MW
Uploaded byMary Warwick
33 views

Masters Project

This document summarizes a study that compared the effects of different salt marsh restoration designs on Spartina alterniflora communities. Spartina alterniflora is the dominant plant species in Gulf Coast salt marshes. The study looked at five restored sites and one natural reference site in Pierce Marsh, Texas. The restored sites used different construction designs, including terraced, dredge material, grid, sinusoidal, and zig zag patterns. Data on Spartina alterniflora and plant community parameters were collected from each site and compared over time. Overall, the restored sites showed varying levels of similarity to the natural reference site depending on the construction design, with the beneficial uses site most closely replicating the natural conditions.

Download to read offline
Effect of Restoration Design on Spartina alterniflora Communities in Pierce Marsh by Mary Warwick Masters Project Submitted to Environmental Science Program University of Houston - Clear Lake Advisor: Dr. Cynthia Howard August 10, 2015
2 | P a g e ABSTRACT1 The intent of this project was to determine whether salt water marsh restoration designs affect2 Spartina alterniflora communities. Spartina alterniflora is the dominant plant species in3 saltwater marshes of the Gulf Coast. It grows along the marsh edge, the vegetated area within4 5 meters from the non-vegetated bottom, and promotes the growth of the marsh land by5 collecting sediment as well as provides protection for juvenile nekton to grow. Given that6 Spartina alterniflora is the dominant plant species in saltmarshes of the Gulf Coast, the health7 of Spartina alterniflora can be used as a measurement of the overall health of the marsh.8 Saltwater marshes, as well as other wetlands, face destruction and degradation from urban and9 suburban development, subsidence from ground water extraction, surface mining, oil spills, as10 well as oil and natural gas exploration. Two conservation organizations, The Galveston Bay11 Foundation and The Nature Conservancy of Texas, bought land known as Pierce Marsh as a12 study area to compare natural marsh that has been untouched to reconstructed marshes13 differing in design and construction. Subsidence due to ground water extraction and suburban14 sprawl destroyed Piece Marsh and left it as open water. Construction of restoration designs15 began in 1999 and continued until 2009. There are five restored sites and one reference site in16 Pierce Marsh. Three locations, or berms, were randomly selected at each site. At each location17 a 20 m transect was set perpendicular to the marsh edge. Three points were marked along the18 transect, 10 meters apart. These points were called stations. This gave 9 points of data19 collection at each site; 54 points of data collection total. At each point, on each transect, at20 each location, at each site: a ¼ m2 plot made of PVC pipe was laid to the left of the point and all21 plants in the plot were identified and their relative coverage was determined and recorded.22 Spartina alterniflora importance values, species richness, Shannon Diversity Index, Pielou’s23 Index of Evenness, and Jaccard’s Coefficient of Community Similarity were calculated for each24 site. These parameters were then used to compare the restored sites to the reference site, the25 restored sites among themselves and the current data to the data obtained in 2008. Overall,26 the five restored sites fell short of showing significant similarities to the reference site over the27 majority of the compared parameters. In fact, each parameter had only one site that showed28 significant similarities to the reference site. The two oldest sites, grid and sinusoidal, had29 significant differences in their parameters from the reference site in 2013 and showed trends of30 the values dropping and the differences becoming greater between 2008 and 2013. This data31 indicated that these sites were degrading over time. The two zig zag sites showed low Spartina32 alterniflora importance values, but positive trends in mean species richness, Shannon Diversity33 Index and the Pielou’s Index of Evenness values over time, thus closer to replicating the34 reference site than the grid and sinusoidal sites. The beneficial uses site was the only site that35 had a significantly similar Spartina alterniflora importance values, along with significantly36 similar relative coverage and frequency values as well as positive trends in mean species37 richness, Shannon Diversity Index and the Pielou’s Index of Evenness values over time. It most38 closely replicated the reference site. The results of this study can be used by The Galveston Bay39 Foundation, as well as other organizations that restore salt marshes, in determining the40 constructed salt marsh design that most closely emulates natural salt marshes. Having this41 information will save these organizations valuable resources by directing them to the most42 successful design(s) for future salt marsh restorations.43
3 | P a g e INTRODUCTION1 2 Saltmarshes3 Salt, or tidal, marshes are coastal wetlands that experience cycles of flooding and draining4 as tides bring salt and brackish water in and out of the system. Salt marshes exist in protected5 areas where terrestrial, fresh water and marine ecosystems converge (Greenberg et al., 2006).6 Sediments begin to deposit in these areas, which promotes the establishment of plant7 communities. These plant communities help prevent erosion caused by wave action and8 provide a nursery area for many nekton species. In addition, salt marshes provide nesting areas9 for migratory birds, biologically break down pollutants from inflows, serve as a carbon sink, play10 a role in the cycling of nitrogen, and act as a reservoir for flood waters which reduces damage11 to upland habitats (Cullinan et al., 2004, Lester and Gonzales, 2002). Salt marshes have three12 distinct bottom matrices: marsh edge, submerged aquatic vegetation and shallow non-13 vegetated bottom. Juvenile brown shrimp, Farfantepenaeus aztecus, are thought to have14 higher densities in submerged aquatic vegetation where sea grasses are present. However,15 Caldwell et al. (2004) found that the brown shrimp densities in the marsh edge, which is the16 area not more than 5 meters from the Spartina alterniflora growth, are not significantly17 different than the submerged aquatic vegetation. Submerged aquatic vegetation bottom18 configurations account for only 4.5 km2 of the Galveston Bay system, whereas marsh edge19 configurations make up 84.9 km2 . This study demonstrates the importance of marsh edge20 habitats to area nekton.21 22 23
4 | P a g e Spartina alterniflora1 Saltwater marshes make up one-tenth-of-one-percent of the Earth’s surface, 45,0002 km2 . However, this small percentage belies the importance of these precious ecosystems. Salt3 water marshes help prevent erosion of upland habitats, provide a nursery area for many nekton4 species, provide nesting areas for migratory birds, biologically break down pollutants from5 inflows, serve as a carbon sink, play a role in the cycling of nitrogen, and act as a reservoir for6 flood waters which reduces damage to upland habitats. Saltwater marshes cover 16,000 km2 of7 the United States, with the majority of this coverage in the South Atlantic and Gulf Coast8 regions (Greenberg et. al, 2006). A smooth cordgrass, Spartina alterniflora, is the dominant9 species in salt marshes of the Gulf Coast. Spartina alterniflora is a monocot from the grass10 family, Poaceae. It can range in height from 0.2 m to 3 m tall (Davis, 1998). The height is11 usually dependent on habitat conditions such as water level, flood frequency, water salinity, as12 well as, soil nitrogen and sulfide concentrations (Mendelssohn et al., 2002). Small plants grow13 in high, dry areas where as taller plants grow at the water’s edge. The Spartina stem grows14 vertically with leaves growing at approximately at 45° angle from the stem (figure 1a). The15 leaves are flat and smooth with parallel venation and salt glands in the epidermal layers. These16 salt glands aid in the removal of excess salts that tend to accumulate inside the plants as the17 roots take in sodium and other salts from the water (figure 1b) (Mendelssohn et al., 2002;18 Davis, 1998).19 20 21 22
5 | P a g e 1 Figure 1: (a) Detailed drawing of Spartina alterniflora showing the stem, leave, flower, rhizome,2 and root structures. Photo credit of the USDA Agriculture Yearbook, Fig. 19.3 (b) Close up photograph of Spartina alterniflora showing salt crystal formation on its leaf.4 Photo credit of Joseph DiTomaso.5 6 Spartina grow in clonal colonies attached by an extensive network of rhizomes that run7 horizontally under the soil. The rhizomes anchor the plant in place and allow the plants to8 propagate asexually, store nutrients and survive during difficult conditions when the stems and9 leaves may not be able to survive (Davis, 1998). The Spartina stem grows up from the rhizome10 and the roots grow down. Spartina alterniflora have anchoring roots as well as hair-like11 absorbing roots. The biomass of the roots in healthy Spartina is greater than the biomass of the12
6 | P a g e stem and leaves. Spartina propagate sexually as well, using wind and water dispersion to1 disseminate their seeds.2 Spartina alterniflora live in waterlogged conditions causing the soil to have very low3 oxygen levels. Spartina have adapted to the anoxic conditions by developing an internal tube4 system, called Aerenchyma (figure 2). The internal air spaces of the tubes, called lacunae, carry5 oxygen from the leaves to the roots (Mendelssohn et al., 2002; Davis, 1998).6 7 8 Figure 2: Aerenchyma tissue from Spartina alterniflora showing airspaces, lacunae, which9 transports oxygen from the leaves to the roots. Photo credit: I. Mendelsson10 11 As mentioned previously, salt marshes form as sediments begin to deposit in protected12 areas where terrestrial, fresh water and marine ecosystems converge. The sediments promote13 the development of plant communities. However, Spartina alterniflora also promotes the14 accumulation of sediment and acts as an “environmental engineer” (Mendelssohn et al., 2002).15 As Spartina grows farther away from the dry land of the marsh and into the water, more16
7 | P a g e sediment accumulates which allows for other species to inhabit the new area. As this build-up1 of sediment continues to occur, new land is created. Larger species are then able to inhabit this2 new land and the Spartina continues to grow outward from the land (Mendelssohn et al., 20023 and Davis, 1998).4 5 The Problems Facing Salt Marshes6 Saltwater marshes, as well as other wetlands, face destruction and degradation from urban7 and suburban development, subsidence from ground water extraction, surface mining, oil spills,8 as well as oil and natural gas exploration (Craft et al., 1999 and 2003). According to Costanza9 et. al. (2014) the global area of tidal marshes decreased from 165 million hectares to 12810 million hectares between the years of 1997 and 2011. Many attempts have been made to11 recreate salt marshes that were lost. Most of these marshes are constructed from dredge12 material that is moved from another source. However, some marshes are constructed using13 soil from the existing area and building up terraced areas. In both cases, berms are built up14 from the soil and Spartina alterniflora is planted along the edge of the berms to begin the15 process of sediment accumulation and plant propagation.16 17 Terraced versus Dredge Material Construction18 Terraced marshes are created by excavating sub-tidal, non-vegetated, sediments and19 forming them into ridges at specific heights and slopes as to allow flooding at high tide and the20 planting of marsh vegetation, specifically Spartina alterniflora (figures 3 and 4). The area from21
8 | P a g e which the sediment was taken, the borrow area, will fill with sediment as the hydrology moves1 in and out of the marsh (Gossman, 2000).2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Figure 3: Diagram of cross-section of the terrace design used at Pierce Marsh. Measurements10 given are National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) which uses mean sea level as the baseline.11 Mean low water level, mean high water level, terrace elevation, and terrace slope are given.12 Howard and Dobberstine. 2008.13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Figure 4: Digging from the borrow area to create a terraced marsh design. Photo credit: Dan24 Heilman and Jerry Hauske, 2010.25
9 | P a g e The dredge material technique is the older of the two techniques. Dredge material1 marshes are created by taking sediment that has been excavated from another location and2 blowing it into the open water to create a marsh (figure 5). The term “beneficial uses” refers to3 putting excavated sediment from another location to good use by using it to create new marsh4 lands. While terraced designs are formed by using sediment that is already established in the5 marsh, dredge material designs use large amounts of sediment that is brought in from another6 location. Therefore, the parameters important to soil morphology and chemistry are already7 present in the sediment in the terrace. Benthic organisms are also present in this sediment,8 possibly giving it a head-start in providing food chain support. Dredge material is usually9 brought in from a far enough distance that the sediment does not have the same soil10 morphology or chemistry and may take longer to establish.11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Figure 5: Blowing dredged material into open water to create a dredge material marsh. Photo22 credit: Dan Heilman and Jerry Hauske, 2010.23
10 | P a g e Rozas and Minello (2001) stated that marshes created with dredge material becomes1 established at a faster rate than terraced marshes and can become a suitable habitat for nekton2 more quickly. However, this technique provides less marsh edge than the terraced design and3 therefore less protection as a nursery area. Streeter (2000) found that three parameters were4 important when using dredge material for marsh construction: site location, protection from5 wave energy, and elevation. Overall, he found there were significant differences between6 natural marshes and dredge material marshes: Spartina alterniflora above and below ground7 biomass, carbon measurements in the sediment, as well as polychaete and crustacean8 densities were all lower in the dredge material marshes. The dredge material marshes also9 attracted different species of birds than did the natural marshes.10 Rozas and Minello (2001) stated that marshes created with dredge material lacked11 sufficient marsh edge habitat, making them inferior to terraced marshes which have12 considerable edge habitat. The marsh edge is considered to be the vegetated area within 513 meters from the non-vegetated bottom (Merino, et al., 2010). It is this critical area of a marsh14 that provides protection from predation for many nekton species that depend on marshes for15 nursery areas. Whaley and Minello (2002) found that the area within he first meter of the16 vegetated area is the most productive for benthic organisms. Furthermore, terraced marshes17 have been shown to reduce wave height, wave fetch (length), decrease turbidity, promote18 deposition and retention of sediments, and decrease erosion in marshes (Rozas and Minello,19 2001 & Gossman, 2000).20 21 22
11 | P a g e Comparing Constructed vs. Natural Marshes1 Craft et. al. (1999) compared two locations that contained marshes created from dredge-2 material and natural salt marshes in coastal North Carolina. Snow’s Cut was created in 19713 and Pine Knoll Shores was created in 1974. In following the progression on these marshes,4 Craft et. al. found that the created marshes and the natural marshes had no significant5 difference in their Spartina alterniflora biomass above ground level within a few years.6 However, root biomass, macro-organic matter, benthic macro-organisms, and soil chemistry7 took longer to mature. At the twenty-five year mark, they found all parameters to be8 statistically similar in the created and natural marshes with the exception of soil nutrients9 which were still lower in the constructed marshes.10 Shafer and Streeter (2000) compared fourteen marshes created from dredge-material, aged11 1 to 23 years, and fourteen natural salt marshes along the Texas Gulf Coast. The parameters of12 comparison were edge area ratios, relative exposure index values, elevation profiles, total soil13 organic carbon, silt-clay content, and underground plant biomass. Relative exposure index14 values refer to the annual wind speed at the location which could affect erosion. They found no15 significant difference in edge area ratios, relative exposure index values as well as total soil16 organic carbon/ silt-clay content. However, there were significant differences in the elevation17 profiles and underground plant biomass. Elevation profiles of the created marsh berms tended18 to be higher than those in natural marshes. Shafer and Streeter (2000) warn that exceptionally19 high berms can lead to premature bird inhabitants, limited nekton activity and interruption of20 normal sediment and nutrient movement. The underground biomass difference showed higher21 underground biomass in the natural marshes, even when comparing the 23 year-old created22
12 | P a g e marsh. The underground biomass is important because Spartina alterniflora depend on the1 underground biomass to survive during unfavorable conditions. Shafer and Streeter (2000)2 stated that their review of literature showed that the underground biomass difference usually3 disappears by age 30 in created salt marshes.4 5 Local Marshes6 The Galveston Bay system has approximately 130,400 acres of marshlands. It has lost7 45,000 acres since 1950 (White, et al., 1993). The Galveston Bay Foundation is a 501(c)(3) non-8 profit organization that was established in 1987 and has been restoring marshes in the9 Galveston Bay area since 1991. They have had much success planting Spartina alterniflora on10 existing marsh edges to aid in the advancement of the marsh and prevent erosion. They have11 also has some successes in creating marshes that have previously been destroyed. Examples of12 these are Burnet Bay, Delhide Cove and Dickinson Bay Island. However, The Galveston Bay13 Foundation wanted to determine the restoration design that provides the closest replication of14 a natural marsh. Pierce Marsh was acquired by The Nature Conservancy of Texas and The15 Galveston Bay Foundation from 1987 to 1998 (Lester and Gonzales, 2002). Subsidence due to16 ground water extraction and suburban sprawl destroyed Piece Marsh and left it as open water17 (Lester and Gonzales, 2002). Construction of restoration designs began in 1999 and continued18 until 2009. At present, there are five restored sites and one reference site in Pierce Marsh.19 Data on sediment composition, bethic macroinvertebrate communities and plant communities20 are collected every five years to follow the development of the designs (Howard and21 Dobberstine, 2008). In 2008, Howard and Dobberstine found that restoration design affected22
13 | P a g e the Spartina alterniflora coverage more than the age of the site. The reference site had the1 40% Spartina alterniflora coverage, the dredge material - beneficial uses site had 50% coverage,2 the zig-zag terraced site had 30% coverage, the sinusoidal terraced site had 15% coverage, and3 the grid terraced site had 10% coverage. The dredge material - beneficial uses site was the4 youngest site yet had the highest Spartina alterniflora coverage of all of the sites. The grid was5 the oldest site and had the lowest coverage.6 7 8 Significance of project / need for project9 Craft, et al. (2003) suggested a need for long-term monitoring of constructed marsh10 projects to determine whether constructed marshes function as natural marshes. This11 suggestion was made due to the significant lag time that occurs before constructed marshes12 begin produce the same benefits as natural marshes. Over 1,000 acres of shoreline and13 tributaries in the Galveston Bay area have had some degree of marsh restoration (Lester and14 Gonzales, 2002). These restoration projects require a large investment of resources.15 Determining which marsh restoration design most closely replicates a natural marsh will assure16 that resources are used wisely in restoring salt water marshes. Pierce Marsh is unique in that 517 constructed marsh designs can be compared within a small area that has the same geomorphic18 position, anthropomorphic stressors, salinity, water quality, water craft traffic, and weather19 conditions. Prior to this study, the sites have not been compared since 2008. Since then, one20 site has been added and Hurricane Ike damaged the surrounding area. It was not known how21
14 | P a g e each site is progressing at this point in time or if the restoration design was still continuing to1 affect the Spartina alterniflora coverage more than the age of the site.2 Given that Spartina alterniflora is the dominant plant species in saltmarshes of the Gulf3 Coast and all of the above mentioned parameters of salt marsh health are interconnected, the4 health of Spartina alterniflora can be used as a measurement of the overall health of the marsh.5 The results of this study can be used by The Galveston Bay Foundation, as well as other6 organizations that restore salt marshes, in determining the constructed salt marsh design that7 most closely emulates natural salt marshes. Having this information will save these8 organizations valuable resources by directing them to the most successful design(s) for future9 salt marsh restorations.10 11 12 Specific Objectives13 1. Use Spartina alterniflora importance values to compare the restored sites to the14 reference site, the restored sites among themselves and the current data to the data15 obtained in 2008.16 2. Use species richness, Shannon Diversity Index, Pielou’s Index of Evenness, and Jaccard’s17 Coefficient of Community Similarity to compare the restored sites to the reference site,18 the restored sites among themselves and the current data to the data obtained in 2008.19 20 21
15 | P a g e MATERIALS AND METHODS1 2 Site Description – Galveston Bay3 The Galveston Bay system (figure 6a) is located along the upper Texas coast. Its 2,020 km2 4 area makes it the 7th largest estuary in the United States. The system includes Upper Galveston5 Bay, East Bay, West Bay, Trinity Bay, and Christmas Bay and is fed by the 62,159.70 km2 6 Galveston Bay watershed. Each one of the bays in the system offers differing vegetation as a7 result of their different bottom matrix, including oyster reef, mangroves, tidal mudflats, sub-8 tidal bay bottoms, intertidal marshes, and submerged aquatic vegetation (Caldwell et. al, 2004).9 10 Site Description - Pierce Marsh11 Pierce Marsh (figure 6b) is located north of West Bay, between the communities of12 Hitchcock and Bayou Vista, Texas. It is flanked on the north and east by Texas Highway 6 and13 Interstate 45, respectively. It is approximately 7.5 km from the Texas City, Texas petrochemical14 industrial complex. Pierce March, which encompasses 2,346 acres, is an intertidal salt marsh15 that serves as a nursery for many of the nekton and shellfish species that live in the Galveston16 Bay system (Merino, et al., 2010; Galveston Bay Foundation). As with other marshes of the Gulf17 Coast, Spartina alterniflora is the dominant plant species. Fresh water inflows from Highland18 Bayou and an adjacent smaller bayou come from the north while tidal flows come from the Gulf19 of Mexico via San Luis Pass and Galveston’s West Bay to the south (Lester and Gonzales, 2002).20 21 22
16 | P a g e 1 Figure 6: a) Map of the Galveston Bay System showing Galveston Bay, Trinity Bay, East Bay,2 West Bay and Christmas Bay. The yellow star marks the location of Pierce Marsh. Photo credit:3 Texas A&M Galveston Bay Information Center, 2014. b) Map showing the location of the Pierce4 Marsh, north of West Bay, 29°19’ N, 94°57W, 2014.5 6 7 Pierce Marsh has one reference site, which is an area of the marsh that did not subside8 and has continued to develop undamaged, and five restored sites. PRC 1 is the reference site9 (figure 7 (1); figure 8) and is in the northeast corner of the marsh, closest to Highway 6. PRC 210 was constructed in 2004 and is a restored site made from terraced berms built in a zig-zag11 pattern (figure 7 (2); figure 8). PRC 3 was constructed in 1999 and is a restored site made from12 terraced berms built in a grid pattern (figure 7 (3); figure 8). PRC 4 was constructed in 2001 and13 is a restored site made from terraced berms built in a sinusoidal pattern (figure 7 (4);14 15
17 | P a g e 1 Figure 7: Map of Pierce Marsh showing the Reference Site (1), Zigzag berms, 2004 (2), Grid2 berms, 1999 (3), Sinusoidal berms, 2001 (4), Beneficial uses berms, 2005 (5), and Zigzag berms,3 2009 (6). 2014.4 5 figure 8). PRC 5 was constructed in 2005 and is a restored site made from dredge material built6 in a large area surrounded by temporary berms for protection against wave action (figure 7 (5);7 figure 8). PRC 6 was constructed in 2009 and is a restored site made from terraced berms built8 in a zig zag pattern (figure 7 (5); figure 8).9 10 11
18 | P a g e 1 Figure 8: Photos of the reference site and 5 reconstructed sites at Pierce Marsh. Site names,2 numbers and dates of installation included with each picture. Photo credit: Mary Warwick,3 2013.4 5 6
19 | P a g e Other Plant Species in Pierce Marsh1 While Spartina alterniflora was the dominant plant species in salt marshes, many other2 plants inhabited Pierce Marsh. Salicornia virginica, creeping glasswort; Salicornia bigelorii,3 annual glasswort; Batis maritina, saltwort; Distichlis spiccta, coastal salt grass; Borrichia4 frutescens, sea-oxeye-daisy; Sesuvim maritum, sea purslane; and Solidago sempervirens,5 seaside goldenrod were all represented in plots throughout the marsh (figure 9). Spartina6 alterniflora inhabited the mid and lower elevations of the marsh, which were prone to regular7 flooding. The other plants species of the marsh tended to inhabit the dryer, higher elevations.8 Like Spartina alterniflora, each plant species in the marsh had its own set of adaptions for9 surviving in the salt marsh envrionment.10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
20 | P a g e 1 Figure 9: Plant species observed at Pierce Marsh in addition to Spartina alterniflora.2 Photo credit: Mary Warwick, 2013 unless otherwise indicated.3 4 5
21 | P a g e Methodology1 Plot-transect sampling was used to collect data. Three locations, or berms, were2 randomly selected at each site. At each location a 20 m transect was set perpendicular to the3 marsh edge (figure 10).4 5 Figure 10: Setting the 20 meter transect on the first berm of the grid site. Photo Credit: Mary6 Warwick7 8 9 Three points were marked with orange flags along the transect, 10 meters apart (figure 11).10 These points were called stations. This gave 9 points of data collection at each site; 54 points of11 data collection total.12 13
22 | P a g e 1 Figure 11: Second berm of beneficial uses site showing the three stations marked with orange2 flags. Photo Credit: Mary Warwick3 4 5 At each point, on each transect, at each location, at each site: a ¼ m2 plot made of PVC6 pipe (figure 12) was laid to the left of the point and all plants in the plot were identified and7 their relative coverage was determined and recorded. The percentage of bare ground and8 detritus were also recorded. The comparison year, 2008, had 18 points of data collection at9 sites 1 through 4 and 12 points of data collection at site 5.10 11
23 | P a g e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Figure 12: A ¼ m2 plot made of PVC pipe similar to the one used in this study. Photo Credit:11 Mary Warwick12 13 14 Data Analysis15 Measures of importance were calculated using Microsoft Excel 2010 and analyzed first.16 The Spartina alterniflora relative frequency and relative coverage were calculated for each site17 (table 1, appendix II). Relative frequency refers to the frequency of a given species as a18 proportion of the sum of the frequencies of all species. It was calculated by determining the19 frequency of the species being studied using the formula fi=ji/k, where ji is the number of plots20 in which species i occurs and k is the total number of plots sampled. The frequency is then21 divided by the sum of all of the frequencies observed in the study area to obtain the relative22 frequency. Relative coverage refers to the coverage of a given species expressed as a23
24 | P a g e proportion of the total coverage for all species. It was determined in the field by taking the1 percent coverage. The importance value is a measure of a species dominance in the2 community and was calculated using the formula IVi= Rfi+RCi (Brower et. al., 1998, appendix II).3 Measures of diversity were calculated and analyzed next (table 1). The species richness4 at each plot, number of species present, was determined and recorded in the field. The mean5 species richness was calculated for each site using the data from the various plots (appendix6 IV). The Shannon-Weiner Diversity Index is a measurement of species diversity using species7 richness and relative abundance, where pi is the relative abundance. It was calculated using the8 formula H’=-∑(pi)[(ln(pi)] (appendix VI). Since numbers of individuals were not counted at the9 sites, pi was calculated by using the percent coverage data obtained in the field. (Brower et. al.,10 1998). Pielou’s Index of Evenness measurement was calculated using the formula E=H’/Hmax11 (appendix VI). Evenness is a measurement of equitability among species in the community12 using the Shannon-Weiner Function, where Hmax is the species diversity under maximum13 equitable conditions and is calculated by taking the natural log of the number of species in the14 community (Brower et al., 1998). The Jaccard’s Coefficient of Community Similarity is a15 measurement of how similar communities are based on the number of species common to all16 communities (appendix VIII). It was calculated using the formula CCj=c/S, where c is the17 number of species common to all communities and S is the total number of species found in all18 communities (Brower et. al., 1998).19 Histograms for each parameter were produced in Microsoft Excel 2010 as well.20 Descriptive statistics were run on the results of each parameter to obtain the standard error21
25 | P a g e Measure Frequency (fi) fi=ji/k ji=number of samples in which species i occurs, k=total number Relative Frequency (Rfi) Rfi=fi/∑f Coverage (Ci) Ci=ai/A Relative Coverage (RCi) RCi=Ci/TC=Ci/∑C Importance Value (IVi) IVi=Rfi+RCi Species Richness (s) Shannon Diversity Index (H') H'=-∑pi ln pi pi =ni /N Pielou’s Index of Evenness E=H’/Hmax Jaccard’s Coefficient of Community Similarity CCj=c/S of species common to all communities c = the number of species common to all communities S = the total number of species found in all communities (Brower et al, 1998) N= total number of individuals Hmax is the species diversity under maximum equitable conditions and is calculated by taking the natural log of the number of species in the community measurement of how similar communities are based on the number Percent coverage calculated in the field used for relative coverage number of species present pi = proportion of the total number of individuals occuring in species i ni =number of individuals representing species i Percent coverage calculated in the field used for pi Differences from Brower Used in StudyBrower Equations and Description Measures of Importance Measures of Diversity of samples (plots) ai=total area covered by species i, A=total habitat sampled TC=∑C=total coverage for all species measurement. Error bars were added to the histograms, using the standard error1 measurements, to compare the significant similarities and differences in the data obtained.2 3 Table 1: Formulas for relative frequency, relative coverage, importance values, species richness,4 Shannon Diversity Index, Pielou’s Index of Evenness, and Jaccard’s Coefficient of Community5 Similarity. Brower et. al., 1998.6 7 8 RESULTS9 10 Objective 1: Use Spartina alterniflora importance values to compare the restored sites to the11 reference site, the restored sites among themselves and the current data to the data obtained12 in 2008.13 14 Importance Values in 2013:15
26 | P a g e When comparing the Spartina alterniflora importance values for 2013, the reference1 site had the highest Spartina alterniflora importance value at 71.2% (table 2). Its high relative2 coverage, 46.9%, was responsible for its high importance value (figure 14) and was the highest3 of all of the sites. Its relative frequency, 24.3%, was the third highest and was identical to the4 2004 zig zag site.5 The beneficial uses site had the second highest Spartina alterniflora importance value at6 60.9% (table 2). This was not significantly different from the reference site (figure 13). Its high7 relative coverage, 33.7%, was the second highest of the sites and not significantly different than8 the reference site (figure 16). Its relative frequency, 27.3%, was the highest of all of the sites9 (table 2) but was significantly similar to the reference site and the two zig zag sites (figure 15).10 Coverage and frequency played an equal role in contributing to the importance value at this site11 (figure 14).12 The 2004 zig zag site had the third highest Spartina alterniflora importance value at13 34.9% (table 2). This was most similar to the 2009 zig zag site; however, it was not significantly14 different than the sinusoidal site (figure 13). Its relative frequency, 24.3%, was responsible for15 its importance value (figure 14). As stated earlier, it was the third highest of the sites and16 identical to the reference site. Its relative frequency was also significantly similar to the17 beneficial uses site and the 2009 zig zag site (figure 15). Its relative coverage, 10.6%, was the18 third highest of the sites but significantly lower than that of the reference and beneficial uses19 sites. Its relative coverage was most similar to the zig zag site of 2009; however, was not20 significantly different than the grid or the sinusoidal sites (figure 16).21
27 | P a g e The 2009 zig zag site had the fourth highest Spartina alterniflora importance value at1 32.9% (table 2). This was most similar to the 2004 zig zag site; however, it was not significantly2 different than the sinusoidal site (figure 13). Its relative frequency, 25.8%, was the second3 highest of the sites and was responsible for its importance value (figure 14). Its relative4 frequency was significantly similar to that of the reference site, the beneficial uses site and the5 2009 zig zag site (figure 15). Its relative coverage, 7.1%, was the fourth highest of the sites and6 was most similar to the zig zag site of 2004. However, its relative coverage was not significantly7 different than the grid or the sinusoidal sites (figure 16).8 The sinusoidal site had the fifth highest Spartina alterniflora importance value at 19.1%9 (table 2). This was most similar to the grid site: however, it was not significantly different than10 the two zig zag sites (figure 13). Its relative frequency, 16.7%, was the fifth highest of the sites11 and was responsible for its importance value (figure 14). Its relative frequency was also12 significantly similar to the grid site (figure 15). Its relative coverage, 2.4%, was also the fifth13 highest but did not contribute significantly to its importance value (figure 14). Its relative14 coverage was most similar to the grid site; however, it was not significantly different from the15 zig zag sites (table 16).16 The grid site had the lowest Spartina alterniflora importance value at 14.0% (table 2).17 This was significantly similar to the sinusoidal site (figure 13). Its relative frequency, 12.2%, was18 also the lowest of the sites but responsible for its importance value (figure 14). This was also19 significantly similar to the sinusoidal site (figure 15). Its relative coverage, 1.8%, was again the20 lowest of the sites and did not contribute much to its importance value (figure 14). Its relative21
28 | P a g e Relative frequency Relative Coverage Importance Values PRC 1 Reference 0.243 0.469 0.712 PRC 2 Zig Zag 2004 0.243 0.106 0.349 PRC 3 Grid 0.122 0.018 0.140 PRC 4 Sinusoidal 0.167 0.024 0.191 PRC 5 Beneficial Uses 0.273 0.337 0.609 PRC 6 Zig Zag 2009 0.258 0.071 0.329 2013 Spartina alterniflora Measures of Importance Site coverage was most similar to the sinusoidal site; however, it was not significantly different from1 the zig zag sites (table 16).2 When comparing the age of the restored sites to the Spartina alterniflora relative3 coverage values, the grid site, the oldest site, had the lowest relative coverage value, 1.78%.4 The sinusoidal site, the second oldest site, had the second lowest Spartina alterniflora relative5 coverage value, 2.44%. The 2009 zig zag site, had the third lowest Spartina alterniflora relative6 coverage value, 7.11%. The 2004 zig zag site, had the fourth lowest Spartina alterniflora7 relative coverage value, 10.56%. The beneficial uses site, the second to the newest site, had8 the highest Spartina alterniflora relative coverage value, 33.67 % (figure 17).9 10 11 Table 2: Comparing relative frequency, relative coverage, and importance values for Spartina12 alterniflora between the reference site and the restored sites. 2013. Pierce Marsh.13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
29 | P a g e Figure 13: Comparing importance values of Spartina alterniflora among the six sites at Pierce1 Marsh showing the standard error bars for significance comparison. 2013.2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Figure 14: Comparing importance values of Spartina alterniflora among the six sites at Pierce15 Marsh using relative coverage and relative frequency. 2013.16 17
30 | P a g e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Figure 15: Comparing relative frequency values of Spartina alterniflora among the six sites at10 Pierce Marsh. 2013.11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Figure 16: Comparing relative coverage values of Spartina alterniflora among the six sites at31 Pierce Marsh. 2013.32
31 | P a g e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Figure 17: Comparing relative coverage values of Spartina alterniflora among the five9 constructed sites by year built at Pierce Marsh. 2013.10 11 12 Importance Values 2008 to 2013:13 When the Spartina alterniflora importance values for 2008 and 2013 are compared, the14 reference site had a Spartina alterniflora importance value of 72.1% in 2008 and 71.2% in 201315 (table 3). This was a decrease of 0.9%; the lowest of all of the sites. The Spartina alterniflora16 relative frequency dropped by 6.7% while the relative coverage increased by 5.8% (table 3 and17 figure 18).18 The 2004 zig zag site had a Spartina alterniflora importance value of 68.1% in 2008 and19 34.9% in 2013 (table 3). This was a decrease of 33.2%. This was the second highest decrease of20 the sites. The Spartina alterniflora relative frequency dropped by 13.2% while the relative21 coverage decreased by 20.0% (table 3 and figure 18). The 2004 zig zag site was the most similar22 site to the reference site in 2008; however, this was no longer the case in 2013 (figure 18). The23
