Influence of conservation programs on amphibians using seasonal wetlands in the Prairie Pothole region
-
Published source details
Balas C.J., Euliss N.H. & Mushet D.M. (2012) Influence of conservation programs on amphibians using seasonal wetlands in the Prairie Pothole region. Wetlands, 32, 333-345.
Published source details Balas C.J., Euliss N.H. & Mushet D.M. (2012) Influence of conservation programs on amphibians using seasonal wetlands in the Prairie Pothole region. Wetlands, 32, 333-345.
Actions
This study is summarised as evidence for the following.
| Action | Category | |
|---|---|---|
|
Replant vegetation Action Link |
 |
|
|
Restore wetland Action Link |
|
|
|
Raise water level to restore/create freshwater marshes from other land uses Action Link |
 |
-
Replant vegetation
A site comparison study in 2005–2006 of four restored wetlands in restored grasslands in the Prairie Pothole Region, USA (Balas, Euliss Jr. & Mushet 2012) found that wetlands within restored grasslands were used more frequently by amphibians than those within farmland, but not as much as those within native prairie grasslands. This was true for two frog, one toad and one salamander species. Four wetlands from each category were selected: farmed (drained with ditches), conservation grasslands (wetland hydrology restored, area reseeded with perennial grassland ≤ 10 years previously) and native prairie grasslands (natural). Call surveys, aquatic funnel traps and visual encounter surveys were undertaken biweekly in May–June 2005–2006.
-
Restore wetland
A replicated, site comparison study in 2005–2006 of four restored wetlands in restored grasslands in the Prairie Pothole Region, USA (Balas, Euliss Jr. & Mushet 2012) found that the restored wetlands were used more frequently by amphibians than wetlands within farmland, but not as much as natural wetlands within native prairie grasslands. This was true for two frog, one toad and one salamander species. Four wetlands from each category were selected: farmed (drained with ditches), conservation grasslands (wetland hydrology restored, area reseeded with perennial grassland ≤ 10 years previously) and native prairie grasslands (natural). Call surveys, aquatic funnel traps and visual encounter surveys were undertaken biweekly in May–June 2005–2006.
-
Raise water level to restore/create freshwater marshes from other land uses
A replicated, paired, site comparison study in 2006 of 36 depressions in the Midwest USA (Balas et al. 2012) found that rewetting historically farmed depressions (and re-seeding their catchments to grassland) increased vegetation quality, but not to the same level as in natural depressions. On average, the plant species in restored depressions were more characteristic of undisturbed habitats in the study region (Conservatism Score: 3.3 out of 10) than the plant species in depressions that remained drained and farmed (Conservatism Score: 1.2 out of 10). However, the species in restored depressions remained less characteristic of undisturbed habitats in the study region than the species in contemporary natural wetlands (Conservatism Score: 4.0 out of 10). Methods: In 2006, plant species were recorded within, and in a 10 m buffer around, 36 depressions. Twelve depressions (four at each of three sites) were under each land use: (a) restored wetlands: historically drained and farmed; restored ≥10 years ago by breaking/blocking drainage structures and reseeding surrounding land to grassland; (b) degraded depressions: still drained and farmed; (c) natural wetlands: never drained or farmed. Note that this study evaluates the combined effect of rewetting and revegetating catchments.
(Summarised by: Nigel Taylor)
