Vegetation, Invertebrate, and Wildlife Community Rankings and Habitat Analysis of Mitigation Wetlands in West Virginia

Abstract

Numerous efforts have been made in West Virginia to construct and restore compensatory wetlands as mitigation for natural wetlands destroyed through highway development, timbering, mining, and other human activities. Because such little effort has been made to evaluate these wetlands, there is a need to evaluate the success of these systems. The objective of this study was to determine if mitigation wetlands in West Virginia were adequately supporting ecological communities relative to naturally occurring reference wetlands and to attribute specific characteristics in wetland habitat with trends in wildlife abundance across wetlands. Specifically, avian and anuran communities, as well as habitat quality for eight wetland-dependent wildlife species were evaluated. To supplement this evaluation, vegetation and invertebrate communities also were assessed. Wetland ranks were assigned based on several parameters including richness, abundance, diversity, density, and biomass, depending on which taxa was being analyzed. Mitigation wetlands consistently scored better ranks than reference wetlands across all communities analyzed. Canonical correspondence analysis revealed no correlations between environmental variables and community data. However, trends relating wetland habitat characteristics to community structure were observed. These data stress the need to maintain specific habitat characteristics in mitigated wetlands that are compatible with wildlife colonization and proliferation.

Decomposition Trends of Five Plant Litter Types in Mitigated and Reference Wetlands in West Virginia, USA

“…Our results agree with Álvarez and Bécares (2006) who found similar decomposition rates when they compared broadleaf cattail in a constructed wetland in Spain with documented rates from natural wetlands. Our results also agree with Balcombe et al (2005a) who looked at biotic indicators of wetland function in West Virginia mitigated wetlands, including three of the wetlands used in this study, and found that they adequately supported ecological communities.…”

“…This offset in gain by wetland type leads to the question of whether wetland function is being created along with increased area, or if high-quality functional wetlands are being replaced by mitigated wetlands with reduced complexity and function. Race and Fonseca (1996) surveyed mitigation projects nationwide and found that the success rate of permit-linked mitigation projects was low overall, which agrees with other studies (Holland and Kentula 1992;Zedler and Callaway 1999;Robb 2002;Morgan and Roberts 2003), but not all (Shreffler et al 1992;Brusati et al 2001;Stanczak and Keiper 2004;Balcombe et al 2005a;Álvarez and Bécares 2006).…”

Winter Waterbird Community Composition and Use at Created Wetlands in West Virginia, USA

“…In addition, they found that waterbird and waterfowl abundance were higher in mitigation wetlands than reference wetlands. Balcombe et al [20] attempted to determine if mitigation wetlands in West Virginia were adequately supporting ecological communities relative to naturally occurring reference wetlands and to attribute specific characteristics in wetland habitat with trends in wildlife abundance across wetlands. They found that abundance of waterbirds at mitigated wetlands was affected by age, benthic invertebrate diversity, percent emergent vegetation, percent open water, size, and vegetation diversity.…”

“…They found that abundance of waterbirds at mitigated wetlands was affected by age, benthic invertebrate diversity, percent emergent vegetation, percent open water, size, and vegetation diversity. Furthermore, Balcombe et al [20] ranked mitigation wetlands consistently higher than reference wetlands.…”

“…In addition, Balcombe et al [19–21] compared aquatic macroinvertebrate, anuran, and breeding season avian assemblages in mitigation and reference wetlands. Although Balcombe et al [19, 20] found that the mitigation wetlands in their study provided quality habitat for wildlife, they do not all match the function and structure of natural or reference wetlands [22–26]. Thus, it is critical to assess and monitor how created and mitigated wetlands function in offering the same ecological services as natural or reference wetlands.…”