Advertisement

Urban Ecosystems

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 663–684 | Cite as

Disentangling the effects of wetland cover and urban development on quality of remaining wetlands

Article

Abstract

Effective landscape management decisions require knowledge of the relative effects of landscape variables on ecological responses, so that the most important landscape variables can be targeted for management. The relative effects of wetland cover and urbanization on remaining wetland quality are poorly understood because of correlations between these landscape variables. We determined the relative effects of wetland cover and urbanization on wetland quality by selecting a set of focal wetlands in which the percentages of the surrounding landscape in wetland cover and impervious cover were uncorrelated, at multiple spatial scales (extents). Wetland quality was inferred through abundance, taxa richness and taxa composition measures of vegetation and benthic macroinvertebrates. We found that reduced wetland cover was more detrimental than urbanization to remaining wetland quality, at least within the ranges of wetland cover (0 to 10%) and impervious cover (0 to 22%) in our study. In addition, we found that the spatial scale of these effects was large, in an area within 0.8 to 1.8 km of the wetlands. Our results indicate that policies aimed at reducing the impacts of urbanization around remaining wetlands will be only partly successful. Wetland management policies should also include wetland restoration in the landscape. Furthermore, our results indicate that management actions limited to buffer areas within tens of metres of wetlands will be only partly successful, because the influences of wetland cover and impervious cover on wetland quality extend much farther (0.8–1.8 km from wetlands). Policies applied to the whole landscape are needed.

Keywords

Landscape composition Habitat loss Wetland loss Multi-scale analysis Urban wetlands Wetland degradation Wetland integrity 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank L. Koponen, S. Turney and K. Seguin for their help with the fieldwork, the private landowners for granting us permission to sample on their properties, and all member of the GLEL for their support. We are also grateful to A. Morin, N. Cappuccino, and C. Boutin for their assistance, and to S. Declerck and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on a previous draft. This work was supported by a Natural Sciences and Engineering Council of Canada (NSERC) grant to L.F. and scholarship to T.P and an Ontario Graduate Scholarship to T.P.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

This work conforms to the ethical standards of Urban Ecosystems. We have no conflicts of interest and the work did not involve human participants. The species sampled were plants and invertebrates.

Supplementary material

11252_2015_440_MOESM1_ESM.docx (337 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 336 kb)
11252_2015_440_MOESM2_ESM.docx (34 kb)
ESM 2 (DOCX 34 kb)

