Study

Facilitating the restoration of aquatic plant communities in a Ramsar wetland

  • Published source details Jellinek S., Te T., Gehrig S.L., Stewart H. & Nicol J.M. (2016) Facilitating the restoration of aquatic plant communities in a Ramsar wetland. Restoration Ecology, 24, 528-537.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Directly plant non-woody plants: freshwater wetlands

Action Link
Marsh and Swamp Conservation

Directly plant non-woody plants: brackish/saline wetlands

Action Link
Marsh and Swamp Conservation
  1. Directly plant non-woody plants: freshwater wetlands

    A replicated, site comparison study in 2013–2015 around two fresh/brackish lakes in South Australia (Jellinek et al. 2016) found that planted stands of river club-rush Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani became more similar to mature natural stands over time – in terms of structure and rush abundance – and supported similar near-shore vegetation to the natural stands within 8 years. Older planted rush stands were more similar to mature natural stands in terms of stand width (young planted: 1–3 cm; old planted: 5–12 cm; natural: 35 cm), maximum height (young: 60–142 cm; old: 131–152 cm; natural: 155 cm) and stem density (data not reported). All stands were a similar average height (data not reported). Near-shore vegetation (i.e. between the rush stands and the shoreline) behind older planted rush stands was similar to that behind mature natural stands, whereas young planted stands supported similar near-shore vegetation to areas without rush stands. This was true for overall community composition (data reported as graphical analyses; statistical significance of differences not assessed), plant species richness (no rushes: 30; young: 45; old: 150; natural: 330 species/site) and abundance (no rushes: 940; young: 1,370; old: 14,000; natural: 31,300 plants/site). Methods: In autumn 2013–2015, vegetation was surveyed at 21 sites on the margins of two connected fresh/brackish lakes. Ten sites had been planted with nursery-reared rushes (1 m apart): six sites ≤3 years ago (young plantings) and four sites 8–11 years ago (old plantings). Three sites had mature natural rush stands (≥20 years old) and eight had no rushes. All sites were fenced to exclude livestock. Rush stands were surveyed in five 1-m2 quadrats/site/year. Other near-shore vegetation was surveyed in approximately thirty-six 3-m2 quadrats/site/year.

    (Summarised by: Nigel Taylor)

  2. Directly plant non-woody plants: brackish/saline wetlands

    A replicated, site comparison study in 2013–2015 around two fresh/brackish lakes in South Australia (Jellinek et al. 2016) found that planted stands of river club-rush Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani became more similar to mature natural stands over time – in terms of structure and rush abundance – and supported similar near-shore vegetation to the natural stands within 8 years. Older planted rush stands were more similar to mature natural stands in terms of stand width (young planted: 1–3 cm; old planted: 5–12 cm; natural: 35 cm), maximum height (young: 60–142 cm; old: 131–152 cm; natural: 155 cm) and stem density (data not reported). All stands were a similar average height (data not reported). Near-shore vegetation (i.e. between the rush stands and the shoreline) behind older planted rush stands was similar to that behind mature natural stands, whereas young planted stands supported similar near-shore vegetation to areas without rush stands. This was true for overall community composition (data reported as graphical analyses; statistical significance of differences not assessed), plant species richness (no rushes: 30; young: 45; old: 150; natural: 330 species/site) and abundance (no rushes: 940; young: 1,370; old: 14,000; natural: 31,300 plants/site). Methods: In autumn 2013–2015, vegetation was surveyed at 21 sites on the margins of two connected fresh/brackish lakes. Ten sites had been planted with nursery-reared rushes (1 m apart): six sites ≤3 years ago (young plantings) and four sites 8–11 years ago (old plantings). Three sites had mature natural rush stands (≥20 years old) and eight had no rushes. All sites were fenced to exclude livestock. Rush stands were surveyed in five 1-m2 quadrats/site/year. Other near-shore vegetation was surveyed in approximately thirty-six 3-m2 quadrats/site/year.

    (Summarised by: Nigel Taylor)

Output references
What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 18

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.


Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust