Rates, patterns, and impacts ofPhragmites australis expansion and effects of experimentalPhragmites control on vegetation, macroinvertebrates, and fish within tidelands of the lower Connecticut River

By R. Warren, P. Fell, J. Grimsby, Erika L. Buck, G. Chris Rilling, R. Fertik. 2001

192 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Earth-Surface Processes, Ecology, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/bb312875667e1d3402a0bd418c5483fbf3447f56

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Earth-Surface Processes

1. D. Burdick
2. R. Chambers
3. B. Blossey
4. D. Bart
5. J. Hartman
6. C. Holdredge
7. S. Findlay
8. M. Bertness

In Ecology

1. S. A. Brown
2. Stacy M. Hagan
3. K. Able
4. D. Burdick
5. R. Chambers
6. B. Blossey
7. D. Bart
8. J. Hartman

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

1. S. A. Brown
2. K. Able
3. Stacy M. Hagan
4. C. Holdredge
5. S. Findlay
6. François Belzile
7. J. Weis
8. C. Lavoie

Citations in the corpus

• Human Facilitation of Phragmites australis Invasions in Tidal Marshes: A Review and Synthesis (2006, background): “The first is the establishment of new clones on or near mosquito ditch and tide creek-bank levees with subsequent spread to interiors areas (Bart 1997; Winogrond and Kiviat 1997; Bart and Hartman 2000; Warren et al. 2001; cf. Windham and Lathrop 1999; Rice et al. 2000; Lathrop et al. 2003) (Figure 1”
• Litter legacy increases the competitive advantage of invasive Phragmites australis in New England wetlands (2011, background): “…wetland habitat for higher trophic level species, including birds, invertebrates and mammals whose foraging may be altered by the thick litter matrix (Benoit and Askins 1999; Warren et al. 2001) and insects that preferentially utilize forbs and sedges for food and habitat (Tewksbury et al. 2002).”
• Microbial growth and nitrogen retention in litter of Phragmites australis compared to Typha angustifolia (2002, background): “Some species of invertebrates, fishes, and birds seem unaffected by the change in plant cover while animals with more specific habitat requirements often show decreases in abundance following P. australis expansion (Fell et al. 1998, Benoit and Askins 1999, Angradi et al. 2001, Warren et al. 2001).”
• Mechanisms of marsh habitat alteration due toPhragmites: Response of young-of-the-year mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus) to treatment forPhragmites removal (2003, background): “…species composition differs from the much more diverse fauna captured with Breder traps, block nets, and flumes in Connecticut (Fell et al. 1998; Warren et al. 2001), Maryland (Meyer et al. 2001), and North Carolina (Hettler 1989), and from flumes in New Jersey (Able and Hagan 2000), in which…”
• Seeds contribute strongly to the spread of the invasive genotype of the common reed (Phragmites australis) (2010, background): “Large populations covering hundreds of hectares are widespread along the Atlantic coast of the United States (from Connecticut to Virginia) and in the Mississippi River delta (Rice et al. 2000; Warren et al. 2001; Lathrop et al. 2003; White et al. 2004; Philipp and Field 2005).”
• The Runaway Weed: Costs and Failures of Phragmites australis Management in the USA (2013, background): “For example, while some studies indicate that introduced P. australis invasion alters invertebrate assemblages (Angradi et al. 2001; Robertson and Weis 2005), others suggest that some or many invertebrate taxa are unaffected (Fell et al. 1998; Warren et al. 2001; Gratton and Denno 2005).”
• Metal uptake, transport and release by wetland plants: implications for phytoremediation and restoration. (2004, background): “Despite studies that demonstrate its ability to maintain ecological functions in salt marshes (Warren et al., 2001; Windham, 1999; Rooth and Stevenson, 2000; Weis et al., 2002), wetland restoration projects frequently continue to remove P.”