Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Shoreline modification affects recruitment of invasive Phragmites australis

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Wetlands Ecology and Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Shoreline hardening affects ecological processes in nearshore intertidal ecosystems and upland habitats. Invasive species establishment and spread is one consequence of shoreline alterations. Invasive Phragmites australis has spread throughout the U.S., including in subestuaries with hardened shorelines. It is unclear, though, by what mechanisms shoreline hardening facilitates P. australis establishment. We tested the hypothesis that shoreline structures are associated with seedling recruitment, resulting in higher levels of within stand genetic diversity. We used microsatellite analysis to examine the genetic diversity of P. australis stands associated with two types of shoreline structures (riprap, bulkhead revetments) compared to unaltered shorelines. Because P. australis seed viability depends on cross-pollination, higher levels of genetic diversity in stands associated with hardened shorelines are more likely to contribute to the spread of invasive P. australis. We conclude that the extent of shoreline modifications in the Chesapeake Bay has contributed to the spread of P. australis by seeds. The results have implications for the management of P. australis associated with the establishment of shoreline structures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  • Ache BW, Crossett KM, Pacheco PA, Adkins JE, Wiley PC (2013) The coast is complicated: a model to consistently describe the nation’s coastal populations. Estuaries Coasts 38:S151–S155

    Google Scholar 

  • Ailstock MS, Norman M, Bu shman PJ (2001) Common reed Phragmites australis: control and effects upon biodiversity in freshwater nontidal wetlands. Rest Ecol 9:49–59

    Google Scholar 

  • Allee WC (1931) Animal aggregations, a study in general sociology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin AH, Kettenring KM, Whigham DF (2010) Seed banks of Phragmites australis-dominated brackish wetlands: relationships to seed viability, inundation, and land cover. Aquat Bot 93:163–169

    Google Scholar 

  • Balouskus RG, Targett TE (2018) Impact of armored shorelines on the shore zone fish assemblage of a mid-Atlantic, USA, estuary: modulation by hypoxia and temperature. Estuaries Coasts 41(Supplement 1):144–158

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bart D, Hartmann JM (2000) Environmental determinants of Phragmites australis expansion in a New Jersey salt marsh: an experimental approach. Oikos 89:59–69

    Google Scholar 

  • Bart D, Burdick D, Chambers R, Hartnett JM (2006) Human facilitation of Phragmites australis invasion in tidal marshes: a review and synthesis. Wet Ecol Manag 14:53–65

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertness M, Ewanchuk P, Silliman B (2002) Anthropogenic modification of New England salt marsh landscapes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:1395–1398

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bilkovic DM, Roggero M, Hershner CH, Havens KH (2006) Influence of land-use on macrobenthic communities in nearshore estuarine habitats. Estuaries Coasts 29:1185–1195

    Google Scholar 

  • Bozek CM, Burdick DM (2005) Impacts of seawalls on saltmarsh plant communities in the Great Bay Estuary, New Hampshire USA. Wet Ecol Manag 13:553–568

    Google Scholar 

  • Brisson J, Paradis É, Bellavance M-È (2008) Evidence of sexual reproduction in the invasive common reed (Phragmites australis subsp. australis; Poaceae) in eastern Canada: a possible consequence of global warming. Rhodora 110:225–230

    Google Scholar 

  • Burdick DM, Konisky YA (2003) Determinants of expansion for Phragmites australis, common reed, in natural and impacted coastal marshes. Estuaries Coasts 26:407–416

    Google Scholar 

  • Crum KP, Balouskus RG, Targett TE (2018) Growth and movements of mummichogs (Fundulus heteroclitus) along armored and vegetated estuarine shorelines. Estuaries Coasts 41(Suppl 1):S131–S143

    Google Scholar 

  • DeWoody JA, Schupp J, Kenefic L, Busch J, Murfitt L, Keim P (2004) Universal method for producing ROX-labeled size standards suitable for automated genotyping. Bioltechniques 37:348–352

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dibble KL, Meyerson LA (2012) Tidal flushing restores the physiological condition of fish residing in degraded salt marshes. PLoS ONE 7(9):e46161

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Dibble KL, Pooler PS, Meyerson LA (2012) Impacts of plant invasions can be reversed through restoration: a regional meta-analysis of faunal communities. Biol Invasions 15:1725–1737

    Google Scholar 

  • Doody JP (2008) Saltmarsh conservation, management and restoration. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Dugan JE, Airoldi L, Chapman MG, Walker S, Schlacher T (2011) Estuarine and costal structures: environmental effects, a focus on shore and nearshore structures. In: Wolanski E, McLusky DS (eds) Treatise on estuarine and coastal ccience. Elsevier, New York, pp 17–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellstrand NC, Roose KL (1987) Patterns of genotypic diversity in clonal plant species. Am J Bot 74:123–131

