International Baccalaureate

Environmental Systems and Societies

Internal Assessment

To assess how species richness within different salt marsh wetland

zones affects soil nutrient quality

Cameron Sherry
c28992
Granada Hills Charter High School
Word Count: 2311
Context

Aim:
The aim is to determine whether species richness within salt marsh wetland zones, specifically
the Huntington Beach Wetlands, effects soil nutrient quality. The soil nutrient I will be focusing
on is potassium.
Research Question:
In regards to the Huntington Beach Wetlands, how does species richness within different zones
affect soil nutrient quality of that zone?
Background:
Potassium is essential nutrient for plant growth, widely considered as second only to
nitrogen as a necessary nutrient, and commonly referred to as the “quality nutrient” (Sela). It is
typically absorbed as potash, which is crystallized potassium salts, distributed through fertilizers
(Matts). Potassium is fundamental to many metabolic processes through the activation of a large
number of enzymes required for chemical reactions, and in fact without sufficient potassium,
protein synthesis, which nitrogen is required for, is greatly reduced (“Functions of Potassium in
Plants”). In addition, potassium is integral to photosynthesis, and without proper supplies the
production of ATP and all processes dependent on ATP are slowed (Matts). Due to the multitude
of roles potassium plays in the health and productivity of almost all plant species, it is a key
indicator to the quality of soil.
Salt marsh wetlands are a special type of wetland that are subject to rapid changes in
water levels due to coastal tides and exist along coastlines. The soil is typically composed of
deep mud and/or peat, or decomposing plant matter that is often several feet thick (“What Is a
Salt Marsh?”). Salt marsh wetlands are especially important for coastal regions as they protect
from erosion by buffering waves and trapping sediment, they reduce flooding by slowing and
absorbing rainwater, they filter runoff, and they metabolize excess nutrients (“What Is a Salt
Marsh?”). They are also useful for their ecological services as natural water filtration systems,
storm guards, and controls against flooding (“Salt Marshes”).
Salt marsh plants, due to the rapid changes in water and soil salinity and periodical
inundation of water due to tides, have developed adaptations to survive these ever-fluctuating
conditions, such as salt excretion glands, aerenchyma, and roots that both act as anchorage and
nutrient securing mechanisms (“Salt Marshes”). Some plants are highly salt tolerant while others
are moderately to non-salt tolerant, and all occupy different zones and niches in salt marsh
wetlands (Partridge and Wilson). Zones are defined by the different plant species living in
different “bands” that result from inundation of water caused by tides, and elevation decreases
when moving from Upland to Low Marsh (“Salt Marsh Habitats”).
The Huntington Beach Wetlands were recently restored in the year 2004, with the
Magnolia Marsh being one of the largest and most successful projects undertaken by the city.
The marsh itself is split into multiple parts by roads, but once consisted of a single large marsh
(Huntington Beach Wetlands Restoration Plan).
Hypothesis:
My hypothesis is that overall, a zone with low species richness will have poor soil nutrient
quality with less potassium in the soil, and a zone with high species richness will have good soil
nutrient quality with more potassium in the soil.

Planning
1.) Variables
a.) Independent
i.) Zonation
b.) Dependent
i.) Soil Nutrient Quality
(1) Potassium
ii.) Species Richness
c.) Control
i.) Usage of same sampling kit
(1) LaMotte Industrial Individual Test Kits
ii.) Location of soil excavation remains constant
iii.) Maintain a consistent distance between quadrats (3m)
d.) Uncontrolled Variables
i.) Weather
ii.) Contamination/Pollution of area by human activities
2.) Experimental Design, Apparatus, Map
a.) Materials
i.) LaMotte Soil Nutrient Test Kit (for Potassium)
ii.) Pencil (or Pen)
iii.) Notebook
iv.) Microsoft Excel on a Computer
v.) Transect Lines
vi.) Quadrat
vii.) Sandwich Bags, 1 Qt.
viii.) Small Shovel/Trowel
b.) Set-Up
i.) Lay three transect lines, parallel to one another, across the wetland, with
one end on the uplands and the other within the zone inundated with
water; ensure both lines on the sides are equidistant from the central line
c.) Design

i.)

ii.)
 d.) Map

i.)
The experiment will be conducted at the Magnolia Marsh.

