Next Article in Journal
Changes in Carbon and Nitrogen Metabolites before, at, and after Anthesis for Wheat Cultivars in Response to Reduced Soil Water and Zinc Foliar Application
Next Article in Special Issue
Contrasting Dynamics of Littoral and Riparian Reed Stands within a Wetland Complex of Lake Cerknica
Previous Article in Journal
QTL and Candidate Genes for Seed Tocopherol Content in ‘Forrest’ by ‘Williams 82’ Recombinant Inbred Line (RIL) Population of Soybean
Previous Article in Special Issue
Above- and Below-Ground Carbon Storage of Hydrologically Altered Mangrove Wetlands in Puerto Rico after a Hurricane
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Plants
Volume 11
Issue 9
10.3390/plants11091259
plants-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Presence of the Herbaceous Marsh Species Schoenoplectus americanus Enhances Surface Elevation Gain in Transitional Coastal Wetland Communities Exposed to Elevated CO2 and Sediment Deposition Events

by
Camille LaFosse Stagg
1,*,
Claudia Laurenzano
2,
William C. Vervaeke
1,†,
Ken W. Krauss
1 and
Karen L. McKee
1
1
U.S. Geological Survey, Wetland and Aquatic Research Center, Lafayette, LA 70506, USA
2
Cherokee Nation System Solutions, Contractor to the U.S. Geological Survey, Wetland and Aquatic Research Center, Lafayette, LA 70506, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
Current address: U.S. National Park Service, Southeast Coast Network, Jacksonville, FL 32225, USA.
Plants 2022, 11(9), 1259; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11091259
Submission received: 10 March 2022 / Revised: 26 April 2022 / Accepted: 28 April 2022 / Published: 6 May 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Wetland Ecology: Plant Adaptations to Changing Wetland Environments)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Coastal wetlands are dynamic ecosystems that exist along a landscape continuum that can range from freshwater forested wetlands to tidal marsh to mudflat communities. Climate-driven stressors, such as sea-level rise, can cause shifts among these communities, resulting in changes to ecological functions and services. While a growing body of research has characterized the landscape-scale impacts of individual climate-driven stressors, little is known about how multiple stressors and their potential interactions will affect ecological functioning of these ecosystems. How will coastal wetlands respond to discrete climate disturbances, such as hurricane sediment deposition events, under future conditions of elevated atmospheric CO2? Will these responses vary among the different wetland communities? We conducted experimental greenhouse manipulations to simulate sediment deposition from a land-falling hurricane under future elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations (720 ppm CO2). We measured responses of net primary production, decomposition, and elevation change in mesocosms representing four communities along a coastal wetland landscape gradient: freshwater forested wetland, forest/marsh mix, marsh, and mudflat. When Schoenoplectus americanus was present, above- and belowground biomass production was highest, decomposition rates were lowest, and wetland elevation gain was greatest, regardless of CO2 and sediment deposition treatments. Sediment addition initially increased elevation capital in all communities, but post-deposition rates of elevation gain were lower than in mesocosms without added sediment. Together these results indicate that encroachment of oligohaline marshes into freshwater forested wetlands can enhance belowground biomass accumulation and resilience to sea-level rise, and these plant-mediated ecosystem services will be augmented by periodic sediment pulses from storms and restoration efforts.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Coastal wetlands are valuable ecosystems that enhance coastal resilience [1,2] and reduce greenhouse gas emissions through carbon sequestration [3,4,5]. Because coastal wetlands provide these and numerous other critical services [6,7], it is imperative to understand how these ecosystems will function under future climate conditions. Existing at the terrestrial–aquatic interface, coastal wetlands are naturally resilient ecosystems that have been sculpted by dynamic climate and flooding conditions for millennia [8,9]. Low-lying coastal wetlands must keep pace with changes in sea level or become submerged. Wetlands adjust to rising sea levels through a positive hydrogeomorphic feedback mechanism that achieves optimal wetland elevation and flooding through processes that control mineral sediment and organic matter accumulation [10,11,12], leading to enhanced coastal habitat stability and soil carbon sequestration [13,14,15]. However, excessive flooding that surpasses a critical elevation threshold can disrupt the hydrogeomorphic feedback, leading to an ecosystem shift or collapse [16,17,18].
Coastal freshwater forested wetlands occur at the upper limit of the tidal range and are vulnerable to hydrologic alterations, including saltwater intrusion [19]. Sea-level rise can cause shifts in plant community composition along a continuum ranging from freshwater forested wetland to unvegetated mudflat [20], potentially altering ecosystem function [21,22]. Conservation and management of these low-lying ecosystems requires an understanding of how future climate conditions can affect wetland resilience to sea-level rise and how it may vary along this coastal wetland landscape continuum (Figure 1).
The most recent IPCC report (IPCC AR6) makes it clear that increasing greenhouse gas emissions, including atmospheric CO2, will cause faster warming with cascading impacts across the globe [23]. In addition to driving global warming, elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations can directly impact coastal wetland ecosystem function. For example, enriched atmospheric CO2 can stimulate primary production and biomass contributions to soil volume, contributing to elevation gains [24,25]. Effects of elevated atmospheric CO2 on decomposition in coastal wetlands are less clear [26,27,28] but have the potential to modify elevation change dynamics by altering the net balance of organic matter gains and losses (Figure 1).
Global warming will accelerate sea-level rise, causing more frequent and severe coastal flooding and erosion [23]. Climate extremes are also predicted to increase, with the possibility of larger, more intense hurricanes making landfall in coastal regions [29]. While extreme precipitation associated with more intense hurricanes can have devastating impacts on coastal wetlands [30,31], these ecosystems have adapted to regular storm events, which play a critical role in ecosystem function [32]. For example, hurricanes deposit significant amounts of sediment through storm surge [33,34,35], which can provide immediate elevation gains (elevation capital) and stimulate processes that control wetland elevation gain [36,37].
Although the impacts of individual drivers, such as atmospheric CO2 and sediment deposition, are becoming clearer, less is known about the interactive effects of these factors on coastal wetland elevation change. Therefore, the complexity of possible climate futures requires that we investigate multiple drivers together, rather than in isolation, if we hope to have insight into the future of coastal wetlands in a changing environment. The overall aim of this study was to gain a better understanding of how sediment inputs from hurricanes might affect coastal wetland resilience in a future with elevated atmospheric CO2. Will sediment addition and CO2 enrichment separately or interactively affect plant production–decomposition processes and biogenic contributions to wetland elevation change? Does sediment addition alter post-storm elevation trajectories by stimulating belowground root production or microbial decay? Do elevation responses differ depending on vegetation type? To answer these questions, we conducted a greenhouse mesocosm study to examine responses of Nyssa biflora (swamp tupelo) and Schoenoplectus americanus (American bulrush) to simulated hurricane sedimentation under current and future atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

2. Results

Aboveground biomass production was generally highest in the mixed and marsh communities, and high production rates in the mixed community were dominated by the marsh species Schoenoplectus americanus (Table 1, Figure 2). Production of the forest species Nyssa biflora was lower in the mixed community with S. americanus than when grown alone in the forest mesocosms. The addition of elevated CO2 and sediment deposition treatments had no effect on this pattern, with the exception of the forested community, which was stimulated by these treatments (p = 0.052; Figure 2B). With both elevated CO2 and sediment deposition treatments together, N. biflora biomass production in the forest mesocosms was similar to S. americanus production in the mixed and marsh communities.
Generally, among all four communities (averaged across CO2 and sediment treatments), the marsh and mixed communities had the highest belowground biomass production rates, lowest decomposition rates, and highest surface elevation change rates compared to the forest and mudflat communities (Table 2, Figure 3). While some CO2 and sediment treatment effects were dependent upon wetland community, there were no significant interactions between elevated CO2 and sediment deposition on belowground production, decomposition, or surface elevation change (Table 2).
Although elevated CO2 did not alter belowground biomass production or surface elevation change (Figure 4A,C), there were significant effects on decomposition in the mixed community (Figure 4B). Under ambient CO2 conditions, mixed and marsh communities had similar decay rates, and both communities had lower rates of decay compared to the forest and mudflat communities. Under elevated CO2 conditions, however, decay rates in the mixed community were more similar to the forest and mudflat communities, and decay rates in the marsh were significantly lower than any other community.
Sediment deposition had no significant effect on belowground biomass production (Figure 5A). In contrast, sediment deposition stimulated decomposition, but only in the mudflat community (Figure 5B). In all communities, elevation change rates were positive (gaining elevation); however, sediment addition diminished post-deposition rates of wetland elevation gain (Figure 5C). Despite a direct increase in elevation immediately following the deposition of sediment (Figure 6B), the rate of elevation gain in the wetlands receiving sediment was slower than the rate of elevation gain without sediment deposition (Figure 5C and Figure 6B).

3. Discussion

Coastal wetlands adjust to rising sea levels through mineral sediment and organic matter accumulation [12,16,38]. In wetlands where vertical land building is dominated by organic matter accumulation, i.e., where mineral sediment is limited [39,40,41,42], changes in the competing processes of organic matter production and decomposition can have significant effects on net wetland elevation change and sustainability [43,44].
Along the coastal wetland landscape continuum, shifts in plant community composition can lead to changes in primary production [45], decomposition [46], and soil organic matter accumulation [47,48]. Following salinity intrusion from sea-level rise, storm events, and drought, the transition from coastal freshwater forested wetland to oligohaline marsh is characterized by declining tree densities, reduced basal area, and lower litterfall rates [49]. In the current study, tree biomass (N. biflora) was higher in the forest community compared to tree biomass in the transitional mixed community (N. biflora + S. americanus). Since salinity was not manipulated in the current study, these results indicate that other factors beyond salinity may affect forest regeneration in these transitional communities. The diminished production of N. biflora biomass in the presence of S. americanus suggests that S. americanus, which had significantly higher biomass production, is a better competitor, with lower resource requirements than N. biflora [50,51]. The competitive displacement by S. americanus can lead to changes in aboveground production that have implications for carbon cycling. Because woody aboveground biomass in forests is retained over longer periods of time, compared to herbaceous aboveground biomass in marshes, encroachment of S. americanus into freshwater forested wetlands could impact the rate of carbon turnover and export from the ecosystem [52,53].
Additionally, mesocosms that contained S. americanus (mixed and marsh communities) had the highest rates of belowground production, the lowest decay rates, and the highest rates of surface elevation change. This pattern matches that observed in the field. For example, some tidal freshwater forested wetlands along the Southeastern U.S. Atlantic coasts have lower rates of surface elevation change compared to oligohaline herbaceous marshes closer to the marine tidal source [54]. Herbaceous marshes can also have significantly higher rates of belowground biomass production compared to the tidal freshwater forested wetlands [55], illustrating the importance of belowground productivity in maintaining wetland elevation [56,57], and highlighting the role of plant-mediated changes in ecological function. These results suggest that the conversion from freshwater forested wetland to oligohaline marsh will lead to more resilient wetland communities with a greater capacity to adjust to rising sea levels [58].
CO2-induced shifts in plant community composition can have an overwhelming impact on both wetland productivity [59] and decomposition [60], illustrating the important role of plant community dynamics in mediating future environmental conditions. Generally, decay rates were highest in the mudflat mesocosms compared to the vegetated mesocosms, which may be due to changes in nutrient availability and subsequent microbial activity [61] in the absence of vascular plants. This trend was moderated by elevated CO2 concentrations, which stimulated decay rates; however, this effect was only observed in the mixed community. Although CO2-induced changes in litter composition can influence decay rates [26,62], the use of a standardized carbon substrate in the current study isolated only those effects associated with changes in the hydro-edaphic environment and microbial community [63], both of which can be shaped by the functional traits of different plant communities as they respond to elevated CO2. For example, exposure to elevated CO2 can alter oxygen and carbon availability through increased root exudates [28] and root turnover [64], which can affect microbial activity and decay [65,66,67,68]. While root exudates were not directly measured, results from the current study provide evidence of a CO2 effect on labile carbon decay that is not related to changes in plant litter composition.
Direct stimulation of biomass production by elevated atmospheric CO2 has been well documented in coastal wetlands, especially those dominated by C3 species [69]. In the current study, we did not observe significant effects of elevated atmospheric CO2 on net annual above- or belowground biomass production in the C3-dominated S. americanus marsh or the mixed communities and only a minor effect on N. biflora aboveground production. While the lack of response by the C3-dominated communities was surprising, reports of CO2 enhancement of plant production are inconsistent throughout the literature [70]. Other studies have shown that the CO2-fertilization effect can vary depending on a multitude of factors including resource availability [71,72,73,74] and edaphic conditions [24,75,76]. For example, biomass of a C3 mangrove (Avicennia germinans) was increased by elevated CO2 treatment only when grown alone under high nitrogen availability [71]. In the current study, biomass production of N. biflora was stimulated by elevated CO2 treatments only when sediment was added to the mesocosms. Sediments deposited during storm events or restoration efforts have been shown to stimulate above- and belowground production in coastal wetlands by ameliorating flooding stress and nutrient deficiency [77,78,79]. Other work has found that CO2 enrichment effects on primary production typically occur when water use efficiency and nutrient availability are optimal [70]. The addition of sediment to mesocosms may have increased nutrient availability, which aided the response of N. biflora to CO2.
Landfalling hurricanes can deposit significant volumes of sediment in coastal wetlands [33,34]. In regions where natural tidal or riverine flooding is restricted, hurricanes and winter storms are a primary source of sediment [80] that can increase elevation capital and stimulate belowground production [36]. Both field and greenhouse experiments have shown that sediment subsidies can ameliorate the negative effects of sea-level rise by improving hydro-edaphic conditions that support greater plant productivity and wetland elevation gain over time [37,79,81,82]. However, sediment addition to mesocosms did not have a direct effect on belowground biomass production (Figure 5A), although sediment treatments did stimulate decay in the mudflat, likely through adding nutrient-rich sediments [61,81], and the greatest impact of sediment deposition was on elevation capital and subsequent elevation change trajectories (Figure 5C). As expected, sediment addition to mesocosms initially raised soil elevations, as occurs in the field, but subsequent rates of elevation gain were lower than in mesocosms without sediment. Similarly, in a manipulative field experiment that quantified the effect of sediment subsidies to wetland elevation change, the authors of [83] observed initial increases followed by a decline in wetland elevation that was associated with compaction of the underlying native soil. Over 2.5 years, wetlands treated with 2.3–20.3 cm of sediment subsided to pre-treatment elevations that were equivalent to the natural reference marshes. Similarly, compaction and decay may account for the slower elevation gains in mesocosms with added sediment.

4. Methods

4.1. Experimental Design

To investigate the effects of multiple drivers on ecosystem function along the coastal wetland landscape continuum, we simulated hurricane disturbance by adding sediment to four vegetation combinations in mesocosms (described below) exposed to ambient and elevated concentrations of CO2. The mesocosm study was conducted in the Wetland Elevated CO2 Experimental Facility at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Wetland and Aquatic Research Center, in Lafayette, LA, USA. Treatments were applied using a split-plot with factorial subplots design consisting of (1) two CO2 treatments (ambient, ≈380 ppm; elevated, ≈720 ppm) applied at the whole-plot level, (2) four vegetation combinations (forest; marsh; forest/marsh mixture; mudflat) applied at the subplot level, and (3) two sediment treatments (sediment deposition; no sediment) applied at the subplot level. Each greenhouse (n = 4) contained two experimental units per community × sediment combination (n = 16) for a grand total of 64 mesocosms (Figure S1).

4.2. Mesocosm Design

Wetland community treatments (mesocosms) contained Nyssa biflora Walter seedlings, a C3 species, in the forest mesocosms; Schoenoplectus americanus (Pers.) Volkart ex Schinz and R. Keller, a C3 sedge, in the marsh mesocosms; and a combination of N. biflora and S. americanus in the mixed mesocosms. The fourth community, the mudflat, did not contain any vascular plants, and all mesocosms contained the same native soil from a S. americanus marsh. Nyssa biflora is a native tree species distributed throughout the Eastern United States, including the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain, the Eastern Mountains and Piedmont, the Great Plains, and the Northcentral and Northeast regions [84]. Schoenoplectus americanus is a native sedge species distributed across North America from the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain into the Arid West and into the western mountains, valleys, and coastal regions, as well as in the Caribbean [84]. Marsh sods dominated by S. americanus were collected from Big Branch National Wildlife Refuge, Louisiana, USA, in May 2012, before peak growing season, near the forest–marsh ecotone (Figure S2). Following collection, sods were cut to a depth of 20 cm and placed in 5-gallon buckets that contained a 5 cm thick bottom layer of pea gravel to improve drainage. To prepare the mesocosms for planting, all S. americanus vegetation was clipped to the soil surface. To ensure the complete elimination of S. americanus vegetation from the forest and mudflat mesocosms, those mesocosms were then flooded to a depth of five centimeters and re-clipped until no resprouting occurred (around two weeks). In the marsh and mixed mesocosms, flooding was not imposed, and S. americanus vegetation was allowed to re-grow. Nyssa biflora seeds were collected from a coastal freshwater forest in Georgetown, South Carolina, USA, and shipped to the USGS facility where they were germinated in commercial potting soil under ambient CO2 (non-enriched) conditions and allowed to grow for four months. Single N. biflora seedlings were transplanted to the forest and mixed mesocosms (Figure S1).

4.3. Experimental Conditions

Half the number of mesocosms (n = 32) were subjected to atmospheric CO2 concentrations of ≈380 ppm (ambient CO2 during study period, 2012–2014) and half to ≈720 ppm CO2 (elevated CO2). Ambient and elevated CO2 treatments were applied to the whole plot, i.e., the greenhouse (n = 2 per CO2 treatment) using an automated delivery system to ensure continuous targeted CO2 concentrations by adding industrial-grade CO2 (supplied by Airgas, Lafayette, LA, USA). The automated feedback system measured CO2 concentrations using a dual-beam, steady-state infrared gas analyzer (Gascard II, Edinburgh Instruments, Ltd., Livingston, UK) that regulated automated flow meters for each greenhouse (Cole-Parmer Instrument Company, Vernon Hills, IL, USA) (see [71] for details). Mesocosms were acclimated in ambient and elevated CO2 greenhouses, separately, for 10 weeks prior to sediment treatment.
Following the passage of Hurricane Isaac over the collection site (29 August 2012) [85], root-free and rhizome-free sediment was collected from the tidal creek adjacent to the marsh sod collection site and mixed with water to achieve a slurry of 70% water and 30% sediment by volume. To mimic hurricane sediment deposition, the sediment slurry was added to half the number of mesocosms (n = 32) to increase the soil surface by five centimeters (accounting for initial compaction after one week).
Mesocosms were flooded with freshwater to the soil surface and maintained at this depth throughout the study duration to mimic the relatively static flooding regime commonly observed in freshwater forests undergoing transition to oligohaline marsh in coastal Louisiana. To maintain plant vigor, a nutrient solution was applied to all mesocosms twice per month that provided mmol L–1 of N (0.005) as NH4Cl; P and K (0.00125) as KH2PO4; S (0.0025) as MgSO4; Ca (0.00625) as CaCl; Fe (0.00125) as FeEDTA solution; and micronutrients B, Cu, Mn, Mo, and Zn (0.00125) as H3BO3, CuSO4•5H2O, MnCl2•4H2O, H2MoO4•H2O, and ZnSO4•7H2O, respectively.

4.4. Data Collection

Data collection began in September 2012 and concluded in September 2014. Above- and belowground production was measured for herbaceous (S. americanus) and woody (N. biflora) species. Schoenoplectus americanus aboveground production was measured by harvesting all dead material from the mesocosms monthly and all live and dead material from a final harvest at the end of the study period [24]. Harvested aboveground material was dried to a constant mass at 60 °C and weighed, and the cumulative biomass produced over time was used to estimate a rate of aboveground primary production (g m−2 y−1). Litterfall from N. biflora seedlings was monitored weekly, and dead leaves were collected upon abscission. At the end of the two-year study, N. biflora saplings were harvested prior to seasonal leaf senescence and separated into components (leaf, stem, roots). All harvested material was dried to a constant mass at 60 °C and weighed. The cumulative biomass produced over time was used to estimate a rate of aboveground primary production (g m−2 y−1).
Belowground biomass production was estimated using ingrowth bags [86], which integrates the net production, turnover, and decomposition of roots and rhizomes over time. Root ingrowth was measured in two separate one-year deployments over the course of the study. In each annual deployment, one root ingrowth bag (5 × 20 cm), constructed of 2.5 mm plastic woven mesh and containing Sphagnum peat, was placed in a randomly selected quadrant of each mesocosm. The ingrowth bags remained in the soil for one year, after which they were harvested, and roots and rhizomes were separated from the sphagnum peat. Roots were not separated by species, and belowground biomass values are reported at the community level. Belowground biomass was dried to a constant mass at 60 °C and weighed, and the cumulative biomass produced over one year was used to estimate a rate of belowground primary production (g m−2 y−1). Although these methods may over- or underestimate above- and belowground production, they provide a relative measure of the response to treatments.
Belowground cellulose decay was measured using the cotton strip technique [87]. Unprimed heavy canvas (12 oz duck, style #548; Tara Materials, Inc., Lawrenceville, GA, USA) comprised of 100% cotton (98% holocellulose) was cut into 10 cm wide by 30 cm long strips and placed vertically into the soil to a depth of 20 cm in each mesocosm. Two cotton strips were installed in each mesocosm quarterly after all vegetation, elevation, and physicochemical measurements were made. One cotton strip, serving as a reference control, was removed immediately after installation, and the second cotton strip (test strip) remained in the mesocosms until the cotton strips decayed by at least 50% [88]. To ensure a minimum of 50% decay, cotton strips deployed at lower soil temperatures remained in the soil for longer (e.g., 21 days during the winter event) than cotton strips deployed at higher soil temperatures (e.g., 7 days during the summer event). The length of deployment was determined following the temperature × time relationship quantified by [88,89]. Upon retrieval, cotton strips were rinsed with deionized water, air-dried, and cut horizontally into 2 cm sub-strips that were measured for tensile strength with a tensiometer (Mecmesin model, Dillon Quality Plus, Inc., Camarillo, CA, USA). Cellulose decay was estimated as cotton strip tensile strength loss per day (CTSL d−1) calculated as
% CTSL d−1 = [(1 − T/R) × 100]/t,
where T is the force (N) required to tear the test strips, R is the force (N) required to tear the reference strips, and t is time (days) in the soil.
Soil surface elevation was measured quarterly with a miniature surface elevation table mini-SET [24] designed after the rod-SET used in a field setting [90]. The mini-SET consisted of a removable measuring arm that was attached to the edge of the mesocosm in one of two positions. Fiberglass pins were lowered from the measuring arm to the soil surface. The change in distance from the arm to the soil surface over time corresponded to the change in surface elevation. Elevation change was expressed as the difference between base elevation measured at the initial sampling event and each subsequent sampling event. For each experimental unit (mesocosm), 11 pin-level surface elevation change values from two positions (n = 22), over a period of two years following sediment addition, were used to estimate a rate of surface elevation change.

4.5. Data Analysis

All analyses were carried out in R [91]. We used linear mixed effects models (R package “lmerTest” [92]) and type III analysis of variance (ANOVA) to quantify the relationship between species, community, CO2, and sediment deposition treatments and aboveground biomass production (Equation (2)) and the relationship between community, CO2, and sediment deposition treatments and each of the three response variables (i.e., belowground biomass production, decomposition, surface elevation change) (Equation (3)), where the mesocosm is the experimental unit for both models. For surface elevation change, we first conducted a linear regression to calculate the mesocosm-level rate of elevation change and then used the resulting slopes as a dependent variable in the linear mixed effects models and ANOVA. For post hoc analysis, we estimated marginal means (R package “emmeans” [93]), a variation of least square means. We used the Satterthwaite approximation for degrees of freedom in all analyses, and the Tukey method for p-value adjustment.
Aboveground biomass production ~ species × community × CO2 × sediment + (1|pot) + (1|GH),
where species is the individual plant species (N. biflora, S. americanus), community is the plant community (forest; marsh; forest/marsh mix; mudflat), CO2 is the CO2 treatment (ambient; elevated), sediment is the sediment treatment (deposition; no deposition), and random factors are greenhouse (GH) and mesocosm (pot).
Response ~ community × CO2 × sediment + (1|GH),
where Response is the dependent variable (belowground biomass production in g m−2 y−1; decomposition rate in % CTSL d−1; or slope of surface elevation change), community is the plant community (forest; marsh; forest/marsh mix; mudflat), CO2 is the CO2 treatment (ambient; elevated), sediment is the sediment treatment (deposition; no deposition), and GH is the greenhouse included as a random factor.
All data presented here is available in Stagg et al. (2022) [49].

5. Conclusions

As climate and land-use change cause vegetation shifts in coastal wetland plant communities, the conversion of freshwater forested wetland to oligohaline marsh can facilitate changes in biomass production, decomposition, and soil surface elevation that are primarily regulated by the dominant herbaceous marsh species S. americanus. When S. americanus was present, above- and belowground biomass production was highest, decomposition rates were lowest, and wetland elevation gain was greatest, and this pattern was maintained regardless of CO2 and sediment deposition treatments. Sediment deposition facilitated CO2-enhanced production of N. biflora, but tree production rates still did not surpass the marsh production rates. Sediment deposition initially increased elevation capital in all communities, but subsequent rates of elevation gain were lower than in mesocosms without added sediment. Together these results indicate that encroachment of oligohaline marshes into freshwater forested wetlands can enhance belowground biomass accumulation and resilience to sea-level rise (Figure S3), and these plant-mediated ecosystem services can be augmented by periodic sediment pulses from storms and restoration efforts. However, the persistence of a storm layer will depend on post-deposition erosion and bioturbation, as well as the initial thickness and texture of the sediment [36]. Thus, recurring sediment subsidies may be necessary to maintain these benefits over long-term periods of sea-level rise [94].

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/plants11091259/s1, Figure S1: Experimental design and setup, and data collection timeline; Figure S2: Location of marsh sod collection. Marsh sods dominated by Schoenoplectus americanus were collected from Big Branch National Wildlife Refuge, Louisiana, USA in May 2012 before peak growing season, near the forest-marsh ecotone. Louisiana wetland data provided by USFWS National Wetlands Inventory [95]; Figure S3: Effect of landscape-scale transition from freshwater forested wetland to oligohaline marsh on belowground production (right y-axis) and surface elevation change (left y-axis).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.L.S., K.W.K. and K.L.M.; methodology, C.L.S., K.W.K. and K.L.M.; validation, C.L.S., C.L., K.W.K., W.C.V. and K.L.M.; formal analysis, C.L.S., C.L. and K.L.M.; investigation, C.L.S. and W.C.V.; resources, C.L.S., K.W.K. and K.L.M.; data curation, C.L.; writing—original draft preparation, C.L.S.; writing—review and editing, C.L.S., C.L., K.W.K., W.C.V. and K.L.M.; visualization, C.L. and C.L.S.; supervision, C.L.S.; project administration, C.L.S.; funding acquisition, K.W.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the U.S. Geological Survey, Ecosystems Program, Climate and Land Use R&D program.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not Applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not Applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All data are available in Stagg et al. (2022) [38].

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the following people for their help in maintaining experimental conditions and collecting data: Darrell Anders, Luzhen Chen, Adam Constantin, Nicole Cormier, Kimberly Hamm, Damian Hubbard, Joshua Jones, Lauren Leonpacher, Rebecca Moss, Eric Peltier, Kacey Peterson, Havalend Steinmuller, and Stuart Thibodeaux. The authors also thank the staff at Big Branch National Wildlife Refuge for providing access to the field site. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. government.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Shepard, C.C.; Crain, C.M.; Beck, M.W. The Protective Role of Coastal Marshes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e27374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Rezaie, A.M.; Loerzel, J.; Ferreira, C.M. Valuing Natural Habitats for Enhancing Coastal Resilience: Wetlands Reduce Property Damage from Storm Surge and Sea Level Rise. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0226275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Chmura, G.L.; Anisfeld, S.C.; Cahoon, D.R.; Lynch, J.C. Global Carbon Sequestration in Tidal, Saline Wetland Soils. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 2003, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Mcleod, E.; Chmura, G.L.; Bouillon, S.; Salm, R.; Björk, M.; Duarte, C.M.; Lovelock, C.E.; Schlesinger, W.H.; Silliman, B.R. A Blueprint for Blue Carbon: Toward an Improved Understanding of the Role of Vegetated Coastal Habitats in Sequestering CO2. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2011, 9, 552–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Crooks, S.; Sutton-Grier, A.E.; Troxler, T.G.; Herold, N.; Bernal, B.; Schile-Beers, L.; Wirth, T. Coastal Wetland Management as a Contribution to the US National Greenhouse Gas Inventory. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2018, 8, 1109–1112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Barbier, E.B. Wetlands as Natural Assets. Hydrol. Sci. J. 2011, 56, 1360–1373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Carruthers, T.J.B.; Kiskaddon, E.P.; Baustian, M.M.; Darnell, K.M.; Moss, L.C.; Perry, C.L.; Stagg, C. Tradeoffs in Habitat Value to Maximize Natural Resource Benefits from Coastal Restoration in a Rapidly Eroding Wetland: Is Monitoring Land Area Sufficient? Restor. Ecol. 2022, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Redfield, A.C. Ontogeny of a Salt Marsh Estuary. Science 1965, 147, 50–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Treat, C.C.; Kleinen, T.; Broothaerts, N.; Dalton, A.S.; Dommain, R.; Douglas, T.A.; Drexler, J.Z.; Finkelstein, S.A.; Grosse, G.; Hope, G.; et al. Widespread Global Peatland Establishment and Persistence over the Last 130,000 y. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2019, 116, 4822–4827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Nyman, J.; DeLaune, R.; Roberts, H.; Patrick, W. Relationship between Vegetation and Soil Formation in a Rapidly Submerging Coastal Marsh. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 1993, 96, 269–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Morris, J.T.; Barber, D.C.; Callaway, J.C.; Chambers, R.; Hagen, S.C.; Hopkinson, C.S.; Johnson, B.J.; Megonigal, P.; Neubauer, S.C.; Troxler, T.; et al. Contributions of Organic and Inorganic Matter to Sediment Volume and Accretion in Tidal Wetlands at Steady State. Earths Future 2016, 4, 110–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Cahoon, D.R.; McKee, K.L.; Morris, J.T. How Plants Influence Resilience of Salt Marsh and Mangrove Wetlands to Sea-Level Rise. Estuaries Coasts 2021, 44, 883–898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Krauss, K.W.; Cormier, N.; Osland, M.J.; Kirwan, M.L.; Stagg, C.L.; Nestlerode, J.A.; Russell, M.J.; From, A.S.; Spivak, A.C.; Dantin, D.D.; et al. Created Mangrove Wetlands Store Belowground Carbon and Surface Elevation Change Enables Them to Adjust to Sea-Level Rise. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 1030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Rogers, K.; Kelleway, J.J.; Saintilan, N.; Megonigal, J.P.; Adams, J.B.; Holmquist, J.R.; Lu, M.; Schile-Beers, L.; Zawadzki, A.; Mazumder, D.; et al. Wetland Carbon Storage Controlled by Millennial-Scale Variation in Relative Sea-Level Rise. Nature 2019, 567, 91–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Wang, F.; Lu, X.; Sanders, C.J.; Tang, J. Tidal Wetland Resilience to Sea Level Rise Increases Their Carbon Sequestration Capacity in United States. Nat. Commun. 2019, 10, 5434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Morris, J.T.; Sundareshwar, P.V.; Nietch, C.T.; Kjerfve, B.; Cahoon, D.R. Responses of Coastal Wetlands to Rising Sea Level. Ecology 2002, 83, 2869–2877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Kirwan, M.L.; Guntenspergen, G.R. Feedbacks between Inundation, Root Production, and Shoot Growth in a Rapidly Submerging Brackish Marsh. J. Ecol. 2012, 100, 764–770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Stagg, C.L.; Osland, M.J.; Moon, J.A.; Hall, C.T.; Feher, L.C.; Jones, W.R.; Couvillion, B.R.; Hartley, S.B.; Vervaeke, W.C. Quantifying Hydrologic Controls on Local- and Landscape-Scale Indicators of Coastal Wetland Loss. Ann. Bot. 2020, 125, 365–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Conner, W.H.; Doyle, T.W.; Krauss, K.W. Ecology of Tidal Freshwater Forested Wetlands of the Southeastern United States; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  20. Brinson, M.M.; Christian, R.R.; Blum, L.K. Multiple States in the Sea-Level Induced Transition from Terrestrial Forest to Estuary. Estuaries 1995, 18, 648–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Krauss, K.W.; Noe, G.B.; Duberstein, J.A.; Conner, W.H.; Stagg, C.L.; Cormier, N.; Jones, M.C.; Bernhardt, C.E.; Graeme Lockaby, B.; From, A.S.; et al. The Role of the Upper Tidal Estuary in Wetland Blue Carbon Storage and Flux. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 2018, 32, 817–839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ensign, S.H.; Hupp, C.R.; Noe, G.B.; Krauss, K.W.; Stagg, C.L. Sediment Accretion in Tidal Freshwater Forests and Oligohaline Marshes of the Waccamaw and Savannah Rivers, USA. Estuaries Coasts 2014, 37, 1107–1119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. IPCC. 2021: Summary for Policymakers. In Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pirani, A., Connors, S.L., Péan, C., Berger, S., Caud, N., Chen, Y., Goldfarb, L., Gomis, M.I., et al., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2021; Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM_final.pdf (accessed on 4 April 2022).
  24. Cherry, J.A.; McKee, K.L.; Grace, J.B. Elevated CO2 Enhances Biological Contributions to Elevation Change in Coastal Wetlands by Offsetting Stressors Associated with Sea-Level Rise. J. Ecol. 2009, 97, 67–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Langley, J.A.; McKee, K.L.; Cahoon, D.R.; Cherry, J.A.; Megonigal, J.P. Elevated CO2 Stimulates Marsh Elevation Gain, Counterbalancing Sea-Level Rise. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, 6182–6186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Ball, S.; Drake, B. Short-Term Decomposition of Litter Produced by Plants Grown in Ambient and Elevated Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations. Glob. Chang. Biol. 1997, 3, 29–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Pendall, E.; Bridgham, S.; Hanson, P.J.; Hungate, B.; Kicklighter, D.W.; Johnson, D.W.; Law, B.E.; Luo, Y.; Megonigal, J.P.; Olsrud, M.; et al. Below-ground Process Responses to Elevated CO2 and Temperature: A Discussion of Observations, Measurement Methods, and Models. New Phytol. 2004, 162, 311–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Wolf, A.A.; Drake, B.G.; Erickson, J.E.; Megonigal, J.P. An Oxygen-Mediated Positive Feedback between Elevated Carbon Dioxide and Soil Organic Matter Decomposition in a Simulated Anaerobic Wetland. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2007, 13, 2036–2044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kossin, J.; Hall, T.; Knutson, T.R.; Kunkel, K.; Trapp, R.; Waliser, D.; Wehner, M. Extreme Storms; Climate Science Special Report: A Sustained Assessment Activity of the U.S. Global Change Research Program; U.S. Global Change Research Program: Washington, DC, USA, 2017; pp. 375–404. [Google Scholar]
  30. Osland, M.J.; Feher, L.C.; Anderson, G.H.; Vervaeke, W.C.; Krauss, K.W.; Whelan, K.R.T.; Balentine, K.M.; Tiling-Range, G.; Smith, T.J.; Cahoon, D.R. A Tropical Cyclone-Induced Ecological Regime Shift: Mangrove Forest Conversion to Mudflat in Everglades National Park (Florida, USA). Wetlands 2020, 40, 1445–1458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Stagg, C.L.; Osland, M.J.; Moon, J.A.; Feher, L.C.; Laurenzano, C.; Lane, T.C.; Jones, W.R.; Hartley, S.B. Extreme Precipitation and Flooding Contribute to Sudden Vegetation Dieback in a Coastal Salt Marsh. Plants 2021, 10, 1841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Feher, L.C.; Osland, M.J.; Anderson, G.H.; Vervaeke, W.C.; Krauss, K.W.; Whelan, K.R.T.; Balentine, K.M.; Tiling-Range, G.; Smith, T.J.; Cahoon, D.R. The Long-Term Effects of Hurricanes Wilma and Irma on Soil Elevation Change in Everglades Mangrove Forests. Ecosystems 2020, 23, 917–931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Turner, R.E.; Baustian, J.J.; Swenson, E.M.; Spicer, J.S. Wetland Sedimentation from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Science 2006, 314, 449–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Tweel, A.W.; Turner, R.E. Landscape-Scale Analysis of Wetland Sediment Deposition from Four Tropical Cyclone Events. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e50528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. McKee, K.L.; Mendelssohn, I.A.; Hester, M.W. Hurricane Sedimentation in a Subtropical Salt Marsh-Mangrove Community Is Unaffected by Vegetation Type. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 2020, 239, 106733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. McKee, K.L.; Cherry, J.A. Hurricane Katrina Sediment Slowed Elevation Loss in Subsiding Brackish Marshes of the Mississippi River Delta. Wetlands 2009, 29, 2–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Baustian, J.J.; Mendelssohn, I.A. Hurricane-Induced Sedimentation Improves Marsh Resilience and Vegetation Vigor under High Rates of Relative Sea Level Rise. Wetlands 2015, 35, 795–802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Stagg, C.L.; Laurenzano, C.; Krauss, K.W.; Vervaeke, W.; McKee, K.L. Above- and Belowground Biomass Production, Decomposition, and Wetland Elevation Change in Transitional Coastal Wetland Communities Exposed to Elevated CO2 and Sediment Deposition: A Mesocosm Study from 2012 to 2014. U.S. Geological Survey Data Release 2022. Available online: https://doi.org/10.5066/P90JCZWU (accessed on 28 February 2022). [CrossRef]
  39. Reed, D.J. The Response of Coastal Marshes to Sea-Level Rise: Survival or Submergence? Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 1995, 20, 39–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Turner, R.E.; Swenson, E.M.; Milan, C.S. Organic and Inorganic Contributions to Vertical Accretion in Salt Marsh Sediments. In Concepts and Controversies in Tidal Marsh Ecology; Weinstein, M.P., Kreeger, D.A., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2002; pp. 583–595. ISBN 978-0-306-47534-4. [Google Scholar]
  41. Nyman, J.A.; Walters, R.J.; Delaune, R.D.; Patrick, W.H. Marsh Vertical Accretion via Vegetative Growth. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 2006, 69, 370–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. McKee, K.L. Biophysical Controls on Accretion and Elevation Change in Caribbean Mangrove Ecosystems. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 2011, 91, 475–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Kirwan, M.L.; Blum, L.K. Enhanced Decomposition Offsets Enhanced Productivity and Soil Carbon Accumulation in Coastal Wetlands Responding to Climate Change. Biogeosciences 2011, 8, 987–993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Allen, J.R.; Cornwell, J.C.; Baldwin, A.H. Contributions of Organic and Mineral Matter to Vertical Accretion in Tidal Wetlands across a Chesapeake Bay Subestuary. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Stagg, C.L.; Schoolmaster, D.R.; Piazza, S.C.; Snedden, G.; Steyer, G.D.; Fischenich, C.J.; McComas, R.W. A Landscape-Scale Assessment of Above- and Belowground Primary Production in Coastal Wetlands: Implications for Climate Change-Induced Community Shifts. Estuaries Coasts 2017, 40, 856–879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Stagg, C.L.; Schoolmaster, D.R.; Krauss, K.W.; Cormier, N.; Conner, W.H. Causal Mechanisms of Soil Organic Matter Decomposition: Deconstructing Salinity and Flooding Impacts in Coastal Wetlands. Ecology 2017, 98, 2003–2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Osland, M.J.; Gabler, C.A.; Grace, J.B.; Day, R.H.; McCoy, M.L.; McLeod, J.L.; From, A.S.; Enwright, N.M.; Feher, L.C.; Stagg, C.L.; et al. Climate and Plant Controls on Soil Organic Matter in Coastal Wetlands. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2018, 24, 5361–5379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Baustian, M.M.; Stagg, C.L.; Perry, C.L.; Moss, L.C.; Carruthers, T.J.B. Long-Term Carbon Sinks in Marsh Soils of Coastal Louisiana Are at Risk to Wetland Loss. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 2021, 126, e2020JG005832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Cormier, N.; Krauss, K.W.; Conner, W.H. Periodicity in Stem Growth and Litterfall in Tidal Freshwater Forested Wetlands: Influence of Salinity and Drought on Nitrogen Recycling. Estuaries Coasts 2013, 36, 533–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Tilman, D. Tests of Resource Competition Theory Using Four Species of Lake Michigan Algae. Ecology 1981, 62, 802–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Schoolmaster, D.R., Jr.; Stagg, C.L. Resource Competition Model Predicts Zonation and Increasing Nutrient Use Efficiency along a Wetland Salinity Gradient. Ecology 2018, 99, 670–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Bloom, A.A.; Exbrayat, J.-F.; van der Velde, I.R.; Feng, L.; Williams, M. The Decadal State of the Terrestrial Carbon Cycle: Global Retrievals of Terrestrial Carbon Allocation, Pools, and Residence Times. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016, 113, 1285–1290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Wang, J.; Sun, J.; Xia, J.; He, N.; Li, M.; Niu, S. Soil and Vegetation Carbon Turnover Times from Tropical to Boreal Forests. Funct. Ecol. 2018, 32, 71–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Stagg, C.L.; Krauss, K.W.; Cahoon, D.R.; Cormier, N.; Conner, W.H.; Swarzenski, C.M. Processes Contributing to Resilience of Coastal Wetlands to Sea-Level Rise. Ecosystems 2016, 19, 1445–1459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. From, A.S.; Krauss, K.W.; Noe, G.B.; Cormier, N.; Stagg, C.L.; Moss, R.F.; Whitbeck, J.L. Belowground Productivity Varies by Assessment Technique, Vegetation Type, and Nutrient Availability in Tidal Freshwater Forested Wetlands Transitioning to Marsh. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0253554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. McKee, K.L.; Cahoon, D.R.; Feller, I.C. Caribbean Mangroves Adjust to Rising Sea Level through Biotic Controls on Change in Soil Elevation. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2007, 16, 545–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Baustian, J.J.; Mendelssohn, I.A.; Hester, M.W. Vegetation’s Importance in Regulating Surface Elevation in a Coastal Salt Marsh Facing Elevated Rates of Sea Level Rise. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2012, 18, 3377–3382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Craft, C.B. Tidal Freshwater Forest Accretion Does Not Keep Pace with Sea Level Rise. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2012, 18, 3615–3623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Langley, J.A.; Megonigal, J.P. Ecosystem Response to Elevated CO2 Levels Limited by Nitrogen-Induced Plant Species Shift. Nature 2010, 466, 96–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Jones, J.A.; Cherry, J.A.; McKee, K.L. Species and Tissue Type Regulate Long-Term Decomposition of Brackish Marsh Plants Grown under Elevated CO2 Conditions. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 2016, 169, 38–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Rejmánková, E.; Houdková, K. Wetland Plant Decomposition under Different Nutrient Conditions: What Is More Important, Litter Quality or Site Quality? Biogeochemistry 2006, 80, 245–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Norby, R.J.; Cotrufo, M.F.; Ineson, P.; O’Neill, E.G.; Canadell, J.G. Elevated CO2, Litter Chemistry, and Decomposition: A Synthesis. Oecologia 2001, 127, 153–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Mendelssohn, I.A.; Sorrell, B.K.; Brix, H.; Schierup, H.-H.; Lorenzen, B.; Maltby, E. Controls on Soil Cellulose Decomposition along a Salinity Gradient in a Phragmites Australis Wetland in Denmark. Aquat. Bot. 1999, 64, 381–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Luo, Y.; Wu, L.; Andrews, J.A.; White, L.; Matamala, R.; Schäfer, K.V.R.; Schlesinger, W.H. Elevated CO2 Differentiates Ecosystem Carbon Processes: Deconvolution Analysis of Duke Forest FACE Data. Ecol. Monogr. 2001, 71, 357–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Megonigal, J.P.; Schlesinger, W.H. Enhanced CH4 Emission from a Wetland Soil Exposed to Elevated CO2. Biogeochemistry 1997, 37, 77–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Phillips, R.P.; Finzi, A.C.; Bernhardt, E.S. Enhanced Root Exudation Induces Microbial Feedbacks to N Cycling in a Pine Forest under Long-Term CO2 Fumigation. Ecol. Lett. 2011, 14, 187–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Girkin, N.T.; Turner, B.L.; Ostle, N.; Craigon, J.; Sjögersten, S. Root Exudate Analogues Accelerate CO2 and CH4 Production in Tropical Peat. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2018, 117, 48–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Mueller, P.; Schile-Beers, L.M.; Mozdzer, T.J.; Chmura, G.L.; Dinter, T.; Kuzyakov, Y.; de Groot, A.V.; Esselink, P.; Smit, C.; D’Alpaos, A.; et al. Global-Change Effects on Early-Stage Decomposition Processes in Tidal Wetlands – Implications from a Global Survey Using Standardized Litter. Biogeosciences 2018, 15, 3189–3202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Drake, B.G. Rising Sea Level, Temperature, and Precipitation Impact Plant and Ecosystem Responses to Elevated CO2 on a Chesapeake Bay Wetland: Review of a 28-Year Study. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2014, 20, 3329–3343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Nowak, R.S.; Ellsworth, D.S.; Smith, S.D. Functional Responses of Plants to Elevated Atmospheric CO2 – Do Photosynthetic and Productivity Data from FACE Experiments Support Early Predictions? New Phytol. 2004, 162, 253–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. McKee, K.L.; Rooth, J.E. Where Temperate Meets Tropical: Multi-Factorial Effects of Elevated CO2, Nitrogen Enrichment, and Competition on a Mangrove-Salt Marsh Community. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2008, 14, 971–984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Luo, Y.; Su, B.; Currie, W.S.; Dukes, J.S.; Finzi, A.; Hartwig, U.; Hungate, B.; Mc MURTRIE, R.E.; Oren, R.; Parton, W.J.; et al. Progressive Nitrogen Limitation of Ecosystem Responses to Rising Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. BioScience 2004, 54, 731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Erickson, J.E.; Megonigal, J.P.; Peresta, G.; Drake, B.G. Salinity and Sea Level Mediate Elevated CO2 Effects on C3–C4 Plant Interactions and Tissue Nitrogen in a Chesapeake Bay Tidal Wetland. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2007, 13, 202–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Noyce, G.L.; Kirwan, M.L.; Rich, R.L.; Megonigal, J.P. Asynchronous Nitrogen Supply and Demand Produce Nonlinear Plant Allocation Responses to Warming and Elevated CO2. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2019, 116, 21623–21628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Vann, C.D.; Megonigal, J.P. Productivity Responses of Acer Rubrum and Taxodium Distichum Seedlings to Elevated CO2 and Flooding. Environ. Pollut. 2002, 116, S31–S36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Jones, S.F.; Stagg, C.L.; Krauss, K.W.; Hester, M.W. Flooding Alters Plant-Mediated Carbon Cycling Independently of Elevated Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 2018, 123, 1976–1987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Slocum, M.G.; Mendelssohn, I.A.; Kuhn, N.L. Effects of Sediment Slurry Enrichment on Salt Marsh Rehabilitation: Plant and Soil Responses over Seven Years. Estuaries 2005, 28, 519–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Stagg, C.L.; Mendelssohn, I.A. Restoring Ecological Function to a Submerged Salt Marsh. Restor. Ecol. 2010, 18, 10–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Castañeda-Moya, E.; Rivera-Monroy, V.H.; Chambers, R.M.; Zhao, X.; Lamb-Wotton, L.; Gorsky, A.; Gaiser, E.E.; Troxler, T.G.; Kominoski, J.S.; Hiatt, M. Hurricanes Fertilize Mangrove Forests in the Gulf of Mexico (Florida Everglades, USA). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2020, 117, 4831–4841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Tweel, A.W.; Turner, R.E. Contribution of Tropical Cyclones to the Sediment Budget for Coastal Wetlands in Louisiana, USA. Landsc. Ecol. 2014, 29, 1083–1094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. La Peyre, M.K.; Gossman, B.; Piazza, B.P. Short- and Long-Term Response of Deteriorating Brackish Marshes and Open-Water Ponds to Sediment Enhancement by Thin-Layer Dredge Disposal. Estuaries Coasts 2009, 32, 390–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Baustian, J.J.; Mendelssohn, I.A. Sea Level Rise Impacts to Coastal Marshes May Be Ameliorated by Natural Sedimentation Events. Wetlands 2018, 38, 689–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Graham, S.A.; Mendelssohn, I.A. Functional Assessment of Differential Sediment Slurry Applications in a Deteriorating Brackish Marsh. Ecol. Eng. 2013, 51, 264–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. USDA Plants Database. Available online: https://plants.usda.gov/home (accessed on 12 April 2022).
  85. Berg, R. Tropical Cyclone Report: Hurricane Isaac (AL09012) 21 August–1 September 2012; National Hurricane Center: University Park, Miami-Dade County, FL, USA, 2013; pp. 1–78. [Google Scholar]
  86. Neill, C. Comparison of Soil Coring and Ingrowth Methods for Measuring Belowground Production. Ecology 1992, 73, 1918–1921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Maltby, E. Use of Cotton Strip Assay in Wetland and Upland Environments-an International Perspective. In Cotton Strip Assay: An Index of Decomposition in Soils; Harrison, A.F., Latter, P.M., Walton, D.W.H., Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, Eds.; ITE Symposium; Institute of Terrestrial Ecology: Grange-over-Sands, Cumbria, UK, 1988; ISBN 978-1-870393-06-5. [Google Scholar]
  88. Slocum, M.G.; Roberts, J.; Mendelssohn, I.A. Artist Canvas as a New Standard for the Cotton-Strip Assay. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2009, 172, 71–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Hill, M.O.; Latter, P.M.; Bancroft, G. Standardization of Rotting Rates by a Linearizing Transformation. In Cotton Strip Assay: An Index of Decomposition in Soils; Harrison, A.F., Latter, P.M., Walton, D.W.H., Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, Eds.; ITE Symposium; Institute of Terrestrial Ecology: Grange-over-Sands, Cumbria, UK, 1988; pp. 21–24. ISBN 978-1-870393-06-5. [Google Scholar]
  90. Cahoon, D.R.; Lynch, J.C.; Perez, B.C.; Segura, B.; Holland, R.D.; Stelly, C.; Stephenson, G.; Hensel, P. High-Precision Measurements of Wetland Sediment Elevation: II. The Rod Surface Elevation Table. J. Sediment. Res. 2002, 72, 734–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. R Core Team (2020)—European Environment Agency. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/oxygen-consuming-substances-in-rivers/r-development-core-team-2006 (accessed on 1 September 2020).
  92. Kuznetsova, A.; Brockhoff, P.B.; Christensen, R.H.B. lmerTest Package: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models. Available online: http://www.jstatsoft.org/v82/i13/ (accessed on 1 September 2020).
  93. Lenth, R.V.; Herve, M.; Love, J.; Miguez, F.; Riebl, H.; Singmann, H. Emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, Aka Least-Squares Means. Available online: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/emmeans/emmeans.pdf (accessed on 1 September 2020).
  94. Stagg, C.L.; Mendelssohn, I.A. Controls on Resilience and Stability in a Sediment-Subsidized Salt Marsh. Ecol. Appl. 2011, 21, 1731–1744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. National Wetlands Inventory|U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Available online: https://www.fws.gov/program/national-wetlands-inventory (accessed on 13 April 2022).
Plants 11 01259 g001 550
Figure 1. Conceptual experimental design. Organic matter inputs through net primary production (NPP) counter-balance organic matter exports through decomposition resulting in net elevation surplus or deficit in four wetland communities along a landscape-scale transition (clockwise) from (1) freshwater forested wetland to (2) transitional mixed forest/marsh, to (3) marsh, to (4) mudflat. Experimental manipulations (elevated CO2 and sediment deposition) simulated future hurricane sediment deposition events in a CO2-enriched environment.
Figure 1. Conceptual experimental design. Organic matter inputs through net primary production (NPP) counter-balance organic matter exports through decomposition resulting in net elevation surplus or deficit in four wetland communities along a landscape-scale transition (clockwise) from (1) freshwater forested wetland to (2) transitional mixed forest/marsh, to (3) marsh, to (4) mudflat. Experimental manipulations (elevated CO2 and sediment deposition) simulated future hurricane sediment deposition events in a CO2-enriched environment.
Plants 11 01259 g001
Plants 11 01259 g002a 550Plants 11 01259 g002b 550
Figure 2. Annual aboveground biomass production of Nyssa biflora (circles) and Schoenoplectus americanus (triangles) by community and CO2 (ambient: black, elevated: magenta). (A) No sediment deposition. (B) Sediment deposition. Response variable values are model-based estimated marginal means using Satterthwaite approximation. Brackets represent 95% confidence intervals, p = 0.052 for full interaction: Species × Community × CO2 × Sediment.
Figure 2. Annual aboveground biomass production of Nyssa biflora (circles) and Schoenoplectus americanus (triangles) by community and CO2 (ambient: black, elevated: magenta). (A) No sediment deposition. (B) Sediment deposition. Response variable values are model-based estimated marginal means using Satterthwaite approximation. Brackets represent 95% confidence intervals, p = 0.052 for full interaction: Species × Community × CO2 × Sediment.
Plants 11 01259 g002aPlants 11 01259 g002b
Plants 11 01259 g003 550
Figure 3. Variation in response variables: (A) belowground biomass production, (B) decomposition, (C) surface elevation change rates among communities. Response variable values are model-based estimated marginal means using Satterthwaite approximation. Brackets represent 95% confidence intervals; letters represent significant differences determined by Tukey’s (p < 0.05) post hoc comparisons.
Figure 3. Variation in response variables: (A) belowground biomass production, (B) decomposition, (C) surface elevation change rates among communities. Response variable values are model-based estimated marginal means using Satterthwaite approximation. Brackets represent 95% confidence intervals; letters represent significant differences determined by Tukey’s (p < 0.05) post hoc comparisons.
Plants 11 01259 g003
Plants 11 01259 g004 550
Figure 4. Effects of elevated atmospheric CO2 and community interactions, where significant, on all response variables: (A) belowground biomass production, (B) decomposition, (C) surface elevation change rate. Response variable values are model-based estimated marginal means using Satterthwaite approximation. Brackets represent 95% confidence intervals; letters represent significant differences determined by Tukey’s (p < 0.05) post hoc comparisons.
Figure 4. Effects of elevated atmospheric CO2 and community interactions, where significant, on all response variables: (A) belowground biomass production, (B) decomposition, (C) surface elevation change rate. Response variable values are model-based estimated marginal means using Satterthwaite approximation. Brackets represent 95% confidence intervals; letters represent significant differences determined by Tukey’s (p < 0.05) post hoc comparisons.
Plants 11 01259 g004
Plants 11 01259 g005 550
Figure 5. Sediment deposition effects and community interaction, where significant, on all response variables: (A) belowground biomass production, (B) decomposition, (C) surface elevation change rate. Surface elevation change rates represent the period following the sediment deposition event (after day 35, Figure 6B). Response variable values are model-based estimated marginal means using Satterthwaite approximation. Brackets represent 95% confidence intervals; letters represent significant differences determined by Tukey’s (p < 0.05) post hoc comparisons.
Figure 5. Sediment deposition effects and community interaction, where significant, on all response variables: (A) belowground biomass production, (B) decomposition, (C) surface elevation change rate. Surface elevation change rates represent the period following the sediment deposition event (after day 35, Figure 6B). Response variable values are model-based estimated marginal means using Satterthwaite approximation. Brackets represent 95% confidence intervals; letters represent significant differences determined by Tukey’s (p < 0.05) post hoc comparisons.
Plants 11 01259 g005
Plants 11 01259 g006 550
Figure 6. Incremental change in surface elevation in mesocosms over time following (A) ambient (black) and elevated (red) CO2 treatments and (B) no sediment (black) and with sediment (blue) deposition treatments. Data points represent average surface elevation relative to baseline across all communities; brackets represent standard errors. Sediment was added on day 35 (black vertical line).
Figure 6. Incremental change in surface elevation in mesocosms over time following (A) ambient (black) and elevated (red) CO2 treatments and (B) no sediment (black) and with sediment (blue) deposition treatments. Data points represent average surface elevation relative to baseline across all communities; brackets represent standard errors. Sediment was added on day 35 (black vertical line).
Plants 11 01259 g006
Table
Table 1. ANOVA summary table reporting F- and p-values for main effects and interactions for aboveground primary productivity. Significant values in bold. Significant levels: *** p < 0.001.
Table 1. ANOVA summary table reporting F- and p-values for main effects and interactions for aboveground primary productivity. Significant values in bold. Significant levels: *** p < 0.001.
TreatmentAboveground Biomass Production
F-Valuep-Value
Species139.416<0.0001 ***
Community83.826<0.0001 ***
CO21.2160.276
Sediment3.6120.063
Species × Community213.463<0.0001 ***
Species × CO21.2020.278
Species × Sediment1.3550.25
Community × CO21.1070.355
Community × Sediment0.7360.536
CO2 × Sediment2.1960.145
Species × Community × CO21.1560.336
Species × Community × Sediment1.9570.133
Species × CO2 × Sediment3.3650.073
Community × CO2 × Sediment2.5850.064
Species × Community × CO2 × Sediment2.7680.052
Table
Table 2. ANOVA summary table reporting F- and p-values for main effects and interactions for each of the response variables, belowground primary production, decomposition, and surface elevation change. Significant values in bold. Significance levels: ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Table 2. ANOVA summary table reporting F- and p-values for main effects and interactions for each of the response variables, belowground primary production, decomposition, and surface elevation change. Significant values in bold. Significance levels: ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
TreatmentBelowground Biomass ProductionDecompositionSurface Elevation Change
F-Valuep-ValueF-Valuep-ValueF-Valuep-Value
Community15.012<0.0001 ***96.465<0.0001 ***108.633<0.0001 ***
CO21.4450.2320.2760.6525.4330.145
Sediment3.8480.05230.22<0.0001 ***12.5050.001 **
Community × CO20.4470.725.7590.001 **1.340.273
Community × Sediment1.7620.15824.68<0.0001 ***0.7870.507
CO2 × Sediment1.2950.2570.2670.6050.9860.326
Community × CO2 × Sediment1.5030.2181.2440.2920.2830.837
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Stagg, C.L.; Laurenzano, C.; Vervaeke, W.C.; Krauss, K.W.; McKee, K.L. Presence of the Herbaceous Marsh Species Schoenoplectus americanus Enhances Surface Elevation Gain in Transitional Coastal Wetland Communities Exposed to Elevated CO2 and Sediment Deposition Events. Plants 2022, 11, 1259. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11091259

AMA Style

Stagg CL, Laurenzano C, Vervaeke WC, Krauss KW, McKee KL. Presence of the Herbaceous Marsh Species Schoenoplectus americanus Enhances Surface Elevation Gain in Transitional Coastal Wetland Communities Exposed to Elevated CO2 and Sediment Deposition Events. Plants. 2022; 11(9):1259. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11091259

Chicago/Turabian Style

Stagg, Camille LaFosse, Claudia Laurenzano, William C. Vervaeke, Ken W. Krauss, and Karen L. McKee. 2022. "Presence of the Herbaceous Marsh Species Schoenoplectus americanus Enhances Surface Elevation Gain in Transitional Coastal Wetland Communities Exposed to Elevated CO2 and Sediment Deposition Events" Plants 11, no. 9: 1259. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11091259

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop