Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T10:55:51.124Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

17 - Submersed Macrophyte Distribution and Function in the Tidal Freshwater Hudson River

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 January 2010

By
Stuart Findlay ,
Cathleen Wigand  and
W. Charles Nieder
Edited by
Jeffrey S. Levinton  and
John R. Waldman
Stuart Findlay
Affiliation:
Institute of Ecosystem Studies
Cathleen Wigand
Affiliation:
United States Environmental Protection Agency
W. Charles Nieder
Affiliation:
Hudson River NERR/New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Jeffrey S. Levinton
Affiliation:
State University of New York, Stony Brook
Get access

Summary

abstract In the tidal freshwater Hudson River submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) occupies on average 6 percent of the river area with much greater coverage in the mid-Hudson (Kingston – Hudson) and much lower areal coverage south of Hyde Park. The native water celery (Vallisneria americana) is by far the predominant species in terms of areal coverage but the invasive water chestnut (Trapa natans) attains a higher standing stock on a smaller area. Vallisneria is light-limited in all but the shallowest depths and produces sufficient oxygen to maintain super-saturated conditions in some plant beds for a large proportion of summertime daylight hours. SAV supports abundant and diverse invertebrate and fish faunas with distinct differences between Vallisneria and Trapa. Turbidity in Vallisneria is frequently greater than in the main channel in contrast to the baffling and enhanced sediment deposition generally expected in plant beds. Overall, SAV plays several important and unique roles in shaping the habitats and ecosystem functioning of the Hudson River.

Introduction

Submersed aquatic vegetation (SAV) plays a critical role in many aquatic systems, contributing to primary productivity, nutrient cycling and sediment dynamics, as well as providing important habitat for fishes and invertebrates (Rozas and Odum, 1987; Heck et al., 1995). Aquatic macrophyte communities are some of the most productive natural ecosystems and have been found to support numerous and diverse wildlife populations (Dennison et al., 1993; Kemp, Boynton, and Twilley, 1984).

