Vegetation development in created, restored, and enhanced mitigation wetland banks of the United States

Wetlands (Impact Factor: 1.44). 03/2005; 25(1):51-63. DOI: 10.1672/0277-5212(2005)025[0051:VDICRA]2.0.CO;2

ABSTRACT Wetland mitigation banking is the practice of creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving large, off-site wetlands to compensate
for authorized impacts to natural wetlands. By 2002, there were 219 active mitigation banks in the United States, encompassing
50,000 hectares in 29 states. This study is the first systematic analysis of the ecological quality of these ecosystems; the
objective is to determine if mitigation banks are successfully supporting native wetland vegetation and if success differs
by mitigation method (created, restored, or enhanced), geomorphic class, age, or area. I obtained monitoring reports from
45 randomly selected mitigation bank wetlands in 21 states to evaluate three measures of ecological status: the prevalence
of wetland vegetation, the pervasiveness of non-native species, and plant species richness. Sites range from less than one
ha to over 560 ha and include 17 created wetlands, 19 restored wetlands, and 9 enhanced wetlands. Prevalence Index scores
(PI; 1.0 for obligate wetland vegetation to 5.0 for upland vegetation) do not differ by wetland area but are significantly
lower in created wetlands and significantly decrease from one- and two-year-old created wetlands (PI=2.37±0.15; mean±SE) to
those five to seven years old (PI=1.96±0.12). Created and restored wetlands support 12.4 and 12.2 species per 10 m2 respectively, nearly four times more than the 3.2 species in 10m2 of enhanced wetland. This is in part attributable to a greater incidence of non-native species in created and restored wetlands.
The vegetative cover in created mitigation bank wetlands is 18.9±2.8 percent non-native-statistically similar to that of restored
(17.6±2.9) but significantly greater than that of enhanced systems (8.7±2.7). Within mitigation methods, there are clear differences
among geomorphic and vegetation classes. Depressional systems with a single vegetation class support highly hydrophytic, highly
non-native communities with low species richness, while restored and enhanced riverine systems have a greater prevalence of
native species. For mitigation bank wetlands in this study, the prevalence of wetland vegetation, the representation of native
species, and the plant community homogeneity increase with age, indicating a period of self-organization and a potential trend
toward vegetative equivalence with natural wetlands.

1 Follower
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The creation and restoration of new wetlands to mitigate wetland losses is a newly developing sciencewhose success still needs to be assessed. This study focuses on the ecological restoration of a gravel-pit in the low valley of the Seine estuary (France). Restoration consisted in filling the gravel-pit usinga hydraulic technique with dredged sediments from the Seine river and covering it with alkaline peatfrom adjacent wet meadows. Our objectives were to survey the functions of recreated soil 3 years afterthe gravel-pit was filled and assess whether it regained typical wetland functionality and to determinewhich soil functioning parameters are the most efficient for assessing restoration success. To addressthese questions, an approach combining analyses of in situ and ex situ soil functioning was used. Thesurvey was conducted on recreated soil as compared to a control soil (i.e. soil before gravel extraction).Four topographic zones were sampled corresponding to 4 types of recreated soil functioning in terms ofwaterlogging conditions: Hemic Histosol without waterlogged periods, Hemic Histosol with temporarywaterlogged periods, Hemic Histosol with the longest waterlogged periods and Interstratified Histosolwithout waterlogged periods. Soil respiration and SIR results showed that large stocks of organic matterare maintained after 3 years of restoration and proved able to sequester C in recreated soils. 3 yearsafter restoration, nitrogen removal function measured through denitrification technique was restored inthe Hemic Histosol with the longest waterlogged periods. These results demonstrate that waterloggingregime maintain the C stock and accelerate the restoration of denitrification process.
    Ecological Engineering 08/2014; 71:628–638. DOI:10.1016/j.ecoleng.2014.07.064 · 3.04 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We used multi-tag pyrosequencing of 16S ribosomal DNA to characterize bacterial communities of wetland soils collected from created and natural wetlands located in the Virginia piedmont. Soils were also evaluated for their physicochemical properties [i.e., percent moisture, pH, soil organic matter (SOM), total organic carbon (TOC), total nitrogen (TN), and C:N ratio]. Soil moisture varied from 15% up to 55% among the wetlands. Soil pH ranged between 4.2 and 5.8, showing the typical characteristic of acidic soils in the Piedmont region. Soil organic matter contents ranged from 3% up to 6%. Soil bacterial community structures and their differences between the wetlands were distinguished by pyrosequencing. Soil bacterial communities in the created wetlands were less dissimilar to each other than to those of either natural wetland, with little difference in diversity (Shannon's H') between created and natural wetlands, except one natural wetland consistently showing a lower H'. The greatest difference of bacterial community structure was observed between the two natural wetlands (R=0.937, p<0.05), suggesting these two natural wetlands were actually quite different reflecting differences in their soil physicochemistry. The major phylogenic groups of all soils included Acidobacteria, Actinobacteria, Bacteroidetes, Chloroflexi, Firmicutes, Gemmatinomadetes, Nitrospira, and Proteobacteria with Proteobacteria being the majority of the community composition. Acidobacteria group was more abundant in natural wetlands than in created wetlands. We found a significant association between bacterial community structures and physicochemical properties of soils such as C:N ratio (ρ=0.43, p<0.01) and pH (ρ=0.39, p<0.01). The outcomes of the study show that the development of ecological functions, mostly mediated by microbial communities, is connected with the development of soil properties in created wetlands. Soil properties should be carefully monitored to examine the progress of functional wetland mitigation.
    Science of The Total Environment 12/2012; 443C:725-732. DOI:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.11.052 · 4.10 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Plant species composition, dominance, richness, and diversity were measured across a 15-year chronosequence of created wetland sites in Virginia, USA. Using an age-class categorization (1–2 years, 3–5 years, 6–10 years, or 11–15 years), all classes had a predominance of herbaceous species with perennial life history strategy, and perennials contributed 68.6 % to the overall dominance measure (importance value; IV) averaged across all sites. There was no significant difference in species richness or diversity among age classes. Analysis of Similarity (ANOSIM) indicated that herbaceous species composition was similar between the youngest and oldest age classes, but not the intermediate classes. For woody shrubs and saplings, planted species were more prevalent in the youngest age classes, and volunteer species predominated in the oldest age classes. These results suggest that perennial herbaceous species are important in early plant development on created wetland sites, and may be influential in observed patterns of species composition over time. In the context of plant development in newly created wetlands, dominance shifts from planted to volunteer woody species suggest that planting early successional species, or species with reproductive strategies attuned to created wetland site management, may favor survivorship and recruitment of other species over time.
    Wetlands Ecology and Management 12/2012; 20(6). DOI:10.1007/s11273-012-9273-3 · 1.22 Impact Factor