    Google Scholar 

  • Gittman RK, Fodrie FJ, Popowich AM, Keller DA, Bruno JF, Currin CA, Peterson CH, Piehler MF (2015) Engineering away our natural defenses: an analysis of shoreline hardening in the US. Front Ecol Environ 13:301–307

    Google Scholar 

  • Gittman RK, Schyphers SB, Smith CS, Neylan IP, Grabowski JJ (2016) Ecological consequences of shoreline hardening: a meta-analysis. Bioscience 66:763–773

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen MJ, Clevenger AP (2005) The influence of disturbance and habitat on the presence of non-native plant species along transport corridors. Biol Conserv 125:249–259

    Google Scholar 

  • Hazelton ELG, Mozdzer TJ, Burdick DM, Kettenring KM, Whigham DF (2014) Phragmites australis management in the United States: 40 years of methods and outcomes. AoB plants 6:plu001

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Hazelton ELG, McCormick MK, Sievers M, Kettenring KM, Whigham DF (2015) Stand age is associated with clonal diversity, but not vigor, community structure, or insect herbivory in Chesapeake Bay Phragmites australis. Wetlands 35:877–888

    Google Scholar 

  • Hazelton ELG, Downard R, Kettenring KM, McCormick MK, Whigham DF (2018) Spatial and temporal variation in brackish marsh seedbanks: implications for wetland restoration following Phragmites control. Estuaries Coasts 41:68–84

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodkinson TR (2018) Evolution and taxonomy of the grasses (Poaceae): a model for the study of species-rich groups. Annu Plant Rev 1:1–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Kettenring KM, Whigham DF (2018) The role of propagule type, resource availability, and seed source in Phragmites invasion in Chesapeake Bay wetlands. Wetlands 38:1259–1268

    Google Scholar 

  • Kettenring KM, McCormick MK, Baron HM, Whigham DDF (2010) Phragmites australis (common reed) invasion in the Rhode River Subestuary of the Chesapeake Bay: disentangling the effects of foliar nutrients, genetic diversity, stand size, and seed viability. Estuaries Coasts 33(1):118–126

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kettenring KM, McCormick MK, Baron HM, Whigham DF (2011) Mechanisms of Phragmites australis invasion: feedbacks among genetic diversity, nutrients, and sexual reproduction. J Appl Ecol 48:1305–1313

    Google Scholar 

  • Kettenring KM, Whigham DF, Hazelton E, Gallagher SK, Weiner HM (2015) Biotic resistance, disturbance, and mode of colonization impact the invasion of a widespread, introduced wetland grass. Ecol Appl 25:466–480

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kettenring KM, Mock KE, Zaman B, McKee M (2016) Life on the edge: reproductive mode and rate of invasive Phragmites australis patch expansion. Biol Invasions 18:1–21

    Google Scholar 

  • King RS, DeLuca WV, Whigham DF, Marra PP (2007) Threshold effects of coastal urbanization on Phragmites australis (common reed) abundance and foliar nitrogen in Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries Coasts 30:1–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirk H, Paul J, Straka J, Freeland JR (2011) Long-distance dispersal and higher genetic diversity are implicated in the invasive spread of the Common Reed, Phragmites australis (Poaceae) in Northeastern North America. Am J Bot 98:1180–1190

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kiviat E (2013) Ecosystem services of Phragmites in North America with emphasis on habitat function. AoB Plants. https://doi.org/10.1093/aiboka/plt008

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Koppitz H, Kuhl H (2000) To the importance of genetic diversity of Phragmites australis in the development of reed stands. Wetl Ecol Manag 8:403–414

    Google Scholar 

  • Koppitz H, Kuhl H, Hesse K, Kohl J-G (1997) Some aspects of the importance of genetic diversity in Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. Ex Steudel for the development of reed stands. Bot Acta 110:217–223

    Google Scholar 

  • Kornis MS, Breitburg D, Balouskus R, Bilkovic DM, Davias LA, Giordano S, Heggie K, Hines AH, Jacobs JM, Jordan TE, King RS, Patrick CJ, Seitz RD, Soulen H, Targett TE, Weller DE, Whigham DF, Uphoff J Jr (2017) Linking the abundance of estuarine fish and crustaceans in nearshore waters to shoreline hardening and land cover. Estuaries Coasts 40:1464–1486

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Landry JB, Golden RR (2018) In situ effects of shoreline type and watershed land-use on submerged aquatic vegetation habitat quality in the Chesapeake and Mid-Atlantic Coastal Bays. Estuaries Coasts 41(Suppl 1):S101–S113

