Journal of Ecology and Environment

The Ecological Society of Korea (한국생태학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Plant community development in the first growing season of a created mitigation wetland bank as influenced by design elements

  • Ahn, Chang-Woo (Department of Environmental Science and Policy, George Mason University)
  • Received : 2010.07.16
  • Accepted : 2010.09.06
  • Published : 2010.12.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Vegetative communities of created wetlands often display lower species richness, less cover, higher occurrence of non-native or invasive species, and fewer obligate wetlands species than those in natural wetlands, thus failing to meet basic success criteria for wetland mitigation. This study examined the effects of two design elements, disking-induced microtopography and hydrologic regime, on the first year vegetation development pattern of a mitigation wetland newly created in the Virginia piedmont. Elevation and species cover were measured along replicate multiscale circular transects in two adjacent wetland sites that are different in their hydrologic regime. Two microtopographic indices, tortuosity (T) and limiting elevation difference (LD), were calculated from the elevation measurements. Both indices were higher in disked plots than non-disked plots, showing the effect of disking on microtopography. Out of forty-one vegetation taxa observed in the wetland, 29 taxa were naturally colonized and 12 taxa were seeded. All plots except one non-disked plot were dominated by wetland vegetation. Species richness and diversity were higher in disked than in non-disked plots. Vegetation community development seemed also influenced significantly by hydrologic regime of the site. The effect of microtopography on species richness and diversity was more pronounced in a relatively dry site compared to a wet site. In addition, percent cover, species richness and diversity of vegetation were positively correlated with microtopographic indices such as T and LD. Two design elements, microtopography and hydrologic regime, should be considered and incorporated in wetland creation to enhance plant community development.

Keywords

References

  1. Ahn C, White DC, Sparks RE. 2004. Moist-soil plants as ecohydrologic indicators for recovering the flood pulse in the Illinois River. Restor Ecol 12: 207-213. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1061-2971.2004.00361.x
  2. Atkinson RB, Perry JE, Cairns J Jr. 2005. Vegetation communities of 20-year-old created depressional wetlands. Wetl Ecol Manag 13: 469-478. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-004-2000-y
  3. Baer SG, Collins SL, Blair JM, Knapp AK, Fiedler AK. 2005. Soil heterogeneity effects on tallgrass prairie community heterogeneity: an application of ecological theory to restoration ecology. Restor Ecol 13: 413-424. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2005.00051.x
  4. Breaux A, Serefiddin F. 1999. Validity of performance criteria and a tentative model for regulatory use in compensatory wetland mitigation permitting. Environ Manag 24: 327-336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002679900236
  5. Bruland GL, Richardson CJ. 2005. Hydrologic, edaphic, and vegetative responses to microtopographic reestablishment in a restored wetland. Restor Ecol 13: 515-523. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2005.00064.x
  6. Campbell DA, Cole CA, Brooks RP. 2002. A comparison of created and natural wetlands in Pennsylvania, USA. Wetl Ecol Manag 10: 41-49. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014335618914
  7. Colwell RK. 2006. EstimateS: statistical estimation of species richness and shared species from samples. Software and user’s guide, version 8. http://viceroy.eeb.uconn.edu/estimates. Accessed 20 May 2010.
  8. Cronk JK, Fennessy MS. 2001. Wetland Plants: Biology and Ecology. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
  9. Dwire KA, Kauffman JB, Baham JE. 2006. Plant species distribution in relation to water-table depth and soil redox potential in Montane riparian meadows. Wetlands 26: 131-146. https://doi.org/10.1672/0277-5212(2006)26[131:PSDIRT]2.0.CO;2
  10. Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation. 1989. Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC.
  11. Galatowitsch SM, van der Valk AG. 1996. Vegetation and environmental conditions in recently restored wetlands in the prairie pothole region of the USA. Vegetatio 126: 89-99.
  12. Galatowitsch SM, Anderson NO, Ascher PD. 1999. Invasiveness in wetland plants in temperate North America. Wetlands 19: 733-755. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03161781
  13. Hamrick JL, Lee JM. 1987. Effect of soil surface topography and litter cover on the germination, survival, and growth of Musk Thistle (Carduus nutans). Am J Bot 74: 451-457. https://doi.org/10.2307/2443821
  14. Heddinghause TR, Sabol P. 1991. A review of the palmer drought severity index and where do we go from here? Proceedings of the 7th Conference on Applied Climatology, 1991 Sep 10-13, Salt Lake City, UT. American Meteorological Society, Boston, MA.
  15. Jerling L. 1981. Effects of microtopography on the summer survival of Plantago maritima seedlings. Holarct Ecol 4: 120-126.
  16. Kamphorst EC, Jetten V, Guerif J, Pitkanen J, Iversen BV, Douglas JT, Paz A. 2000. Predicting depressional storage from soil surface roughness. Soil Sci Soc Am J 64: 1749-1758. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2000.6451749x
  17. Linden DR, Van Doren DM. 1986. Parameters for characterizing tillage-induced soil surface roughness. Soil Sci Soc Am J 50: 1560-1565. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1986.03615995005000060035x
  18. Miller SJ, Wardrop DH. 2006. Adapting the floristic quality assessment index to indicate anthropogenic disturbance in central Pennsylvania wetlands. Ecol Indicators 6: 313-326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2005.03.012
  19. Morzaria-Luna H, Callaway JC, Sullivan G, Zedler JB. 2004. Relationship between topographic heterogeneity and vegetation patterns in a Californian salt marsh. J Veg Sci 15: 523-530. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1654-1103.2004.tb02291.x
  20. Moser K, Ahn C, Noe G. 2007. Characterization of microtopography and its influence on vegetation patterns in created wetlands. Wetlands 27: 1081-1097. https://doi.org/10.1672/0277-5212(2007)27[1081:COMAII]2.0.CO;2
  21. National Drought Mitigation Center. 2008. U.S. drought monitor. http://drought.unl.edu/dm/archive.html. Accessed 20 August 2008.
  22. National Research Council. 2001. Compensating For Wetland Losses under the Clean Water Act. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
  23. Peach M, Zedler JB. 2006. How tussocks structure sedge meadow vegetation. Wetlands 26: 322-335. https://doi.org/10.1672/0277-5212(2006)26[322:HTSSMV]2.0.CO;2
  24. Pepin AL. 2000. Correction of indicator status for Echinochloa crusgalli (Barnyard Grass). Virginia Association of Wetland Professionals Update 7: 4-5.
  25. PRIMER-E Ltd. 2006. PRIMER v6.1. PRIMER-E Ltd., Plymouth.
  26. Reed PB. 1988. National Wetlands Inventory, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. National Interagency Review Panel, and U.S. Regional Interagency Review Panel: Northeast (Region 1). 1988. National list of plant species that occur in wetlands. Northeast (Region 1). U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Research and Development, Washington, DC.
  27. Schlesinger WH. 1978. On the relative dominance of shrubs in Okefenokee Swamp. Am Nat 112: 949-954. https://doi.org/10.1086/283334
  28. Schupp EW. 1995. Seed-seedling conflicts, habitat choice, and patterns of plant recruitment. Am J Bot 82: 399-409. https://doi.org/10.2307/2445586
  29. Smith M, Capelle J. 1992. Effects of soil surface microtopography and litter cover on germination, growth and biomass production of Chicory (Cichorium intybus L.). Am Midl Nat 128: 246-253. https://doi.org/10.2307/2426458
  30. Spieles DJ. 2005. Vegetation development in created, restored, and enhanced mitigation wetland banks of the United States. Wetlands 25: 51-63. https://doi.org/10.1672/0277-5212(2005)025[0051:VDICRA]2.0.CO;2
  31. SPSS. 2006. SPSS version 15.0. SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL.
  32. Stolt MH, Genthner MH, Daniels WL, Groover VA, Nagle S, Haering KC. 2000. Comparison of soil and other environmental conditions in constructed and adjacent palustrine reference wetlands. Wetlands 20: 671-683. https://doi.org/10.1672/0277-5212(2000)020[0671:COSAOE]2.0.CO;2
  33. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. 2001. Using Multivariate Statistics. Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA.
  34. Tiner RW. 1988. Field Guide to Nontidal Wetland Identification. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Water Resources Administration, U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Annapolis, MD & Newton Corner, MA.
  35. Titus HJ. 1990. Microtopography and woody plant regeneration in a hardwood floodplain swamp in Florida. Bull Torrey Bot Club 117: 429-437. https://doi.org/10.2307/2996840
  36. Tweedy KL, Scherrer E, Evans RO, Shear TH. 2001. Influence of microtopography on restored hydrology and other wetland functions. 2001 American Society of Agricultural Engineers Annual International Meeting, Jul 30-Aug 1, Sacramento, CA. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, MI.
  37. van der Valk AG. 1981. Succession in wetlands: a Gleasonian approach. Ecology 62: 688-696. https://doi.org/10.2307/1937737
  38. van der Valk AG, Davis CB. 1978. The role of seed banks in the vegetation dynamics of prairie glacial marshes. Ecology 59: 322-335. https://doi.org/10.2307/1936377
  39. Vivian-Smith G. 1997. Microtopographic heterogeneity and floristic diversity in experimental wetland communities. J Ecol 85: 71-82. https://doi.org/10.2307/2960628
  40. Watt AS. 1947. Pattern and process in the plant community. J Ecol 35: 1-22. https://doi.org/10.2307/2256497
  41. Wentworth TR, Johnson GP, Kologiski RL. 1988. Designation of wetlands by weighted averages of vegetation data: a preliminary evaluation. Water Resour Bull 24: 389-396. https://doi.org/10.1029/WR024i003p00389
  42. Werner KJ, Zedler JB. 2002. How sedge meadow soils, microtopography, and vegetation respond to sedimentation. Wetlands 22: 451-466. https://doi.org/10.1672/0277-5212(2002)022[0451:HSMSMA]2.0.CO;2
  43. Whittecar GR, Daniels WL. 1999. Use of hydrogeomorphic concepts to design created wetlands in southeastern Virginia. Geomorphology 31: 355-371. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-555X(99)00081-1
  44. Zedler JB, Callaway JC. 1999. Tracking wetland restoration: do mitigation sites follow desired trajectories? Restor Ecol 7: 69-73. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1526-100X.1999.07108.x
  45. Zedler JB, Kercher S. 2004. Causes and consequences of invasive plants in wetlands: Opportunities, opportunists, and outcomes. Crit Rev Plant Sci 23: 431-452. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352680490514673

Cited by

  1. Effects of herbaceous planting richness on water physicochemistry in created mesocosm wetlands vol.32, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1080/02705060.2016.1248504