United States
' ->-jn f-/iOpr unitea states
'~\ft&->\ ' ' ^Y Environmental Protection Laboratory
J. »
Agency
Environmental Research
Laboratory
Corvallis OR 97330
Research and Development EPA-600/8-80-037 Oct. 1980
Field Guide to
Evaluate Net Primary
Production of
Wetlands
-------
This report has been reviewed by the Environmental Research
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis,
Oregon, and approved for publication. Approval does not imply
that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the
Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial
products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
EPA-600/8-80-037
October 1980
v>EPA Field Guide to
Evaluate Net
Primary
Production of
Wetlands
H. V. Kibby
J. L Gallagher
W. D. Sanville
U.S. Environ?,!e,!*a! Protection Agency,
FL^on V, Libr; 7
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604 X*"'
Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Corvallis, Oregon 97330
-------
,& Environmental Protection "Ageire?
-------
FOREWORD
Effective regulatory and enforcement actions by the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency would be virtually impossible without sound scientific
data on pollutants and their impact on environmental stability and human
health. Responsibility for building this data base has been assigned to
EPA's Office of Research and Development and its 15 major field installa-
tions, one of which is the Corvallis Environmental Research Laboratory.
The primary mission of the Corvallis Laboratory is research on the effects
of environmental pollutants on terrestrial, freshwater, and marine
ecosystems; the behavior, effects and control of pollutants in lakes and
streams; and the development of predictive models on the movement of
pollutants in the biosphere.
This handbook presents methods for achieving a quick gross estimate of
primary production in wetlands.
Thomas A. Murphy
Director
Corvallis Environmental
Research Laboratory
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Production of this report was coordinated by the Center for
Environmental Research Information, Cincinnati, OH, under the
direction of A F Tabri
Acknowledgment is made to the following persons who were
involved m the technical review
from EPA--D Davis, Office of Environmental Review,
Washington, DC, D B Hicks, Region IV, Athens, GA; W
Kruczynski, H Marshal!, and M Veale, Region IV, Atlanta,
GA, T E Glatzel, Region V, Chicago, IL, and E. G Karvelis,
Regional Services Staff, Cincinnati, OH,
others--R Frenkel, Department of Geography, Oregon
State University, Corvallis, OR, T. Huffman, Waterways
Experiment Station, U S Army Corps of Engineers,
Vicksburg, MS, and R J. Reimold, Department of Natural
Resources, Brunswick, GA,
and to those from the Corvallis Laboratory who assisted in data
analysis and field sampling
Denise Seliskar, Nancy Engst, Steven Morris, Marc
Liverman, Brenda Bafus, Charlotte Humphrys, and Gary
Ferguson
Final preparation of this document was done by JACA
Corporation, Fort Washington, PA, underthedirection of Thomas
E Walton, III.
IV
-------
Table
of
Contents
Section
Page
Foreword iii
Acknowledgment iv
List of Tables vi
List of Annual Standing
Crop Biomass Graphs vii
Introduction ix
I Standing Crop Biomass 1
II Estimating Primary Production Using
Field Sampling 11
III Plant Habitats and Annual Biomass Graphs 19
Carex 20
Distichlis 23
Juncus 26
Phragmites 29
Potentilla 31
Salicornia 33
Scirpus 35
Sparganium 38
Spartina 40
Sporobolus 48
Triglochin 50
Typha 52
Literature Cited 55
Appendix A. Conversion Factors
from Fresh to Dry Weight of
Living and Dead Marsh Plants 58
Appendix B. Unit Conversion Table 59
-------
List
of
Tables
Table
Page
1 Standing Crop Biomass and Net Primary Production
of Wetland Plants in EPA Region I 2
2 Standing Crop Biomass and Net Primary Production
of Wetland Plants in EPA Region II 2
3 Standing Crop Biomass and Net Primary Production
of Wetland Plants in EPA Region III 4
4 Standing Crop Biomass and Net Primary Production
of Wetland Plants in EPA Region IV 5
5 Standing Crop Biomass and Net Primary Production
of Wetland Plants in EPA Region V 7
6 Standing Crop Biomass and Net Primary Production
of Wetland Plants in EPA Region VI 7
7 Standing Crop Biomass and Net Primary Production
of Wetland Plants in EPA Region VII 8
8 Standing Crop Biomass and Net Primary Production
of Wetland Plants in EPA Region VIII 8
9 Standing Crop Biomass and Net Primary Production
of Wetland Plants in EPA Region IX 8
10 Standing Crop Biomass and Net Primary Production
ofWetland Plantsin EPARegionX 9
vi
-------
List of
Annual
Standing
Crop
Biomass
Graphs
Genus and Species
State
Page
Carex atherodes Iowa 21
Carex lacustris New York 21
Carex lyngbyei Oregon 22
Carex rostrata Minnesota 22
.. Delaware 24
.. Georgia 24
.. Oregon 25
.. Oregon 27
.. Delaware 27
.. Maine 28
.. Georgia 28
.. Delaware 30
.. Oregon 32
.. Oregon 34
Scirpus americanus Oregon 36
Scirpus americanus South Carolina.. 36
Scirpus fluviatilis Iowa 37
Scirpus validus Iowa 37
Sparganium eurycarpum Iowa 39
Spartina alterniflora (tall form) Georgia 41
Distichlis spicata
Dlstichlls splcata
Distichlis spicata
Juncus balticus
Juncus gerardi
Juncus gerardi
Juncus roemerianus...
Phragmites communis.
Potentilla pacifica
Salicornia virginica
Spartina alterniflora (short form)
Spartina alterniflora
Spartina alterniflora (tall form) ..
Spartina alterniflora (short form)
Spartina alterniflora (tall form) ..
Spartina alterniflora (short form)
Spartina alterniflora (tall form) ..
Spartina alterniflora (short form) New Jersey 45
Spartina alterniflora Virginia 45
Georgia 41
Louisiana 42
Louisiana 42
Louisiana 43
Maine 43
Maine 44
New Jersey 44
Spartina cynosuroides
Spartina cynosuroides
Spartina patens
Spartina patens
Sporobolus virginicus
Triglochin maritima..
Typha spp New Jersey
Typha glauca Iowa
Georgia 46
Louisiana 46
Delaware 47
Maine 47
Georgia 49
Oregon 51
. 53
. 53
Typha latifolia Oklahoma 54
Typha latifolia South Carolina.. 54
vii
-------
-------
Introduction
Throughout history, marshes have been considered wastelands
and their destruction and elimination through reclamation
projects has been lauded as progress. However, in recent
decades a wide variety of ecological roles and values has
been documented, and state and federal governments are
acting to prevent indiscriminate destruction of these resources.
Government agencies at several levels are responsible for
reviewing permit applications for work or disruptions in
wetland areas. By law (PL 95-217), any evaluation for work or
alterations must consider all possible aspects of wetlands
values. These values are often difficult to quantify, and those
which can be assessed usually require extensive studies.
Therefore some easily quantified parameters which reflect
other functions and roles must be used for marsh evaluation.
Because it forms the base of the food web, primary production
is one such parameter. This field guide presents methods for
estimating net primary production (NPP), which is defined as
the amount of plant biomass that has accumulated in a given
time interval. In this manual, the estimates are based on a year
or the annual growing season. It must be emphasized that this
guide only aids in evaluating NPP, one of several internal and
external values of the marsh. Internal values are those which
relate to the wetland itself; external values relate to the
exchange between the marsh and adjacent ecosystems. Other
values include:
(1) Wetlands are feeding-and nursery grounds for birds,
mammals and fishes. Wetland creeks are potential
aquaculture sites.
(2) The water-soil-plant complex forms a nutrient processing
area where important phases of the carbon, nitrogen,
phosphorus and sulfur cycles take place.
(3) Wetlands are sources of organic compounds in detrital food
webs.
(4) Wetlands act as metering systems, controlling output of
nutrient and nonpoint source runoff to aquatic systems.
(5) Wetlands are buffers between storm-driven water and
adjacent high ground and reduce shoreline erosion.
(6) Wetlands have aesthetic value as open spaces and wildlife
habitats.
The field guide is divided into three sections.
