Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
REVIEW PAPER
Wetlands (2024) 44:100
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-024-01857-w
Present classications of temporary wetlands are mostly
based on their hydroperiod gradient including ephemeral,
seasonal, temporary, semi-permanent ponds (Stewart and
Kantrud 1971), turloughs (Sheehy Skengton et al. 2006)
and multi-year oods (Kivinen et al. 2020; Nummi et al.
2021a; Romansic et al. 2021). They encompass dierent
habitat types such as rock pools (Minissale and Sciandrello
2016), bog pools (Mazerolle et al. 2006), wet meadows
(Stewart and Kantrud 1971) and beaver oods (Kivinen
et al. 2020). The inundation might be the result of melting
snow and rain in spring as in the case of vernal pools (Keeley
and Zedler 1998; Schrank et al. 2015), groundwater raising
in the case of turloughs (Sheehy Skengton et al. 2006)
or oods as the result of beaver oods, for example. While
some temporary wetlands (e.g. vernal pools and turloughs)
typically follow a seasonal cycle, others such as boreal
beaver ponds may have a ood cycle lasting 3–10 years
(Kivinen et al. 2020). Temporary wetlands might not be
Introduction
Temporary wetlands are typically depressions in the ground
characterized by intermittent inundations (Stewart and
Kantrud 1971; Colburn 2004; Calhoun and DeMaynadier
2007). They can be of various kinds based on their hydro-
period, timing, water depth and size (Calhoun et al. 2017).
Markéta Nummi
marketa.nummi@gmail.com
1 Department of Biology, University of Turku,
Turku FI-20014, Finland
2 Department of Forest Sciences, University of Helsinki, P.O.
Box 27, Helsinki FI-00014, Finland
3 University of Angers, Angers FR-49035, France
4 Lammi Biological Station, University of Helsinki,
Pääjärventie 320, Lammi FI-16900, Finland
Abstract
Temporary wetlands have mostly been disregarded in freshwater habitat regulation (with noticeable exceptions such as
turloughs) leading to their global degradation despite their high value in terms of diverse ecosystem services. Wetland
creation may be used to mitigate this habitat loss. In this review, we compiled information on the ecological features of
temporary wetlands based on 45 scientic publications. We identied seven types of natural temporary wetlands to be
emulated in wetland construction and their restoration in the Northern Hemisphere, with hydroperiod lengths ranging
from less than one month in ephemeral ponds to multi-year oods. We highlight the biodiversity associated with vari-
ous hydroperiods, and show that dierent organisms use dierent temporary wetland types. We give examples of how
temporary wetland creation has been used for biodiversity enhancement and list characteristics of created temporary wet-
lands. Colonization of the newly created temporary wetlands by aquatic macroinvertebrates and amphibians was rapid,
but species compositions diered from reference sites. Finally, we provide management recommendations for creating
temporary wetlands to support high biodiversity. We highlight the importance of hydroperiod management, creating banks
with gradual slopes, enhancing macrophyte vegetation and sh absence to promote biodiversity in created temporary
wetlands. Monitoring and ongoing management practices are discussed as tools for ensuring management targets in the
long term. For example, performing partial or full drawdowns at temporary wetlands with long multi-year hydroperiods
are discussed. On the landscape level, we recommend planning a network of well-connected heterogeneous wetlands with
dierent hydroperiods to enhance colonization and dispersal, and thereby biodiversity.
Keywords Vernal pool · Wetland Creation · Flooding · Invertebrates · Amphibians · Waterbirds
Received: 24 June 2024 / Accepted: 29 August 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
Which Natural Wetland Characteristics Could be Used in Creating
Temporary Wetlands?
MarkétaNummi1· PetriNummi2· SariHolopainen2· AurélieDavranche2,3,4· UmaSigdel1,2· CélineArzel1
1 3
Wetlands (2024) 44:100
connected to other waterbodies, while beaver oods are usu-
ally connected to a stream or pond and will eventually host
shes (Snodgrass and Mee 1998; Johnston 2017). Flooded
areas are usually productive, as oods bring organic matter
and nutrients into the water (Kortelainen et al. 1997; De-
Campos et al. 2012; Nummi et al. 2018). Carbon cycling is
aected by water level movements; the decomposition rate
is usually slower with wetter and longer ooding, and net
ecosystem productivity (carbon dioxide (CO2) exchange) is
lower (Larmola et al. 2004). Small wetlands can create high
β-diversity (Scheer et al. 2006; Altermatt and Eber 2010;
Nummi et al. 2021a): they can be seen as patches that dier
in hydroperiod length, water depth, bottom substrates, and
surrounding landscape. Thus, each of the patches can have
its specic community of organisms (Williams et al. 2004;
Williams 2005).
For instance, due to drying, temporary wetlands usu-
ally create an environment with reduced sh predation risk,
thus providing a safe place for the reproduction of many
organisms such as amphibians and invertebrates (Scheer
et al. 2006; Colburn et al. 2008; Evans et al. 2017). How-
ever, sometimes small shes such as sticklebacks (Gaster-
osteus aculeatus, Pungitius pungitius) can be present in
e.g. turloughs (Williams et al. 2006). The natterjack toad
(Bufo calamita), for example, specically needs temporary
ponds for breeding (Sanuy et al. 2008). Temporary wetlands
such as vernal pools are highly used as foraging habitats
by breeding ducks (e.g. Anas sp.) (Kantrud and Stewart
1977), and certain waders, e.g. the green sandpiper (Tringa
ochropus), use ooded areas for brood rearing (Nummi et
al. 2021a). Turloughs are important sites for overwintering
bird populations (Sheehy Skengton et al. 2006). Hence,
many species use temporary wetlands during some phase of
their life cycle and then move elsewhere or enter a dormant
state when these wetlands dry out (Colburn et al. 2004).
Of temporary wetlands with longer ooding duration,
beaver owages can be particularly benecial to species
that require waters with longer hydroperiod to complete
their development, e.g. Odonata or some amphibians (Hart-
hun 1999; Karraker and Gibbs 2009; Romansic et al. 2021).
In addition to common water quality problems faced by
permanent wetlands, such as eutrophication and brownica-
tion (Broyer 2009; Dudgeon 2010; Blanchet et al. 2022),
temporary wetlands are also in danger of disappearing com-
pletely due to climate change and drainage (Curado et al.
2011; Ruhí et al. 2012b; Remm et al. 2015; Death et al.
2016; Evans et al. 2017; Montgomery et al. 2018; James
et al. 2019; Mitchell et al. 2022). Their small size and/or
temporality render them easily overlooked (Semlitsch and
Bodie 1998; Martin et al. 2012; Calhoun 2014, 2017). Until
recently, they have hence been globally disregarded in
nature conservation regulations (with some exceptions e.g.
turloughs, mediterranean temporary ponds and active raised
bogs) (Water Framework Directive (WFD) 2000; The Inter-
pretation manual of European union habitats EUR 28 (EC)
2013; Ramsar Convention on Wetlands 2018). They are also
often part of managed (forest and agriculture) lands, where
they have been left unnoticed when making management
decisions (Evans et al. 2017).
Creating and restoring wetlands is an eective tool for
mitigating wetland loss and wetland degradation (Kings-
ford et al. 2016). Created and restored wetlands can provide
habitats for various biota. However, achieving this requires
knowing the habitat requirements of the targeted species
group(s) and implementing them in wetland construction
(Wiegleb et al. 2017; Magnus and Rannap 2019; Rajpar et
al. 2022).
Our aims are (i) to review the main characteristics of nat-
ural temporary wetlands classied by their hydroperiod that
may be emulated for temporary wetland construction and
management, (ii) to describe their related biodiversity, (iii)
to present case studies of constructed temporary wetlands
created to promote biodiversity, and, nally, (iv) to discuss
concrete actions to improve the quality of constructed tem-
porary wetlands for the organisms targeted by management
actions. This review focuses on the Northern Hemisphere,
with special focus on Europe and North America.
Methods
In this review, we will focus on freshwater temporary wet-
lands experiencing ooding, which may last from a few
weeks in small-sized temporary wetlands to a few years
in beaver owages. Temporary wetlands covered by this
review are listed in the Table 1. We use the North American
classication by Stewart and Kantrud (1971). We extended
the classication to include Irish turloughs which are spe-
cic by having a hydroperiod from autumn to spring. We
also added multi-year oods (e.g. beaver oods) because
they are often emulated in temporary wetland construc-
tion (Nummi and Holopainen 2020). We did not deal with
oodplains because rivers have their own dynamics and
management measures. Their creation requires wider scale
construction actions. Neither did we focus on man-made
temporary wetlands created for other purposes than bio-
diversity. We focus on the ecological aspect of temporary
wetlands. Detailed construction guidelines can be found in
technical guides which have been adapted to the local envi-
ronment (e.g. Alhainen et al. 2015; Kozáková and Rozínek
2021; Sayer et al. 2023). The term “temporary wetlands” is
in this study used as a general term encompassing all types
of non-permanent wetlands listed in Table 1. When specic
typology exists to characterize a temporary wetland, e.g.
1 3
100 Page 2 of 15
Wetlands (2024) 44:100
vernal pool or seasonal pond (see Table 1), then this specic
term is used accordingly.
We collected international literature using Web of Sci-
ence. Our search (see supplementary material S.1) resulted
in 361 hits, 45 of which were relevant to our study. In the
collected literature, we perused the reference lists, which
navigated us to other relevant resources. We also paid
attention to “gray literature.” We used Google Scholar to
search for methodological handbooks for nature manage-
ment. Many conservation and management practices are
only published in handbooks, such as descriptions of appro-
priate frog pool structure (e.g. Kozáková and Rozínek 2021)
and how to perform drawdowns (e.g. Fredrickson and Reid
1988; Fredrickson 1991).
Table 1 Types of natural temporary wetlands to be emulated in wetland construction and their restoration with examples of associated ora and
fauna. The reference column includes information regarding the study biomes: BF: boreal forest, TF: temperate forest, TG: temperate grassland,
MVC: Mediterranean vegetation, chaparral, MZ: multi-zonal
Wetland
type
Hydroperiod Range
of max
depth
(cm)
Surface
area
(ha)
Flora Fauna References
Invertebrates Vertebrates
Ephemeral
pond (I)
< 1 month 20–80 < 0.01–
1
Low grassland vegetation
(e.g. Poa pratensis, Solidago
altissima)
Culicidae, Anos-
traca, Dytiscidae
Ducks BF: Nilsson and Svensson
1994; TG: Stewart and Kantrud
1971; Kantrud and Stewart
1977; Gleason and Rooney
2018; Montgomery et al. 2018;
MVC: Serrano and Fahd 2005
Temporary
pond (II)
1–2 months 20–100 < 0.01–
1
Wet-meadow vegetation
(e.g. Poa palustris, Boltonia
latisquana, Hordeum
jubatum, Calamagrostis
inexpansa)
Anostraca, Culic-
idae, Notostraca,
Chironomidae,
Dytiscidae
Waders,
frogs
BF: Nilsson and Svens-
son 1995; TG: Stewart and
Kantrud 1971; Mauser et al.
1994; Gleason and Rooney
2018; Montgomery et al. 2018;
MVC: Serrano and Fahd 2005;
MZ: Dodd 2010
Seasonal
pond (III)
3–4 months 48–144 0.02–4 Shallow-marsh vegeta-
tion (e.g. Carex ath-
erodes, Glyceria grandis,
Scolochloa festucacea,
Eleocharis palustris, Alisma
gramineum, Beckmannia
syzigachne)
Crustacea,
Rotifera, Nema-
toda, Chironomi-
dae, Dytiscidae
Waders,
ducks,
frogs,
newts
BF: Nilsson and Svens-
son 1995; TG: Stewart and
Kantrud 1971; Kantrud and
Stewart 1977; Talent et al.
1982; Gleason and Rooney
2018; Montgomery et al. 2018;
MVC: Serrano and Fahd 2005;
MZ: Dodd 2010
Semi-
permanent
pond (IV)
> 5 months 70–285 3–30 Deep-marsh vegetation
(Scirpus heterochateum,
Typha spp., Scirpus acutus,
Scirpus paludosus)
Crustacea (e.g.
Daphnia magna),
Rotifera, Tipuli-
dae, Nematoda
Ducks,
newts
TG: Stewart and Kantrud
1971; Gleason and Rooney
2018; Montgomery et al. 2018;
MVC: Serrano and Fahd 2005;
MZ: Dodd 2010
Turlough
“seasonal
ground-
water-
dependent
winter
lake”
Usually 3–6
months (but
can be < 3
months and
> 6 months)
50–600 2–267 Small sedge vegetation (e.g.
Carex panicea, C. nigra, C.
acca), grass/forb vegetation
(Plantago major, Ranuncu-
lus repens, Trifolium repens,
Lolium perenne)
Gastropoda,
Cladocera,
Copepoda,
Ostracoda, Crus-
tacea (Asellus,
Gammarus),
Ephemeroptera,
Dytiscidae
Waders,
ducks,
swans,
newts,
frogs
TF: Regan et al. 2007; Sheehy
Skengton et al. 2006
Multi-year
ood, early
succession
(e.g. new
beaver
ood)
1–2 years 100–250 1–15 Alnus sp., Salix sp., Sphag-
num sp., duckweeed (Lemna
spp., Spirodela spp.)
Cladocera, Crus-
tacea (Asellus),
Dytiscidae,
Amphipoda,
Waders,
ducks,
frogs
BF: Nummi 1989; Nummi
and Hahtola 2008; Hood and
Larson 2014; Nummi et al.
2021a; Romansic et al. 2021;
TF: Dalbeck et al. 2007
Multi-year
ood, late
succession
(e.g. old
beaver
ood)
> 2 years 25–200 1–20 Pondweeds (Potamogeton
spp.), hornworth (Cerato-
phyllum demersum), water
lily (Nymphaea spp., yellow
water lily (Numphar lutea),
old wood, wood-rotting
fungi
Chironomidae,
Gastropoda
Bats, shes BF: Schlosser and Kallemeyn
2000; Nummi et al. 2011; MZ:
Rosell et al. 2005; Larsen et
al. 2021
1 3
Page 3 of 15 100
Wetlands (2024) 44:100
reasons. (Galatowitsch and van der Valk 1996). Predicting
how the created vernal pools succeed locally may also be
challenging because the environmental conditions aecting
their hydrology vary between areas (Calhoun et al. 2014).
An additional aspect to consider in temporary wetland cre-
ation/restoration is environmental pollution, e.g. pesticides,
which aect water quality in agricultural lands (Hildebrandt
et al. 2008).
For wetlands to eectively improve biodiversity, it is
advantageous if they are designed for this purpose (Mul-
keen et al. 2017, 2024). Even many wetlands constructed
for biodiversity fail if they lack important features such as
gradual slopes and the absence of sh predators (e.g. Drayer
and Richter 2016). Studies show that wetlands constructed
for other purposes than biodiversity can contribute to miti-
gation of the current wetland loss. But without following
the wetland design recommendations for the targeted spe-
cies, they will host only a part of local populations, and will
not match natural wetlands in the long term (Mulkeen et al.
2017, 2024; Rooney et al. 2015; Semeraro et al. 2015; Li
et al. 2021). Interestingly, there is a lack of studies evalu-
ating how eectively wetlands constructed for biodiversity
can perform other functions such as water retention and/or
purication. In Table 2, we present examples of temporary
wetlands that were constructed and restored to promote
biodiversity and to mitigate habitat loss. The table shows
that creating and restoring temporary wetlands can enhance
biodiversity, although some species may colonize new
sites more rapidly than others and the species composition
between natural and created temporary wetlands may dif-
fer (see Table 2). Despite the hydroperiod being a crucial
factor aecting species communities, several studies on
constructed temporary wetlands in Table 2 did not report it;
whereas water depth, also an important factor is more com-
monly reported.
Management Implications
Based on the existing literature, we summarize attributes
that make constructed temporary wetlands favorable for
biodiversity enhancement.
Flooding and the Detritivore-Based Food Chain
Flooding is an eective tool to promote biodiversity, whether
done by man or beaver (Čehovská et al. 2022; Nummi and
Holopainen 2020). During ooding, a high invertebrate
biomass is rapidly created in both man-made (Danell and
Sjöberg 1982; Ruhí et al. 2009; Coccia et al. 2016) and bea-
ver-created wetlands (Nummi and Hahtola 2008); this con-
sequently attracts invertivores that feed on the invertebrates
Natural Temporary Wetland Types
The terminology of temporary wetlands varies between
areas. In Table 1, we present the classication of temporary
wetlands used in this article. We use the classication by
Stewart and Kantrud (1971) for prairie temporary wetlands
and potholes (wetland type I–IV in Table 1). In Europe, the
temporary wetland biota has not been classied along the
hydroperiod gradient as opposed to North America, thus we
mainly present examples from the latter. The term “vernal
pool” is not used in Stewart and Kantrud’s (1971) classi-
cation. Vernal pools would most likely encompass the rst
three categories in Table 1 according to their hydroperiod
length. In addition to the four categories dened by Stewart
and Kantrud (1971), we also include turloughs that are spe-
cic by having wet phase mostly during winter and multi-
year oods for their important role in terms of biodiversity.
Creation and Restoration of Temporary
Wetlands
On the landscape scale, restoration and wetland creation
may work together. Under the label of “restoration”, man-
agement practices can involve both creating new wetlands
in novel places and restoring existing ones (see Coccia et al.
2016). Here, restoration is dened as returning the habitat
that formerly existed to its original state (Callaway 2004),
while creation is establishing the habitat where it did not
exist previously. Constructed and restored wetlands may
have dierent targets and functions depending e.g. on how
natural the end results should be. Timetables may also dif-
fer; a constructed wetland for waterbirds may hit its target
of high bird diversity within a few years (Kačergytė et al.
2021; Čehovská et al. 2022). For some restored wetlands
(e.g. peatlands), a much longer time may be required for
reaching the target and attaining natural biodiversity (Alsila
et al. 2021). We must also be mindful that certain biotopes
are very dicult to emulate, such as bog pools with long-
term peat accumulation (see Neustupa et al. 2023).
Creating wetlands without prior consideration regard-
ing the ecological requirements of the targeted organisms
may lead to unsuccessful management actions (Wheeler et
al. 2002; Piczak et al. 2023). A detailed beforehand study
of the entire area, including the historical and current state
of vernal pools, is necessary when planning mitigation
projects (Calhoun et al. 2017). One challenging task is the
ability to create/recreate the hydrology of temporary wet-
lands. For example, 20% of the restored wetlands in the
Prairie Pothole Region failed hydrologically; sometimes
there were structural problems, sometimes the ephemeral
and temporary ponds did not ll with water for unknown
1 3
100 Page 4 of 15
Wetlands (2024) 44:100
more diverse macrophyte vegetation which may increase
the invertebrate diversity by providing structural heteroge-
neity (Downing 1991; Bazzanti et al. 2008).
In temporary wetlands, conditions with abundant
resources for the detritivore-based food chain are restored
with the new wet phase when vegetation that grew during
the dry phase is ooded (Merendino et al. 1991). In addition,
the drought phase generates shless conditions that result
in an increase of invertebrate abundance during reooding
(Dorn 2008). Having temporary wetlands in a landscape
increases the landscape-level heterogeneity of wetlands.
Hence, aquatic invertebrate communities dier in wetlands
with dierent hydroperiods (Leeper and Taylor 1998; Tarr
(e.g. breeding ducks; Väänänen et al. 2012; Nummi et al.
2013; Holopainen et al. 2014, 2024), waders (Nummi et
al. 2022), and bats (Park and Cristinacce 2006; Nummi et
al. 2011; Stahlschmidt et al. 2012). Organic matter from
decomposing ooded plants leads to high productivity with
high aquatic invertebrate biomass, such as Branchiopods,
Daphnia, Chironomids, and Dytiscidae (Fredrickson and
Reid 1988; Nummi 1989; Coccia et al. 2016; Nummi et al.
2021b). Invertebrate biomass and diversity can decrease
with time as detritus levels decline (Murkin 1989) and pred-
ators colonize the area (Schneider and Frost 1996; Williams
1997; Wellborn et al. 1996; Lahr et al. 1999). However, this
decrease can be counterbalanced with the development of
Table 2 Examples of created, restored, and managed ooded temporary wetland characteristics promoting dierent species group. Column “Local-
ity” includes information of the study biomes: BF: boreal forest, TG: temperate grassland, MVC: Mediterranean vegetation, chaparral
Species group Findings Wetland characteristics Locality Reference
Macroinvertebrates ● Newly created temporary ponds had the same level of
diversity and species richness as reference sites had.
● Invertebrate biomass higher in newly created ponds.
● Community composition between newly created ponds
and reference sites diverged.
● 32 temporary ponds
were constructed during a
restoration project.
● Three sizes (length 60,
125, and 250 m).
● Two excavation depths
(30 and 60 cm).
● 6-month hydroperiod.
● Doñana,
Spain
● Biom: MVC
Coccia
et al.
(2016)
Macroinvertebrates ● Colonization of newly created ponds by macroinverte-
brates was rapid.
● No change in macroinvertebrate assemblage during the
rst year, indicating that succession requires more time.
● Macroinvertebrate biomass increased with time.
● 9 created ponds in 3
areas to mitigate habitat
loss.
● Depth < 2 m.
● Dierent hydroperiod
lengths (< 12 months and
6–9 months).
● Northeastern
Iberian Penin-
sula, Spain
● Biom: MVC
Ruhí
et al.
(2009)
Amphibians ● In the rst year, man-made ponds became habitats for
regional amphibians.
● Species such as the natterjack toad (Bufo calamita) can
prot from creating temporary ponds.
● 2 temporary man-made
wetlands.
● Size < 0.5 ha.
● Depth < 1 m.
● Northeastern
Iberian Penin-
sula: Baix Ter
and Plana de la
Selva, Spain
● Biom: MVC
Ruhí
et al.
(2012b)
Arthropods,
amphibians
● Amphibians of various development stages occurred
more in man-made pools than in natural bog pools, prob-
ably because of higher water pH.
● Species composition of amphibians diered between
man-made and natural wetlands.
● Arthropods (water beetles) were less abundant (2–26
times less) in man-made pools than in natural bog pools.
● The colonization of many arthropods was rapid.
● Man-made bog pools
created during a restoration
project.
● Max. depth 1.2 m.
● Eastern New
Brunswick,
eastern Québec,
Canada
● Biom: BF
Maze-
rolle
et al.
(2006)
Macroinvertebrates,
ducks
● Chironomids and Asellus abundant in the littoral.
● Pisidium and Chironomids abundant in the creek bed.
● Eurycercus the most abundant in the nekton during the
rst year of ooding.
● Creek use by ducks (teal, mallard, goldeneye) increased
in the ooded part.
● Wetland created by dam-
ming creek, e.g. simulating
beaver eect.
● Mean depth 55 cm.
● Evo, southern
Finland
● Biom: BF
Nummi
(1989)
Aquatic vegetation ● Only a few restored temporary wetlands developed a
sedge meadow zone typical for the area.
● Most of the wetlands had emergent vegetation and sub-
merged aquatic vegetation.
● 62 restored ephemeral/
temporary ponds.
● Morphological param-
eters of the restored
wetlands copied those of
natural ones.
● Southern
Prairie Pothole
Region, Iowa,
southwestern
Minnesota and
northeastern
South Dakota
● Biom: TG
Gala-
towitsch
and van
der Valk
(1996)
1 3
Page 5 of 15 100
Wetlands (2024) 44:100
suitable areas and the timing of ooding based on waterbird
yway data (Reynolds et al. 2017).
Absence of Fish: A Key Feature for Temporary
Wetland Biodiversity
Temporary wetlands can be good habitats for many spe-
cies, as they are usually shless because sh die naturally
during the dry period (Calhoun and DeMaynadier 2007).
Fishes can reduce amphibian populations by competition
for food resources and/or predation (Semlitsch 1988; Knapp
2005; Orizaola and Brana 2006; Boone et al. 2007; Hartel
et al. 2007). Fish introductions are one of the main factors
responsible for the worldwide decrease of amphibians (Kats
and Ferrer 2003). Furthermore, sh compete with breeding
ducks for aquatic invertebrates (Hill et al. 1987; Musil et al.
1997; Nummi et al. 2016). Specically, ducklings mainly
feed on aquatic invertebrates during their rst weeks (Chura
1961; Reinecke 1979; Nummi 1985; Wineld and Wineld
1994). Competition between ducks and sh for inverte-
brates as a source of food can inuence the breeding habitat
choice of ducks and consequently their breeding densities
(Anderson 1981; Nummi et al. 2012).
Vegetation Associated with Temporary Wetlands
Macrophyte vegetation enhances wetland heterogeneity and
complexity and is important for invertebrates, amphibians,
et al. 2005). Wetlands with various hydroperiods in a land-
scape (see Fig. 1) are also important for the life cycle of
many organisms that have aquatic and terrestrial phases
such as amphibians, e.g. most salamanders and the wood
frog (Rana sylvatica) breed in seasonal ponds and winter on
land (Semlitsch and Skelly 2008).
Managing an area by ooding is an eective way to
provide suitable habitats for waterbirds. These temporary
oods, usually on agricultural lands, can be used along
yways as stopover sites (Golet et al. 2018) and for over-
wintering (Davis et al. 2014) and breeding (Czech and Par-
sons 2002). Agricultural oods, made to enhance crops,
such as rice, are known to be used for nesting by many
waterbirds, e.g. ducks and shorebirds (Czech and Parsons
2002; Pierluissi 2010). This has led to the idea of extend-
ing ooding duration in places where ooding is a part of
the crop management or to intentionally create these oods
as compensation habitat for waterbirds (Golet et al. 2018).
Incentives, such as subsidies, are well-established methods
for achieving management actions, e.g. in England, where
landowners are granted subsidies to raise or maintain water
levels for breeding wading birds (Ausden and Hirons 2002).
Also, landowners and stakeholders in Sweden, Finland, and
North America who create and maintain a wetland on their
land are granted subsidies to cover their expenses (George
2002; Hansson et al. 2012; Nummi and Holopainen 2020).
As migratory species are highly threatened by habitat loss
(Runge et al. 2014), conservation practices should identify
Fig. 1 Example of a cluster of wetlands with various water depths fullling the habitat requirements of many organisms
1 3
100 Page 6 of 15
Wetlands (2024) 44:100
that invertebrate species compositions diered among wet-
lands with various substrates, thus raising the need for fur-
ther studies (Sanders 2000). In general, the increasing size
of substratum particles also increased the number of macro-
invertebrate species in natural wetlands in the boreal zone
(Heino 2000).
When creating wetlands for amphibians, pool sizes of
less than 300 m2 are usually recommended in management
handbooks (Kozáková and Rozínek 2021). Designed pools
should have gradual shore slopes and enough shallow ats
for amphibian breeding and larval development (Porej and
Hetherington 2005; Drayer and Richter 2016; Kozáková
and Rozínek 2021). Bank slopes should be less than 15:1
(Porej and Hetherington 2005). For amphibians, the water
depth should be less than 20 cm Drayer and Richter 2016),
but there should be deeper part because usually the water
column decreases over summer (Colburn 2004). At least
one pond for wintering, with a water depth of more than
1 m, should be present in the area (Kozáková and Rozínek
2021).
Temporary wetlands can be good foraging habitats for
breeding waterbirds, as shown for beaver ponds (Nummi
and Hahtola 2008), when they meet species foraging habitat
requirements. For dabbling ducks, such as mallards (Anas
platyrhynchos), the optimal water depth for feeding is less
than 50 cm (Behney 2014). Also, Pöysä (1983) states that
dabbling ducks and coots mainly use shallow habitat edges,
with depths from 20 cm to 40 cm, for foraging, while div-
ing ducks (e.g. Aythya sp.) and grebes (e.g. Podiceps sp.)
prefer central parts of the habitat with open and deep water,
with depths around 70 cm. Thus, varying the depth is impor-
tant because it attracts dierent species groups (Sebastián-
González and Green 2014). Moreover, deeper wetlands can
create suitable conditions for Amphipods and if they have
multi-year hydroperiod, also for water lilies (Nymphaea sp.,
Nuphar sp.). Water lilies provide habitats for many aquatic
invertebrates, so ducklings nd good foraging patches with
shelter (Fast et al. 2004). However, these features have
not been specically studied for constructed temporary
wetlands.
Constructed wetlands for improving waterbird breeding
success should ideally include islands, as these can attract
ground-nesting birds such as ducks and geese (Lokemoen
1993). The nest survival of ground-breeding ducks is often
higher on islands than inlands because there are less or no
mammalian predators (Hill 1984; Holopainen et al. 2015).
Landscape Connectivity
Many studies have shown that connectivity between wet-
lands is important. Connectivity reduces mortality dur-
ing movements and enhances the colonization of many
and waterbirds (Scheer et al. 2006; Hansson et al. 2010;
Thomaz and Cunha 2010). The eect of macrophyte struc-
tures has not been studied specically in man-made wet-
lands, but the discovered positive eect of macrophyte
vegetation on fauna most likely also applies to temporary
wetlands. Macrophyte vegetation provides both shelter
against predators and foraging habitats for aquatic inverte-
brates (Jeppesen et al. 1988; Streever et al. 1995; Bazzanti
and Della Bella 2004). Vegetated areas can contain higher
invertebrate levels, thus positively aecting waterfowl
for which invertebrates are an important source of protein
(Krull 1970). Moreover, many waterbirds use macrophyte
vegetation for nesting, e.g. ducks, swans (Cygnus sp.), coots
(Fulica sp.), and moorhens (Gallinula sp.), and it is also part
of the diets of Eurasian wigeons (Mareca penelope), gad-
walls (Mareca strepera), geese (Anser sp.), and swans (Batt
1992; Keller et al. 2020). For example, duckling plant food
consists of pondweed (Potamogeton sp.), duckweed (Lemna
sp.), and seeds (e.g. Carex spp., Scirpus spp.) (Chura 1961;
Collias and Collias 1963; Sugden 1973).
There are two approaches to introduce macrophyte veg-
etation to a created wetland site: leaving the introduction
to natural succession processes, such as dispersion and the
seed bank (Meeks 1969; Danell and Sjöberg 1982), or by
facilitating the process by initially planting macrophytes
that occur in the area (Chovanec 1994; Solimi et al. 2003;
Ruhí et al. 2012a). In restoration projects of temporary
wetlands aiming to recover wetland vegetation, sediment
transfer with a seed bank can be more eective than natu-
ral colonization (Nishihiro et al. 2006; Muller et al. 2013;
Rodrigo 2021). In the Prairie Pothole Region, most restored
temporary ponds were colonized by submerged and emer-
gent aquatic plants, but a sedge meadow zone typical for
the area was not established (Galatowitsch and van der Valk
1996).
Breeding ducks can benet from minimizing the pres-
ence of trees and shrubs in wetland surroundings (Kačergytė
et al. 2021). Regarding amphibians, some species, such as
the spring peeper (Pseudacris crucifer) and dusky gopher
frog (Rana sevosa), specically require open tree canopy
wetlands. A few species can occur in both closed and open
canopy cover habitats, e.g. the wood frog and the southern
leopard frog (Rana sphenocephala) (Skelly et al. 2002;
Thurgate and Pechmann 2007).
Morphologic Parameters
Substrate provides important feeding opportunities and
shelter for aquatic invertebrates (de Necker et al. 2023). Lit-
tle is known about the eect of substrate on invertebrates in
constructed temporary wetlands. One study from New Zea-
land, conducted in constructed temporary wetlands, found
1 3
Page 7 of 15 100
Wetlands (2024) 44:100
considered because articial materials, e.g. plastics and
concrete components, are pollutants for the environment
and can negatively aect bird health (Townsend and Barker
2014; Wang et al. 2021). Additionally, articial structures
can be ecological traps, as they can attract more predators
to the site, facilitate access to invasive species, or encour-
age birds to nest in habitats with poor food resources, for
example (Watchorn et al. 2022).
Monitoring and Management
Monitoring constructed temporary wetlands allows evalu-
ating their success and, when necessary, taking steps to
improve their eectiveness (Ausden and Hirons 2002).
Vernal pool monitoring should last at least ve years after
creation to evaluate their success in the longer run (Calhoun
et al. 2014).
Ongoing monitoring of wetland conditions also helps
to identify when site management is needed. Continuous
management is often necessary to maintain the long-term
functionality of constructed wetlands. When wetlands are
eutrophic, they tend to overgrow with vegetation and accu-
mulate sediment, which can gradually decrease their size;
thus, these wetlands can be restored by cutting overgrown
vegetation and removing sediment (Burrow and Lance
2022). For example, excavator work is needed every ve
years in Central Europe (Kozáková and Rozínek 2021). If
sh appear, they should be caught or — if possible — the
wetland should be drawn down and emptied (Aitto-Oja et
al. 2010). Small-sized temporary wetlands dry out naturally
(Keeley and Zedler 1998), but temporary wetlands with
long multi-year hydroperiods may need articial drawdown.
Hydroperiod and water level management in these wetlands
can help to restore habitat quality for invertebrates by add-
ing organic matter into the water (Fredrickson 1991; Kel-
ley et al. 1993). Alternatively, partial drawdown and shore
ooding can be performed periodically or when the organic
litter is exploited (Fredrickson and Reid 1988; Gathman and
Burton 2011). Moreover, the exposed wet substrate provides
feeding opportunities for waders (Sanders 2000).
It is possible to apply adaptive management and adjust
management actions according to learning through time
and environmental responses. However, this involves chal-
lenges, so its eciency has been discussed (Williams 2011).
Ideally, collaboration should occur between nature manag-
ers and scientists to evaluate the monitoring outcome and to
subsequently congure optimal management (Galatowitsch
and Bohnen 2021).
animal groups such as invertebrates (Cottenie 2005; Van De
Meutter et al. 2007), amphibians (Hecnar and M’Closkey
1996; Rothermel and Semlitsch 2002), and ducks (Pöysä
and Paasivaara 2006). The ecological network of wetlands
should be optimized to enhance migration and dispersion,
which can be achieved by creating/restoring corridors and
stepping-stone sites (Ma et al. 2022). Landscape connectiv-
ity often has a major eect on the viability of amphibian
populations (Cushman 2006), and wet breeding sites for
amphibians should therefore be connected to good terrestrial
frog habitats (Rothermel 2004). Connecting habitat should
have protective vegetation cover and should not have bar-
riers such as wide roads (Cushman 2006). Moreover, the
combination of temporary and permanent waterbodies at the
landscape level may be essential for fullling the ecologi-
cal requirements of various species, e.g. green frogs (Litho-
bates clamitans), bullfrogs (Lithobates catesbeianus), and
leopard frogs (Lithobates blairi/sphenocephalus complex)
require aquatic environment for wintering, and thus the area
should also include permanent ponds (Shulse et al. 2012).
Breeding ducks, again, use the environment based on
both landscape complementation and landscape supple-
mentation. In landscape complementation, patches provide
dierent resources needed for successful nesting and brood
rearing, whereas in landscape supplementation broods
move to the next patch with similar resources if the current
one is depleted (see Dunning et al. 1992; Nummi and Pöysä
1998; Paasivaara and Pöysä 2008; Sundell et al. 2023). Cor-
ridors, such as riparian areas and forestry ditches, leading
for example from a nesting pond to a brood-rearing tempo-
rary wetland, are considered important features for the safe
movements of ducklings (Hepp and Hair 1977; Pöysä and
Paasivaara 2006; Dyson et al. 2018).
Additional Structural Elements
The biodiversity of constructed temporary wetlands can be
supported by creating small elements that facilitate breeding
and wintering and provide shelter etc. for the animal groups
or species of interest. Aquatic invertebrates can prot from
dead wood placed in the water. It serves as a shelter, and
the invertebrates can also feed on biolms growing on the
dead wood surface (Hax and Golladay 1993). Concerning
amphibians, articial hibernacula enhance amphibian over-
wintering (Latham and Knowles 2008). Nesting boxes or
tubes enhance duck nesting at sites where suitable nesting
opportunities are limited (Dennis and Dow 1984; Pöysä and
Pöysä 2002). Vertical sandy banks can be created to sup-
port the nesting of colonial sand martins (Riparia riparia),
or building articial concrete block walls with pipes is
also possible (Hopkins and Ocer 2001). Nevertheless,
the design and use of these structures must be carefully
1 3
100 Page 8 of 15
Wetlands (2024) 44:100
CRediT– Contributor Roles Taxonomy (niso.org) as follows: MN, PN,
CA, SH Conceptualization; MN, PN Funding acquisition; MN Inves-
tigation; MN, CA, SH, AD Methodology; CA, SH Supervision; MN,
PN, CA, SH Writing– original draft; MN, CA, SH, PN, AD, US Writ-
ing– review & editing.
Funding Markéta Nummi’s work was supported by Haavikko-
säätiö, Céline Arzel by the Research Council of Finland (grant num-
ber: 333400), and Aurélie Davranche and Uma Sigdel by the Kone
Foundation for the POOL project (sites.utu./pool) (grant number:
202106013).
Open Access funding provided by University of Turku (including
Turku University Central Hospital).
Data Availability Data availability is not relevant for our manuscript,
because it is a review paper.
Declarations
Competing Interests The authors have no relevant nancial or non-
nancial interests to disclose.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format,
as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the
source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate
if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this
article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless
indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended
use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted
use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright
holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.
org/licenses/by/4.0/.
References
Aitto-Oja SK, Rautiainen M, Alhainen M, Svensberg M, Vään-
änen V-M, Nummi P, Nurmi J (2010) Riistakosteikko-opas.
Metsästäjäin Keskusjärjestö. (In Finnish)
Alhainen M, Niemelä T, Siekkinen J, Svensberg M, Kuittinen J,
Nurmi J, Väyrynen H, Rautiainen M, Väänänen V-M, Nummi
P, Berndtson S, Korkiakoski P (2015) Kosteikko-opas. Suomen
riistakeskus. (In Finnish) https://www.riistainfo./wp-content/
uploads/2023/09/kosteikko-opas-2015.pdf Accessed 08 August
2024
Alsila T, Elo M, Hakkari T, Kotiaho JS (2021) Eects of habitat res-
toration on peatland bird communities. Restor Ecol 29:e13304.
https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13304
Altermatt F, Ebert D (2010) Populations in small, ephemeral habitat
patches may drive dynamics in a Daphnia magna metapopulation.
Ecology 91:2975–2982. https://doi.org/10.1890/09-2016.1
Anderson G (1981) Inuence of sh on waterfowl in lakes. Anser
20:21–34
Ausden M, Hirons GJM (2002) Grassland nature reserves for breed-
ing wading birds in England and the implications for the ESA
agri-environment scheme. Biol Conserv 106:279–291. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(01)00254-3
Batt BD (ed) (1992) Ecology and Management of breeding Waterfowl.
University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis
Bazzanti M, Della Bella VD (2004) Functional feeding and habit
organization of macroinvertebrate communities in permanent
Conclusions
Temporary wetland construction, restoration, and man-
agement should be claried before taking any action, as
appropriate actions will dier depending on the target
organisms. However, our ndings show that an array of
habitat characteristics are commonly benecial for inver-
tebrates, amphibians, and ducks. All these species groups
prot from habitats that are established by ooding, have
luxuriant heterogenous macrophyte vegetation, and are sh-
less. It is essential to ensure a sucient food supply for each
animal group: organic matter for invertebrates and inverte-
brates for amphibians and breeding waterbirds. Constructed
temporary wetlands should have gradual shore slopes along
with sucient shallow patches and macrophyte vegetation
for invertebrates, amphibians, and waterbirds. Constructed
temporary wetlands with long hydroperiod (emulating bea-
ver oods) should preferably incorporate a deeper part for
diving ducks. The ideal would be to create at the landscape
scale a network of wetlands of dierent hydroperiods and
sizes to provide diverse living spaces for various organisms
and their requirements. A permanent wetland in the area is
also important for overwintering invertebrates and amphib-
ians. Ideally, the newly created temporary wetlands could be
connected to the existing network of wetlands.
A limiting factor for species occurrence in constructed
habitats may be that they lack important structures for
breeding and structures that provide shelter for organisms.
For example, adding dead wood to wetlands is benecial,
as it provides shelter to invertebrates and amphibians, and
nesting boxes can be installed for cavity-nesting birds.
Based on our review, we found that studies on con-
structed temporary wetlands have clear knowledge gaps.
In particular, many studies do not provide the hydroperiod
length of the studied temporary wetlands despite its impor-
tance in understanding species composition. Furthermore,
at present, a large fraction of management practices is only
mentioned in the “gray literature”. Specically, very little is
scientically published about the optimal substrate, macro-
phyte vegetation, and water depth of constructed temporary
wetlands. Moreover, there are studies evaluating how wet-
lands constructed for other purposes than biodiversity can
resemble natural wetlands in species composition. But there
is a lack of research on how constructed temporary wetlands
for biodiversity can perform other functions.
Supplementary Information The online version contains
supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-
024-01857-w.
