Restoring fish habitat values on a tropical agricultural floodplain: Learning from two decades of aquatic invasive plant maintenance efforts

Waltham, Nathan J.; Coleman, Laura; Buelow, Christina; Fry, Scott; Burrows, Damien

doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2020.105355

Cited by 7 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 58 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Altered water regime and quality, loss of riparian vegetation, weed invasions Burrows (2004); Burrows and Butler (2007); Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority ( 2013 Perpetually turbid water in lower river Burrows (1999); Burrows and Butler (2007) Changing water regimes on floodplain Connolly et al (2012); Waltham et al (2019Waltham et al ( , 2020a; Tait (2021) Proposed impoundments Alterations to flow and connectivity Burrows (1999); Brizga et al (2006); SMEC (2018); Queensland Government (2021aGovernment ( , 2021bGovernment ( , 2021c Climate change Predicted extirpation of crayfish, fish and turtles James et al (2017); Barbarossa et al (2021) Predicted sea-level, temperature and hydrology changes in coastal wetlands Grieger et al (2020) apply through regulations on water quality or species protection, but may be ineffective, for example, for nesting turtles downstream of the Burdekin Falls Dam (Brizga et al 2006). More explicit conservation, especially of rivers, is warranted (Pearson et al 2021) and, recognising the current development status, could be applied to different extents to specified sections (Linke et al 2019).…”

Section: Major Pressure Deleterious Effects Example Referencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Enhancing whole-of-river conservation

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We argue for improved conservation of freshwater ecosystems at catchment or eco-regional scales by explicit assignment of values to all river sections and wetlands, recognising current disturbance, and aiming for ‘no further harm’ to the commons. The need is indicated by the global deterioration of biodiversity and ecosystem services of rivers and wetlands, increasing demands on water and land resources, and climate change. Regional pressures include multiple jurisdictions, competing demands, piecemeal management, pollution and habitat impacts. Effective resource and conservation management needs to integrate multiple uses via governance of activities of stakeholders, recognising hydrogeomorphic, water quality and ecological properties of ecosystems. Complete ecological protection is impractical amidst water-resource and land-use development, but we suggest that all river reaches and wetlands be given a conservation rating based on habitat, biodiversity and connectivity values. We present a straightforward approach to spatial conservation rating of freshwaters, using hydrogeomorphic typology and assignment of conservation values on the basis of available information and expert elicitation. We illustrate the approach by using the large Burdekin River catchment in north-eastern Australia. This approach is complementary to more spatially focused conservation prioritisation and could greatly improve management for sustainability, reduce further decline in conservation values, and facilitate rehabilitation.

show abstract

Section: Major Pressure Deleterious Effects Example Referencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Enhancing whole-of-river conservation

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The duration, timing and frequency that off‐channel wetlands sustain lateral connection to primary rivers is a determining factor in broader aquatic ecology and production (Hurd et al 2016, Galib et al 2018). In addition to connection, environmental conditions become important including water quality (Wallace et al 2015, Godfrey et al 2016, Waltham et al 2020b), access to shelter to escape predation, and available food resources (Jardine et al 2012). Managers are increasing efforts to restore wetland ecosystem values, though access to empirical data demonstrating success are limited, which becomes central when attempting to assess biodiversity return for the funding invested by government or private sector markets after implementing the action (Weinstein and Litvin 2016, Waltham et al 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Simple fence modification increases land movement prospects for freshwater turtles on floodplains