References

  1. Akasaka M, Takamura N, Mitsuhashi H, Kadono Y (2010) Effects of land use on aquatic macrophyte diversity and water quality of ponds. Freshw Biol 55:909–922CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alsfeld A, Bowman J, Deller-Jacobs A (2010) The influence of landscape composition on the biotic community of constructed depressional wetlands. Restor Ecol 18:370–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andreas BK, Mack JJ, McCormac JS (2004) Floristic Quality Assessment Index (FQAI) for vascular plants and mosses for the State of Ohio. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface Water, Wetland Ecology Group, Columbus, Ohio. 219 pGoogle Scholar
  4. Borgmann K, Rodewald A (2005) Forest restoration in urbanizing landscapes: interactions between land uses and exotic shrubs. Restor Ecol 13:334–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boskiacka B, Pieńkowski P (2012) Do biogeographic parameters matter? plant species richness and distribution of macrophytes in relation to area and isolation of ponds in NW polish agricultural landscape. Hydrobiologia 689:79–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brazner JC, Danz NP, Trebitz AS, Niemi GJ, Regal RR, Hollenhorst T et al (2007) Responsiveness of great lakes wetland indicators to human disturbances at multiple spatial scales: a multi-assemblage assessment. J Great Lakes Res 33:42–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brennan J, Bender D J, Conteras T, Fahrig L (2002) Focal patch landscape studies for wildlife management: optimizing sampling effort across scales. In: Liu J and Taylor WW (eds)Google Scholar
  8. Capers RS, Selsky R, Bugbee GJ (2010) The relative importance of local conditions and regional processes in structuring aquatic plant communities. Freshw Biol 55:952–966CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Colwell RK, Chao A, Gotelli NJ, Lin S-Y, Mao CX, Chazdon RL, Longino JT (2012) Models and estimators linking individual-based and sample-based rarefaction, extrapolation, and comparison of assemblages. J Plant Ecol 5:3–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. R Core Team (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL http://www.R-project.org/
  11. Crow G, Hellquist C (2000) Aquatic and wetland plants of northeastern North America. The University of Wisconsin Press, MadisonGoogle Scholar
  12. Cuthbert I, del Giorgio P (1992) Toward a standard method of measuring color in freshwater. Limnol Oceanogr 37:1319–1326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dahl TE (1990) Wetlands losses in the United States 1780‘s to 1980’s. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. Online: http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/wetlands/wetloss/index.htm (Version 16JUL97)
  14. Declerck S, De Bie T, Ercken D, Hampel H, Schrijvers S, Van Wichelen J et al (2006) Ecological characteristic’s of small farmland ponds: associations with land use practices at multiple spatial scales. Biol Conserv 131:523–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Detenbeck N, Johnston C, Niemi G (1993) Wetland effects on lake water quality in the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area. Landsc Ecol 8:39–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ducks Unlimited Canada. (2010) Southern Ontario wetland conversion analysis. Retrieved from http://www.ducks.ca/assets/2010/10/duc_ontariowca_optimized.pdf. 12 November 2013Google Scholar
  17. Ehrenfeld J (2008) Exotic invasive species in urban wetlands: environmental correlates and implications for wetland management. J Appl Ecol 45:1160–1169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eigenbrod F, Hecnar S, Fahrig L (2008) The relative effects of road traffic and forest cover on anuran populations. Biol Conserv 141:35–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eigenbrod F, Hecnar SJ, Fahrig L (2009) Quantifying the road effect zone: threshold effects of a motorway on anuran populations in Ontario, Canada. Ecology and Society 14:24 [online].Google Scholar
  20. Eigenbrod F, Hecnar S, Fahrig L (2011) Sub-optimal study design has major impacts on landscape-scale inference. Biol Conserv 144:298–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. U. S. EPA (2002a) Methods for evaluating wetland condition: using vegetation to assess environmental conditions in wetlands. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  22. U. S. EPA (2002b) Methods for evaluating wetland condition: developing an invertebrate index of biological integrity for wetlands. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  23. ESRI (2011) ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, CA (U.S.A.)Google Scholar
  24. Ethier K, Fahrig L (2011) Positive effects of forest fragmentation, independent of forest amount, on bat abundance in eastern Ontario, Canada. Landsc Ecol 26:865–876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Findlay C, Houlahan J (1997) Anthropogenic correlates of species richness in Southeastern Ontario wetlands. Conserv Biol 11:1000–1009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Frost PC, Hicks AL (2012) Human shoreline development and the nutrient stoichiometry of aquatic plant communities in Canadian Shield lakes. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 69:1642–1650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gibbs J (1993) Importance of small wetlands for the persistence of local populations of wetland-associated animals. Wetlands 13:25–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gledhill D, James P, Davies D (2008) Pond density as a determinant of aquatic species richness in an urban landscape. Landsc Ecol 23:1219–1230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gotelli NJ, Colwell RK (2001) Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecol Lett 4:379–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Government of Canada (1991) The Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation. Ministry of Environment. Retrieved from http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection/CW66-116-1991E.pdf. 11 July 2011Google Scholar
  31. Government of Ontario (2005) Provincial Policy Statement. Retrieved from http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Asset1421.aspx. 13 July 2011Google Scholar
  32. Hall D, Willig M, Moorhead D, Sites R, Fish E, Mollhagen T (2004) Aquatic macroinvertebrate diversity of playa wetlands: the role of landscape and island biogeographic characteristics. Wetlands 24:77–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Helgen J, Gernes M (2001) Monitoring the condition of wetlands: indexes of biological integrity using invertebrates and vegetation. In: Rader R, Batzer D, Wissinger S (eds) Bioassessment and management of North American freshwater wetlands. Wiley, New York, pp 167–185Google Scholar
  34. Hilsenhoff WL (1988) Rapid field assessment of organic pollution with a family level biotic index. J N Am Benthol Soc 7:65–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hobbs R, Huenneke L (1992) Disturbance, diversity, and invasion: implications for conservation. Conserv Biol 6:324–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hoffman CC, Baattrup Pedersen A (2007) Re-establishing freshwater wetlands in Denmark. Ecol Eng 30:157–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Holland CC, Honea JE, Gwin SE, Kentula ME (1995) Wetland degradation and loss in the rapidly urbanizing area of Portland, Oregon. Wetlands 15:336–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Houlahan J, Findlay CS (1997) Anthropogenic correlates of biodiversity in southeastern Ontario wetlands. Conserv Biol 11:1000–1009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Houlahan J, Findlay CS (2004) Estimating the “critical” distance at which adjacent land-use degrades wetland water and sediment quality. Landsc Ecol 19:677–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Houlahan J, Keddy P, Makkay K, Findlay C (2006) The effects of adjacent land use on wetland species richness and community composition. Wetlands 26:79–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Jackson HB, Fahrig L (2012) What size is a biologically relevant landscape? Landsc Ecol 27:929–941CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Jin CH (2008) Biodiversity dynamics of freshwater wetland ecosystems affected by secondary salinization and seasonal hydrology variation: a model-based study. Hydrobiologia 598:257–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kadoya T, Akasaka M, Aoki T, Takamura N (2011) A proposal of framework to obtain an integrated biodiversity indicator for agricultural ponds incorporating the simultaneous effects of multiple pressures. Ecol Indic 11:1396–1402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Leibowitz S (2003) Isolated wetlands and their functions: an ecological perspective. Wetlands 23:517–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lopez R, Davis C, Fennessy M (2002) Ecological relationships between landscape change and plant guilds in depressional wetlands. Landsc Ecol 17:43–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. MacArthur R, Wilson E (1967) The theory of island biogeography. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  47. McCafferty W (1998) Aquatic entomology: the fisherman’s and ecologists’ illustrated guide to insects and their relatives. Jones and Bartlett Publishers, MississaugaGoogle Scholar
  48. McCauley LA, Jenkins DG, Quintana-Ascencio PF (2013) Isolated wetland loss and degradation over two decades in an increasingly urbanized landscape. Wetlands 33:117–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mensing D, Galatowitsch S, Tester J (1998) Anthropogenic effects on the biodiversity of riparian wetlands of a northern temperate landscape. J Environ Manag 53:349–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Merritt R, Cummins K (2008) An introduction to the aquatic insects of North American, 4th edn. Kendall/Hunt, Dubuque, Iowa, USAGoogle Scholar
  51. Newmaster S, Harris A, Kershaw L (1997) Wetland plants of Ontario. Lone Pine Publishing, EdmontonGoogle Scholar
  52. Niemi GJ, Reavie ED, Peterson GS, Kelly JR, Johnston CA, Johnson LB et al (2011) An integrated approach to assessing multiple stressors for coastal lake superior. Aquat Ecosyst Health Manag 14:356–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. OMNR (1998) Ontario Land Cover Database: Ontario Classified LANDSAT data (ArcGIS raster). Ontario Ministry of Natural ResourcesGoogle Scholar
  54. OMNR (2003) Land Information Ontario: Geospatial Data (ArcGIS shapefile). Ontario Ministry of Natural ResourcesGoogle Scholar
  55. OMNR (2008) Land Information Ontario: Digital Raster Acquisition Data for the East (30cm aerial photos). Ontario Ministry of Natural ResourcesGoogle Scholar
