Study

Development of macrophytic vegetation in the Agmon Wetland of Israel by spontaneous colonization and reintroduction

  • Published source details Kaplan D., Oron T. & Gutman M. (1998) Development of macrophytic vegetation in the Agmon Wetland of Israel by spontaneous colonization and reintroduction. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 6, 143-150

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Use fences or barriers to protect freshwater wetlands planted with non-woody plants

Action Link
Marsh and Swamp Conservation

Directly plant non-woody plants: freshwater wetlands

Action Link
Marsh and Swamp Conservation

Raise water level to restore/create freshwater marshes from other land uses

Action Link
Marsh and Swamp Conservation
  1. Use fences or barriers to protect freshwater wetlands planted with non-woody plants

    A replicated, paired, controlled study in the mid-1990s in a reflooded freshwater wetland in Israel (Kaplan et al. 1998) reported that fencing off planted emergent vegetation to protect it from herbivores increased its survival. Statistical significance was not assessed. In four of four comparisons, protected plants had higher survival rates (17–75%) than unprotected plants (0–10%) after 12–18 months. Methods: Emergent wetland plants were introduced to recently rewetted cropland. Yellow flag iris Iris pseudacorus was planted into peat soils flooded with 30 cm of water. Sixteen iris plants were protected and 50 were not. Papyrus Cyperus papyrus was planted into wet, saturated or flooded mineral soils. Seventy-two papyrus plants were protected and 72 were not. Protection involved fencing with wire mesh (5 x 5 cm holes) and plastic netting (mesh size not reported), primarily to exclude nutria Myocastor coypus.

    (Summarised by: Nigel Taylor)

  2. Directly plant non-woody plants: freshwater wetlands

    A study in the mid-1990s in a reflooded freshwater wetland in Israel (Kaplan et al. 1998) reported variable survival of five planted emergent species. Three species were planted in saturated soils, without protection from herbivores. Survival rates were low for dwarf waterclover Marsilea minuta (0 of 12 alive eight months after planting) and flowering rush Butomus umbellatus (1 of 19 alive four months after planting). Cover of water purslane Ludwigia palustris increased from 0.2 m2 when planted to 1.8 m2 after 26 months. For the other two species survival rates depended on soil type, water depth and/or herbivore protection. For example, the highest survival of yellow flag iris Iris pseudacorus occurred in peat soils, in 30 cm of water and with herbivore protection (75% of 16 plants alive after 18 months). The highest survival of papyrus Cyperus papyrus occurred in peat soils, without standing water and without herbivore protection (86–89% of 36 plants alive after 12 months). Methods: Plants native to the study area were planted into recently rewetted cropland. The plants were sourced from nearby natural wetlands, botanical gardens or private collections. Some plants were protected from herbivores with wire mesh (5 x 5 cm holes) and plastic netting. The study does not report precise planting and survey dates.

    (Summarised by: Nigel Taylor)

  3. Raise water level to restore/create freshwater marshes from other land uses

    A study in 1994–1996 of rewetted cropland in Israel (Kaplan et al. 1998) reported that it was colonized by emergent (and aquatic) vegetation within two years. After two years, a total of 74 species had colonized the rewetted area. This included emergent and wet-meadow plants such as papyrus Cyperus papyrus, toad rush Juncus bufonius, purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria, lakeshore bulrush Scirpus litoralis, southern cattail Typha domingensis and water speedwell Veronica anagallis-aquatica. The total species count also included aquatic and upland species. Methods:  In 1994, part of the Hula Valley was rewetted to create Lake Agmon. The valley had been drained in the 1950s to create cropland. Each month for two years after rewetting, plant species were recorded in twenty-two 5 x 5 m quadrats, placed along transects perpendicular to the lake shoreline. The water depth in quadrats was 0–300 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