4.7 Article

Agricultural ewetland restorations on the USA Atlantic Coastal Plain achieve diverse native wetland plant communities but differ from natural wetlands

Journal

AGRICULTURE ECOSYSTEMS & ENVIRONMENT
Volume 197, Issue -, Pages 11-20

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.agee.2014.07.007

Keywords

Agriculture; Atlantic Coastal Plain; Floristic quality; Restoration; Vegetation; Wetland

Funding

  1. USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
  2. Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Wetland restoration is globally important for offsetting effects of wetland loss and degradation but is not consistently successful. Vegetation studies provide insight into the effectiveness of restoring wetland ecosystem functions. We compared plant community composition in 47 non-tidal wetlands under different management (natural, restored, and former wetlands that had been converted to cropland) in the Atlantic Coastal Plain of the USA. As expected, drained cropland sites were dominated by conventional upland row crops, had low species richness and evenness, and were highly disturbed. Plant communities in restored sites were more like natural sites based on the percentage of species that were native and hydrophytic, plant community evenness, and floristic quality. However, natural sites were forested, while restored and drained cropland sites were primarily herbaceous. Restored sites continued to be impacted by anthropogenic disturbance compared to natural sites. Our findings demonstrate that restored wetlands in agricultural settings can develop diverse native wetland plant communities within a decade but they remain very different from natural wetlands, raising questions about restoration goals, ecosystem service tradeoffs, and our ability to restore wetlands to ecological conditions found in reference sites. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available