Restored Wetlands in Mid-Atlantic Agricultural Landscapes Enhance Species Richness of Amphibian Assemblages

Mitchell, Joseph C.

doi:10.3996/092015-jfwm-085

Cited by 10 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 27 publications

(24 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In agricultural landscapes, breeding habitats are often completely surrounded by arable land (Berger, Pfeffer & Kalettka, 2011). Thus, amphibians regularly have to cross agricultural land during dispersal and seasonal migration (i.e., spring migration for reproduction) or for foraging and are therefore likely exposed to field cultivation measures (Becker et al, 2007; Lenhardt, Brühl & Berger, 2014; Joseph, 2016). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Amphibian population genetics in agricultural landscapes: does viniculture drive the population structuring of the European common frog (Rana temporaria)?

Lenhardt

Brühl

Leeb

et al. 2017

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Amphibian populations have been declining globally over the past decades. The intensification of agriculture, habitat loss, fragmentation of populations and toxic substances in the environment are considered as driving factors for this decline. Today, about 50% of the area of Germany is used for agriculture and is inhabited by a diverse variety of 20 amphibian species. Of these, 19 are exhibiting declining populations. Due to the protection status of native amphibian species, it is important to evaluate the effect of land use and associated stressors (such as road mortality and pesticide toxicity) on the genetic population structure of amphibians in agricultural landscapes. We investigated the effects of viniculture on the genetic differentiation of European common frog (Rana temporaria) populations in Southern Palatinate (Germany). We analyzed microsatellite data of ten loci from ten breeding pond populations located within viniculture landscape and in the adjacent forest block and compared these results with a previously developed landscape permeability model. We tested for significant correlation of genetic population differentiation and landscape elements, including land use as well as roads and their associated traffic intensity, to explain the genetic structure in the study area. Genetic differentiation among forest populations was significantly lower (median pairwise FST = 0.0041 at 5.39 km to 0.0159 at 9.40 km distance) than between viniculture populations (median pairwise FST = 0.0215 at 2.34 km to 0.0987 at 2.39 km distance). Our analyses rejected isolation by distance based on roads and associated traffic intensity as the sole explanation of the genetic differentiation and suggest that the viniculture landscape has to be considered as a limiting barrier for R. temporaria migration, partially confirming the isolation of breeding ponds predicted by the landscape permeability model. Therefore, arable land may act as a sink habitat, inhibiting genetic exchange and causing genetic differentiation of pond populations in agricultural areas. In viniculture, pesticides could be a driving factor for the observed genetic impoverishment, since pesticides are more frequently applied than any other management measure and can be highly toxic for terrestrial life stages of amphibians.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Amphibian population genetics in agricultural landscapes: does viniculture drive the population structuring of the European common frog (Rana temporaria)?

Lenhardt

Brühl

Leeb

et al. 2017

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…PCC plant samples were not taken in McFarland et al (2016) since there were few plants on PCCs during the sampling period (October to November of 2011). Natural wetlands were shown to have the highest amphibian species richness, but three wetland types did not indicate significant differences likely due to inadequate sampling data (Mitchell 2016). Additional assessments are needed to further explore the contribution of restored wetlands to amphibian abundance and biodiversity.…”

Section: Do Restored Wetlands Support Biodiversity Function?mentioning

confidence: 94%

“…The individual projects that compose the larger MIAR study have resulted in findings that can be used to best guide implementation of wetland restorations in the MIAR, but additional insights are gained through the synthesis of these studies. One key finding of this regional study is that populations of flora and fauna associated with restored wetlands in the region were slow to change toward the natural forested wetland condition (Yepsen et al 2014;Mitchell et al 2016). This may be due to unique ecosystem stressors, such as increased soil compaction associated with the restoration process inhibiting certain plant populations, or management decisions by the landowner, such as mowing the wetland buffer to prevent development of woody species populations (Yepsen et al 2014).…”

Section: Publicationmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Two of three studies concluded that restored wetlands were more similar to natural wetlands and stated that restored wetlands contributed to increases in plant and amphibian diversity (McFarland et al 2016;Mitchell 2016). Interestingly, a study by Yepsen et al (2014) concluded that succession of restored wetlands was toward neither natural wetlands nor PCCs, but restored wetlands were found to increase plant biodiversity.…”

Section: Do Restored Wetlands Support Biodiversity Function?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Overview of the USDA Mid-Atlantic Regional Wetland Conservation Effects Assessment Project

Lee¹,

McCarty²,

Lang³

et al. 2020

Journal of Soil and Water Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper provides an overview of studies conducted under the USDA Mid-Atlantic Regional Wetland Conservation Effects Assessment Project (MIAR study). Under the MIAR effort, numerous studies were conducted to (1) quantify ecosystem functions provided by restored wetlands by comparing functions within depressional nontidal wetlands with a varying degree of alteration (i.e., natural wetlands, restored wetlands, and prior converted croplands [PCCs]) and (2) develop tools for wetland monitoring and assessment. We present these studies after classifying them according to wetland functional (biodiversity, biogeochemical, and hydrologic) and tool development categories (remote sensing, hydrologic modeling, and geospatial analysis). Furthermore, we provide lessons from the MIAR study's findings for enhanced wetland conservation practices. Our overview demonstrates that restoration of wetlands contributes to enhancing wetland biodiversity, biogeochemical, and hydrologic functions in the Mid-Atlantic Region. Wetland monitoring tools that were developed as part of this study aid our understanding of wetland functions and the effect of restoration on those functions. Findings from these studies suggest that it is important to (1) establish long-term restoration plans; (2) minimize soil compaction during restoration; (3) increase wetland water storage capacity; (4) locate restored wetlands around natural wetlands to magnify restoration effects and improve water quality management; (5) consider the importance of shallow water and topography for supporting native plant species; (6) use landscape parameters for targeting and implementing restoration efforts; and (7) use wetland monitoring tools for precision management. This MIAR study provides scientific data to support wetland restoration activities and guidelines to foster the restoration of wetland-mediated ecosystem services.

show abstract

“…By increasing the number of habitat patches and reducing the distance between habitat patches, habitat quality of the wetland complex improves. This is not only beneficial for freshwater turtles, but for other wetland-associated species such as amphibians and waterfowl (Taft and Haig 2006;Petranka et al 2007;Peterman et al 2013;Mitchell 2016). Table 1 Model selection results for habitat and sampling variables tested as covariates for snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina) and painted turtle (Chrysemys picta) abundance (λ), detection probability (p), and Body Condition Index (BCI) at restored and reference wetlands in West Virginia, USA.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Habitat Suitability of Restored Wetlands and an Investigation of Sampling Bias for Freshwater Turtles in West Virginia

Gulette¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Loss and drainage of wetlands in the United States has been remediated in part by wetland restoration on agricultural lands through the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP), operated by the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Freshwater turtles are important components of wetland ecosystems, where they contribute to nutrient cycling, storage, and transfer between terrestrial and aquatic systems, and function as apex predators. In 2016 and 2017, we investigated use of wetlands restored through the ACEP program in West Virginia by two common freshwater turtle species, snapping turtles (Chelydra serpentina) and painted turtles (Chrysemys picta), and obtained comparative data from reference wetlands. Our objectives were to determine if abundances in ACEP wetlands differed from reference wetlands, and to delineate and quantify the effects of site-level and landscape-level habitat characteristics on turtle abundance and body condition. We found that painted turtle abundance was best predicted by surrounding wetland density and percent sand in soil, and snapping turtle abundance was best predicted by surrounding land use type. Painted turtle abundance was higher in restored compared to reference wetlands, but there was no significant difference in abundance of snapping turtles. The results of this study indicate that ACEP wetland habitat for our two focal freshwater turtle species is similar to surrounding wetlands associated with agricultural land. Our study also indicates that for wildlife that use wetland complexes, such as many freshwater turtles and amphibians, restoration of wetlands through the ACEP program likely improves habitat quality of the landscape where they occur by increasing the number of, and reducing the distance among, wetland habitat patches. During this study, we also investigated the influence of hoop-net trap size on number and size of captures for comparatively large (snapping turtle) and small (painted turtle) freshwater turtle species. We trapped turtles at 16 ACEP and 16 reference sites throughout West Virginia, with each site sampled for 5 consecutive days using 5 0.91-m diameter and 5 0.76-m diameter baited hoop-net traps. Larger diameter traps captured more snapping turtles and smaller diameter traps captured more painted turtles. Mean carapace length was greater in larger diameter traps for both species, but this result was possibly influenced by the ability of the smallest painted turtles to escape through the mesh of the larger traps. This study indicates that hoop-net trap diameter can substantially influence both number and size distribution of captures, and thus trap size is an important sampling design consideration for freshwater turtle research and monitoring using hoop-net traps.

show abstract

Restored Wetlands in Mid-Atlantic Agricultural Landscapes Enhance Species Richness of Amphibian Assemblages

Cited by 10 publications

References 27 publications

Amphibian population genetics in agricultural landscapes: does viniculture drive the population structuring of the European common frog (Rana temporaria)?

Amphibian population genetics in agricultural landscapes: does viniculture drive the population structuring of the European common frog (Rana temporaria)?

Overview of the USDA Mid-Atlantic Regional Wetland Conservation Effects Assessment Project

Habitat Suitability of Restored Wetlands and an Investigation of Sampling Bias for Freshwater Turtles in West Virginia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About