Macrophyte performance as a function of platform elevation in
micro- and macrotidal salt marshes
Diana Rodriguez
Department of Biological SciencesDepartment of Biological SciencesUniversity of South CarolinaUniversity of South CarolinaColumbia, SC 29208Columbia, SC 29208
Experimental Design
Six treatments and six replicates within treatments
MP
Replicated at three sites with varying tidal ranges:
Cocodrie, La -- 30-40 cmNorth Inlet, SC -- 1.5 mPIE, MA -- 3-4 m
Growth response of S. alterniflorawill likely be affected by varyingthe marsh platform (MP) relativeto local mean tidal range.
Nov. harvest &May planting
Platform varies from 0.5 m – 1.33 m
MHTMHTMHTMHT
Average Stem Height – Cocodrie, LA
}
}Low marsh morphology
High marsh morphology
Average Stem Height – PIE, LTER, MA
}Low marsh
} High marsh
Average Stem Density – Cocodrie, LA
}Further from MHT & MLT
} Within MHT & MLT
Average Stem Density – PIE, LTER, MA
NAPP – Cocodrie, LA (microtidal site)NAPP – Cocodrie, LA (microtidal site)
MHT
MLT
NAPP – PIE LTER, MA (macrotidal site)NAPP – PIE LTER, MA (macrotidal site)
MHT
MLT
Aboveground:Belowground Ratio – PIE LTER, MA
Increase in aboveground biomassas you decrease height of platform
below MHT
Belowground Biomass – PIE, LTER, MA
n=3
Summary
• Lower stem densities below MHT– Morphologically similar to low marsh– % belowground biomass of first 10 cm appears
to increase below MHT
• Higher stem densities above MHT– Morphologically similar to high marsh
• NAPP appears to increase (in microtidal site) with increasing inundation
