Study

Plant and soil responses to salvaged marsh surface and organic matter amendments at a created wetland in central Pennsylvania

  • Published source details Stauffer A.L. & Brooks R.P. (1997) Plant and soil responses to salvaged marsh surface and organic matter amendments at a created wetland in central Pennsylvania. Wetlands, 17, 90-105.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Introduce fragments of non-woody plants: freshwater wetlands

Action Link
Marsh and Swamp Conservation

Reprofile/relandscape: freshwater marshes

Action Link
Marsh and Swamp Conservation

Add below-ground organic matter before/after planting non-woody plants: freshwater wetlands

Action Link
Marsh and Swamp Conservation

Transplant or replace wetland soil: freshwater marshes

Action Link
Marsh and Swamp Conservation
  1. Introduce fragments of non-woody plants: freshwater wetlands

    A replicated study in 1991–1992 in an excavated freshwater wetland in Pennsylvania, USA (Stauffer & Brooks 1997) reported that 38–79% of planted lurid sedge Carex lurida tubers survived over one growing season. Survival was 79% in plots with added leaf litter, but only 38% in plots without added leaf litter (see Action: Add below-ground organic matter before/after planting). Methods: In October 1991, lurid sedge tubers (number not reported) were transplanted from one wetland into a nearby recently excavated wetland (formerly cropland). The tubers were planted 10 cm deep into eight 6 x 6 m plots, then watered. Leaf litter was mixed into the surface of four plots before planting. Survival was last recorded in August 1992.

    (Summarised by: Nigel Taylor)

  2. Reprofile/relandscape: freshwater marshes

    A study in 1991–1992 of an excavated freshwater wetland in Pennsylvania, USA (Stauffer & Brooks 1997) reported that it developed vegetation cover, but mostly of upland plant species. After two growing seasons, there were 7 plant species/3 m2 in the excavated wetland. Vegetation cover was 45% and there were 86 plant stems/0.25 m2 (both higher, but not significantly, than after the first growing season). There was only 5% cover of wetland-characteristic plant species (vs 28% cover of species that usually grow in uplands). The overall plant community was more characteristic of upland than wetland conditions (data reported as a wetland indicator index). For data on the frequency of individual species, see original paper. Methods: In January 1991, a 1-m-deep basin was excavated in a formerly cropped floodplain. In the excavated wetland, the water table was 0.4–0.6 cm below the ground surface on average during the growing season. Vegetation was surveyed in August 1991 and 1992, in twelve 0.25-m2 quadrats in each of six 36-m2 plots.

    (Summarised by: Nigel Taylor)

  3. Add below-ground organic matter before/after planting non-woody plants: freshwater wetlands

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 1991–1992 in an excavated freshwater wetland in Pennsylvania, USA (Stauffer & Brooks 1997) found that amending plots with leaf litter before planting lurid sedge Carex lurida tubers increased their survival. After one growing season, planted lurid sedge had a 79% survival rate in amended plots, on average, compared to only 38% than in unamended plots. Methods: In October 1991, lurid sedge tubers (number not reported) were planted into eight 6 x 6 m plots in a recently excavated wetland (formerly cropland). A 15-cm-thick layer of composted leaf litter was mixed into the top 15 cm of four plots before planting. The other four plots were not amended with leaf litter, and the soil was left undisturbed. All tubers were dug from nearby wetlands, planted 10 cm deep, then watered. Survival was last recorded in August 1992.

    (Summarised by: Nigel Taylor)

  4. Transplant or replace wetland soil: freshwater marshes

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 1991–1992 in an excavated freshwater wetland in Pennsylvania, USA (Stauffer & Brooks 1997) found that plots amended with wetland soil contained a different plant community to unamended plots with more wetland-characteristic plants, greater overall vegetation cover and higher plant richness and diversity. After both one and two growing seasons, amended and unamended plots shared <14% of plant species. The plant community was more characteristic of wetland conditions in amended plots, although not significantly so (data reported as a wetland indicator index). Cover of wetland-characteristic plants was higher in amended plots (40–45%) than unamended plots (3–5%). Amended plots also had greater overall vegetation cover (amended: 83–96%; unamended: 27–45%), contained more plant species (amended: 15–19; unamended: 7 species/3 m2) and had higher plant diversity (data reported as a diversity index). Total stem density did not significantly differ between treatments (amended: 97–133; unamended: 78–86 stems/0.25 m2). For data on the frequency of individual species, see original paper. Methods: In May 1991, soil from the top 15 cm of a mature marsh was mixed into the surface of four 6 x 6 m plots in a recently excavated wetland. Four additional plots were not amended with wetland soil. Vegetation was surveyed in August 1991 and 1992, in twelve 0.25-m2 quadrats/plot.

    (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