    Google Scholar 

  • Lathrop R, Windham L, Montesano P (2003) Does Phragmites expansion alter the structure and function of marsh landscapes? Pattern and processes revisited. Estuaries 26:423–435

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavergne S, Molofsky J (2007) Increased genetic variation and evolutionary potential drive the success of an invasive grass. PNAS 104:3883–3888

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Living Shoreline Summit Steering Committee (2006) Preface. In: Proceedings of the 2006 Living Shoreline Summit, Chesapeake Bay, CRC Publications, No. 08–164

  • Mattingly WB, Orrock JL (2013) Historic land use influences contemporary establishment of invasive plant species. Oikos 172:1147–1157

    Google Scholar 

  • McCormick J, Somes HA Jr (1982) The coastal wetlands of Maryland. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Coastal Zone Management, Jack McCormick and Associates, Inc., Chevy Chase, MD

    Google Scholar 

  • McCormick MK, Kettenring KM, Baron HM, Whigham DF (2010a) Spread of invasive Phragmites australis in estuaries with differing degrees of development: genetic patterns, Allee effects and interpretation. J Ecol 98:1369–1378

    Google Scholar 

  • McCormick MK, Kettenring KM, Baron HM, Whigham DF (2010b) Extent and reproductive mechanisms of Phragmites australis spread in brackish wetlands in Chesapeake Bay, Maryland (USA). Wetlands 30:67–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyerson LA, Saltonstall K, Windham L, Kiviat E, Findlay S (2000) A comparison of Phragmites australis in freshwater and brackish marsh environments in North America. Wetl Ecol Manag 8:89–103

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Minchinton TE, Bertness MD (2003) Disturbance-mediated competition and the spread of Phragmites australis in a coastal marsh. Ecol Appl 13:1400–1416

    Google Scholar 

  • Minchinton TE, Simpson JC, Bertness MD MD (2006) Mechanisms of exclusion of native coastal marsh plants by an invasive grass. J Ecol 94:342–354

    Google Scholar 

  • Mortensen DA, Raushcert ES, Nord AN, Jones BP (2009) Forest roads facilitate the spread of invasive plants. Invas Plant Sci Manag 2:191–199

    Google Scholar 

  • Mueller P, Hager RN, Meschter JE, Mozdzer TJ, Langley JA, Jensen K, Megonigal JP (2016) Complex invader-ecosystem interactions and seasonality mediate the impact of non-native Phragmites on CH4 emissions. Biol Invasions. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-016-1093-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NRC (National Research Council) (2007) Mitigating shore erosion along sheltered coasts. National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Patrick CJ, Weller DE, Ryder M (2016) The relationship between armoring and adjacent submerged aquatic vegetation in Chesapeake Bay and nearby Atlantic coastal bays. Estuaries Coasts 39:158–170

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Patrick CJ, Weller D, Ryder M, Xuyong L (2014) Effect of watershed land-use and shoreline alteration on submerged aquatic vegetation in the Chesapeake Bay at the scale of the subestuary. Estuaries Coasts 37:1516–1531

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Powell EJ, Tyrrell MC, Milliken A, Tirpak JM, Staudinger MD (2019) A review of coastal management approaches to support the integration of ecological and human community planning for climate change. J Coast Conserv 23:1–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Price JN, Berney PJ, Ryder D, Whalley RDB, Gross CL (2011) Disturbance governs dominance of an invasive forb in a temporary wetland. Oecologia 167:759–769

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Prosser DJ, Nagel JL, Howlin S, Marbán PR, Day DD, Erwin RM (2018a) Effects of local shoreline and subestuary watershed condition on waterbird community integrity: influences of geospatial scale and seston in the Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries Coasts 41(Suppl 1):S207–S222

    Google Scholar 

  • Prosser DJ, Jordan TE, Nagel JL, Seitz RD, Weller DE, Whigham DF (2108b) Impacts of coastal land use and shoreline armoring on estuarine ecosystems: an introduction to a special issue. Estuaries Coasts 41(Suppl 1):S2–S18

    Google Scholar 

  • Raicu P, Staicu S, Stoian V, Roman T (1972) The Phragmites communis Trin. chromosome complement in the Danube delta. Hydrobiologia 39:249–252

    Google Scholar 

  • Rees GN, Baldwin DS, Watson GO, Perryman S. Nielson DL (2004) Ordination and significance testing of microbial community composition derived from terminal restriction fragment length polymorphisms: application of multivariate statistics. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 86:339–347

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rice D, Rooth J, Stevenson JC (2000) Colonization and expansion of Phragmites australis in Upper Chesapeake Bay tidal wetlands. Wetlands 20:280–299

    Google Scholar 

  • Saltonstall K (2002) Cryptic invasion by a non-native genotype of the common reed, Phragmites australis, into North America. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:2445–2449