32 | P a g e drop in relative coverage had the most significant impact in this difference (table 3 and figure1 19).2 The grid site had a Spartina alterniflora importance value of 31.5% in 2008 and 14.0% in3 2013 (table 3). This was a decrease of 17.6%. This was the fourth highest decrease of the sites.4 The Spartina alterniflora relative frequency dropped by 11.2% while the relative coverage5 decreased by 6.4%. The drop in relative coverage had the most significant impact on Spartina6 alterniflora importance values at this site (table 3 and figure 19). The grid site was similar to7 the sinusoidal site in 2008 and 2013 (figure 18).8 The sinusoidal site had a Spartina alterniflora importance value of 41.4% in 2008 and9 19.1% in 2013 (table 3). This was a decrease of 0.25. This was the third highest decrease of the10 sites. The Spartina alterniflora relative frequency dropped by 10.6% while the relative coverage11 decreased by 11.7%. The two parameters had an equal role on the impact on Spartina12 alterniflora importance values at this site (table 3 and figure 19). The sinusoidal site was similar13 to the grid site in 2008 and 2013 (figure 18).14 The beneficial uses site had a Spartina alterniflora importance value of 100% in 200815 and 60.9% in 2013 (table 3). This was a decrease of 39.1%. This was the highest decrease of16 the sites. The Spartina alterniflora relative frequency dropped by 22.7% while the relative17 coverage decreased by 16.3%. Again, the two parameters had an equal role on the impact on18 Spartina alterniflora importance values at this site (table 3 and figure 19).The beneficial uses19 site was not significantly similar to the reference site in 2008; however, it was in 2013 (figure20 18). The reference site had a 36.3% larger relative coverage in 2013; however, their relative21 frequencies were identical (table 3).22
33 | P a g e 2008 2013 % Change 2008 2013 % Change 2008 2013 % Change PRC 1 0.310 0.243 -0.067 0.411 0.469 0.058 0.721 0.712 -0.009 PRC 2 0.375 0.243 -0.132 0.306 0.106 -0.200 0.681 0.349 -0.332 PRC 3 0.234 0.122 -0.112 0.082 0.018 -0.064 0.315 0.140 -0.176 PRC 4 0.273 0.167 -0.106 0.141 0.024 -0.117 0.414 0.191 -0.223 PRC 5 0.500 0.273 -0.227 0.500 0.337 -0.163 1.000 0.609 -0.391 PRC 6 n/a 0.258 n/a n/a 0.071 n/a n/a 0.329 n/a Relative frequency Relative Coverage Importance Values Spartina alterniflora Measures of Importance When comparing the age of a restored sites to the change in Spartina alterniflora1 importance values between 2008 and 2013, the oldest site, the grid site, had the smallest2 decease in importance value, 17.6%. The sinusoidal site, the second oldest site, had the second3 smallest difference, 22.3%. The 2004 zig zag site, the third oldest site, had the third smallest4 difference, 33.2%. The beneficial uses, the newest comparable site, had the largest difference,5 39.1% (figure 20).6 The Spartina alterniflora importance values could not be compared for the 2009 zig zag7 site as it was built after the 2008 data was obtained.8 9 10 11 12 Table 3: Comparing relative frequency, relative coverage, and importance values for Spartina13 alterniflora in years 2008 and 2013. Pierce Marsh.14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
34 | P a g e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Figure 18: Comparing importance values of Spartina alterniflora among the six sites at Pierce9 Marsh for the years 2008 and 2013.10 11 12 13 14 Figure 19: Comparing importance values of Spartina alterniflora among the six sites at Pierce15 Marsh, using relative coverage and relative frequency for the years 2008 and 2013.16
35 | P a g e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Figure 20: Comparing the age of the restored sites to the percent decrease in Spartina9 alterniflora importance values between the years 2008 and 2013. Pierce Marsh.10 11 12 Objective 2: Use species richness, Shannon Diversity Index, Pielou’s Index of Evenness, and13 Jaccard’s Coefficient of Community Similarity to compare the restored sites to the reference14 site, the restored sites among themselves and the current data to the data obtained in 2008.15 16 Species Richness 2013:17 When comparing the species richness values for 2013, the sinusoidal site had the18 highest mean species richness value at 2.89. The grid site had the second highest mean species19 richness value at 2.67. The sinusoidal and grid sites had significantly similar species richness20 values. The reference site had the third highest mean species richness value at 2.22. The 200421 zig zag site had the fourth highest mean species richness value at 2.11. The reference and 200422 zig zag site had significantly similar species richness values. The beneficial uses site had the fifth23
36 | P a g e Richness PRC 1 Reference 2.22 PRC 2 Zig Zag 2004 2.11 PRC 3 Grid 2.67 PRC 4 Sinusoidal 2.89 PRC 5 Beneficial Uses 1.67 PRC 6 Zig Zag 2009 1.44 Mean Species Richness 2013 Site highest mean species richness value at 1.67. The 2009 zig zag site had the lowest mean species1 richness value at 1.44. The beneficial uses and 2009 zig zag site had significantly similar species2 richness values (table 5 and figure 21).3 When comparing the age of the restored sites to the species richness values, the grid4 site, the oldest site, had the second highest mean species richness value, 2.67. The sinusoidal5 site, the second oldest site, had the highest mean species richness value, 2.89. The 2004 zig zag6 site, had the third highest mean species richness value, 2.11. The beneficial uses site, built in7 2005, had the fourth highest mean species richness value, 1.67. The 2009 zig zag site, the8 newest site, had the lowest mean species richness value, 1.44 (figure 22).9 10 11 Table 5: Comparing species richness between the reference site and the restored sites. 2013.12 Pierce Marsh.13 14 15 16 17 18 19
37 | P a g e Figure 21: Comparing the mean species richness among the six sites at Pierce Marsh. 2013.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Figure 22: Comparing species richness values among the five constructed sites by year built at12 Pierce Marsh. 2013.13 14
38 | P a g e Species Richness 2008 to 2013:1 When the species richness values for 2008 and 2013 are compared, the reference site’s2 mean species richness value remained constant from 2008 to 2013. It was 2.22 in both years3 (table 6). The reference site was similar to the sinusoidal and the 2004 zig zag site in 2008.4 However, in 2013 it was similar only to the 2004 zig zag site (figure 23).5 The mean species richness values decreased at only one site from 2008 to 2013. The6 grid site had a mean species richness value of 3.33 in 2008 and 2.67 in 2013 (table 6). This was7 a decrease of 0.67. The grid site was similar only to the sinusoidal site in 2008. However, in8 2013 it was similar to the reference site as well as the sinusoidal site (figure 23).9 The mean species richness values increased at three sites from 2008 to 2013. The10 beneficial uses site had a mean species richness value of 1.00 in 2008 and 1.67 in 2013 (table 6).11 This was an increase of 0.67. This was the highest increase of the sites. In 2008, the beneficial12 uses site was significantly similar to the 2004 zig zag site. However, in 2013 it was similar to the13 2009 zig zag site (figure 23). The 2004 zig zag site had a mean species richness value of 1.67 in14 2008 and 2.11 in 2013 (table 6). This was an increase of 0.44. This was the second highest15 increase of the sites. The 2004 zig zag site was significantly similar to the reference site and the16 beneficial uses site in 2008. However, in 2013 it was significantly similar to only the reference17 site (figure 23). The sinusoidal site had a mean species richness value of 2.78 in 2008 and 2.8918 in 2013 (table 6). This was an increase of 0.11. This was the third highest increase of the sites.19 The sinusoidal site was significantly similar to the reference and grid sites in 2008. However, in20 2013 it was significantly similar to only the grid site (figure 23).21
39 | P a g e 2008 2013 Difference PRC 1 Reference 2.22 2.22 0.00 PRC 2 Zig Zag 2004 1.67 2.11 0.44 PRC 3 Grid 3.33 2.67 -0.67 PRC 4 Sinusoidal 2.78 2.89 0.11 PRC 5 Beneficial Uses 1.00 1.67 0.67 PRC 6 Zig Zag 2009 n/a 1.44 n/a Mean Species Richness Site The mean species richness values could not be compared for the 2009 zig zag site as it1 was built after the 2008 data was obtained.2 3 Table 6: Comparing species richness in years 2008 and 2013. Pierce Marsh.4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Figure 23: Comparing mean species richness among the six sites at Pierce Marsh for the years20 2008 and 2013.21 22
40 | P a g e Scientific name Common Name 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 n/a 2013 Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass X X X X X X X X X X X Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort X X X X X X X X X X Salicornia bigelovii Annual glasswort X X X Batis maritima Saltwort X X X X X X X X X Aster tenuifolius Salt marsh aster X X X X Borrichia frutescens Bushy seaside-tansy X X X X Distichlis spicata Coastal salt grass X X X X Cuscuta salina Salt marsh dodder X Iva frutescens Jesuit’s-bark X Lycium carolinianum Carolina desert thorn X Sesuvium portulacastrum Sea purslane X X Solidago sempervirens Seaside goldenrod X Suaeda linearis Annual seepweed X X Site/YearSpecies Plant Species Present at Pierce Marsh 2008 and 2013 PRC 1 PRC 2 PRC 3 PRC 4 PRC 5 PRC 6 When comparing the species present at each site in 2008 and 2013, Spartina alterniflora1 was the only species present at each site on both years. Salicornia virginica, creeping2 glasswort, was present at all sites on both years with the exception of one site in 2008. Batis3 maritima, saltwort, was present at all sites on both years with the exception of one site in 20084 and one site in 2013. Three species were present at only four sites. Aster tenuifolius, salt5 marsh aster, was present at four sites in 2008 only. Borrichia frutescens, bushy seaside-tansy,6 was present at two sites in 2008 and 2013. Distichlis spicata, coastal salt grass, was present at7 two sites in 2008 and was also present at one site in 2008 and 2013. Salicornia bigelovii, annual8 glasswort, was present at one site in 2008 and two sites in 2013. Sesuvium portulacastrum, sea9 purslane, was present at one site in 2008 and 2013. Suaeda linearis, annual seepweed, was10 present at two sites in 2008. Four species were present at only one site. Cuscuta salina, salt11 marsh dodder; Iva frutescens, Jesuit’s-bark; and Lycium carolinianum, Carolina desert thorn12 were each present at one site in 2008 only. Solidago sempervirens, seaside goldenrod was13 present at one site only in 2013 (table 7).14 Table 7: Comparing plant species present at Pierce Marsh in 2008 and 2013. Pierce Marsh.15 16 17 18
41 | P a g e Shannon Diversity Index 2013:1 When comparing the Shannon Diversity Index values for 2013, the reference site had2 the highest Shannon Diversity Index value at 1.05 (table 8). The reference site was significantly3 similar to the grid site (figure 24). The grid site had the second highest Shannon Diversity Index4 value at 0.90 (table 8). The grid site was significantly similar to the 2004 zig zag site (figure 24).5 The 2004 zig zag site had the third highest Shannon Diversity Index value at 0.81 (table 8). The6 2004 zig zag site was significantly similar to the grid site, the sinusoidal site, and the beneficial7 uses site (figure 24). The sinusoidal site had the fourth highest Shannon Diversity Index value8 at 0.73 (table 8). The sinusoidal site was significantly similar to the 2004 zig zag site and the9 beneficial uses site (figure 24). The beneficial uses site had the fifth highest Shannon Diversity10 Index value at 0.67 (table 8). The beneficial uses site was significantly similar to the 2004 zig11 zag site, the sinusoidal site, and the 2009 zig zag site (figure 24). The 2009 zig zag site had the12 lowest Shannon Diversity Index at 0.55 (table 8). The 2009 zig zag site was significantly similar13 to the beneficial uses site (figure 24).14 When comparing the age of the restored sites to the Shannon Diversity Index values, the15 grid site, the oldest site, had the highest Shannon Diversity Index value, 0.90. The sinusoidal16 site, the second oldest site, had the third highest Shannon Diversity Index value, 0.73. The 200417 zig zag site had the second highest Shannon Diversity Index value, 0.81. The beneficial uses18 site, built in 2005, had the fourth highest Shannon Diversity Index value, 0.67. The 2009 zig zag19 site, the newest site, had the lowest Shannon Diversity Index value, 0.55 (figure 25).20 21 22
42 | P a g e H' PRC 1 Reference 1.05 PRC 2 Zig Zag 2004 0.81 PRC 3 Grid 0.90 PRC 4 Sinusoidal 0.73 PRC 5 Beneficial Uses 0.67 PRC 6 Zig Zag 2009 0.55 Site Shannon Diversity Index 2013 Table 8: Comparing Shannon Diversity Index among the six sites at Pierce Marsh. 2013. Pierce1 Marsh.2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Figure 24: Comparing the Shannon Diversity Index among the six sites at Pierce Marsh. 2013.21 22 23
43 | P a g e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Figure 25: Comparing Shannon Diversity Index values among the five constructed sites by year9 built at Pierce Marsh. 2013.10 11 12 Shannon Diversity Index 2008 to 2013:13 When the Shannon Diversity Index values for 2008 and 2013 are compared, the14 reference site’s Shannon Diversity Index value was 0.98 in 2008 and 1.05 in 2013 (table 9). This15 was an increase of 0.07. The reference site was significantly similar to the grid and the16 sinusoidal sites in 2008. However, in 2013 it wasn’t similar to any of the other sites (figure 26).17 The 2004 zig zag site had a Shannon Diversity Index value of 0.57 in 2008 and 0.81 in 201318 (table 9). This was an increase of 0.24. The 2004 zig zag site was similar only to the beneficial19 uses site in 2008. However, in 2013 it was similar to the sinusoidal site (figure 26). The20 beneficial uses site had a Shannon Diversity Index value of 0.35 in 2008 and 0.67 in 2013 (table21 9). This was an increase of 0.33. This was the highest increase of the sites. In 2008, the22
44 | P a g e 2008 2013 Difference PRC 1 Reference 0.98 1.05 0.07 PRC 2 Zig Zag 2004 0.57 0.81 0.24 PRC 3 Grid 1.18 0.90 -0.28 PRC 4 Sinusoidal 1.05 0.73 -0.31 PRC 5 Beneficial Uses 0.35 0.67 0.33 PRC 6 Zig Zag 2009 n/a 0.55 n/a Site Shannon Diversity Index beneficial uses site was significantly similar to the 2004 zig zag site. However, in 2013 it was1 similar to the sinusoidal site (figure 26).2 The grid site had a Shannon Diversity Index value of 1.18 in 2008 and 0.90 in 2013 (table3 9). This was a decrease of 0.28. This was the second highest decrease of the sites. The grid site4 was significantly similar to the reference site and the sinusoidal site in 2008. However, in 20135 it was significantly similar to only the 2004 zig zag site (figure 26). The sinusoidal site had a6 Shannon Diversity Index value of 1.05 in 2008 and 0.73 in 2013 (table 9). This was a decrease of7 0.31. This was the highest decrease of the sites. The sinusoidal site was significantly similar to8 the reference and grid sites in 2008. However, in 2013 it was significantly similar to only the9 2004 zig zag site (figure 26).10 The Shannon Diversity Index values could not be compared for the 2009 zig zag site as it11 was built after the 2008 data was obtained.12 13 14 Table 9: Comparing Shannon Diversity Index in years 2008 and 2013. Pierce Marsh.15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
45 | P a g e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Figure 26: Comparing the Shannon Diversity Index among the six sites at Pierce Marsh for the10 years 2008 and 2013.11 12 13 Pielou’s Index of Evenness 2013:14 When comparing the Pielou’s Index of Evenness values for 2013, the 2009 zig zag site15 had the highest Pielou’s Index of Evenness value at 0.79 (table 10). The reference site had the16 second highest Pielou’s Index of Evenness value at 0.76 (table 10). The reference site and the17 2009 zig zag site were significantly similar to one another (figure 27). The beneficial uses site18 had the third highest Pielou’s Index of Evenness value at 0.61 (table 10). The 2004 zig zag site19 had the fourth highest Pielou’s Index of Evenness value at 0.59 (table 10). The beneficial uses20 site and the 2004 zig zag sites were significantly similar to one another (figure 27). The grid site21 had the fifth highest Pielou’s Index of Evenness value at 0.50 (table 10). The grid site was22
46 | P a g e E PRC 1 Reference 0.76 PRC 2 Zig Zag 2004 0.59 PRC 3 Grid 0.50 PRC 4 Sinusoidal 0.46 PRC 5 Beneficial Uses 0.61 PRC 6 Zig Zag 2009 0.79 Site Pielou's Index of Evenness 2013 significantly similar to the 2004 zig zag site and the sinusoidal site (figure 27). The sinusoidal1 site built in 2009 had the lowest Pielou’s Index of Evenness at 0.46 (table 10). The sinusoidal2 site was significantly similar to the grid site (figure 27).3 When comparing the age of the restored sites to the Pielou’s Index of Evenness values,4 the grid site, the oldest site, had the second to the lowest Pielou’s Index of Evenness value,5 0.50. The sinusoidal site, the second oldest site, had the lowest Pielou’s Index of Evenness6 value, 0.46. The 2004 zig zag site had the third lowest Pielou’s Index of Evenness value, 0.59.7 The beneficial uses site, built in 2005, had the fourth lowest Pielou’s Index of Evenness value,8 0.61. The 2009 zig zag site, the newest site, had the highest Pielou’s Index of Evenness value,9 0.79 (figure 28).10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Table 10: Comparing Pielou’s Index of Evenness between the reference site and the restored17 sites. 2013. Pierce Marsh.18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
47 | P a g e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Figure 27: Comparing Pielou’s Index of Evenness among the six sites at Pierce Marsh. 2013.11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Figure 28: Comparing Pielou’s Index of Evenness values among the five constructed sites by22 year built at Pierce Marsh. 2013.23 24
48 | P a g e Pielou’s Index of Evenness 2008 to 2013:1 When the Pielou’s Index of Evenness values for 2008 and 2013 are compared, the2 sinusoidal site had a Pielou’s Index of Evenness value of 0.54 in 2008 and 0.46 in 2013 (table3 11). This was a decrease of 0.08. This was the only decrease of the sites. The sinusoidal site4 was significantly similar to the reference and grid sites in 2008. However, in 2013 it was5 significantly similar to only the grid site (figure 29). The beneficial uses site had a Pielou’s Index6 of Evenness value of 0.00 in 2008 and 0.61 in 2013 (table 11). This was an increase of 0.61.7 This was the highest increase of the sites. The beneficial uses site was not significantly similar8 to any other site in 2008. However, it was significantly similar to the 2004 zig zag site (figure9 29). The 2004 zig zag site had a Pielou’s Index of Evenness value of 0.36 in 2008 and 0.59 in10 2013 (table 11). This was an increase of 0.23. This was the second highest increase of the sites.11 The 2004 zig zag site was similar grid and the sinusoidal sites in 2008. However, in 2013 it was12 similar to the grid and the beneficial uses site (figure 29). The reference site had a Pielou’s13 Index of Evenness value of 0.61 in 2008 and 0.76 in 2013 (table 11). This was an increase of14 0.15. This was the third highest increase of the sites. The reference site was significantly15 similar to the grid and the sinusoidal sites in 2008. However, in 2013 it was similar only to the16 2009 zig zag site (figure 29). The grid site had a Pielou’s Index of Evenness value of 0.49 in 200817 and 0.50 in 2013 (table 11). This was an increase of 0.01. This was the lowest increase of the18 sites. The grid site was significantly similar to the reference site, the 2004 zig zag site and the19 sinusoidal site in 2008. However, in 2013 it was significantly similar to the 2004 zig zag site and20 the sinusoidal site (figure 29). The Pielou’s Index of Evenness values could not be compared for21 the 2009 zig zag site as it was built after the 2008 data was obtained.22
49 | P a g e 2008 2013 Difference PRC 1 Reference 0.61 0.76 0.15 PRC 2 Zig Zag 2004 0.36 0.59 0.23 PRC 3 Grid 0.49 0.50 0.01 PRC 4 Sinusoidal 0.54 0.46 -0.08 PRC 5 Beneficial Uses 0.00 0.61 0.61 PRC 6 Zig Zag 2009 n/a 0.79 n/a Site Pielou's Index of Evenness Table 11: Comparing Pielou’s Index of Evenness in years 2008 and 2013. Pierce Marsh.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Figure 29: Comparing the Pielou’s Index of Evenness among the six sites at Pierce Marsh for the21 years 2008 and 2013.22 23 24 25
50 | P a g e Jaccard’s Coefficient of Community Similarity 2013:1 When comparing the Jaccard’s Coefficient of Community Similarity values for 2013, the2 reference site the 2004 zig zag site had the highest Jaccard’s Coefficient of Community3 Similarity at 1.0. The reference site and the beneficial uses site had the second highest4 Jaccard’s Coefficient of Community Similarity at 0.75. The reference site and the grid site, the5 sinusoidal site and the 2009 zig zag site had a Jaccard’s Coefficient of Community Similarity of6 0.50 each.7 When comparing the restored sites, the 2004 zig zag site the beneficial uses site built in8 2005 had the highest Jaccard’s Coefficient of Community Similarity at 0.75. Two site9 comparisons had a Jaccard’s Coefficient of Community Similarity of 0.67; the grid site and the10 sinusoidal site; as well as the beneficial uses site and the 2009 zig zag site. Two site11 comparisons had a Jaccard’s Coefficient of Community Similarity of 0.60; the grid site and the12 beneficial uses site; as well as the sinusoidal site and the beneficial uses site. Three13 comparisons of sites had a Jaccard’s Coefficient of Community Similarity of 0.50; the 2004 zig14 zag site and the grid site; the 2004 zig zag site and the sinusoidal site; as well as the 2004 zig zag15 site and the 2009 zig zag site. Two comparisons of sites had a Jaccard’s Coefficient of16 Community Similarity of 0.40; the grid site, and the 2009 zig zag site, as well as the sinusoidal17 site, and the 2009 zig zag site (table 12).18 19 20 21 22
51 | P a g e Sites Jaccard's PRC 1 vs PRC 2 1.00 PRC 1 vs PRC 3 0.50 PRC 1 vs PRC 4 0.50 PRC 1 vs PRC 5 0.75 PRC 1 vs PRC 6 0.50 PRC 2 vs PRC 3 0.50 PRC 2 vs PRC 4 0.50 PRC 2 vs PRC 5 0.75 PRC 2 vs PRC 6 0.50 PRC 3 vs PRC 4 0.67 PRC 3 vs PRC 5 0.60 PRC 3 vs PRC 6 0.40 PRC 4 vs PRC 5 0.60 PRC 4 vs PRC 6 0.40 PRC 5 vs PRC 6 0.67 Jaccard’s Coefficient of Community Similarity 2013 Table 12: Comparing Jaccard’s Coefficient of Community Similarity between the restored sites.1 2013. Pierce Marsh.2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Jaccard’s Coefficient of Community Similarity 2008 to 2013:15 When the Jaccard’s Coefficient of Community Similarity values for 2008 and 2013 are16 compared, the reference site and the 2004 zig zag site had a Jaccard’s Coefficient of Community17 Similarity of 1.0 in 2008 and 2013. The reference site and the grid site had a Jaccard’s18 Coefficient of Community Similarity of 0.56 in 2008 and 0.50 in 2013. This is a decrease of 0.06.19 The reference site and the sinusoidal site had a Jaccard’s Coefficient of Community Similarity of20 0.50 in 2008 and 2013. The reference site and the beneficial uses site had a Jaccard’s21 Coefficient of Community Similarity of 0.20 in 2008 and 0.75 in 2013. This is an increase of22 0.55.23
52 | P a g e When comparing the restored sites, the 2004 zig zag site and the grid site had a1 Jaccard’s Coefficient of Community Similarity of 0.56 in 2008 and 0.50 in 2013. This is a2 decrease of 0.06. The 2004 zig zag site and the sinusoidal site had a Jaccard’s Coefficient of3 Community Similarity of 0.50 in 2008 and 2013. The 2004 zig zag site and the beneficial uses4 site had a Jaccard’s Coefficient of Community Similarity of 0.20 in 2008 and 0.75 in 2013. This is5 an increase of 0.55. The grid site and the sinusoidal site had a Jaccard’s Coefficient of6 Community Similarity of 0.60 in 2008 and 0.67 in 2013. This is an increase of 0.07. The grid site7 and the beneficial uses site had a Jaccard’s Coefficient of Community Similarity of 0.11 in 20088 and 0.60 in 2013. This is an increase of 0.49. The sinusoidal site and the beneficial uses site9 had a Jaccard’s Coefficient of Community Similarity of 0.14 in 2008 and 0.60 in 2013. This is an10 increase of 0.46. The 2009 zig zag site could not be compared as it was built after the 200811 data was obtained (table 13).12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
53 | P a g e Sites 2008 2013 Difference PRC 1 vs PRC 2 1.00 1.00 0.00 PRC 1 vs PRC 3 0.56 0.50 -0.06 PRC 1 vs PRC 4 0.50 0.50 0.00 PRC 1 vs PRC 5 0.20 0.75 0.55 PRC 1 vs PRC 6 n/a 0.50 n/a PRC 2 vs PRC 3 0.56 0.50 -0.06 PRC 2 vs PRC 4 0.50 0.50 0.00 PRC 2 vs PRC 5 0.20 0.75 0.55 PRC 2 vs PRC 6 n/a 0.50 n/a PRC 3 vs PRC 4 0.60 0.67 0.07 PRC 3 vs PRC 5 0.11 0.60 0.49 PRC 3 vs PRC 6 n/a 0.40 n/a PRC 4 vs PRC 5 0.14 0.60 0.46 PRC 4 vs PRC 6 n/a 0.40 n/a PRC 5 vs PRC 6 n/a 0.67 n/a Jaccard’s Coefficient of Community Similarity 2008 & 2013 Table 13: Comparing Jaccard’s Coefficient of Community Similarity in years 2008 and 2013 by1 site. Pierce Marsh.2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 DISCUSSION17 The reference site had a high Spartina alterniflora importance value, a moderate species18 richness value, a high Shannon Diversity Index, and a high Pielou’s Index of Evenness in 2013. It19 also demonstrated stability of these values over time. The data comparing 2008 and 201320 showed that all of the above mentioned parameters were significantly similar over this time21 period. The Spartina alterniflora importance value decreased only 0.90%, the species richness22 was unchanged, the Shannon Diversity Index increased by 0.07, and the Pielou’s Index of23
54 | P a g e Evenness increased by 0.15. This data indicates that the reference site was healthy and stable,1 which provided an excellent comparison site.2 Overall, the five restored sites fell short of showing significant similarities to the3 reference site over the majority of the compared parameters; Spartina alterniflora importance4 value, species richness, Shannon Diversity Index, and Pielou’s Index of Evenness. In fact, each5 parameter had only one site that showed significant similarities to the reference site.6 Additionally, some sites showed trends overtime that if continued, will result in the degradation7 of the sites.8 The two sites of most concern are the grid site, built in 1999, and the sinusoidal site9 built in 2001. The grid site had a Spartina alterniflora importance value significantly lower than10 the reference site. It was significantly lower in 2008 as well and dropped even further in 2013.11 Its relative frequency was significantly lower as well; however, its relative coverage was12 extremely low. As the Spartina alterniflora decreased at this site, sea-ox-eye-daisy, Borrichia13 frutescens, and saltwort, Batis maritina, colonized the site and became the species’ of14 importance. Its mean species richness value and Shannon Diversity Index were significantly15 similar to the reference site; however, it had significantly fallen from 2008 to 2013. The site’s16 Pielou’s Index of Evenness was significantly lower than the reference site’s. Its value was stable17 over time; however, the reference site’s evenness value increased, creating a significant gap.18 The Jaccard’s Coefficient of Community Similarity between the reference site and the grid site19 showed a moderate similarity between the two sites; this similarity fell slightly from 2008.20 Empirically, this site’s berms were visibly thinner than the other sites and their elevation21 appeared to be lower, although measurements were not taken, so they were being inundated22
55 | P a g e with water for longer periods than the other sites. The significant differences between the grid1 site and the reference site in 2013, the trend of the values dropping and the differences2 becoming greater between 2008 and 2013, along with the empirical data, point to a trend that3 this site was degrading over time.4 The sinusoidal site, two years younger than the grid site, also had a Spartina alterniflora5 importance value significantly lower than the reference site. It was significantly lower in 20086 as well and dropped even further in 2013. Its relative frequency was significantly lower as well;7 however, its relative coverage was extremely low. As the Spartina alterniflora decreased at this8 site, saltwort, Batis maritina, colonized the site and became the species of importance. Its9 mean species richness value was significantly higher than the reference site and was stable over10 time. The Shannon Diversity Index was significantly lower than the reference site’s and had11 significantly fallen from 2008 to 2013. The site’s Pielou’s Index of Evenness was significantly12 lower than the reference site’s and had decreased significantly over time. The Jaccard’s13 Coefficient of Community Similarity between the reference site and the sinusoidal site showed14 a moderate similarity between the two sites and was stable from 2008. The Jaccard’s15 Coefficient of Community Similarity between the grid site and the sinusoidal site increased16 slightly over time. These were the only sites that showed and increase during this time with the17 exception of the beneficial uses site which showed and increase to all of the sites and will be18 discussed later. Empirically, this site’s berms were visibly thinner than the other sites, including19 the grid site, although measurements were not taken. The berms were so thin and fragile that20 extra caution had to be used when collecting data as to no further damage the berms. Their21 elevation appeared to be lower, although measurements were not taken, so they were being22
56 | P a g e inundated with water for longer periods than the other sites. The significant differences1 between the grid site and the reference site in 2013, the trend of the values dropping and the2 differences becoming greater between 2008 and 2013, along with the empirical data, point to a3 trend that this site was degrading over time as well.4 The 2004 zig zag site, five years younger than the grid site, also had a Spartina5 alterniflora importance value significantly lower than the reference site. It was significantly6 similar in 2008; however, it dropped significantly since 2013. Its relative frequency was7 significantly similar; however, its relative coverage was extremely low. As the Spartina8 alterniflora has decreased in numbers at this site, saltwort, Batis maritina, has increased and9 has a slightly higher importance value than Spartina alterniflora. Its mean species richness10 value was significantly similar to the reference site and had increased slightly over time. The11 Shannon Diversity Index was significantly lower than the reference site’s but had significantly12 increased from 2008 to 2013. The site’s Pielou’s Index of Evenness was significantly lower than13 the reference site’s but had also significantly increased over time. The Jaccard’s Coefficient of14 Community Similarity between the reference site and the 2004 zig zag site was extremely high15 in 2008 and 2013. The 1.0 Jaccard’s Coefficient of Community Similarity between the16 reference site and the 2004 zig zag site could be deceiving as it was only measuring the17 existence or nonexistence of species. The two sites had species in common but the significant18 difference in Spartina alterniflora relative coverage, and therefore importance value, as well as19 the significant difference in diversity and evenness measures, assured that these sites are not20 entirely similar. The Jaccard’s Coefficient of Community Similarity between the 2004 zig zag21 and the gird site showed a moderate similarity between the two sites; this similarity fell slightly22
57 | P a g e from 2008, just as it did between the reference site and the grid site. The Jaccard’s Coefficient1 of Community Similarity between the 2004 zig zag and the sinusoidal site also showed a2 moderate similarity between the two sites; this similarity was stable over time. Empirically, this3 site’s berms were visibly wider than the grid and sinusoidal berms, although measurements4 were not taken. Their elevation appeared to be higher as well, although measurements were5 not taken, allowing the higher areas of the berm more opportunity to dry out between high6 tides. The significant differences between the 2004 zig zag site and the reference site in 20137 were not positive signs for this site; however, the trend of the mean species richness, Shannon8 Diversity Index and the Pielou’s Index of Evenness values increasing between 2008 and 2013,9 along with the positive Jaccard’s Coefficient of Community Similarity between this site and the10 reference site as well as the empirical data, indicate that this site was healthier than the grid11 and sinusoidal sites and may continue the trend. If the Spartina alterniflora coverage begins to12 increase at this site, it will be on its way to replicating the reference site.13 The beneficial uses site, built in 2005, was six years younger than the grid site, and is the14 only site built in a large area from dredge material rather than in terraced berms. It was the15 only site that had a Spartina alterniflora importance value significantly similar to the reference16 site. Its relative frequency and relative coverage were significantly similar as well. It was17 significantly higher in 2008; however, it dropped significantly since 2013 to bring it in line with18 the reference site. Its mean species richness value was slightly lower than the reference site19 but had increased significantly over time. The Shannon Diversity Index was significantly lower20 than the reference site’s but had also significantly increased from 2008 to 2013. The site’s21 Pielou’s Index of Evenness was slightly lower than the reference site’s but had dramatically22
58 | P a g e increased over time. The Jaccard’s Coefficient of Community Similarity between the reference1 site and the beneficial uses site was low in 2008, 0.20, and high, 0.75, in 2013. The Jaccard’s2 Coefficient of Community Similarity between this site and all of the other sites had increases as3 well, ranging between 0.46 and 0.55. The beneficial uses site had only Spartina alterniflora as4 an inhabitant in 2008, so the addition of creeping glasswort, Salicornia virginica, and saltwort,5 Batis maritima, over the five-year-period increased its similarity to all of the sites. Empirically,6 this site looked much like the reference site. It had much more surface area than the other7 sites and was high enough to dry out between high tides. There were significant differences8 between the beneficial uses site and the reference site in 2013; however, it was the one site9 that had a significantly similar Spartina alterniflora importance value, along with significantly10 similar relative coverage and frequency values. The trend of the mean species richness,11 Shannon Diversity Index and the Pielou’s Index of Evenness values increasing significantly12 between 2008 and 2013, along with the positive Jaccard’s Coefficient of Community Similarity13 between this site and the reference site as well as the empirical data, indicate that this site was14 healthier than the grid and sinusoidal sites and may continue the trend. The beneficial uses site15 had a significantly higher Spartina alterniflora importance value and was significantly similar in16 mean species richness, Shannon Diversity Index and Pielou’s Index of Evenness when compared17 to the 2004 zig zag site. This indicates that this site was healthier than the 2004 zig zag site and18 most closely replicated the reference site.19 The 2009 zig zag site, ten years younger than the grid site, also had a Spartina20 alterniflora importance value significantly lower than the reference site. Its relative frequency21 was significantly similar; however, its relative coverage was extremely low. This site was built a22
59 | P a g e year after the 2008 data was collected so data for trends was not available. Its mean species1 richness value and Shannon Diversity Index were significantly lower than the reference site. The2 site’s Pielou’s Index of Evenness was significantly similar to the reference sites. The Jaccard’s3 Coefficient of Community Similarity between the reference site and the 2009 zig zag site was4 moderate, 0.50. The two zig zag sites had a moderate Jaccard’s Coefficient of Community5 Similarity as well, 0.50. However, it had lower similarity values when compared to the grid and6 sinusoidal sites. Empirically, this site’s berms were visibly similar to the 2004 zig zag berms in7 width and height, although measurements were not taken. One visible difference was the8 highest section of the berms had not become completely vegetated yet; however, overall, the9 bare ground values for the zig zag sites were similar. The significant differences between the10 2009 zig zag site and the reference site in 2013 were not positive signs for this site. However,11 this site shows some strong similarities to the 2004 zig zag site. Its Spartina alterniflora12 importance value, relative frequency and coverage are all significantly similar. The 2004 site13 showed positive trends between 2008 and 2013 in mean species richness, Shannon Diversity14 Index and the Pielou’s Index of Evenness values. Additionally, the 2009 zig zag site had a higher15 Jaccard’s Coefficient of Community Similarity when compared to the reference site and the16 2004 site than when compared to the grid and sinusoidal sites. This information as well as the17 empirical data, indicate that this site was similar to the 2004 zig zag site and was healthier than18 the grid and sinusoidal sites and may continue the trend. Like the 2004 zig zag site, if the19 Spartina alterniflora coverage begins to increase at this site, it will be on its way to replicating20 the reference site.21
60 | P a g e If reconstructed marshes develop as expected, the older reconstructed marshes will1 have higher Spartina alterniflora coverage and importance values. In 2008, Howard and2 Dobberstine found that restoration design affected the Spartina alterniflora coverage more3 than the age of the site. However, the 2013 data suggested as the sites got older their Spartina4 alterniflora coverages decreased. This was the opposite of what would be expected if the5 reconstructed marshes were performing better over time. These trends could be pointing to6 the older sites degrading, as was the case with the grid and sinusoidal sites. Both zig zag sites7 and the beneficial uses site are clearly out-performing the older sites. It was impossible with8 the available data to determine if these differences are due to their designs or their age. The9 data collected at these sites in 2018 will give further information about the trajectory of these10 sites. It will be interesting to know how the zig zag sites and the beneficial uses sites perform11 and whether the grid and sinusoidal sites will be there at all.12 A few words about error: Using an estimation of percent coverage to obtain importance13 values could be somewhat unreliable when comparing years. A different person determined14 the percent coverage in 2008 than did in 2013. While the principal investigators remained the15 same and therefore aided in identifying the plant species with consistence and gave consistent16 instructions on how to determine plant coverage, the estimation of coverage could still be a17 cause of error. The fact that the data obtained in 2008 and 2013 for the reference site18 remained stable and consistent for all parameters; Spartina alterniflora importance values,19 species richness, Shannon Diversity Index, and Pielou’s Index of Evenness was an excellent20 indicator that this error did not occur. Additionally, the percent of detritus material was not21
