentz, K. A. and H. A. Johnson. 1998. Factors affecting germination of endangered northeastern bulrush,Scripus ancistrochaetus Schuyler (Cyperaceae). Seed Science and Technology,in press.Google Scholar
  24. Lesica, P. 1992. Autecology of the endangered plantHowellia aquatilis; implications for management and reserve design. Ecological Applications 2:411–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Minitab, Inc. 1994. Minitab Reference Manual: Release 10. Minitab. Inc., State College, PA, USA.Google Scholar
  26. Mitsch, W. J. and J. G. Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  27. Roelofs, J. G. M., J. A. A. R. Schuurkes, and A. J. M. Smits. 1984. Impact of acidification and eutrophication on macrophyte communities in soft waters. II. Experimental studies. Aquatic Botany 18:389–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schemske, D. W., B. C. Husband, M. H. Ruckelshaus, C. Goodwillie, I. M. Parker, and J. G. Bishop. 1994. Evaluating approaches to the conservation of rare and endangered plants. Ecology 75:584–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schulte, E. E. 1991. Recommended soil organic matter tests.In J. T. Sims and A. Wolf (eds.) Recommended Soil Testing Procedures for the Northeastern United States: Northeast Regional Bulletin #493. Agricultural Experiment Station. University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA.Google Scholar
  30. Schuyler, A. E. 1962. A new species ofScirpus in the northeastern United States. Rhodora 64:43–49.Google Scholar
  31. Schuyler, A. E. 1963. Notes of five species ofScirpus in eastern North America. Bartonia 33:1–6.Google Scholar
  32. Schuyler, A. E. 1967. A taxonomic revision of North American leafy species ofScirpus. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences 119:265–323.Google Scholar
  33. Shay, J. M. and C. T. Shay. 1986. Prairie marshes in western Canada, with specific reference to the ecology of five emergent macrophytes. Canadian Journal of Botany 64:443–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tabatabai, M. A. 1982. Sulfur.In: A. L. Page, R. H. Miller, and D. R. Keency (eds.) Methods of Soil Analysis: Agronomy Monograph #9. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI, USA.Google Scholar
  35. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1991. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of endangered status forScirpus ancistrochaetus (northeastern bulrush). Federal Register 56:21091–21096.Google Scholar
  36. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1993. Northeastern bulrush (Scirpus ancistrochaetus) recovery plan. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Hadley, MA, USA.Google Scholar
  37. Wolf, A. M. and D. B. Beegle. 1991. Recommended soil tests for macronutrients: phosphorus, potassium, calcium, and magnesium.In J. T. Sims and A. Wolf (eds.) Recommended Soil Testing Procedures for the Northeastern United States: Northeast Regional Bulletin #493. Agreultural Experiment Station, University of Delawarc, Newark, DE, USA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Wetland Scientists 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kendra A. Lentz
    • 1
  • William A. Dunson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologyThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations