| Literature DB >> 26861409 |
Melissa Koontz1, Christopher Lundberg2, Robert Lane3, John Day4, Reza Pezeshki5.
Abstract
This research presents the initial results of the effects of hydrological restoration on forested wetlands in the Mississippi alluvial plain near Memphis, Tennessee. Measurements were carried out in a secondary channel, the Loosahatchie Chute, in which rock dikes were constructed in the 1960s to keep most flow in the main navigation channel. In 2008-2009, the dikes were notched to allow more flow into the secondary channel. Study sites were established based on relative distance downstream of the notched dikes. Additionally, a reference site was established north of the Loosahatchie Chute where the dikes remained unnotched. We compared various components of vegetation composition and productivity at sites in the riparian wetlands for two years. Salix nigra had the highest Importance Value at every site. Species with minor Importance Values were Celtis laevigata, Acer rubrum, and Plantanus occidentalis. Productivity increased more following the introduction of river water in affected sites compared to the reference. Aboveground net primary productivity was highest at the reference site (2926 ± 458.1 g·m(-2)·year(-1)), the intact site; however, there were greater increase at the sites in the Loosahatchie Chute, where measurements ranged from 1197.7 ± 160.0 g m(-2)·year(-1)·to 2874.2 ± 794.0 g·m(-2)·year(-1). The site furthest from the notching was the most affected. Pulsed inputs into these wetlands may enhance forested wetland productivity. Continued monitoring will quantify impacts of restored channel hydrology along the Mississippi River.Entities:
Keywords: Mississippi River; bottomland hardwood forest; wetland restoration; wetlands
Year: 2016 PMID: 26861409 PMCID: PMC4810167 DOI: 10.3390/biology5010010
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biology (Basel) ISSN: 2079-7737
Figure 1Map of site locations in relation to notched dikes on the Mississippi River. Sites are represented by red dots, and notches are green dashes.
Figure 2Aerial view of dikes notched near the (a) north end and (b) south end of the Loosahatchie Chute following restored flow to secondary channel complexes along the Mississippi River. Bridge in (b) is Interstate 40.
Coordinates and elevations of study field sites.
| Site | Latitude | Longitude | Elevation (m) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ref | 35°15′14.26″ N | 90°06′51.23″ W | 62.64 |
| Near | 35°12′00.04″ N | 90°04′34.55″ W | 61.75 |
| Mid | 35°11′05.04″ N | 90°05′14.56″ W | 61.84 |
| Far | 35°09′57.44″ N | 90°04′42.58″ W | 62.94 |
Figure 3Images of each of the sampling locations relative to notched winged dams near the Loosahatchie Bar on the Mississippi River.
Figure 4Mississippi River stage at Memphis, Tennessee, measured at the Weather Bureau Gage, where the National Weather Stage Gage height of 0 m is measured at an elevation of 56.1 m; this is based on older United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps and NGVD29 benchmarks. Flood stage is at a gage height of 10.4 m. This is river stage data from late January 2009 through January 2012. Sites are inundated at approximately 5.5 m, indicated by the solid line.
Figure 5Tagged trees (left) and leaf litter collection traps (right).
Regression equations used to convert diameter at breast height (DBH) measurements of trees to whole tree biomass.
| Species | y = f(DBH) | DBH Range | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Biomass(kg) = 10^((−1.5 + 2.78 × LOG10(DBHcm))) | n.a. | [ | |
| Biomass (kg) = ((2.39959 × ((DBHcm × 0.394)^2)^1.2003)) × 0.454 | 10–28 cm | [ | |
| Other Species | Biomass (kg) = ((2.54671 × ((DBHcm × 0.394)^2)^1.20138)) × 0.45 | 10–28 cm | [ |
Summary of average woody stem growth, litterfall, and total aboveground net primary productivity (NPP) per plot for restored forested wetlands along the Mississippi River. Each value is the mean for the measurements (±se). Sites with significant differences are identified by lowercase letters, a or b. This is calculated according to Tukey’s post-hoc analysis. Differences were considered significant at α < 0.05.
| Site | Plot Number | Year 2009–2010 (g·m−2·year−1) | Year 2010–2011 (g·m−2·year−1) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stem Growth | Litterfall | NPP | Stem Growth | Litterfall | NPP | ||
| Ref | 3 | 2105.1 ± 267.1 | 569.3 ± 75.4 | 2674.4 ± 192.6 a | 2383.4 ± 439.6 | 542.7 ± 26.5 b | 2926.1 ± 458.1 |
| Near | 3 | 595.2 ± 237.6 | 433.0 ± 60.5 | 1028.2 ± 280.8 b | 525.5 ± 195.8 | 672.2 ± 47.6 a,b | 1197.7 ± 160.0 |
| Mid | 3 | 1711.6 ± 395.8 | 734.5 ± 107.3 | 2446.1 ± 303.1 a,b | 1909.3 ± 374.6 | 786.0 ± 39.3 a | 2695.3 ± 357.9 |
| Far | 3 | 1419.2 ± 565.0 | 488.5 ± 29.0 | 1907.7 ± 564.8 a,b | 2031.1 ± 792.2 | 843.1 ± 57.0 a | 2874.2 ± 794.0 |
Figure 6Comparison of (a) stem growth; (b) litterfall; and (c) total aboveground net primary productivity (NPP) measured in g m−2·year−1 per plot for restored forested wetlands along the Mississippi River in the beginning of 2010 and 2011. Each value is the mean of the measurements (±se). Significant differences between years were not detected, according to paired sample t-test. Differences were considered significant at α < 0.05.
| Site | Species | Tree Density (Trees ha−1) | Basal Area (cm2·m−2) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | ||
| Ref | 298 | 298 | 293 | 3.26 | 3.47 | 3.67 | |
| Near | 533 | 528 | 496 | 0.63 | 0.76 | 0.86 | |
| Near | 10 | 10 | 10 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.02 | |
| Mid | 314 | 314 | 314 | 2.84 | 3.02 | 3.22 | |
| Mid | 5 | 5 | 5 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | |
| Far | 352 | 352 | 352 | 2.39 | 2.55 | 2.78 | |
| Far | 64 | 64 | 58 | 0.10 | 0.11 | 0.12 | |
| Far | 5 | 5 | 5 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.03 | |
| Site | Species | Relative Density | Relative Dominance | Importance Value | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | ||
| Ref | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 2 | 2 | 2 | |
| Near | 98% | 98% | 98% | 98.4% | 97.4% | 97.7% | 1.96 | 1.95 | 1.96 | |
| Near | 2% | 2% | 2% | 1.6% | 2.6% | 2.3% | 0.04 | 0.05 | 0.04 | |
| Mid | 98.3% | 98.3% | 98.3% | 99.6% | 99.7% | 99.7% | 1.98 | 1.98 | 1.98 | |
| Mid | 1.7% | 1.7% | 1.7% | 0.4% | 0.3% | 0.3% | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.02 | |
| Far | 83.5% | 83.5% | 84.6% | 95.2% | 95.2% | 94.9% | 1.79 | 1.79 | 1.80 | |
| Far | 15.2% | 15.2% | 14.1% | 4% | 4.1% | 4.1% | 0.19 | 0.19 | 0.18 | |
| Far | 1.3% | 1.3% | 1.3% | 0.8% | 0.7% | 1% | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.02 | |