Procedure/Methods
1.) Refer to Design (Section 2ci), and set up the transect lines as shown
2.) At the start of one of the transect lines, place the quadrat so that the 0m marking is at the
center
3.) Use the digging instrument (shovel/trowel) to scoop enough soil to fill about half of a
plastic bag, then seal the bag and store in a dry, cool place
a.) Take care to place primarily soil into the bag, and not plant fiber or roots
b.) Ensure that the location where soil is excavated remains constant; e.x., always
scoop soil from the top left corner of every quadrat
4.) Within the quadrat, take note of all the different species and log then in a notebook
a.) For each new species create a new row, and for each meter interval create
a column
b.) Whenever there is an appearance of an already logged species, place a
check mark in the associated row and column (the plant species and the
meter interval where it was found)
5.) Repeat steps 2-4 for each transect line, moving in increments of 3m (0m, 3m, 6m, etc.)
until 24m or 5 quadrats of data have been collected for each line; once a transect line is
finished, move on to the next one
a.) Record qualitative data in a notebook for later use
6.) A total of at least 15 quadrats worth of soil samples should be collected, across all three
transect lines
7.) Upon completion of soil sample gathering, move to a testing location, such as a
laboratory or a classroom
 8.) Use the LaMotte Soil Test Kit for potassium to measure the potassium (lbs./acre) of each
soil sample
a.) Follow the instructions included in the test kit precisely, and repeat for each soil
sample
9.) Record the values found in Step 8 in an Excel spreadsheet

Data Collection and Processing

Raw Data -
Quantitative Data:

Table 1a - Species Richness Raw Checklist for Transect Line 1

Transect Line #1 LOW MARSH MID MARSH HIGH MARSH UPLAND
Meter 0m 3m 6m 9m 12 m 15 m 18 m 21 m 24 m 27 m

% Cordgrass YES - - - - - - - - -
% Dried/Dead Cordgrass YES - - - - - - - - -
% Seagrass/Eel Grass - - - - - - - - - -
% Dried/Dead Seagrass/Eel
Grass - YES YES - - - - - - -
% Green Algae - YES - - - - - - - -
% Brown/Red Algae - - - - - - - - - -
% Pickleweed - - YES - YES YES - YES YES -
% Dried/Dead Pickleweed - - YES YES YES YES - - - -
% Fleshy Jaumea - - - - - - - - YES -
% Batis - - - - - YES - - YES -
% Frankenia - - - - - - - - - -
Species Richness 4 3 3 3

Table 1b - Species Richness Raw Checklist for Transect Line 2

Transect Line #2 LOW MARSH MID MARSH HIGH MARSH UPLAND
Meter 0m 3m 6m 9m 12 m 15 m 18 m 21 m 24 m 27 m

% Cordgrass YES - - - - - - - - -
% Dried/Dead Cordgrass YES - - - - - - - - -
% Seagrass/Eel Grass - YES - - - - - - - -
% Dried/Dead Seagrass/Eel
Grass - YES YES YES - - - - - -
% Green Algae YES - - - - - - - - -
 % Brown/Red Algae YES - - - - - - - - -
% Pickleweed - - YES YES YES YES YES - YES YES
% Dried/Dead Pickleweed - - - YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
% Fleshy Jaumea - - - - - YES YES YES YES -
% Batis - YES YES - - YES YES - YES YES
% Frankenia - - - - - - YES YES YES -
Species Richness 7 4 5 5

Table 1c - Species Richness Raw Checklist for Transect Line 3

Transect Line #3 LOW MARSH MID MARSH HIGH MARSH UPLAND
Meter 0m 3m 6m 9m 12 m 15 m 18 m 21 m 24 m 27 m