61 | P a g e estimated for the 2008 data but was included in the 2013 data. The change in technique could1 have an impact on the coverage values and therefore the importance values.2 Data will be collected at Pierce Marsh next in 2018. Keeping the overall techniques3 consistent with those used in 2013 will be vital in assuring the data will be reliable to compare4 the sites throughout the years. Adding the measurement of berm widths would be a valuable5 addition to the data. Smaller terraced berms could be measured manually in the field. Larger6 terraced berms or the dredge material sites could be measured using geographic information7 system, GIS, technology.8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
62 | P a g e Literature Cited1 Brower, J.E., J,H. Zar, C.N. von Ende. 1998. Field and Laboratory Methods for General Ecology.2 4th Edition. McGraw Hill, Massachusetts.3 Caldwell, P.A., G.A. Matthews, and T.J. Minello. 2004. A habitat-use model to determine4 essential fish habitat for juvenile brown shrimp (Farfantepenaeus aztecus) in Galveston5 Bay, Texas. Fishery Bulletin, April 2004.6 Costanza, R., R. de Groot, P. Sutton, S. van der Ploeg, S. J. Anderson, I. Kniszewski, S. Farber,7 R.K. Turner. 2014. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global8 Environmental Change. 26: 152-158.9 Craft, C., J. Reader, J.N. Sacco, S.W. Broome. 1999. Twenty-five years of ecosystem10 development of constructed Spartina alterniflora (Loisel) marshes. Ecological11 Applications 9(4): 1405-141912 Craft, C., P. Megonigal, S. Broome, J. Stevenson, R. Freese, J. Cornell, L. Zheng, and J. Sacco.13 2003. The pace of ecosystem development of constructed Spartina alterniflora14 marshes. Ecological Applications. 13(5):1417-1432.15 Cullinan, M., N. LaBella, and M. Schott. 2004. Salt marshes – A valuable ecosystem. The16 Traprock. 3:20-2317 Davis, C. 1998. Marine Botany, Second Edition. John Wiley and Sons, NY, NY. pp 496.18 Galveston Bay Foundation. Pierce Marsh Fact Sheet. www.galvbay.org19 Gossman, B.P. 2000. Thesis: Use of terraced marsh habitats by estuarine nekton in20 Southwestern Louisiana. Louisiana State University. pp 59.21 Greenberg, R., J.E. Maldonado, S. Droege, and M.V. McDonald. 2006. Tidal Marshes: A global22
63 | P a g e perspective on the evolution and conservation of their terrestrial vertebrates.1 Bioscience. 56(8) 675-685.2 Howard, C. L. and J.A. Dobberstine. 2008. Science based monitoring of created and restored3 habitat within the Galveston Bay system. Coastal Management Program of the Texas4 General Land Office and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.5 Contract number 07-005-11. 20 pp.6 Lester, J., and L. Gonzales (eds.). 2002. The state of the bay: Characterization of the Galveston7 Bay Ecosystem. 2nd Edition. The Galveston Bay Estuary Program. Galveston, Texas.8 Mendelssohn, I.A., and J.T. Morris. 2002. Eco-Physiological Controls on the Productivity of9 Spartina alterniflora Loisel. Concepts and Controversies in Tidal Marsh Ecology. pp 59-10 8011 Merino, J.H., L.P. Rozas, T.J. Minello, and P.F. Sheridan. 2010. Effects of marsh terracing on12 nekton abundance at two locations in Galveston Bay, Texas. Wetlands. 30:693-704.13 Rozas, L.P. and T.J. Minello, 2001. Marsh terracing as a wetland restoration tool for creating14 fishery habitat. Wetlands. 21(3) 327-341.15 Shafer, D.J. and W.J. Streever. 2000. A comparison of 28 natural and dredged material salt16 marshes in Texas with an emphasis on geomorphological variables. Wetland Ecology17 and Management. 8:353-366.18 Stokes, B. 2014. Blue ribbon resilient communities: Texas – Challendges/Opportunities.19 Galveston Bay Foundation.20 Streeter, W.J. 2000. Spartina alterniflora marshes on dredge material: a critical review of the21 ongoing debate over success. Wetlands Ecology Management. 8: 295-316.22
64 | P a g e Whaley, S.D. and T.J. Minello. 2002. The distribution of bethic infauna of a Texas salt marsh in1 relation to marsh edge. Wetlands. 22(4):753-766.2 White, W.A., T.A. Tremblay, E.G. Wermund Jr., and L.R. Handley. 1993. Trends and status of3 wetland and aquatic habitats in the Galveston Bay System, Texas. Galveston Bay4 National Estuary Program, Report GBEP-31. 225 pp.5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
65 | P a g e Appendices1 Appendix I: Importance values calculations by site for 2008. Pierce Marsh.2 3 4 5 6 PRC 1 - Reference Site Species (i) Number of plots sampled Present in # plots (ji) Frequen cy (fi) Relative Frequen cy (RFi) Relative Coverag e (RCi) Importa nce Value (IVi) Bare ground 18 18 1.000 0.310 0.308 0.619 Detritis Spartina alterniflora 18 18 1.000 0.310 0.411 0.721 Salicornia virginica 18 6 0.333 0.103 0.044 0.148 Salicornia bigelovii 18 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Batis maritima 18 11 0.611 0.190 0.189 0.379 Aster tenuifolius 18 4 0.222 0.069 0.042 0.111 Borrichia frutescens 18 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Distichlis spicata 18 1 0.056 0.017 0.006 0.023 Cuscuta salina 18 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Iva frutescens 18 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Lycium carolinianum 18 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Sesuvium portulacastrum 18 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Solidago sempervirens 18 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Suaeda linearis 18 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Totals 3.22 1.00 1.00 2.00 Ʃf=3.22 ƩRF=1.0 ƩRC=1.0 ƩIV=2.0 Importance Value Calculations 2008 Not measured
66 | P a g e 1 2 3 4 5 6 PRC 2 - Zig Zag 2004 Species (i) Number of plots sampled Present in # plots (ji) Frequen cy (fi) Relative Frequen cy (RFi) Relative Coverag e (RCi) Importa nce Value (IVi) Bare ground 18 18 1.000 0.375 0.647 1.022 Detritis Spartina alterniflora 18 18 1.000 0.375 0.306 0.681 Salicornia virginica 18 6 0.333 0.125 0.015 0.140 Salicornia bigelovii 18 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Batis maritima 18 2 0.111 0.042 0.016 0.057 Aster tenuifolius 18 3 0.167 0.063 0.011 0.074 Borrichia frutescens 18 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Distichlis spicata 18 1 0.056 0.021 0.006 0.026 Cuscuta salina 18 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Iva frutescens 18 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Lycium carolinianum 18 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Sesuvium portulacastrum 18 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Solidago sempervirens 18 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Suaeda linearis 18 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Totals 2.67 1.00 1.00 2.00 Ʃf=2.67 ƩRF=1.0 ƩRC=1.0 ƩIV=2.0 Importance Value Calculations 2008 Not measured
67 | P a g e 1 2 3 4 5 6 PRC 3 - Grid 1999 Species (i) Number of plots sampled Present in # plots (ji) Frequen cy (fi) Relative Frequen cy (RFi) Relative Coverag e (RCi) Importa nce Value (IVi) Bare ground 18 18 1.000 0.234 0.542 0.776 Detritis Spartina alterniflora 18 18 1.000 0.234 0.082 0.315 Salicornia virginica 18 2 0.111 0.026 0.056 0.082 Salicornia bigelovii 18 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Batis maritima 18 9 0.500 0.117 0.043 0.160 Aster tenuifolius 18 12 0.667 0.156 0.166 0.322 Borrichia frutescens 18 8 0.444 0.104 0.049 0.153 Distichlis spicata 18 1 0.056 0.013 0.008 0.021 Cuscuta salina 18 1 0.056 0.013 0.006 0.019 Iva frutescens 18 4 0.222 0.052 0.025 0.077 Lycium carolinianum 18 1 0.056 0.013 0.001 0.014 Sesuvium portulacastrum 18 1 0.056 0.013 0.001 0.014 Solidago sempervirens 18 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Suaeda linearis 18 2 0.111 0.026 0.014 0.040 Totals 4.28 1.00 0.99 1.99 Ʃf=4.28 ƩRF=1.0 ƩRC=1.0 ƩIV=2.0 Importance Value Calculations 2008 Not measured
68 | P a g e 1 2 3 4 5 6 PRC 4 - Sinusoidal 2001 Species (i) Number of plots sampled Present in # plots (ji) Frequen cy (fi) Relative Frequen cy (RFi) Relative Coverag e (RCi) Importa nce Value (IVi) Bare ground 18 18 1.000 0.273 0.509 0.782 Detritis Spartina alterniflora 18 18 1.000 0.273 0.141 0.414 Salicornia virginica 18 11 0.611 0.167 0.169 0.336 Salicornia bigelovii 18 2 0.111 0.030 0.006 0.036 Batis maritima 18 4 0.222 0.061 0.022 0.083 Aster tenuifolius 18 10 0.556 0.152 0.133 0.285 Borrichia frutescens 18 1 0.056 0.015 0.003 0.018 Distichlis spicata 18 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Cuscuta salina 18 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Iva frutescens 18 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Lycium carolinianum 18 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Sesuvium portulacastrum 18 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Solidago sempervirens 18 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Suaeda linearis 18 2 0.111 0.030 0.017 0.047 Totals 3.67 1.00 1.00 2.00 Ʃf=3.67 ƩRF=1.0 ƩRC=1.0 ƩIV=2.0 Not measured Importance Value Calculations 2008
69 | P a g e 1 2 3 4 5 6 PRC 5 - Beneficial Uses 2005 Species (i) Number of plots sampled Present in # plots (ji) Frequen cy (fi) Relative Frequen cy (RFi) Relative Coverag e (RCi) Importa nce Value (IVi) Bare ground 12 12 1.000 0.500 0.500 1.000 Detritis Spartina alterniflora 12 12 1.000 0.500 0.500 1.000 Salicornia virginica 12 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Salicornia bigelovii 12 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Batis maritima 12 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Aster tenuifolius 12 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Borrichia frutescens 12 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Distichlis spicata 12 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Cuscuta salina 12 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Iva frutescens 12 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Lycium carolinianum 12 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Sesuvium portulacastrum 12 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Solidago sempervirens 12 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Suaeda linearis 12 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Totals 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 Ʃf=2.00 ƩRF=1.0 ƩRC=1.0 ƩIV=2.0 Not measured Importance Value Calculations 2008
70 | P a g e Appendix II: Importance values calculations by site for 2013. Pierce Marsh.1 2 3 4 5 6 PRC 1 - Reference Site Species (i) Number of plots sampled Present in # plots (ji) Frequen cy (fi) Relative Frequen cy (RFi) Relative Coverag e (RCi) Importa nce Value (IVi) Bare ground 9 9 1.000 0.243 0.071 0.314 Detritis 9 8 0.889 0.216 0.039 0.255 Spartina alterniflora 9 9 1.000 0.243 0.469 0.712 Salicornia virginica 9 4 0.444 0.108 0.118 0.226 Salicornia bigelovii 9 1 0.111 0.027 0.022 0.049 Batis maritima 9 6 0.667 0.162 0.281 0.443 Aster tenuifolius 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Borrichia frutescens 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Distichlis spicata 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Cuscuta salina 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Iva frutescens 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Lycium carolinianum 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Sesuvium portulacastrum 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Solidago sempervirens 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Suaeda linearis 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Totals 4.11 1.00 1.00 2.00 Ʃf=4.11 ƩRF=1.0 ƩRC=1.0 ƩIV=2.0 Importance Value Calculations 2013
71 | P a g e 1 2 3 4 5 6 PRC 2 - Zig Zag 2004 Species (i) Number of plots sampled Present in # plots (ji) Frequen cy (fi) Relative Frequen cy (RFi) Relative Coverag e (RCi) Importa nce Value (IVi) Bare ground 9 9 1.000 0.243 0.494 0.738 Detritis 9 9 1.000 0.243 0.114 0.358 Spartina alterniflora 9 9 1.000 0.243 0.106 0.349 Salicornia virginica 9 3 0.333 0.081 0.050 0.131 Salicornia bigelovii 9 1 0.111 0.027 0.028 0.055 Batis maritima 9 6 0.667 0.162 0.208 0.370 Aster tenuifolius 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Borrichia frutescens 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Distichlis spicata 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Cuscuta salina 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Iva frutescens 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Lycium carolinianum 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Sesuvium portulacastrum 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Solidago sempervirens 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Suaeda linearis 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Totals 4.11 1.00 1.00 2.00 Ʃf=4.11 ƩRF=1.0 ƩRC=1.0 ƩIV=2.0 Importance Value Calculations 2013
72 | P a g e 1 2 3 4 5 6 PRC 3 - Grid 1999 Species (i) Number of plots sampled Present in # plots (ji) Frequen cy (fi) Relative Frequen cy (RFi) Relative Coverag e (RCi) Importa nce Value (IVi) Bare ground 9 9 1.000 0.220 0.321 0.541 Detritis 9 8 0.889 0.195 0.151 0.346 Spartina alterniflora 9 5 0.556 0.122 0.018 0.140 Salicornia virginica 9 2 0.222 0.049 0.004 0.053 Salicornia bigelovii 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Batis maritima 9 5 0.556 0.122 0.167 0.289 Aster tenuifolius 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Borrichia frutescens 9 8 0.889 0.195 0.291 0.486 Distichlis spicata 9 3 0.333 0.073 0.047 0.120 Cuscuta salina 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Iva frutescens 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Lycium carolinianum 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Sesuvium portulacastrum 9 1 0.111 0.024 0.001 0.026 Solidago sempervirens 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Suaeda linearis 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Totals 4.56 1.00 1.00 2.00 Ʃf=4.56 ƩRF=1.0 ƩRC=1.0 ƩIV=2.0 Importance Value Calculations 2013
73 | P a g e 1 2 3 4 5 6 PRC 4 - Sinusoidal 2001 Species (i) Number of plots sampled Present in # plots (ji) Frequen cy (fi) Relative Frequen cy (RFi) Relative Coverag e (RCi) Importa nce Value (IVi) Bare ground 9 9 1.000 0.250 0.311 0.561 Detritis 9 5 0.556 0.139 0.026 0.164 Spartina alterniflora 9 6 0.667 0.167 0.024 0.191 Salicornia virginica 9 5 0.556 0.139 0.031 0.170 Salicornia bigelovii 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Batis maritima 9 9 1.000 0.250 0.549 0.799 Aster tenuifolius 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Borrichia frutescens 9 1 0.111 0.028 0.028 0.056 Distichlis spicata 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Cuscuta salina 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Iva frutescens 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Lycium carolinianum 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Sesuvium portulacastrum 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Solidago sempervirens 9 1 0.111 0.028 0.031 0.059 Suaeda linearis 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Totals 4.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 Ʃf=4.00 ƩRF=1.0 ƩRC=1.0 ƩIV=2.0 Importance Value Calculations 2013
74 | P a g e 1 2 3 4 5 6 PRC 5 - Beneficial Uses 2005 Species (i) Number of plots sampled Present in # plots (ji) Frequen cy (fi) Relative Frequen cy (RFi) Relative Coverag e (RCi) Importa nce Value (IVi) Bare ground 9 9 1.000 0.273 0.311 0.584 Detritis 9 9 1.000 0.273 0.236 0.508 Spartina alterniflora 9 9 1.000 0.273 0.337 0.609 Salicornia virginica 9 5 0.556 0.152 0.094 0.246 Salicornia bigelovii 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Batis maritima 9 1 0.111 0.030 0.022 0.053 Aster tenuifolius 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Borrichia frutescens 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Distichlis spicata 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Cuscuta salina 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Iva frutescens 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Lycium carolinianum 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Sesuvium portulacastrum 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Solidago sempervirens 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Suaeda linearis 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Totals 3.67 1.00 1.00 2.00 Ʃf=3.67 ƩRF=1.0 ƩRC=1.0 ƩIV=2.0 Importance Value Calculations 2013
75 | P a g e 1 2 3 4 5 6 PRC 6 - Zig Zag 2009 Species (i) Number of plots sampled Present in # plots (ji) Frequen cy (fi) Relative Frequen cy (RFi) Relative Coverag e (RCi) Importa nce Value (IVi) Bare ground 9 8 0.889 0.258 0.418 0.676 Detritis 9 9 1.000 0.290 0.206 0.496 Spartina alterniflora 9 8 0.889 0.258 0.071 0.329 Salicornia virginica 9 6 0.667 0.194 0.306 0.499 Salicornia bigelovii 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Batis maritima 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Aster tenuifolius 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Borrichia frutescens 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Distichlis spicata 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Cuscuta salina 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Iva frutescens 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Lycium carolinianum 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Sesuvium portulacastrum 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Solidago sempervirens 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Suaeda linearis 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Totals 3.44 1.00 1.00 2.00 Ʃf=3.44 ƩRF=1.0 ƩRC=1.0 ƩIV=2.0 Importance Value Calculations 2013
76 | P a g e Appendix III: Mean species richness calculations by site. 2008. Pierce Marsh.1 2 3 4 Year Site Code Site Number Type Trans Stat spp rich 2008 PRC 1 REF A 1 2 Column1 2008 PRC 1 REF A 2 3 2008 PRC 1 REF A 3 2 Mean 2.222222222 2008 PRC 1 REF B 1 1 Standard Error 0.172553971 2008 PRC 1 REF B 2 3 Median 2 2008 PRC 1 REF B 3 2 Mode 2 2008 PRC 1 REF C 1 3 Standard Deviation 0.732084498 2008 PRC 1 REF C 2 3 Sample Variance 0.535947712 2008 PRC 1 REF C 3 2 Kurtosis -0.905621654 2008 PRC 1 REF A 1 2 Skewness -0.383135834 2008 PRC 1 REF A 2 1 Range 2 2008 PRC 1 REF A 3 1 Minimum 1 2008 PRC 1 REF B 1 3 Maximum 3 2008 PRC 1 REF B 2 3 Sum 40 2008 PRC 1 REF B 3 2 Count 18 2008 PRC 1 REF C 1 3 2008 PRC 1 REF C 2 2 2008 PRC 1 REF C 3 2 2008 PRC 2 ZIG A 1 1 2008 PRC 2 ZIG A 2 2 Column1 2008 PRC 2 ZIG A 3 1 2008 PRC 2 ZIG B 1 1 Mean 1.666666667 2008 PRC 2 ZIG B 2 1 Standard Error 0.180775382 2008 PRC 2 ZIG B 3 1 Median 1.5 2008 PRC 2 ZIG C 1 1 Mode 1 2008 PRC 2 ZIG C 2 2 Standard Deviation 0.766964989 2008 PRC 2 ZIG C 3 2 Sample Variance 0.588235294 2008 PRC 2 ZIG A 1 1 Kurtosis -0.867 2008 PRC 2 ZIG A 2 3 Skewness 0.684516253 2008 PRC 2 ZIG A 3 2 Range 2 2008 PRC 2 ZIG B 1 3 Minimum 1 2008 PRC 2 ZIG B 2 3 Maximum 3 2008 PRC 2 ZIG B 3 1 Sum 30 2008 PRC 2 ZIG C 1 1 Count 18 2008 PRC 2 ZIG C 2 2 2008 PRC 2 ZIG C 3 2 2008 PRC 3 GRD A 1 3 Column1 2008 PRC 3 GRD A 2 3 2008 PRC 3 GRD A 3 2 Mean 3.333333333 2008 PRC 3 GRD B 1 3 Standard Error 0.255654996 2008 PRC 3 GRD B 2 3 Median 3 2008 PRC 3 GRD B 3 3 Mode 3 2008 PRC 3 GRD C 1 6 Standard Deviation 1.084652289 2008 PRC 3 GRD C 2 3 Sample Variance 1.176470588 2008 PRC 3 GRD C 3 4 Kurtosis 0.99025 2008 PRC 3 GRD A 1 3 Skewness 1.106345335 2008 PRC 3 GRD A 2 4 Range 4 2008 PRC 3 GRD A 3 3 Minimum 2 2008 PRC 3 GRD B 1 2 Maximum 6 2008 PRC 3 GRD B 2 5 Sum 60 2008 PRC 3 GRD B 3 3 Count 18 2008 PRC 3 GRD C 1 2 2008 PRC 3 GRD C 2 5 2008 PRC 3 GRD C 3 3
77 | P a g e 1 2 3 Appendix IV: Mean species richness calculations by site. 2013. Pierce Marsh.4 5 6 7 8 2008 PRC 4 SIN A 1 2 Column1 2008 PRC 4 SIN A 2 2 2008 PRC 4 SIN A 3 3 Mean 2.777777778 2008 PRC 4 SIN B 1 4 Standard Error 0.286465451 2008 PRC 4 SIN B 2 5 Median 2.5 2008 PRC 4 SIN B 3 3 Mode 2 2008 PRC 4 SIN C 1 2 Standard Deviation 1.215369978 2008 PRC 4 SIN C 2 3 Sample Variance 1.477124183 2008 PRC 4 SIN C 3 2 Kurtosis -0.615283108 2008 PRC 4 SIN A 1 1 Skewness 0.476929683 2008 PRC 4 SIN A 2 2 Range 4 2008 PRC 4 SIN A 3 2 Minimum 1 2008 PRC 4 SIN B 1 1 Maximum 5 2008 PRC 4 SIN B 2 4 Sum 50 2008 PRC 4 SIN B 3 4 Count 18 2008 PRC 4 SIN C 1 3 2008 PRC 4 SIN C 2 5 2008 PRC 4 SIN C 3 2 2008 PRC 5 UNC A 1 1 Column1 2008 PRC 5 UNC A 2 1 2008 PRC 5 UNC A 3 1 Mean 1 2008 PRC 5 UNC B 1 1 Standard Error 0 2008 PRC 5 UNC B 2 1 Median 1 2008 PRC 5 UNC B 3 1 Mode 1 2008 PRC 5 UNC A 1 1 Minimum 1 2008 PRC 5 UNC A 2 1 Maximum 1 2008 PRC 5 UNC A 3 1 Sum 12 2008 PRC 5 UNC B 1 1 Count 12 2008 PRC 5 UNC B 2 1 Range 0 2008 PRC 5 UNC B 3 1 2013 PRC 1 REF A 1 2 Column1 2013 PRC 1 REF A 2 2 2013 PRC 1 REF A 3 2 Mean 2.222222222 2013 PRC 1 REF B 1 2 Standard Error 0.146986184 2013 PRC 1 REF B 2 2 Median 2 2013 PRC 1 REF B 3 3 Mode 2 2013 PRC 1 REF C 1 3 Standard Deviation 0.440958552 2013 PRC 1 REF C 2 2 Sample Variance 0.194444444 2013 PRC 1 REF C 3 2 Kurtosis 0.734693878 Skewness 1.619847741 Range 1 Minimum 2 Maximum 3 Sum 20 Count 9
78 | P a g e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2013 PRC 2 ZIG1 A 1 2 Column1 2013 PRC 2 ZIG1 A 2 2 2013 PRC 2 ZIG1 A 3 1 Mean 2.111111111 2013 PRC 2 ZIG1 B 1 2 Standard Error 0.200308404 2013 PRC 2 ZIG1 B 2 2 Median 2 2013 PRC 2 ZIG1 B 3 3 Mode 2 2013 PRC 2 ZIG1 C 1 3 Standard Deviation 0.600925213 2013 PRC 2 ZIG1 C 2 2 Sample Variance 0.361111111 2013 PRC 2 ZIG1 C 3 2 Kurtosis 1.125950972 Skewness 0.01828682 Range 2 Minimum 1 Maximum 3 Sum 19 Count 9 2013 PRC 3 GRD A 1 2 Column1 2013 PRC 3 GRD A 2 2 2013 PRC 3 GRD A 3 2 Mean 2.666666667 2013 PRC 3 GRD B 1 3 Standard Error 0.372677996 2013 PRC 3 GRD B 2 4 Median 2 2013 PRC 3 GRD B 3 4 Mode 2 2013 PRC 3 GRD C 1 4 Standard Deviation 1.118033989 2013 PRC 3 GRD C 2 1 Sample Variance 1.25 2013 PRC 3 GRD C 3 2 Kurtosis -1.485714286 Skewness 0.153330376 Range 3 Minimum 1 Maximum 4 Sum 24 Count 9 2013 PRC 4 SIN A 1 2 Column1 2013 PRC 4 SIN A 2 3 2013 PRC 4 SIN A 3 2 Mean 2.888888889 2013 PRC 4 SIN B 1 3 Standard Error 0.200308404 2013 PRC 4 SIN B 2 3 Median 3 2013 PRC 4 SIN B 3 3 Mode 3 2013 PRC 4 SIN C 1 3 Standard Deviation 0.600925213 2013 PRC 4 SIN C 2 4 Sample Variance 0.361111111 2013 PRC 4 SIN C 3 3 Kurtosis 1.125950972 Skewness -0.01828682 Range 2 Minimum 2 Maximum 4 Sum 26 Count 9
79 | P a g e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2013 PRC 5 BEN A 1 1 Column1 2013 PRC 5 BEN A 2 1 2013 PRC 5 BEN A 3 1 Mean 1.666666667 2013 PRC 5 BEN B 1 2 Standard Error 0.23570226 2013 PRC 5 BEN B 2 2 Median 2 2013 PRC 5 BEN B 3 2 Mode 1 2013 PRC 5 BEN C 1 2 Standard Deviation 0.707106781 2013 PRC 5 BEN C 2 3 Sample Variance 0.5 2013 PRC 5 BEN C 3 1 Kurtosis -0.285714286 Skewness 0.606091527 Range 2 Minimum 1 Maximum 3 Sum 15 Count 9 2013 PRC 6 ZIG2 A 1 2 Column1 2013 PRC 6 ZIG2 A 2 2 2013 PRC 6 ZIG2 A 3 1 Mean 1.444444444 2013 PRC 6 ZIG2 B 1 1 Standard Error 0.242161052 2013 PRC 6 ZIG2 B 2 2 Median 2 2013 PRC 6 ZIG2 B 3 1 Mode 2 2013 PRC 6 ZIG2 C 1 2 Standard Deviation 0.726483157 2013 PRC 6 ZIG2 C 2 0 Sample Variance 0.527777778 2013 PRC 6 ZIG2 C 3 2 Kurtosis 0.185199842 Skewness -1.014259034 Range 2 Minimum 0 Maximum 2 Sum 13 Count 9
80 | P a g e Appendix V: Shannon Diversity Index and Pielou’s Index of Evenness calculations by site. 2008.1 Pierce Marsh.2 3 4 PRC 1 pi lnpi (pi) (lnpi) Spartina al terniflora Saltwater cord grass 0.411 -0.88916 -0.365 Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort 0.044 -3.12357 -0.137 Salicornia bigelovii Annual glasswort 0 0 0.000 Batis maritima Saltwort 0.189 -1.66601 -0.315 Aster tenuifolius Salt marsh aster 0.042 -3.17009 -0.133 Borrichia frutescens Bushy seaside-tansy 0 0 0.000 Distichlis spicata Coastal salt grass 0.006 -5.116 -0.031 Cuscuta salina Salt marsh dodder 0 0.000 Iva frutescens Jesuit’s-bark 0 0.000 Lycium carolinianum Carolina desert thorn 0 0.000 Sesuvium portulacastrum Sea purslane 0 0.000 Suaeda linearis Annual seepweed 0 0.000 s=5 0.982 H= 0.982 EVENNESS Hmax 1.609438 E =h/Hmax 0.609901 PRC 2 pi lnpi (pi) (lnpi) Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass 0.306 -1.18417 -0.362 Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort 0.015 -4.19971 -0.063 Salicornia bigelovii Annual glasswort 0 0 0.000 Batis maritima Saltwort 0.016 -4.13517 -0.066 Aster tenuifolius Salt marsh aster 0.011 -4.50986 -0.050 Borrichia frutescens Bushy seaside-tansy 0 0 0.000 Distichlis spicata Coastal salt grass 0.006 -5.116 -0.031 Cuscuta salina Salt marsh dodder 0 0 0.000 Iva frutescens Jesuit’s-bark 0 0 0.000 Lycium carolinianum Carolina desert thorn 0 0 0.000 Sesuvium portulacastrum Sea purslane 0 0 0.000 Suaeda linearis Annual seepweed 0 0 0.000 s=5 0.572 H= 0.572 EVENNESS Hmax 1.609438 E =h/Hmax 0.355291
81 | P a g e 1 2 3 4 PRC 3 pi lnpi (pi) (lnpi) Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass 0.082 -2.50104 -0.205 Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort 0.056 -2.8824 -0.161 Salicornia bigelovii Annual glasswort 0 0 0.000 Batis maritima Saltwort 0.043 -3.14656 -0.135 Aster tenuifolius Salt marsh aster 0.166 -1.79577 -0.298 Borrichia frutescens Bushy seaside-tansy 0.049 -3.01593 -0.148 Distichlis spicata Coastal salt grass 0.008 -4.82831 -0.039 Cuscuta salina Salt marsh dodder 0.006 -5.116 -0.031 Iva frutescens Jesuit’s-bark 0.025 -3.68888 -0.092 Lycium carolinianum Carolina desert thorn 0.001 -6.90776 -0.007 Sesuvium portulacastrum Sea purslane 0.001 -6.90776 -0.007 Suaeda linearis Annual seepweed 0.014 -4.2687 -0.060 s=11 1.183 H= 1.183 EVENNESS Hmax 2.397895 E =h/Hmax 0.493266 PRC 4 pi lnpi (pi) (lnpi) Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass 0.141 -1.959 -0.276 Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort 0.169 -1.77786 -0.300 Salicornia bigelovii Annual glasswort 0.006 -5.116 -0.031 Batis maritima Saltwort 0.022 -3.81671 -0.084 Aster tenuifolius Salt marsh aster 0.133 -2.01741 -0.268 Borrichia frutescens Bushy seaside-tansy 0.003 -5.80914 -0.017 Distichlis spicata Coastal salt grass 0 0 0.000 Cuscuta salina Salt marsh dodder 0 0 0.000 Iva frutescens Jesuit’s-bark 0 0 0.000 Lycium carolinianum Carolina desert thorn 0 0 0.000 Sesuvium portulacastrum Sea purslane 0 0 0.000 Suaeda linearis Annual seepweed 0.017 -4.07454 -0.069 s=7 1.046 H=1.046 EVENNESS Hmax 1.94591 E =h/Hmax 0.537717
82 | P a g e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 PRC 5 pi lnpi (pi) (lnpi) Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass 0.5 -0.69315 -0.347 Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort 0 0 0.000 Salicornia bigelovii Annual glasswort 0 0 0.000 Batis maritima Saltwort 0 0 0.000 Aster tenuifolius Salt marsh aster 0 0 0.000 Borrichia frutescens Bushy seaside-tansy 0 0 0.000 Distichlis spicata Coastal salt grass 0 0 0.000 Cuscuta salina Salt marsh dodder 0 0 0.000 Iva frutescens Jesuit’s-bark 0 0 0.000 Lycium carolinianum Carolina desert thorn 0 0 0.000 Sesuvium portulacastrum Sea purslane 0 0 0.000 Suaeda linearis Annual seepweed 0 0.000 s=1 0.347 H= 0.347 EVENNESS Hmax 0 E =h/Hmax #DIV/0!
83 | P a g e Appendix VI: Shannon Diversity Index and Pielou’s Index of Evenness calculations by site. 2013.1 Pierce Marsh.2 3 4 5 6 7 PRC 1 pi lnpi (pi) (lnpi) Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass 0.469 -0.75715 -0.355 Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort 0.118 -2.13707 -0.252 Salicornia bigelovii Annual glasswort 0.022 -3.81671 -0.084 Batis maritima Saltwort 0.281 -1.2694 -0.357 Borrichia frutescens Bushy seaside-tansy 0 0 0.000 Distichlis spicata Coastal salt grass 0 0 0.000 Sesuvium portulacastrum Sea purslane 0 0 0.000 Solidago sempervirens Seaside goldenrod 0 0 0.000 s=4 1.048 H= 1.048 EVENNESS Hmax 1.386294 E =h/Hmax 0.755935 PRC 2 pi lnpi (pi) (lnpi) Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass 0.106 -2.24432 -0.238 Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort 0.050 -2.99573 -0.150 Salicornia bigelovii Annual glasswort 0.028 -3.57555 -0.100 Batis maritima Saltwort 0.208 -1.57022 -0.327 Borrichia frutescens Bushy seaside-tansy 0 0 0.000 Distichlis spicata Coastal salt grass 0 0 0.000 Sesuvium portulacastrum Sea purslane 0 0 0.000 Solidago sempervirens Seaside goldenrod 0 0 0.000 s=4 0.814 H= 0.814 EVENNESS Hmax 1.386294 E =h/Hmax 0.587469
84 | P a g e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 PRC 3 pi lnpi (pi) (lnpi) Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass 0.018 -4.01738 -0.072 Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort 0.004 -5.52146 -0.022 Salicornia bigelovii Annual glasswort 0 0 0.000 Batis maritima Saltwort 0.167 -1.78976 -0.299 Borrichia frutescens Bushy seaside-tansy 0.291 -1.23443 -0.359 Distichlis spicata Coastal salt grass 0.047 -3.05761 -0.144 Sesuvium portulacastrum Sea purslane 0.001 -6.90776 -0.007 Solidago sempervirens Seaside goldenrod 0 0 0.000 s=6 0.903 H= 0.903 EVENNESS Hmax 1.791759 E =h/Hmax 0.504043 PRC 4 pi lnpi (pi) (lnpi) Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass 0.024 -3.7297 -0.090 Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort 0.031 -3.47377 -0.108 Salicornia bigelovii Annual glasswort 0 0 0.000 Batis maritima Saltwort 0.549 -0.59966 -0.329 Borrichia frutescens Bushy seaside-tansy 0.028 -3.57555 -0.100 Distichlis spicata Coastal salt grass 0 0 0.000 Sesuvium portulacastrum Sea purslane 0 0 0.000 Solidago sempervirens Seaside goldenrod 0.031 -3.47377 -0.108 s=5 0.734 H= 0.734 EVENNESS Hmax 1.609438 E =h/Hmax 0.456192
85 | P a g e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 PRC 5 pi lnpi (pi) (lnpi) Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass 0.337 -1.08767 -0.367 Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort 0.094 -2.36446 -0.222 Salicornia bigelovii Annual glasswort 0 0 0.000 Batis maritima Saltwort 0.022 -3.81671 -0.084 Borrichia frutescens Bushy seaside-tansy 0 0 0.000 Distichlis spicata Coastal salt grass 0 0 0.000 Sesuvium portulacastrum Sea purslane 0 0 0.000 Solidago sempervirens Seaside goldenrod 0 0 0.000 s=3 0.673 H= 0.673 EVENNESS Hmax 1.098612 E =h/Hmax 0.612384 PRC 6 pi lnpi (pi) (lnpi) Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass 0.071 -2.64508 -0.188 Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort 0.306 -1.18417 -0.362 Salicornia bigelovii Annual glasswort 0 0 0.000 Batis maritima Saltwort 0 0 0.000 Borrichia frutescens Bushy seaside-tansy 0 0 0.000 Distichlis spicata Coastal salt grass 0 0 0.000 Sesuvium portulacastrum Sea purslane 0 0 0.000 Solidago sempervirens Seaside goldenrod 0 0 0.000 s=2 0.550 H= 0.550 EVENNESS Hmax 0.693147 E =h/Hmax 0.793708
86 | P a g e Appendix VII: Jaccard’s Coefficient of Community Similarity calculation data to compare the1 restored sites. 2008. Pierce Marsh.2 3 4 Jaccard's 5/5=1.0 Scientific name Common name Scientific name Common name Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Batis maritima Saltwort Batis maritima Saltwort Aster tenuifolius Salt marsh aster Aster tenuifolius Salt marsh aster Distichlis spicata Coastal salt grass Distichlis spicata Coastal salt grass S=5 c=5 PRC 1 vs PRC 2 PRC 1 PRC 2 Jaccard's 5/9=0.56 Scientific name Common name Scientific name Common name Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Batis maritima Saltwort Batis maritima Saltwort Aster tenuifolius Salt marsh aster Aster tenuifolius Salt marsh aster Borrichia frutescens Bushy seaside-tansy Distichlis spicata Coastal salt grass Distichlis spicata Coastal salt grass Cuscuta salina Salt marsh dodder S=9 Iva frutescens Jesuit’s-bark c=5 Suaeda linearis Annual seepweed PRC 1 vs PRC 3 PRC 1 PRC 3
87 | P a g e 1 2 Jaccard's 4/8=0.50 Scientific name Common name Scientific name Common name Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Salicornia bigelovii Annual glasswort Batis maritima Saltwort Batis maritima Saltwort Aster tenuifolius Salt marsh aster Aster tenuifolius Salt marsh aster Borrichia frutescens Bushy seaside-tansy Distichlis spicata Coastal salt grass S=8 c=4 Suaeda linearis Annual seepweed PRC 1 vs PRC 4 PRC 1 PRC 4 Jaccard's 1/5=0.20 Scientific name Common name Scientific name Common name Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Batis maritima Saltwort Aster tenuifolius Salt marsh aster Distichlis spicata Coastal salt grass S=5 c=1 PRC 1 PRC 5 PRC 1 vs PRC 5
88 | P a g e 1 2 Jaccard's 5/9=0.56 Scientific name Common name Scientific name Common name Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Batis maritima Saltwort Batis maritima Saltwort Aster tenuifolius Salt marsh aster Aster tenuifolius Salt marsh aster Borrichia frutescens Bushy seaside-tansy Distichlis spicata Coastal salt grass Distichlis spicata Coastal salt grass Cuscuta salina Salt marsh dodder S=9 Iva frutescens Jesuit’s-bark c=5 Suaeda linearis Annual seepweed PRC 2 vs PRC 3 PRC 2 PRC 3 Jaccard's 4/8=0.50 Scientific name Common name Scientific name Common name Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Salicornia bigelovii Annual glasswort Batis maritima Saltwort Batis maritima Saltwort Aster tenuifolius Salt marsh aster Aster tenuifolius Salt marsh aster Borrichia frutescens Bushy seaside-tansy Distichlis spicata Coastal salt grass S=8 c=4 Suaeda linearis Annual seepweed PRC 2 vs PRC 4 PRC 2 PRC 4
89 | P a g e 1 2 Jaccard's 1/5=0.20 Scientific name Common name Scientific name Common name Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Batis maritima Saltwort Aster tenuifolius Salt marsh aster Distichlis spicata Coastal salt grass S=5 c=1 PRC 2 vs PRC 5 PRC 2 PRC 5 Jaccard's 6/10=0.60 Scientific name Common name Scientific name Common name Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Salicornia bigelovii Annual glasswort Batis maritima Saltwort Batis maritima Saltwort Aster tenuifolius Salt marsh aster Aster tenuifolius Salt marsh aster Borrichia frutescens Bushy seaside-tansy Borrichia frutescens Bushy seaside-tansy Distichlis spicata Coastal salt grass Cuscuta salina Salt marsh dodder Iva frutescens Jesuit’s-bark Suaeda linearis Annual seepweed Suaeda linearis Annual seepweed S=10 c=6 PRC 3 vs PRC 4 PRC 3 PRC 4
90 | P a g e 1 2 3 4 Jaccard's 1/9=0.11 Scientific name Common name Scientific name Common name Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Batis maritima Saltwort Aster tenuifolius Salt marsh aster Borrichia frutescens Bushy seaside-tansy Distichlis spicata Coastal salt grass Cuscuta salina Salt marsh dodder Iva frutescens Jesuit’s-bark Suaeda linearis Annual seepweed S=9 c=1 PRC 3 vs PRC 5 PRC 3 PRC 5 Jaccard's 1/7=0.14 Scientific name Common name Scientific name Common name Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Salicornia bigelovii Annual glasswort Batis maritima Saltwort Aster tenuifolius Salt marsh aster Borrichia frutescens Bushy seaside-tansy Suaeda linearis Annual seepweed S=7 c=1 PRC 5 PRC 4 vs PRC 5 PRC 4
91 | P a g e Appendix VIII: Jaccard’s Coefficient of Community Similarity calculation data to compare the1 restored sites. 2013. Pierce Marsh.2 3 4 5 6 7 Jaccard's 4/4=1.0 Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Salicornia bigelovii Annual glasswort Salicornia bigelovii Annual glasswort Batis maritima Saltwort Batis maritima Saltwort S=4 c=4 PRC 1 PRC 2 PRC 1 vs PRC 2 Jaccard's 3/6=0.50 Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Salicornia bigelovii Annual glasswort Batis maritima Saltwort Batis maritima Saltwort Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Distichlis spicata Coastal salt grass S=6 c=3 PRC 1 PRC 3 PRC 1 vs PRC 3 Jaccard's 3/6=0.50 Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Salicornia bigelovii Annual glasswort Batis maritima Saltwort Batis maritima Saltwort Borrichia frutescens Bushy seaside-tansy S=6 Solidago sempervirensSeaside goldenrod c=3 PRC 1 PRC 4 PRC 1 vs PRC 4
92 | P a g e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Jaccard's 3/4=0.75 Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Salicornia bigelovii Annual glasswort Batis maritima Saltwort Batis maritima Saltwort S=4 c=3 PRC 1 vs PRC 5 PRC 1 PRC 5 Jaccard's 2/4=0.50 Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Salicornia bigelovii Annual glasswort Batis maritima Saltwort S=4 c=2 PRC 1 vs PRC 6 PRC 1 PRC 6 Jaccard's 3/6=0.50 Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Salicornia bigelovii Annual glasswort Batis maritima Saltwort Batis maritima Saltwort Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Distichlis spicata Coastal salt grass S=6 c=3 PRC 2 vs PRC 3 PRC 2 PRC 3
93 | P a g e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Jaccard's 3/6=0.50 Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Salicornia bigelovii Annual glasswort Batis maritima Saltwort Batis maritima Saltwort Borrichia frutescens Bushy seaside-tansy S=6 c=3 Solidago sempervirens Seaside goldenrod PRC 2 vs PRC 4 PRC 2 PRC 4 Jaccard's 3/4=0.75 Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Salicornia bigelovii Annual glasswort Batis maritima Saltwort Batis maritima Saltwort S=4 c=3 PRC 2 vs PRC 5 PRC 2 PRC 5 Jaccard's 2/4=0.50 Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Salicornia bigelovii Annual glasswort Batis maritima Saltwort S=4 c=2 PRC 2 vs PRC 6 PRC 2 PRC 6
94 | P a g e 1 2 3 4 5 6 Jaccard's 4/6=0.67 Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Batis maritima Saltwort Batis maritima Saltwort Borrichia frutescens Bushy seaside-tansy Borrichia frutescens Bushy seaside-tansy Distichlis spicata Coastal salt grass Solidago sempervirens Seaside goldenrod S=6 c=4 PRC 3 vs PRC 4 PRC 3 PRC 4 Jaccard's 3/5=0.6 Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Batis maritima Saltwort Batis maritima Saltwort Borrichia frutescens Bushy seaside-tansy Distichlis spicata Coastal salt grass S=5 c=3 PRC 3 vs PRC 5 PRC 3 PRC 5 Jaccard's 2/5=0.40 Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Batis maritima Saltwort Borrichia frutescens Bushy seaside-tansy Distichlis spicata Coastal salt grass S=5 c=2 PRC 3 vs PRC 6 PRC 3 PRC 6
95 | P a g e 1 2 3 4 5 Jaccard's 3/5=0.60 Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Batis maritima Saltwort Batis maritima Saltwort Borrichia frutescens Bushy seaside-tansy Solidago sempervirens Seaside goldenrod S=5 c=3 PRC 4 vs PRC 5 PRC 4 PRC 5 Jaccard's 2/5=0.40 Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Batis maritima Saltwort Borrichia frutescens Bushy seaside-tansy Solidago sempervirens Seaside goldenrod S=5 c=2 PRC 4 vs PRC 6 PRC 4 PRC 6 Jaccard's 2/3=0.67 Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Batis maritima Saltwort S=3 c=2 PRC 5 vs PRC 6 PRC 5 PRC 6
96 | P a g e Appendix IX: Standard error calculations for graphs. 2013. Pierce Marsh.1 2 3 4 Importance Values Mean 0.385612323 Standard Error 0.094213272 Median 0.338987213 Mode #N/A Standard Deviation 0.230774443 Sample Variance 0.053256843 Kurtosis -1.429902921 Skewness 0.524968591 Range 0.572403135 Minimum 0.139728997 Maximum 0.712132132 Sum 2.313673939 Count 6 Richness Mean 2.165925926 Standard Error 0.227729293 Median 2.166666667 Mode #N/A Standard Deviation 0.557820568 Sample Variance 0.311163786 Kurtosis -1.363405479 Skewness -0.00611886 Range 1.448888889 Minimum 1.44 Maximum 2.888888889 Sum 12.99555556 Count 6 H' Mean 0.787 Standard Error 0.071712389 Median 0.774 Mode #N/A Standard Deviation0.17565876 Sample Variance 0.030856 Kurtosis -0.25513612 Skewness 0.244515649 Range 0.498 Minimum 0.55 Maximum 1.048 Sum 4.722 Count 6
97 | P a g e 1 2 E Mean 0.6181725 Standard Error 0.054805333 Median 0.5997 Mode #N/A Standard Deviation0.134245101 Sample Variance 0.018021747 Kurtosis -1.568858624 Skewness 0.277729641 Range 0.3377 Minimum 0.456 Maximum 0.7937 Sum 3.709035 Count 6