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Saltonstall K (2003) Microsatellite variation within and among North American lineages of Phragmites australis. Mol Ecol 12:16891702

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanford LP, Gao J (2018) Influences of waves climate and sea level on shoreline erosion rates in the Maryland Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries Coasts 41(Suppl 1):19–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Sciance MB, Patrick CJ, Weller DE, Williams MN, McCormick MK, Hazelton ELG (2016) Local and regional disturbances associated with the invasion of Chesapeake Bay marshes by the common reed Phragmites australis. Biol Invasions. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-016-1136-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seitz RD, Knick KE, Davenport TM, Saluta GG (2018) Human influiences at the coast: upland and shoreline stressors affect coastal macrofauna and are mediated by salinity. Estuaries Coasts 41(Suppl 1):114–130

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Shen DW, Jiao J, Xu NN, Yu S, Zhou XF, Shi MM, Chen XY (2012) Genotypic diversity enhances invasive ability of Spartina alterniflora. Mol Ecol 21:2542–2551

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Silliman BR, Bertness MD (2004) Shoreline development drives invasion of Phragmites australis and the loss of plant diversity on New England salt marshes. Conserv Biol 18:1424–1434

    Google Scholar 

  • Soons MB (2006) Habitat fragmentation and connectivity. Spatial and temporal characteristics of the colonization process in plants. Ph.D. Thesis. Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

  • STAC (Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee for the Chesapeake Bay Program (2006) Assessing cumulative impacts of shoreline modification workshop report: Chesapeake Bay STAC proactive workshop. STAC Publication 07-003. Edgewater, MD

  • Sutton-Grier AE, Wowk K, Bamford H (2015) Future of our coasts: The potential for natural and hybrid infrastructure to enhance the resilience of our coastal communities, economics, and ecosystems. Environ Sci Policy 51:137–148

    Google Scholar 

  • Talley TS, Levin LA (2001) Modification of sediments and macrofauna by an invasive marsh plant. Biol Invasions 3:51–68

    Google Scholar 

  • VIMS-CCRM (Virginia Institute of Marine Science Center for Coastal Resources Management) (2009) GIS data and maps: shoreline inventories. http://ccrm.vims.edu/gis_data_maps/shoreline_inventories/index.html. Accessed 10 Feb 2009

  • Warren R, Fell P, Grimsby J, Buck EC, Rilling C, Fertik R (2001) Rates, patterns, and impacts of Phragmites australis expansion and effects of experimental Phragmites control on vegetation, macroinvertebrates, and fish within tidelands of the lower Connecticut River. Estuaries 24:90–107

    Google Scholar 

  • Windham L, Ehrenfeld JG (2003) New impact of a plant invasion on nitrogen-cycling processes within a brackish tidal marsh. Ecol Appl 13:883–897

    Google Scholar 

  • Windham L, Meyerson L (2003) Effects of common reed (Phragmites australis) expansions on nitrogen dynamics of tidal marshes of the Northeastern U.S. Estuaries 26:452–464

    Google Scholar 

  • Zedler JP, Hercher S (2004) Causes and consequences of invasive plants in wetlands: opportunities, opportunists, and outcomes. Crit Rev Plant Sci 23:431–452

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was supported by Award Number NA09NOS4780214 (to Dennis Whigham, Melissa McCormick, Karin Kettenring) from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Center for Sponsored Coastal Ocean Research (CSCOR). Eric Hazelton was funded in part by a Smithsonian Pre-doctoral Fellowship. Jared Stapp was funded by NSF-REU Grant DBI 1156799.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Jared R. Stapp

    Present address: Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management, University of California, Berkeley, 130 Hilgard Way, Berkeley, CA, 94709, USA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, 647 Contees Wharf Rd., Edgewater, MD, 20137, USA

    Melissa K. McCormick, Dennis F. Whigham, Eric L. G. Hazelton & Eliza K. McFarland

  2. Department of Watershed Sciences and Ecology Center, Utah State University, Logan, UT, 84322, USA

    Eric L. G. Hazelton & Karin M. Kettenring

Authors
  1. Melissa K. McCormick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dennis F. Whigham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jared R. Stapp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Eric L. G. Hazelton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Eliza K. McFarland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Karin M. Kettenring
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design, as well as material preparation, data collection and analysis. The first draft of the manuscript was written by MM and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Melissa K. McCormick.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Electronic supplementary material 1 (DOCX 39 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

McCormick, M.K., Whigham, D.F., Stapp, J.R. et al. Shoreline modification affects recruitment of invasive Phragmites australis. Wetlands Ecol Manage 28, 909–919 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-020-09757-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-020-09757-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation