Floristic comparison of freshwater wetlands in an urbanizing environment

  • Published source details Magee T.K., Ernst T.L., Kentula M.E. & Dwire K.A. (1999) Floristic comparison of freshwater wetlands in an urbanizing environment. Wetlands, 19, 517-534.


This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Restore/create freshwater marshes or swamps (specific action unclear)

Action Link
Marsh and Swamp Conservation
  1. Restore/create freshwater marshes or swamps (specific action unclear)

    A replicated, site comparison study in 1993 of 96 freshwater wetlands in Oregon, USA (Magee et al. 1999) found that restored/created wetlands contained a different overall plant community to natural wetlands, with more plant species, after 1–11 years. The overall plant community composition differed significantly between restored/created and natural wetlands (data reported as graphical analyses). Although 220 of 365 recorded plant taxa occurred in both restored/created and natural wetlands, 86 occurred only in the former and 59 only in the latter. Amongst restored/created wetlands, the overall plant community composition changed over time: wetlands >3 years old contained a significantly different community to wetlands ≤3 years old. Finally, restored/created wetlands contained more plant species (overall: 41; native: 19; non-native: 19 species/wetland) than natural wetlands (overall: 30; native: 13; non-native: 15 species/wetland). For data on the frequency of some individual plant species, see original paper. Methods: In summer 1993, plant species were recorded in 96 wetlands (approximately fifty-seven 1-m2 quadrats/wetland). Fifty-one wetlands had been restored or created 1–11 years previously. The study does not report details of restoration/creation methods. Forty-five wetlands were naturally occurring. All wetlands were ≤2 ha in size and were dominated by wet meadows, emergent marshes, floating vegetation and/or open water. Restored/created wetlands were wetter than natural wetlands, with 52% of their area flooded during the growing season (vs 21% in natural wetlands).

    (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 21

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 ProgrammeRed List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Mauritian Wildlife Supporting Conservation Leaders
Sustainability Dashboard National Biodiversity Network Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust