Study

Algal assemblages in multiple habitats of restored and extant wetlands

  • Published source details Zheng L. & Stevenson R.J. (2006) Algal assemblages in multiple habitats of restored and extant wetlands. Hydrobiologia, 561, 221-238.

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 2000 of 45 freshwater marshes in Michigan, USA (Zheng & Stevenson 2006) found that restored marshes had lower cover of emergent vegetation and duckweed than natural marshes, a different community of algae growing on plants, and greater algal richness and diversity. The restored marshes were ≤15 years old. On average, restored marshes had lower vegetation cover than natural marshes. This was true for emergent canopy cover (restored: approx. 20%; natural: approx. 40%) and duckweed cover (restored: 36%; natural: 59%). The overall community composition of algae growing on plants differed significantly between restored and natural marshes, but the plankton and sediment algal communities did not (data reported as graphical analyses). Species richness of all three algal groups was statistically similar in restored marshes (9–30 taxa/marsh) and natural marshes (8–26 taxa/marsh). Phytoplankton biomass was also statistically similar in restored and natural marshes (data not reported). Methods: In July 2000, vegetation was surveyed in 25 restored marshes of varying age (restored ≤15 years ago) and 20 naturally occurring marshes. The study does not report details of restoration methods. All marshes were permanent or semi-permanent, surrounded by farmland, <2 ha in area and <2 m deep. Surveys included emergent vegetation, floating vegetation, phytoplankton (two samples/marsh from 10 cm below water surface), algae growing on plant stems (4–5 stems/marsh) and algae growing in the sediment (8 samples/marsh from the top 1 cm).

    (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