Vegetation
The vegetation was sampled along the transects using both line intercept and quadrat analyses. To determine frequency distribution and percent cover of the plant species, a 1/4 meter square quadrat (divided into twenty equal divisions) was placed every ten meters along the transect and sampled. Within each sample, a vegetation probe (pencil) was randomly lowered into one corner of each division and all plants that came in direct contact with the probe were identified and counted. The results of this analysis are shown in Tables 3 & 4. The unrestricted marsh (West Marsh) is dominated by a salt meadow cordgrass/spikegrass high marsh with salt marsh cordgrass along the creek and lower elevations. Reed is present along the upper border mixed with marsh elder (Iva frutescens) and a variety of forbs. The Central Marsh is a mix of communities with reed, salt meadow cordgrass, spikegrass, cattail, goldenrod (Solidago sempervirens), goosefoot (Atriplex patula) and some sedge (Scirpus robustus) and marsh elder. The North and East Marshes are dominated by reed (Transect #5), although there are some large patches of cordgrass and forbs still present (Transect #4).

Table 3. Average Percent Frequency of plant species for each transect within the restricted and unrestricted marsh areas. Averages based on combined totals for all 1/4 m2 quadrats taken at 10 meter intervals along the transect and expressed as a percent of the total number of divisions within each quadrat. Sa - Spartina alterniflora; Sp - Spartina patens; Ds - Distichlis spicata; Pa - Phragmites australis; Jg - Juncus gerardii; Forb - includes Atriplex patula, Limonium nashii, Pluchea purpurascens, Aster spp. and Solidago spp., Sr - Scirpus spp.; If - Iva frutescens.

Transect	Sp	Ds	Sa	Jg	Forb	If	Pa	Sr
#1(unrestricted)	67	11	11	a	a	11	a	a
#2 (unrestricted)	64	17	19	a	0.9	a	a	a
#3 (restricted)	22	19	6	5	0.2	a	47	0.8
#4 (restricted)	25	36	a	a	9	a	30	0.3
#5 (restricted)	a	a	1	a	2	a	97	a

Table 4. Average Percent Cover of species along transects in the restricted and unrestricted marsh areas. Averages based on combined totals for all 1/4 m2 quadrats taken at 10 meter intervals along the transect and expressed as a percent of the total number of individual stems within each quadrat. Sa - Spartina alterniflora; Sp - Spartina patens; Ds - Distichlis spicata; Pa - Phragmites australis; Jg - Juncus gerardii; Forb - includes Atriplex patula, Limonium nashii, Pluchea purpurascens, Aster spp. and Solidago spp., Sr - Scirpus spp.; If - Iva frutescens.

Transect	Sp	Ds	Sa	Jg	Forb	If	Pa	Sr
#1(unrestricted)	84	12	3	a	a	1	a	a
#2 (unrestricted)	77	8	14	a	0.5	a	a	a
#3 (restricted)	42	23	7	8	0.6	a	18	0.3
#4 (restricted)	34	48	a	a	5	a	13	a
#5 (restricted)	a	a	10	a	2	a	88	a

Aboveground plant biomass productivity was determined by randomly tossing a 1/4 m sq. quadrat into the dominant vegetation zones and clipping and bagging all of the aboveground plant material. In the lab the plants were sorted by live, dead and species and dried at 80oC for 24 hrs before being weighed. The results of this analysis are shown on Tables 5 through 7. In general, (on a per meter basis) the restricted marsh (5004 gm2) produces a significantly higher amount (3x) of above ground plant biomass than the unrestricted marsh (1594 gm2). Although reed communities produce more above ground biomass (2772 gm2) than the combined totals of all communities in the unrestricted marsh (1594 gm2), this relationship is also reflected in the salt meadow cordgrass/spikegrass communities that are found in both areas (the Sp/Ds community in the restricted marsh produces about twice as much above ground biomass (1404 gm2) as it does in the unrestricted portion of the system (708 gm2).

Table 5. Average dry weight (with one standard deviation unit) and percent species composition for each major vegetation zone within the restricted and unrestricted marsh areas. Pp - Pluchea purpurascens; Sa - Spartina alterniflora; Sp - Spartina patens; Ds - Distichlis spicata; Pa - Phragmites australis. Other species found in the restricted marsh included Atriplex patula, Scirpus spp., Limonium nashii, Typha angustifolia, Iva frutescens, Aster spp. and Solidago spp. These species were mixed and dominated areas of the marsh too small to be included in this analysis.

Marsh	Veg Type	g per 1/4 m2	% Pp	% Sa	% Sp	% Ds	% Pa
restricted	forbs	207+46	43	51	3	3	a
restricted	Sp/Ds	351+49	a	a	42	58	a
restricted	Pa	693+155	a	a	a	a	100
unrestricted	Sa-creek	137+38	a	100	a	a	a
unrestricted	Sa-low	83+4	a	100	a	a	a
unrestricted	Sp/Ds	177+13	a	a	73	27	a

Table 6. Grams per square meter of dry weight of vegetation within the different plant communities. Forbs - Pluchea purpurascens, Limonium nashii, Solidago spp.; Sa - Spartina alterniflora; Sp - Spartina patens; Ds - Distichlis spicata; Pa - Phragmites australis.

Marsh	Veg Type	g per m2
restricted	forbs	828
restricted	Sp/Ds	1404
restricted	Pa	2772
TOTAL	a	5004
unrestricted	Sa-creek	548
unrestricted	Sa-low	338
unrestricted	Sp/Ds	708
TOTAL	a	1594

Table 7 . Average above ground height (cm) of plants between the restricted and unrestricted portions of the marsh. Sa - Spartina alterniflora; Sp - Spartina patens; Pa - Phragmites australis.

MONTH	RESTRICTED	UNRESTRICTED
a	Pa / SP	Sa / Sp
May	122 / 26	11 / 24
July	136 / 41	49 / 25
September	154 / 46	51 / 34

Besides biomass production, the salt meadow cordgrass/spikegrass communities also differ in structure between the restricted and unrestricted marshes (Table 5). Spikegrass accounts for about 27% of the above ground biomass in the unrestricted marsh while in the restricted marsh, it represents about 61% of the community's above ground biomass productivity. Spikegrass's role as an indicator of change to the salt marsh has been documented elsewhere (Orson et al. 1987).

In order to map the vegetation along each transect, a meter tape was used for line intercept analysis. At 5 m intervals, the plants touching both sides of the tape were identified and recorded. Notes were kept as to where different vegetation and physical features were found so that these areas can be resurveyed in the future. The results of the vegetation analysis using the line intercept method are shown in Appendix II.