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