Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Invasive ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

<strong>Proceedings</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Third</strong> <strong>International</strong> <strong>Conference</strong> on Invasive SpartinaChapter 4: Spartina Control and ManagementDistance from native marsh (m)10008006004002000Salicornia virginicaTriglochin maritimumCotula coronopifoliaSpergularia canadensisTilled 2001/2002Sprayed 2002/2003Fig. 3. The mean maximum distance from <strong>the</strong> shoreline that salt marshspecies were located after Spartina was controlled. Data were collected June2004.Standard soil science methodology was used to determineporosity, bulk density, and <strong>the</strong> core sample composition. Bywashing <strong>the</strong> trench wall it was possible to identify allgrowing point meristems and record <strong>the</strong>ir points <strong>of</strong> origin(depth). The change in depth from <strong>the</strong> first occurringmeristem to <strong>the</strong> current growing points over <strong>the</strong> 8-to-10-yearperiod this meadow had been growing was assumed to be achange in tidal elevation resulting from Spartina-inducedaccretion. Data on vascular plant density (#/m 2 ) by specieswere collected in June 2004 from multiple transects from <strong>the</strong>native marsh line out to 500 m through each treatment site.RESULTSShorebird foragingBased on visual and remote observation data during <strong>the</strong>time course <strong>of</strong> this study, none <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Spartina controlmethods resulted in shorebird usage comparable to <strong>the</strong> baremudflats (Figures 1 & 2). Flux density <strong>of</strong> shorebirds duringwinter and spring <strong>of</strong> 2003 was higher in <strong>the</strong> bare mudflatthan in <strong>the</strong> tilled areas based on remote sensing (Figure 1),but comparable between <strong>the</strong> sites based on visualobservations (Figure 2). Flux densities <strong>of</strong> shorebirds on <strong>the</strong>tilled site were higher than <strong>the</strong> sprayed or spray-mowed site(Figures 1 & 2). During 480 hours <strong>of</strong> video recordings, noshorebirds were ever observed at <strong>the</strong> Spartina meadow site.Shorebirds (Western sandpipers) were only noted once over14 visual observations in <strong>the</strong> Spartina meadow, and <strong>the</strong>yfloated in on a Spartina wrack. From a behavioralperspective, it appeared that <strong>the</strong> tilled site had <strong>the</strong> lowestpercentage <strong>of</strong> skittish feeding and <strong>the</strong> bare mudflat <strong>the</strong>lowest percentage <strong>of</strong> resting (data not shown).Based on short-term comparisons in shorebirdfootprints, fecal droppings and beak probe densities, <strong>the</strong>rewere major differences in shorebird microsite habitatpreferences (Table 1). All types <strong>of</strong> dead Spartina stubble orlive Spartina stems drastically interfered with shorebirdforaging. For three locations within Porter Point, <strong>the</strong>re wasalmost no evidence <strong>of</strong> any shorebird usage where <strong>the</strong>re wasTable 1. Shorebird usage <strong>of</strong> Spartina habitat at Porter Point based onfootprint, fecal dropping and beak print densities as a function <strong>of</strong>accessibility.*General sitelocationSprayedmeadow, 80 mfrom nativemarsh; stubble25-50cm highEdge <strong>of</strong> sprayedmeadowadjacent to baremudflat, 80 mfrom nativemarsh; stubble25 to 50 cm highTilled strips inbetween sprayedSpartina, 1000’from nativemarsh; stubblewas mowed at25 cm heightShorebirdaccessdescriptions Footprints*Live SpartinacanopyDensity (#/0.25m 2 )**FecaldroppingsBeakprints0 0 0.8±0.4Dead stubble 50±50 0.9±0.4 29±4ExposedmudflatLive Spartinacanopy134±11 1.8±0.3 68±100.2±0.1 0 3±2Dead stubble 8±2 6±0.3 13±4Exposedmudflat35±5 0.8±0.2 47±5Dead stubble 87±12 0.5±0.2 25±4Exposedmudflat130±19 1.3±0.3 76±9*Data collected 5-13-03; 5 replications per habitat per location, with 5subsample counts per replication. For each replication comparative habitats(treatments) were located with 20 feet <strong>of</strong> each o<strong>the</strong>r.** mean ± standard errorlive Spartina growing. The bare mud and dead stubblelocations usually displayed high counts <strong>of</strong> beak and footprints and fecal droppings. Bare mud usually had twice asmuch shorebird usage as dead stubble.Soil and plant dataSpartina meadows rapidly began a transition to nativemiddle to upper salt marsh as soon as <strong>the</strong> Spartina was killed(Figure 3). Within two years <strong>of</strong> treatment, four salt marshplant species extended 400 m out from <strong>the</strong>ir native marshhabitat. At this particular site, <strong>the</strong> transition from mudflat toSpartina meadow to salt marsh has all occurred with tenyears and represents a permanent loss <strong>of</strong> hundreds <strong>of</strong>hectares <strong>of</strong> prime shorebird habitat. In an analysis <strong>of</strong> soilparameters at this meadow (data not shown), we have found<strong>the</strong> dead Spartina root mat extends down to 35 cm, with <strong>the</strong>bulk <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> soil volume being comprised <strong>of</strong> organic matterand pore space. Only 15% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> elevation rise could beaccounted for by sediment accretion.DISCUSSIONRestoring mudflats back to <strong>the</strong>ir original form andfunction will be extremely difficult. Even with tilling andseveral years <strong>of</strong> follow-up chemical control, as well as- 209 -
