Advertisement

Wetlands

, Volume 26, Issue 3, pp 667–676 | Cite as

Restoring assemblages of salt marsh halophytes in the presence of a rapidly colonizing dominant species

  • Anna R. Armitage
  • Katharyn E. Boyer
  • Richard R. Vance
  • Richard F. Ambrose
Article

Abstract

Establishing species-rich plant communities is a common goal of habitat restoration efforts, but not all species within a target assemblage have the same capacity for recruitment and survival in created habitats. We investigated the development of a tidal salt marsh plant community in the presence of a rapidly colonizing dominant species, Salicornia virginica, in a newly created habitat in Mugu Lagoon, California, USA. We planted rooted cuttings of S. virginica, Distichlis spicata, Jaumea carnosa, and Frankenia salina in single- and mixed-species stands, where each species was planted alone or in combination with S. virginica in 4 m2 plots. We measured species percent cover, recruit density, canopy structure, and aboveground biomass after three growing seasons. When planted alone, S. virginica achieved the greatest cover, up to 70%, followed by J. carnosa (55%), F. salina (35%), and D. spicata (12%). Total percent cover was about 30% lower than in a reference site. For each species, average percent cover and aboveground biomass per plant were generally similar between single-species and mixed planting treatments, suggesting that on the time scale of this study, competition between species was weak. Canopy structure (height, number of layers) and total aboveground biomass of all species were largely unaffected by planting treatments, although S. virginica was shorter when planted with J. carnosa. Salicornia virginica recruits constituted approximately 98% of the cover of seedling recruits into the created site. Despite intense S. virginica recruitment, our intervention in the successional process by planting species with poorer colonization abilities, particularly J. carnosa and F. salina, prevented S. virginica from completely dominating the canopy, thus increasing vascular plant richness in the created site. Artificially increased richness may enhance some ecosystem functions and create a seed source to facilitate the persistence of a diverse plant assemblage in restored sites.