Acknowledgements We thank Stella Thompson from the University
of Helsinki for her diligent proofreading of this paper.
Author Contributions Contributor roles are described according to
1 3
Page 9 of 15 100
Wetlands (2024) 44:100
Cottenie K (2005) Integrating environmental and spatial processes in
ecological community dynamics. Ecol Lett 8:1175–1182. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00820.x
Curado N, Hartel T, Arntzen JW (2011) Amphibian pond loss as a
function of landscape change–a case study over three decades in
an agricultural area of northern France. Biol Conserv 144:1610–
1618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.02.011
Cushman SA (2006) Eects of habitat loss and fragmentation on
amphibians: a review and prospectus. Biol Conserv 128:231–240.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2005.09.031
Czech HA, Parsons KC (2002) Agricultural wetlands and waterbirds:
a review. Waterbirds 56–65
Dalbeck L, Lüscher B, Ohlho D (2007) Beaver ponds as
habitat of amphibian community in a central European
highland. Amphibia-Reptilia 28:493–501. https://doi.
org/10.1163/156853807782152561
Danell K, Sjöberg K (1982) Successional patterns of plants, inverte-
brates and ducks in a man-made lake. J Appl Ecol 19:395–409.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2403475
Davis JB, Guillemain M, Kaminski RM, Arzel C, Eadie JM, Rees EC
(2014) Habitat and resource use by waterfowl in the northern
hemisphere in autumn and winter. Wildfowl 17–69
de Necker L, Dyamond K, Greeneld R, van Vuren J, Malherbe W
(2023) Aquatic invertebrate community structure and func-
tions within a Ramsar wetland of a premier conservation area in
South Africa. Ecol Indic 148:110135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolind.2023.110135
De-Campos AB, Huang CH, Johnston CT (2012) Biogeochemistry of
terrestrial soils as inuenced by short-term ooding. Biogeochem-
istry 111:239–252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-011-9639-2
Death R, Bowie S, O’Donnell C (2016) Vulnerability of freshwater
ecosystems due to climate change. Chapt 3 In: Robertson H,
Bowie S, Death R, Collins D (eds) Freshwater conservation under
a changing climate. Proceedings of a workshop hosted by the
Department of Conservation, 10–11 December 2013, Wellington.
Christchurch, Department of Conservation, pp 87
Dennis RH, Dow H (1984) The establishment of a population of Gold-
eneyes Bucephala clangula breeding in Scotland. Bird Study
31:217–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/00063658409476844
Dodd CK (ed) (2010) Amphibian ecology and conservation: a hand-
book of techniques. OUP Oxford
Dorn NJ (2008) Colonization and reproduction of large macroinverte-
brates are enhanced by drought-related sh reductions. Hydrobio-
logia 605:209–218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-008-9355-7
Downing JA The eect of habitat structure on the spatial distribution
of freshwater invertebrate populations. In: Bell SS, McCoy ED,
Mushinsky HR Habitat Structure. Population and Community
Biology Series, vol 8. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 87–106. https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3076-9_5
Drayer AN, Richter SC (2016) Physical wetland characteristics inu-
ence amphibian community composition dierently in con-
structed wetlands and natural wetlands. Ecol Eng 93:166–174.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2016.05.028
Dudgeon D (2010) Prospects for sustaining freshwater biodiver-
sity in the 21st century: linking ecosystem structure and func-
tion. Curr Opin Env Sust 2:422–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cosust.2010.09.001
Dunning JB, Danielson BJ, Pulliam HR (1992) Ecological processes
that aect populations in complex landscapes. Oikos 169–175.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3544901
Dyson ME, Schummer ML, Barney TS, Fedy BC, Henry HA, Petrie
SA (2018) Survival and habitat selection of wood duck duck-
lings. J Wildl Manag 82:1725–1735. https://doi.org/10.1002/
jwmg.21508
EC (2013) Interpretation manual of European Union habitats EUR 28.
April 2013. https://www.miteco.gob.es/content/dam/miteco/es/
and temporary ponds in central Italy. J Freshw Ecol 19:493–497.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02705060.2004.9664924
Bazzanti M, Grezzi F, Bella VD (2008) Chironomids (Diptera) of tem-
porary and permanent ponds in Central Italy: a neglected inver-
tebrate group in pond ecology and conservation. J Freshw Ecol
23:219–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/02705060.2008.9664194
Behney AC (2014) Foraging behavior of ducks during spring migra-
tion in the Wabash River Region, Illinois. Dissertation, Southern
Illinois University, Carbondale
Blanchet CC, Arzel C, Davranche A, Kahilainen KK, Secondi J, Tai-
pale S, Lindberg H, Loehr J, Manninen-Johansen S, Sundell J,
Maanan M, Nummi P (2022) Ecology and extent of freshwater
browning-what we know and what should be studied next in the
context of global change. Sci Total Environ 812:152420. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.152420
Boone MD, Semlitsch RD, Little EE, Doyle MC (2007) Multiple
stressors in amphibian communities: eects of chemical contami-
nation, bullfrogs, and sh. Ecol Appl 17:291–301. https://doi.
org/10.1890/1051-0761(2007)017[0291:MSIACE]2.0.CO;2
Broyer J (2009) Compared distribution within a disturbed shpond
ecosystem of breeding ducks and bird species indicators of
habitat quality. J Ornithol 150:761–768. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10336-009-0396-0
Burrow AK, Lance S (2022) Restoration of geographically isolated
wetlands: an Amphibian-Centric review of methods and eec-
tiveness. Diversity 14:879. https://doi.org/10.3390/d14100879
Calhoun AJ, DeMaynadier PG (2007) Science and conservation of
vernal pools in northeastern North America: ecology and conser-
vation of seasonal wetlands in northeastern North America. CRC,
Boca Raton, Florida
Calhoun AJ, Arrigoni J, Brooks RP, Hunter ML, Richter SC (2014) Cre-
ating successful vernal pools: a literature review and advice for
practitioners. Wetlands 34:1027–1038. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s13157-014-0556-8
Calhoun AJ, Mushet DM, Bell KP, Boix D, Fitzsimons JA, Isselin-
Nondedeu F (2017) Temporary wetlands: challenges and solu-
tions to conserving a ‘disappearing’ ecosystem. Biol Conserv
211:3–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.11.024
Callaway JC (2004) Restoring our national wetlands. In: Spray SL,
Mcglothlin KL (eds) Wetlands (exploring environmental chal-
lenges, a multidisciplinary approach). Rowman & Littleeld
Publishers, Inc., Lanham, Maryland, pp 55–83
Čehovská M, Kattainen S, Väänänen V-M, Putaala A, Nummi P (2022)
Compensating freshwater habitat loss—duck productivity and
food resources in man-made wetlands. Eur J Wildl Res 68:35.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-022-01577-8
Chovanec A (1994) Man-made wetlands in urban recreational areas—
a habitat for endangered species? Landsc Urban Plan 29:43–54.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-2046(93)00015-H
Chura NJ (1961) Food availability and preferences of juvenile mal-
lards. Trans North Am Wildl Nat Resour Conf 26:121–134
Coccia C, Vanschoenwinkel B, Brendonck L, Boyero L, Green AJ
(2016) Newly created ponds complement natural waterbodies
for restoration of macroinvertebrate assemblages. Freshw Biol
61:1640–1654. https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.12804
Colburn EA (2004) Vernal pools: natural history and conservation. The
McDonald and Woodward Publishing Company of Granville,
Ohio
Colburn EA, Weeks SC, Reed SK (2008) Diversity and ecology of ver-
nal pool invertebrates. In: Calhoun AJK, deMaynadier PG (eds)
Science and conservation of vernal pools in northeastern North
America. CRC, Boca Raton, Florida, pp 105–126
Collias NE, Collias EC (1963) Selective feeding by wild ducklings of
dierent species. Wilson Bull: 6–14
1 3
100 Page 10 of 15
Wetlands (2024) 44:100
Hepp GR, Hair JD (1977) Wood duck brood mobility and utilization
of beaver pond habitats. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of
Southeast Fish and Wildlife Agencies 31: 216–225
Hildebrandt A, Guillamo´n M, Lacorte S, Tauler R, Barcelo´ D (2008)
Impact of pesticides used in agriculture and vineyards to surface
and groundwater quality (North Spain). Water Res 42:3315–3326.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2008.04.009
Hill DA (1984) Factors aecting nest success in the mallard and tufted
duck. Ornis Scand 115–122. https://doi.org/10.2307/3675948
Hill DA, Wright RM, Street M (1987) Survival of Mallard ducklings,
Anas platyrhynchos and competition with sh for invertebrates
on a ooded gravel quarry. Engl Ibis 129:159–167. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1474-919X.1987.tb03197.x
Holopainen S, Nummi P, Pöysä H (2014) Sorsien lisääntymisaikainen
elinympäristön käyttö boreaalisilla järvillä: kasvillisuuden rak-
enteen, ravinnon ja majavatulvan vaikutukset. Suomen Riista
60:95–105 (In Finnish with English summary)
Holopainen S, Arzel C, Dessborn L, Elmberg J, Gunnarsson G, Nummi
P, Pöysä H, Sjöberg K (2015) Habitat use in ducks breeding in
boreal freshwater wetlands: a review. Eur J Wildl Res 61:339–
363. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-015-0921-9
Holopainen S, Miettinen E, Väänänen V-M, Nummi P, Pöysä H (2024)
Balancing between predation risk and food by boreal breeding
ducks. Ecol Evol 14:e11011. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.11011
Hood GA, Larson DG (2014) Beaver-created habitat heterogeneity
inuences aquatic invertebrate assemblages in boreal Canada.