% Cordgrass YES - - - - - - - - -
% Dead Cordgrass YES - - - - - - - - -
% Seagrass/Eel Grass - - - - - - - - - -
% Dry/Dead Seagrass/Eel Grass YES YES YES YES - - - - - -
% Green Algae YES - - - YES - - - - -
% Brown/Red Algae - - - - - - - - - -
% Pickleweed - - - - YES YES YES YES YES -
% Dried/Dead Pickleweed - - YES YES YES YES YES - YES YES
% Fleshy Jaumea - - YES - - YES - YES YES -
% Batis - YES YES YES - - - YES YES -
% Frankenia - - - - - YES - YES YES -
Species Richness 5 4 5 5

Table 2 - Potassium (Pot Ash) Raw Measurements in Meters

Potassium(lbs./acre)
Distances from Origin Transect Line 1 Transect Line 2 Transect Line 3
0m 254 260 236
6m 195 178 215
12m 171 233 205
18m 149 214 191
24m 143 203 183

Qualitative Data:
 Low Marsh zone was completely inundated with water, and soil samples
from this zone was very slimy, solid, and porous; green algae was primary
plant cover across all three transect lines
  There were frequent scattered pieces of trash, which can be classified as
plastic and paper particulates; these were found in all zones across all
three transect lines
 It must be noted that a dirt path is located directly adjacent to the Upland
zone
 A sprinkler head was present near the 12m mark along transect line 2

Processed Data -

Table 3 - Potassium (Pot Ash) Processed Data in Meters, All Transects

Potassium(lbs./acre)
Distances from Origin Transect Line 1 Transect Line 2 Transect Line 3 Average
0m 254 260 236 250
6m 195 178 215 196
12m 171 233 205 203
18m 149 214 191 184.67
24m 143 203 183 176.33

Table 4 - Potassium (Pot Ash) Processed Data in Zones, All Transects

Potassium(lbs./acre)
Zone Transect Line 1 Transect Line 2 Transect Line 3 Average Standard Deviation
Low Marsh 254 260 236 250 12.49
Mid Marsh 195 178 215 196 18.52
High Marsh* 160 223.5 198 193.83 31.97
Upland 143 203 183 175.33 30.55
*Meter intervals 12m and 18m averaged and combined to represent full extent of the High Marsh

Table 5 - Species Richness Processed Data in Zones, All Transects

Species Richness
Zone Transect Line 1 Transect Line 2 Transect Line 3 Average
Low Marsh 4 7 5 5.33
Mid Marsh 3 4 4 3.67
High Marsh 3 4 5 4
Upland 3 5 5 4.33
Table 6 - Single Factor ANOVA

ANOVA: Single Factor

SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Average Variance
Low Marsh 3 750 250 156
Mid Marsh 3 588 196 343
High Marsh 3 582 193.83 1021.1
Upland 3 529 176.33 933.33

ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Between Groups 9146 3 3048.8 4.9707 0.031 4.0662
Within Groups 4907 8 613.35

Total #### 11

Sample Calculations -
(Sample calculations use the values of raw potassium measurements for the low
marsh zone across all three transects in Table 4.)

Average:
254 + 260 + 236 750
= = 250
1+1+1 3

Standard Deviation:

1 1
σ = √𝑁 ∑𝑁 2 2 2 2
𝑖=1(𝑥𝑖 − 𝜇) = √3 [(𝑥𝑖 − μ) + (𝑥𝑖 − 𝜇) + (𝑥𝑖 − 𝜇) ] =

1 1
√ [(254 − 250)2 + (260 − 250)2 + (236 − 250)2 ] = √ [(4)2 + (10)2 + (−14)2 ] =
3 3

1 1 312
√ (16 + 100 + 196) = √ (312) = √ = √104 = 12.49
3 3 3
Graphs -

Potassium vs. Meter - Transect Line 1

300
254
250
Potassium (lbs/acre)

195
200 171
149 143
150

100

50

0
0m 6m 12m 18m 24m
Meter

Figure 1a - There is a decreasing trend in Potassium (lbs./acre).

