Advertisement

Wetlands

, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp 317–325 | Cite as

Spatio-temporally variable effects of a dominant macrophyte on vascular plant neighbors

  • Gary N. Ervin
Article

Abstract

Although considerable attention has been focused on competition among wetland plants, surprisingly few studies have considered the role of facilitation in structuring freshwater wetland plant assemblages. Positive interaction among plants has been investigated thoroughly in saline marshes, which display a definite, predictable pattern of species zonation, with facilitation playing an important role during colonization of bare or disturbed patches of marsh. The few studies that have investigated facilitation in freshwater marshes have implicated the processes of sediment oxygenation and sediment stabilization. Whereas both processes are known to be influenced by many freshwater hydrophyte species, they have not been considered widely as mechanisms of interspecific facilitation. In the tussock-forming rushJuncus effusus L., late-Spring collapse of culms away from the tussock center results in a morphology that increases light availability atop tussocks and appears to establish a unique spatio-temporal component to the effect ofJuncus on neighbors. In previous work, shading around the tussock periphery, influenced largely by this collapse of culms, was shown to suppress production and species richness of neighbors; however, various plant species have been observed to grow directly upon theJuncus tussocks in the void left by collapsed culms. To quantify this latter phenomenon, vascular plant abundance was evaluated on tussocks ofJuncus effusus in four Mississippi (USA) beaver wetlands to determine the likelihood and nature of positive interactions betweenJuncus and neighbors. Tussocks in three of these wetlands were examined for tussock microtopography and diameter, relative water depth atop the tussock, and colonization by other plant species. Species richness of colonizing plants correlated positively with tussock diameter in two of these wetlands, and no colonizers were present in the third. Tussock microtopography and elevation differed significantly among wetlands, but species richness was unrelated to relative water depth atop the tussocks. In the fourth beaver marsh, two sets of surveys were conducted to determine whether the species assemblages uponJuncus tussocks differed from those across the entire wetland. Plant assemblages onJuncus tussocks, and on elevated substrata in general, were significantly different from assemblages not associated with elevated surfaces. Thirteen species were associated exclusively with elevated rooting substrata, ten of which were exclusive toJuncus effusus tussocks. The present results suggest that small-scale spatial and temporal shifts occur in the effects ofJuncus on neighboring plants. Effects shift from primarily competitive shading interactions resulting from a dense shoot canopy to facilitative interactions atop tussock mounds after mature culms collapse. Facilitation likely is mediated through characteristics of the tussock mound, such as provision of a stable rooting substratum or oxygenation of sediments by theJuncus effusus root system.

Key Words

competition facilitation Juncus effusus plant interactions succession tussock-forming plants wetland plants 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Bertness, M. D. 1991. Interspecific interactions among high marsh perennials in a New England salt marsh. Ecology 72:125–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bertness, M. D. and P. J. Ewanchuk. 2002. Latitudinal and climate-driven variation in the strength and nature of biological interactions in New England salt marshes. Oecologia 132:392–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bruno, J. F. 2000. Facilitation of cobble beach plant communities through habitat modification bySpartina alterniflora. Ecology 81: 1179–1192.Google Scholar
  4. Callaway, R. M. 1992. Effect of shrubs on recruitment ofQuercus douglasii andQuercus lobata in California. Ecology 73:2118–2128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Callaway, R. M. 1995. Positive interactions among plants. The Botanical Review 61:306–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Callaway, R. M., E. H. DeLucia, D. Moore, R. Nowak, and W. H. Schlesinger. 1996. Competition and facilitation: Contrasting effects ofArtemisia tridentata on desert vs. montane pines. Ecology 77:2130–2141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Callaway, R. M. and L. King. 1996. Temperature-driven variation in substrate oxygenation and the balance of competition and facilitation. Ecology 77:1189–1195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chapin, III, F. S., K. Van Cleve, and M. C. Chapin. 1979. Soil temperature and nutrient cycling in the tussock growth form ofEriophorum vaginatum. Journal of Ecology 67:169–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Choler, P., R. Michalet, and R. M. Callaway. 2001. Facilitation and competition on gradients in alpine plant communities. Ecology 82: 3295–3308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ervin, G. N. 2002. Responses of individual wetland plant species to shading by the dominant, early-successional rush,Juncus effusus L. p. 242–252.In B. J. Daniel (ed.) Proceedings of the 32nd Mississippi Water Resources Conference, April 23–24, 2002. Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS, USA.Google Scholar
  11. Ervin, G. N. and R. G. Wetzel. 2002. Influence of a dominant macrophyte,Juncus effusus, on wetland plant species richness, diversity, and community composition. Oecologia 130:626–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hacker, S. D. and M. D. Bertness. 1995. Morphological and physiological consequences of a positive plant interaction. Ecology 76: 2165–2175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Holmgren, M., M. Scheffer, and M. A. Huston. 1997. The interplay of facilitation and competition in plant communities. Ecology 78: 1966–1975.Google Scholar
  14. Jones, C. G., J. H. Lawton, and M. Shachak. 1994. Organisms as ecosystem engineers. Oikos 69:373–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kuehn, K. A., M. J. Lemke, K. Suberkropp, and R. G. Wetzel. 2000. Microbial biomass and production associated with decaying leaf litter of the emergent macrophyteJuncus effusus. Limnology and Oceanography 45:862–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Levine, J. M. 1999. Indirect facilitation: Evidence and predictions from a riparian community. Ecology 80:1762–1769.Google Scholar
  17. Lovett-Doust, L. 1981. Population dynamics and local specialization in a clonal perennial (Ranunculus repens). Journal of Ecology 69: 743–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McCune, B. and J. B. Grace. 2002. Analysis of Ecological Communities. MjM Software Design, Gleneden Beach, OR, USA.Google Scholar
  19. Schat, H. 1984. A comparative ecophysiological study on the effects of waterlogging on dune slack plants: growth, survival and mineral nutrition in sand culture experiments. Oecologia 62:279–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Stachowicz, J. J. 2001. Mutualism, facilitation, and the structure of ecological communities. BioScience 51:235–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Steenberg, W. F. and C. H. Lowe. 1969. Critical factors during the first years of life of the saguaro (Cereus giganteus) at Saguaro National Monument, Arizona. Ecology 50:825–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Walker, L. R. and R. del Moral. 2003. Primary Succession and Ecosystem Rehabilitation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  23. Wetzel, R. G. and M. J. Howe. 1999. High production in a herbaceous perenial plant achieved by continuous growth and synchronized population dynamics. Aquatic Botany 64:111–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wilson, J. B. and A. D. Q. Agnew. 1992. Positive-feedback switches in plant communities. Advances in Ecological Research 23:263–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wilson, S. D. and P. A. Keddy. 1986. Measuring diffuse competition along an environmental gradient: Results from a shoreline plant community. American Naturalist 127:862–869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Yapp, R. H. and D. Johns. 1917. The salt marshes of the Dovey Estuary. Journal of Ecology 5:65–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Wetland Scientists 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gary N. Ervin
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesMississippi State UniversityMississippi StateUSA

Personalised recommendations