Section I is a literature survey of reported maximum standing
crop biomasses, arranged by species and geographical
distribution based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Regions. Within each Region, estimates are categorized by
state. Maximum standing crop biomass is often used as a
conservative estimate of annual net primary production for
herbaceous plants and is the most abundant type of data
available for comparative purposes within and between regions.
This information may be adequate for many routine projects.
Section II describes field procedures for estimating annual net
primary production. The techniques involve a single sampling
ix
-------
trip where plants are examined, harvested, sorted, and weighed
in the field. The field sampling results are compared to regional
annual biomass cycles for that species to determine relative
vigor. Annual NPP estimates for the study site are obtained by
combining the relative vigor and the production reported for the
site where the regional annual biomass cycle was obtained.
Section III describes the habitat of some of the plants and
contains the regional annual biomass curves to be used in
Section II.
The handbook has been designed to cover general situations
when specific details are not needed and to describe ways to
obtain detailed information when required. It helps answer the
following kinds of questions:
(1) What kind of wetland is this? (Section II)
(2) What is the plant community composition? (Section II)
(3) Generally, how productive are wetlands of this type?
(Section I)
(4) How does this type of wetland compare with similar types in
other regions? (Section I)
(5) What is the annual net primary production of this specific
marsh? (Sections II, III)
-------
Section I.
Standing
Crop
Biomass
Tables 1 through 10 are
arranged by EPA Region.
Species or wetland types are
listed on the left hand side.
The first two columns of
numbers are the range and
mean live plant biomass at
the end of the growing
season (EOSL). The second
two columns indicate total
plant biomass at the end of
the growing season (EOST),
both live and dead material.
The third column is the
annual net primary produc-
tion (NPP); the footnote
indicates the source of the
method used to calculate
NPP. The fourth column is
the reference where the data
were obtained. If NPP data
are not available for species
at the study site, EOST or
EOSL can be used as an
estimate for annual net
primary production. In
situations where the plants
die back to ground level
each year and the plants are
removed by decay, tidal or
wind action before the end
of the next growing season,
EOST is generally the best
estimate of annual produc-
tion. Where the previous
season's growth is not
removed by the end of the
season, EOSL may be a
better conservative estimate.
Since plants produce and
lose leaves throughout the
season, EOST or EOSL
generally underestimate net
primary production.
Although these tables don't
give the primary productivity
of a specific site, they do
give the person evaluating a
permit application an
indication of how productive
that type of marsh may be in
a particular region.
If the permit evaluation
process requires a site-
specific NPP estimate,
Section II gives sampling
schemes of varying
complexity which are
designed for short term data
gathering.
-------
TABLE 1. Standing Crop Biomass and NPP of Wetland Plants in EPA Region I.
State Species
EOSL
g/m2
Range x
EOST
g/m2
Range x
NPP
g/m2/yr Reference
Connecticut
Distich/is spicata
Juncus sp.
Spartina alterniflora
Spartina patens
359
566
717 (T)
314 (S)
300
885
851
904 (T)
525 (S)
470 (S)
487 (T)
800
3001 62a
5701 62a
8201 62a
3501 62a
24
62a
62a
Maine
Juncus gerardi
Spartina alterniflora
Spartina patens
644 (T)
244 (S)
431 (T)
245 (S)
912
1694 (T)
676 (S)
862 (T)
886 (S)
3036
40272 57
6162 57
16022 57
16112 57
58332 57
Massachusetts
Spartina alterniflora
250-420 320
510" 68
Rhode Island
Spartina alterniflora
433-1380 840
50
Footnotes are listed at the end of Table 10, page 9. See Literature Cited section for numbered
TABLE 2. Standing
State Species
references.
Crop Biomass and NPP of Wetland Plants in EPA Region II.
EOSL
g/m2
Range x
EOST
g/m2
Range x
NPP
g/m2/yr Reference
New Jersey
Polygonium/
Leersia
Nuphar advena
Pontederial
Peltandra
Acorus culamus
Typha sp.
2142
769
513-743 628
529
648-677 663
1286
594
553
657
623-1174 899
605
819
987
850
894
1297
1199
804
76^
21
8638 76b
75
76b
22
43
21
6508 75
10718 76b
43
75
43
21
22
1320 75
76b
71
(continued)
-------
TABLE 2. (continued)
EOSL EOST
g/m2 g/m2
State Species
Range x Range
X
NPP
g/m2/yr Reference
New Jersey (continued)
Hibiscus palustrus
Zizania aquatics
Spartma cynosuroides
Phragmites communis
Panicum virgatum
Scirpus sp.
Spartina alterniflora
Spartina patens
Carex stricta
Distichlis spicata
Sagittaria latifolia
+ Typha angustifolia (mix)
Special Fresh Water
Marsh Types (NJ)
Cattail Marsh
Sedge-shrub Marsh
Sedge-swale Marsh
Open-aquatic Marsh
1714
1390
1346-2091 1744
1600
866
3543
1493-3999 2746
1727
1074
4029
326
802
472
193
1003
725
587
1184
563
1172 (T)
470 (M)
375 (S)
343
463
449
1390
1200
1592 (T)
592 (S)
724
623
560
1340
1380
1700
1350
1330
1200
76°
43
15208 76b
21
31
15898 75
76b
76b
43
71
76b
13
76b
13
20
61
61
76b
76°
13
76d
30
1460" 72
590'' 72
4704 72
49
49
4 72
31
43
31
32
32
32
32
New York
Distichlis spicata
Phragmites communis
Scirpus sp.
Spartina alterniflora
Spartina patens
Typha angustifolia
523- 774
565
786
669-1118
341- 660
424- 546
648
985
2686
872 (T)
580 (S)
503
993
1728
67
48a
25
37
67
67
67
25
25
(continued)
-------
TABLE 2. (continued)
State Species
EOSL
g/m2
Range x
HOST
g/m2 NPP
Range x g/m2/yr Reference
New York (continued)
Typha latifol/a
Carex lacustns
Carex rostrata
1357 25
9658 6
8578
(1580)8 5
5408
(823)8 4e
Footnotes are listed at the end of Table 10, page 9 See Literature Cited section for numbered references
TABLE 3. Standing Crop Biomass and NPP of Wetland Plants in EPA Region III.
State Species
EOSL
g/m2
Range x
EOST
g/m2 NPP
Range x g/m2/yr Reference
Delaware
Spartina Altemiflora
Spart/na patens
Distichlis spicata
Juncus gerardi
Phragmites communis
305
962
1142
560
965
572 48
30
1924 27532 57
2444 201 72 57
1308 15402 57
4016 17492 57
Maryland
Spartina alterniflora
Spartina cynosuroides
Sc/rpus amencanus
Panicum virgatum
Juncus memerianus
Phragmites communis
Zizania aquatics
Typha sp
468
1170
951
1207
204
480
1082
1367
1451
1178
2338
966
1190
4571 11a
1207 33
2
1192 15
15728 33
2
2
27
1714 15
16788 33
1313 15
2505 28
18688 33
1520 15
Maryland-Virginia
Spartina alterniflora
558 (S)
427 (STi
800 (S) 34
924 (ST) 34
Pennsylvania
Distichlis spicata
Phragmites communis
Bidens sp.
iythrum salacana
1117
654
900
1373
42
42
42
42
(continued)
-------
TABLE 3. (continued)
State Species
EOSL
g/m2
Range x
EOST
g/m2 NPP
Range x g/m2/yr Reference
Virginia
Spartina alterniflora
Spartina patens
Spartina cynosuroides
Distichlis spicata
Juncus roemerianus
Zizania aquatica
Leers/a oryzoides
Nupharadvena
Typha angustifolia
363
546
1570 (T) 73
695 (M) 73
459 45
3628 46
805 73
998 5632 45a
1456 73
360 73
650 73
560 73
1545 73
245 73
930 73
Mixes
Spartina cynosuroides
Spartina alterniflora
Juncus sp.
Polygonum/Leersia
Spartina alterniflora
Spartina patens
Distichlis spicata
500
523
450
850 5638 46
42
800 5728 42
Footnotes are listed at the end of Table 10, page 9. See Literature Cited section for numbered references.
TABLE 4. Standing Crop
State Species
Biomass and NPP of Wetland Plants in EPA Region IV.
EOSL
g/m2
Range x
EOST
g/m2 NPP
Range x g/m2/yr Reference
Alabama
Justicia amencana
Alternanthera philoxeroides
640
841
7
7
Georgia
Spartina alterniflora
Spartina patens
Spartina cynosuroides
Distichlis spicata
Juncus sp.
Sporobolus virginicus
3108 (T)
2018 (S)
1300 (T)
310 (S)
980
515-1242 826
2176
246
458
913
1300
262
331 5 (T) 39908 51
2182 (S) 23628 51
56
56
2304 39252 57
825-2092 1175 20927 51
4760 60392 57
603 19
1718 43782 57
1538 19
2261 2 56
578 13872 57
(continued)
5
-------
TABLE 4. (continued)
State Species
EOSL
g/m2
Range x
EOST
g/m2
Range x
NPP
g/m2/yr
Reference
Florida
Spartina alterniflora
Juncus sp.
593-824 702
232
849
66
26
Mississippi
Spartina cynosumides
Spartina alterniflora
Phragmites communis
Scirpus robustus
Juncus roemenanus
Spartina patens
Distichlis spicata
Sagittaria lancifolia
Community Mix:
Juncus roemenanus
Spartina cynosumides
Scirpus amencanus
Distich/is spicata
Other
Community Total
675
387
60
45
47
1214
21903
19643(1)
10893 (S)
23303
10563
16973
19223
14843
6003
3903
4753
773
633
463
1051
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
17
17
17
17
17
17
North Carolina
Spartina alterniflora
Spartina patens
Juncus sp.
1319(T)
295 (S)
1550 (T)
400 (S)
401 (S)
680 (M)
1450 (T)
559
720
520-1173 804
117-405 234
476-1106 743
329-806 605
1752 (T)
455 (S)
2200 (T)
1100(S)
790 (S)
1080 (M)
2050 (T)
1555
898
1515-2088 1756
477-1215 828
1905-3286 2452
1216-2445 1875
12961
3291
3706
61 06
13006
14531
4061
7961
754
8951
63
63
77
77
39
39
39
70
70
63
16a
78
70
South Carolina
Typha /ati folia
Scirpus amencanus
680
145
8
8
Footnotes are listed at the end of Table 10, page 9 See Literature Cited section for numbered references.
-------
TABLE 5. Standing Crop Biomass and NPP of Wetland Plants in EPA Region V.
State Species
EOSL
g/m2
Range x
EOST
g/m2 NPP
Range x g/m2/yr Reference
Minnesota
Carex rostrata
Typha sp.
Zizania aquatica
852
7388 3
1360 9
1680 10
500 10
Michigan
Glyceria striata
30-45 37
Footnotes are listed at the end of Table 10, page 9. See Literature Cited
TABLE 6. Standing
State Species
52
section for numbered references
Crop Biomass and NPP of Wetland Plants in EPA Region VI.
EOSL
g/m2
Range x
EOST
g/m2 NPP
Range x g/m2/yr Reference
Louisiana
Spartina alterniflora
Spartina patens
Spartina cynosuroides
Sagittaria falcate
Eichornia crassipes
Distichlis spicata
Juncus roemerianus
Phragmites communis
1018(1)
782 (S)
1018 (T)
788 (S)
754
1056
895
1376
808
648
991
1240
990
1960 (T) 26452 35
14091
1544 (S) 13238 35
10051
1948 (T) 26452 36
1488(S) 13232 36
23
1944 1
1685 21281 53
23
23
23
1478 55
1276 54
23
23
23
Oklahoma
Typha la ti folia
Typha sp.
1527
54
730 44
Texas
Spartina alterniflora
Typha sp.
382-938 745
583-1846 1333 66
1336 44
Footnotes are listed at the end of Table 10, page 9. See Literature Cited section for numbered references
-------
TABLE 7. Standing Crop Biomass and NPP of Wetland Plants in EPA Region VII.
State Species
EOSL
g/m2
Range
X
EOST
g/m2 NPP
Range x g/m2/yr
Reference
Iowa
Typha glauca
Phragmites communis
Scirpus acutus
Carex spp.
Sparganium eurycarpum
Scirpus fluviatilis
Sagittaria latifolia
Scirpus val/dus
Bidens cernua
758-2106
777-1110
751-951
523-2231
474-1054
450-791
243-602
1314
943
851
927
721
547
460
398
598
22975
28585
10665
9435
71 35
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
Nebraska
Typha spp.
416
44
Footnotes are listed at the end of Table 10, page 9. See Literature Cited section for numbered references.
TABLE 8. Standing Crop Biomass and NPP of Wetland Plants in EPA Region VIII.
State Species
EOSL
g/m2
Range x
EOST
g/m2
Range x
NPP
g/m2/yr Reference
North Dakota
Typha latifolia 404 44
South Dakota ___
Typha spp. __ 378 __44
Footnotes are listed at the end of Table 10, page 9. See Literature Cited section for numbered references
TABLE 9. Standing Crop Biomass and NPP of Wetland Plants in EPA Region IX.
State Species
EOSL EOST
g/m2 g/m2
Range x Range x
NPP
g/m2/yr Reference
California
Spartina fo/iosa
137-513 325
1173-1245 1209
38
38
Footnotes are listed at the end of Table 10, page 9 See Literature Cited section for numbered references.
8
-------
TABLE 10. Standing Crop Biomass and NPP of Wetland Plants in EPA Region X.
EOSL
g/m2
EOST
State Species
Range
Range
NPP
g/m2/yr Reference
Oregon
Carex sp.
C. lyngbyei
Triglochm maritimum
Scirpus americanus
Juncus balticus
Deschampsia caespitosa
Distichlis spicata
Potentilla pacifica
Scirpus validus
Salicornia virginica
1169
527
351
734
372
834 (S)
206
184
106
795
184
18492 (T)
8962
5492
4532
13002
8962
16442
29
29
14
_f
29
29
_f
14
_f
_f
14
29
14
_f
_f
29
_f
29
Alaska
Carex aquatilis
25.5
64
f* As reported in Turner, 1976
Unpublished data attributed to J. McCormick
° Unpublished data attributed to R. E. Good and R Walker
0 Unpublished data attributed to G. T. Potera and E. E. McNamara
e Unpublished data attributed to Bernard and Hankinson
Unpublished data attributed to Gallagher and Kibby
Technique
1 Smalley, 1959
2 Weigart and Evans, 1964
3 Milnerand Hughes, 1968
4 Williams and Murdoch, 1969
5 Mason and Bryant, 1975
6 Maximum - Minimum
7 EOST
8 Other - method not stated
Growth form
T - Tall form (creek bank)
S - Short form (High marsh)
ST - Short and Tall mix
M - Medium height
-------
Section II
Estimating
Primary
Production
Using Field
Sampling
The method selected to
estimate the primary
production of a wetland will
depend on the type of
marsh, the size and location
of the project area, social
and political considerations,
and available resources
(time and money). This
section of the handbook is
divided into two sub-
sections: Section A provides
methods for estimating
production of a monospecific
stand and Section B
presents methods for
estimating production of
mixed species stands.
These methods are to be
used only for quick
estimates on relatively small
projects when time and
resources prohibit in-depth
analyses.
A. Net Primary Production
Estimate for a
Monospecific Stand
If the site is mono-
specific, i.e. occupied by
a single plant species,
production may be
estimated with the
following procedure.
Select an area which
appears typical of the
marsh. Throw a marker
(quadrat frame, bright
cloth tied to a weight,
etc.) back over your
shoulder. This marks the
center of the plot, or
quadrat, you will harvest.
The plot size will depend
on the plant species and
the nature of the com-
munity. Quadrat frames
between 0.1 and 1.0 m2
should suffice for most
species. The more dense
the plant stand and the
more uniform the stem
distribution, the smaller
the quadrat can be. Cut
all of the attached plant
material with scissors or
pruning shears (depend-
ing on plant texture) at
the soil surface within
the frame. Separate into
living and dead material
and separately weigh the
total of each to the near-
est 10 grams. Living
plants are identified as
those which have some
parts containing chloro-
phyll. It is important to
examine the material
closely so that all
workers separate live and
dead material con-
sistently. If possible, the
dead material should be
only of the current year's
growth. If it is obviously
from a previous year do
not include it in the
totals. Collect at least
seven samples from
11
-------
different locations within
the site. Samples should
be weighed to the nearest
10 grams, using a simple
field balance. If your
initial sampling gives
results where the
standard deviation is
equal to or greater than
40% of the mean,
increase the number of
plots harvested. Continue
sampling until you feel
you have adequately char-
acterized the living and
total biomass in the
marsh.
If sampling coincides
with the end of the
growing season, you can
use either the EOST or
EOSL as a conservative
estimate of net primary
production. See example
in Box A-1.
If it is necessary to sample
monospecific stands at a
time other than the end of
the growing season, a
different approach is
required. The procedure is
based on two assumptions:
(1) the annual biomass curve
at the project site and the
intensively studied marsh
reported in the literature are
parallel, and (2) the annual
primary production is pro-
portional to the biomass for
a given type of plant stand.
For example, it is assumed
that the annual biomass
curves for two stands of
high marsh Carex lyngbyei
located within a few degrees
of the same latitude are
similar in shape, although
not necessarily equal in
magnitude. In actuality, soil
nutrients or salinity may be
more favorable at one site
and thus influence the vigor
of the stand. The second
assumption that the curves
are parallel is probably not
entirely valid. However,
when evaluating permit
applications, there is seldom
Box A-1
Net Primary Production Estimate fora Monospecific Stand
Sampled at the End of the Growing Season.
The project site was 2 ha of high marsh Carex lyngbyei in
Willapa Bay, WA. On 4 September, seven 0.5 m2 plots were
cut and the total and live material weighed. The average
total weight was 1200g; 800g was living and 400g was dead
material. Appendix A gives the percent dry weight for
selected species. From this appendix it can be determined
that the dry weight of live and dead biomass is approxi-
mately 25% and 40% of the wet weight, respectively.
Therefore, the dry weight of the sample was
Live: 800g x 0.25 = 200g
Dead: 400g x 0.40 = 160g
360g - Total dry weight of sample.
Since the sample was taken with a 0.5 m2 quadrat, the dry
weight biomass per square meter is 360g x 2 = 720 g/m2.
This estimate of EOST is probably a reasonable estimate of
annual NPP.
12
-------
time for long-term intensive
studies. The proposed
procedures provide the best
results for available time and
money. The example in Box
A-2 illustrates the method.
Box A-2
Net Primary Production Estimate fora Monospecific Stand
Sampled Anytime During the Year.
The project involves 2 ha of high marsh Carex lyngbyei in
Willapa Bay, WA. On 10 June, seven 0.25 m2 plots were cut
and the live material weighed. The wet weights in grams
were: 350,460,500,450,400,470, and 400; the average is ap-
proximately 430 g/0.25m2 or 1720 g/ma. Section III contains
detailed Carex biomass curves for several geographical
locations. The one closest to the sampling location, the
Oregon coast, was selected. Appendix A gives the percent
dry weight of living material for Carex at 25%. Therefore in
this example, the average 1720g wet weight/m2 yields a dry
weight of 430 g/m2. The graph also shows that the June
biomass for the intensively studied stand was 1050g dry
wt/m2. The annual NPP for the marsh where the biomass
curve was determined was 1850g dry wt/m2/yr. The biomass
at sampling time in Willapa Bay was 430 g/mz, therefore the
ratio between the project site in Willapa Bay and the inten-
sively studied site in Oregon is 430/1050 = 0.41. Assuming
the NPPs are similarly related, the NPP of the Willapa Bay
marsh is estimated to be 0.41 x 1850 or 760 g/m2/yr. Thus,
for permit evaluation purposes, the production of the marsh
is approximately 760g dry wt/m2/year. This value can then
be compared to the Carex values given in the tables in
Section 1.
(1) Date: 10 June (2) Quadrat Size: 0.25 m2
(3) Site Location: Willapa Bay, WA
(4) Predominant Species Carex
(5) Live weight biomass per quadrat, in grams
a. 350 d. 450 g. 400
b. 460 e. 400
c. 500 f. 470
(6) Average live biomass 430g
(7) Factor to convert to g/m2 = 4
(8) Live biomass per m2 (6) x (7) = 1720g
(9) Dry wt/m2 of sample = 430g
(From Appendix A)
(10) Ratio of dry weight in sample to intensively studied
plot biomass = 0.41
(From appropriate graph Section III)
(11) Estimated NPP = (10) x NPP for intensively studied
site:
0.41 x 1850 = 760g dry weight/m2/yr.
13
-------
B. Net Primary Production
estimates for mixed
species stands.
Although wetlands in
some areas of the
country are large mono-
specific stands, often
they are diverse com-
munities. Some have a
uniform species mixture
while others have a
clumped distribution. In
both instances, the
recommended NPP
procedure is to determine
the species composition
and sum the production
of each species to obtain
the total for the project
area. Community com-
position estimation
methods depend on the
species distribution.
If the distribution is such
that seven randomly
placed 0.1 m2 plots give a
consistent percent bio-
mass composition, use
the technique described
in Box B-1. This method
can also be used if the
wetland consists of
zones of uniformly mixed
communities.
Box B-1
Net Primary Production Estimate for a Uniformly Mixed
Community
The project involved the analysis of a 1 ha uniformly mixed
community of Distichilis spicata and Salicornia virginica in
southwestern Oregon. Live material from seven 0.1 m2 ran-
dom plots were harvested on 15 June and the plants sorted
into species. The average fresh weight for each species
was determined. The live weight of D. spicata was 200g and
that of S. virginica was 450g. Using Appendix A to convert
from wet to dry weight, the dry weights were determined to
be 90 and 140 g/m2, respectively. The percent contribution
of each species was calculated from the total dry biomass,
i.e., 90/230 x 100 = 40% for D. spicata and 140/230 x 100 =
60% for S. virginica. With these results, the community can
be described as a 40:60 mixture of D. spicata and S
virginica.
The biomass dry weights are used to determine annual NPP
in the same manner as Box A-2. The appropriate month and
the closest geographical standard curve are used to deter-
mine the annual NPP for each species. The final result is
14
-------
Box B-1 (continued)
the sum of the two species calculated independently. For
this example, D. spicata is estimated to produce 270g dry
wt/m2/yr and S. virginica 21 Og dry wt/m2/yr. The annual NPP
estimate for the combined community is 480g dry wt/m2/yr.
(1) Date: 15 June (2) Quadrat Size: 0.1 m2
(3) Site Location: Southern Oregon
(4) Predominant Species: (A) Dlstichlis spicata;
(B) Salicornia virginica
(5) Live weight biomass per quadrat, in gramsSpecies A
a. 17 d. 24 g. 16
b. 21 e. 19
c. 20 f. 23
(6) Average Live Biomass Species A = 200g/m2
(7) Dry weight Species A (From Appendix A) = 90g
(8) Live weight biomass per quadrat, in gramsSpecies B
a. 50 d. 42 g. 45
b. 48 e. 43
c. 40 f. 47
(9) Average live biomass Species B = 450g/m2
(10) Dry weight Species B (From Appendix A) = 140g
(11) Total dry weight (7 + 10) = 90 + 140 = 230g
(12) % contribution of each species:
A = (7) -i- (11) x 100 = 90 -s- 230 x 100 = 40%
B = (10) H- (11) x 100 = 140 -i- 230 x 100 = 60%
(13) NPP for each species
(A) do as in Box A-2 270g
(B) do as in Box A-2 21 Og
(14) Annual NPP = (13A + 13B)
270g + 210g = 480g dry weight/m2/yr.
A fourth example is where
the plants within the
community have a clumped
rather than a uniform
distribution. In this case
larger plots are necessary
for representative sampling
of the wetlands, but
harvesting such plots, which
might be as large as 25 mz,
is impractical.
The recommended approach
is to stake out plots. The
size depends on the plant
distribution; plots should be
large enough to provide a
representative sample of the
site. Visually estimate the
percent bare soil and the
percent covered by each
species. At least four plots
should be examined.
Estimate the production of
each species as in Box A-2
and sum the results. An
example of this technique is
given in Box B-2.
15
-------
Box B-2.
Net Primary Production Estimates for Clumped Community
Distribution.
The area was adjacent to that described in Box B-1 and
covered 4 ha. Four square 36 m2 plots were "randomly"
located, staked out, and delineated with a cord. Each plot
was divided into quarters, and estimates of the percent
species cover and percent bare ground were made on each
quarter and the values averaged.
(1) Date: 15 June (2) Plot Size: 36 m2
(3) Site Location: Southern Oregon
(4) Predominant Species: (A) Distichlis spicata
(B) Salicornia virginica
(5) Plot 1: Percent Cover
Species A
Distichlis
spicata
50
(C) Triglochin maritime
Quarter 1
2
3
4
20
30
30
Species B
Salicornia
virginica
40
60
40
70
Species C
Triglochin
maritima
10
0
20
0
Bare
Ground
0
20
10
0
X 32% 52% 8% 8%
Seven samples were then harvested from the vegetated
areas and annual NPP computed. In this study, D. spicata
and S. virginica were growing in a mixed stand (as in Box
B-1 example).
(6) NPP of the uniformly mixed species
Mean
Live Dry Annual
Weight Weight NPP
Species (g) (g) (g/m2/yr)
D. spicata 200 90 270
S. virginica 450 140 210
(7) Contribution of Species A and B to the total community
NPP
Species A (270) + Species B (210) = Total (480 g) x
% Cover (84%) = 400 g
Triglochin maritima occurred in monospecific patches and
the production was calculated as in Box A-2. Triglochin
contribution (as determined with the Box A-2 method) was
300g dry wt/m2/yr. The bare ground was also located as
patches and obviously had no macrophyte productivity.
16
-------
Box B-2 (Continued)
All these data were combined in the following table to
estimate NPP for the whole plot.
Species or Annual % of total Weighted
mixtures NPP area covered Production
(g/m2/yr) (g dry wt/m2/yr)
D. spicata, 480 84 400
S. virginica
T. maritime 300 8 20
Bare Ground 8
Community Annual NPP 420
The annual NPP of Plots 2,3, and 4 were determined by the
above method to be 800,600, and 1000 g/m2/yr respectively;
therefore, annual NPP from Plot 1 + Plot 2 + Plots + Plot
4 * Number of plots sampled = 700 g/m2/yr NPP for the
community.
17
-------
Integrated primary
production value for the
study site.
For more complex projects,
aerial photographs which
are available from various
private, state and federal
agencies may be used to
integrate primary production
values over a large area. The
U.S. Soil Conservation
Service, local tax collection
agencies and planning
agencies are often good
sources of high quality
vertical photographs. The
U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, National Wetlands
Inventory, has compiled an
atlas of existing wetland
aerial photography for the
United States.1 In the
absence of large scale aerial
photography, Orthophoto-
quads (1:10,000) may be of
use. Regardless of the type
of base map, the texture
and/or color patterns can be
used in conjunction with a
thorough on-site inspection
to produce a vegetation
map. The map may be drawn
directly on the photograph
and the total area of the site
and the component plant
stands measured.
A number of satisfactory
methods can be used to
measure areas. If a coor-
dinographic table is not
available, a compensating
polar planimeter can be
used. In the absence of
these, the photograph or
overlay may be cut into
pieces conforming to the
species distribution pattern.
The pieces of paper
representing the areas of the
same species can be
grouped and weighed. These
weights can be compared to
the weight of a known area
of paper. Another simple
and effective method is the
dot grid overlay system
often used by foresters. A
series of acetate sheets with
various densities of dot
patterns are sequentially
placed over the map and the
number of dots in each
floristic unit counted. Since
each dot is centered in a
certain size area, the number
of dots in each floristic type
is multiplied by the area
represented by each dot.
This gives the area occupied
by each type. The dot
density necessary to give
accurate results depends on
the vegetation pattern. Using
a series of different dot grid
densities will enable the
researcher to select the
density which gives the
most accurate answer while
minimizing the time
necessary to count dots.
The procedures presented in
this section provide the
wetlands evaluator with a
series of options to use
when it is necessary to
make an on-site evaluation
of the annual NPP of the
marshland.
'Index available from National Wetlands
Inventory, Suite 217, Date Bldg , 9620
Executive Center Drive, St Petersburg
Florida 33072
18
-------
Section III
Plant
Habitats
and Annual
Biomass
Graphs
This section in the
handbook describes the
habitat of some of the
plants. American Wildlife
and Plants: A Guide to
Wildlife Food Habits by
Martin, Zim and Nelson, and
Tidal Wetland Plants of
Virginia by Silberhorn are
the basic references. Annual
biomass curves and net
primary production values
are given for those species
where data are available.
Where no source is noted,
curves are based on data
from our work at EPA's
research laboratory in
Corvallis, Oregon.
19
-------
CAREX
SEDGES
While there are numerous
species of the genus Carex in
the United States, many grow
under moist upland condi-
tions. The only true wetland
species for which production
data are available is Carex
lyngbyei (Lyngbye's sedge).
This species occurs from
Alaska to California and from
Greenland to Maine. It forms
large monospecif ic stands on
intertidal low saline marshes.
The upper distribution limit is
approximately the mean
lower high tide on the West
Coast. It appears to have ex-
tensive interactions with ad-
jacent estuaries. Carex ob-
nupta or slough sedge is a
common West Coast species
that grows near the marsh up-
per limit. Other common
species are C. atherodes, C.
lacustris, and C. rostrata.
C. lyngbyei
20
-------
Carex atherodes
Standing Crop Biomass
Iowa
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
(after van der Valk ana Davis, 1978)
Carex lacustris
New York
Standing Crop Biomass
E 800
I,
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
(after Bernard and Solsky, 1978)
21
-------
Carex lyngbyei
Standing Crop Biomass
Oregon
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Carex rostrata Minnesota
Standing Crop Biomass
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
22
-------
DISTICHLIS
SALTGRASS
Distichlis spicata or coastal
saltgrass is generally an inter-
tidal species, although it is
occasionally found well
above the wetland boundry.
The distribution is limited to
saline soils along all three
coasts. A closely related
species, D. striata, occurs in
saline inland areas of the
west. On the East Coast, D.
spicata is often associated
with Spartina patens,
saltmeadow hay, or with the
short form of Spartina alterni-
flora, smooth cordgrass. D.
spicata forms an extensive
creeping rhizome system
which produces dense sods
and corresponding dense but
low growth. These species
provide nesting cover for
waterfowl.
D. spicata
23
-------
Distichlis spicata
Standing Crop Biomass
Delaware
1200
1000
£ 800
O)
200
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aufl Sep Oct Nov Dec
falter Reimo/d and Linthurst, 1977)
Distichlis spicata
Standing Crop Biomass
Georgia
o
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
(after Reimold and Linthurst, 1977)
24
-------
Distichlis spicata
Standing Crop Biomass
Oregon
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
25
-------
JUNCUS
RUSH
Juncus balticus is both an
inland species which grows
in fresh and alkali marshes,
and a coastal species which
inhabits the high intertidal
region. In the Pacific North-
west, it often grows in the
transition zone between
marsh and upland. It is often
found in association with
Deschampsia (tuffed hair-
grass), Potentilla (pacific
silverweed) and Agrostis. J.
balticus forms an extensive
creeping rhizome system that
holds soil in place. Its decom-
position is extremely slow.
Juncus roemerianus, black
needle rush, is most common
along the south Atlantic
Coast and the Gulf of Mexico.
It grows in high marsh areas
and often forms large mono-
specific stands. The
rhizomes form dense mats
which prevent erosion. Jun-
cus gerardi, mud rush, is com-
mon along both the Atlantic
and Pacific Coasts. It is quite
possibly an introduced
species from Europe.
J. balticus
J. roemerianus
26
-------
Dry Weight g/mz
Dry Weight g/m2
-------
Juncus gerardi
Standing Crop Biomass
Maine
O)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
Sep Oct Nov Dec
(after Reimold and Lmthurst, 1977)
Juncus roemerianus -
Standing Crop Biomass
I
Georgia
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
(after Gallagher et al, in press)
28
-------
PHRAGMITES
REED GRASS
Phragmites
communis or
reed grass is a common plant
of fresh and brackish waters
along marshes throughout
the world, and it is used for
making paper in Eastern
Europe. The creeping rhi-
zomes allow it to quickly in-
vade disturbed areas. It is
considered by some to be a
weed as it will generally out
compete more valuable wild-
life species. Reed grass is
useful in controlling erosion
from dredge spoil areas.