Species Richness vs. Potassium - Transect Line 1

300
254
250
Potassium (lbs/acre)

195
200
160
143
150

100

50

0
4 [Low Marsh] 3 [Mid Marsh] 3 [High Marsh] 3 [Upland]
Species Richness

Figure 1b - There is a constant species richness from Mid Marsh on.

 Potassium vs. Meter - Transect Line 2
300
260
250 233
214
Potassium (lbs/acre)
203
200 178

150

100

50

0
0m 6m 12m 18m 24m
Meter

Figure 2a - There is an outlier at 6m for Potassium; overall decreasing trend.

Species Richness vs. Potassium - Transect Line 2

300
260
250 223.5
Potassium (lbs/acre)

203
200 178

150

100

50

0
7 [Low Marsh] 4 [Mid Marsh] 4 [High Marsh] 5 [Upland]
Species Richness

Figure 2b - Species richness is very high, then drops and increases slightly.
 Potassium vs. Meter - Transect Line 3
250 236
215
205
191 183
200
Potassium (lbs/acre)

150

100

50

0
0m 6m 12m 18m 24m
Meter

Figure 3a - There is a clear decreasing trend that is more incremental than lines 1/2.

Species Richness vs. Potassium - Transect Line 3

250 236
215
198
200 183
Potassium (lbs/acre)

150

100

50

0
5 [Low Marsh] 4 [Mid Marsh] 5 [High Marsh] 5 [Upland]
Species Richness

Figure 3b - Species richness is largely constant, except for in the Mid Marsh.
 Species Richness vs. Potassium - Average of all
Transects with Error Bars
300
250
250
Potassium (lbs/acre)

193.83
196 175.33
200

150

100

50

0
5.33 [Low Marsh] 3.67 [Mid Marsh] 4 [High Marsh] 4.33 [Upland]
Species Richness

Figure 4 - Error bars are relatively large, Potassium shows overall decreasing trend,
and Species Richness begins high, drops significantly, then increases steadily.

Discussion and Evaluation

Discussion -
The data clearly shows that as there is a progression from the origin (0m)
to the final meter interval (24m), potassium, measured in pounds per acre, drops
steadily (Table 2). This change is only further demonstrated when converting
from raw meterage to zones (Table 4). The potassium values, when averaged,
demonstrate that across all the transects there is a steady decline in potassium,
except for at 6m where there is a significant outlier at that meter interval (Table
3). When the potassium values are converted from meterage to zones, there is
now a general trend towards a decrease in potassium as one moves from the lower
zones to the higher ones (Table 3 to Table 4). This progression is emphasized
with the visual representation of Figures 1a, 2a, and 3a.
There is no clear correlation between either an increase or decrease in
species richness leading to the steady decrease in potassium through the different
zones. In Figure 1b it is shown that the quantified species richness value decreases
after moving from Low Marsh to Mid Marsh and then remains constant. In Figure
2b it is shown that the quantified species richness value decreases after moving
from Low Marsh to Mid Marsh, but then increases when moving from High
Marsh to Upland. In Figure 3b it is shown that the quantified species richness
value decreases after moving from Low Marsh to Mid Marsh but increases to the
previous value again after moving from Mid Marsh to High Marsh, and then
staying constant.
When looking at Figure 4, it can be seen that potassium values decline as
one progresses from Low Marsh to Upland. The high potassium content within
the Low Marsh zones can be attributed to two factors: soil nutrient cycling and the
adaptations of saltmarsh plants, especially those that thrive in the Low to Mid
Marsh zones. Species richness is high within the Low Marsh zones, and where
there is a greater diversity of plant species there is typically more efficient
nutrient cycling and greater amounts of usable nutrients in the soil, leading to high
soil nutrient quality (Vaughn). In addition, due to the multiple stresses of tidal
inundation, salinity, and wave action salt marsh plants require root adaptations for
sufficient resource capture and firm anchorage, allowing them to retain and secure
nutrients that are swept in through water channels (Redelstein et al.). A high
species richness, such as that demonstrated in Figure 4, means a greater
abundance and variety of nutrient capture mechanisms, thus causing a high soil
nutrient content in the Low Marsh (Redelstein et al.). The Low Marsh is also
frequently inundated with water for long periods of time, allowing for more
opportunities to capture nutrients from tidal inundation, whereas the Mid Marsh is
less frequently inundated with water, and the High Marsh to Upland rarely
inundated with water (NHDES, “Salt Marsh Habitats”).
Low Marsh plants are armed with adaptations that allow them to survive
in conditions previously stated, however one of the most difficult conditions to
overcome is the rapidly changing salt content, as salt is poisonous to plants in
large quantities (UCANR). By developing adaptations to excessive salt intake,
certain species are able to thrive in the Low Marsh where there would otherwise
be little competition. Some species are very well adapted to changes in salinity,
while others are moderately well adapted but prefer conditions of less frequent
changes in salinity (Partridge and Wilson). Drawing from this, the sudden drop in
Mid Marsh species richness shown in Figure 4 is likely due to moderately salt
tolerant plants occupying both the Low Marsh and Mid Marsh but outcompeting
the highly salt tolerant plants in the Mid Marsh. The plants in the High Marsh and
Upland zones are likely less salt tolerant and thus cannot survive the frequently
inundated Mid Marsh. Thus, there is a drop in species richness within the Mid
Marsh Zone but a collection of plant species that can secure nutrients from
incoming tidal currents.
As one moves to the High Marsh and Upland zones, there is an increase in
species richness likely resulting from a lower soil salt content from infrequent and
short inundation of water (Figure 2b, Figure 3b). When considering the fact that
the Huntington Beach Wetlands was only very recently restored, that it is located
by a large street, and that the Upland zone is located directly adjacent to a dust
road where human visitors are common, the increase in species richness may be
attributed to invasive or non-native species taking advantage of the lower salt
content of the High Marsh and Upland zones to fit into a new ecological niche
(Huntington Beach Wetlands Restoration Plan). The increase in species richness
 likely caused an increase in soil nutrient cycling, retaining the nutrient content of
the soil.

Evaluation -
Using one-way (or single factor) ANOVA with the data from Table 4, it
was found that the data produced a p-value of 0.031, which is less than the
accepted p-value of .05, thus allowing the rejection of the null hypothesis and
allowing the assumption of the data being statistically significant (Table 6).
An inherent limitation of this study is the fact that species richness does
not take into account percent spread of the species of the plants, so the effects of
specific species on nutrient quality or the out-competition of certain species by
others is not measured, with these factors instead reduced to a single variable.
This allows for a simpler and more straightforward assessment of the wetland’s
soil nutrient content in relation to the species present, which is a strength of this
study, but the inability to provide more in-depth analysis of species composition
is a weakness.
A realistic improvement to this study would be to take potassium (or pot
ash) raw measurements multiple times for each soil sample. Due to time
constraints, this study only used the values of one test for each soil sample.
Multiple measurements would aid in improving the reliability of this study as well
as aid in reducing outliers and possible error, such as is possible with the
potassium measurement for the Mid Marsh zone on transect line 2 in Table 4.

