Wetlands Ecology and Management

, Volume 16, Issue 4, pp 277–289 | Cite as

Tracking marsh restoration using macrobenthic metrics: implementing a functional approach

  • Heather J. Ferguson
  • Chet F. RakocinskiEmail author
Original Paper


Attempts to understand ecological processes within restored saltmarsh ecosystems have increased dramatically in recent years; and it is now generally agreed that marsh restoration success should be gauged relative to the recovery of ecosystem function. Studies of macroinfaunal recovery in created marshes typically employ faunistic metrics to examine colonization and succession. Few studies employ macrobenthic functional metrics. Here, we present an evaluative approach employing macrobenthic functional metrics for use in marsh restoration studies in the context of a comparative study. To illustrate the approach, a four-way comparison of functional and faunistic metrics is made between intertidal Spartina and adjacent subtidal habitats and between a set of created marsh islands that have been established for 27 years and a set of nearby natural marsh islands within Davis Bay, Mississippi. The suite of functional metrics used in this study characterizes the macroinfauna in terms of biological production based and community maturity based attributes. Several production-based attributes (e.g., production potential, normalized biomass size spectrum (NBSS) intercept residuals, total abundance) differed between habitats and between created and natural sites; and community maturity based attributes (e.g., mean size, NBSS slope, faunal turnover rate) differed between habitats. Of the functional metrics, NBSS intercept residuals were most effective for discerning created and natural sites, followed by production potential and total abundance. Of the faunistic metrics, faunal diversity and dominance did not differ between created and natural sites; however evenness was higher at the created site. Diversity and evenness differed significantly between habitats; and dominance almost differed between habitats. Community structure (Bray–Curtis similarity) differed between habitats and between created and natural marshes. This study illustrates how macrobenthic functional metrics can be practical and informative for tracking marsh restoration success. Functional metrics deliver additional insights and appear to be more effective than faunistic metrics. Not only do these functional metrics fulfill the need to understand the role of benthic processes within the context of marsh restoration; they can be related appropriately to other aspects of ecosystem function.


Marsh restoration Macrobenthic functional metrics Macrobenthic faunistic metrics Created marshes 



This paper presents research conducted by H.J. Ferguson in fulfillment of her M.S. degree in the Department of Coastal Sciences from the University of Southern Mississippi. While conducting her research, H.J. Ferguson was supported by the Mississippi Tidelands Public Trust Fund funded through the Mississippi Department of Marine Resources Contract No. FY04-0617. This work was also supported by a grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (U.S. EPA) Science to Achieve Results (STAR) Estuarine and Great Lakes (EaGLe) program through funding to the Consortium for Estuarine Ecoindicator Research for the Gulf of Mexico (CEER-GOM), U.S. EPA Agreement 329 R-82945801-0. Although the research was partly supported by the U.S. EPA, it has not been subjected to the agency’s required peer and policy review and therefore does not necessarily reflect the views of the agency and no official endorsement should be inferred. We thank P. Biber and S.E. LeCroy for their guidance and support as M.S. committee members. We also thank those who assisted with fieldwork: P. Biber, B.H. Comyns, M. Partyka, and M.S. Peterson. Assistance in obtaining sediment data was provided by the Geology Section of the University of Southern Mississippi Gulf Coast Research Laboratory. We thank the following people for help and support ranging from taxonomic assistance to administrative support:, J.D. Caldwell, J. Campbell, A. Guidry-Stricklin, A. Kennedy, J. McCelland, J. McDonald, H. Newby, T. McIllwain, A. Russell, N. Sharp, S. Turner, and K. VanderKooy.


  1. Baltz DM, Rakocinski C, Fleeger JW (1993) Microhabitat use by marsh-edge fishes in a Louisiana estuary. Environ Biol Fish 36:109–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boorman LA (1999) Salt marshes – present functioning and future change. Mangroves Salt Marshes 3:227–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brander LM, Florax RJGM, Vermaat JE (2006) The empirics of wetland valuation: a comprehensive summary and a meta-analysis of the literature. Environ Res Econ 33:223–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brinson MM, Rheinhardt R (1996) The role of reference wetlands in functional assessment and mitigation. Ecol Appl 6:69–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cai L (2006) Multi-response permutation procedure as an alternative to the analysis of variance: an SPSS implementation. Behav Res Meth 38:51–59Google Scholar
  6. Cammen LM (1976) Macroinvertebrate colonization of Spartina marshes artificially established on dredge spoil. Estuar Coast Mar Sci 4:357–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clarke KR, Gorley RN (2006) PRIMER v6: user manual/Tutorial. PRIMER-E, PlymouthGoogle Scholar
  8. Craft C, Sacco J (2003) Long-term succession of benthic infauna communities on constructed Spartina alterniflora marshes. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 257:45–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Craft C, Megonigal P, Broome S, Stevenson J, Freese R, Cornell J, Sacco J (2003) The pace of ecosystem development of constructed Spartina alterniflora salt marshes. Ecol Appl 13:1417–1432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Craft C, Reader J, Sacco JN, Broome SW (1999) Twenty-five years of ecosystem development of constructed Spartina alterniflora (Loisel) marshes. Ecol Appl 9:1405–1419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dahl TE (1990) Wetlands losses in the United States 1780’s to 1980’s. US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington Google Scholar
  12. Dahl TE (2000) Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States 1986 to 1997. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington Google Scholar
  13. Edgar GJ (1990) The use of the size structure of benthic macrofaunal communities to estimate faunal biomass and secondary production. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 137:195–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Edwards KR, Proffitt CE (2003) Comparison of wetland and structural characteristics between created and natural salt marshes in southwest Louisiana, USA. Wetlands 23:344–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gerlach SA, Hahn AE, Schrage M (1985) Size spectra of benthic biomass and metabolism. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 26:161–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gray JS (1981) The ecology of marine sediments. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  17. Hellawell JM, Abel R (1971) A rapid volumetric method for the analysis of the food of fishes. J Fish Biol 3:29–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Huryn AD, Benke AC (2007) Relationship between biomass turnover and body size for stream communities. In: Hildrew A, Raffaelli D, Edmonds-Brown R (eds) Body size: the structure and function of aquatic ecosystems. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 55–76Google Scholar
  19. Kerr SR, Dickie LM (2001) The biomass spectrum: a predator-prey theory of aquatic production. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Kneib RT (1997) The role of tidal marshes in the ecology of estuarine nekton. Oceanogr Mar Biol: Ann Rev 35:163–220Google Scholar
  21. Krebs CJ (1989) Ecological methodology. Harper & Row Publishing, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Levin LA, Talley TS (2000) Influences of vegetation and abiotic environmental factors on salt marsh invertebrates. In: Weinstein MP, Kreeger DA (eds) Concepts and controversies in tidal marsh ecology. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 661–708Google Scholar
  23. Levin LA, Talley TS (2002) Natural and manipulated sources of heterogeneity controlling early faunal development of a salt marsh. Ecol Appl 12:1785–1802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Levin LA, Talley D, Thayer G (1996) Succession of macrobenthos in a created salt marsh. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 141:67–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Levin LA, Boesch DF, Covich A, Dahm C, Erseus C, Ewel K, Kneib R, Moldenke A, Palmer M, Snelgrove P, Strayer D, Weslawski J (2001) The role of sediment biodiversity in the function of marine critical transition zones. Ecosystems 4:430–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Matthews GA, Minello TJ (1994) Technology and success in restoration, creation, and enhancement of Spartina alterniflora marshes in the United States. No. 2 NOAA Coastal ocean program decision analysis series, vols 1 and 2. NOAA Coastal Ocean Office, Silver SpringGoogle Scholar
  27. Mielke PW, Berry KJ (2001) Permutation methods: a distance function approach. Springer-Verlag, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Moseman SM, Levin LA, Currin C, Forder C (2004) Colonization, succession, and nutrition of macrobenthic assemblages in a restored wetland at Tijuana Estuary, California. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 60:755–770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Moy LD, Levin LA (1991) Are Spartina marshes a replaceable resource? A functional approach to evaluation of marsh creation efforts. Estuaries 14:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Odum EP (1959) Fundamentals of ecology, 2nd edn. W.B. Saunders Co., PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  31. Peterson GW, Turner RE (1994) The value of salt marsh edge vs. interior as a habitat for fish and decapod crustaceans in a Louisiana tidal marsh. Estuaries 17:235–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Posey MH, Alphin TD, Powell CM (1997) Plant and infaunal communities associated with a created marsh. Estuaries 20:42–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rakocinski CF, Zapfe GA (2005) Chapter 20. Macrobenthic process indicators of estuarine condition. In: Bortone SA (ed) Estuarine indicators. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 315–331Google Scholar
  34. Rasmussen JB (1993) Patterns in the size structure of littoral zone macroinvertebrate communities. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 50:2192–2207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ricciardi A, Bourget E (1998) Weight-to-weight conversion factors for marine benthic macroinvertebrates. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 163:245–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sacco JN, Seneca ED, Wentworth TR (1994) Infaunal community development of artificially established salt marshes in North Carolina. Estuaries 17:489–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schwinghamer P (1988) Influence of pollution along a natural gradient and in a mesocosm experiment on biomass-size spectra of benthic communities. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 46:199–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Strayer D (1986) The size structure of a lacustrine zoobenthic community. Oecologia 69:513–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Streever WJ (2000) Spartina alterniflora marshes on dredged material: a critical review of the ongoing debate over success. Wetl Ecol Manage 8:295–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Turner RE, Cahoon DR (eds) (1987) Causes of wetland loss in the Coastal Central Gulf of Mexico. vol III: appendices. Final report submitted to Minerals Management Service, New Orleans, LA. Contract No. 14-12-0001-30252. OCS Study/MMS 87-0121, 125 ppGoogle Scholar
  41. Twilley RR, Cowan J, Miller-Way T, Montagna PA, Mortaavi B (1999) Benthic nutrient fluxes in selected estuaries in the Gulf of Mexico. In: Bianchi TS, Pennock JR, Twilley RR (eds) Biogeochemistry of Gulf of Mexico estuaries. Wiley, New York, pp 163–209Google Scholar
  42. Warwick RR (1993) Environmental impact studies on marine communities: pragmatical considerations. Austr J Ecol 18:63–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Weinstein MP (2007) Linking restoration ecology and ecological restoration in estuarine landscapes. Estuar Coasts 30:365–370Google Scholar
  44. Wieser W (1960) Benthic studies in Buzzards Bay. II. The meiofauna. Limnol Oceanogr 5:121–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zedler JB (2000) Progress in wetland restoration ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 15:402–407PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zedler JB, Lindig-Cisneros R (2000) Functional equivalency of restored and natural salt marshes. In: Weinstein MP, Kreeger DA (eds) Concepts and controversies in tidal marsh ecology. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 565–582Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Coastal Sciences, USM – Gulf Coast Research LaboratoryThe University of Southern MississippiOcean SpringsUSA

Personalised recommendations