Wetlands 34:19–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-013-0476-z
Hopkins L, Ocer AC (2001) Best practice guidelines. Articial Bank
Creation for Sand Martins and Kingshers. Environment agency,
Rotherham
James A, Binny RN, Lee WG, Payne J, Stringer N, Holland EP
(2019) Predicting water levels in ephemeral wetlands under
climate change scenarios. Theor Ecol 12:427–435. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s12080-019-0409-4
Jeppesen E, Lauridsen TL, Kairesalo T, Perrow MR (1998) Impact
of submerged macrophytes on sh-zooplankton interactions in
lakes. In: Jeppesen E, Søndergaard M, Søndergaard M, Christof-
fersen K (eds) The structuring role of submerged macrophytes
in Lakes. Ecological studies, vol 131. Springer, New York, pp
91–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-0695-8_5
Johnston CA (2017) Beavers: boreal ecosystem engineers. Springer,
Cham, Switzerland
Kačergytė I, Arlt D, Berg A, Żmihorski M, Knape J, Rosin ZM, Part
T (2021) Evaluating created wetlands for bird diversity and
reproductive success. Biol Conserv 257:109084. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109084
Kantrud HA, Stewart RE (1977) Use of natural basin wetlands by
breeding waterfowl in North Dakota. J Wildl Manage 243–253.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3800601
Karraker NE, Gibbs JP (2009) Amphibian production in forested land-
scapes in relation to wetland hydroperiod: a case study of vernal
pools and beaver ponds. Biol Conserv 142:2293–2302. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.05.002
Kats LB, Ferrer RP (2003) Alien predators and amphibian
declines: review of two decades of science and the transi-
tion to conservation. Divers Distrib 9:99–110. https://doi.
org/10.1046/j.1472-4642.2003.00013.x
Keeley JE, Zedler PH (1998) Characterization and global distribution
of vernal pools. In: Witham C, Bauder E, Belk D, Ferren W, Orn-
du R (eds) Ecology, conservation, and management of vernal
pool ecosystems– Proceedings from a 1996 Conference. Califor-
nia Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California, pp 1–14
Keller V, Herrando S, Voříšek P, Franch M, Kipson M, Milanesi P,
Martí D, Anton M, Klvaňová A, Kalyakin MV, Bauer H-G, Fop-
pen RPB (2020) European breeding Bird Atlas 2: distribution,
biodiversidad/temas/espacios-protegidos/doc_manual_intp_hab-
itat_ue_tcm30-207191.pdf Accessed 16 August 2024
Evans JP, Cecala KK, Scheers BR, Oldeld CA, Hollingshead NA,
Haskell DG, McKenzie BA (2017) Widespread degradation of a
vernal pool network in the southeastern United States: challenges
to current and future management. Wetlands 37:1093–1103.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-017-0943-z
Fast PL, Clark RG, Brook RW, Hines JE (2004) Patterns of wet-
land use by brood-rearing lesser scaup in northern boreal
forest of Canada. Waterbirds 27:177–182. https://doi.
org/10.1675/1524-4695(2004)027[0177:POWUBB]2.0.CO;2
Fredrickson LH (1991) Strategies for water level manipulations in
moist-soil systems. In: Cross DH, Paul Vohs P (eds) Waterfowl
Management Handbook. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Fish and
Wildlife Leaet 13.4.6
Fredrickson LH, Reid FA (1988) Invertebrate response to wetland
management. In: Cross DH, Paul Vohs P (eds) Waterfowl Man-
agement Handbook. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Fish and
Wildlife Leaet 13.3.1
Galatowitsch S, Bohnen J (2021) Long-term recovery of a
restored palustrine wetland: the role of monitoring and adap-
tive management. Wetlands 41:80. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s13157-021-01478-7
Galatowitsch SM, van der Valk AG (1996) Characteristics of recently
restored wetlands in the prairie pothole region. Wetlands 16:75–
83. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03160647
Gathman JP, Burton TM (2011) A great lakes coastal wetland inverte-
brate community gradient: relative inuence of ooding regime
and vegetation zonation. Wetlands 31:329–341. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s13157-010-0140-9
George S (2002) Conservation in America: State Government Incen-
tives for Habitat Conservation. A Status Report. Defenders of
Wildlife, USA. http://www.defenders.org/resources/publications/
programs_and_policy/biodiversity_partners/conservation_in_
america_state_proles.pdf. Accessed 20 April 2024
Gleason JE, Rooney RC (2018) Pond permanence is a key determinant
of aquatic macroinvertebrate community structure in wetlands.
Freshw Biol 63:264–277. https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.13057
Golet GH, Low C, Avery S, Andrews K, McColl CJ, Laney R, Reyn-
olds MD (2018) Using ricelands to provide temporary shorebird
habitat during migration. Ecol Appl 28:409–426. https://doi.
org/10.1002/eap.1658
Hansson LA, Nicolle A, Brönmark C, Hargeby A, Lindström Å,
Andersson G (2010) Waterfowl, macrophytes, and the clear water
state of shallow lakes. Hydrobiologia 646:101–109. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10750-010-0169-z
Hansson A, Pedersen E, Weisner SE (2012) Landowners’ incentives
for constructing wetlands in an agricultural area in south Swe-
den. J Environ Manag 113:271–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jenvman.2012.09.008
Hartel T, Nemes S, Cogălniceanu D, Öllerer K, Schweiger O, Moga
CI, Demeter L (2007) The eect of sh and aquatic habitat com-
plexity on amphibians. Hydrobiologia 583:173–182. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10750-006-0490-8
Hax CL, Golladay SW (1993) Macroinvertebrate colonization and
biolm development on leaves and wood in a boreal river.
Freshw Biol 29:79–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.1993.
tb00746.x
Hecnar SJ, M’Closkey RT (1996) Regional dynamics and the
status of amphibians. Ecology 77:2091–2097. https://doi.
org/10.2307/2265703
Heino J (2000) Lentic macroinvertebrate assemblage structure
along gradients in spatial heterogeneity, habitat size and water
chemistry. Hydrobiologia 418:229–242. https://doi.org/10.102
3/A:1003969217686
1 3
Page 11 of 15 100
Wetlands (2024) 44:100
Mauser DM, Jarvis RL, Gilmer DS (1994) Movements and habitat
use of mallard broods in northeastern California. J Wildl Manag
58:88–94. https://doi.org/10.2307/3809553
Mazerolle MJ, Poulin M, Lavoie C, Rochefort L, Desrochers A, Drolet
B (2006) Animal and vegetation patterns in natural and man-made
bog pools: implications for restoration. Freshw Biol 51:333–350.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2005.01480.x
Meeks RL (1969) The eect of drawdown date on wetland plant succes-
sion. J Wildl Manag 33:817–821. https://doi.org/10.2307/3799312
Merendino MT, Smith LM (1991) Inuence of Drawdown date and
Reood depth on Wetland Vegetation Establishment. Wildl
Soc Bull (1973–2006) 19:143–150. http://www.jstor.org/
stable/3782321
Minissale P, Sciandrello S (2016) Ecological features aect patterns of
plant communities in Mediterranean temporary rock pools. Plant
Biosyst 150:171–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/11263504.2014.98
6248
Mitchell ME, Newcomer-Johnson T, Christensen J, Crumpton W,
Richmond S, Dyson B, Caneld TJ, Helmers M, Lemke D,
Lechtenberg M, Green D, Forshay KJ (2022) Potential of water
quality wetlands to mitigate habitat losses from agricultural
drainage modernization. Sci Total Environ 838:156358. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.156358
Montgomery JS, Hopkinson C, Brisco B, Patterson S, Rood SB (2018)
Wetland hydroperiod classication in the western prairies using
multitemporal synthetic aperture radar. Hydrol Process 32:1476–
1490. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.11506
Mulkeen CJ, Gibson-Brabazon S, Carlin C, Williams CD, Healy MG,
Mackey P, Gormally MJ (2017) Habitat suitability assessment of
constructed wetlands for the smooth newt (Lissotriton vulgaris
[Linnaeus, 1758]): a comparison with natural wetlands. Ecol Eng
106:532–540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2017.06.005
Mulkeen CJ, Gormally MJ, Swaney WT, Healy MG, Williams CD
(2024) Sciomyzidae (Diptera) assemblages in constructed and
natural wetlands: implications for constructed wetland design.
Wetlands 44:5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-023-01759-3
Muller I, Buisson E, Mouronval J-B, Mesléard F (2013) Temporary
wetland restoration after rice cultivation: is soil transfer required
for aquatic plant colonization? Knowl Manag Aquat Ecosyst
411:03. https://doi.org/10.1051/kmae/2013067
Murkin HR (1989) The basis for food chains in prairie wetlands. In:
van der Valk AG (ed) Northern Prairie wetlands. Iowa State Uni-
versity, Ames, Iowa, pp 316–338
Musil P, Pichlová R, Veselý P, Cepák J (1997) Habitat selection by
waterfowl broods on intensively managed shponds in South
Bohemia (Czech Republic). In: Faragó S, Karekes J (eds) Proc.
Limnology and Waterfowl, Monitoring, Modelling and Manage-
ment. Workshop, Sarród/Sopron, Hungary, 21–23 November.
Wetlands International Publication 43: 169–175
Neustupa J, Stastny J, Woodard K (2023) Ecological monitoring of
disturbed mountain peatlands: an analysis based on desmids.
Biodivers Conserv 32:2671–2691. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10531-023-02624-9
Nilsson AN, Svensson BW (1994) Dytiscid predators and culicid prey
in two boreal snowmelt ponds diering in temperature and dura-
tion. Annu Zool Fenn 31:365–376
Nilsson AN, Svensson BW (1995) Assemblages of dytiscid predators
and culicid prey in relation to environmental factors in natural
and clear-cut boreal swamp forest pools. Hydrobiologia 308:183–
196. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00006870
Nishihiro J, Nishihiro MA, Washitani I (2006) Restoration of wetland
vegetation using soil seed banks: lessons from a project in Lake
Kasumigaura, Japan. Landsc Ecol Eng 2:171–176. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11355-006-0005-9
abundance and change. European Bird Census Council & Lynx
Edicions, Barcelona
Kelley JR, Laubhan MK, Reid FA, Wortham JS, Fredrickson LH
(1993) Options for water-level control in developed wetlands. In:
Cross DH (ed) Waterfowl Management Handbook. US Fish and
Wildlife Service, Fish and Wildlife Leaet 13.4.8. US Dept of the
Interior, Washington, DC
Kingsford RT, Basset A, Jackson L (2016) Wetlands: conservation’s
poor cousins. Aquat Conserv: Mar Freshw Ecosyst 26:892–916.
https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2709
Kivinen S, Nummi P, Kumpula T (2020) Beaver-induced spatio-
temporal patch dynamics aect landscape-level environmen-
tal heterogeneity. Environ Res Lett 15:094065. https://doi.
org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab9924
Knapp RA (2005) Eects of nonnative sh and habitat characteristics
on lentic herpetofauna in Yosemite National Park, USA. Biol Con-
serv 121:265–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2004.05.003
Kortelainen P, Saukkonen S, Mattsson T (1997) Leaching of nitrogen
from forested catchments in Finland. Global Biogeochem Cycles
11:627–638. https://doi.org/10.1029/97GB01961
Kozáková A, Rozínek R (2021) Tvorba drobných biotopů na podporu
obojživelníků a plazů. Project report: Divočina na hranici, num-
ber 21910254. (In Czech)
Krull JN (1970) Aquatic plant-macroinvertebrate associations
and waterfowl. J Wildl Manag 34:707–718. https://doi.
org/10.2307/3799135
Lahr J, Diallo AO, Ndour KB, Badji A, Diouf PS (1999) Phenology of
invertebrates living in a sahelian temporary pond. Hydrobiologia
405:189–205. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003879611584
Larmola T, Alm J, Juutinen S, Saarnio S, Martikainen PJN, Silvola
J (2004) Floods can cause large interannual dierences in litto-
ral net ecosystem productivity. Limnol Oceanogr 49:1896–1906.
https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.2004.49.5.1896
Larsen A, Larsen JR, Lane SN (2021) Dam builders and their works:
Beaver inuences on the structure and function of river cor-
ridor hydrology, geomorphology, biogeochemistry and eco-
systems. Earth Sci Rev 218:103623. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
earscirev.2021.103623
Latham D, Knowles M (2008) Assessing the use of articial hibernac-
ula by great crested newts Triturus cristatus and other amphib-
ians for habitat enhancement, Northumberland, England. Conserv
Evid 5:74–79
Leeper DA, Taylor BE (1998) Abundance, biomass, and production
of aquatic invertebrates in Rainbow Bay, a temporary wetland in
South Carolina, USA. Arch Hydrobiol 143:335–362
Li Q, Long Z, Wang H, Zhang G (2021) Functions of constructed
wetland animals in water environment protection–A critical
review. Sci Total Environ 760:144038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2020.144038
Lokemoen JT (1993) Increasing waterfowl nesting success on islands
and peninsulas. In: Cross DH, Paul Vohs P (eds) Waterfowl Man-
agement Handbook. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Fish and
Wildlife Leaet 13.2.11
Ma J, Yu Q, Wang H, Yang L, Wang R, Fang M (2022) Construction
and optimization of Wetland Landscape Ecological Network in
Dongying City, China. Land 11:1226. https://doi.org/10.3390/
land11081226
Magnus R, Rannap R (2019) Pond construction for threatened amphib-
ians is an important conservation tool, even in landscapes with
extant natural water bodies. Wetl Ecol Manag 27:323–341.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-019-09662-7
Martin GI, Kirkman LK, Hepinstall-Cymerman J (2012) Map-
ping geographically isolated wetlands in the Dougherty plain.
Ga USA Wetlands 32:149–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s13157-011-0263-7
1 3
100 Page 12 of 15
Wetlands (2024) 44:100
structuring of amphibian communities. Wetl Ecol Manag 13:445–
455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-004-0522-y
Pöysä H (1983) Resource utilization pattern and guild structure
in a waterfowl community. Oikos 40:295–307. https://doi.
org/10.2307/3544594
Pöysä H, Paasivaara A (2006) Movements and mortality of common gold-
eneye Bucephala clangula broods in a patchy environment. Oikos
115:33–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2006.0030-1299.15036.x
Pöysä H, Pöysä S (2002) Nest-site limitation and density dependence
of reproductive output in the common goldeneye Bucephala clan-
gula: implications for the management of cavity-nesting birds. J
Appl Ecol 39:502–510
Rajpar MN, Ahmad S, Zakaria M, Ahmad A, Guo X, Nabi G, Wanghe
K (2022) Articial wetlands as alternative habitat for a wide
range of waterbird species. Ecol Indic 138:108855. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.108855
Ramsar Convention on Wetlands (2018) Global Wetland Outlook:
state of the World’s wetlands and their services to people. Ramsar
Convention Secretariat, Gland
Regan EC, Skengton MS, Gormally MJ (2007) Wetland plant com-
munities of turloughs in southeast Galway/north Clare, Ireland
in relation to environmental factors. Aquat Bot 87:22–30. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.aquabot.2007.01.011
Reinecke KJ (1979) Feeding ecology and development of juvenile
black ducks in Maine. Auk 96:737–745. https://doi.org/10.1093/
auk/96.4.737
Remm L, Lõhmus A, Rannap R (2015) Temporary and small water-
bodies in human-impacted forests: an assessment in Estonia.
Boreal Environ Res 20:603–619
Reynolds MD, Sullivan BL, Hallstein E, Matsumoto S, Kelling S,
Merrield M, Fink D, Johnston A, Hochachka WM, Bruns NE,
Reiter ME, Veloz S, Hickey C, Elliott N, Martin L, Fitzpatrick
JW, Spraycar P, Golet GH, McColl C, Low C, Morrison SA
(2017) Dynamic conservation for migratory species. Sci Adv
3:e1700707. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1700707
Rodrigo MA (2021) Wetland restoration with hydrophytes: A review.
Plants: 10: 1035. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10061035
Romansic JM, Nelson NL, Moett KB, Piovia-Scott J (2021) Bea-
ver dams are associated with enhanced amphibian diversity
via lengthened hydroperiods and increased representation of
slow‐developing species. Freshw Biol 66:481–494. https://doi.
org/10.1111/fwb.13654
Rooney RC, Foote L, Krogman N, Pattison JK, Wilson MJ, Bayley SE
(2015) Replacing natural wetlands with stormwater management
facilities: biophysical and perceived social values. Water Res
73:17–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2014.12.035
Rosell F, Bozser O, Collen P, Parker H (2005) Ecological impact of
beavers Castor ber and Castor canadensis and their ability
to modify ecosystems. Mammal Rev 35:248–276. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1365-2907.2005.00067.x
Rothermel BB (2004) Migratory success of juveniles: a potential con-
straint on connectivity for pond-breeding amphibians. Ecol Appl
14:1535–1546. https://doi.org/10.1890/03-5206
Rothermel BB, Semlitsch RD (2002) An experimental investigation of
landscape resistance of forest versus old-eld habitats to emigrat-
ing juvenile amphibians. Conserv Biol 16:1324–1332. https://doi.
org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.01085.x
Ruhí A, Boix D, Sala J, Gascón S, Quintana XD (2009) Spatial and
temporal patterns of pioneer macrofauna in recently created
ponds, taxonomic and functional approaches. Hydrobiologia
634:137–151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-009-9896-4
Ruhí A, Herrmann J, Gascón S, Sala J, Geijer J, Boix D (2012a)
Change in biological traits and community structure of macroin-
vertebrates through primary succession in a man-made Swedish
wetland. Freshw Sci 31:22–37. https://doi.org/10.1899/11-018.1
Nummi P (1985) The role of invertebrates in the nutrition of dab-
bling ducks. Suomen Riista 32:43–49 (In Finnish with English
summary)
Nummi P (1989) Simulated eects of the beaver on vegetation, inver-
tebrates and ducks. Ann Zool Fenn 26:43–52
Nummi P, Hahtola A (2008) The beaver as an ecosystem engineer
facilitates teal breeding. Ecography 31:519–524. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.0906-7590.2008.05477.x
Nummi P, Holopainen S (2020) Restoring wetland biodiversity using
research: whole-community facilitation by beaver as framework.
Aquat Conserv: Mar Freshw Ecosyst 30:1798–1802. https://doi.
org/10.1002/aqc.3341
Nummi P, Pöysä H (1998) Key aspects of breeding habitats of the two
most important game ducks, mallard and teal. Acta Zool Litu
8:149–153. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.3341
Nummi P, Kattainen S, Ulander P, Hahtola A (2011) Bats benet from
beavers: a facilitative link between aquatic and terrestrial food
webs. Biodivers Conserv 20:851–859. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10531-010-9986-7
Nummi P, Väänänen V-M, Rask M, Nyberg K, Taskinen K (2012)
Competitive eects of sh in structurally simple habitats: perch,
invertebrates, and goldeneye in small boreal lakes. Aquat Sci
74:343–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00027-011-0225-4
Nummi P, Paasivaara A, Suhonen S, Pöysä H (2013) Wetland use
by brood-rearing female ducks in a boreal forest landscape:
the importance of food and habitat. Ibis 155:68–79. https://doi.
org/10.1111/ibi.12013
Nummi P, Väänänen V-M, Holopainen S, Pöysä H (2016) Duck-sh
competition in boreal lakes-a review. Ornis Fenn 93:67–76.
https://doi.org/10.51812/of.133889
Nummi P, Vehkaoja M, Pumpanen J, Ojala A (2018) Beavers aect
carbon biogeochemistry: both short-term and long‐term processes
are involved. Mammal Rev 48:298–311. https://doi.org/10.1111/
mam.12134
Nummi P, Arzel C, Sauramo V (2021a) Populations in stable and
variable habitats: Green and common sandpiper in a beaver-
inuenced landscape. Glob Ecol Conserv 28:e01678. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.gecco.2021.e01678
Nummi P, Liao W, van der Schoor J, Loehr J (2021b) Beaver cre-
ates early successional hotspots for water beetles. Biod Conserv
30:2655–2670. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-021-02213-8
Nummi P, Čehovská M, Kattainen S, Putaala A, Pitkänen J, Vään-
änen V-M (2022) Rakennetut Kosteikot Sorsien Ja Kahlaajien
pesimäympäristönä Suomessa. Suomen Riista 68:7–23 (in Finn-
ish with English summary)
Orizaola G, Brana F (2006) Eect of salmonid introduction and other
environmental characteristics on amphibian distribution and
abundance in mountain lakes of northern Spain. Anim Conserv
9:171–178. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2006.00023.x
Paasivaara A, Pöysä H (2008) Habitat-patch occupancy in the common
goldeneye (Bucephala clangula) at dierent stages of the breed-
ing cycle: implications to ecological processes in patchy environ-
ments. Can J Zool 86:744–755. https://doi.org/10.1139/Z08-051
Park KJ, Cristinacce A (2006) Use of sewage treatment works as forag-
ing sites by insectivorous bats. Anim Conserv 9:259–268. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2006.00031.x
Piczak ML, Perry D, Cooke SJ, Harrison I, Benitez S, Koning A, Peng
L, Limbu P, Smokorowski KE, Salinas-Rodriguez S, Koehn JD,
Creed IF (2023) Protecting and restoring habitats to benet fresh-
water biodiversity. Environ Rev 00:1–19. https://doi.org/10.1139/
er-2023-0034
Pierluissi S (2010) Breeding waterbirds in rice elds: a global review.