Conclusion -
The primary goal was to determine how species richness within different
zones affect soil nutrient quality of that zone, in the Huntington Beach Wetlands.
This study found that as zonation moves from Low Marsh to Upland, soil nutrient
quality, represented by potassium in pounds per acre, experiences a steady
decrease, while species richness is highest in the Low Marsh, lowest in the Mid
Marsh, and experiences a steady increase from then on. The collected data is
considered statistically significant and is thus representative of the Huntington
Beach Wetlands in this study. The data presented in this study can debunk the
hypothesis that low species richness is attributed to poor soil nutrient quality and
high species richness is attributed to good soil nutrient quality. It was found that
high species richness does correlate with high soil nutrient content, however it
cannot be concluded that species richness played a significant role in the
quantities of soil nutrients, represented in potassium (lbs./acre), as there were
numerous instances of species richness remaining constant even as soil nutrient
content decreased moving from Low Marsh to Upland zones. This study can
therefore be considered inconclusive, as it rejects the hypothesis but does not
 provide substantial evidence to conclude an assertion in opposition of the
hypothesis. This study does provide insight on the issue of species diversity and
quantity within wetlands across the world, as many wetlands are being destroyed
and degraded. The data presented does find that high species richness is
associated with high soil nutrient content in the Low Marsh zone, which is the
zone that is in most contact with incoming tides. High species richness within the
Low Marsh zone is integral to capturing nutrients and fostering the populations of
many animal species that are nurtured in salt marsh wetlands, playing a large role
in maintaining the health of fisheries and coastal ecosystems across the globe.

Application -
This study portrays the success of salt marsh wetland restoration projects,
and how quickly and efficiently wetlands can increase their productivity. In
addition, it shows how quickly salt marsh wetlands can aid in protecting coastal
settlements and ecosystems, even in just a little more than a decade. A huge
amount of species, both plant and animal, already inhabit the many zones of the
Huntington Beach Wetlands, even after such a short period of time, giving way to
the great potential global salt marsh wetland restoration projects could have on the
world’s oceanic and coastal ecosystems. The quantity of soil nutrients only further
emphasizes the productivity of salt marsh wetlands. That also includes providing
the benefits of flood control, tide control, and erosion protection for the various
cities and human populations that inhabit the coast, potentially saving millions of
dollars worldwide.
 Bibliography

“Functions of Potassium in Plants.” Better Crops, vol. 82, no. 2, ser. 1998, 1998. 1998.

“Huntington Beach Wetlands Restoration Plan.” Southern California Wetlands Recovery

Project, scwrp.org/projects/huntington-beach-wetlands-restoration-plan/.

Matts, Ian. “The Role of Potash in Plants.” Potash Development Association (PDA), 30

Oct. 2015, www.pda.org.uk/the-role-of-potash-in-plants/.

NHDES. “What Is a Salt Marsh?” New Hampshire Department of Environmental

Services, 2004.

Partridge, T. R., and J. B. Wilson. “Salt Tolerance of Salt Marsh Plants of Otago, New

Zealand.” New Zealand Journal of Botany, vol. 25, no. 4, 1987, pp. 559–566.,

doi:10.1080/0028825x.1987.10410086.

Redelstein, Regine, et al. “Effects of Inundation, Nutrient Availability and Plant Species

Diversity on Fine Root Mass and Morphology Across a Saltmarsh Flooding

Gradient.” Frontiers in Plant Science, vol. 9, June 2018,

doi:10.3389/fpls.2018.00098.

“Salt Marsh Habitats” Smithsonian Marine Station (SMS) at Fort Pierce, Smithsonian

Institute, 14 July 2009, www.sms.si.edu/IRLSpec/Saltmarsh.htm.

“Salt Marshes” Wetlands Management, Forest and Range, 2013,

forestandrange.org/new_wetlands/salt_marshes_4.htm.

Sela, Guy. “Potassium in Plants.” Potassium in Plants and Soil, www.smart-

fertilizer.com/articles/potassium-in-plants.

UCANR. “How Are Salts Harmful to Plants?” University of California Division of

Agriculture and Natural Resources, 2006.

US Department of Commerce, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

“What Is a Salt Marsh?” NOAA's National Ocean Service, 1 June 2013,

oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/saltmarsh.html.

Vaughn, Elliot. “Nutrient Cycling.” Novel Ecosystems, Russell Labs,

labs.russell.wisc.edu/novelecosystems/2016/12/12/nutrient-cycling/.