More Related Content

PPTX
The Impacts Of Urbanization And Wetland Degradation
byArchana Das
 
PDF
UMass Campus Pond - Amherst Conservation Commission Supporting Documentation ...
byJulie Meyer
 
PDF
Effect of Salt and Water Stresses on Jujube Trees under Ras Sudr Conditions
byiosrjce
 
PPTX
The need for Wetlands
byAbby Varghese
 
PDF
Wetland Resource Management: Wise Use and Conservation
byInternational Water Management Institute (IWMI)
 
PPT
9. lvrm ch 13 14 ukraine- erosion control-eb
byRadmila Ustych
 
PDF
Pasi_Wetlands manual-- a new-old green infrastruture
byNidhi Pasi, PhD
 
PPT
FYN Principle #9 - Protect The Waterfront
byCharlotte County UF/IFAS Extension Service
 
The Impacts Of Urbanization And Wetland Degradation
byArchana Das
 
UMass Campus Pond - Amherst Conservation Commission Supporting Documentation ...
byJulie Meyer
 
Effect of Salt and Water Stresses on Jujube Trees under Ras Sudr Conditions
byiosrjce
 
The need for Wetlands
byAbby Varghese
 
Wetland Resource Management: Wise Use and Conservation
byInternational Water Management Institute (IWMI)
 
9. lvrm ch 13 14 ukraine- erosion control-eb
byRadmila Ustych
 
Pasi_Wetlands manual-- a new-old green infrastruture
byNidhi Pasi, PhD
 
FYN Principle #9 - Protect The Waterfront
byCharlotte County UF/IFAS Extension Service
 

What's hot

PPTX
Water resources
byGavs Capistrano
 
PDF
Wetlnd 170829144124
byokellodenish1
 
PDF
UteLadiesTressOrchidSurveyProtocol
byBernardo Garza
 
PPTX
Water use effeciency intrinsic water use effeciency as a drought resistant trait
byZuby Gohar Ansari
 
PPTX
Water management practices
byJAISONPS1
 
PDF
Hawai‘i Low Land Mesic Forest Restoration Manual (May 2015)
byHHFplanners
 
PPTX
Wetland conservation; a way forward to ensure economic prosperity
byKumar Deepak
 
PPTX
What is watershed
byGOVERNMENT ENGINEERING COLLAGE DAHOD
 
PPTX
The Impacts of Urbanization on Wetland Degradation
byDr. Pranabjyoti Das
 
PPTX
Watershed Management for Sustainable Development of Rainfed areas
byAntaraPramanik
 
PPT
The State of the World’s Wetlands - Building a knowledge-base on wetland info...
byWetlands International
 
PPSX
Benefits of Wetland and Its Well -being Supports: A Review on Behula Wetland ...
bySusanta Mahato
 
PPTX
Presentation watershed
byakshitakohli
 
PPTX
Watershed concept, objectives and approach
byAkshay Bhorkade
 
DOCX
BerggrenWatershedConservationAreaReport
byEric Mullen
 
PPT
VERNAL_POOL_POSTER_VETICLE_13Aug2014
byMatthew Detjen
 
PDF
IRJET- Hydrogeochemistry and Environmental Implication of Periyar River S...
byIRJET Journal
 
PDF
Large Runoff Flux And Transformation of Particulate Nitrogen (Pn) Following L...
byNational Institute of Food and Agriculture
 
DOC
Summary Evaluation CDOT Revegetation
byDenise Wilson
 
PDF
10 rangeland vegetation_english_072318
bynatavoloshyna
 
Water resources
byGavs Capistrano
 
Wetlnd 170829144124
byokellodenish1
 
UteLadiesTressOrchidSurveyProtocol
byBernardo Garza
 
Water use effeciency intrinsic water use effeciency as a drought resistant trait
byZuby Gohar Ansari
 
Water management practices
byJAISONPS1
 
Hawai‘i Low Land Mesic Forest Restoration Manual (May 2015)
byHHFplanners
 
Wetland conservation; a way forward to ensure economic prosperity
byKumar Deepak
 
What is watershed
byGOVERNMENT ENGINEERING COLLAGE DAHOD
 
The Impacts of Urbanization on Wetland Degradation
byDr. Pranabjyoti Das
 
Watershed Management for Sustainable Development of Rainfed areas
byAntaraPramanik
 
The State of the World’s Wetlands - Building a knowledge-base on wetland info...
byWetlands International
 
Benefits of Wetland and Its Well -being Supports: A Review on Behula Wetland ...
bySusanta Mahato
 
Presentation watershed
byakshitakohli
 
Watershed concept, objectives and approach
byAkshay Bhorkade
 
BerggrenWatershedConservationAreaReport
byEric Mullen
 
VERNAL_POOL_POSTER_VETICLE_13Aug2014
byMatthew Detjen
 
IRJET- Hydrogeochemistry and Environmental Implication of Periyar River S...
byIRJET Journal
 