Key Words

biomass competition diversity pickleweed recruitment restoration richness succession 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Barbour, M. G. and C. B. Davis. 1970. Salt tolerance of five California salt marsh plants. American Midland Naturalist 84: 262–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bertness, M. D. and A. M. Ellison. 1987. Determinants of patterns in a New England salt marsh plant community. Ecological Monographs 57: 129–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boyer, K. E. and P. Fong. 2005. Co-occurrence of habitat-modifying invertebrates: effects on structural and functional properties of a created salt marsh. Oecologia 143: 619–628.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Boyer, K. E., P. Fong, R. R. Vance, and R. F. Ambrose. 2001. Salicornia virginica in a southern California salt marsh: seasonal patterns and a nutrient-enrichment experiment. Wetlands 21: 315–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brady, V. J., B. J. Cardinale, J. P. Gathman, and T. M. Burton. 2002. Does facilitation of faunal recruitment benefit ecosystem restoration? An experimental study of invertebrate assemblages in wetland mesocosms. Restoration Ecology 10: 617–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Budelsky, R. A. and S. M. Galatowitsch. 2000. Effects of water regime and competition on the establishment of a native sedge in restored wetlands. Journal of Applied Ecology 37: 971–985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Callaway, J. C., G. Sullivan, and J. B. Zedler. 2003. Species-rich plantings increase biomass and nitrogen accumulation in a wetland restoration experiment. Ecological Applications 13: 1626–1639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cione, N. K., P. E. Padgett, and E. B. Allen. 2002. Restoration of a native shrubland impacted by exotic grasses, frequent fire, and nitrogen deposition in southern California. Restoration Ecology 10: 376–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Covin, J. D. and J. B. Zedler. 1988. Nitrogen effects on Spartina foliosa and Salicornia virginica in the salt marsh at Tijuana Estuary, California. Wetlands 8: 51–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dahl, T. E. 1990. Wetlands losses in the United States 1780s to 1980s. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  11. Dobson, A. P., A. D. Bradshaw, and A. J. M. Baker. 1997. Hopes for the future: restoration ecology and conservation biology. Science 277: 515–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dyer, A. R. and K. J. Rice. 1997. Intraspecific and diffuse competition: the response of Nassella pulchra in a California grassland. Ecological Applications 7: 484–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ehrenfeld, J. G. and L. A. Toth. 1997. Restoration ecology and the ecosystem perspective. Restoration Ecology 5: 307–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.Google Scholar
  15. Engelhardt, K. A. M. and M. E. Ritchie. 2001. Effects of macrophyte species richness on wetland ecosystem functioning and services. Nature 411: 687–689.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Esselink, P., W. Zijlstra, K. S. Dijkema, and R. van Diggelen. 2000. The effects of decreased management on plant-species distribution patterns in a salt marsh nature reserve in the Wadden Sea. Biological Conservation 93: 61–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ewel, J. J., M. J. Mazzarino, and C. W. Berish. 1991. Tropical soil fertility changes under monocultures and successional communities of different structure. Ecological Applications 1: 289–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fraser, A. and K. Kindscher. 2001. Tree spade transplanting of Spartina pectinata (Link) and Eleocharis macrostachya (Britt.) in a prairie wetland restoration site. Aquatic Botany 71: 297–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hector, A., K. Dobson, A. Minns, E. Bazeley-White, and J. H. Lawton. 2001. Community diversity and invasion resistance: an experimental test in a grassland ecosystem and a review of comparable studies. Ecological Research 16: 819–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hopkins, D. R. and V. T. Parker. 1984. A study of the seed bank of a salt marsh in northern San Francisco Bay. American Journal of Botany 71: 348–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Huddleston, R. T. and T. P. Young. 2004. Spacing and competition between planted grass plugs and preexisting perennial grasses in a restoration site in Oregon. Restoration Ecology 12: 546–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Huiskes, A. H. L., B. P. Koutstaal, P. M. J. Herman, W. G. Beeftink, M. M. Markusse, and M. W. De. 1995. Seed dispersal of halophytes in tidal salt marshes. Journal of Ecology 83: 559–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jefferies, R. L., A. J. Davy, and T. Rudmik. 1981. Population biology of the salt marsh annual Salicornia europaea agg. Journal of Ecology 69: 17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Keer, G. H. and J. B. Zedler. 2002. Salt marsh canopy architecture differs with the number and composition of species. Ecological Applications 12: 456–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Knops, J. M. H., D. Tilman, N. M. Haddad, S. Naeem, C. E. Mitchell, J. Haarstad, M. E. Ritchie, K. M. Howe, P. B. Reich, E. Siemann, and J. Groth. 1999. Effects of plant species richness on invasion dynamics, disease outbreaks, insect abundances and diversity. Ecology Letters 2: 286–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lindig-Cisneros, R. and J. B. Zedler. 2002. Halophyte recruitment in a salt marsh restoration site. Estuaries 25: 1174–1183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Marshall, R. M. and S. E. Reinert. 1990. Breeding ecology of seaside sparrows in a Massachusetts salt marsh. Wilson Bulletin 102: 501–513.Google Scholar
  28. Naeem, S., L. J. Thompson, S. P. Lawler, J. H. Lawton, and R. M. Woodfin. 1994. Declining biodiversity can alter the performance of ecosystems. Nature 368: 734–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Onuf, C. P. 1987. The ecology of Mugu Lagoon, California: an estuarine profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC, USA. 85(7.15).Google Scholar
  30. Palmer, M. A., R. F. Ambrose, and N. L. Poff. 1997. Ecological theory and community restoration ecology. Restoration Ecology 5: 291–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pennings, S. C. and R. M. Callaway. 1992. Salt marsh plant zonation: the relative importance of competition and physical factors. Ecology 73: 681–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Peterson, C. H. and R. N. Lipcius. 2003. Conceptual progress towards predicting quantitative ecosystem benefits of ecological restorations. Marine Ecology Progress Series 264: 297–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rand, T. A. 2000. Seed dispersal, habitat suitability and the distribution of halophytes across a salt marsh tidal gradient. Journal of Ecology 88: 608–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Robson, M. J. and J. E. Sheehy. 1981. Leaf area and light interception. p. 115–140, In J. Hodgson, R. D. Baker, A. Davies, A. S. Laidlaw, and L. D. Leaver (eds.) Sward Measurement Handbook. British Grassland Society, London, UK.Google Scholar
  35. Rozas, L. P. and D. J. Reed. 1993. Nekton use of marsh-surface habitats in Louisiana (USA) deltaic salt marshes undergoing submergence. Marine Ecology Progress Series 96: 147–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Seabloom, E. W. and A. G. van der Valk. 2003. Plant diversity, composition, and invasion of restored and natural prairie pothole wetlands: implications for restoration. Wetlands 23: 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Silliman, B. R. and M. D. Bertness. 2004. Shoreline development drives invasion of Phragmites austrails and the loss of plant diversity on New England salt marshes. Conservation Biology 18: 1424–1434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Suding, K. N., K. L. Gross, and G. R. Houseman. 2004. Alternative states and positive feedbacks in restoration ecology. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 19: 46–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Sullivan, G. 2001. Establishing vegetation in restored and created coastal wetlands. p. 119–155, In J. B. Zedler (ed.) Handbook for Restoring Tidal Wetlands. CRC Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  40. Sullivan, M. J. and C. A. Moncreiff. 1988. Primary production of edaphic algal communities in a Mississippi salt marsh. Journal of Phycology 24: 49–58.Google Scholar
  41. Tilman, D. 1996. Biodiversity: population versus ecosystem stability. Ecology 77: 350–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tilman, D. and J. A. Downing. 1994. Biodiversity and stability in grasslands. Nature 367: 363–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tilman, D., P. B. Reich, J. Knops, D. Wedin, T. Mielke, and C. Lehman. 2001. Diversity and productivity in a long-term grassland experiment. Science 294: 843–845.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Warren, J. M. 2000. The role of white clover in the loss of diversity in grassland habitat restoration. Restoration Ecology 8: 318–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wilson, J. W. 1959. Analysis of the spatial distribution of foliage by two-dimensional point quadrats. New Phytologist 58: 92–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zedler, J. B., J. C. Callaway, and G. Sullivan. 2001. Declining biodiversity: why species matter and how their functions might be restored in Californian tidal marshes. Bioscience 51: 1005–1017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zedler, J. B., H. Morzaria-Luna, and K. Ward. 2003. The challenge of restoring vegetation on tidal, hypersaline substrates. Plant and Soil 253: 259–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Wetland Scientists 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anna R. Armitage
    • 1
  • Katharyn E. Boyer
    • 1
  • Richard R. Vance
    • 1
  • Richard F. Ambrose
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of California Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Environmental Science and Engineering Program and Department of Environmental Health SciencesUniversity of California Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations