Study

Functional analysis of a two-year-old created in-stream wetland: hydrology, phosphorus retention, and vegetation survival and growth

  • Published source details Niswander S.F. & Mitsch W.J. (1995) Functional analysis of a two-year-old created in-stream wetland: hydrology, phosphorus retention, and vegetation survival and growth. Wetlands, 15, 212-225.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Excavate freshwater pools

Action Link
Marsh and Swamp Conservation

Directly plant non-woody plants: freshwater wetlands

Action Link
Marsh and Swamp Conservation

Directly plant trees/shrubs: freshwater wetlands

Action Link
Marsh and Swamp Conservation
  1. Excavate freshwater pools

    A study in 1991–1993 of an excavated and planted freshwater wetland in Ohio, USA (Niswander & Mitsch 1995) reported that it developed vegetation cover, including 13 of 17 planted herb species, after 18 months. Eighteen months after planting, 50 herbaceous plant species were recorded in the marsh and wet meadow zones (vs 35 after six months and 44 after 15 months). Of these, 13 were planted species (12 emergent marsh and wet meadow species, plus one cover crop). The other 37 species had colonized spontaneously. No submerged vegetation was recorded within pools in the wetland. Methods: In autumn 1991, two connected wetland basins (6.1 ha total area) were excavated from former farmland. In spring 1992, seventeen wetland herb species (including three intended as cover crops) were planted into flooded and saturated areas of the basins. In autumn 1992, summer 1993 and autumn 1993, herbaceous plant species were recorded along six transects spanning the wetland. The study does not distinguish between the effects of excavation and planting on non-planted vegetation.

    (Summarised by: Nigel Taylor)

  2. Directly plant non-woody plants: freshwater wetlands

    A study in 1991–1993 of an excavated and planted freshwater wetland in Ohio, USA (Niswander & Mitsch 1995) reported that it developed vegetation cover, including 13 of 17 planted herb species, after 18 months. Eighteen months after planting, 50 herbaceous plant species were recorded in the marsh and wet meadow zones (vs 35 after six months and 44 after 15 months). Of these, 13 were planted species (12 emergent marsh and wet meadow species, plus one cover crop). The other 37 species had colonized spontaneously. No submerged vegetation was recorded within pools in the wetland. Methods: In spring 1992, seventeen wetland herb species (including three intended as cover crops) were planted into flooded and saturated areas of an excavated wetland (two connected basins; 6.1 ha total area; excavated from former farmland in autumn 1991). In autumn 1992, summer 1993 and autumn 1993, herbaceous plant species were recorded along six transects spanning the wetland. The study does not distinguish between the effects of planting and excavation on non-planted vegetation.

    (Summarised by: Nigel Taylor)

  3. Directly plant trees/shrubs: freshwater wetlands

    A study in 1992–1993 around the margins of an excavated freshwater wetland in Ohio, USA (Niswander & Mitsch 1995) reported that 96% of planted trees survived for 16 months. In contrast, almost all planted shrubby cinquefoil Potentilla fruticosa had died or was “very unhealthy”. Methods: In spring 1992, approximately 757 trees/shrubs were planted (4.6 m apart) into intermittently flooded land around two connected basins (6.1 ha total area) which had been excavated in autumn 1991. Ten different species were planted: two maples Acer spp., river birch Betula nigra, green hawthorn Crateagus viridis, green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica, sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua, black gum Nyssa sylvatica, pin oak Quercus palustris, arrowwood Viburnum recognitum and shrubby cinquefoil.

    (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