Chapter 4: Spartina Control and Management<strong>Proceedings</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Third</strong> <strong>International</strong> <strong>Conference</strong> on Invasive Spartinanatural restoration processes occurring over several years,Spartina-affected mudflats are far from having shorebirdusage comparable to what normally occurred on a bare tidalmudflat. This may be especially true for low tidal energysites in <strong>the</strong> sou<strong>the</strong>rn half <strong>of</strong> Willapa Bay, where <strong>the</strong>re istraditionally high shorebird usage. At <strong>the</strong>se sites, <strong>the</strong>landscape-scale changes in bathymetry via Spartina-inducedaccretion and root mass accumulation make it unlikely thatany restoration effort would be able to bring back <strong>the</strong>original bathymetry. This is especially true since nativemarsh is already succeeding in <strong>the</strong>se areas. Once <strong>the</strong>se siteshave transitioned to stable salt marshes, <strong>the</strong>re will be littlelikelihood that <strong>the</strong>y could ever become functional mudflatsagain. To prevent irreversible loss <strong>of</strong> prime shorebirdhabitat, it is <strong>the</strong>refore absolutely essential to eradicate allexisting Spartina in <strong>the</strong>se critical sites as quickly as possible.Can we realistically achieve restoration <strong>of</strong> functionalshorebird habitat at Spartina-affected tidelands post-control?If <strong>the</strong> site has undergone major elevation changes, it is likelythat it will become a stable salt marsh, and achievingshorebird habitat over <strong>the</strong> long term will be problematic. If<strong>the</strong> site has not undergone major Spartina-induced elevationchanges, <strong>the</strong>n habitat restoration is feasible. Restoration maybe expedited with a process that breaks up root masses andremoves stubble and traces <strong>of</strong> Spartina canopy, such astilling. This process is not inexpensive. Tilling <strong>of</strong> largeSpartina meadows is cost-prohibitive, requires veryspecialized equipment and is very slow (
Page 2 and 3:
Proceedings <stron
Page 4 and 5:
FORWARD & ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThe <stro
Page 6 and 7:
TABLE OF CONTENTSForward & Acknowle
Page 9 and 10:
Community Spartina Education and St
Page 11 and 12:
included the docum
Page 14:
CHAPTER ONESpartina Biology
Page 17 and 18:
Chapter 1: Spartina Biology
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 28 and 29:
Proceedings <stron
Page 30 and 31:
Proceedings <stron
Page 32 and 33:
Proceedings <stron
Page 34:
Proceedings <stron
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 42 and 43:
Proceedings <stron
Page 44:
Proceedings <stron
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 60 and 61:
Proceedings <stron
Page 62 and 63:
Proceedings <stron
Page 64 and 65:
Proceedings <stron
Page 66:
Proceedings <stron
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 74 and 75:
Proceedings <stron
Page 76:
Proceedings <stron
Page 79 and 80:
Chapter 2: Spartina Distribution an
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 86 and 87:
Proceedings <stron
Page 88 and 89:
Proceedings <stron
Page 90 and 91:
Proceedings <stron
Page 92 and 93:
Proceedings <stron
Page 94 and 95:
Proceedings <stron
Page 96 and 97:
Proceedings <stron
Page 98:
Proceedings <stron
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 108 and 109:
Proceedings <stron
Page 110:
Proceedings <stron
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 122 and 123:
Proceedings <stron
Page 124 and 125:
Proceedings <stron
Page 126 and 127:
Proceedings <stron
Page 128:
Proceedings <stron
Page 131 and 132:
Page 134 and 135:
Proceedings <stron
Page 136 and 137:
Proceedings <stron
Page 138 and 139:
Proceedings <stron
Page 140:
CHAPTER THREEEcosystem Effects <str
Page 143 and 144:
Chapter 3: Ecosystem Effects <stron
Page 145 and 146:
Page 148 and 149:
Proceedings <stron
Page 150 and 151:
Proceedings <stron
Page 152:
Proceedings <stron
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 160 and 161:
Proceedings <stron
Page 162 and 163:
Proceedings <stron
Page 164:
Proceedings <stron
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172: Chapter 3: Ecosystem Effects <stron
Page 174 and 175: Proceedings <stron
Page 176: Proceedings <stron
Page 249 and 250: Chapter 4: Spartina Control and Man
Page 273 and 274:
Chapter 4: Spartina Control and Man
Page 276 and 277:
Proceedings <stron
Page 278 and 279:
Proceedings <stron
Page 280 and 281:
Proceedings <stron
Page 282 and 283:
Proceedings <stron
Page 284 and 285:
Proceedings <stron
Page 286 and 287:
Proceedings <stron
Page 288 and 289:
Proceedings <stron
Page 290:
Proceedings <stron
show all

Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Invasive ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?