Nutrient Cycling and the Role of Arbuscular Mycorrhizae in Created and Natural Wetlands of Central Ohio
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Nutrient Cycling and the Role of Arbuscular Mycorrhizae in Created and Natural Wetlands of Central Ohio DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Katie Hossler, B.S., M.S. Environmental Science Graduate Program The Ohio State University 2010 Dissertation Committee: Professor Virginie Bouchard, Co-Advisor Professor Robert J. Gates, Co-Advisor Professor Siobhan Fennessy Professor Dawn Gibas Ferris Professor Richard Moore c Copyright by Katie Hossler 2010 ABSTRACT This dissertation details a comprehensive study of the ecology and development of the soil and carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus cycles in freshwater marshes. Beyond broadening our understanding of wetland development and ecology, this work intents to enlighten evaluation of wetland mitigation policy, as well as facilitate the success of wetland creation projects. Ten created and five natural freshwater marshes of central Ohio are the focus throughout the study. One of the central chapters (Ch. 3) compares structure and function between created and natural wetlands. The most important finding is that there are significant differences between created and natural wetland soils; this leads to smaller nutrient stocks and slower nutrient cycles in the created wetlands. Time-to-equilibrium estimates for the development of soil and nutrient-related functions are explored in Ch. 4. It is determined that overcoming these differences will require more time than is acceptable for most mitigation policies. The final two chapters explore the habit and ecology of arbuscular mycorrhizae (AM) in created and natural marshes. The presence of AM was high in both created and natural wetlands and across created wetland age. Given their prevalence and known role in other ecosystems, including AM in wetland creation and restoration projects deserves more focus. ii Dedicated to Mom, Dad and Josh, and two gone too soon, somewhere over the rainbow in memory of Sabra June 21, 2007 to January 5, 2010 “my little companion” in honor and memory of Elizabeth “Aunt Liz” Hossler May 12, 1954 to September 11, 2008 loving aunt, professor, and ovarian cancer survivor iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would first like to acknowledge and thank my advisor, Professor Virginie Bouchard— I could not have had a better mentor, both professionally and personally. I am so glad her tenure at Ohio State coincided with my graduate studies, and that, seven years ago, she was willing to take a chance on a very shy former chemist. I thank my committee members, Profs. Siobhan Fennessy, Dawn Ferris, Robert Gates, and Richard Moore for valuable input during the initial and final stages of the project. Thanks especially to Professor Gates for serving as my advisor of record over the past year, and to Professor Moore for joining my committee so late in the process. I also thank Professor Ralph Boerner, who served on my committee until his retirement in 2009. Many long hard hours went into the data collection for this very large project. Special thanks to those who assisted in the field and in the lab: Evelyn Anemaet, Erelyn Apolinar, Amy Barrett, Michael Billmire, Sarah Boley, Ryan Diederick, Gwen Dubelko, Brie Elking, Erica Elliot, Becky Fauver, Michela Gentile, Dan Gillenwater, Jenette Goodman, Ellen Herbert, Kyle Herrman, Melissa Knorr, Matt Lane, Nickla Louisy, Lars Meyer, Diego Perez, Ryan Pulliam, Connie Rice, Abby Rokosch, Jesse Rosenbluth, Erin Rothman, Eric Saas, Rachel Schultz, Lindsay Scott, Heather Sexton, Leslie Smith, Michael Szuter, and Steve Wise. iv Thanks to Columbus Metro Parks, the City of Columbus Recreation and Parks, Groveport-Madison Highschool, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources and sev- eral private landowners for permission to use their properties. And finally, for helping me to get here, thanks to the many teachers, co-workers and friends I have had over the years and to my family and Josh. v VITA June 23, 1974 ...............................Born - Cincinnati, USA 1996 ........................................B.S. Chemistry, University of Notre Dame 2005 ........................................M.S.Environmental Science, The Ohio State University. 2005-present ................................Graduate Research and Teaching Asso- ciate, The Ohio State University. PUBLICATIONS K. Hossler, V. Bouchard “Soil development and establishment of carbon-based prop- erties in created freshwater marshes”. Ecological Applications, 20:539–553, 2010. K. Hossler, V. Bouchard “The joint estimation of soil trace gas fluxes”. