Study

Evaluation of created freshwater wetlands in Massachusetts

  • Published source details Jarman N.M., Dobberteen R.A., Windmiller B. & Lelito P.R. (1991) Evaluation of created freshwater wetlands in Massachusetts. Restoration & Management Notes, 9, 26-29

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Prune roots of trees/shrubs before planting: freshwater wetlands

Action Link
Marsh and Swamp Conservation

Restore/create freshwater marshes or swamps (multiple actions)

Action Link
Marsh and Swamp Conservation

Directly plant trees/shrubs: freshwater wetlands

Action Link
Marsh and Swamp Conservation
  1. Prune roots of trees/shrubs before planting: freshwater wetlands

    A replicated, controlled study in 1988–1990 in up to five created freshwater wetlands in eastern Massachusetts, USA (Jarman et al. 1991) reported that pruning the roots of red maple Acer rubrum saplings before planting increased their survival rate. Statistical significance was not assessed. After approximately 1–2 years, saplings with roots pruned “several months” before planting had a >75% survival rate, compared to <25% for unpruned saplings. Methods: In the late 1980s, red maple saplings saved from destroyed wetlands were planted in up to five newly created wetlands (excavated from uplands, connected to natural wetlands, planted with herbs and shrubs as well as red maple). The roots of some saplings were pruned before planting. The study does not report the number of saplings planted, the precise number of wetlands planted with red maple, or precise dates of planting and monitoring.

    (Summarised by: Nigel Taylor)

  2. Restore/create freshwater marshes or swamps (multiple actions)

    A replicated, paired, site comparison study in 1988–1990 involving six created freshwater wetlands in eastern Massachusetts, USA (Jarman et al. 1991) reported that they all developed vegetation cover within 1–2 years, with a similar plant species richness to adjacent natural wetlands but a distinct species composition. Statistical significance was not assessed. Created wetlands contained 9–20 plant species (vs natural: 13–23). The created and natural wetlands had 35–79% of plant species in common (average: 52%). All six created wetlands had >75% cover of native wetland vegetation. Woody plant cover was only 5–30%, suggesting herbaceous species were dominant (data not reported). Most adjacent natural wetlands, representing the target state, had a tree canopy with shrub and herb understory layers (not quantified). Red maple Acer rubrum seedlings were found in three of six created wetlands, at a density of 3–18/m2. Methods: In late 1990, vegetation was surveyed in six created wetlands (88–800 m2) and an unspecified number of adjacent natural wetlands. Surveys covered all woody vegetation and herbaceous vegetation in five 1-m2 quadrats/wetland. Wetland creation, in summer 1988 or 1989, involved excavating, creating “hydrological connections” to adjacent wetlands, adding wetland soil, planting wetland shrubs (six sites), herbs (five sites) or sods of vegetation (three sites), and sowing seeds of wetland herbs (one site).

    (Summarised by: Nigel Taylor)

  3. Directly plant trees/shrubs: freshwater wetlands

    A replicated study in 1988–1990 in up to five created freshwater wetlands in eastern Massachusetts, USA (Jarman et al. 1991) reported that survival of planted red maple Acer rubrum saplings depended on whether their roots were pruned. Statistical significance was not assessed. After approximately 1–2 years, the survival rate was >75% for saplings whose roots had been pruned “several months” before planting, but <25% for saplings whose roots had not been pruned. Methods: In the late 1980s, red maple saplings saved from destroyed wetlands were planted in up to five newly created wetlands (excavated from uplands, connected to natural wetlands, planted with herbs and shrubs as well as red maple). The roots of some saplings were pruned before planting. The study does not report the number of saplings planted, the precise number of wetlands planted with red maple, or precise dates of planting and monitoring.

    (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