  56. Panno SV, Nuzzo VA, Cartwright K, Hensel BR, Krapac IG (1999) Impact of urban development on the chemical composition of ground water in a fen-wetland complex. Wetlands 19:236–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Pasher J, Mitchell SW, King DJ, Fahrig L, Smith AC, Lindsay KE (2013) Optimizing landscape selection for estimating relative effects of landscape variables on ecological responses. Landsc Ecol 28:371–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Pennak R (1978) Fresh-water invertebrates of the United States, 2nd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  59. Pinel-Alloul B, Méthot G, Lapierre L, Willsie A (1996) Macroinvertebrate community as a biological indicator of ecological and toxicological factors in Lake Saint-François (Québec). Environ Pollut 91:65–87CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Prepas E, Planas D, Gibson J, Vitt D, Prowse T, Dinsmore W et al (2001) Landscape variables influencing nutrients and phytoplankton communities in Boreal Plain lakes of northern Alberta: a comparison of wetland- and upland-dominated catchments. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 58:1286–1299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Rader R (2001) An introduction to wetland bioassessment and management. In: Rader R, Batzer D, Wissinger S (eds) Bioassessment and management of North American freshwater wetlands. Wiley, New York, pp 1–9Google Scholar
  62. Revitt M., Shutes B. & Scholes L. (1999) The use of constructed wetlands for reducing the impacts of urban surface runoff on receiving water quality. Impacts of Urban Growth on Surface Water and Groundwater Quality (Proceedings of IUGG 99 Symposium HS5, Birmingham, July 1999), 5, 349-356Google Scholar
  63. Rooney RC, Bayley SE (2011) Relative influence of local- and landscape-level habitat quality on aquatic plant diversity in shallow open-water wetlands in Alberta’s boreal zone: direct and indirect effects. Landsc Ecol 26:1023–1034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Scheffer M, Carpenter S, Foley J, Folke C, Walker B (2001) Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems. Nature 413:591–596CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Scholes L, Shutes R, Revitt D, Forshaw M, Purchase D (1998) The treatment of metals in urban runoff by constructed wetlands. Sci Total Environ 214:211–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Smith AC, Koper N, Francis CM, Fahrig L (2009) Confronting collinearity: comparing methods for disentangling the effects of habitat loss and fragmentation. Landsc Ecol 24:1271–1285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Stanfield L (editor). (2010) Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol, Version 8.0. Fisheries Policy Section, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough, Ontario, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  68. Stephenson J, Morin A (2009) Covariation of stream community structure and biomass of algae, invertebrates and fish with forest cover at multiple spatial scales. Freshw Biol 54:2139–2154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Stewart T, Downing J (2008) Macroinvertebrate communities and environmental conditions in recently constructed wetlands. Wetlands 28:141–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Tangen B, Butler M, Ell M (2003) Weak correspondence between macroinvertebrate assemblages and land use in prairie pothole region wetlands, USA. Wetlands 23:104–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Thiere G, Milenkovski S, Lindgren P-E, Sahlén G, Berglund O, Weisner SEB (2009) Wetland creation in agricultural landscapes: biodiversity benefits on local and regional scales. Biol Conserv 142:964–973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Thompson I (2000) Forest vegetation of Ontario: factors influencing landscape change. In: Perera AH, Euler DL, Thompson ID (eds) Ecology of a managed terrestrial landscape: patterns and processes of forest landscapes in Ontario. UBC Press, Vancouver, pp 30–53Google Scholar
  73. Thompson Y, D’Angelo EM, Karathanasis AD, Sandefur BD (2012) Plant community composition as a function of geochemistry and hydrology in three Appalachian wetlands. Ecohydrology 5:389–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Thurston KA (1999) Lead and petroleum hydrocarbon changes in an urban wetland receiving stormwater runoff. Ecol Eng 12:387–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wetzel R, Hough R (1973) Productivity and role of aquatic macrophytes in lakes: an assessment. Polskie Archiwum Hydrobiologii 1:9–19Google Scholar
  76. Xie Z, Liu J, Ma Z, Duan Z, Cui Y (2012) Effect of surounding land-use change on the wetland landscape pattern of a natural protected area in Tianjin, China. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol 19:16–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Yates A, Bailey R (2010) Covarying patterns of macroinvertebrate and fish assemblages along natural and human activity gradients: implications for bioassessment. Hydrobiologia 637:87–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Zedler JB (2003) Wetlands at your service: reducing impacts of agriculture at the watershed scale. Front Ecol Environ 1:65–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Zhang J, Ma K, Fu B (2010) Wetland loss under the impact of agricultural development in the Sanjiang Plain, NE China. Environ Monit Assess 166:139–148CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Theresa Patenaude
    • 1
  • Adam C. Smith
    • 2
  • Lenore Fahrig
    • 1
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biology, Geomatics and Landscape Ecology Research Laboratory (GLEL)Carleton UniversityOttawaCanada
  2. 2.National Wildlife Research Centre, Environment CanadaOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations