Assessing Spatio-temporal Changes of Invasive Limonium ramosissimum in

Kerstin Kalchmayr San Francisco State University Department of Geography & Environment *** Thesis committee: Dr. Barbara Holzman, Dr. Ellen Hines and Dr. Kathy Boyer*

*Dept. of Biology SFSU Introduction Methods Results/Discussion Summary/Conclusion Acknowledgements Invasive Limonium ramosissimum Introduction Methods Results/Discussion Summary/Conclusion Acknowledgements Limonium ramosissimum (Poir.) Maire ▪ Algerian sea lavender ▪ Family: Plumbaginaceae ▪ Origin: Western Mediterranean ▪ Discovered in SF Bay: 2007

CalFlora.org/Margo Bors Native Limonium californicum

Invasive Limonium ramosissimum

Seal , SF Bay July 2015 Introduction Methods Results/Discussion Summary/Conclusion Acknowledgements LIRA’s Potential Impacts

Salt marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris)

LIRA ‘mat’ formation at Sanchez Creek Marsh, Ridgway’s rail SF Bay July 2015 (Rallus longirostris obsoletus) Introduction Methods Results/Discussion Summary/Conclusion Acknowledgements SF Bay LIRA research

▪ 20 locations: 15,000m2 ▪ Disturbed, upper marsh ▪ Prolific seed producer ▪ Co occurring native halophyte cover decreased ▪ Seeds tolerate high salinities ▪ Germinates faster than natives ▪ Reduced soil salinity and moisture (Cleave 2012; Archbald and Boyer 2014a; 2014b) Introduction Methods Results/Discussion Summary/Conclusion Acknowledgements

▪ Temporal processes: modulate impacts of invading sp. (Strayer et al. 2006) ▪ Lack of studies: multiple time scales since invasion (Hendersen et al. 2006; Strayer et al. 2006) ▪ Long-term studies useful for management decisions (Blossey 1999; Robison 2009; ) Introduction Methods Results/Discussion Summary/Conclusion Acknowledgements

Research Objectives ▪ Assess changes in abundance and distribution of LIRA populations throughout the Bay-Area. ▪ Assess changes to native species composition and soil properties. Introduction Methods Results/Discussion Summary/Conclusion Acknowledgements

▪ Field methods of Archbald (2011) followed

Current study is two-fold: 1) Bay-wide mapping of LIRA populations

2) Mensurate surveys at established study sites to determine changes: -native species composition -soil properties Introduction Methods Results/Discussion Summary/Conclusion Acknowledgements Bay-wide mapping

Fig. 1: Size and location of LIRA populations growing at the 20 saltmarsh sites identified in 2008-2010. (Data courtesy G. Archbald) Introduction Methods Results/Discussion Summary/Conclusion Acknowledgements Mensurate surveys

Fig 2. Archbald (2011) study sites (From Archbald 2011) Introduction Methods Results/Discussion Summary/Conclusion Acknowledgements Mensurate surveys ▪ 30 1-m2 survey plots at each site established 2008

‘IN LIRA’ PLOTS ‘OUT LIRA’ PLOTS n=15 n=15

Survey plot (n = 5)

Fig 3: Survey plot schematic (Archbald and Boyer 2014a) Introduction Methods Results/Discussion Summary/Conclusion Acknowledgements Mensurate surveys: Vegetation Surveys

▪ Vegetation surveys: -August 2015 -March 2016

▪ Record species present in every other cell* (LIRA, natives: JACA, DISP, SAPA)

1-m2 sampling quad with 100 cell grid *change in vegetation survey Introduction Methods Results/Discussion Summary/Conclusion Acknowledgements Mensurate surveys: Soil Analysis

▪ Soil properties analyzed: 1. Soil moisture 2. Bulk density 3. Soil salinity 4. Soil organic matter (SOM)

Collecting soil samples with the soil corer Introduction Methods Results/Discussion Summary/Conclusion Acknowledgements

Statistical analysis: (alpha <0.05) Vegetation: ▪ ANOVAs analyze percent cover data ▪ Friedman test (non-parametric 1-way ANOVA) ▪ 3-way ANOVA and 2-way mixed ANOVA = bootstrapped (10,000 iterations) ▪ Paired t-tests

Soil: ▪ 3-way ANOVA (2015 data only) ▪ 2-way and 3-way mixed ANOVAs Introduction Methods Results/Discussion Summary/Conclusion Acknowledgements Bay-wide mapping

35000 32, 002 m2

30000

25000

20000

15,110 m2 Area (m2) Area 15000

10000

5000

0 Year 2008-2010 Year 2015

Fig 4: Total LIRA population size from the two study periods 2008-2010 and 2015. Fig. 7: Map with current known locations of LIRA (2016) in the . (Showing LIRA presence only) Introduction Methods Results/Discussion Summary/Conclusion Acknowledgements

Mensurate surveys: LIRA

LIRA - Sanchez Creek Marsh LIRA - Coyote Point 40 40 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 0 LO ME HI -10 -10 LO ME HI

-20 Cover (%) change (%) Cover

Cover (%) change (%) Cover -20 -30 -30 -40 -40 -50 -50 IN OUT -60 -60

Fig. 9: LIRA change in percent cover from August 2008 to August 2015 Error bars represent 1 S.E. and n=30 for each graph. Introduction Methods Results/Discussion Summary/Conclusion Acknowledgements

Mensurate surveys: JACA

JACA - Sanchez Creek Marsh JACA - Coyote Point

50 50

30 30

10 10

-10 LO ME HI -10 LO ME HI Cover (%) change (%) Cover -30 change (%) Cover -30

-50 -50

-70 -70 IN OUT

Fig. 10: JACA change in percent cover from August 2008 to August 2015 Error bars represent 1 S.E. and n=30 for each graph. Introduction Methods Results/Discussion Summary/Conclusion Acknowledgements

Mensurate surveys: DISP

DISP - Sanchez Creek Marsh DISP - Coyote Point

50 50

30 30

10 10

-10 LO ME HI -10 LO ME HI

-30 change (%) Cover -30 Cover (%) change (%) Cover

-50 -50

-70 -70 IN OUT

Fig. 11: DISP change in percent cover from August 2008 to August 2015 Error bars represent 1 S.E. and n=30 for each graph. Introduction Methods Results/Discussion Summary/Conclusion Acknowledgements

Mensurate surveys: SAPA

SAPA - Sanchez Creek Marsh SAPA - Coyote Point

0 0 LO ME HI LO ME HI -10 -10

-20 -20

-30 } -30

-40 -40 Cover (%) change (%) Cover -50 change (%) Cover -50 } -60 -60

-70 -70 IN OUT

Fig. 12: SAPA change in percent cover from August 2008 to August 2015 Error bars represent 1 S.E. and n=30 for each graph. Introduction Methods Results/Discussion Summary/Conclusion Acknowledgements Mensurate surveys: Soil Surveys

▪ Salinity (ppt) ▪ Soil moisture (%) ▪ Bulk density (g/cm3) ▪ Soil organic matter (%) (SOM) Introduction Methods Results/Discussion Summary/Conclusion Acknowledgements Sanchez Marsh (2008) Sanchez Marsh (2015) 100 100 Salinity IN OUT 90 90 80 80 70 70 60 60 50 50 40

Salinity (ppt) Salinity 40 Salinity (ppt) Salinity 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 0 LO ME HI LO ME HI

Coyote Point (2008) Coyote Point (2015)

100 100 90 90 80 80 70 70 60 60 50 50

40 40

Salinity (ppt) Salinity Salinity (ppt) Salinity 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 0 LO ME HI LO ME HI Fig. 13: Salinity from 9/2008 and 9/2015. Error bars represent 1 S.E. and n=30 for all graphs. Introduction Methods Results/Discussion Summary/Conclusion Acknowledgements

Sanchez Marsh (2008) Sanchez Marsh (2015) Soil moisture 70 70 IN OUT 60 60

50 50

40 40

30 30

Moisture (%) Moisture Moisture (%) Moisture 20 20

10 10

0 0 LO ME HI LO ME HI Coyote Point (2008) Coyote Point (2015) 70 70

60 60

50 50

40 40

30 30

Moisture (%) Moisture Moisture (%) Moisture

20 20

10 10

0 0 LO ME HI LO ME HI Fig. 14: Soil % moisture from 9/2008 and 9/2015. Error bars represent 1 S.E. and n=30 for all graphs Introduction Methods Results/Discussion Summary/Conclusion Acknowledgements Sanchez Marsh (2008) Sanchez Marsh (2015)

2 Bulk density 2 IN OUT 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.2 1 1

0.8 0.8 Bulk density (g/cm3) density Bulk

0.6 (g/cm3) density Bulk 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0 0 LO ME HI LO ME HI Coyote Point (2008) Coyote Point (2015) 2 2 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.2 1 1

0.8 0.8 Bulk density (g/cm3) density Bulk

0.6 (g/cm3) density Bulk 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0 0 LO ME HI LO ME HI Fig. 15: Bulk density (g/cm3) from 9/2008 and 9/2015. Error bars represent 1 S.E. and n=30 for all graphs Introduction Methods Results/Discussion Summary/Conclusion Acknowledgements

Soil Organic IN OUT Matter (SOM)

Sanchez Creek (2015) Coyote Point (2015) 10 10

9 9

8 8

7 7

6 6

5 5

4 4

% soil organic matter organic soil % % soil organic matter organic soil % 3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0 LO ME HI LO ME HI

Fig. 16: Soil organic matter (%) from 9/2015. Error bars represent 1 S.E. and n=30 for all graphs Introduction Methods Results/Discussion Summary/Conclusion Acknowledgements

▪ LIRA rapidly expanding throughout the Bay Area ▪ All species: LIRA and natives decreased. Drought affected all species ▪ BUT LIRA better adapted to drought. ▪ SAPA, DISP most affected by LIRA and drought ▪ Longer term impacts to bulk density and SOM Introduction Methods Results/Discussion Summary/Conclusion Acknowledgements

▪ LIRA: hardy, drought Recommendations tolerant species ▪ Reinvigorate ▪ Marsh level: removal efforts dominant player ▪ Research on seed ▪ Long-term bank dynamics competitive ability in Bay-Area wetlands (seed viability) Introduction Methods Results/Discussion Summary/Conclusion Acknowledgements ▪ Thesis committee! ▪ Gavin Archbald ▪ Foster City, City of Burlingame and San Mateo Co. Parks ▪ Invasive Spartina Project: Whitney Thornton and Drew Kerr ▪ Judy Stalker (Marin Audubon Board) ▪ Dr. Ed Connor (statistical analysis) ▪ Dr. Jerry Davis (plot elevations) ▪ Department of Geography & Environment ▪ Pease Memorial Scholarship Award ▪ Boyer lab at Romberg Tiburon Center ▪ COSE travel grant ▪ Family and Friends: Anthony Copioli, Darren Blackburn, Laura Branagan and Melissa Kent for field and lab assistance References:

• Ailstock SM, Norman MC, and Bushmann PJ (2001). Common reed Phragmites australis Control and Effects Upon Biodiversity in Freshwater Nontidal Wetlands. . 9: 1. doi:10.1046/j.1526-100x.2001.009001049.x. • Asher J, Dewey S (2005). Estimated annual rates of weed spread on western federal wildlands. Draft white paper. Federal Interagency Committee for Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds. (FICMNEW). Washington, D.C. • Archbald G (2011). Predicting the spread of Limonium ramosissimum in San Francisco Bay Marshes. Masters Thesis. Department of Biology: Ecology and Systematic Biology. San Francisco State University. California. USA. • Archbald G, Boyer KE (2014a). Distribution and invasion potential of Limonium ramosissimum Subsp. Provinciale in San Francisco salt marshes. San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science. 12: 2 • Archbald G, Boyer KE (2014b). Potential for spread of Algerian Sea Lavender (Limonium ramosissimum Subsp. Provinciale) in tidal marshes. Invasive Plant Science and Management. 7: 3. doi:10.1614/IPSM-D-13-00091.1 • Baker HG (1953). Dimorphism and Monomorphism in the Plumbaginaceae II. Pollen and Stigmata in the Genus Limonium. Annals in Botany 17 (67): 433– 45 • Baldwin BG, Goldman D, Keil DJ, Patterson R, Rosatti TJ, Wilken D. (2012). The Jepson manual: vascular plants of California. Second Edition. Berkeley, California: University of California Press. • Baye PR (2008). Vegetation management in terrestrial edges of tidal marshes, western San Francisco Estuary, California: Integrated vegetation management strategies and practical guidelines for local stewardship programs. Prepared for Marin Audubon Society, Mill Valley, California. 35p. • Blossey B (1999). Before, during and after: The need for long-term monitoring in Invasive Plant Species Management. Biological Invasions. 1: doi:10.1023/A:1010084724526. • Branton M, Richardson JS (2011). Assessing the value of umbrella-species concept for conservation planning with meta-analysis. Conservation Biology. 25:1. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01606.x. • Callaway JC, Parker VT, Vasey MC, Schile LM, Herbert ER (2011). Tidal restoration in San Francisco Bay: History and current issues. San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science. http://escholarship.org/uc/item/5dd3n9x3.pdf • Cleave A (2012). Limonium ramosissimum effects on native salt marsh communities in a changing environment. Masters thesis. Department of Biology: Conservation Biology. San Francisco State University. California. USA. • Cloern JE, Jassby AD (2012). Drivers of change in estuarine-coastal ecosystems: Discoveries from four decades of study in San Francisco Bay. Reviews in Geophysics. 50. 1-33. • Daehler CC (2003). Performance comparisons of co-occurring native and alien invasive plants: Implications for conservation and restoration. Annual review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics. 34 (1) doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.34.011802.132403 • Daehler CC, Strong C (1997). Hybridization between Introduced Smooth Cordgrass (Spartina Alterniflora; Poaceae) and Native California Cordgrass (S. Foliosa) in San Francisco Bay, California, USA. American Journal of Botany 84(5). 607-11 http://www.amjbot.org/content/84/5/607.short • Devillers-Terschuren P, Devillers-Terschuren J (2001) Convention of the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural . Group of Experts for the setting up of the Emerald Network of Areas of Special Conservation Interest. Application and Development of the Palaearctic classification in the Course of Setting Up the Emerald Project - Malta. Council of Europe, Strasbourg, France. 70 p • Goals Project (1999). Baylands ecosystem habitat goals. A report of habitat recommendations prepared by the San Francisco Bay Area Wetlands Ecosystem Goals Project. San Francisco (CA): U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Oakland (CA): San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. • Goals Project (2015). The Baylands and Climate Change: What We Can Do. Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals Science Update 2015 prepared by the San Francisco Bay Area Wetlands Ecosystem Goals Project. California State Coastal Conservancy, Oakland, CA.

Introduction Methods Results/Discussion Summary/Conclusion Acknowledgements Bay-wide mapping Plummer Creek Marsh Ideal Marsh S. Yosemite Slough Sanchez Creek Marsh Coyote Creek lagoon

Restored marsh Restored Pier 94 Corte Madera Whales Tail S. Oyster Pt Marina SFO Coyote Pt. Sausalito

Filled marsh edge marsh Filled Beach Park Candlestick Pt. State Park Beach N. Coyote Pt. -0.9 m2 Bird Island +30m2

Greco Island +3m2 Native

Outside Pond R1 -10m2 marsh edge marsh -50 450 950 1450 1950 2450 2950 3450 Change in area (m2) Fig. 6: Change in area of Bay-wide LIRA popn between two studies Introduction Methods Results/Discussion Summary/Conclusion Acknowledgements Mensurate surveys: Vegetation All marshes 'IN' plots (n=37) 90 March 2008

80 August 2008

70 March 2009 } 60 August 2015

50 March 2016

mean % cover % mean 40

30 20 } 10

0 LIRA JACA DISP SAPA

Fig. 8a: IN plots: LIRA and native species JACA, DISP and SAPA mean percent cover change over time Introduction Methods Results/Discussion Summary/Conclusion Acknowledgements Mensurate surveys: Vegetation All marshes 'OUT' plots (n=40) 90 March 2008 80 August 2008 70 March 2009 60 August 2015 50 March 2016 mean % cover % mean 40 } 30

20

10 }

0 LIRA JACA DISP SAPA Fig. 8b: OUT plots: LIRA and native species JACA, DISP and SAPA mean percent cover change over time