Impacts of wetland restoration efforts on an amphibian assemblage in a multi-invader community
-
Published source details
Rowe J.C. & Garcia T.S. (2014) Impacts of wetland restoration efforts on an amphibian assemblage in a multi-invader community. Wetlands, 34, 141-153.
Published source details Rowe J.C. & Garcia T.S. (2014) Impacts of wetland restoration efforts on an amphibian assemblage in a multi-invader community. Wetlands, 34, 141-153.
Actions
This study is summarised as evidence for the following.
| Action | Category | |
|---|---|---|
|
Control problematic plants (specific intervention unclear): freshwater marshes or swamps Action Link |
 |
-
Control problematic plants (specific intervention unclear): freshwater marshes or swamps
A replicated, site comparison study in 2011 of 26 freshwater marshes in Oregon, USA (Rowe et al. 2014) found that marshes in which non-native plants were actively controlled had higher overall plant richness and diversity than marshes where non-native plants were not controlled, but similar overall vegetation cover. Controlled marshes contained more plant taxa (13 taxa/30 m2; 87 taxa across 18 marshes) than uncontrolled marshes (9 taxa/30 m2; 42 taxa across eight marshes). The same was true for plant diversity (data reported as a diversity index). Controlled marshes had statistically similar overall vegetation cover to uncontrolled marshes but lower cover of plants not native to Oregon (reported as statistical model results). The study also reported data on cover of individual plant species. For example, native spikerush Eleocharis sp. had greater cover in controlled marshes (13%, vs uncontrolled: 7%), whereas invasive reed canarygrass Phalaris arundinacea had lower cover in controlled marshes (8%, vs uncontrolled: 33%). Methods: In summer 2011, emergent vegetation was surveyed in 26 permanent and ephemeral marshes (0.08–14.7 ha). In each marsh, plant species and cover were recorded in thirty 1-m2 quadrats along transects from the shore to shallow water. Non-native plants had been actively controlled in 18 marshes (“intensive management” applied to >50% of the marsh at least twice in the past three years; no further details reported) but not in the other eight marshes (where the only management, if any, involved “minimal” control of the water level).
(Summarised by: Nigel Taylor)
)_2023.JPG)
