Literature DB >> 20014581

Trajectories of vegetation-based indicators used to assess wetland restoration progress.

Jeffrey W Matthews1, Greg Spyreas, Anton G Endress.   

Abstract

Temporal trends in attributes of restored ecosystems have been described conceptually as restoration trajectories. Measures describing the maturity or ecological integrity of a restoration site are often assumed to follow monotonically increasing trajectories over time and to eventually reach an asymptote representative of a reference ecosystem. This assumption of simple, predictable restoration trajectories underpins federal and state policies in the United States that mandate wetland restoration as compensation for wetlands damaged during development. We evaluated the validity of this assumption by tracking changes in 11 indicators of floristic integrity, often used to determine legal compliance, in 29 mitigation wetlands. Each indicator was expressed as a percentile relative to the distribution of that indicator among > 100 naturally occurring reference wetlands. Nonlinear regression was used to fit two alternative restoration trajectories to data from each site: an asymptotic (negative exponential) increase in the indicator over time and a peaked (double exponential) relationship. Depending on the particular indicator, between 48% and 76% of sites displayed trends that were at least moderately well described (R2 > 0.5) by one of the two models. Floristic indicators based on species richness, including native richness, number of native genera, and the floristic quality index, rapidly increased to asymptotes exceeding levels in a majority of reference wetlands. In contrast, indicators based on species composition, including mean coefficient of conservatism and relative importance of perennial species, increased very slowly. Thus, some indicators of restoration progress followed increasing trajectories and achieved or surpassed levels equivalent to high-quality reference sites within five years, whereas others appeared destined to either not reach equivalency or to take much longer than mitigation wetlands are typically monitored. Finally, some indicators of restoration progress, such as relative importance of native species, often increased over the first five to 10 years and then declined, which would result in a misleading assessment of progress if based on typical time scales of monitoring. Therefore, the assumption of simple, rapid, and predictable restoration trajectories that underlies wetland mitigation policy is unrealistic.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 20014581     DOI: 10.1890/08-1371.1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ecol Appl        ISSN: 1051-0761            Impact factor:   4.657


  10 in total

1.  Soil properties predict plant community development of mitigation wetlands created in the Virginia Piedmont, USA.

Authors:  Suzanne M Dee; Changwoo Ahn
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2012-03-25       Impact factor: 3.266

2.  An Assessment of Long-Term Compliance with Performance Standards in Compensatory Mitigation Wetlands.

Authors:  Kyle Van den Bosch; Jeffrey W Matthews
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2016-12-16       Impact factor: 3.266

3.  Model application niche analysis: Assessing the transferability and generalizability of ecological models.

Authors:  J B Moon; T H DeWitt; M N Errend; R J F Bruins; M E Kentula; S J Chamberlain; M S Fennessy; K J Naithani
Journal:  Ecosphere       Date:  2017-10-20       Impact factor: 3.171

4.  Soil Bacterial and Fungal Communities Show Distinct Recovery Patterns during Forest Ecosystem Restoration.

Authors:  Shan Sun; Song Li; Bethany N Avera; Brian D Strahm; Brian D Badgley
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2017-06-30       Impact factor: 4.792

5.  Vegetative ecological characteristics of restored reed (Phragmites australis) wetlands in the Yellow River Delta, China.

Authors:  Xuehong Wang; Junbao Yu; Di Zhou; Hongfang Dong; Yunzhao Li; Qianxin Lin; Bo Guan; Yongli Wang
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2011-10-04       Impact factor: 3.266

6.  Scale and Sampling Effects on Floristic Quality.

Authors:  Greg Spyreas
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-08-04       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Recovery of plant communities after ecological restoration of forestry-drained peatlands.

Authors:  Tuomas Haapalehto; Riikka Juutinen; Santtu Kareksela; Markku Kuitunen; Teemu Tahvanainen; Hilja Vuori; Janne S Kotiaho
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2017-08-29       Impact factor: 2.912

8.  Productive wetlands restored for carbon sequestration quickly become net CO2 sinks with site-level factors driving uptake variability.

Authors:  Alex C Valach; Kuno Kasak; Kyle S Hemes; Tyler L Anthony; Iryna Dronova; Sophie Taddeo; Whendee L Silver; Daphne Szutu; Joseph Verfaillie; Dennis D Baldocchi
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-03-25       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Ecology of Floristic Quality Assessment: testing for correlations between coefficients of conservatism, species traits and mycorrhizal responsiveness.

Authors:  Jonathan T Bauer; Liz Koziol; James D Bever
Journal:  AoB Plants       Date:  2017-12-21       Impact factor: 3.276

10.  Dramatic long-term restoration of an oak woodland due to multiple, sustained management treatments.

Authors:  Karen Glennemeier; Stephen Packard; Greg Spyreas
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-10-23       Impact factor: 3.240

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.