Study

A comparison of natural and created depressional wetlands in central Oklahoma using metrics from indices of biological integrity

  • Published source details Hartzell D., Bidwell J.R. & Davis C.A. (2007) A comparison of natural and created depressional wetlands in central Oklahoma using metrics from indices of biological integrity. Wetlands, 27, 794-805.

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 2004–2005 of 18 freshwater marshes in Oklahoma, USA (Hartzell et al. 2007) found that created marshes contained a greater proportion of perennial plant species than natural marshes, but that other vegetation metrics were similar in created and natural marshes. After >20 years, 94% of the plant species in created marshes were perennial – significantly greater than the 78% of perennial species in natural marshes. All other vegetation metrics were statistically similar in each type of marsh. These included taxonomic richness (created: 6.9; natural: 6.9 taxa/marsh), taxonomic diversity (data reported as a diversity index), proportion of wetland-characteristic species (created: 77%; natural: 67%), vegetation quality (data reported as an index based on how characteristic each plant species is of undisturbed local habitats) and percent cover of the dominant species (created: 55%; natural: 49%). Methods: In summer 2004 and 2005, herbaceous plant species and their cover were recorded in six created wetlands (>20 years old; identified based on the presence of a dam or levee, and soil characteristics) and 12 natural wetlands. All wetlands were <1.1 ha. The study does not report further details of wetland creation methods. The created wetlands had deeper, less turbid water than the natural wetlands and were typically flooded for longer. Vegetation was surveyed in four 0.5-m2 quadrats/broad vegetation type/wetland/year.

    (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