environmental constraints and species differences in establishment and expansion … · ·...
TRANSCRIPT
Environmental Constraints and
Species Differences in
Establishment and Expansion of
Three Freshwater Tidal Marsh
Plant Species
Taylor Sloey1 and Mark W. Hester1
1. University of Louisiana at Lafayette – Coastal Plant Ecology Laboratory
Lafayette, LA. U.S.A.
Sacramento-San Joaquin
Levee Construction
• y
X
• y
Liberty Island
LEV
EE B
REA
CH
LEV
EE B
REA
CH
Research Questions
• How might environmental conditions impact
vegetation establishment and expansion?
Research Questions
• How might environmental conditions impact
vegetation establishment and expansion?
• What differences exist among species
regarding establishment and expansion?
Seed-Bank Assay Transplant Study
Seed-Bank Assay
Exposed
Exposed
Protected
Protected
September 2010
June 2011
September 2011
Transplant Study
Species Selection
Typha
latifolia
Schoenoplectus
acutus
Schoenoplectus
californicus
Transplant Stages
Rhizome Adult Transplant
Exposed
Open Water
Exposed
Marsh Fringe
Protected
Open Water
Protected
Marsh Fringe
Monitoring
EDAPHIC • Elevation
• Soil Bulk Density
• Soil Redox
Potential
• Pore Water pH
• Soil % OM
• Soil Particle
Distribution
• Depth to
Compacted Soil
Layer
Initial Planting: June 2010
3 Month: Sept 2010
12 Month: June 2011
24 Month: June 2012
Monitoring
Initial Planting: June 2010
3 Month: Sept 2010
12 Month: June 2011
24 Month: June 2012
EDAPHIC • Elevation
• Soil Bulk Density
• Soil Redox
Potential
• Pore Water pH
• Soil % OM
• Soil Particle
Distribution
• Depth to
Compacted Soil
Layer
Monitoring
TRANSPLANT • % Survival
• % Live Cover
• Stem Density
• Stem Height
• Area Vegetative
Expansion
Initial Planting: June 2010
3 Month: Sept 2010
12 Month: June 2011
24 Month: June 2012
Monitoring
TRANSPLANT • % Survival
• % Live Cover
• Stem Density
• Stem Height
• Area Vegetative
Expansion
Initial Planting: June 2010
3 Month: Sept 2010
12 Month: June 2011
24 Month: June 2012
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
RESULTS
Elevation
0
0.5
2
1.5
1.0
MHHW
MHW
MTL
MLW
MLLW
Ele
vati
on
NA
VD
88 (
mete
rs)
Exposed Fringe
Exposed Open Water
Protected Fringe
Protected Open Water
Edaphic Characteristics
1.0
0.5
0
So
il B
ulk
Den
sit
y (
g/c
m3)
EXPOSED
FRINGE
EXPOSED
WATER
PROTECT
FRINGE
PROTECT
WATER
P< 0.0001
Edaphic Characteristics
0
-10
-20
Dep
th t
o S
oil R
esis
tan
ce (
cm
)
EXPOSED
FRINGE
EXPOSED
WATER
PROTECT
FRINGE
PROTECT
WATER
P< 0.0001
TRANSPLANT RESPONSE
RESULTS
Rhizomes Adult Transplants
S. acutus S. californicus T. latifolia
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
% Survival (Rhizomes) 2010
S. acutus S. californicus T. latifolia
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
% Survival (Transplant) 2010
Su
rviv
al (%
)
Survival : Sept 2010
Exposed Fringe Exposed Open Water Protected Fringe Protected Open Water
S. acutus S. californicus T. latifolia S. acutus S. californicus T. latifolia
Life Stage: P<0.0001
Species: P<0.0001
Adult Transplants Rhizome Transplants
June 2011
Stem Density : Sept 2010
S. acutus S. californicus T. latifolia
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Ste
m D
en
sit
y (
per
0.2
5m
2 p
lot)
S. acutus S. californicus T. latifolia
Exposed Fringe
Exposed Open Water
Protected Fringe
Protected Open Water
Species: P=0.0002
Site: P=0.2762
S. acutus S. californicus T. latifolia
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Stem Density : June 2011
S. acutus S. californicus T. latifolia
Ste
m D
en
sit
y (
per
0.2
5m
2 p
lot)
Exposed Fringe
Exposed Open Water
Protected Fringe
Protected Open Water
Species: P<0.0001
Site: P=0.9547
Dead Typha on
the West side of
Liberty Island in
June 2011 Photo: Hester 2011
Transplant Expansion
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
T. latifolia
Are
a E
xp
an
sio
n (
cm
2)
TIME (months)
Exposed Fringe
Exposed Open Water
Protected Fringe
Protected Open Water
Site: P=0.2470
Transplant Expansion
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
S. acutus
Are
a E
xp
an
sio
n (
cm
2)
TIME (months)
Exposed Fringe
Exposed Open Water
Protected Fringe
Protected Open Water
Site: P=0.5567
Transplant Expansion
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
S. californicus
Are
a E
xp
an
sio
n (
cm
2)
Exposed Fringe
Exposed Open Water
Protected Fringe
Protected Open Water
TIME (months)
Site: P=0.0132
Protected Open Water Exposed Open Water
Conclusions
Environmental Characteristics
Degree of soil compaction greater on
protected side
Conclusions
Environmental Characteristics
Degree of soil compaction greater on
protected side
Species Performance
S. californicus best suited to establish and
expand
S. californicus
Encyclopedia of Life
S. californicus
Conclusions
Environmental Characteristics
Degree of soil compaction greater on
protected side
Species Performance
S. californicus best suited to establish and
expand
Area Expansion
Soil compaction may be a limiting factor
Restoration Concerns:
1) Successful sexual reproduction
1) Successful sexual reproduction
2) Ensure amiable edaphic conditions
Restoration Concerns:
1) Successful sexual reproduction
2) Ensure amiable edaphic conditions
3) Species selection
Restoration Concerns:
The Wetland Foundation … enhancing wetland education and research
®
Acknowledgements…
UL Lafayette
Coastal Plant Ecology Lab Dr. Mark W. Hester
Dr. Jonathan M. Willis
Mike Dupuis
Christine Pickens