Large Runoff Flux And Transformation of Particulate Nitrogen (Pn) Following L...
byNational Institute of Food and Agriculture
 
Summary Evaluation CDOT Revegetation
byDenise Wilson
 
10 rangeland vegetation_english_072318
bynatavoloshyna
 

Similar to Masters Project

PPT
Coastal Communities
bymswilliams
 
PDF
Albufera
byPaolo Zuccarini
 
PDF
Pardini et al. 2015
byKyle Vickstrom
 
PDF
Buzzards Bay Salt Marshes: Vulnerability and Adaptation Potential
byJonahGuerin1
 
PPTX
Ecological enginering of coastlines with salt marsh plantations
byyvonnie manera
 
PPTX
Saltmarsh dynamics
byProf Simon Haslett
 
PDF
Australian Coastal Saltmarshes and climate change
byBrenda Castro
 
PPTX
Coastal Systems - Salt Marsh Vegetation
byvzt00
 
PPTX
TUREK SALT MARSH RESTORATION FINAL 12 09 14
byTurek James ("Jim")
 
PPTX
Marine ecosystem
byAamlan Saswat Mishra
 
PPT
Estuarine systems
byAl Nahian Avro
 
PDF
The Ecogeomorphology Of Tidal Marshes Sergio Fagherazzi Marco Marani
bypuljektun21
 
DOCX
salt marshes
byNimashi Herath
 
PDF
MGCCC Aimie poster final
byMelissa Adriano
 
PDF
DE Poster Slide V4
byChristian Fernandez
 
PPT
Murphy_Symposium Poster 70thNE FW
byShane Murphy
 
PPTX
July 30-230-Christopher Miller
bySoil and Water Conservation Society
 
PDF
FrankeO final poster
byOliviah Franke
 
PPT
Final_Igarss_2011_eunice.ppt
bygrssieee
 
PDF
Works Cited
byBuffy Hamilton
 
Coastal Communities
bymswilliams
 
Albufera
byPaolo Zuccarini
 
Pardini et al. 2015
byKyle Vickstrom
 
Buzzards Bay Salt Marshes: Vulnerability and Adaptation Potential
byJonahGuerin1
 
Ecological enginering of coastlines with salt marsh plantations
byyvonnie manera
 
Saltmarsh dynamics
byProf Simon Haslett
 
Australian Coastal Saltmarshes and climate change
byBrenda Castro
 
Coastal Systems - Salt Marsh Vegetation
byvzt00
 
TUREK SALT MARSH RESTORATION FINAL 12 09 14
byTurek James ("Jim")
 
Marine ecosystem
byAamlan Saswat Mishra
 
Estuarine systems
byAl Nahian Avro
 
The Ecogeomorphology Of Tidal Marshes Sergio Fagherazzi Marco Marani
bypuljektun21
 
