Wetland management strategies lead to tradeoffs in ecological structure and function

Abstract

Peralta, AL, et al. 2018 Wetland management strategies lead to tradeoffs in ecological structure and function. Elem Sci Anth 5: 74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.253 RESEARCH ARTICLEWetland management strategies lead to tradeoffs in ecological structure and function Ariane L. Peralta * , Mario E. Muscarella † and Jeffrey W. Matthews ‡ Anthropogenic legacy effects often occur as a consequence of land use change or land management and can leave behind long-lasting changes to ecosystem structure and function. This legacy is described as a memory in the form of ecological structure or ecological interactions that remains at a location from a previous condition. We examined how forested floodplain restoration strategy, based on planting intensity, influenced wetland community structure and soil chemical and physical factors after 15 years. The site was divided into 15 strips, and strips were assigned to one of five restoration treatments: plantings of acorns, 2-year-old seedlings, 5-ft bareroot trees, balled and burlapped trees, and natural seed bank regeneration. Our community composition survey revealed that plots planted with bareroot or balled and burlapped trees developed closed tree canopies with little herbaceous understory, while acorn plantings and natural colonization plots developed into dense stands of the invasive species reed canary grass (RCG; Phalaris arundinacea). Restoration strategy influenced bacterial community composition but to a lesser degree compared to the plant community response, and riverine hydrology and restoration strategy influenced wetland soil conditions. Soil ammonium concentrations and pH were similar across all wetland restoration treatments, while total organic carbon was highest in forest and RCG-dominated plots compared to mixed patches of trees and open areas. The differences in restoration strategy and associated economic investment resulted in ecological tradeoffs. The upfront investment in larger, more mature trees (i.e., bareroot, balled and burlapped) led to floodplain forested communities, while cheaper, more passive planting strategies (i.e., seedlings, seedbank, or acorns) resulted in dense stands of invasive RCG, despite the similar floodplain hydrology across all sites. Therefore, recovery of multiple ecosystem services that encompass plant and microbial-derived functions will need to include additional strategies for the recovery of plants, microbes, environment, and functions.

Need to Seed? Ecological, Genetic, and Evolutionary Keys to Seed-Based Wetland Restoration

“…If restoration goals FIGURE 2 | For each step of seed-based wetland restoration, significant revegetation challenges persist and there are numerous opportunities for future research directions. 1 (Broadhurst et al, 2008); 2 (Merritt and Dixon, 2011); 3 (Basey et al, 2015); 4 ; 5 (Suding, 2011); 6 (Butterfield et al, 2017); 7 (Havens et al, 2015); 8 (Hufford and Mazer, 2003); 9 (Broadhurst et al, 2016); 10 (James et al, 2011); 11 (Hess et al, 2019); 12 (Holl and Aide, 2011); 13 (Byun et al, 2013); 14 (Doherty et al, 2011); 15 (Oliver et al, 2015); 16 (Kettenring et al, 2019b); 17 (McKay et al, 2005); 18 (White et al, 2018); 19 (Walck et al, 2011); 20 (Peralta et al, 2017); 21 (Tilley and Hoag, 2006); 22 (Unsworth et al, 2019); 23 (Larson and Funk, 2016); 24 (Zirbel and Brudvig, 2020); 25 (Daniel et al, 2019); 26 (Cleland et al, 2015); 27 (Reinhardt Adams and ; 28 (van Katwijk et al, 2016); 29 (Smith-Cartwright and Chow-Fraser, 2011); 30 (Taddeo and Dronova, 2020).…”

“…Microbial communities may be able to be restored with effective management of invasive species dominance (Peralta et al, 2017) or hydrologic connectivity that can inoculate the site with diverse soil microbes (Peralta et al, 2010). Legacy effects on microbial communities that arise from invasive species dominance may be linked to time since invasion; thus, prioritizing restoration to areas more recently invaded (i.e., less alteration of microbial communities) could result in better restoration outcomes (Keyport et al, 2019).…”

“…Thus, more research is needed to determine how these legacies (and their interactions) influence the recruitment of native wetland plants via seed (Figure 2). Follow-up monitoring and tracking of wetland restoration sites should extend beyond the typical requirements for mandated monitoring in order to accurately assess legacy effects on the appropriate time-scale (section "Monitoring"; Ardón et al, 2010;Peralta et al, 2017).…”

“…Seed-based approaches are less expensive and more logistically feasible in treating larger areas than other wetland revegetation techniques (e.g., planting plugs, transplanting rhizomes, and installing sod mats) despite the high cost of native seed (Godefroid et al, 2011;Merritt and Dixon, 2011;Broadhurst et al, 2016;Nevill et al, 2018). However, seeding results can be unpredictable and mortality high Primack, 2000, 2012;Tilley and Hoag, 2006;Godefroid et al, 2011;Peralta et al, 2017;Matthews et al, 2019;Sloey and Hester, 2019;Greet et al, 2020). The seed and seedling stages of plants are a demographic bottleneck and often few seeds survive to become seedlings (Figure 1; Leck et al, 2008;Palma and Laurance, 2015).…”

Wetland Characteristics and Wintering Passerellidae Occupancy on Agricultural Conservation Easement Program Wetlands in West Virginia

“…Wetlands enrolled in ACEP are designed to require little ongoing maintenance once they are restored, therefore in West Virginia they are passively managed to eliminate costs to the landowner. Because of this passive management, ACEP wetlands could be more susceptible to invasive plant establishment without active invasive species control (Smith et al 2016, Peralta et al 2017.…”