Wetlands

, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 75–83 | Cite as

Characteristics of recently restored wetlands in the prairie pothole region

  • Susan M. Galatowitsch
  • Arnold G. van der Valk
Article

Abstract

Between 1987 and 1991, 1892 prairie potholes were restored in northern Iowa, southern Minnesota, and southeastern South Dakota by state and federal agencies, most as part of the Conservation Reserve Program. The total area covered by these restored wetlands is approximately 2714 ha. Most restorations are small (less than 4 ha) wetlands with a seasonal hydrologic regime. Wetlands with an ephemeral/ temporary water regime are under-represented compared to their pre-drainage extent. Information on basin morphometry, hydrology, and vegetation-zone development was collected on 62 wetlands restored in 1988. Earthen dams are installed on most (73%) restorations in the region, increasing the full pool volume but not the mean depth of the basin. Overall, restored wetlands have basin morphometries that are comparable to those of similarly sized natural wetlands. About 60% of the basins had their predicted hydrology or held water longer than predicted. Nevertheless, about 20% of the projects that we examined were hydrologic failures and either never flooded or had significant structural problems. Most restored wetlands had developed emergent and submersed aquatic vegetation zones, but only a few, had developed wet prairie and sedge meadow vegetation zones.

Key Words

wetland restoration prairie potholes vegetation zonation ecological function Iowa Minnesota South Dakota hydric soils wetland hydrology 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Arndt, J.L. and J.L. Richardson. 1988. Hydrology, salinity, and hydric soil development in a North Dakota prairie pothole wetland system. Wetlands 8:94–108.Google Scholar
  2. Confer, S.R. and W.A. Niering. 1992. Comparison of created and natural freshwater emergent wetlands in Connecticut (USA) Wetlands Ecology and Management 2:143–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dahl, T.E. 1990. Wetlands, status and trends in the conterminous United States, mid 1970’s to mid 1980’s: first update of the national wetlands status report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  4. Delphey, P.J. and J.J. Dinsmore. 1993. Breeding bird communities of recently restored and natural prairie wetlands. Wetlands 13: 200–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Galatowitsch, S.M. 1993. Site selection, design criteria, and performance assessment for wetland restorations in the prairic pothole region. Ph.D. Dissertation, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA.Google Scholar
  6. Galatowitsch, S.M. and A.G. van der Valk. 1994. Restoring Prairie Wetlands: An Ecological Approach. Iowa State University Press, Ame, IA, USA.Google Scholar
  7. Galatowitsch, S.M. and A.G. van der Valk. 1995. Natural revegetation during restoration of wetlands in the southern prairie pothole region if North America. p. 129–142.In B.D. Wheeler, S.S. Shaw, W.J. Foyt, and R.A. Robertson (eds.) Restoration of Temperate Wetlands. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, England.Google Scholar
  8. Galatowitsch, S.M. and A.G. van der Valk. 1996. The vegetation of restored prairic wetlands. Ecological Applications 6:109–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Isenhart, T. 1992. Transformation and fate of non-point source nitrate loads in northern prairie wetlands. Ph.D. Dissertation, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA.Google Scholar
  10. Kantrud, 1989. Vegetation of wetlands of the prairie pothole region. p. 132–187.In A.G. van der Valk (ed.) Northern Prairie Wetlands. Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA, USA.Google Scholar
  11. Madsen, C.R. 1988. Wetland restoration in western Minnesota. p. 92–94In J. Zelazney and J.S. Feierabend (eds.) Increasing Our Wetland Resources. National Wildlife Federation, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  12. Mueller-Dumbois, D. and H. Ellenberg. 1974. Aims and methods of Vegetation Ecology. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  13. NCSS (National Cooperative Soil Survey). 1979. Houghton Series Description. U.S.D.A., Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  14. NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 1989. Weekly Climate Bulletin. Vol. 89/23 and Vol. 89/36. U.S. Department of Commerce, Climate Analysis Center, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  15. NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 1990. Weekly Climate Bulletin. Vol. 90/25 and Vol. 90/37. U.S. Department of Commerce, Climate Analysis Center, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  16. NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 1991 Weekly Climate Bulletin. Vol. 91/24 and Vol. 91/36 U.S. Department of Commerce, Climate Analysis Center, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  17. NRC (National Research Council Committee on Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems). 1992. Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  18. Neely, R.K. and J.L. Baker. 1989. Nitrogen and phosphorus dynamics and the fate of agricultural runoff. p. 92–131.In A.G. van der Valk (ed.) Northern Prairie Wetlands. Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA, USA.Google Scholar
  19. Onstad, C.A., M.R. Burkhart, and G.D. Bubenzer. 1991. Agricultural research to improve water quality. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 46:184–188.Google Scholar
  20. SCS (Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey Staff). 1975, Soil Taxonomy: A Basic System of Soil Classification for Making and Interpreting Soil Surveys. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook No. 436. Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  21. Stewart, R.E. and H.A. Kantrud. 1971. Classification of natural ponds and lakes in the glaciated prairie region. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Washington, DC, USA. Resource Publication 92.Google Scholar
  22. SURFER, 1985. SURFER (A Three Dimensional Computer Analysis Program). Golden Software, Inc., Golden, CO, USA.Google Scholar
  23. Taff, S.J. 1988. Minnesota’s RIM Reserve: how does it stack up against CRP? Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 43:82–84.Google Scholar
  24. Wenzel, T.A. 1989. Reinvest in Minnesota (RIM) Wetlands Restoration Program. p. 131–135.In National Symposium on Protection of Wetlands from Agricultural Impact. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Wetland Scientists 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susan M. Galatowitsch
    • 1
  • Arnold G. van der Valk
    • 2
  1. 1.Departments of Horticultural Science and Landscape ArchitectureUniversity of MinnesotaSt. Paul
  2. 2.Department of Botany and Iowa Lakeside LaboratoryIowa State UniversityAmes

Personalised recommendations