Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T11:01:17.016Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dieback of Salt-water Cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora Loisel.) in the Lower Cape Fear Estuary of North Carolina: An Experimental Approach to Re-establishment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2009

Rick A. Linthurst  and
Ernest D. Seneca
Rick A. Linthurst
Affiliation:
Research Associate, Department of Botany, North Carolina State University, P.O. Box 5186, Raleigh, North Carolina 27650, U.S.A.
Ernest D. Seneca
Affiliation:
Professor of Botany and Soil Science, Department of Botany, North Carolina State University, P.O. Box 5186, Raleigh, North Carolina 27650, U.S.A.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Spartina alterniflora is the dominant endemic saltmarsh angiosperm along the East and Gulf coasts of the United States. Dieback of S. alterniflora became evident through aerial surveys of the Lower Cape Fear Estuary of North Carolina. The areas affected varied in size, the largest being greater than 40 ha in areal extent. As S. alterniflora productivity losses can subsequently affect the productivity of the estuarine detritus-based food-web, studies were initiated in 1975 to examine the dieback phenomenon, follow successional trends, and determine the recolonization potential of S. alterniflora in dieback-affected salt-marshes.

Three S. alterniflora dieback sites in the Lower Cape Fear Estuary were selected for study. Two of the sites, both above mean high-water, were recolonized by Salicornia europaea, Distichlis spicata, Scirpus robustus, Spartina patens, and S. alterniflora. At a third site, found to be below mean high-water, all volunteer plants were of S. alterniflora. Final stabilization of all three sites was mainly by S. alterniflora, with the living standing-crop biomass ranging from 341 to 1,565 g/m2 in September of 1978.

Experimental plots within each of the three dieback sites were sprigged with S. alterniflora plants from three sources: (i) sandy dredge-material, (ii) volunteer plants within affected sites, and (iii) unaffected sites near the dieback areas. The success of these sprigs was strongly site-dependent. It is suggested that the plants used for revegetation of dieback sites should be obtained from areas similar to the site that is being transplanted and/or plants which have large rhizome systems.

Type
Main Papers
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , Spring 1980 , pp. 59 - 66
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 1980