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Installing conservation fences to prohibit feral animal access to wetlands can become a barrier for non‐target species of interest. We collected 161 turtles (Chelodina rugosa, Emydura subglobosa worrelli, Myuchelys latisternum) from twenty floodplain and riverine wetlands during post‐wet (June–August) and late‐dry season (November–December) surveys (2015–2018) in northern Australia. Wetlands were fenced (150 × 150 mm square, 1.05 m high wire mesh) or unfenced around the wet perimeter. Ninety‐seven percent of individuals caught in either fenced or unfenced wetlands had a shell carapace width greater than mesh width, of these 44 (46%) were captured inside fenced wetlands, while 50 were caught in unfenced wetlands. The remaining 35 turtles were smaller than 150 mm and would likely pass easily through fence mesh. Sixty‐five turtles partook in a fencing manipulative experiment. Turtles with carapace widths wider than mesh often successfully escaped through fences by lifting one side of their shell and passing diagonally through the mesh. In a second experiment where a piece of vertical wire (1500 × 300 mm) was removed, turtles located ‘gates' after prospecting and fitting through meshing areas that were too small to pass. Ninety‐two percent of turtles were able to locate and pass through gates, while 8% failed to locate a gate after 2 h. Gates applied every 4 m showed an 83% passage rate, every 2 m was 91%, and every 1 m was 100%. Combing field and manipulative experiments revealed that large turtles will prospect and move along a fence until they find suitable passage, which has important consequences when considering that gates could be easily retrofitted to existing sites, as well in new fencing programs, which has enormous positive conservation benefits for turtles in an already challenging and changing floodplain environment.

show abstract

“…However, while wetlands provide carbon abatement services, their conversion from coastal wetlands to freshwater impounded wetlands affected ecosystem carbon balance, with increased N 2 O and CH 4 emissions by a factor of 7 and 200, respectively (Iram et al 2021). Furthermore, tidal bunds may also create a weed‐choked ecosystem, with poor water quality, requiring the implementation of expensive restoration and ongoing maintenance programs to reinstate their values and services (Abbott et al 2020; Waltham et al 2020). Coastal wetlands impoundment alters wetlands functions through a shift in salinity and vegetation communities (Roman et al 1984; Portnoy 1999).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tidal restoration to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from freshwater impounded coastal wetlands

Cadier

Waltham

Canning

et al. 2022

Restoration Ecology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Freshwater impounded wetlands are created by artificially restricting coastal wetlands connection to tides. The decrease in salinity and altered hydrology can significantly increase greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, specifically methane (CH 4 ). Restoration of freshwater impounded wetlands through tidal reintroduction can potentially reduce GHG emissions; however, studies in tropical regions are scare. This study investigates the potential for tidal restoration of impounded freshwater coastal wetlands by comparing their GHG emissions with tidally connected mangrove and saltmarshes in the Burdekin catchment in Queensland, Australia. We found that freshwater impounded wetlands had significantly higher CH 4 emissions (3,633 AE 812 μg CH 4 m À2 hour À1 ) than mangroves (27 AE 8 μg CH 4 m À2 hour À1 ) and saltmarsh (13 AE 8 μg CH 4 m À2 hour À1 ). Soil redox, moisture, carbon, nitrogen, and bulk density were all significantly correlated to methane emissions. Conversely, freshwater impounded wetlands had significantly lower nitrous oxide (N 2 O) emissions (À0.72 AE 0.18 μg N 2 O m À2 hour À1 ) than mangroves and saltmarsh (0.35 AE 0.29 and 1.32 AE 0.52 μg N 2 O m À2 hour À1 respectively). Nevertheless, when converting to CO 2 equivalents (CO 2-eq ), freshwater impounded wetlands emitted 91 AE 20 g CO 2-eq m À2 hour À1 , compared to the much lower 0.8 AE 0.2 and 0.7 AE 0.2 g CO 2-eq m À2 hour À1 emission rates for mangroves and saltmarsh. In conclusion, restoration of freshwater impounded wetlands through tidal restoration is likely to result in reduced GHG emissions.

show abstract

Restoring fish habitat values on a tropical agricultural floodplain: Learning from two decades of aquatic invasive plant maintenance efforts

Cited by 7 publications

References 58 publications

Enhancing whole-of-river conservation

Enhancing whole-of-river conservation

Simple fence modification increases land movement prospects for freshwater turtles on floodplains

Tidal restoration to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from freshwater impounded coastal wetlands

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About