salt marshes
byNimashi Herath
 
MGCCC Aimie poster final
byMelissa Adriano
 
DE Poster Slide V4
byChristian Fernandez
 
Murphy_Symposium Poster 70thNE FW
byShane Murphy
 
July 30-230-Christopher Miller
bySoil and Water Conservation Society
 
FrankeO final poster
byOliviah Franke
 
Final_Igarss_2011_eunice.ppt
bygrssieee
 
Works Cited
byBuffy Hamilton
 

Masters Project

  • 1.
    Effect of RestorationDesign on Spartina alterniflora Communities in Pierce Marsh by Mary Warwick Masters Project Submitted to Environmental Science Program University of Houston - Clear Lake Advisor: Dr. Cynthia Howard August 10, 2015
  • 2.
    2 | Pa g e ABSTRACT1 The intent of this project was to determine whether salt water marsh restoration designs affect2 Spartina alterniflora communities. Spartina alterniflora is the dominant plant species in3 saltwater marshes of the Gulf Coast. It grows along the marsh edge, the vegetated area within4 5 meters from the non-vegetated bottom, and promotes the growth of the marsh land by5 collecting sediment as well as provides protection for juvenile nekton to grow. Given that6 Spartina alterniflora is the dominant plant species in saltmarshes of the Gulf Coast, the health7 of Spartina alterniflora can be used as a measurement of the overall health of the marsh.8 Saltwater marshes, as well as other wetlands, face destruction and degradation from urban and9 suburban development, subsidence from ground water extraction, surface mining, oil spills, as10 well as oil and natural gas exploration. Two conservation organizations, The Galveston Bay11 Foundation and The Nature Conservancy of Texas, bought land known as Pierce Marsh as a12 study area to compare natural marsh that has been untouched to reconstructed marshes13 differing in design and construction. Subsidence due to ground water extraction and suburban14 sprawl destroyed Piece Marsh and left it as open water. Construction of restoration designs15 began in 1999 and continued until 2009. There are five restored sites and one reference site in16 Pierce Marsh. Three locations, or berms, were randomly selected at each site. At each location17 a 20 m transect was set perpendicular to the marsh edge. Three points were marked along the18 transect, 10 meters apart. These points were called stations. This gave 9 points of data19 collection at each site; 54 points of data collection total. At each point, on each transect, at20 each location, at each site: a ¼ m2 plot made of PVC pipe was laid to the left of the point and all21 plants in the plot were identified and their relative coverage was determined and recorded.22 Spartina alterniflora importance values, species richness, Shannon Diversity Index, Pielou’s23 Index of Evenness, and Jaccard’s Coefficient of Community Similarity were calculated for each24 site. These parameters were then used to compare the restored sites to the reference site, the25 restored sites among themselves and the current data to the data obtained in 2008. Overall,26 the five restored sites fell short of showing significant similarities to the reference site over the27 majority of the compared parameters. In fact, each parameter had only one site that showed28 significant similarities to the reference site. The two oldest sites, grid and sinusoidal, had29 significant differences in their parameters from the reference site in 2013 and showed trends of30 the values dropping and the differences becoming greater between 2008 and 2013. This data31 indicated that these sites were degrading over time. The two zig zag sites showed low Spartina32 alterniflora importance values, but positive trends in mean species richness, Shannon Diversity33 Index and the Pielou’s Index of Evenness values over time, thus closer to replicating the34 reference site than the grid and sinusoidal sites. The beneficial uses site was the only site that35 had a significantly similar Spartina alterniflora importance values, along with significantly36 similar relative coverage and frequency values as well as positive trends in mean species37 richness, Shannon Diversity Index and the Pielou’s Index of Evenness values over time. It most38 closely replicated the reference site. The results of this study can be used by The Galveston Bay39 Foundation, as well as other organizations that restore salt marshes, in determining the40 constructed salt marsh design that most closely emulates natural salt marshes. Having this41 information will save these organizations valuable resources by directing them to the most42 successful design(s) for future salt marsh restorations.43
  • 3.
    3 | Pa g e INTRODUCTION1 2 Saltmarshes3 Salt, or tidal, marshes are coastal wetlands that experience cycles of flooding and draining4 as tides bring salt and brackish water in and out of the system. Salt marshes exist in protected5 areas where terrestrial, fresh water and marine ecosystems converge (Greenberg et al., 2006).6 Sediments begin to deposit in these areas, which promotes the establishment of plant7 communities. These plant communities help prevent erosion caused by wave action and8 provide a nursery area for many nekton species. In addition, salt marshes provide nesting areas9 for migratory birds, biologically break down pollutants from inflows, serve as a carbon sink, play10 a role in the cycling of nitrogen, and act as a reservoir for flood waters which reduces damage11 to upland habitats (Cullinan et al., 2004, Lester and Gonzales, 2002). Salt marshes have three12 distinct bottom matrices: marsh edge, submerged aquatic vegetation and shallow non-13 vegetated bottom. Juvenile brown shrimp, Farfantepenaeus aztecus, are thought to have14 higher densities in submerged aquatic vegetation where sea grasses are present. However,15 Caldwell et al. (2004) found that the brown shrimp densities in the marsh edge, which is the16 area not more than 5 meters from the Spartina alterniflora growth, are not significantly17 different than the submerged aquatic vegetation. Submerged aquatic vegetation bottom18 configurations account for only 4.5 km2 of the Galveston Bay system, whereas marsh edge19 configurations make up 84.9 km2 . This study demonstrates the importance of marsh edge20 habitats to area nekton.21 22 23
  • 4.
    4 | Pa g e Spartina alterniflora1 Saltwater marshes make up one-tenth-of-one-percent of the Earth’s surface, 45,0002 km2 . However, this small percentage belies the importance of these precious ecosystems. Salt3 water marshes help prevent erosion of upland habitats, provide a nursery area for many nekton4 species, provide nesting areas for migratory birds, biologically break down pollutants from5 inflows, serve as a carbon sink, play a role in the cycling of nitrogen, and act as a reservoir for6 flood waters which reduces damage to upland habitats. Saltwater marshes cover 16,000 km2 of7 the United States, with the majority of this coverage in the South Atlantic and Gulf Coast8 regions (Greenberg et. al, 2006). A smooth cordgrass, Spartina alterniflora, is the dominant9 species in salt marshes of the Gulf Coast. Spartina alterniflora is a monocot from the grass10 family, Poaceae. It can range in height from 0.2 m to 3 m tall (Davis, 1998). The height is11 usually dependent on habitat conditions such as water level, flood frequency, water salinity, as12 well as, soil nitrogen and sulfide concentrations (Mendelssohn et al., 2002). Small plants grow13 in high, dry areas where as taller plants grow at the water’s edge. The Spartina stem grows14 vertically with leaves growing at approximately at 45° angle from the stem (figure 1a). The15 leaves are flat and smooth with parallel venation and salt glands in the epidermal layers. These16 salt glands aid in the removal of excess salts that tend to accumulate inside the plants as the17 roots take in sodium and other salts from the water (figure 1b) (Mendelssohn et al., 2002;18 Davis, 1998).19 20 21 22
  • 5.
    5 | Pa g e 1 Figure 1: (a) Detailed drawing of Spartina alterniflora showing the stem, leave, flower, rhizome,2 and root structures. Photo credit of the USDA Agriculture Yearbook, Fig. 19.3 (b) Close up photograph of Spartina alterniflora showing salt crystal formation on its leaf.4 Photo credit of Joseph DiTomaso.5 6 Spartina grow in clonal colonies attached by an extensive network of rhizomes that run7 horizontally under the soil. The rhizomes anchor the plant in place and allow the plants to8 propagate asexually, store nutrients and survive during difficult conditions when the stems and9 leaves may not be able to survive (Davis, 1998). The Spartina stem grows up from the rhizome10 and the roots grow down. Spartina alterniflora have anchoring roots as well as hair-like11 absorbing roots. The biomass of the roots in healthy Spartina is greater than the biomass of the12
  • 6.
    6 | Pa g e stem and leaves. Spartina propagate sexually as well, using wind and water dispersion to1 disseminate their seeds.2 Spartina alterniflora live in waterlogged conditions causing the soil to have very low3 oxygen levels. Spartina have adapted to the anoxic conditions by developing an internal tube4 system, called Aerenchyma (figure 2). The internal air spaces of the tubes, called lacunae, carry5 oxygen from the leaves to the roots (Mendelssohn et al., 2002; Davis, 1998).6 7 8 Figure 2: Aerenchyma tissue from Spartina alterniflora showing airspaces, lacunae, which9 transports oxygen from the leaves to the roots. Photo credit: I. Mendelsson10 11 As mentioned previously, salt marshes form as sediments begin to deposit in protected12 areas where terrestrial, fresh water and marine ecosystems converge. The sediments promote13 the development of plant communities. However, Spartina alterniflora also promotes the14 accumulation of sediment and acts as an “environmental engineer” (Mendelssohn et al., 2002).15 As Spartina grows farther away from the dry land of the marsh and into the water, more16
  • 7.
    7 | Pa g e sediment accumulates which allows for other species to inhabit the new area. As this build-up1 of sediment continues to occur, new land is created. Larger species are then able to inhabit this2 new land and the Spartina continues to grow outward from the land (Mendelssohn et al., 20023 and Davis, 1998).4 5 The Problems Facing Salt Marshes6 Saltwater marshes, as well as other wetlands, face destruction and degradation from urban7 and suburban development, subsidence from ground water extraction, surface mining, oil spills,8 as well as oil and natural gas exploration (Craft et al., 1999 and 2003). According to Costanza9 et. al. (2014) the global area of tidal marshes decreased from 165 million hectares to 12810 million hectares between the years of 1997 and 2011. Many attempts have been made to11 recreate salt marshes that were lost. Most of these marshes are constructed from dredge12 material that is moved from another source. However, some marshes are constructed using13 soil from the existing area and building up terraced areas. In both cases, berms are built up14 from the soil and Spartina alterniflora is planted along the edge of the berms to begin the15 process of sediment accumulation and plant propagation.16 17 Terraced versus Dredge Material Construction18 Terraced marshes are created by excavating sub-tidal, non-vegetated, sediments and19 forming them into ridges at specific heights and slopes as to allow flooding at high tide and the20 planting of marsh vegetation, specifically Spartina alterniflora (figures 3 and 4). The area from21
  • 8.
    8 | Pa g e which the sediment was taken, the borrow area, will fill with sediment as the hydrology moves1 in and out of the marsh (Gossman, 2000).2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Figure 3: Diagram of cross-section of the terrace design used at Pierce Marsh. Measurements10 given are National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) which uses mean sea level as the baseline.11 Mean low water level, mean high water level, terrace elevation, and terrace slope are given.12 Howard and Dobberstine. 2008.13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Figure 4: Digging from the borrow area to create a terraced marsh design. Photo credit: Dan24 Heilman and Jerry Hauske, 2010.25
  • 9.
    9 | Pa g e The dredge material technique is the older of the two techniques. Dredge material1 marshes are created by taking sediment that has been excavated from another location and2 blowing it into the open water to create a marsh (figure 5). The term “beneficial uses” refers to3 putting excavated sediment from another location to good use by using it to create new marsh4 lands. While terraced designs are formed by using sediment that is already established in the5 marsh, dredge material designs use large amounts of sediment that is brought in from another6 location. Therefore, the parameters important to soil morphology and chemistry are already7 present in the sediment in the terrace. Benthic organisms are also present in this sediment,8 possibly giving it a head-start in providing food chain support. Dredge material is usually9 brought in from a far enough distance that the sediment does not have the same soil10 morphology or chemistry and may take longer to establish.11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Figure 5: Blowing dredged material into open water to create a dredge material marsh. Photo22 credit: Dan Heilman and Jerry Hauske, 2010.23
  • 10.
    10 | Pa g e Rozas and Minello (2001) stated that marshes created with dredge material becomes1 established at a faster rate than terraced marshes and can become a suitable habitat for nekton2 more quickly. However, this technique provides less marsh edge than the terraced design and3 therefore less protection as a nursery area. Streeter (2000) found that three parameters were4 important when using dredge material for marsh construction: site location, protection from5 wave energy, and elevation. Overall, he found there were significant differences between6 natural marshes and dredge material marshes: Spartina alterniflora above and below ground7 biomass, carbon measurements in the sediment, as well as polychaete and crustacean8 densities were all lower in the dredge material marshes. The dredge material marshes also9 attracted different species of birds than did the natural marshes.10 Rozas and Minello (2001) stated that marshes created with dredge material lacked11 sufficient marsh edge habitat, making them inferior to terraced marshes which have12 considerable edge habitat. The marsh edge is considered to be the vegetated area within 513 meters from the non-vegetated bottom (Merino, et al., 2010). It is this critical area of a marsh14 that provides protection from predation for many nekton species that depend on marshes for15 nursery areas. Whaley and Minello (2002) found that the area within he first meter of the16 vegetated area is the most productive for benthic organisms. Furthermore, terraced marshes17 have been shown to reduce wave height, wave fetch (length), decrease turbidity, promote18 deposition and retention of sediments, and decrease erosion in marshes (Rozas and Minello,19 2001 & Gossman, 2000).20 21 22
  • 11.
    11 | Pa g e Comparing Constructed vs. Natural Marshes1 Craft et. al. (1999) compared two locations that contained marshes created from dredge-2 material and natural salt marshes in coastal North Carolina. Snow’s Cut was created in 19713 and Pine Knoll Shores was created in 1974. In following the progression on these marshes,4 Craft et. al. found that the created marshes and the natural marshes had no significant5 difference in their Spartina alterniflora biomass above ground level within a few years.6 However, root biomass, macro-organic matter, benthic macro-organisms, and soil chemistry7 took longer to mature. At the twenty-five year mark, they found all parameters to be8 statistically similar in the created and natural marshes with the exception of soil nutrients9 which were still lower in the constructed marshes.10 Shafer and Streeter (2000) compared fourteen marshes created from dredge-material, aged11 1 to 23 years, and fourteen natural salt marshes along the Texas Gulf Coast. The parameters of12 comparison were edge area ratios, relative exposure index values, elevation profiles, total soil13 organic carbon, silt-clay content, and underground plant biomass. Relative exposure index14 values refer to the annual wind speed at the location which could affect erosion. They found no15 significant difference in edge area ratios, relative exposure index values as well as total soil16 organic carbon/ silt-clay content. However, there were significant differences in the elevation17 profiles and underground plant biomass. Elevation profiles of the created marsh berms tended18 to be higher than those in natural marshes. Shafer and Streeter (2000) warn that exceptionally19 high berms can lead to premature bird inhabitants, limited nekton activity and interruption of20 normal sediment and nutrient movement. The underground biomass difference showed higher21 underground biomass in the natural marshes, even when comparing the 23 year-old created22
  • 12.
    12 | Pa g e marsh. The underground biomass is important because Spartina alterniflora depend on the1 underground biomass to survive during unfavorable conditions. Shafer and Streeter (2000)2 stated that their review of literature showed that the underground biomass difference usually3 disappears by age 30 in created salt marshes.4 5 Local Marshes6 The Galveston Bay system has approximately 130,400 acres of marshlands. It has lost7 45,000 acres since 1950 (White, et al., 1993). The Galveston Bay Foundation is a 501(c)(3) non-8 profit organization that was established in 1987 and has been restoring marshes in the9 Galveston Bay area since 1991. They have had much success planting Spartina alterniflora on10 existing marsh edges to aid in the advancement of the marsh and prevent erosion. They have11 also has some successes in creating marshes that have previously been destroyed. Examples of12 these are Burnet Bay, Delhide Cove and Dickinson Bay Island. However, The Galveston Bay13 Foundation wanted to determine the restoration design that provides the closest replication of14 a natural marsh. Pierce Marsh was acquired by The Nature Conservancy of Texas and The15 Galveston Bay Foundation from 1987 to 1998 (Lester and Gonzales, 2002). Subsidence due to16 ground water extraction and suburban sprawl destroyed Piece Marsh and left it as open water17 (Lester and Gonzales, 2002). Construction of restoration designs began in 1999 and continued18 until 2009. At present, there are five restored sites and one reference site in Pierce Marsh.19 Data on sediment composition, bethic macroinvertebrate communities and plant communities20 are collected every five years to follow the development of the designs (Howard and21 Dobberstine, 2008). In 2008, Howard and Dobberstine found that restoration design affected22
  • 13.
    13 | Pa g e the Spartina alterniflora coverage more than the age of the site. The reference site had the1 40% Spartina alterniflora coverage, the dredge material - beneficial uses site had 50% coverage,2 the zig-zag terraced site had 30% coverage, the sinusoidal terraced site had 15% coverage, and3 the grid terraced site had 10% coverage. The dredge material - beneficial uses site was the4 youngest site yet had the highest Spartina alterniflora coverage of all of the sites. The grid was5 the oldest site and had the lowest coverage.6 7 8 Significance of project / need for project9 Craft, et al. (2003) suggested a need for long-term monitoring of constructed marsh10 projects to determine whether constructed marshes function as natural marshes. This11 suggestion was made due to the significant lag time that occurs before constructed marshes12 begin produce the same benefits as natural marshes. Over 1,000 acres of shoreline and13 tributaries in the Galveston Bay area have had some degree of marsh restoration (Lester and14 Gonzales, 2002). These restoration projects require a large investment of resources.15 Determining which marsh restoration design most closely replicates a natural marsh will assure16 that resources are used wisely in restoring salt water marshes. Pierce Marsh is unique in that 517 constructed marsh designs can be compared within a small area that has the same geomorphic18 position, anthropomorphic stressors, salinity, water quality, water craft traffic, and weather19 conditions. Prior to this study, the sites have not been compared since 2008. Since then, one20 site has been added and Hurricane Ike damaged the surrounding area. It was not known how21
  • 14.
    14 | Pa g e each site is progressing at this point in time or if the restoration design was still continuing to1 affect the Spartina alterniflora coverage more than the age of the site.2 Given that Spartina alterniflora is the dominant plant species in saltmarshes of the Gulf3 Coast and all of the above mentioned parameters of salt marsh health are interconnected, the4 health of Spartina alterniflora can be used as a measurement of the overall health of the marsh.5 The results of this study can be used by The Galveston Bay Foundation, as well as other6 organizations that restore salt marshes, in determining the constructed salt marsh design that7 most closely emulates natural salt marshes. Having this information will save these8 organizations valuable resources by directing them to the most successful design(s) for future9 salt marsh restorations.10 11 12 Specific Objectives13 1. Use Spartina alterniflora importance values to compare the restored sites to the14 reference site, the restored sites among themselves and the current data to the data15 obtained in 2008.16 2. Use species richness, Shannon Diversity Index, Pielou’s Index of Evenness, and Jaccard’s17 Coefficient of Community Similarity to compare the restored sites to the reference site,18 the restored sites among themselves and the current data to the data obtained in 2008.19 20 21
  • 15.
    15 | Pa g e MATERIALS AND METHODS1 2 Site Description – Galveston Bay3 The Galveston Bay system (figure 6a) is located along the upper Texas coast. Its 2,020 km2 4 area makes it the 7th largest estuary in the United States. The system includes Upper Galveston5 Bay, East Bay, West Bay, Trinity Bay, and Christmas Bay and is fed by the 62,159.70 km2 6 Galveston Bay watershed. Each one of the bays in the system offers differing vegetation as a7 result of their different bottom matrix, including oyster reef, mangroves, tidal mudflats, sub-8 tidal bay bottoms, intertidal marshes, and submerged aquatic vegetation (Caldwell et. al, 2004).9 10 Site Description - Pierce Marsh11 Pierce Marsh (figure 6b) is located north of West Bay, between the communities of12 Hitchcock and Bayou Vista, Texas. It is flanked on the north and east by Texas Highway 6 and13 Interstate 45, respectively. It is approximately 7.5 km from the Texas City, Texas petrochemical14 industrial complex. Pierce March, which encompasses 2,346 acres, is an intertidal salt marsh15 that serves as a nursery for many of the nekton and shellfish species that live in the Galveston16 Bay system (Merino, et al., 2010; Galveston Bay Foundation). As with other marshes of the Gulf17 Coast, Spartina alterniflora is the dominant plant species. Fresh water inflows from Highland18 Bayou and an adjacent smaller bayou come from the north while tidal flows come from the Gulf19 of Mexico via San Luis Pass and Galveston’s West Bay to the south (Lester and Gonzales, 2002).20 21 22
  • 16.
    16 | Pa g e 1 Figure 6: a) Map of the Galveston Bay System showing Galveston Bay, Trinity Bay, East Bay,2 West Bay and Christmas Bay. The yellow star marks the location of Pierce Marsh. Photo credit:3 Texas A&M Galveston Bay Information Center, 2014. b) Map showing the location of the Pierce4 Marsh, north of West Bay, 29°19’ N, 94°57W, 2014.5 6 7 Pierce Marsh has one reference site, which is an area of the marsh that did not subside8 and has continued to develop undamaged, and five restored sites. PRC 1 is the reference site9 (figure 7 (1); figure 8) and is in the northeast corner of the marsh, closest to Highway 6. PRC 210 was constructed in 2004 and is a restored site made from terraced berms built in a zig-zag11 pattern (figure 7 (2); figure 8). PRC 3 was constructed in 1999 and is a restored site made from12 terraced berms built in a grid pattern (figure 7 (3); figure 8). PRC 4 was constructed in 2001 and13 is a restored site made from terraced berms built in a sinusoidal pattern (figure 7 (4);14 15
  • 17.
    17 | Pa g e 1 Figure 7: Map of Pierce Marsh showing the Reference Site (1), Zigzag berms, 2004 (2), Grid2 berms, 1999 (3), Sinusoidal berms, 2001 (4), Beneficial uses berms, 2005 (5), and Zigzag berms,3 2009 (6). 2014.4 5 figure 8). PRC 5 was constructed in 2005 and is a restored site made from dredge material built6 in a large area surrounded by temporary berms for protection against wave action (figure 7 (5);7 figure 8). PRC 6 was constructed in 2009 and is a restored site made from terraced berms built8 in a zig zag pattern (figure 7 (5); figure 8).9 10 11
  • 18.
    18 | Pa g e 1 Figure 8: Photos of the reference site and 5 reconstructed sites at Pierce Marsh. Site names,2 numbers and dates of installation included with each picture. Photo credit: Mary Warwick,3 2013.4 5 6
  • 19.
    19 | Pa g e Other Plant Species in Pierce Marsh1 While Spartina alterniflora was the dominant plant species in salt marshes, many other2 plants inhabited Pierce Marsh. Salicornia virginica, creeping glasswort; Salicornia bigelorii,3 annual glasswort; Batis maritina, saltwort; Distichlis spiccta, coastal salt grass; Borrichia4 frutescens, sea-oxeye-daisy; Sesuvim maritum, sea purslane; and Solidago sempervirens,5 seaside goldenrod were all represented in plots throughout the marsh (figure 9). Spartina6 alterniflora inhabited the mid and lower elevations of the marsh, which were prone to regular7 flooding. The other plants species of the marsh tended to inhabit the dryer, higher elevations.8 Like Spartina alterniflora, each plant species in the marsh had its own set of adaptions for9 surviving in the salt marsh envrionment.10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
  • 20.
    20 | Pa g e 1 Figure 9: Plant species observed at Pierce Marsh in addition to Spartina alterniflora.2 Photo credit: Mary Warwick, 2013 unless otherwise indicated.3 4 5
  • 21.
    21 | Pa g e Methodology1 Plot-transect sampling was used to collect data. Three locations, or berms, were2 randomly selected at each site. At each location a 20 m transect was set perpendicular to the3 marsh edge (figure 10).4 5 Figure 10: Setting the 20 meter transect on the first berm of the grid site. Photo Credit: Mary6 Warwick7 8 9 Three points were marked with orange flags along the transect, 10 meters apart (figure 11).10 These points were called stations. This gave 9 points of data collection at each site; 54 points of11 data collection total.12 13
  • 22.
    22 | Pa g e 1 Figure 11: Second berm of beneficial uses site showing the three stations marked with orange2 flags. Photo Credit: Mary Warwick3 4 5 At each point, on each transect, at each location, at each site: a ¼ m2 plot made of PVC6 pipe (figure 12) was laid to the left of the point and all plants in the plot were identified and7 their relative coverage was determined and recorded. The percentage of bare ground and8 detritus were also recorded. The comparison year, 2008, had 18 points of data collection at9 sites 1 through 4 and 12 points of data collection at site 5.10 11
  • 23.
    23 | Pa g e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Figure 12: A ¼ m2 plot made of PVC pipe similar to the one used in this study. Photo Credit:11 Mary Warwick12 13 14 Data Analysis15 Measures of importance were calculated using Microsoft Excel 2010 and analyzed first.16 The Spartina alterniflora relative frequency and relative coverage were calculated for each site17 (table 1, appendix II). Relative frequency refers to the frequency of a given species as a18 proportion of the sum of the frequencies of all species. It was calculated by determining the19 frequency of the species being studied using the formula fi=ji/k, where ji is the number of plots20 in which species i occurs and k is the total number of plots sampled. The frequency is then21 divided by the sum of all of the frequencies observed in the study area to obtain the relative22 frequency. Relative coverage refers to the coverage of a given species expressed as a23
  • 24.
    24 | Pa g e proportion of the total coverage for all species. It was determined in the field by taking the1 percent coverage. The importance value is a measure of a species dominance in the2 community and was calculated using the formula IVi= Rfi+RCi (Brower et. al., 1998, appendix II).3 Measures of diversity were calculated and analyzed next (table 1). The species richness4 at each plot, number of species present, was determined and recorded in the field. The mean5 species richness was calculated for each site using the data from the various plots (appendix6 IV). The Shannon-Weiner Diversity Index is a measurement of species diversity using species7 richness and relative abundance, where pi is the relative abundance. It was calculated using the8 formula H’=-∑(pi)[(ln(pi)] (appendix VI). Since numbers of individuals were not counted at the9 sites, pi was calculated by using the percent coverage data obtained in the field. (Brower et. al.,10 1998). Pielou’s Index of Evenness measurement was calculated using the formula E=H’/Hmax11 (appendix VI). Evenness is a measurement of equitability among species in the community12 using the Shannon-Weiner Function, where Hmax is the species diversity under maximum13 equitable conditions and is calculated by taking the natural log of the number of species in the14 community (Brower et al., 1998). The Jaccard’s Coefficient of Community Similarity is a15 measurement of how similar communities are based on the number of species common to all16 communities (appendix VIII). It was calculated using the formula CCj=c/S, where c is the17 number of species common to all communities and S is the total number of species found in all18 communities (Brower et. al., 1998).19 Histograms for each parameter were produced in Microsoft Excel 2010 as well.20 Descriptive statistics were run on the results of each parameter to obtain the standard error21
  • 25.
    25 | Pa g e Measure Frequency (fi) fi=ji/k ji=number of samples in which species i occurs, k=total number Relative Frequency (Rfi) Rfi=fi/∑f Coverage (Ci) Ci=ai/A Relative Coverage (RCi) RCi=Ci/TC=Ci/∑C Importance Value (IVi) IVi=Rfi+RCi Species Richness (s) Shannon Diversity Index (H') H'=-∑pi ln pi pi =ni /N Pielou’s Index of Evenness E=H’/Hmax Jaccard’s Coefficient of Community Similarity CCj=c/S of species common to all communities c = the number of species common to all communities S = the total number of species found in all communities (Brower et al, 1998) N= total number of individuals Hmax is the species diversity under maximum equitable conditions and is calculated by taking the natural log of the number of species in the community measurement of how similar communities are based on the number Percent coverage calculated in the field used for relative coverage number of species present pi = proportion of the total number of individuals occuring in species i ni =number of individuals representing species i Percent coverage calculated in the field used for pi Differences from Brower Used in StudyBrower Equations and Description Measures of Importance Measures of Diversity of samples (plots) ai=total area covered by species i, A=total habitat sampled TC=∑C=total coverage for all species measurement. Error bars were added to the histograms, using the standard error1 measurements, to compare the significant similarities and differences in the data obtained.2 3 Table 1: Formulas for relative frequency, relative coverage, importance values, species richness,4 Shannon Diversity Index, Pielou’s Index of Evenness, and Jaccard’s Coefficient of Community5 Similarity. Brower et. al., 1998.6 7 8 RESULTS9 10 Objective 1: Use Spartina alterniflora importance values to compare the restored sites to the11 reference site, the restored sites among themselves and the current data to the data obtained12 in 2008.13 14 Importance Values in 2013:15
  • 26.
    26 | Pa g e When comparing the Spartina alterniflora importance values for 2013, the reference1 site had the highest Spartina alterniflora importance value at 71.2% (table 2). Its high relative2 coverage, 46.9%, was responsible for its high importance value (figure 14) and was the highest3 of all of the sites. Its relative frequency, 24.3%, was the third highest and was identical to the4 2004 zig zag site.5 The beneficial uses site had the second highest Spartina alterniflora importance value at6 60.9% (table 2). This was not significantly different from the reference site (figure 13). Its high7 relative coverage, 33.7%, was the second highest of the sites and not significantly different than8 the reference site (figure 16). Its relative frequency, 27.3%, was the highest of all of the sites9 (table 2) but was significantly similar to the reference site and the two zig zag sites (figure 15).10 Coverage and frequency played an equal role in contributing to the importance value at this site11 (figure 14).12 The 2004 zig zag site had the third highest Spartina alterniflora importance value at13 34.9% (table 2). This was most similar to the 2009 zig zag site; however, it was not significantly14 different than the sinusoidal site (figure 13). Its relative frequency, 24.3%, was responsible for15 its importance value (figure 14). As stated earlier, it was the third highest of the sites and16 identical to the reference site. Its relative frequency was also significantly similar to the17 beneficial uses site and the 2009 zig zag site (figure 15). Its relative coverage, 10.6%, was the18 third highest of the sites but significantly lower than that of the reference and beneficial uses19 sites. Its relative coverage was most similar to the zig zag site of 2009; however, was not20 significantly different than the grid or the sinusoidal sites (figure 16).21
  • 27.
    27 | Pa g e The 2009 zig zag site had the fourth highest Spartina alterniflora importance value at1 32.9% (table 2). This was most similar to the 2004 zig zag site; however, it was not significantly2 different than the sinusoidal site (figure 13). Its relative frequency, 25.8%, was the second3 highest of the sites and was responsible for its importance value (figure 14). Its relative4 frequency was significantly similar to that of the reference site, the beneficial uses site and the5 2009 zig zag site (figure 15). Its relative coverage, 7.1%, was the fourth highest of the sites and6 was most similar to the zig zag site of 2004. However, its relative coverage was not significantly7 different than the grid or the sinusoidal sites (figure 16).8 The sinusoidal site had the fifth highest Spartina alterniflora importance value at 19.1%9 (table 2). This was most similar to the grid site: however, it was not significantly different than10 the two zig zag sites (figure 13). Its relative frequency, 16.7%, was the fifth highest of the sites11 and was responsible for its importance value (figure 14). Its relative frequency was also12 significantly similar to the grid site (figure 15). Its relative coverage, 2.4%, was also the fifth13 highest but did not contribute significantly to its importance value (figure 14). Its relative14 coverage was most similar to the grid site; however, it was not significantly different from the15 zig zag sites (table 16).16 The grid site had the lowest Spartina alterniflora importance value at 14.0% (table 2).17 This was significantly similar to the sinusoidal site (figure 13). Its relative frequency, 12.2%, was18 also the lowest of the sites but responsible for its importance value (figure 14). This was also19 significantly similar to the sinusoidal site (figure 15). Its relative coverage, 1.8%, was again the20 lowest of the sites and did not contribute much to its importance value (figure 14). Its relative21
  • 28.
    28 | Pa g e Relative frequency Relative Coverage Importance Values PRC 1 Reference 0.243 0.469 0.712 PRC 2 Zig Zag 2004 0.243 0.106 0.349 PRC 3 Grid 0.122 0.018 0.140 PRC 4 Sinusoidal 0.167 0.024 0.191 PRC 5 Beneficial Uses 0.273 0.337 0.609 PRC 6 Zig Zag 2009 0.258 0.071 0.329 2013 Spartina alterniflora Measures of Importance Site coverage was most similar to the sinusoidal site; however, it was not significantly different from1 the zig zag sites (table 16).2 When comparing the age of the restored sites to the Spartina alterniflora relative3 coverage values, the grid site, the oldest site, had the lowest relative coverage value, 1.78%.4 The sinusoidal site, the second oldest site, had the second lowest Spartina alterniflora relative5 coverage value, 2.44%. The 2009 zig zag site, had the third lowest Spartina alterniflora relative6 coverage value, 7.11%. The 2004 zig zag site, had the fourth lowest Spartina alterniflora7 relative coverage value, 10.56%. The beneficial uses site, the second to the newest site, had8 the highest Spartina alterniflora relative coverage value, 33.67 % (figure 17).9 10 11 Table 2: Comparing relative frequency, relative coverage, and importance values for Spartina12 alterniflora between the reference site and the restored sites. 2013. Pierce Marsh.13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
  • 29.
    29 | Pa g e Figure 13: Comparing importance values of Spartina alterniflora among the six sites at Pierce1 Marsh showing the standard error bars for significance comparison. 2013.2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Figure 14: Comparing importance values of Spartina alterniflora among the six sites at Pierce15 Marsh using relative coverage and relative frequency. 2013.16 17
  • 30.
    30 | Pa g e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Figure 15: Comparing relative frequency values of Spartina alterniflora among the six sites at10 Pierce Marsh. 2013.11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Figure 16: Comparing relative coverage values of Spartina alterniflora among the six sites at31 Pierce Marsh. 2013.32
  • 31.
    31 | Pa g e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Figure 17: Comparing relative coverage values of Spartina alterniflora among the five9 constructed sites by year built at Pierce Marsh. 2013.10 11 12 Importance Values 2008 to 2013:13 When the Spartina alterniflora importance values for 2008 and 2013 are compared, the14 reference site had a Spartina alterniflora importance value of 72.1% in 2008 and 71.2% in 201315 (table 3). This was a decrease of 0.9%; the lowest of all of the sites. The Spartina alterniflora16 relative frequency dropped by 6.7% while the relative coverage increased by 5.8% (table 3 and17 figure 18).18 The 2004 zig zag site had a Spartina alterniflora importance value of 68.1% in 2008 and19 34.9% in 2013 (table 3). This was a decrease of 33.2%. This was the second highest decrease of20 the sites. The Spartina alterniflora relative frequency dropped by 13.2% while the relative21 coverage decreased by 20.0% (table 3 and figure 18). The 2004 zig zag site was the most similar22 site to the reference site in 2008; however, this was no longer the case in 2013 (figure 18). The23
  • 32.