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 72:1382–1393, 2008. E.R. Civitello, R.G. Leniek, K.A. Hossler, D.M. Stearns “Synthesis of Peptide- Oligonucleotide Conjugates for Chromium Coordination”. Bioconjugate, 12:459–463, 2001. J.A. Riggs, K.A. Hossler, B.D. Smith, M.J. Karpa, G. Griffin, P.J. Duggan “Nu- cleotide carrier mixture with transport selectivity for ribonucleoside-5’-phosphates”. Tetrahedron Letters, 37:6303–6306, 1996. FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Environmental Science Graduate Program vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract....................................... ii Dedication...................................... iii Acknowledgments.................................. iv Vita ......................................... vi ListofTables.................................... x ListofFigures ................................... xiii Chapters: 1. Introduction and brief history of wetlands in Ohio . ...... 1 1.1 WetlandsinOhio............................ 2 I Estimation and analysis of carbon flux 6 2. The joint estimation of soil trace gas fluxes . ... 7 2.1 Introduction .............................. 8 2.2 MaterialsandMethods. 18 2.3 Results ................................. 28 2.4 Discussion................................ 33 2.5 Conclusions............................... 37 II Biogeochemical cycles in created and natural wetlands 44 vii 3. No-net-loss not met for nutrient function: recommendations for wetland mitigationpolicies .............................. 45 3.1 SupplementaryInformation . 58 4. The importance of soil to development of plant- and microbial-function in createddepressionalwetlands . 87 4.1 Introduction .............................. 87 4.2 MaterialsandMethods. 92 4.3 Results ................................. 101 4.4 Discussion................................ 127 4.5 Conclusion ............................... 134 III Arbuscular mycorrhizae 136 5. Arbuscular Mycorrhizae in Aquatic Systems: a Review . 137 5.1 Introduction .............................. 137 5.2 Habit of mycorrhizae in aquatic systems . 141 5.3 Ecology of mycorrhizae in aquatic systems . 158 5.4 AMbenefits............................... 164 5.5 Conclusion ............................... 166 6. Arbuscular Mycorrhizae in created and natural wetlands of Ohio . 204 6.1 Introduction .............................. 204 6.2 MaterialsandMethods. 207 6.3 Results ................................. 218 6.4 Discussion................................ 255 6.5 Conclusions............................... 262 Appendices: A. Sitedescriptionsandhistories . 264 A.1 Ballfieldmarsh ............................. 265 A.2 BigIsland................................ 270 A.3 Bluebird................................. 276 A.4 Calamusswamp ............................ 280 A.5 JMB................................... 285 A.6 KilldeerPlains ............................. 289 viii A.7 Mishne ................................. 297 A.8 NewAlbanyCompany ......................... 301 A.9 PickeringtonPonds. 304 A.10Sacks .................................. 310 B. Vegetation surveys and sampling station selection . 313 B.1 Clusteranalysis............................. 313 B.2 Speciesdiversityindices . 316 C. Aerialmapsofwetlandsurveyareas . 323 D. Dendrograms of wetland vegetation survey data . 339 E. Guide to the Identification of Arbuscular Mycorrhizae . 355 Bibliography .................................... 373 ix LIST OF TABLES Table Page 2.1 Description of seven different models for estimating gas flux ..... 27 2.2 Evaluation of model performance for real data . 30 2.3 Evaluation of model performance for simulated data . ..... 40 2.4 Absolute and relative errors for gas flux models . 41 3.1 Structural and functional properties and representative parameters . 50 3.2 C,NandPstocksandfluxes ...................... 55 3.3 Studysitelocationsanddescriptions . 61 3.4 Abiotic structure typeandage .................... 74 ∼ 3.5 Biotic structure typeandage ..................... 76 ∼ 3.6 Nutritional structure typeandage .................. 78 ∼ 3.7 Function typeandage......................... 84 ∼ 3.8 PERMANOVA: function structure .................. 86 ∼ 4.1 Comparison of SEMs for C, N and P cycling . 109 4.2 Developmental trajectories for C, N and P stocks and fluxes . 111 4.3 Developmental trajectories for shoot biomass and ρb by year and com- binedyears ................................ 115 x 4.4 Developmental trajectories for ρb and water-stable aggregates . 118 4.5 Comparison of soil and root properties with depth, by type and age . 124 4.6 Developmental trajectories for ρb and root L:V ratios by depth . 125 4.7 Comparison of SEMs for the effect of time on combined C, N and P cycling................................... 126 5.1 Literature surveys of mycorrhizae in aquatic systems . 142 5.2 Mycorrhizal status for 71 hydrophytes collected from 15 created and naturalmarshes.............................. 148 5.3 Mycorrhizal status by family and order for 952 hydrophytic species . 153 5.4 Annotated