Waterbirds 33:123–132. https://doi.org/10.1675/063.033.s109
Porej D, Hetherington TE (2005) Designing wetlands for amphibians:
the importance of predatory sh and shallow littoral zones in
1 3
Page 13 of 15 100
Wetlands (2024) 44:100
Skelly DK, Freidenburg LK, Kiesecker JM (2002) Forest canopy and
the performance of larval amphibians. Ecology: 83: 983–992.
https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083[0983:FCATPO]2.0
.CO;2
Snodgrass JW, Mee GK (1998) Inuence of beavers on
stream sh assemblages: eects of pond age and water-
shed position. Ecology 79:928–942. https://doi.
org/10.1890/0012-9658(1998)079[0928:IOBOSF]2.0.CO;2
Stahlschmidt P, Pätzold A, Ressl L, Schulz R, Brühl CA (2012)
Constructed wetlands support bats in agricultural landscapes.
Basic Appl Ecol 13:196–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
baae.2012.02.001
Stewart RE, Kantrud HA (1971) Classication of natural ponds and
lakes in the glaciated prairie region. Resource Publication 92, US
Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife,
Washington
Streever WJ, Evans DL, Keenan CM (1995) Chironomidae (Diptera)
and vegetation in a created wetland and implications for sampling.
Wetlands 15:285–289. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03160708
Sugden LG (1973) Feeding ecology of pintail, gadwall, American wid-
geon and lesser scaup ducklings in southern Alberta. Canadian
Wildlife Service Report Series 24, Canadian Wildlife Service,
Department of Environment, Ottawa, Canada
Sundell J, Dixneuf C, Nummi P (2023) Kausikosteikot Lintujen Ja
nisäkkäiden elinympäristöinä. 69:7–19 (In Finnish with English
summary)
Talent LG, Krapu GL, Jarvis RL (1982) Habitat use by mallard broods
in south central North Dakota. J Wildl Manag 46:629–635.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3808553
Tarr TL, Baber MJ, Babbitt KJ (2005) Macroinvertebrate community
structure across a wetland hydroperiod gradient in southern New
Hampshire, USA. Wetl Ecol Manag 13:321–334. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11273-004-7525-6
Thomaz SM, Cunha ERD (2010) The role of macrophytes in habi-
tat structuring in aquatic ecosystems: methods of measurement,
causes and consequences on animal assemblages’ composition
and biodiversity. Acta Limnol Bras 22:218–236. https://doi.
org/10.4322/actalb.02202011
Thurgate NY, Pechmann JH (2007) Canopy closure, competition, and
the endangered dusky gopher frog. J Wildl Manag 71:1845–1852.
https://doi.org/10.2193/2005-586
Townsend AK, Barker CM (2014) Plastic and the nest entanglement
of urban and agricultural crows. PLoS ONE 9:1–5. https://doi.
org/10.1371/journal.pone.0088006
Väänänen V-M, Nummi P, Pöysä H, Rask M, Nyberg K (2012)
Fish–duck interactions in boreal lakes in Finland as reected by
abundance correlations. Hydrobiologia 697:85–93. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10750-012-1172-3
Van de Meutter F, De Meester L, Stoks R (2007) Metacommu-
nity structure of pond macroinvertebrates: eects of dispersal
mode and generation time. Ecology 88:1687–1695. https://doi.
org/10.1890/06-0333.1
Wang L, Nabi G, Yin L, Wang Y, Li S, Hao Z, Li D (2021) Birds and
plastic pollution: recent advances. Avian Res 12:59. https://doi.
org/10.1186/s40657-021-00293-2
Watchorn DJ, Cowan MA, Driscoll DA, Nimmo DG, Ashman KR,
Garkaklis MJ, Wilson BA, Doherty TS (2022) Articial habitat
structures for animal conservation: design and implementation,
risks and opportunities. Front Ecol Environ 20:301–309. https://
doi.org/10.1002/fee.2470
Wellborn GA, Skelly DK, Werner EE (1996) Mechanisms creating
structure across a freshwater habitat gradient. Ann Rev Ecol Syst
27:337–363. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.27.1.337
WFD (2000): Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and
of the Council of the 23 October 2000 establishing a framework
Ruhí A, San Sebastian O, Feo C, Franch M, Gascon S, Richter-Boix
A, Boix D, Llorente G (2012b) Man-made Mediterranean tempo-
rary ponds as a tool for amphibian conservation. Ann Limnol-Int
J Lim 48:81–93. https://doi.org/10.1051/limn/2011059
Runge CA, Martin TG, Possingham HP, Willis SG, Fuller RA (2014)
Conserving mobile species. Front Ecol Environ 12:395–402.
https://doi.org/10.1890/130237
Sanders MD (2000) Enhancing food supplies for waders: incon-
sistent eects of substratum manipulations on aquatic
invertebrate biomass. J Appl Ecol 37:66–76. https://doi.
org/10.1046/j.1365-2664.2000.00469.x
Sanuy D, Oromí N, Galofré A (2008) Eects of temperature on embry-
onic and larval development and growth in the natterjack toad
(Bufo calamita) in a semi-arid zone. Anim Biodivers Conserv
31:41–46. https://doi.org/10.32800/abc.2008.31.0041
Sayer CD, Biggs J, Greaves HM, Williams P (2023) Guide to the
restoration, creation and management of ponds. University Col-
lege London, London. https://norfolkponds.org/wp-content/
uploads/2023/10/guide_to_restoration_creation_management_
ponds.pdf Accessed 08 August 2024
Scheer M, Geest GJ, van Zimmer K, Jeppesen E, Sondergaard M,
Butler MG, Hanson MA, Declerck S, De Meester L (2006) Small
habitat size and isolation can promote species richness: second-
order eects on biodiversity in shallow lakes and ponds. Oikos
112:227–231. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0030-1299.2006.14145.x
Schlosser IJ, Kallemeyn LW (2000) Spatial variation in
sh assemblages across a beaver-inuenced succes-
sional landscape. Ecology 81:1371–1382. https://doi.
org/10.1890/0012-9658(2000)081[1371:SVIFAA]2.0.CO;2
Schneider DW, Frost TM (1996) Habitat duration and community
structure in temporary ponds. J N Am Benthol Soc 15:64–86
Schrank AJ, Resh SC, Previant WJ, Chimner RA (2015) Character-
ization and classication of vernal pool vegetation, soil, and
amphibians of pictured Rocks National Lakeshore. Am Midl Nat
174:161–179. https://doi.org/10.1674/0003-0031-174.1.161
Sebastián-González E, Green AJ (2014) Habitat use by waterbirds in
relation to pond size, water depth, and isolation: lessons from a
restoration in southern Spain. Restor Ecol 22:311–318. https://
doi.org/10.1111/rec.12078
Semeraro T, Giannuzzi C, Beccarisi L, Aretano R, De Marco A, Pasi-
meni MR, Zurlini G, Petrosillo I (2015) A constructed treatment
wetland as an opportunity to enhance biodiversity and ecosys-
tem services. Ecol Eng 82:517–526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecoleng.2015.05.042
Semlitsch RD (1988) Allotopic distribution of two salamanders: eects
of sh predation and competitive interactions. Copeia 2:290–298.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1445868
Semlitsch RD, Bodie JR (1998) Are small, isolated wetlands
expendable? Conserv Biol 12:1129–1133. https://doi.
org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1998.98166.x
Semlitsch RD, Skelly DK (2008) Ecology and conservation of pool-
breeding amphibians. Science and conservation of vernal pools
in northeastern North America. CRC, Boca Raton, Florida, pp
127–148
Serrano L, Fahd K (2005) Zooplankton communities across a
hydroperiod gradient of temporary ponds in the Donana
National Park (SW Spain). Wetlands 25:101–111. https://doi.
org/10.1672/0277-5212(2005)025[0101:ZCAAHG]2.0.CO;2
Sheehy Skengton M, Moran J, Connor O, Regan Á, Coxon E, Scott
CE, Gormally NE M (2006) Turloughs-Ireland’s unique wetland
habitat. Biol Conserv 133:265–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biocon.2006.06.019
Shulse CD, Semlitsch RD, Trauth KM, Gardner JE (2012) Testing
wetland features to increase amphibian reproductive success
and species richness for mitigation and restoration. Ecol Appl
22:1675–1688. https://doi.org/10.1890/11-0212.1
1 3
100 Page 14 of 15
Wetlands (2024) 44:100
Williams P, Whiteld M, Biggs J, Bray S, Fox G, Nicolet P, Sear D
(2004) Comparative biodiversity of rivers, streams, ditches
and ponds in an agricultural landscape in Southern Eng-
land. Biol Conserv 115:329–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0006-3207(03)00153-8
Williams C, Doherty O, Gormally M (2006) Gasterosteus aculeatus
L. and Pungitius pungitius (L.)-two species of stickleback from
turloughs in Cos Mayo and Roscommon. Ir Nat’ J 28:276–279.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/25536757
Wineld DK, Wineld IJ (1994) Possible competitive interactions
between overwintering tufted duck Aythya fuligula and sh popu-
lations of Lough Neagh, Northern Ireland: evidence from diet
studies. Hydrobiologia 279:377–386. https://doi.org/10.1007/
BF00027869
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to juris-
dictional claims in published maps and institutional aliations.
for Community action in the eld of water policy. Ocial Journal
L 327, 22 Dec. 2000
Wheeler BD, Money RP, Shaw S (2002) Freshwater wetlands. In: Per-
row MR, Davy AJ (eds) Handbook of ecological restoration 2.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 325–354
Wiegleb G, Dahms HU, Byeon WI, Choi G (2017) To what extent can
constructed wetlands enhance biodiversity. Int J Environ Sci Dev
8:561–569. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijesd.2017.8.8.1016
Williams DD (1997) Temporary ponds and their inverte-
brate communities. Aquat Conserv: Mar Freshw Eco-
syst 7(199706):105–117. https://doi.org/10.1002/
(SICI)1099-0755.::AID-AQC222>3.0.CO;2-K
Williams DD (2005) Temporary forest pools: can we see the water for
the trees? Wetl Ecol Manag 13:213–233. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11273-004-7517-6
Williams BK (2011) Passive and active adaptive management:
approaches and an example. J Environ Manag 92:1371–1378.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.10.039
1 3
Page 15 of 15 100