    32 | Pa g e drop in relative coverage had the most significant impact in this difference (table 3 and figure1 19).2 The grid site had a Spartina alterniflora importance value of 31.5% in 2008 and 14.0% in3 2013 (table 3). This was a decrease of 17.6%. This was the fourth highest decrease of the sites.4 The Spartina alterniflora relative frequency dropped by 11.2% while the relative coverage5 decreased by 6.4%. The drop in relative coverage had the most significant impact on Spartina6 alterniflora importance values at this site (table 3 and figure 19). The grid site was similar to7 the sinusoidal site in 2008 and 2013 (figure 18).8 The sinusoidal site had a Spartina alterniflora importance value of 41.4% in 2008 and9 19.1% in 2013 (table 3). This was a decrease of 0.25. This was the third highest decrease of the10 sites. The Spartina alterniflora relative frequency dropped by 10.6% while the relative coverage11 decreased by 11.7%. The two parameters had an equal role on the impact on Spartina12 alterniflora importance values at this site (table 3 and figure 19). The sinusoidal site was similar13 to the grid site in 2008 and 2013 (figure 18).14 The beneficial uses site had a Spartina alterniflora importance value of 100% in 200815 and 60.9% in 2013 (table 3). This was a decrease of 39.1%. This was the highest decrease of16 the sites. The Spartina alterniflora relative frequency dropped by 22.7% while the relative17 coverage decreased by 16.3%. Again, the two parameters had an equal role on the impact on18 Spartina alterniflora importance values at this site (table 3 and figure 19).The beneficial uses19 site was not significantly similar to the reference site in 2008; however, it was in 2013 (figure20 18). The reference site had a 36.3% larger relative coverage in 2013; however, their relative21 frequencies were identical (table 3).22
  • 33.
    33 | Pa g e 2008 2013 % Change 2008 2013 % Change 2008 2013 % Change PRC 1 0.310 0.243 -0.067 0.411 0.469 0.058 0.721 0.712 -0.009 PRC 2 0.375 0.243 -0.132 0.306 0.106 -0.200 0.681 0.349 -0.332 PRC 3 0.234 0.122 -0.112 0.082 0.018 -0.064 0.315 0.140 -0.176 PRC 4 0.273 0.167 -0.106 0.141 0.024 -0.117 0.414 0.191 -0.223 PRC 5 0.500 0.273 -0.227 0.500 0.337 -0.163 1.000 0.609 -0.391 PRC 6 n/a 0.258 n/a n/a 0.071 n/a n/a 0.329 n/a Relative frequency Relative Coverage Importance Values Spartina alterniflora Measures of Importance When comparing the age of a restored sites to the change in Spartina alterniflora1 importance values between 2008 and 2013, the oldest site, the grid site, had the smallest2 decease in importance value, 17.6%. The sinusoidal site, the second oldest site, had the second3 smallest difference, 22.3%. The 2004 zig zag site, the third oldest site, had the third smallest4 difference, 33.2%. The beneficial uses, the newest comparable site, had the largest difference,5 39.1% (figure 20).6 The Spartina alterniflora importance values could not be compared for the 2009 zig zag7 site as it was built after the 2008 data was obtained.8 9 10 11 12 Table 3: Comparing relative frequency, relative coverage, and importance values for Spartina13 alterniflora in years 2008 and 2013. Pierce Marsh.14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
  • 34.
    34 | Pa g e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Figure 18: Comparing importance values of Spartina alterniflora among the six sites at Pierce9 Marsh for the years 2008 and 2013.10 11 12 13 14 Figure 19: Comparing importance values of Spartina alterniflora among the six sites at Pierce15 Marsh, using relative coverage and relative frequency for the years 2008 and 2013.16
  • 35.
    35 | Pa g e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Figure 20: Comparing the age of the restored sites to the percent decrease in Spartina9 alterniflora importance values between the years 2008 and 2013. Pierce Marsh.10 11 12 Objective 2: Use species richness, Shannon Diversity Index, Pielou’s Index of Evenness, and13 Jaccard’s Coefficient of Community Similarity to compare the restored sites to the reference14 site, the restored sites among themselves and the current data to the data obtained in 2008.15 16 Species Richness 2013:17 When comparing the species richness values for 2013, the sinusoidal site had the18 highest mean species richness value at 2.89. The grid site had the second highest mean species19 richness value at 2.67. The sinusoidal and grid sites had significantly similar species richness20 values. The reference site had the third highest mean species richness value at 2.22. The 200421 zig zag site had the fourth highest mean species richness value at 2.11. The reference and 200422 zig zag site had significantly similar species richness values. The beneficial uses site had the fifth23
  • 36.
    36 | Pa g e Richness PRC 1 Reference 2.22 PRC 2 Zig Zag 2004 2.11 PRC 3 Grid 2.67 PRC 4 Sinusoidal 2.89 PRC 5 Beneficial Uses 1.67 PRC 6 Zig Zag 2009 1.44 Mean Species Richness 2013 Site highest mean species richness value at 1.67. The 2009 zig zag site had the lowest mean species1 richness value at 1.44. The beneficial uses and 2009 zig zag site had significantly similar species2 richness values (table 5 and figure 21).3 When comparing the age of the restored sites to the species richness values, the grid4 site, the oldest site, had the second highest mean species richness value, 2.67. The sinusoidal5 site, the second oldest site, had the highest mean species richness value, 2.89. The 2004 zig zag6 site, had the third highest mean species richness value, 2.11. The beneficial uses site, built in7 2005, had the fourth highest mean species richness value, 1.67. The 2009 zig zag site, the8 newest site, had the lowest mean species richness value, 1.44 (figure 22).9 10 11 Table 5: Comparing species richness between the reference site and the restored sites. 2013.12 Pierce Marsh.13 14 15 16 17 18 19
  • 37.
    37 | Pa g e Figure 21: Comparing the mean species richness among the six sites at Pierce Marsh. 2013.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Figure 22: Comparing species richness values among the five constructed sites by year built at12 Pierce Marsh. 2013.13 14
  • 38.
    38 | Pa g e Species Richness 2008 to 2013:1 When the species richness values for 2008 and 2013 are compared, the reference site’s2 mean species richness value remained constant from 2008 to 2013. It was 2.22 in both years3 (table 6). The reference site was similar to the sinusoidal and the 2004 zig zag site in 2008.4 However, in 2013 it was similar only to the 2004 zig zag site (figure 23).5 The mean species richness values decreased at only one site from 2008 to 2013. The6 grid site had a mean species richness value of 3.33 in 2008 and 2.67 in 2013 (table 6). This was7 a decrease of 0.67. The grid site was similar only to the sinusoidal site in 2008. However, in8 2013 it was similar to the reference site as well as the sinusoidal site (figure 23).9 The mean species richness values increased at three sites from 2008 to 2013. The10 beneficial uses site had a mean species richness value of 1.00 in 2008 and 1.67 in 2013 (table 6).11 This was an increase of 0.67. This was the highest increase of the sites. In 2008, the beneficial12 uses site was significantly similar to the 2004 zig zag site. However, in 2013 it was similar to the13 2009 zig zag site (figure 23). The 2004 zig zag site had a mean species richness value of 1.67 in14 2008 and 2.11 in 2013 (table 6). This was an increase of 0.44. This was the second highest15 increase of the sites. The 2004 zig zag site was significantly similar to the reference site and the16 beneficial uses site in 2008. However, in 2013 it was significantly similar to only the reference17 site (figure 23). The sinusoidal site had a mean species richness value of 2.78 in 2008 and 2.8918 in 2013 (table 6). This was an increase of 0.11. This was the third highest increase of the sites.19 The sinusoidal site was significantly similar to the reference and grid sites in 2008. However, in20 2013 it was significantly similar to only the grid site (figure 23).21
  • 39.
    39 | Pa g e 2008 2013 Difference PRC 1 Reference 2.22 2.22 0.00 PRC 2 Zig Zag 2004 1.67 2.11 0.44 PRC 3 Grid 3.33 2.67 -0.67 PRC 4 Sinusoidal 2.78 2.89 0.11 PRC 5 Beneficial Uses 1.00 1.67 0.67 PRC 6 Zig Zag 2009 n/a 1.44 n/a Mean Species Richness Site The mean species richness values could not be compared for the 2009 zig zag site as it1 was built after the 2008 data was obtained.2 3 Table 6: Comparing species richness in years 2008 and 2013. Pierce Marsh.4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Figure 23: Comparing mean species richness among the six sites at Pierce Marsh for the years20 2008 and 2013.21 22
  • 40.
    40 | Pa g e Scientific name Common Name 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 n/a 2013 Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass X X X X X X X X X X X Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort X X X X X X X X X X Salicornia bigelovii Annual glasswort X X X Batis maritima Saltwort X X X X X X X X X Aster tenuifolius Salt marsh aster X X X X Borrichia frutescens Bushy seaside-tansy X X X X Distichlis spicata Coastal salt grass X X X X Cuscuta salina Salt marsh dodder X Iva frutescens Jesuit’s-bark X Lycium carolinianum Carolina desert thorn X Sesuvium portulacastrum Sea purslane X X Solidago sempervirens Seaside goldenrod X Suaeda linearis Annual seepweed X X Site/YearSpecies Plant Species Present at Pierce Marsh 2008 and 2013 PRC 1 PRC 2 PRC 3 PRC 4 PRC 5 PRC 6 When comparing the species present at each site in 2008 and 2013, Spartina alterniflora1 was the only species present at each site on both years. Salicornia virginica, creeping2 glasswort, was present at all sites on both years with the exception of one site in 2008. Batis3 maritima, saltwort, was present at all sites on both years with the exception of one site in 20084 and one site in 2013. Three species were present at only four sites. Aster tenuifolius, salt5 marsh aster, was present at four sites in 2008 only. Borrichia frutescens, bushy seaside-tansy,6 was present at two sites in 2008 and 2013. Distichlis spicata, coastal salt grass, was present at7 two sites in 2008 and was also present at one site in 2008 and 2013. Salicornia bigelovii, annual8 glasswort, was present at one site in 2008 and two sites in 2013. Sesuvium portulacastrum, sea9 purslane, was present at one site in 2008 and 2013. Suaeda linearis, annual seepweed, was10 present at two sites in 2008. Four species were present at only one site. Cuscuta salina, salt11 marsh dodder; Iva frutescens, Jesuit’s-bark; and Lycium carolinianum, Carolina desert thorn12 were each present at one site in 2008 only. Solidago sempervirens, seaside goldenrod was13 present at one site only in 2013 (table 7).14 Table 7: Comparing plant species present at Pierce Marsh in 2008 and 2013. Pierce Marsh.15 16 17 18
  • 41.
    41 | Pa g e Shannon Diversity Index 2013:1 When comparing the Shannon Diversity Index values for 2013, the reference site had2 the highest Shannon Diversity Index value at 1.05 (table 8). The reference site was significantly3 similar to the grid site (figure 24). The grid site had the second highest Shannon Diversity Index4 value at 0.90 (table 8). The grid site was significantly similar to the 2004 zig zag site (figure 24).5 The 2004 zig zag site had the third highest Shannon Diversity Index value at 0.81 (table 8). The6 2004 zig zag site was significantly similar to the grid site, the sinusoidal site, and the beneficial7 uses site (figure 24). The sinusoidal site had the fourth highest Shannon Diversity Index value8 at 0.73 (table 8). The sinusoidal site was significantly similar to the 2004 zig zag site and the9 beneficial uses site (figure 24). The beneficial uses site had the fifth highest Shannon Diversity10 Index value at 0.67 (table 8). The beneficial uses site was significantly similar to the 2004 zig11 zag site, the sinusoidal site, and the 2009 zig zag site (figure 24). The 2009 zig zag site had the12 lowest Shannon Diversity Index at 0.55 (table 8). The 2009 zig zag site was significantly similar13 to the beneficial uses site (figure 24).14 When comparing the age of the restored sites to the Shannon Diversity Index values, the15 grid site, the oldest site, had the highest Shannon Diversity Index value, 0.90. The sinusoidal16 site, the second oldest site, had the third highest Shannon Diversity Index value, 0.73. The 200417 zig zag site had the second highest Shannon Diversity Index value, 0.81. The beneficial uses18 site, built in 2005, had the fourth highest Shannon Diversity Index value, 0.67. The 2009 zig zag19 site, the newest site, had the lowest Shannon Diversity Index value, 0.55 (figure 25).20 21 22
  • 42.
    42 | Pa g e H' PRC 1 Reference 1.05 PRC 2 Zig Zag 2004 0.81 PRC 3 Grid 0.90 PRC 4 Sinusoidal 0.73 PRC 5 Beneficial Uses 0.67 PRC 6 Zig Zag 2009 0.55 Site Shannon Diversity Index 2013 Table 8: Comparing Shannon Diversity Index among the six sites at Pierce Marsh. 2013. Pierce1 Marsh.2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Figure 24: Comparing the Shannon Diversity Index among the six sites at Pierce Marsh. 2013.21 22 23
  • 43.
    43 | Pa g e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Figure 25: Comparing Shannon Diversity Index values among the five constructed sites by year9 built at Pierce Marsh. 2013.10 11 12 Shannon Diversity Index 2008 to 2013:13 When the Shannon Diversity Index values for 2008 and 2013 are compared, the14 reference site’s Shannon Diversity Index value was 0.98 in 2008 and 1.05 in 2013 (table 9). This15 was an increase of 0.07. The reference site was significantly similar to the grid and the16 sinusoidal sites in 2008. However, in 2013 it wasn’t similar to any of the other sites (figure 26).17 The 2004 zig zag site had a Shannon Diversity Index value of 0.57 in 2008 and 0.81 in 201318 (table 9). This was an increase of 0.24. The 2004 zig zag site was similar only to the beneficial19 uses site in 2008. However, in 2013 it was similar to the sinusoidal site (figure 26). The20 beneficial uses site had a Shannon Diversity Index value of 0.35 in 2008 and 0.67 in 2013 (table21 9). This was an increase of 0.33. This was the highest increase of the sites. In 2008, the22
  • 44.
    44 | Pa g e 2008 2013 Difference PRC 1 Reference 0.98 1.05 0.07 PRC 2 Zig Zag 2004 0.57 0.81 0.24 PRC 3 Grid 1.18 0.90 -0.28 PRC 4 Sinusoidal 1.05 0.73 -0.31 PRC 5 Beneficial Uses 0.35 0.67 0.33 PRC 6 Zig Zag 2009 n/a 0.55 n/a Site Shannon Diversity Index beneficial uses site was significantly similar to the 2004 zig zag site. However, in 2013 it was1 similar to the sinusoidal site (figure 26).2 The grid site had a Shannon Diversity Index value of 1.18 in 2008 and 0.90 in 2013 (table3 9). This was a decrease of 0.28. This was the second highest decrease of the sites. The grid site4 was significantly similar to the reference site and the sinusoidal site in 2008. However, in 20135 it was significantly similar to only the 2004 zig zag site (figure 26). The sinusoidal site had a6 Shannon Diversity Index value of 1.05 in 2008 and 0.73 in 2013 (table 9). This was a decrease of7 0.31. This was the highest decrease of the sites. The sinusoidal site was significantly similar to8 the reference and grid sites in 2008. However, in 2013 it was significantly similar to only the9 2004 zig zag site (figure 26).10 The Shannon Diversity Index values could not be compared for the 2009 zig zag site as it11 was built after the 2008 data was obtained.12 13 14 Table 9: Comparing Shannon Diversity Index in years 2008 and 2013. Pierce Marsh.15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
  • 45.
    45 | Pa g e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Figure 26: Comparing the Shannon Diversity Index among the six sites at Pierce Marsh for the10 years 2008 and 2013.11 12 13 Pielou’s Index of Evenness 2013:14 When comparing the Pielou’s Index of Evenness values for 2013, the 2009 zig zag site15 had the highest Pielou’s Index of Evenness value at 0.79 (table 10). The reference site had the16 second highest Pielou’s Index of Evenness value at 0.76 (table 10). The reference site and the17 2009 zig zag site were significantly similar to one another (figure 27). The beneficial uses site18 had the third highest Pielou’s Index of Evenness value at 0.61 (table 10). The 2004 zig zag site19 had the fourth highest Pielou’s Index of Evenness value at 0.59 (table 10). The beneficial uses20 site and the 2004 zig zag sites were significantly similar to one another (figure 27). The grid site21 had the fifth highest Pielou’s Index of Evenness value at 0.50 (table 10). The grid site was22
  • 46.
    46 | Pa g e E PRC 1 Reference 0.76 PRC 2 Zig Zag 2004 0.59 PRC 3 Grid 0.50 PRC 4 Sinusoidal 0.46 PRC 5 Beneficial Uses 0.61 PRC 6 Zig Zag 2009 0.79 Site Pielou's Index of Evenness 2013 significantly similar to the 2004 zig zag site and the sinusoidal site (figure 27). The sinusoidal1 site built in 2009 had the lowest Pielou’s Index of Evenness at 0.46 (table 10). The sinusoidal2 site was significantly similar to the grid site (figure 27).3 When comparing the age of the restored sites to the Pielou’s Index of Evenness values,4 the grid site, the oldest site, had the second to the lowest Pielou’s Index of Evenness value,5 0.50. The sinusoidal site, the second oldest site, had the lowest Pielou’s Index of Evenness6 value, 0.46. The 2004 zig zag site had the third lowest Pielou’s Index of Evenness value, 0.59.7 The beneficial uses site, built in 2005, had the fourth lowest Pielou’s Index of Evenness value,8 0.61. The 2009 zig zag site, the newest site, had the highest Pielou’s Index of Evenness value,9 0.79 (figure 28).10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Table 10: Comparing Pielou’s Index of Evenness between the reference site and the restored17 sites. 2013. Pierce Marsh.18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
  • 47.
    47 | Pa g e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Figure 27: Comparing Pielou’s Index of Evenness among the six sites at Pierce Marsh. 2013.11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Figure 28: Comparing Pielou’s Index of Evenness values among the five constructed sites by22 year built at Pierce Marsh. 2013.23 24
  • 48.
    48 | Pa g e Pielou’s Index of Evenness 2008 to 2013:1 When the Pielou’s Index of Evenness values for 2008 and 2013 are compared, the2 sinusoidal site had a Pielou’s Index of Evenness value of 0.54 in 2008 and 0.46 in 2013 (table3 11). This was a decrease of 0.08. This was the only decrease of the sites. The sinusoidal site4 was significantly similar to the reference and grid sites in 2008. However, in 2013 it was5 significantly similar to only the grid site (figure 29). The beneficial uses site had a Pielou’s Index6 of Evenness value of 0.00 in 2008 and 0.61 in 2013 (table 11). This was an increase of 0.61.7 This was the highest increase of the sites. The beneficial uses site was not significantly similar8 to any other site in 2008. However, it was significantly similar to the 2004 zig zag site (figure9 29). The 2004 zig zag site had a Pielou’s Index of Evenness value of 0.36 in 2008 and 0.59 in10 2013 (table 11). This was an increase of 0.23. This was the second highest increase of the sites.11 The 2004 zig zag site was similar grid and the sinusoidal sites in 2008. However, in 2013 it was12 similar to the grid and the beneficial uses site (figure 29). The reference site had a Pielou’s13 Index of Evenness value of 0.61 in 2008 and 0.76 in 2013 (table 11). This was an increase of14 0.15. This was the third highest increase of the sites. The reference site was significantly15 similar to the grid and the sinusoidal sites in 2008. However, in 2013 it was similar only to the16 2009 zig zag site (figure 29). The grid site had a Pielou’s Index of Evenness value of 0.49 in 200817 and 0.50 in 2013 (table 11). This was an increase of 0.01. This was the lowest increase of the18 sites. The grid site was significantly similar to the reference site, the 2004 zig zag site and the19 sinusoidal site in 2008. However, in 2013 it was significantly similar to the 2004 zig zag site and20 the sinusoidal site (figure 29). The Pielou’s Index of Evenness values could not be compared for21 the 2009 zig zag site as it was built after the 2008 data was obtained.22
  • 49.
    49 | Pa g e 2008 2013 Difference PRC 1 Reference 0.61 0.76 0.15 PRC 2 Zig Zag 2004 0.36 0.59 0.23 PRC 3 Grid 0.49 0.50 0.01 PRC 4 Sinusoidal 0.54 0.46 -0.08 PRC 5 Beneficial Uses 0.00 0.61 0.61 PRC 6 Zig Zag 2009 n/a 0.79 n/a Site Pielou's Index of Evenness Table 11: Comparing Pielou’s Index of Evenness in years 2008 and 2013. Pierce Marsh.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Figure 29: Comparing the Pielou’s Index of Evenness among the six sites at Pierce Marsh for the21 years 2008 and 2013.22 23 24 25
  • 50.
    50 | Pa g e Jaccard’s Coefficient of Community Similarity 2013:1 When comparing the Jaccard’s Coefficient of Community Similarity values for 2013, the2 reference site the 2004 zig zag site had the highest Jaccard’s Coefficient of Community3 Similarity at 1.0. The reference site and the beneficial uses site had the second highest4 Jaccard’s Coefficient of Community Similarity at 0.75. The reference site and the grid site, the5 sinusoidal site and the 2009 zig zag site had a Jaccard’s Coefficient of Community Similarity of6 0.50 each.7 When comparing the restored sites, the 2004 zig zag site the beneficial uses site built in8 2005 had the highest Jaccard’s Coefficient of Community Similarity at 0.75. Two site9 comparisons had a Jaccard’s Coefficient of Community Similarity of 0.67; the grid site and the10 sinusoidal site; as well as the beneficial uses site and the 2009 zig zag site. Two site11 comparisons had a Jaccard’s Coefficient of Community Similarity of 0.60; the grid site and the12 beneficial uses site; as well as the sinusoidal site and the beneficial uses site. Three13 comparisons of sites had a Jaccard’s Coefficient of Community Similarity of 0.50; the 2004 zig14 zag site and the grid site; the 2004 zig zag site and the sinusoidal site; as well as the 2004 zig zag15 site and the 2009 zig zag site. Two comparisons of sites had a Jaccard’s Coefficient of16 Community Similarity of 0.40; the grid site, and the 2009 zig zag site, as well as the sinusoidal17 site, and the 2009 zig zag site (table 12).18 19 20 21 22
  • 51.
    51 | Pa g e Sites Jaccard's PRC 1 vs PRC 2 1.00 PRC 1 vs PRC 3 0.50 PRC 1 vs PRC 4 0.50 PRC 1 vs PRC 5 0.75 PRC 1 vs PRC 6 0.50 PRC 2 vs PRC 3 0.50 PRC 2 vs PRC 4 0.50 PRC 2 vs PRC 5 0.75 PRC 2 vs PRC 6 0.50 PRC 3 vs PRC 4 0.67 PRC 3 vs PRC 5 0.60 PRC 3 vs PRC 6 0.40 PRC 4 vs PRC 5 0.60 PRC 4 vs PRC 6 0.40 PRC 5 vs PRC 6 0.67 Jaccard’s Coefficient of Community Similarity 2013 Table 12: Comparing Jaccard’s Coefficient of Community Similarity between the restored sites.1 2013. Pierce Marsh.2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Jaccard’s Coefficient of Community Similarity 2008 to 2013:15 When the Jaccard’s Coefficient of Community Similarity values for 2008 and 2013 are16 compared, the reference site and the 2004 zig zag site had a Jaccard’s Coefficient of Community17 Similarity of 1.0 in 2008 and 2013. The reference site and the grid site had a Jaccard’s18 Coefficient of Community Similarity of 0.56 in 2008 and 0.50 in 2013. This is a decrease of 0.06.19 The reference site and the sinusoidal site had a Jaccard’s Coefficient of Community Similarity of20 0.50 in 2008 and 2013. The reference site and the beneficial uses site had a Jaccard’s21 Coefficient of Community Similarity of 0.20 in 2008 and 0.75 in 2013. This is an increase of22 0.55.23
  • 52.
    52 | Pa g e When comparing the restored sites, the 2004 zig zag site and the grid site had a1 Jaccard’s Coefficient of Community Similarity of 0.56 in 2008 and 0.50 in 2013. This is a2 decrease of 0.06. The 2004 zig zag site and the sinusoidal site had a Jaccard’s Coefficient of3 Community Similarity of 0.50 in 2008 and 2013. The 2004 zig zag site and the beneficial uses4 site had a Jaccard’s Coefficient of Community Similarity of 0.20 in 2008 and 0.75 in 2013. This is5 an increase of 0.55. The grid site and the sinusoidal site had a Jaccard’s Coefficient of6 Community Similarity of 0.60 in 2008 and 0.67 in 2013. This is an increase of 0.07. The grid site7 and the beneficial uses site had a Jaccard’s Coefficient of Community Similarity of 0.11 in 20088 and 0.60 in 2013. This is an increase of 0.49. The sinusoidal site and the beneficial uses site9 had a Jaccard’s Coefficient of Community Similarity of 0.14 in 2008 and 0.60 in 2013. This is an10 increase of 0.46. The 2009 zig zag site could not be compared as it was built after the 200811 data was obtained (table 13).12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
  • 53.
    53 | Pa g e Sites 2008 2013 Difference PRC 1 vs PRC 2 1.00 1.00 0.00 PRC 1 vs PRC 3 0.56 0.50 -0.06 PRC 1 vs PRC 4 0.50 0.50 0.00 PRC 1 vs PRC 5 0.20 0.75 0.55 PRC 1 vs PRC 6 n/a 0.50 n/a PRC 2 vs PRC 3 0.56 0.50 -0.06 PRC 2 vs PRC 4 0.50 0.50 0.00 PRC 2 vs PRC 5 0.20 0.75 0.55 PRC 2 vs PRC 6 n/a 0.50 n/a PRC 3 vs PRC 4 0.60 0.67 0.07 PRC 3 vs PRC 5 0.11 0.60 0.49 PRC 3 vs PRC 6 n/a 0.40 n/a PRC 4 vs PRC 5 0.14 0.60 0.46 PRC 4 vs PRC 6 n/a 0.40 n/a PRC 5 vs PRC 6 n/a 0.67 n/a Jaccard’s Coefficient of Community Similarity 2008 & 2013 Table 13: Comparing Jaccard’s Coefficient of Community Similarity in years 2008 and 2013 by1 site. Pierce Marsh.2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 DISCUSSION17 The reference site had a high Spartina alterniflora importance value, a moderate species18 richness value, a high Shannon Diversity Index, and a high Pielou’s Index of Evenness in 2013. It19 also demonstrated stability of these values over time. The data comparing 2008 and 201320 showed that all of the above mentioned parameters were significantly similar over this time21 period. The Spartina alterniflora importance value decreased only 0.90%, the species richness22 was unchanged, the Shannon Diversity Index increased by 0.07, and the Pielou’s Index of23
  • 54.
    54 | Pa g e Evenness increased by 0.15. This data indicates that the reference site was healthy and stable,1 which provided an excellent comparison site.2 Overall, the five restored sites fell short of showing significant similarities to the3 reference site over the majority of the compared parameters; Spartina alterniflora importance4 value, species richness, Shannon Diversity Index, and Pielou’s Index of Evenness. In fact, each5 parameter had only one site that showed significant similarities to the reference site.6 Additionally, some sites showed trends overtime that if continued, will result in the degradation7 of the sites.8 The two sites of most concern are the grid site, built in 1999, and the sinusoidal site9 built in 2001. The grid site had a Spartina alterniflora importance value significantly lower than10 the reference site. It was significantly lower in 2008 as well and dropped even further in 2013.11 Its relative frequency was significantly lower as well; however, its relative coverage was12 extremely low. As the Spartina alterniflora decreased at this site, sea-ox-eye-daisy, Borrichia13 frutescens, and saltwort, Batis maritina, colonized the site and became the species’ of14 importance. Its mean species richness value and Shannon Diversity Index were significantly15 similar to the reference site; however, it had significantly fallen from 2008 to 2013. The site’s16 Pielou’s Index of Evenness was significantly lower than the reference site’s. Its value was stable17 over time; however, the reference site’s evenness value increased, creating a significant gap.18 The Jaccard’s Coefficient of Community Similarity between the reference site and the grid site19 showed a moderate similarity between the two sites; this similarity fell slightly from 2008.20 Empirically, this site’s berms were visibly thinner than the other sites and their elevation21 appeared to be lower, although measurements were not taken, so they were being inundated22
  • 55.
    55 | Pa g e with water for longer periods than the other sites. The significant differences between the grid1 site and the reference site in 2013, the trend of the values dropping and the differences2 becoming greater between 2008 and 2013, along with the empirical data, point to a trend that3 this site was degrading over time.4 The sinusoidal site, two years younger than the grid site, also had a Spartina alterniflora5 importance value significantly lower than the reference site. It was significantly lower in 20086 as well and dropped even further in 2013. Its relative frequency was significantly lower as well;7 however, its relative coverage was extremely low. As the Spartina alterniflora decreased at this8 site, saltwort, Batis maritina, colonized the site and became the species of importance. Its9 mean species richness value was significantly higher than the reference site and was stable over10 time. The Shannon Diversity Index was significantly lower than the reference site’s and had11 significantly fallen from 2008 to 2013. The site’s Pielou’s Index of Evenness was significantly12 lower than the reference site’s and had decreased significantly over time. The Jaccard’s13 Coefficient of Community Similarity between the reference site and the sinusoidal site showed14 a moderate similarity between the two sites and was stable from 2008. The Jaccard’s15 Coefficient of Community Similarity between the grid site and the sinusoidal site increased16 slightly over time. These were the only sites that showed and increase during this time with the17 exception of the beneficial uses site which showed and increase to all of the sites and will be18 discussed later. Empirically, this site’s berms were visibly thinner than the other sites, including19 the grid site, although measurements were not taken. The berms were so thin and fragile that20 extra caution had to be used when collecting data as to no further damage the berms. Their21 elevation appeared to be lower, although measurements were not taken, so they were being22
  • 56.
    56 | Pa g e inundated with water for longer periods than the other sites. The significant differences1 between the grid site and the reference site in 2013, the trend of the values dropping and the2 differences becoming greater between 2008 and 2013, along with the empirical data, point to a3 trend that this site was degrading over time as well.4 The 2004 zig zag site, five years younger than the grid site, also had a Spartina5 alterniflora importance value significantly lower than the reference site. It was significantly6 similar in 2008; however, it dropped significantly since 2013. Its relative frequency was7 significantly similar; however, its relative coverage was extremely low. As the Spartina8 alterniflora has decreased in numbers at this site, saltwort, Batis maritina, has increased and9 has a slightly higher importance value than Spartina alterniflora. Its mean species richness10 value was significantly similar to the reference site and had increased slightly over time. The11 Shannon Diversity Index was significantly lower than the reference site’s but had significantly12 increased from 2008 to 2013. The site’s Pielou’s Index of Evenness was significantly lower than13 the reference site’s but had also significantly increased over time. The Jaccard’s Coefficient of14 Community Similarity between the reference site and the 2004 zig zag site was extremely high15 in 2008 and 2013. The 1.0 Jaccard’s Coefficient of Community Similarity between the16 reference site and the 2004 zig zag site could be deceiving as it was only measuring the17 existence or nonexistence of species. The two sites had species in common but the significant18 difference in Spartina alterniflora relative coverage, and therefore importance value, as well as19 the significant difference in diversity and evenness measures, assured that these sites are not20 entirely similar. The Jaccard’s Coefficient of Community Similarity between the 2004 zig zag21 and the gird site showed a moderate similarity between the two sites; this similarity fell slightly22
  • 57.
    57 | Pa g e from 2008, just as it did between the reference site and the grid site. The Jaccard’s Coefficient1 of Community Similarity between the 2004 zig zag and the sinusoidal site also showed a2 moderate similarity between the two sites; this similarity was stable over time. Empirically, this3 site’s berms were visibly wider than the grid and sinusoidal berms, although measurements4 were not taken. Their elevation appeared to be higher as well, although measurements were5 not taken, allowing the higher areas of the berm more opportunity to dry out between high6 tides. The significant differences between the 2004 zig zag site and the reference site in 20137 were not positive signs for this site; however, the trend of the mean species richness, Shannon8 Diversity Index and the Pielou’s Index of Evenness values increasing between 2008 and 2013,9 along with the positive Jaccard’s Coefficient of Community Similarity between this site and the10 reference site as well as the empirical data, indicate that this site was healthier than the grid11 and sinusoidal sites and may continue the trend. If the Spartina alterniflora coverage begins to12 increase at this site, it will be on its way to replicating the reference site.13 The beneficial uses site, built in 2005, was six years younger than the grid site, and is the14 only site built in a large area from dredge material rather than in terraced berms. It was the15 only site that had a Spartina alterniflora importance value significantly similar to the reference16 site. Its relative frequency and relative coverage were significantly similar as well. It was17 significantly higher in 2008; however, it dropped significantly since 2013 to bring it in line with18 the reference site. Its mean species richness value was slightly lower than the reference site19 but had increased significantly over time. The Shannon Diversity Index was significantly lower20 than the reference site’s but had also significantly increased from 2008 to 2013. The site’s21 Pielou’s Index of Evenness was slightly lower than the reference site’s but had dramatically22
  • 58.
    58 | Pa g e increased over time. The Jaccard’s Coefficient of Community Similarity between the reference1 site and the beneficial uses site was low in 2008, 0.20, and high, 0.75, in 2013. The Jaccard’s2 Coefficient of Community Similarity between this site and all of the other sites had increases as3 well, ranging between 0.46 and 0.55. The beneficial uses site had only Spartina alterniflora as4 an inhabitant in 2008, so the addition of creeping glasswort, Salicornia virginica, and saltwort,5 Batis maritima, over the five-year-period increased its similarity to all of the sites. Empirically,6 this site looked much like the reference site. It had much more surface area than the other7 sites and was high enough to dry out between high tides. There were significant differences8 between the beneficial uses site and the reference site in 2013; however, it was the one site9 that had a significantly similar Spartina alterniflora importance value, along with significantly10 similar relative coverage and frequency values. The trend of the mean species richness,11 Shannon Diversity Index and the Pielou’s Index of Evenness values increasing significantly12 between 2008 and 2013, along with the positive Jaccard’s Coefficient of Community Similarity13 between this site and the reference site as well as the empirical data, indicate that this site was14 healthier than the grid and sinusoidal sites and may continue the trend. The beneficial uses site15 had a significantly higher Spartina alterniflora importance value and was significantly similar in16 mean species richness, Shannon Diversity Index and Pielou’s Index of Evenness when compared17 to the 2004 zig zag site. This indicates that this site was healthier than the 2004 zig zag site and18 most closely replicated the reference site.19 The 2009 zig zag site, ten years younger than the grid site, also had a Spartina20 alterniflora importance value significantly lower than the reference site. Its relative frequency21 was significantly similar; however, its relative coverage was extremely low. This site was built a22
  • 59.
    59 | Pa g e year after the 2008 data was collected so data for trends was not available. Its mean species1 richness value and Shannon Diversity Index were significantly lower than the reference site. The2 site’s Pielou’s Index of Evenness was significantly similar to the reference sites. The Jaccard’s3 Coefficient of Community Similarity between the reference site and the 2009 zig zag site was4 moderate, 0.50. The two zig zag sites had a moderate Jaccard’s Coefficient of Community5 Similarity as well, 0.50. However, it had lower similarity values when compared to the grid and6 sinusoidal sites. Empirically, this site’s berms were visibly similar to the 2004 zig zag berms in7 width and height, although measurements were not taken. One visible difference was the8 highest section of the berms had not become completely vegetated yet; however, overall, the9 bare ground values for the zig zag sites were similar. The significant differences between the10 2009 zig zag site and the reference site in 2013 were not positive signs for this site. However,11 this site shows some strong similarities to the 2004 zig zag site. Its Spartina alterniflora12 importance value, relative frequency and coverage are all significantly similar. The 2004 site13 showed positive trends between 2008 and 2013 in mean species richness, Shannon Diversity14 Index and the Pielou’s Index of Evenness values. Additionally, the 2009 zig zag site had a higher15 Jaccard’s Coefficient of Community Similarity when compared to the reference site and the16 2004 site than when compared to the grid and sinusoidal sites. This information as well as the17 empirical data, indicate that this site was similar to the 2004 zig zag site and was healthier than18 the grid and sinusoidal sites and may continue the trend. Like the 2004 zig zag site, if the19 Spartina alterniflora coverage begins to increase at this site, it will be on its way to replicating20 the reference site.21
  • 60.
    60 | Pa g e If reconstructed marshes develop as expected, the older reconstructed marshes will1 have higher Spartina alterniflora coverage and importance values. In 2008, Howard and2 Dobberstine found that restoration design affected the Spartina alterniflora coverage more3 than the age of the site. However, the 2013 data suggested as the sites got older their Spartina4 alterniflora coverages decreased. This was the opposite of what would be expected if the5 reconstructed marshes were performing better over time. These trends could be pointing to6 the older sites degrading, as was the case with the grid and sinusoidal sites. Both zig zag sites7 and the beneficial uses site are clearly out-performing the older sites. It was impossible with8 the available data to determine if these differences are due to their designs or their age. The9 data collected at these sites in 2018 will give further information about the trajectory of these10 sites. It will be interesting to know how the zig zag sites and the beneficial uses sites perform11 and whether the grid and sinusoidal sites will be there at all.12 A few words about error: Using an estimation of percent coverage to obtain importance13 values could be somewhat unreliable when comparing years. A different person determined14 the percent coverage in 2008 than did in 2013. While the principal investigators remained the15 same and therefore aided in identifying the plant species with consistence and gave consistent16 instructions on how to determine plant coverage, the estimation of coverage could still be a17 cause of error. The fact that the data obtained in 2008 and 2013 for the reference site18 remained stable and consistent for all parameters; Spartina alterniflora importance values,19 species richness, Shannon Diversity Index, and Pielou’s Index of Evenness was an excellent20 indicator that this error did not occur. Additionally, the percent of detritus material was not21