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

REFERENCES

Allam, A. I., Pitts, G. & Hollis, J. P. (1972). Sulfide determination in submerged soils with an ion-selective electrode. Soil Science, 114, p. 456–67, 3 figs.Google Scholar
Andelman, J. P. (1968). Ion-selective electrodes—theory and applications in water analysis. J. Water Pollution Control Federation, 40, p. 1844–60, 4 figs.Google Scholar
Barica, J. (1973). Use of a silver-sulfide electrode for standardizing aqueous sulfide solution in determining sulfide in water. J. Fish Res. Board Can., 30, p. 1589–91, 2 figs.Google Scholar
Barr, A. J., Goodnight, J. H., Sall, J. P. & Helwig, J. T. (1976). A User's Guide to SAS 76. SAS Institute, P.O. Box 10066, Raleigh, North Carolina: 329 pp.Google Scholar
Carney, C. B., Hardy, A. V. & Bavel, C. H. M. van (1971). Weather and Climate in North Carolina. Agricultural Experiment Station, North Carolina State University at Raleigh, Bulletin 396, 48 pp., 16 figs.Google Scholar
Chapman, V. J. (1960, reprinted 1974). Salt Marshes and Salt Deserts of the World. (Plant Science Monographs edited by Polunin, Nicholas.) Leonard Hill, London, and Interscience Publishers, New York: xvi + 392 pp., illustr.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, A. W. (1969). Salt marshes. Pp. 563–611 and 24 figs in Coastal Ecological Systems of the United States (Ed. Odum, H. T., Copeland, B. J. & McMahon, E. A.). Report to the Water Pollution Control Administration, Washington, D.C.: Vol. 1 [not available for checking].Google Scholar
Daigh, F. C., MacGreary, D. & Stearns, L. A. (1938). Factors affecting the vegetation cover of Delaware marshes. Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Annual Meeting of N.J. Mosquito Extermination Association [not available for checking].Google Scholar
Davis, C. A. (1910). Salt marsh formation near Boston and its geological significance. Econ. Geol., 5, pp. 623–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernald, M. L. (1950). Gray's Manual of Botany (8th edn). American Book Company, New York etc.: xiv + 1632 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Goodman, P. J. (1960). Investigations into ‘die-back’ in Spartina townsendii Agg., II: The morphological structure and composition of the Lymington Sward. J. Ecol., 48, p. 711–24, fig.Google Scholar
Goodman, P. J. & Williams, W. T. (1961). Investigations into ‘die-back’ in Spartina townsendii Agg., III: Physiological correlates of ‘die-back’. J. Ecol., 49, pp. 391–8.Google Scholar
Goodman, P. J., Braybrooks, E. M. & Lambert, J. M. (1959). Investigations into ‘die-back’ in Spartina townsendii Agg., I: The present status of Spartina townsendii in Britain. J. Ecol., 47, p. 651–77, 3 figs.Google Scholar
Gosselink, J. G., Odum, E. P. & Pope, R. M. (1974). The Value of the Tidal Marsh. Center for Wetland Resources, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana: LSU-SG-74-03,30pp.Google Scholar
Haines, B. L. & Dunn, E. L. (1976). Growth and resource allocation responses of Spartina alterniflora Loisel. to three levels of NH4N, Fe, and NaCl in solution culture. Bot. Gaz., 137, p. 224–30, fig.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harshberger, J. W. (1916). An hydrometric investigation of the influences of sea water on the distribution of saltmarsh and estuarine plants. Proc. Amer. Phil. Soc., 50, p. 457–96, illustr.Google Scholar
Heald, E. J. (1969). The Production of Organic Detritus in a South Florida Estuary. Ph.D. thesis, University of Miami, Florida: 110 pp, 7 figs.Google Scholar
Kirby, C. J. Jr (1971). The Annual Net Primary Production and Decomposition of Salt-marsh Grass Spartina alterniflora Loisel. in the Barataria Bay Estuary of Louisiana. Ph.D. thesis, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana: 74 pp., 16 figs.Google Scholar
Light, T. S. & Swartz, J. L. (1968). Analysis evolution of the silver sulfide membrane electrode. Anal. Lett., 1, p. 825–36, 4 figs.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linthurst, R. A. (1979). The effect of aeration on the growth of Spartina alterniflora Loisel. Amer. J. Bot., 66 (6), pp. 658–91, fig.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linthurst, R. A. & Seneca, E. D. (MSa). Aeration, nitrogen, and salinity, as determinants of Spartina alterniflora Loisel. growth-response. Submitted to Estuaries.Google Scholar
Linthurst, R. A. & Seneca, E. D. (MSb). The effects of standing water and drainage potential on the Spartina alterniflora-substiate complex in a North Carolina saltmarsh. Submitted to Estuarine and Coastal Mar. Sci., fig.Google Scholar
Miller, W. R. & Egler, F. E. (1950). Vegetation of the Wequetequock—Pawcatuck tidal marshes, Connecticut. Ecol. Monogr., 20, pp. 143–72, 19 figs.Google Scholar
Mooring, M. T., Cooper, A. W. & Seneca, E. D. (1971). Seed germination response and evidence for height ecophenes in Spartina alterniflora from North Carolina. Amer. J. Bot., 58, p. 48–55, 4 figs.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odum, E. P. (1961). The role of tidal marshes in estuarine production. The N. Y. State Conservationist, 15(6), pp. 12–5, 3 figs.Google Scholar
Odum, E. P. & Cruz, A. A. de la (1967). Particular organic detritus in a Georgia salt-marsh-estuarine ecosystem. pp. 383–8 and 7 figs in Estuaries (Ed. Lauff, G. H.). American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, D.C.: xv + 757 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Redfield, A. C. (1965). Ontogeny of a salt-marsh estuary. Science, 147, p. 50–5, 5 figs.Google Scholar
Redfield, A. C. (1972). Development of a New England salt-marsh. Ecol. Monogr., 42, p. 201–37, 50 figs.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reimold, R. J. (1977). Mangles and salt-marshes of eastern United States. Pp. 393–406 in Wet Coastal Ecosystems (Ed. Chapman, V. J.). Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands: xii + 428 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Schelske, C. L. & Odum, E. P. (1961). Mechanisms for maintaining high productivity in Georgia estuaries. Bull. Gulf and Carib. Fish Inst., 14, p. 75–80, fig.Google Scholar
Seneca, E. D., Broome, S. W., Woodhouse, W. W., Cammen, L. M. & IIILyon, J. T. (1976). Establishing Spartina alterniflora marsh in North Carolina. Environmental Conservation, 3(3), pp. 185–8.Google Scholar
Smart, R. M. & Barko, J. W. (1978). Influence of sediment salinity and nutrients on the physiological ecology of selected salt-marsh plants. Estuarine and Coastal Mar. Sci., 7, p. 487–95, 2 figs.Google Scholar
Smith, W. G. (1970). Spartina ‘die-back’ in Louisiana marshes. Coastal Studies Bull. No. 5, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, pp. 89–95, 2 figs.Google Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. & Cochran, W. G. (1967). Statistical Methods. Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa: 593 pp.Google Scholar
Taylor, N. (1938). A preliminary report on the salt-marsh vegetation of Long Island, New York. Bull. N. Y. State Mus., 316, p. 21–84, 19 figs.Google Scholar
Teal, J. M. (1962). Energy flow in the salt-marsh ecosystem of Georgia. Ecology, 43, p. 614–23, 4 figs.Google Scholar
Udell, H. F., Zanidsky, J., Doheny, T. E. & Burkholder, P. R. (1969). Productivity and nutrient values of plants growing in the salt-marshes of the town of Hempstead, Long Island. Bull. Tor. Bot. Club, 96, p. 42–51, fig.Google Scholar
Warner, T. B. (1972). Ion-selective electrodes—properties and uses in sea water. J. Mar. Technol. Soc., 6, p. 24–33, fig.Google Scholar
Woodhouse, W. W. Jr, Seneca, E. D. & Broome, S. W. (1974). Propagation of Spartina alterniflora for substrate stabilization and salt-marsh development. U.S. Army, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Fort Belvoir, Virginia, Tech. Memo. 46, 155 pp., 6 figs.Google Scholar