P. communis
P. communis
29
-------
Phragmites communis
Standing Crop Biomass
Delaware
£ 800
200
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
(after Reimold and Llnthurst, 1977)
30
-------
POTENTILLA
PACIFIC SILVERWEED
Potentate pacifica is widely
distributed and grows in both
fresh and saltwater communi-
ties. In many cases, this
species is a good indicator of
the transition zone. In the
Pacific Northwest, this plant
seldom grows in mono-
specific stands, but generally
is found in a mixed communi-
ty consisting of other species
such as Deschampsia (tuffed
hairgrass), Juncus, Grindelia
(gumweed) or Trifolium.
P. pacifica
31
-------
Potentate pacifica
Standing Crop Biomass
Oregon
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
32
-------
SALICORNIA
GLASSWORT
Species of Salicornia occur
on all coasts and the interior
parts of the west. Salicornia
virginica (woody glasswort) is
an intertidal species found in
both brackish and saltwater
marshes. This species is a
succulent perennial with a
wood-like stem. On the West
Coast, it usually grows in
dense mats and is often an
early mudflat invader. On the
East Coast, it generally grows
at higher elevations in salt
flats. Other common species
in the United States includes.
europea and S. biglovii.
Geese feed on the fleshy
parts. In the fall, ducks, par-
ticularly pintail, eat the seeds.
The fleshy parts of all species
of Salicornia may be used in
salads or preserved.
S. virginica
33
-------
Salicomia virginica
Standing Crop Biomass
Oregon
Jan Feb Mar
34
-------
SCIRPUS
BULRUSH
There are over forty North
American species of the
genus Scirpus throughout
the United States. Scirpus
americanus, threesquare, is
an important species along
fresh, brackish, and saline
shores and in marshes.
Generally, it does not form
extensive stands, but forms
shoreline fringes. In tidal
areas, S. americanus is a low
intertidal species that is often
one of the first invaders on
the mudflat; consequently, it
acts as a sediment trap for
building marsh areas. Since
this species grows near
water, its seeds are readily
available to ducks. A close
relative, Scirpus olneyi,
Olney's threesquare, is a
favorite food for muskrats.
Other species that frequently
occur in wetlands include
Scirpus robustus, (saltmarsh
bulrush), Scirpus validus,
(giant bulrush), and Scirpus
fluviatilis, (river bulrush).
Scirpus
35
-------
Scirpus americanus Oregon
Standing Crop Biomass
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Sclrpus americanus South Carolina
Standing Crop Biomass
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
latter Boyd, 1970)
36
-------
Scirpus fluviatilis
200
Standing Crop Biomass
Iowa
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
(after van der Valk and Davis, 1978)
Scirpus validus
Standing Crop Biomass
Iowa
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
latter van der Valk and Davis, 1978)
37
-------
SPARGANIUM
BUR REED
Sparganium, or bur reeds,
grow throughout the United
States in inland freshwater
marshes and aquatic areas.
Plants range from ankle high
to head high and are distin-
guished by a ball-shaped
seed head.
S. eurycarpum
S. eurycarpum
38
-------
Sparganium eurycarpum
Standing Crop Biomass
Iowa
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
(after van der Valk and Davis, 1978)
39
-------
SPARTINA
CORDGRASS
There are three important
Spartina species common to
the coastal marshes of the
United States. S. alterniflora
(smooth cordgrass) is the
dominant species of Atlantic
and gulf coast salt marshes.
This intertidal species has
two growth forms, a tall form
growing adjacent to water-
ways and a short form in the
marsh areas away from the
banks, and is important to
estuarine food webs. S.
cynosuroides (big cordgrass)
grows in low salinities along
the Atlantic and gulf coasts.
In addition to its food value
for wildlife, muskrats often
use this species in construc-
tion. S. patens (saltmeadow
cordgrass) grows along all
three coasts. It generally is
found at slightly higher
elevation than S. alterniflora.
Another common species is
S. foliosa which occurs
primarily on the West Coast.
All forms of Spartina are
important waterfowl food.
-------
Dry Weight g/m2
Dry Weight g/m2
-------
Spartina altemiflora
Standing Crop Biomass
Louisiana
£ 800
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
(after Gosselmk et al, 1977)
\ S
Spartina altemiflora
(tall form) Standing Crop Biomass
Louisiana
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
(after Kirby and Gosse/mk, 19761
42
-------
Dry Weight g/m2
Dry Weight g/m!
-------
Spartina alterniflora
(short form) Standing Crop Biomass
Maine
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
(alter Remold and Unthurst, 1977)
Spartina alterniflora New Jersey
(tall form) Standing Crop Biomass
&
£
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
(after Squiers and Good, 1974)
44
-------
Dry Weight g/m2
o>
Dry Weight g/m2
I
i
CD
-------
*
Dry Weight g/m1
Dry Weight g/m!
-------
Dry Weight gfm1
Dry Weight g/m2
-------
SPOROBOLUS
DROPSEED
Sporobolus, or dropseed, is a
low-growing fleshy plant that
grows in southern regions of
the United States. S. vlrgini-
cus occurs along the east and
gulf coasts from North
Carolina to Texas. Other
species occur in Southern
California and inland areas.
Some species grow in upland
areas of blowing sand and
sand dunes.
S. virginicus
48
-------
Sporobolus virginicus
Standing Crop Biomass
Georgia
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
(after Reimold and Linthurst, 1977)
49
-------
TRIGLOCHIN
SEASIDE
ARROWGRASS
Triglochin maritima is found
in fresh, brackish, and saline
marshes from California to
Alaska, and from Newfound-
land to Delaware. It has also
been reported in Nebraska
and New Mexico. In coastal
areas, Triglochin is often a
primary invader on intertidal
mudflats and, as a colonizer,
increases the sedimentation
rate. Consequently, this
species is important in
natural marsh building pro-
cesses.
T. maritima
50
-------
Triglochin maritima
600
o,
300
100
Standing Crop Biomass
Oregon
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
51
-------
TYPHA
CATTAILS
Four species of Typha, or cat-
tails, are found in both inland
and coastal wetlands of the
United States. The most com-
mon species are T. latlfolia
(broadleaf cattail), a fresh-
water species well
distributed throughout all
states, and T. angustifolia
(narrow leaved cattail), a fresh
or brackish water species
most common in the North-
east. Less commonly, T.
angustifolia occurs in north-
ern states from Washington
to Nova Scotia and in
southern states, and when it
does occur in brackish areas,
it is where there is freshwater
seepage. Two other common
species are T. domigensis
(southern cattail) and T.
glauca (blue cattail).
All Typha species tend to
grow in dense colonies. The
aerial parts provide a nesting
habitat for many organisms
while the roots provide feed
for muskrats and geese. Cat-
tail marshes are excellent
habitats for muskrats but are
of little value in marshes
managed for ducks.
T. angustifolia
52
-------
Typha spp.
1000
Standing Crop Biomass
New Jersey
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
(after Whigham et al, 1978)
Typha glauca
Standing Crop Biomass
Iowa
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
(after van der Vatk and Daws, 1978)
53
-------
Typha latifolia Oklahoma
Standing Crop Biomass
1200
&
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
(alter Penlound, 19561
Typha latlfolia South Carolina
Standing Crop Biomass
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
latter Boyd, 1970)
54
-------
CJt0d
1- Alten' R- 1^74 Aquatic primary produo-
(jv|ty |n vario(JS marsh environments in
Louisiana. M.S. Thesis, Louisiana State
University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
2. Anderson, R.R., R.G Brown, and RD.
Rappleye. 1968. Water quality and plant
distribution along the Upper Patuxent
River, Maryland. Chesapeake Sci
9(3):145-156.
3. Bernard, J.M 1974 Seasonal changes in
standing crop and primary production in
a sedge wetland and an adjacent dry old
field in Central Minnesota Ecology
55:350-359.
4. Bernard, J M., and E Gorham. 1978
Primary production in sedge wetlands
In: R.E Good, D.F. Whigham, and R.L
Simpson, eds Freshwater Wetlands,
Ecological Processes and Management
Potential Academic Press, New York.