  • 61.
    61 | Pa g e estimated for the 2008 data but was included in the 2013 data. The change in technique could1 have an impact on the coverage values and therefore the importance values.2 Data will be collected at Pierce Marsh next in 2018. Keeping the overall techniques3 consistent with those used in 2013 will be vital in assuring the data will be reliable to compare4 the sites throughout the years. Adding the measurement of berm widths would be a valuable5 addition to the data. Smaller terraced berms could be measured manually in the field. Larger6 terraced berms or the dredge material sites could be measured using geographic information7 system, GIS, technology.8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
  • 62.
    62 | Pa g e Literature Cited1 Brower, J.E., J,H. Zar, C.N. von Ende. 1998. Field and Laboratory Methods for General Ecology.2 4th Edition. McGraw Hill, Massachusetts.3 Caldwell, P.A., G.A. Matthews, and T.J. Minello. 2004. A habitat-use model to determine4 essential fish habitat for juvenile brown shrimp (Farfantepenaeus aztecus) in Galveston5 Bay, Texas. Fishery Bulletin, April 2004.6 Costanza, R., R. de Groot, P. Sutton, S. van der Ploeg, S. J. Anderson, I. Kniszewski, S. Farber,7 R.K. Turner. 2014. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global8 Environmental Change. 26: 152-158.9 Craft, C., J. Reader, J.N. Sacco, S.W. Broome. 1999. Twenty-five years of ecosystem10 development of constructed Spartina alterniflora (Loisel) marshes. Ecological11 Applications 9(4): 1405-141912 Craft, C., P. Megonigal, S. Broome, J. Stevenson, R. Freese, J. Cornell, L. Zheng, and J. Sacco.13 2003. The pace of ecosystem development of constructed Spartina alterniflora14 marshes. Ecological Applications. 13(5):1417-1432.15 Cullinan, M., N. LaBella, and M. Schott. 2004. Salt marshes – A valuable ecosystem. The16 Traprock. 3:20-2317 Davis, C. 1998. Marine Botany, Second Edition. John Wiley and Sons, NY, NY. pp 496.18 Galveston Bay Foundation. Pierce Marsh Fact Sheet. www.galvbay.org19 Gossman, B.P. 2000. Thesis: Use of terraced marsh habitats by estuarine nekton in20 Southwestern Louisiana. Louisiana State University. pp 59.21 Greenberg, R., J.E. Maldonado, S. Droege, and M.V. McDonald. 2006. Tidal Marshes: A global22
  • 63.
    63 | Pa g e perspective on the evolution and conservation of their terrestrial vertebrates.1 Bioscience. 56(8) 675-685.2 Howard, C. L. and J.A. Dobberstine. 2008. Science based monitoring of created and restored3 habitat within the Galveston Bay system. Coastal Management Program of the Texas4 General Land Office and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.5 Contract number 07-005-11. 20 pp.6 Lester, J., and L. Gonzales (eds.). 2002. The state of the bay: Characterization of the Galveston7 Bay Ecosystem. 2nd Edition. The Galveston Bay Estuary Program. Galveston, Texas.8 Mendelssohn, I.A., and J.T. Morris. 2002. Eco-Physiological Controls on the Productivity of9 Spartina alterniflora Loisel. Concepts and Controversies in Tidal Marsh Ecology. pp 59-10 8011 Merino, J.H., L.P. Rozas, T.J. Minello, and P.F. Sheridan. 2010. Effects of marsh terracing on12 nekton abundance at two locations in Galveston Bay, Texas. Wetlands. 30:693-704.13 Rozas, L.P. and T.J. Minello, 2001. Marsh terracing as a wetland restoration tool for creating14 fishery habitat. Wetlands. 21(3) 327-341.15 Shafer, D.J. and W.J. Streever. 2000. A comparison of 28 natural and dredged material salt16 marshes in Texas with an emphasis on geomorphological variables. Wetland Ecology17 and Management. 8:353-366.18 Stokes, B. 2014. Blue ribbon resilient communities: Texas – Challendges/Opportunities.19 Galveston Bay Foundation.20 Streeter, W.J. 2000. Spartina alterniflora marshes on dredge material: a critical review of the21 ongoing debate over success. Wetlands Ecology Management. 8: 295-316.22
  • 64.
    64 | Pa g e Whaley, S.D. and T.J. Minello. 2002. The distribution of bethic infauna of a Texas salt marsh in1 relation to marsh edge. Wetlands. 22(4):753-766.2 White, W.A., T.A. Tremblay, E.G. Wermund Jr., and L.R. Handley. 1993. Trends and status of3 wetland and aquatic habitats in the Galveston Bay System, Texas. Galveston Bay4 National Estuary Program, Report GBEP-31. 225 pp.5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
  • 65.
    65 | Pa g e Appendices1 Appendix I: Importance values calculations by site for 2008. Pierce Marsh.2 3 4 5 6 PRC 1 - Reference Site Species (i) Number of plots sampled Present in # plots (ji) Frequen cy (fi) Relative Frequen cy (RFi) Relative Coverag e (RCi) Importa nce Value (IVi) Bare ground 18 18 1.000 0.310 0.308 0.619 Detritis Spartina alterniflora 18 18 1.000 0.310 0.411 0.721 Salicornia virginica 18 6 0.333 0.103 0.044 0.148 Salicornia bigelovii 18 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Batis maritima 18 11 0.611 0.190 0.189 0.379 Aster tenuifolius 18 4 0.222 0.069 0.042 0.111 Borrichia frutescens 18 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Distichlis spicata 18 1 0.056 0.017 0.006 0.023 Cuscuta salina 18 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Iva frutescens 18 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Lycium carolinianum 18 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Sesuvium portulacastrum 18 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Solidago sempervirens 18 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Suaeda linearis 18 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Totals 3.22 1.00 1.00 2.00 Ʃf=3.22 ƩRF=1.0 ƩRC=1.0 ƩIV=2.0 Importance Value Calculations 2008 Not measured
  • 66.
    66 | Pa g e 1 2 3 4 5 6 PRC 2 - Zig Zag 2004 Species (i) Number of plots sampled Present in # plots (ji) Frequen cy (fi) Relative Frequen cy (RFi) Relative Coverag e (RCi) Importa nce Value (IVi) Bare ground 18 18 1.000 0.375 0.647 1.022 Detritis Spartina alterniflora 18 18 1.000 0.375 0.306 0.681 Salicornia virginica 18 6 0.333 0.125 0.015 0.140 Salicornia bigelovii 18 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Batis maritima 18 2 0.111 0.042 0.016 0.057 Aster tenuifolius 18 3 0.167 0.063 0.011 0.074 Borrichia frutescens 18 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Distichlis spicata 18 1 0.056 0.021 0.006 0.026 Cuscuta salina 18 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Iva frutescens 18 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Lycium carolinianum 18 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Sesuvium portulacastrum 18 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Solidago sempervirens 18 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Suaeda linearis 18 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Totals 2.67 1.00 1.00 2.00 Ʃf=2.67 ƩRF=1.0 ƩRC=1.0 ƩIV=2.0 Importance Value Calculations 2008 Not measured
  • 67.
    67 | Pa g e 1 2 3 4 5 6 PRC 3 - Grid 1999 Species (i) Number of plots sampled Present in # plots (ji) Frequen cy (fi) Relative Frequen cy (RFi) Relative Coverag e (RCi) Importa nce Value (IVi) Bare ground 18 18 1.000 0.234 0.542 0.776 Detritis Spartina alterniflora 18 18 1.000 0.234 0.082 0.315 Salicornia virginica 18 2 0.111 0.026 0.056 0.082 Salicornia bigelovii 18 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Batis maritima 18 9 0.500 0.117 0.043 0.160 Aster tenuifolius 18 12 0.667 0.156 0.166 0.322 Borrichia frutescens 18 8 0.444 0.104 0.049 0.153 Distichlis spicata 18 1 0.056 0.013 0.008 0.021 Cuscuta salina 18 1 0.056 0.013 0.006 0.019 Iva frutescens 18 4 0.222 0.052 0.025 0.077 Lycium carolinianum 18 1 0.056 0.013 0.001 0.014 Sesuvium portulacastrum 18 1 0.056 0.013 0.001 0.014 Solidago sempervirens 18 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Suaeda linearis 18 2 0.111 0.026 0.014 0.040 Totals 4.28 1.00 0.99 1.99 Ʃf=4.28 ƩRF=1.0 ƩRC=1.0 ƩIV=2.0 Importance Value Calculations 2008 Not measured
  • 68.
    68 | Pa g e 1 2 3 4 5 6 PRC 4 - Sinusoidal 2001 Species (i) Number of plots sampled Present in # plots (ji) Frequen cy (fi) Relative Frequen cy (RFi) Relative Coverag e (RCi) Importa nce Value (IVi) Bare ground 18 18 1.000 0.273 0.509 0.782 Detritis Spartina alterniflora 18 18 1.000 0.273 0.141 0.414 Salicornia virginica 18 11 0.611 0.167 0.169 0.336 Salicornia bigelovii 18 2 0.111 0.030 0.006 0.036 Batis maritima 18 4 0.222 0.061 0.022 0.083 Aster tenuifolius 18 10 0.556 0.152 0.133 0.285 Borrichia frutescens 18 1 0.056 0.015 0.003 0.018 Distichlis spicata 18 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Cuscuta salina 18 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Iva frutescens 18 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Lycium carolinianum 18 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Sesuvium portulacastrum 18 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Solidago sempervirens 18 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Suaeda linearis 18 2 0.111 0.030 0.017 0.047 Totals 3.67 1.00 1.00 2.00 Ʃf=3.67 ƩRF=1.0 ƩRC=1.0 ƩIV=2.0 Not measured Importance Value Calculations 2008
  • 69.
    69 | Pa g e 1 2 3 4 5 6 PRC 5 - Beneficial Uses 2005 Species (i) Number of plots sampled Present in # plots (ji) Frequen cy (fi) Relative Frequen cy (RFi) Relative Coverag e (RCi) Importa nce Value (IVi) Bare ground 12 12 1.000 0.500 0.500 1.000 Detritis Spartina alterniflora 12 12 1.000 0.500 0.500 1.000 Salicornia virginica 12 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Salicornia bigelovii 12 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Batis maritima 12 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Aster tenuifolius 12 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Borrichia frutescens 12 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Distichlis spicata 12 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Cuscuta salina 12 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Iva frutescens 12 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Lycium carolinianum 12 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Sesuvium portulacastrum 12 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Solidago sempervirens 12 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Suaeda linearis 12 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Totals 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 Ʃf=2.00 ƩRF=1.0 ƩRC=1.0 ƩIV=2.0 Not measured Importance Value Calculations 2008
  • 70.
    70 | Pa g e Appendix II: Importance values calculations by site for 2013. Pierce Marsh.1 2 3 4 5 6 PRC 1 - Reference Site Species (i) Number of plots sampled Present in # plots (ji) Frequen cy (fi) Relative Frequen cy (RFi) Relative Coverag e (RCi) Importa nce Value (IVi) Bare ground 9 9 1.000 0.243 0.071 0.314 Detritis 9 8 0.889 0.216 0.039 0.255 Spartina alterniflora 9 9 1.000 0.243 0.469 0.712 Salicornia virginica 9 4 0.444 0.108 0.118 0.226 Salicornia bigelovii 9 1 0.111 0.027 0.022 0.049 Batis maritima 9 6 0.667 0.162 0.281 0.443 Aster tenuifolius 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Borrichia frutescens 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Distichlis spicata 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Cuscuta salina 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Iva frutescens 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Lycium carolinianum 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Sesuvium portulacastrum 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Solidago sempervirens 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Suaeda linearis 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Totals 4.11 1.00 1.00 2.00 Ʃf=4.11 ƩRF=1.0 ƩRC=1.0 ƩIV=2.0 Importance Value Calculations 2013
  • 71.
    71 | Pa g e 1 2 3 4 5 6 PRC 2 - Zig Zag 2004 Species (i) Number of plots sampled Present in # plots (ji) Frequen cy (fi) Relative Frequen cy (RFi) Relative Coverag e (RCi) Importa nce Value (IVi) Bare ground 9 9 1.000 0.243 0.494 0.738 Detritis 9 9 1.000 0.243 0.114 0.358 Spartina alterniflora 9 9 1.000 0.243 0.106 0.349 Salicornia virginica 9 3 0.333 0.081 0.050 0.131 Salicornia bigelovii 9 1 0.111 0.027 0.028 0.055 Batis maritima 9 6 0.667 0.162 0.208 0.370 Aster tenuifolius 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Borrichia frutescens 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Distichlis spicata 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Cuscuta salina 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Iva frutescens 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Lycium carolinianum 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Sesuvium portulacastrum 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Solidago sempervirens 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Suaeda linearis 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Totals 4.11 1.00 1.00 2.00 Ʃf=4.11 ƩRF=1.0 ƩRC=1.0 ƩIV=2.0 Importance Value Calculations 2013
  • 72.
    72 | Pa g e 1 2 3 4 5 6 PRC 3 - Grid 1999 Species (i) Number of plots sampled Present in # plots (ji) Frequen cy (fi) Relative Frequen cy (RFi) Relative Coverag e (RCi) Importa nce Value (IVi) Bare ground 9 9 1.000 0.220 0.321 0.541 Detritis 9 8 0.889 0.195 0.151 0.346 Spartina alterniflora 9 5 0.556 0.122 0.018 0.140 Salicornia virginica 9 2 0.222 0.049 0.004 0.053 Salicornia bigelovii 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Batis maritima 9 5 0.556 0.122 0.167 0.289 Aster tenuifolius 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Borrichia frutescens 9 8 0.889 0.195 0.291 0.486 Distichlis spicata 9 3 0.333 0.073 0.047 0.120 Cuscuta salina 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Iva frutescens 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Lycium carolinianum 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Sesuvium portulacastrum 9 1 0.111 0.024 0.001 0.026 Solidago sempervirens 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Suaeda linearis 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Totals 4.56 1.00 1.00 2.00 Ʃf=4.56 ƩRF=1.0 ƩRC=1.0 ƩIV=2.0 Importance Value Calculations 2013
  • 73.
    73 | Pa g e 1 2 3 4 5 6 PRC 4 - Sinusoidal 2001 Species (i) Number of plots sampled Present in # plots (ji) Frequen cy (fi) Relative Frequen cy (RFi) Relative Coverag e (RCi) Importa nce Value (IVi) Bare ground 9 9 1.000 0.250 0.311 0.561 Detritis 9 5 0.556 0.139 0.026 0.164 Spartina alterniflora 9 6 0.667 0.167 0.024 0.191 Salicornia virginica 9 5 0.556 0.139 0.031 0.170 Salicornia bigelovii 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Batis maritima 9 9 1.000 0.250 0.549 0.799 Aster tenuifolius 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Borrichia frutescens 9 1 0.111 0.028 0.028 0.056 Distichlis spicata 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Cuscuta salina 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Iva frutescens 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Lycium carolinianum 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Sesuvium portulacastrum 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Solidago sempervirens 9 1 0.111 0.028 0.031 0.059 Suaeda linearis 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Totals 4.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 Ʃf=4.00 ƩRF=1.0 ƩRC=1.0 ƩIV=2.0 Importance Value Calculations 2013
  • 74.
    74 | Pa g e 1 2 3 4 5 6 PRC 5 - Beneficial Uses 2005 Species (i) Number of plots sampled Present in # plots (ji) Frequen cy (fi) Relative Frequen cy (RFi) Relative Coverag e (RCi) Importa nce Value (IVi) Bare ground 9 9 1.000 0.273 0.311 0.584 Detritis 9 9 1.000 0.273 0.236 0.508 Spartina alterniflora 9 9 1.000 0.273 0.337 0.609 Salicornia virginica 9 5 0.556 0.152 0.094 0.246 Salicornia bigelovii 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Batis maritima 9 1 0.111 0.030 0.022 0.053 Aster tenuifolius 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Borrichia frutescens 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Distichlis spicata 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Cuscuta salina 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Iva frutescens 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Lycium carolinianum 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Sesuvium portulacastrum 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Solidago sempervirens 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Suaeda linearis 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Totals 3.67 1.00 1.00 2.00 Ʃf=3.67 ƩRF=1.0 ƩRC=1.0 ƩIV=2.0 Importance Value Calculations 2013
  • 75.
    75 | Pa g e 1 2 3 4 5 6 PRC 6 - Zig Zag 2009 Species (i) Number of plots sampled Present in # plots (ji) Frequen cy (fi) Relative Frequen cy (RFi) Relative Coverag e (RCi) Importa nce Value (IVi) Bare ground 9 8 0.889 0.258 0.418 0.676 Detritis 9 9 1.000 0.290 0.206 0.496 Spartina alterniflora 9 8 0.889 0.258 0.071 0.329 Salicornia virginica 9 6 0.667 0.194 0.306 0.499 Salicornia bigelovii 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Batis maritima 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Aster tenuifolius 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Borrichia frutescens 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Distichlis spicata 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Cuscuta salina 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Iva frutescens 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Lycium carolinianum 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Sesuvium portulacastrum 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Solidago sempervirens 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Suaeda linearis 9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Totals 3.44 1.00 1.00 2.00 Ʃf=3.44 ƩRF=1.0 ƩRC=1.0 ƩIV=2.0 Importance Value Calculations 2013
  • 76.
    76 | Pa g e Appendix III: Mean species richness calculations by site. 2008. Pierce Marsh.1 2 3 4 Year Site Code Site Number Type Trans Stat spp rich 2008 PRC 1 REF A 1 2 Column1 2008 PRC 1 REF A 2 3 2008 PRC 1 REF A 3 2 Mean 2.222222222 2008 PRC 1 REF B 1 1 Standard Error 0.172553971 2008 PRC 1 REF B 2 3 Median 2 2008 PRC 1 REF B 3 2 Mode 2 2008 PRC 1 REF C 1 3 Standard Deviation 0.732084498 2008 PRC 1 REF C 2 3 Sample Variance 0.535947712 2008 PRC 1 REF C 3 2 Kurtosis -0.905621654 2008 PRC 1 REF A 1 2 Skewness -0.383135834 2008 PRC 1 REF A 2 1 Range 2 2008 PRC 1 REF A 3 1 Minimum 1 2008 PRC 1 REF B 1 3 Maximum 3 2008 PRC 1 REF B 2 3 Sum 40 2008 PRC 1 REF B 3 2 Count 18 2008 PRC 1 REF C 1 3 2008 PRC 1 REF C 2 2 2008 PRC 1 REF C 3 2 2008 PRC 2 ZIG A 1 1 2008 PRC 2 ZIG A 2 2 Column1 2008 PRC 2 ZIG A 3 1 2008 PRC 2 ZIG B 1 1 Mean 1.666666667 2008 PRC 2 ZIG B 2 1 Standard Error 0.180775382 2008 PRC 2 ZIG B 3 1 Median 1.5 2008 PRC 2 ZIG C 1 1 Mode 1 2008 PRC 2 ZIG C 2 2 Standard Deviation 0.766964989 2008 PRC 2 ZIG C 3 2 Sample Variance 0.588235294 2008 PRC 2 ZIG A 1 1 Kurtosis -0.867 2008 PRC 2 ZIG A 2 3 Skewness 0.684516253 2008 PRC 2 ZIG A 3 2 Range 2 2008 PRC 2 ZIG B 1 3 Minimum 1 2008 PRC 2 ZIG B 2 3 Maximum 3 2008 PRC 2 ZIG B 3 1 Sum 30 2008 PRC 2 ZIG C 1 1 Count 18 2008 PRC 2 ZIG C 2 2 2008 PRC 2 ZIG C 3 2 2008 PRC 3 GRD A 1 3 Column1 2008 PRC 3 GRD A 2 3 2008 PRC 3 GRD A 3 2 Mean 3.333333333 2008 PRC 3 GRD B 1 3 Standard Error 0.255654996 2008 PRC 3 GRD B 2 3 Median 3 2008 PRC 3 GRD B 3 3 Mode 3 2008 PRC 3 GRD C 1 6 Standard Deviation 1.084652289 2008 PRC 3 GRD C 2 3 Sample Variance 1.176470588 2008 PRC 3 GRD C 3 4 Kurtosis 0.99025 2008 PRC 3 GRD A 1 3 Skewness 1.106345335 2008 PRC 3 GRD A 2 4 Range 4 2008 PRC 3 GRD A 3 3 Minimum 2 2008 PRC 3 GRD B 1 2 Maximum 6 2008 PRC 3 GRD B 2 5 Sum 60 2008 PRC 3 GRD B 3 3 Count 18 2008 PRC 3 GRD C 1 2 2008 PRC 3 GRD C 2 5 2008 PRC 3 GRD C 3 3
  • 77.
    77 | Pa g e 1 2 3 Appendix IV: Mean species richness calculations by site. 2013. Pierce Marsh.4 5 6 7 8 2008 PRC 4 SIN A 1 2 Column1 2008 PRC 4 SIN A 2 2 2008 PRC 4 SIN A 3 3 Mean 2.777777778 2008 PRC 4 SIN B 1 4 Standard Error 0.286465451 2008 PRC 4 SIN B 2 5 Median 2.5 2008 PRC 4 SIN B 3 3 Mode 2 2008 PRC 4 SIN C 1 2 Standard Deviation 1.215369978 2008 PRC 4 SIN C 2 3 Sample Variance 1.477124183 2008 PRC 4 SIN C 3 2 Kurtosis -0.615283108 2008 PRC 4 SIN A 1 1 Skewness 0.476929683 2008 PRC 4 SIN A 2 2 Range 4 2008 PRC 4 SIN A 3 2 Minimum 1 2008 PRC 4 SIN B 1 1 Maximum 5 2008 PRC 4 SIN B 2 4 Sum 50 2008 PRC 4 SIN B 3 4 Count 18 2008 PRC 4 SIN C 1 3 2008 PRC 4 SIN C 2 5 2008 PRC 4 SIN C 3 2 2008 PRC 5 UNC A 1 1 Column1 2008 PRC 5 UNC A 2 1 2008 PRC 5 UNC A 3 1 Mean 1 2008 PRC 5 UNC B 1 1 Standard Error 0 2008 PRC 5 UNC B 2 1 Median 1 2008 PRC 5 UNC B 3 1 Mode 1 2008 PRC 5 UNC A 1 1 Minimum 1 2008 PRC 5 UNC A 2 1 Maximum 1 2008 PRC 5 UNC A 3 1 Sum 12 2008 PRC 5 UNC B 1 1 Count 12 2008 PRC 5 UNC B 2 1 Range 0 2008 PRC 5 UNC B 3 1 2013 PRC 1 REF A 1 2 Column1 2013 PRC 1 REF A 2 2 2013 PRC 1 REF A 3 2 Mean 2.222222222 2013 PRC 1 REF B 1 2 Standard Error 0.146986184 2013 PRC 1 REF B 2 2 Median 2 2013 PRC 1 REF B 3 3 Mode 2 2013 PRC 1 REF C 1 3 Standard Deviation 0.440958552 2013 PRC 1 REF C 2 2 Sample Variance 0.194444444 2013 PRC 1 REF C 3 2 Kurtosis 0.734693878 Skewness 1.619847741 Range 1 Minimum 2 Maximum 3 Sum 20 Count 9
  • 78.
    78 | Pa g e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2013 PRC 2 ZIG1 A 1 2 Column1 2013 PRC 2 ZIG1 A 2 2 2013 PRC 2 ZIG1 A 3 1 Mean 2.111111111 2013 PRC 2 ZIG1 B 1 2 Standard Error 0.200308404 2013 PRC 2 ZIG1 B 2 2 Median 2 2013 PRC 2 ZIG1 B 3 3 Mode 2 2013 PRC 2 ZIG1 C 1 3 Standard Deviation 0.600925213 2013 PRC 2 ZIG1 C 2 2 Sample Variance 0.361111111 2013 PRC 2 ZIG1 C 3 2 Kurtosis 1.125950972 Skewness 0.01828682 Range 2 Minimum 1 Maximum 3 Sum 19 Count 9 2013 PRC 3 GRD A 1 2 Column1 2013 PRC 3 GRD A 2 2 2013 PRC 3 GRD A 3 2 Mean 2.666666667 2013 PRC 3 GRD B 1 3 Standard Error 0.372677996 2013 PRC 3 GRD B 2 4 Median 2 2013 PRC 3 GRD B 3 4 Mode 2 2013 PRC 3 GRD C 1 4 Standard Deviation 1.118033989 2013 PRC 3 GRD C 2 1 Sample Variance 1.25 2013 PRC 3 GRD C 3 2 Kurtosis -1.485714286 Skewness 0.153330376 Range 3 Minimum 1 Maximum 4 Sum 24 Count 9 2013 PRC 4 SIN A 1 2 Column1 2013 PRC 4 SIN A 2 3 2013 PRC 4 SIN A 3 2 Mean 2.888888889 2013 PRC 4 SIN B 1 3 Standard Error 0.200308404 2013 PRC 4 SIN B 2 3 Median 3 2013 PRC 4 SIN B 3 3 Mode 3 2013 PRC 4 SIN C 1 3 Standard Deviation 0.600925213 2013 PRC 4 SIN C 2 4 Sample Variance 0.361111111 2013 PRC 4 SIN C 3 3 Kurtosis 1.125950972 Skewness -0.01828682 Range 2 Minimum 2 Maximum 4 Sum 26 Count 9
  • 79.
    79 | Pa g e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2013 PRC 5 BEN A 1 1 Column1 2013 PRC 5 BEN A 2 1 2013 PRC 5 BEN A 3 1 Mean 1.666666667 2013 PRC 5 BEN B 1 2 Standard Error 0.23570226 2013 PRC 5 BEN B 2 2 Median 2 2013 PRC 5 BEN B 3 2 Mode 1 2013 PRC 5 BEN C 1 2 Standard Deviation 0.707106781 2013 PRC 5 BEN C 2 3 Sample Variance 0.5 2013 PRC 5 BEN C 3 1 Kurtosis -0.285714286 Skewness 0.606091527 Range 2 Minimum 1 Maximum 3 Sum 15 Count 9 2013 PRC 6 ZIG2 A 1 2 Column1 2013 PRC 6 ZIG2 A 2 2 2013 PRC 6 ZIG2 A 3 1 Mean 1.444444444 2013 PRC 6 ZIG2 B 1 1 Standard Error 0.242161052 2013 PRC 6 ZIG2 B 2 2 Median 2 2013 PRC 6 ZIG2 B 3 1 Mode 2 2013 PRC 6 ZIG2 C 1 2 Standard Deviation 0.726483157 2013 PRC 6 ZIG2 C 2 0 Sample Variance 0.527777778 2013 PRC 6 ZIG2 C 3 2 Kurtosis 0.185199842 Skewness -1.014259034 Range 2 Minimum 0 Maximum 2 Sum 13 Count 9
  • 80.
    80 | Pa g e Appendix V: Shannon Diversity Index and Pielou’s Index of Evenness calculations by site. 2008.1 Pierce Marsh.2 3 4 PRC 1 pi lnpi (pi) (lnpi) Spartina al terniflora Saltwater cord grass 0.411 -0.88916 -0.365 Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort 0.044 -3.12357 -0.137 Salicornia bigelovii Annual glasswort 0 0 0.000 Batis maritima Saltwort 0.189 -1.66601 -0.315 Aster tenuifolius Salt marsh aster 0.042 -3.17009 -0.133 Borrichia frutescens Bushy seaside-tansy 0 0 0.000 Distichlis spicata Coastal salt grass 0.006 -5.116 -0.031 Cuscuta salina Salt marsh dodder 0 0.000 Iva frutescens Jesuit’s-bark 0 0.000 Lycium carolinianum Carolina desert thorn 0 0.000 Sesuvium portulacastrum Sea purslane 0 0.000 Suaeda linearis Annual seepweed 0 0.000 s=5 0.982 H= 0.982 EVENNESS Hmax 1.609438 E =h/Hmax 0.609901 PRC 2 pi lnpi (pi) (lnpi) Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass 0.306 -1.18417 -0.362 Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort 0.015 -4.19971 -0.063 Salicornia bigelovii Annual glasswort 0 0 0.000 Batis maritima Saltwort 0.016 -4.13517 -0.066 Aster tenuifolius Salt marsh aster 0.011 -4.50986 -0.050 Borrichia frutescens Bushy seaside-tansy 0 0 0.000 Distichlis spicata Coastal salt grass 0.006 -5.116 -0.031 Cuscuta salina Salt marsh dodder 0 0 0.000 Iva frutescens Jesuit’s-bark 0 0 0.000 Lycium carolinianum Carolina desert thorn 0 0 0.000 Sesuvium portulacastrum Sea purslane 0 0 0.000 Suaeda linearis Annual seepweed 0 0 0.000 s=5 0.572 H= 0.572 EVENNESS Hmax 1.609438 E =h/Hmax 0.355291
  • 81.
    81 | Pa g e 1 2 3 4 PRC 3 pi lnpi (pi) (lnpi) Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass 0.082 -2.50104 -0.205 Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort 0.056 -2.8824 -0.161 Salicornia bigelovii Annual glasswort 0 0 0.000 Batis maritima Saltwort 0.043 -3.14656 -0.135 Aster tenuifolius Salt marsh aster 0.166 -1.79577 -0.298 Borrichia frutescens Bushy seaside-tansy 0.049 -3.01593 -0.148 Distichlis spicata Coastal salt grass 0.008 -4.82831 -0.039 Cuscuta salina Salt marsh dodder 0.006 -5.116 -0.031 Iva frutescens Jesuit’s-bark 0.025 -3.68888 -0.092 Lycium carolinianum Carolina desert thorn 0.001 -6.90776 -0.007 Sesuvium portulacastrum Sea purslane 0.001 -6.90776 -0.007 Suaeda linearis Annual seepweed 0.014 -4.2687 -0.060 s=11 1.183 H= 1.183 EVENNESS Hmax 2.397895 E =h/Hmax 0.493266 PRC 4 pi lnpi (pi) (lnpi) Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass 0.141 -1.959 -0.276 Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort 0.169 -1.77786 -0.300 Salicornia bigelovii Annual glasswort 0.006 -5.116 -0.031 Batis maritima Saltwort 0.022 -3.81671 -0.084 Aster tenuifolius Salt marsh aster 0.133 -2.01741 -0.268 Borrichia frutescens Bushy seaside-tansy 0.003 -5.80914 -0.017 Distichlis spicata Coastal salt grass 0 0 0.000 Cuscuta salina Salt marsh dodder 0 0 0.000 Iva frutescens Jesuit’s-bark 0 0 0.000 Lycium carolinianum Carolina desert thorn 0 0 0.000 Sesuvium portulacastrum Sea purslane 0 0 0.000 Suaeda linearis Annual seepweed 0.017 -4.07454 -0.069 s=7 1.046 H=1.046 EVENNESS Hmax 1.94591 E =h/Hmax 0.537717
  • 82.
    82 | Pa g e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 PRC 5 pi lnpi (pi) (lnpi) Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass 0.5 -0.69315 -0.347 Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort 0 0 0.000 Salicornia bigelovii Annual glasswort 0 0 0.000 Batis maritima Saltwort 0 0 0.000 Aster tenuifolius Salt marsh aster 0 0 0.000 Borrichia frutescens Bushy seaside-tansy 0 0 0.000 Distichlis spicata Coastal salt grass 0 0 0.000 Cuscuta salina Salt marsh dodder 0 0 0.000 Iva frutescens Jesuit’s-bark 0 0 0.000 Lycium carolinianum Carolina desert thorn 0 0 0.000 Sesuvium portulacastrum Sea purslane 0 0 0.000 Suaeda linearis Annual seepweed 0 0.000 s=1 0.347 H= 0.347 EVENNESS Hmax 0 E =h/Hmax #DIV/0!
  • 83.
    83 | Pa g e Appendix VI: Shannon Diversity Index and Pielou’s Index of Evenness calculations by site. 2013.1 Pierce Marsh.2 3 4 5 6 7 PRC 1 pi lnpi (pi) (lnpi) Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass 0.469 -0.75715 -0.355 Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort 0.118 -2.13707 -0.252 Salicornia bigelovii Annual glasswort 0.022 -3.81671 -0.084 Batis maritima Saltwort 0.281 -1.2694 -0.357 Borrichia frutescens Bushy seaside-tansy 0 0 0.000 Distichlis spicata Coastal salt grass 0 0 0.000 Sesuvium portulacastrum Sea purslane 0 0 0.000 Solidago sempervirens Seaside goldenrod 0 0 0.000 s=4 1.048 H= 1.048 EVENNESS Hmax 1.386294 E =h/Hmax 0.755935 PRC 2 pi lnpi (pi) (lnpi) Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass 0.106 -2.24432 -0.238 Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort 0.050 -2.99573 -0.150 Salicornia bigelovii Annual glasswort 0.028 -3.57555 -0.100 Batis maritima Saltwort 0.208 -1.57022 -0.327 Borrichia frutescens Bushy seaside-tansy 0 0 0.000 Distichlis spicata Coastal salt grass 0 0 0.000 Sesuvium portulacastrum Sea purslane 0 0 0.000 Solidago sempervirens Seaside goldenrod 0 0 0.000 s=4 0.814 H= 0.814 EVENNESS Hmax 1.386294 E =h/Hmax 0.587469
  • 84.
    84 | Pa g e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 PRC 3 pi lnpi (pi) (lnpi) Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass 0.018 -4.01738 -0.072 Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort 0.004 -5.52146 -0.022 Salicornia bigelovii Annual glasswort 0 0 0.000 Batis maritima Saltwort 0.167 -1.78976 -0.299 Borrichia frutescens Bushy seaside-tansy 0.291 -1.23443 -0.359 Distichlis spicata Coastal salt grass 0.047 -3.05761 -0.144 Sesuvium portulacastrum Sea purslane 0.001 -6.90776 -0.007 Solidago sempervirens Seaside goldenrod 0 0 0.000 s=6 0.903 H= 0.903 EVENNESS Hmax 1.791759 E =h/Hmax 0.504043 PRC 4 pi lnpi (pi) (lnpi) Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass 0.024 -3.7297 -0.090 Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort 0.031 -3.47377 -0.108 Salicornia bigelovii Annual glasswort 0 0 0.000 Batis maritima Saltwort 0.549 -0.59966 -0.329 Borrichia frutescens Bushy seaside-tansy 0.028 -3.57555 -0.100 Distichlis spicata Coastal salt grass 0 0 0.000 Sesuvium portulacastrum Sea purslane 0 0 0.000 Solidago sempervirens Seaside goldenrod 0.031 -3.47377 -0.108 s=5 0.734 H= 0.734 EVENNESS Hmax 1.609438 E =h/Hmax 0.456192
  • 85.
    85 | Pa g e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 PRC 5 pi lnpi (pi) (lnpi) Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass 0.337 -1.08767 -0.367 Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort 0.094 -2.36446 -0.222 Salicornia bigelovii Annual glasswort 0 0 0.000 Batis maritima Saltwort 0.022 -3.81671 -0.084 Borrichia frutescens Bushy seaside-tansy 0 0 0.000 Distichlis spicata Coastal salt grass 0 0 0.000 Sesuvium portulacastrum Sea purslane 0 0 0.000 Solidago sempervirens Seaside goldenrod 0 0 0.000 s=3 0.673 H= 0.673 EVENNESS Hmax 1.098612 E =h/Hmax 0.612384 PRC 6 pi lnpi (pi) (lnpi) Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass 0.071 -2.64508 -0.188 Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort 0.306 -1.18417 -0.362 Salicornia bigelovii Annual glasswort 0 0 0.000 Batis maritima Saltwort 0 0 0.000 Borrichia frutescens Bushy seaside-tansy 0 0 0.000 Distichlis spicata Coastal salt grass 0 0 0.000 Sesuvium portulacastrum Sea purslane 0 0 0.000 Solidago sempervirens Seaside goldenrod 0 0 0.000 s=2 0.550 H= 0.550 EVENNESS Hmax 0.693147 E =h/Hmax 0.793708
  • 86.
    86 | Pa g e Appendix VII: Jaccard’s Coefficient of Community Similarity calculation data to compare the1 restored sites. 2008. Pierce Marsh.2 3 4 Jaccard's 5/5=1.0 Scientific name Common name Scientific name Common name Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Batis maritima Saltwort Batis maritima Saltwort Aster tenuifolius Salt marsh aster Aster tenuifolius Salt marsh aster Distichlis spicata Coastal salt grass Distichlis spicata Coastal salt grass S=5 c=5 PRC 1 vs PRC 2 PRC 1 PRC 2 Jaccard's 5/9=0.56 Scientific name Common name Scientific name Common name Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Batis maritima Saltwort Batis maritima Saltwort Aster tenuifolius Salt marsh aster Aster tenuifolius Salt marsh aster Borrichia frutescens Bushy seaside-tansy Distichlis spicata Coastal salt grass Distichlis spicata Coastal salt grass Cuscuta salina Salt marsh dodder S=9 Iva frutescens Jesuit’s-bark c=5 Suaeda linearis Annual seepweed PRC 1 vs PRC 3 PRC 1 PRC 3
  • 87.
    87 | Pa g e 1 2 Jaccard's 4/8=0.50 Scientific name Common name Scientific name Common name Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Salicornia bigelovii Annual glasswort Batis maritima Saltwort Batis maritima Saltwort Aster tenuifolius Salt marsh aster Aster tenuifolius Salt marsh aster Borrichia frutescens Bushy seaside-tansy Distichlis spicata Coastal salt grass S=8 c=4 Suaeda linearis Annual seepweed PRC 1 vs PRC 4 PRC 1 PRC 4 Jaccard's 1/5=0.20 Scientific name Common name Scientific name Common name Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Batis maritima Saltwort Aster tenuifolius Salt marsh aster Distichlis spicata Coastal salt grass S=5 c=1 PRC 1 PRC 5 PRC 1 vs PRC 5
  • 88.
    88 | Pa g e 1 2 Jaccard's 5/9=0.56 Scientific name Common name Scientific name Common name Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Batis maritima Saltwort Batis maritima Saltwort Aster tenuifolius Salt marsh aster Aster tenuifolius Salt marsh aster Borrichia frutescens Bushy seaside-tansy Distichlis spicata Coastal salt grass Distichlis spicata Coastal salt grass Cuscuta salina Salt marsh dodder S=9 Iva frutescens Jesuit’s-bark c=5 Suaeda linearis Annual seepweed PRC 2 vs PRC 3 PRC 2 PRC 3 Jaccard's 4/8=0.50 Scientific name Common name Scientific name Common name Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Salicornia bigelovii Annual glasswort Batis maritima Saltwort Batis maritima Saltwort Aster tenuifolius Salt marsh aster Aster tenuifolius Salt marsh aster Borrichia frutescens Bushy seaside-tansy Distichlis spicata Coastal salt grass S=8 c=4 Suaeda linearis Annual seepweed PRC 2 vs PRC 4 PRC 2 PRC 4
  • 89.
    89 | Pa g e 1 2 Jaccard's 1/5=0.20 Scientific name Common name Scientific name Common name Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Batis maritima Saltwort Aster tenuifolius Salt marsh aster Distichlis spicata Coastal salt grass S=5 c=1 PRC 2 vs PRC 5 PRC 2 PRC 5 Jaccard's 6/10=0.60 Scientific name Common name Scientific name Common name Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Salicornia bigelovii Annual glasswort Batis maritima Saltwort Batis maritima Saltwort Aster tenuifolius Salt marsh aster Aster tenuifolius Salt marsh aster Borrichia frutescens Bushy seaside-tansy Borrichia frutescens Bushy seaside-tansy Distichlis spicata Coastal salt grass Cuscuta salina Salt marsh dodder Iva frutescens Jesuit’s-bark Suaeda linearis Annual seepweed Suaeda linearis Annual seepweed S=10 c=6 PRC 3 vs PRC 4 PRC 3 PRC 4
  • 90.
    90 | Pa g e 1 2 3 4 Jaccard's 1/9=0.11 Scientific name Common name Scientific name Common name Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Batis maritima Saltwort Aster tenuifolius Salt marsh aster Borrichia frutescens Bushy seaside-tansy Distichlis spicata Coastal salt grass Cuscuta salina Salt marsh dodder Iva frutescens Jesuit’s-bark Suaeda linearis Annual seepweed S=9 c=1 PRC 3 vs PRC 5 PRC 3 PRC 5 Jaccard's 1/7=0.14 Scientific name Common name Scientific name Common name Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Salicornia bigelovii Annual glasswort Batis maritima Saltwort Aster tenuifolius Salt marsh aster Borrichia frutescens Bushy seaside-tansy Suaeda linearis Annual seepweed S=7 c=1 PRC 5 PRC 4 vs PRC 5 PRC 4
  • 91.
    91 | Pa g e Appendix VIII: Jaccard’s Coefficient of Community Similarity calculation data to compare the1 restored sites. 2013. Pierce Marsh.2 3 4 5 6 7 Jaccard's 4/4=1.0 Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Salicornia bigelovii Annual glasswort Salicornia bigelovii Annual glasswort Batis maritima Saltwort Batis maritima Saltwort S=4 c=4 PRC 1 PRC 2 PRC 1 vs PRC 2 Jaccard's 3/6=0.50 Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Salicornia bigelovii Annual glasswort Batis maritima Saltwort Batis maritima Saltwort Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Distichlis spicata Coastal salt grass S=6 c=3 PRC 1 PRC 3 PRC 1 vs PRC 3 Jaccard's 3/6=0.50 Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Salicornia bigelovii Annual glasswort Batis maritima Saltwort Batis maritima Saltwort Borrichia frutescens Bushy seaside-tansy S=6 Solidago sempervirensSeaside goldenrod c=3 PRC 1 PRC 4 PRC 1 vs PRC 4
  • 92.
    92 | Pa g e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Jaccard's 3/4=0.75 Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Salicornia bigelovii Annual glasswort Batis maritima Saltwort Batis maritima Saltwort S=4 c=3 PRC 1 vs PRC 5 PRC 1 PRC 5 Jaccard's 2/4=0.50 Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Salicornia bigelovii Annual glasswort Batis maritima Saltwort S=4 c=2 PRC 1 vs PRC 6 PRC 1 PRC 6 Jaccard's 3/6=0.50 Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Salicornia bigelovii Annual glasswort Batis maritima Saltwort Batis maritima Saltwort Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Distichlis spicata Coastal salt grass S=6 c=3 PRC 2 vs PRC 3 PRC 2 PRC 3
  • 93.
    93 | Pa g e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Jaccard's 3/6=0.50 Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Salicornia bigelovii Annual glasswort Batis maritima Saltwort Batis maritima Saltwort Borrichia frutescens Bushy seaside-tansy S=6 c=3 Solidago sempervirens Seaside goldenrod PRC 2 vs PRC 4 PRC 2 PRC 4 Jaccard's 3/4=0.75 Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Salicornia bigelovii Annual glasswort Batis maritima Saltwort Batis maritima Saltwort S=4 c=3 PRC 2 vs PRC 5 PRC 2 PRC 5 Jaccard's 2/4=0.50 Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Salicornia bigelovii Annual glasswort Batis maritima Saltwort S=4 c=2 PRC 2 vs PRC 6 PRC 2 PRC 6
  • 94.
    94 | Pa g e 1 2 3 4 5 6 Jaccard's 4/6=0.67 Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Batis maritima Saltwort Batis maritima Saltwort Borrichia frutescens Bushy seaside-tansy Borrichia frutescens Bushy seaside-tansy Distichlis spicata Coastal salt grass Solidago sempervirens Seaside goldenrod S=6 c=4 PRC 3 vs PRC 4 PRC 3 PRC 4 Jaccard's 3/5=0.6 Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Batis maritima Saltwort Batis maritima Saltwort Borrichia frutescens Bushy seaside-tansy Distichlis spicata Coastal salt grass S=5 c=3 PRC 3 vs PRC 5 PRC 3 PRC 5 Jaccard's 2/5=0.40 Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Batis maritima Saltwort Borrichia frutescens Bushy seaside-tansy Distichlis spicata Coastal salt grass S=5 c=2 PRC 3 vs PRC 6 PRC 3 PRC 6
  • 95.
    95 | Pa g e 1 2 3 4 5 Jaccard's 3/5=0.60 Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Batis maritima Saltwort Batis maritima Saltwort Borrichia frutescens Bushy seaside-tansy Solidago sempervirens Seaside goldenrod S=5 c=3 PRC 4 vs PRC 5 PRC 4 PRC 5 Jaccard's 2/5=0.40 Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Batis maritima Saltwort Borrichia frutescens Bushy seaside-tansy Solidago sempervirens Seaside goldenrod S=5 c=2 PRC 4 vs PRC 6 PRC 4 PRC 6 Jaccard's 2/3=0.67 Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Spartina alterniflora Saltwater cord grass Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Salicornia virginica Creeping glasswort Batis maritima Saltwort S=3 c=2 PRC 5 vs PRC 6 PRC 5 PRC 6
  • 96.
    96 | Pa g e Appendix IX: Standard error calculations for graphs. 2013. Pierce Marsh.1 2 3 4 Importance Values Mean 0.385612323 Standard Error 0.094213272 Median 0.338987213 Mode #N/A Standard Deviation 0.230774443 Sample Variance 0.053256843 Kurtosis -1.429902921 Skewness 0.524968591 Range 0.572403135 Minimum 0.139728997 Maximum 0.712132132 Sum 2.313673939 Count 6 Richness Mean 2.165925926 Standard Error 0.227729293 Median 2.166666667 Mode #N/A Standard Deviation 0.557820568 Sample Variance 0.311163786 Kurtosis -1.363405479 Skewness -0.00611886 Range 1.448888889 Minimum 1.44 Maximum 2.888888889 Sum 12.99555556 Count 6 H' Mean 0.787 Standard Error 0.071712389 Median 0.774 Mode #N/A Standard Deviation0.17565876 Sample Variance 0.030856 Kurtosis -0.25513612 Skewness 0.244515649 Range 0.498 Minimum 0.55 Maximum 1.048 Sum 4.722 Count 6
  • 97.
    97 | Pa g e 1 2 E Mean 0.6181725 Standard Error 0.054805333 Median 0.5997 Mode #N/A Standard Deviation0.134245101 Sample Variance 0.018021747 Kurtosis -1.568858624 Skewness 0.277729641 Range 0.3377 Minimum 0.456 Maximum 0.7937 Sum 3.709035 Count 6