Rain Garden Sedges Tolerate Cyclical Flooding and Drought

Although sedges (Carex L. spp.) are commonly recommended for planting in rain gardens, little work has been carried out in evaluating the ability of sedge species to tolerate the challenging moisture fluctuations in this environment. Seven sedge species native to the north central United States, yellow fox sedge [Carex annectens (E.P. Bicknell) E.P. Bicknell], plains oval sedge [Carex brevior (Dewey) Mack. ex Lunell], gray’s sedge (Carex grayi J. Carey), porcupine sedge (Carex hystericina Muhl. ex Willd.), palm sedge (Carex muskingumensis Schwein.), pennsylvania sedge (Carex pensylvanica Lam.), and sprengel’s sedge (Carex sprengelii Dewey ex Spreng.), were evaluated in a greenhouse trial to determine their ability to tolerate repeated flooding and drought cycles. Treatments consisted of two flood periods (2 or 7 days), followed by one of three drought set points measured by volumetric water content (VWC) thresholds of 0.05 (severe drought), 0.10 (moderate drought), or 0.15 m3·m−3 (drought onset). Each plant was subjected to a minimum of four flooding and drought cycles. For sprengel’s sedge, plains oval sedge, gray’s sedge, and yellow fox sedge, there was no significant difference in shoot counts between severe drought, moderate drought, and drought onset treatments. Shoot mass and root mass for all sedge species were significantly reduced under the severe drought set point. Plants subjected to the 7-day flood treatment exhibited significantly increased shoot mass compared with those in the 2-day flood treatment. Plains oval sedge showed a significantly higher shoot mass than all other species under all treatments. Visible damage ratings suggest that sprengel’s sedge, plains oval sedge, gray’s sedge, and yellow fox sedge could be suitable for the rain garden environment under all but the most extreme drought conditions. Results show that plains oval sedge, yellow fox sedge, and gray’s sedge may be able to tolerate harsh flooding and drought cycles that can occur in rain gardens. For the remaining species, supplemental irrigation of rain gardens should be considered during drought.

Is Competition for Soil Resources by Carex pensylvanica Restricting Tree Seedling Growth in a Temperate Northern Hardwood Forest?

In response to ecological disturbances, sedge species like Carex pensylvanica form dense monocultures on the forest floor. These “sedge mats” have been shown to severely inhibit plant growth, and limit understory species diversity. In recent years, concern has grown that they may also be restricting the regeneration of economically valuable tree species like sugar maple through belowground competition. To determine if and how Carex pensylvanica may be impacting tree seedling growth through belowground competition I located and exclosed 44 tree seedlings in areas of representatively dense sedge at two forest sites at the Queen’s University Biological Station. I removed sedge from half the plots, and measured soil resource availability and seedling growth response at all plots throughout the growing season. I predicted that sedge would negatively impact the growth of tree seedlings by decreasing the availability of soil resources. I found that the presence of sedge did not affect seedling growth over one growing season, but that it did impact soil resource availability by increasing the availability of surface soil moisture and decreasing the availability of soil nitrate, changes which may have implications for seedling growth beyond the single growing season studied. My results were also site specific, indicating that location is important when managing sedge impact on tree regeneration. Understanding the impact of sedge on tree seedling regeneration is important for predicting changes in the trajectory of forest communities and for informing the management of economically valuable species like sugar maple.

Environmental Control of Flowering in Pennsylvania Sedge

Pennsylvania sedge (Carex pensylvanica) is an upland forest sedge with restoration and horticultural potential as a low-maintenance groundcover for dry shade. For large landscape and restoration plantings, seed or achenes in this case are much preferred due to lower labor and material costs. However, pennsylvania sedge typically produces few achenes in its native habitat. As a first step in improving achene production, this research evaluated the effect of vernalization and photoperiod on floral initiation and development. We conclude that this sedge is an obligate short-day plant that does not require vernalization for flowering. Plants flowered when exposed to daylengths of 6 to 12 hours. Flowering was completely inhibited with 14-hour photoperiods. Pennsylvania sedge was florally determined after 4 weeks of 8-hour photoperiods. Inflorescence quantity and normal floral development varied by clone and by weeks of exposure to 8-hour photoperiods. For two of the clones, the largest number of normal monoecious inflorescences was produced with 8 to 10 weeks of 8-hour photoperiods while the other two clones only required 6 to 8 weeks of exposure to inductive photoperiods. Therefore, it is important to evaluate observable variation between clones when attempting to propagate pennsylvania sedge.

After-ripening, Stratification, and Perigynia Removal Enhance Pennsylvania Sedge Germination

Pennsylvania sedge (Carex pensylvanica) has horticultural and restoration potential, but the achenes are difficult to germinate due to complex dormancy requirements. This study identified treatments to overcome physiological dormancy and determined light and temperature requirements for optimum germination. We first tested the effects of perigynia removal and light on achene germination. In the second experiment, achenes were subjected to varying durations of dry-cold or dry-warm storage conditions and a presowing soak in gibberellic acid (GA3). In a third experiment, we studied whether storage conditions, cold stratification, and sowing temperatures affected germination. Pennsylvania sedge germination was improved by dry-warm storage, perigynia removal, cold stratification, and germination in light.

The soil seed bank of a montane meadow: consequences of conifer encroachment and implications for restoration

We examined changes in the soil seed bank associated with conifer encroachment of montane meadows in the western Cascade Range of Oregon. We asked whether, and over what period of time, meadow species maintain viable seeds in the soil, and by implication, whether the seed bank can contribute to restoration if conifers are removed. Seed bank composition, ground vegetation, and forest age structure were quantified for 209 samples representing a chronosequence of open meadow, young forest (<75 years), and old forest (95 to >200 years). The seed bank was substantial (44 taxa and 2332 germinants/m2), but dominated by native ruderals (16 species comprising 71% of germinants). Greater than 70% of meadow species were absent from the seed bank. Thirteen meadow species accounted for 21% of all germinants, but most of these were the dominant sedge, Carex pensylvanica Lam.. Seed density, richness, and composition showed weak relationships to forest age, and little resemblance to the ground vegetation, which changed markedly with forest development. Our results suggest that there is limited potential for recovery of most meadow species via the seed bank. Natural reestablishment of these species will require seed dispersal or gradual vegetative spread from existing openings, but competitive interactions with ruderal or forest species may limit recruitment or recovery.

The taxonomy of the Carex pensylvanica complex (Cyperaceae) in North America

The Carex pensylvanica complex consists of four North American taxa. Morphological variation patterns within the complex were examined using principal-components analysis and discriminant-functions analysis. These results indicate that two eastern species, C. lucorum Willdenow ex Link, and C. pensylvanica Lamarck, and one western species, C. inops Bailey, should be recognized. The latter species comprises two subspecies, C. inops subsp. inops and C. inops subsp. heliophila (Mackenzie) Crins, comb. nov. Cytological and geographical evidence lend support to this classification. A key and distribution maps for the taxa are provided.