5. Bernard, J M , and J.G. MacDonald Jr
1974 Primary production and lite history
ofCarex/acusfns. Can.J Bot 52.117-123.
6. Bernard, J M, and B.H. SolsKy. 1977
Nutrient cycling in a Carex lacustris
wetland Can J. Bot. 55'63O638.
7. Boyd, C.E. 1969 Production, mineral
nutrient absorption, and biochemical
assimilation by Justicia americana and
Alternanthera philoxeroides Arch.
Hydrobiol 60511-517.
8. _ 1970. Production, mineral ac-
cumulation and pigment concentration
in Typha latifolia and Scirpus
amencanus. Ecology 51-285-290.
9. Bray, J.R 1962. Estimates of energy
budgets for a Typha (Cattail) marsh
Science 135:1119.
10. _ , Lawrence, D B., and L C.
Pearson 1959. Primary production in
some Minnesota terrestrial com-
munities for 1957 Oikos 10:38-49
11. Cahoon, D.R. 1975. Net productivity of
emergent vegetation at Horn Point Salt
Marsh M.S. Thesis, University of
Maryland 94 pp.
12. de la Cruz, A A 1974 Primary productivi-
ty of coastal marshes in Mississippi.
Gulf Research Reports 4:351-356
13. Drake, B G 1976. Seasonal changes in
reflectance of standing crop biomass in
three salt marsh communities Plant
Physiol 58.69&C99.
14. Eilers, H P 1975 Plants, plant com-
munities, net production and tide levels:
the ecological biography of the Nahilem
salt marsh, Tillamook County, Oregon
Ph D. Thesis, Oregon State University,
Corvallis, Oregon 368 pp.
15. Flemer, D.A., DR Heinle, CW. Keefe,
D H Hamilton, and M. Johnson 1978
Standing crops of marsh vegetation of
two tributaries of Chesapeake Bay
Estuaries 1.157-163.
16. Foster, WA 1968. Studies on the
distribution and growth of Juncus
roemerianus in southeastern Brunswick
County, North Carolina. MS. Thesis,
North Carolina State University. 72 pp
17 Gabriel, BC., and A.A de la Cruz. 1974
Species composition, standing stock,
and net primary production of a salt
marsh community in Mississippi
Chesapeake Sci 15(2)72-77.
18. Gallagher, J L, R J Reimold, R.A. Lint-
hurst, and W J Pfeiffer. In press. Aerial
production, mortality, and mineral ac-
cumulation: export dynamics in Spanina
altermf/ora and Juncus roemerianus
plant stands in Georgia salt marshes.
Ecology.
19. Gallagher, J L, RJ Reimold, and D.E.
Thompson. 1972 Remote sensing and
salt marsh productivity. Proc 38th An-
nual Meeting Amer Soc. Photogram.,
Washington.
20. Good, R E. 1965. Salt marsh vegetation,
Cape May, New Jersey Bull N J Acad.
Sci 10(1):1-11
21. Good, R. E., and N. F Good. 1975.
Vegetation and production of the Wood-
bury Creek-Hissian Run freshwater tidal
marshes Barton ia 43:38-45
22. Good, R E, R. W. Hastings, and R Den-
mark 1975. An environmental assess-
ment of wetlands' A case study of Wood-
bury Creek and associated marshes.
Technical Report 75-2 Rutgers Univer-
sity, Marine Sciences Center, New
Brunswick, New Jersey 49 pp.
23. Gosselink, J. G., C. S. Hopkinson, and R.
T Parrondo. 1977 Minor marsh plant
species. Vol I Production of marsh
vegetation Final report to dredged
material research program US. Army
Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experi-
ment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
24. Gross, A C. 1966. Vegetation of the
Brucker Marsh and the Barn Island
Natural Area, Stonmgton, Connecticut
M.A Thesis, Connecticut College, New
London, Connecticut.
25. Harper, R. M 1918 Some dynamic
studies of Lory Island vegetation Plant
World 21.38-46.
26. Heald, E. J 1969 The production of
organic detritus in a south Florida
estuary Ph.D. Thesis, University of
Miami, 110 pp
27. Heinle, D. R. 1972 Estimate of standing
crop (dry weight) of marsh vegetation on
two Eastern Shore sites (Somerset
County). In. Program Planning and Evalu-
ation Water Resources Administration,
Chesapeake Biological Laboratory,
Natural Resources Institute, Solomons,
Maryland.
28. Heinle, D. R, D. A Flemer, J F Ustach,
R.A Murtagu.andR. P Harris. 1974. The
role of organic debris and associated
microorganisms in pelagic estuarme
food chains Technical Report 22.
University of Maryland, Water Resources
Research Center, College Park,
Maryland 54 pp
29. Hoffnagle, J. et al 1976. A comparative
study of salt marshes of the Coos Bay
Estuary, 87 pp (unpublished report
prepared for the Port of Coos Bay).
30. Jack McCormick and Associates, Inc.
1974. "Standing crop vegetation analysis
of SPA-1. (Hackensack Meadowlands
Development Commission, specially
planned area, Secaucus, Hudson Coun-
ty, New Jersey)." Correspondence be-
tween James Schmid, Jack McCormick
and Associates, Inc. and Hartz Mountain
Industries. Jack McCormick and Asso-
ciates, Inc, Devon, Pennsylvania.
31. Jervis, R A. 1964 Primary production in
a freshwater marsh ecosystem Ph.D
Thesis, Rutgers University
32. 1969 Primary production in
the freshwater marsh of Troy Meadown,
N.J. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 96 209-231.
33. Johnson, M 1970 Preliminary report on
species composition, chemical compo-
sition, biomass, and production of marsh
55
-------
vegetation in the upper Patuxent
Estuary, Maryland. Rep. Chesapeake
Biol. Lab. Ref. No. 70-130.
34. Keefe, C. W., and W. R Boynton. 1973.
Standing crop of salt marshes surround-
ing Chincoteague Bay, Maryland-
Virginia. Chesapeake Sci. 14.117-123.
35. Kirby, C. J. 1972 The annual net primary
production and decomposition of salt-
marsh grass Spartina a/terniflora in
Baratuna Bay estuary of LA. Ph.D.
Thesis, Louisiana State University. 74 pp
36. and J G. Gosselink. 1976.
Primary production in a Louisiana Gulf
Coast Spartina alterniflora marsh.
Ecology 57.1052-1059.
37. Lathwell, D J , D. R. Bouldm, and E. A.
Goyette. 1973. Growth and chemical
composition of aquatic plants in twenty
artificial wildlife marshes. New York Fish
and Game Journal 20(2):109-128.
38. Mahall, B. E., and R. B. Park 1976. The
ecotone between Spartina foliosa Trin
and Salicornia virgimca L. in salt marshes
of northern San Francisco Bay J. of
Ecology 64:421-433.
39. Marshall, D.E 1970 Characteristics of a
Spartina marsh which is receiving
treated municipal sewage wastes. In
H.T Odum and AF Chestnut, eds.
Studies of Marine Estuanne Ecosystems
Developing with Treated Sewage
Wastes. Institute of Marine Science,
University of North Carolina, Annual Re-
port 1969-1970 pp 317-358
40. Martin, A. C., H S Zim, and A. L Nelson
1961. American Wildlife and Plants. A
Guide to Wildlife Food Habits Dover
Publications, Inc., New York. 500 pp.
41. Mason, C. F., and R J. Bryant. 1975. Pro-
duction, nutrient content and decompo-
sition of Phragmites commumsTrin and
Typha angustlfolia L. J Ecol 63:71-95
42. McCormick, J 1970 The natural features
of Tmicum marsh, with particular em-
phasis on the vegetation In. J. McCor-
mick, R. R Grant, Jr., and R. Patrick, eds
Two studies of Tmicum marsh, Delaware
and Philadelphia Counties, Pa. The Con-
servation Foundation, Washington, D.C
pp. 1-123
43. McCormick, J., and T. Ashbaugh. 1972
Vegetation of a section of Oldmaus
Creek tidal marsh and related areas in
Salem and Gloucester Counties, New
Jersey. Bull N.J. Acad. Sci 17-31-37
44. McNaughton, S. J 1966 Ecotype func-
tion in the Typha community-type Ecol
Monogr 36-297-325.
45. Mendelssohn, I A. 1973 Angiosperm
production of three Virginia marshes in
various salinity and soil nutrient
regimes MA Thesis, College of William
and Mary.
46. , and K. L Marcellus. 1976.
Angiosperm production of three Virginia
marshes in various salinity and soil
nutrient regimes Chesapeake Sci.
17.15-23.
47. Milner, C, and R E. Hughes. 1968
Methods for the measurement of the
primary production of grassland IBP
Handbook No 6, Blackwell Sci Publ,
Oxford 70 pp
48. Morgan, M H 1961. Annual angiosperm
production on a saltmarsh M.S Thesis,
University of Delaware 34 pp.
49. Nadeau, R J. 1972 Primary production
and export of plant materials in the salt
marsh ecosystem Ph.D. Thesis, Rutgers
University 175pp.
50. Nixon, S. W., and C A Oviatt. 1973
Analysis of local variation in the stand-
ing crop of Spartina alterniflora.
Botanica Mar. 16:103-109
51. Odum, E. P. and M E. Fanning 1973
Comparison of the productivity of Spar-
tma alterniflora and Spartina
cynosuroides in Georgia coastal
marshes Bull. Georgia Acad. Sci.
31.1-12.
52. Parker, G R., and G. Schnieder 1975.
Biomass and productivity of an alder
swamp in Northern Michigan. Can J
Res. 5 403-409.
53. Payonk, P. 1.1975. The response of three
species of marsh macrophytes to artifi-
cial enrichment at Dulac, Louisiana. M.S.
Thesis, Louisiana State University. 121
PP-
54. Penfound, W T. 1956. Primary produc-
tion of vascular aquatic plants. Limnol
Oceanogr. 1 92-1010
55. and T T. Earle. 1948. The
biology of the water hyacinth. Ecol
Monogr. 18 447-472.
56. Reimold, R T, J. L. Gallagher, R A. Lint-
hurst and W J Pfeiffer 1975 Detritus
production in coastal Georgia salt
marshes In: L E. Cronin, ed Estuanne
Research. Vol I, Academic Press, New
York pp 217-228.
57. Remold, RJ and RA. Lmthurst 1977
Primary productivity of minor marsh
plants in Delaware, Georgia, and Maine
Technical Report D-77-36. US Army
Corps of Engineers, Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
Mississippi 104 pp
58. Silberhorn, G M. 1976. Tidal wetland
plants of Virginia. Education Series No.
19 of the Virginia Institute of Marine
Science Gloucester Point, Virginia 86
PP
59. Smalley A.E 1958. The role of two
invertebrate populations, Littorma irrota
and Orchelium fidicmium, in the energy
flow of a salt marsh ecosystem Ph D
Dissertation, University of Georgia,
Athens, Georgia.
60. Smalley, A E 1959. The growth cycle of
Spartina and its relation to the insect
populations in the marsh Proc Salt
Marsh Conf. Marine Institute, University
of Georgia, Sapelo Island, Georgia pp.
96-100
81. Squiers, RR., and RE Good. 1974
Seasonal changes in the productivity,
caloric content, and chemical
composition of a population of a salt
marsh cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora)
Chesapeake Sci 15(2).63-71
62. Steever, E.Z 1972 Productivity and
vegetation studies of a tidal saltmarsh in
Stonington Connecticut; Cottrell marsh
M S Thesis, Connecticut College
63. Stroud, LM., and AW Cooper. 1968
Color-infrared aerial photographic
interpretation and net primary
production of a regularly-flooded North
Carolina salt marsh. Report 14
University of North Carolina, Water
Resources Research Institute 86 pp.
64. Tieszen, LL 1972 The seasonal course
of above ground production and chloro-
phyll distribution in a wet arctic tundra alt.
Barrow, Alaska. Arctic and Alpine Res
4(4) 307-324
56
-------
65. Turner, R E. 1976. Georgraphic variations
in salt marsh macrophyte production.
a review. Contributions in Mar. Sci.
20.47-68.
66. Turner, R E, and J.G. Gosselink. 1975
Note on Standing Crop of Spartina
alterniflora in Texas and Florida
Contributions in Mar. Sci. 19-113-118
67. Udell, A F, J Zarudsky and T.E. Dohery.
1969 Productivity and nutrient values of
plants growing in the salt marshes of the
town of Hempstead, Long Island. Bull.
TorreyBot Club 96:42-51.
68. Valiela, I., J.M. Teal, and W.J. Sass 1975.
Production and dynamics of salt marsh
vegetation and the effects of experi-
mental treatment with sewage sludge J
Appl Ecol. 12973-982
69. vanderValk, A.G., and C.B Davis. 1978.
Primary production of prairie glacial
marshes In. R E Good, D F. Whigham,
and R L Simpson, eds Freshwater Wet-
lands, Ecological Processes and Man-
agement Potential. Academic Press,
New York.
70. Waits, E.D 1967 Net primary
productivity of an irregularly flooded
North Carolina salt marsh Ph.D.
Dissertation, North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, North Carolina.
71. Walker, R, and R.E. Good 1976.
Vegetation and production for some
Mullica River-Great Bay tidal marshes
Bull N J. Acad Sci. 21:20.
72. Walton, T.E. 1972 Primary productivity,
succession and management of a New
Jersey coastal marsh. M.R P Thesis,
University of Pennsylvania. 128 pp.
73. Wass, M.L., and T.D. Wright 1969
Coastal wetlands of Virginia. Virginia
Inst of Mar. Sci., Gloucester Point,
Virginia. 153 pp
74. Weigart, R., and F Evans. 1964 Primary
production and the disappearance of
detritus of three South Carolina old
fields Ecology 56.129-140
75. Whigham, D., and R L. Simpson. 1975.
Ecological studies of the Hamilton
Marshes Progress report for the period
June, 1974 January, 1975 Rider
College, Biology Dept, Lawrenceville,
New Jersey.
76. Whigham, D.F, J McCormick, R.E.
Good, and R L Simpson 1978. Biomass
and primary production in freshwater
tidal wetlands of the middle Atlantic
Coast In. R.E Good, D.F Whigham, and
R L Simpson, eds Freshwater Wet-
lands, Ecological Processes and Man-
agement Potential Academic Press,
New York.
77. Williams, R B and M.B. Murdoch 1969
The potential importance of Spartina
altern/flora in conveying zinc,
manganese, and iron in estuarine food
chains. In1 D J. Nelson and F C Evans,
eds. Proc 2nd Nat Symp. Radioecology.
pp 431-439
78. Williams, R.B. and M B Murdocts 1972
Compartmental analysis of the
production of Juncus roemananus in a
North Carolina salt marsh. Chesapeake
Sci. 13|2).6979
57
-------
Appendix A. Conversion Factors from Fresh to Dry Weight of
Living and Dead Marsh Plants
Species
Carex lyngbyei
Distichlis spicata
Juncus balticus
Juncus roemerianus
Phragmites communis
Potentilla pacifica
Salicornia virginica
Scirpus amerlcanus
Sparganium eurycarpum
Spartina alterniflora
Spartina cynosuroides
Spartina foliosa
Spartina patens
Sporobolus virginicus
Triglochin maritima
Typha
Dry weight as average % of wet weight
Live Plants
25
45
50
40
50
20
30
20
30
35
50
30
70
60
15
50
Dead Plants
40
60
65
50
80
30
45
20
30
35
85
70
65
60
20
30
58
-------
Appendix B. Unit Conversion Table
To Convert
Column 1 to
Column 2
multiply by
Column 1
Column 2
To Convert
Column 2 to
Column 1
multiply by
2.471
3.281
10.764
0.035
2.205
0.892
4048.
0.0044
0.621
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.001
hectares (ha)
meters (m)
sq meters (m2)
grams (g)
kilograms (kg)
kg/ha
sq meters
gm/m2
kilometers
millimeters
centimeters
meters
grams
acres
feet (f)
sq feet (ft2)
ounce (oz)
pounds (Ibs)
Ib/acre
acre
tons/acre
miles
centimeters
meters
kilometers
kilograms
0.405
0.305
0.093
28.35
0.454
1.12
.00025
226.0
1.609
10
100
1000
1000
59
------- |