Study

Carbon storage by Carex stricta tussocks: a restorable ecosystem service?

  • Published source details Lawrence B.A. & Zedler J.B. (2013) Carbon storage by Carex stricta tussocks: a restorable ecosystem service?. Wetlands, 33, 483-493.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Use cutting to control problematic large trees/shrubs: freshwater marshes

Action Link
Marsh and Swamp Conservation

Remove surface soil/sediment: freshwater marshes

Action Link
Marsh and Swamp Conservation

Directly plant non-woody plants: freshwater wetlands

Action Link
Marsh and Swamp Conservation
  1. Use cutting to control problematic large trees/shrubs: freshwater marshes

    A site comparison study in 2008 of five sedge meadows in Illinois and Wisconsin, USA (Lawrence & Zedler 2013) found that a meadow restored by removing trees (and excess sediment, then planting tussock sedge Carex stricta) – contained more but smaller sedge tussocks than nearby natural meadows after 11–14 years. In four of four comparisons, the restored meadow contained a greater density of sedge tussocks (8.4 tussocks/m2) than natural meadows (4.5–5.6 tussocks/m2). Sedge tussocks were also smaller in the restored meadow than in the natural meadows. This was true in four of four comparisons for height (restored: 5 cm; natural: 11–18 cm), perimeter (restored: 39 cm; natural: 51–82 cm) and volume (restored: 560 cm3; natural: 2,342–6,604 cm3). The basal area of tussocks in the restored meadow was only 0.07 m2/m2, compared to 0.12–0.23 m2/m2 in the natural meadows (statistical significance not assessed). Methods: In 2008, sedge tussocks were surveyed in one restored and four natural sedge meadows (15–30 quadrats/meadow, each 1 m2). The restored meadow was formerly a wooded floodplain. Trees and accumulated sediment were removed, then plugs of tussock sedge planted 30 cm apart, between 1994 and 1997. The study does not distinguish between the effects of these interventions on any non-planted sedges.

    (Summarised by: Nigel Taylor)

  2. Remove surface soil/sediment: freshwater marshes

    A site comparison study in 2008 of five sedge meadows in Illinois and Wisconsin, USA (Lawrence & Zedler 2013) found that a meadow restored by removing excess sediment (and trees, then planting tussock sedge Carex stricta) – contained more but smaller sedge tussocks than nearby natural meadows after 11–14 years. In four of four comparisons, the restored meadow contained a greater density of sedge tussocks (8.4 tussocks/m2) than natural meadows (4.5–5.6 tussocks/m2). Sedge tussocks were also smaller in the restored meadow than in the natural meadows. This was true in four of four comparisons for height (restored: 5 cm; natural: 11–18 cm), perimeter (restored: 39 cm; natural: 51–82 cm) and volume (restored: 560 cm3; natural: 2,342–6,604 cm3). The basal area of tussocks in the restored meadow was only 0.07 m2/m2, compared to 0.12–0.23 m2/m2 in the natural meadows (statistical significance not assessed). Methods: In 2008, sedge tussocks were surveyed in one restored and four natural sedge meadows (15–30 quadrats/meadow, each 1 m2). The restored meadow was formerly a wooded floodplain. Trees and accumulated sediment were removed, then plugs of tussock sedge planted 30 cm apart, between 1994 and 1997. The study does not distinguish between the effects of these interventions on any non-planted sedges.

    (Summarised by: Nigel Taylor)

  3. Directly plant non-woody plants: freshwater wetlands

    A site comparison study in 2008 of five sedge meadows in Illinois and Wisconsin, USA (Lawrence & Zedler 2013) found that a restored meadow – planted with plugs of tussock sedge Carex stricta, after removing trees and excess sediment – contained more but smaller sedge tussocks than nearby natural meadows after 11–14 years. In four of four comparisons, the restored meadow contained a greater density of sedge tussocks (8.4 tussocks/m2) than natural meadows (4.5–5.6 tussocks/m2). Sedge tussocks were also smaller in the restored meadow than in the natural meadows. This was true in four of four comparisons for height (restored: 5 cm; natural: 11–18 cm), perimeter (restored: 39 cm; natural: 51–82 cm) and volume (restored: 560 cm3; natural: 2,342–6,604 cm3). The basal area of tussocks in the restored meadow was only 0.07 m2/m2, compared to 0.12–0.23 m2/m2 in the natural meadows (statistical significance not assessed). Methods: In 2008, sedge tussocks were surveyed in one restored and four natural sedge meadows (15–30 quadrats/meadow, each 1 m2). The restored meadow was formerly a wooded floodplain. Trees and accumulated sediment were removed, then plugs of tussock sedge planted 30 cm apart, between 1994 and 1997. The study does not distinguish between the effects of these interventions on any non-planted sedges.

    (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