Type
Chapter
Information
The Hudson River Estuary , pp. 230 - 241
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allan, J. D. 1995. Stream Ecology: Structure and Function of Running WatersNew York: Chapman and HallCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barko, J. W., Gunnison, D., and Carpenter, S. R. 1991. Sediment interactions with submersed macrophyte growth and community dynamics. Aquatic Botany 41:41–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrett, J., and Findlay, S. 1993. Ecosystem effects of Submersed aquatic vegetation in the Tidal freshwater Hudson River, in Waldman, J. and Blair, E. A. (eds.), Final Reports of the Tibor T. Polgar Fellowship Program, 1992. Hudson River Foundation, New York, NY, Section VIII:1–48Google Scholar
Berner, L. M. 1951. Limnology of the lower Missouri River. Ecology 32:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bianchi, T. S., and Findlay, S. 1991. Decomposition of Hudson estuary macrophytes: Photosynthetic pigment transformations and decay constants. Estuaries 14:65–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buckley, E. H., and Ristich, S. S. 1976. Distribution of rooted vegetation in the estuarine marshes of the Hudson River. In Hudson River Ecology, Fourth Symposium on Hudson River EcologyBear Mountain, New York. March 28–30, 1976
Cafrey, J. M., and Kemp, M. 1990. Nitrogen cycling in sediments with estuarine populations of Potamogeton perfoliatus and Zostera marina. Marine Ecology Progress Series 66:147–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caraco, N. F., and Cole, J. J. 2002. Contrasting impacts of a native and alien macrophyte on dissolved oxygen in a large river. Ecological Applications 12:1496–1509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caraco, N. F., Cole, J. J., Raymond, P. A., Strayer, D. L., Pace, M. L., Findlay, S. E. G. and Fischer, D. T. 1997. Zebra mussel invasion in a large, turbid river: Phytoplankton response to increased grazing. Ecology 78:588–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caraco, N. F., Lampman, G., Cole, J. J., Limburg, K. E., Pace, M. L., and Fischer, D. 1998. Microbial assimilation of DIN in a nitrogen rich estuary: implications for food quality and isotope studies. Marine Ecology Progress Series 167:59–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carignan, R., and Kalff, J. 1980. Phosphorus sources for aquatic weeds: water or sediments?Science 207:987–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carpenter, S. R. 1980. Enrichment of lake Wingra, Wisconsin, by submersed macrophyte decay. Ecology 61:1145–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, S. R., and Lodge, D. M. 1986. Effects of submersed macrophytes on ecosystem processes. Aquatic Botany 26:341–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, V., and Rybicki, N. 1986. Resurgence of submersed aquatic macrophytes in the Tidal Potomac River, Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. Estuaries 9(4B):368–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, V., Rybicki, N. B., and Hammerschlag, R. 1991. Effects of submersed macrophytes on dissolved oxygen, pH, and temperature under different conditions of wind, tide, and bed structure. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 6:121–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, I.-J., Levinton, J. S., McCartney, M., Martinez, D., and Weissburg, M. J. 1993. A bioassay approach to seasonal variation in the nutritional value of sediment. Marine Ecology Progress Series 94:275–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chilton, E. W. 1990. Macroinvertebrate communities associated with three aquatic macrophytes (Ceratophyllum demersum, Myriophyllum spicatum, and Vallisneria americana) in Lake Onalaska, Wisconsin. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 5:455–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, J. J., Caraco, N. F., and Peierls, B. 1992. Phytoplankton primary production in the tidal freshwater Hudson River, New York (USA). Verhandlungen der Internationalen Vereinigun fur Theoretische und Angewandte Limonologie 24:1715–1719Google Scholar
Coote, T. W., Schmidt, R. E., and Caraco, N. 2001. Use of a periodically anoxic Trapa natans bed by fishes in the Hudson River, in Waldman, J. R. and Nieder, W. C. (eds.), Final Reports of the Tibor T. Polgar Fellowship Program, 2000. Hudson River Foundation, Section IV:1–20Google Scholar
Cyr, H., and Downing, J. A. 1988a. Empirical relationships of phytomacrofaunal abundance to plant biomass and macrophyte bed characteristics. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 45:976–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cyr, H., and Downing, J. A. 1988b. The abundance of phytophilous invertebrates on different species of submersed macrophytes. Freshwater Biology 20:365–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dennison, W. C., Orth, R. J., Moore, K. A., Stevenson, J. C., Carter, V., Kollar, S., Bergstrom, P. W., and Batiuk, R. A. 1993. Assessing water quality with submersed aquatic vegetation. BioScience 43:86–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckblad, J. V., Volden, C. S., and Weilgart, L. S. 1984. Allochthonous drift from backwaters to the main channel of the Mississippi River. American Midland Naturalist 111:16–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, R. S. 2001. Taxonomic and size structure of phytophilous macroinvertebrate communities in Vallisneria and Trapa beds of the Hudson River, New York. Hydrobiologia 452:233–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Findlay, S., Groffman, P. M., and Dye, S. 2003. Trade-offs among ecosystem functions during restoration: Phragmites removal from a tidal freshwater marsh. Wetland Ecology and Management 11:157–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Findlay, S., Pace, M. L., and Fischer, D. 1997. Spatial and temporal variability in the lower food web of the tidal freshwater Hudson River. Estuaries 19:866–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Findlay, S., Schoeberl, K., and Wagner, B. 1989. Abundance, composition, and dynamics of the invertebrate fauna of a tidal freshwater wetland. