4.3 Article

Responses of native and invasive wetland plants to hydroperiod and water depth

Journal

PLANT ECOLOGY
Volume 167, Issue 1, Pages 57-69

Publisher

KLUWER ACADEMIC PUBL
DOI: 10.1023/A:1023918619073

Keywords

biomass allocation; comparative growth; inundation tolerance; Phalaris arundinacea; Spartina pectinata; stormwater runoff

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Monotypic stands of reed canary grass, Phalaris arundinacea, replace native wetland vegetation where storm-water runoff alters hydrologic conditions, nutrient inflows, and sedimentation rates. We asked if different hydrologic conditions could explain the dominance of Phalaris and/or loss of the native grass, Spartina pectinata, and we compared the growth of each species alone and together under four hydroperiods (varying inundation frequency and duration) each at two water depths (surface saturation and flooding to 15 cm). When grown alone, aboveground biomass was similar for the two species, but Phalaris produced twice the stem length of Spartina via its low tissue density. Per unit biomass, Phalaris distributed its leaves over a larger canopy volume. Flooding reduced belowground biomass and increased total shoot length and shoot: root biomass of each species. Phalaris produced the most biomass, shoots, and total shoot length when wetter and drier conditions alternated weekly, while Spartina grew best with prolonged (4-week) inundation. When grown with Spartina, Phalaris changed its morphology by increasing its total shoot length: biomass ratio by 50%. However, ratios of Spartina: Phalaris aboveground biomass, shoot number, and total shoot length in two-species pots were not significantly affected by water depth or hydroperiod. We conclude that two plant attributes facilitate Phalaris' dominance of wetlands: its high ratio of total shoot length: biomass and its adaptable morphology ( characterized herein as increased total shoot length: biomass when grown with Spartina).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available