Control problematic plants (specific intervention unclear): brackish/saline marshes or swamps

Overall effectiveness category Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)
Number of studies: 1
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

55%
Certainty

30%
Harms

0%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

This section considers studies that have controlled problematic plants, but which do not clearly report the specific intervention(s) used for control so the study cannot be summarized elsewhere in this chapter.

For this section, “vegetation” refers to overall or non-target vegetation. Studies that only report responses of target problematic plants have not been summarized.

Study locations

Key messages

One study evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of controlling problematic plants in brackish/saline marshes or swamps using unspecified or unclear methods. The study was in the USA.

VEGETATION COMMUNITY

VEGETATION ABUNDANCE

Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in salt marshes in the USA found that plots in which common reed Phragmites australis had been controlled 4–10 years previously contained a similar density of plant stems to nearby natural marshes
Individual species abundance (1 study): One studyquantified the effect of this action on the abundance of individual plant species, other than those being controlled. The replicated, site comparison study in salt marshes in the USA found that plots in which common reed Phragmites australis had been controlled 4–10 years previously had similar cover of saltmarsh cordgrass Spartina patens to nearby natural marshes.

VEGETATION STRUCTURE

Height (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in salt marshes in the USA found that plots in which common reed Phragmites australis had been controlled 4–10 years previously contained vegetation of similar height to nearby natural marshes.

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

A replicated, site comparison study in 2007–2008 across 16 salt marshes in Connecticut, USA (Elphick et al. 2015) found that plots where common reed Phragmites australis had been controlled had a similar vegetation density, cover of saltmarsh cordgrass Spartina patens and vegetation height to natural marshes. After 4–10 years, plots where common reed had been controlled had 10% common reed cover – greater than the 1% cover in natural marshes. However, other measured variables did not significantly differ between reed-control and natural marshes. This included overall vegetation density (28 vs 35 stems/100 cm²), cover of saltmarsh cordgrass (18 vs 20%), and maximum vegetation height (55 vs 40 cm). Methods: In summer 2007 and 2008, vegetation was surveyed in 26 plots (each 1 ha) spread across 16 salt marshes. In seven plots, interventions to control common reed had been implemented 4–10 years ago. The interventions included cutting and applying herbicide (further details not reported). The other 19 plots contained natural salt marsh vegetation. Vegetation cover was estimated in nine 1-m² quadrats/plot, stem density in forty-five 100 cm quadrats/plot and vegetation height at 36 points/plot.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Elphick C.S., Meiman S. & Rubega M.A. (2015) Tidal-flow restoration provides little nesting habitat for a globally vulnerable saltmarsh bird: bird responses to tidal-flow restoration. Restoration Ecology, 23, 439-446.

Please cite as:

Taylor N.G., Grillas P., Smith R.K. & Sutherland W.J. (2021) Marsh and Swamp Conservation: Global Evidence for the Effects of Interventions to Conserve Marsh and Swamp Vegetation. Conservation Evidence Series Synopses. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Marsh and Swamp Conservation

Related Actions

Actions	Effectiveness	Studies	Category
Use prescribed fire to control problematic plants: freshwater marshes Action Link	Trade-off between benefit and harms	4	Synopsis Link
Manage water level to control problematic plants Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link
Physically remove problematic plants: freshwater swamps Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link