Study

Assessing wetland mitigation efforts using standing vegetation and seed bank community structure in neighboring natural and compensatory wetlands in north-central Texas

  • Published source details Wall C.B. & Stevens K.J. (2015) Assessing wetland mitigation efforts using standing vegetation and seed bank community structure in neighboring natural and compensatory wetlands in north-central Texas. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 23, 149-166

Actions

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 2008–2009 of four floodplain wetlands in Texas, USA (Wall & Stevens 2014) found that created wetlands contained a different plant community to a natural wetland, with fewer wetland plant species. After 7–8 years, the plant community composition in the created wetlands was only 14–35% similar to the natural wetland. In three of four created wetlands, the proportion of wetland species was significantly lower (20–87%) than in the natural wetland (96%). Wetland plant species richness was lower in created than natural wetlands in seven of eight comparisons (for which created: 0.3–0.5 species/m2; natural: 2.0–3.3 species/m2; other comparison no difference). Total plant species showed mixed results depending on the wetland and year: similar in created and natural wetlands in four of eight comparisons (created: 2.0–4.5 species/m2; natural: 2.0–4.3 species/m2) lower in created wetlands in three comparisons (created: 0.5–2.8 species/m2; natural: 2.5–4.2 species/m2) and higher in created wetlands in one comparison (created: 3.8 species/m2; natural: 2.5 species/m2). For data on the presence/absence of individual plant species, see original paper. Methods: In summer/autumn 2008 and 2009, plant species were recorded in four created wetlands and one nearby natural wetland (sixty 1-m2 quadrats across all sites). The study does not clearly report the interventions used for wetland creation, but does note that culverts were installed in 2001 to allow water flow between the wetlands, and that no vegetation was introduced. However, the created wetlands were ephemerally flooded whilst the natural wetland was permanently flooded.

    (Summarised by: Nigel Taylor)

Output references

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, terrestrial 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