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 8:140–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, S. G., and Carpenter, S. R. 1976. Ecosystem and macrophyte primary production of the Fort River, Massachusetts. Hydrobiologia 47:157–87Google Scholar
Fonseca, M. S., and Fisher, J. S. 1986. A comparison of canopy friction and sediment movement between four species of seagrass with reference to their ecology and restoration. Marine Ecology Progressive Series 29:15–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garritt, R. H., and Howarth, R. W. 1988. Metabolism of submersed aquatic macrophyte beds in a freshwater portion of the Hudson River estuary, in Waldman, J. and Blair, E. A. (eds.), Final reports of the Tibor T. Polgar Fellowship Program, 1997. Hudson River Foundation, New York, NY, Section III:1–47Google Scholar
Gilchrest, W. R., and Schmidt, R. E. 1998. Comparison of fish communities in open and occluded tidal freshwater tidal wetlands in the Hudson River estuary, in Waldman, J. R. and Nieder, W. C. (eds.), Final Reports of the Tibor T. Polgar Fellowship Program, 1997. Hudson River Foundation, New York, NY, Section IX:1–32Google Scholar
Hankin, N., and Schmidt, R. E. 1992. Standing crop of fishes in water celery beds in the tidal Hudson River, in Waldman, J. R. and Nieder, W. C. (eds.), Final Reports of the Tibor T. Polgar Fellowship Program, 1991. Hudson River Foundation, New York, NY, Section VIII:1–23Google Scholar
Harley, M. T., and Findlay, S. E. G. 1994. Photosynthesis-irradiance relationships for three species of submersed macrophytes in the tidal freshwater Hudson River. Estuaries 17:200–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heck, K. L. Jr., Able, K. W., Roman, C. T., and Fahay, M. P. 1995. Composition, abundance, biomass, and production of macrofauna in a New England estuary: Comparisons among eelgrass meadows and other nursery habitats. Estuaries 18:379–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemp, M. W., Boynton, W. R., and Twilley, R. R. 1984. Influences of submersed vascular plants on ecological processes in upper Chesapeake Bay, in Kennedy, V. S. (ed.), The Estuary as a Filter. Orlando, FL: Academic Press, pp. 367–94Google Scholar
Kenworthy, W. J., Zieman, J. C., and Thayer, G. W. 1982. Evidence for the influence of seagrass on the benthic nitrogen cycle in a coastal plain estuary near Beaufort, North Carolina (USA). Oecologia 54:152–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Losee, R. F., and Wetzel, R. G. 1988. Water movement within submersed littoral vegetation. Verhandlungen Internationale Vereinigung für Theoretische und Angewandte Limnologie 23:62–6Google Scholar
Lutz, C., and Strayer, D. 2001. Macroinvertebrates associated with Vallisneria americana and Trapa natans in Tivoli South Bay, in Waldman, J. R. and Nieder, W. C. (eds.), Final Reports of the Tibor T. Polgar Fellowship Program, 2000. Hudson River Foundation, New York, NY, Section III:1–34Google Scholar
Malone, T. C. 1977. Environmental regulation of phytoplankton productivity in the lower Hudson River estuary. Estuaries and Coastal Marine Science 5:157–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menzie, C. A. 1979. Growth of the aquatic plant Myriophyllum spicatum in a littoral area of the Hudson River estuary. Aquatic Botany 6:365–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menzie, C. A. 1980. The chironomid (Insecta: Diptera) and other fauna of a Myriophyllum spicatum L. plant bed in the lower Hudson River. Estuaries 3:38–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menzie, C. A. 1981. Production ecology of Cricotopus sylvestris (Fabricius) (Diptera: Chironomidae) in a shallow estuarine cove. Limnology and Oceanography 26:467–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, B. S., Bell, F. H., Thompson, L. C., and Clay, E. I. 1943. Effect of depth immersion on apparent photosynthesis in submersed macrophytes. Ecology 24:393–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moran, M. A., and Limburg, K. E. 1986. The Hudson River Ecosystem, in Limburg, K. E., Moran, M. A. and McDowell, W. H. (eds.), The Hudson River Ecosystem. New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 6–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muenscher, W. C. 1937. Aquatic vegetation of the lower Hudson area, in A Biological Survey of the Lower Hudson Watershed. Supplement to the 26th Annual Report of the New York State Conservation Department, Albany, NY, pp. 231–48
Pelczarski, K., and Schmidt, R. E. 1991. Evaluation of a pop net for sampling fishes from water-chestnut beds in the tidal Hudson River, in Blair, E. A. and Waldman, J. R. (eds.), Polgar Fellowship Reports of the Hudson River National Estuarine Reserve Program, 1990. New York, NY, Section V:1–33Google Scholar
Posey, M. H., Wigand, C., and Stevenson, J. C. 1993. Effects of an introduced aquatic plant, Hydrilla verticillata, on benthic communities in the upper Chesapeake Bay. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 37:539–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rozas, L. P., and Minello, T. J. 1997. Estimating densities of small fishes and decapod crustaceans in shallow estuarine habitats: A review of sampling design with focus on gear selection. Estuaries 20:199–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rozas, L. P., and Odum, W. E. 1987. Fish and macrocrustacean use of submersed plant beds in tidal freshwater marsh creeks. Marine Ecology Progress Series 38:101–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rybicki, N. B., Jenter, H. L., Carter, V., and Baltzer, R. A. 1997. Observations of tidal flux between a submersed aquatic plant stand and the adjacent channel in the Potomac River near Washington, D.C. Limnology and Oceanography 42:307–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanford, M. 2000. The effects of water chestnut (Trapa natans) reduction on fish communities and sedimentation, in Berkowitz, A. R., Findley, S. E. G., and Pickett, S. T. A. (eds.) Undergraduate Research Reports – Summer 1996 and 1997. Occasional Publication of the Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, NY, Number 14:37–42Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. E., and Hamilton, A. 1992. Significance of the fishes collected by gill net in the Tivoli South Bay Ecosystem, in Blair, E. A. and Waldman, J. (eds.), Final Reports of the Tibor T. Polgar Fellowship Program, 1991. Hudson River Foundation, New York, NY, Section IX:1–16Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. E., and Kiviat, E. 1988. Communities of Larval and Juvenile Fishes Associated with Water-Chestnut, Water Milfoil and Water-Celery in the Tivoli Bays of the Hudson River Final Report to the Hudson River Foundation, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
Short, F. T., Burdick, D. M., and Kaldy, J. E. III 1995. Mesocosm experiments quantify the effects of eutrophication on eelgrass, Zostera marina. Limnology and Oceanography 40:740–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Short, F. T., and Burdick, D. M. 1996. Quantifying eelgrass habitat loss in relation to housing development and nitrogen loading in Waquoit Bay, Massachusetts. Estuaries 19:730–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, K. W., Fagnani, J. P., Denicola, D. M., and Bode, R. W. 1986. Organism-substrate relationships in the main channel of the lower Hudson River. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 5:41–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, C. S., and Adams, M. S. 1986. Phosphorus transfer from sediments by Myriophyllum spicatum. Limnology and Oceanography 31:1312–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strayer, D. L., Smith, L. C., and Hunter, D.C. 1998. Effects of the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) invasion on the macrobenthos of the freshwater tidal Hudson River. Canadian Journal of Zoology 76:419–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevenson, J. C., Staver, L. W., and Staver, K. W. 1993. Water quality associated with survival of submersed aquatic vegetation along an estuarine gradient. Estuaries 16:346–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strayer, D. L., Caraco, N. F., Cole, J. J., Findlay, S., and Pace, M. L. 1999. Transformations of freshwater ecosystems by bivalves – A case study of zebra mussels in the Hudson River. BioScience 49:19–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strayer, D. L., and Smith, L. S. 2001. The zoobenthos of the freshwater tidal Hudson River and its response to the zebra mussel invasion. Archiv fuer Hydrobilogie Supplement 139:1–152Google Scholar
Svenson, H. K. 1924. Notes on some plants of eastern New York. Rhodora 26:221–2Google Scholar
Svenson, H. K. 1935. Plants of the estuary of the Hudson River. Torreya 35:117–25Google Scholar
Thorp, A. G., Jones, R. C., and Kelso, D. P. 1997. A comparison of water-column macroinvertebrate communities in beds of differing submersed aquatic vegetation in the tidal freshwater Potomac River. Estuaries 20:86–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Titus, J. E., and Adams, M. S. 1979. Coexistence and the comparative light relations of the submersed macrophytes Myriophyllum spicatum L. and Vallisneria americana Michx. Oecologia 40:273–86CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ward, L. G., Kemp, W. M., and Boynton, W. R. 1984. The influence of waves and seagrass communities on suspended particulates in an estuarine embayment. Marine Geology 59:85–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wigand, C., Stevenson, J. C., and Cornwell, J. C. 1997. Effects of different submersed macrophytes on sediment biogeochemistry. Aquatic Botany 56:233–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wigand, C., Finn, M., Findlay, S., and Fischer, D. 2001. Submersed macrophyte effects on nutrient exchange in riverine sediments. Estuaries 24:398–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×