Advertisement

Estuaries and Coasts

, Volume 33, Issue 1, pp 151–160 | Cite as

The Legacy of Agricultural Reclamation on Channel and Pool Networks of Bay of Fundy Salt Marshes

  • Graham K. MacDonald
  • Paula E. Noel
  • Danika van Proosdij
  • Gail L. ChmuraEmail author
Article

Abstract

We assess the status of channel networks and pools of two tidal salt marshes recovering from more than a century of agricultural reclamation on the Bay of Fundy, Canada. A process of largely unmanaged restoration occurred at these sites since abandonment of agricultural activities during the first half of the twentieth century. Each recovering marsh was compared to a reference marsh that was never drained or ditched. We field mapped channel networks at all marshes and used aerial photographs to map the pre-abandonment channel network at one of the sites. The recovering marshes have hybrid channel networks that feature highly variable channel morphologies, loss of original channels, and incorporation of drainage ditches. Although channel networks in recovering marshes integrate agricultural ditches, the recovering marsh networks may not be substantially increased in length or density. Our aerial photograph analysis shows that channel density at one of the recovering marshes is comparable to the pre-abandonment density, but with reduced sinuosity. Field mapping of permanent tidal pools on the lower Bay marshes revealed that pools cover 13% of the recovering marsh, compared to ∼5% of the reference marsh. This study demonstrates that these essential marsh features can be regained through restoration or simple abandonment of drainage infrastructure.

Keywords

Recovering wetlands Salt marsh Tidal channels Creeks Ponds Restoration 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), the Bay of Fundy Ecosystem Partnership and the Royal Canadian Geographic Society of Canada provided financial support for this project. We are grateful to A. Sabourin and S. Byers, who assisted with field mapping; S. Byers also provided many helpful suggestions regarding the design of the project. We thank R. Sengupta and G. Baker for their technical advice concerning GIS methodologies. We appreciate the comments from two anonymous reviewers that improved this manuscript.

References

  1. Adamowicz, S.C. and C.T. Roman. 2005. New England salt marsh pools: a quantitative analysis of geomorphic and geographic features. Wetlands 25: 279–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen, J.R.L. 2000. Morphodynamics of Holocene salt marshes: a review sketch from the Atlantic and Southern North Sea coasts of Europe. Quaternary Science Reviews 19: 1155–1231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brawley, A.H., R.S. Warren, and R.A. Askins. 1998. Bird use of restoration and reference marshes within the Barn Island Wildlife Management Area, Stonington, Connecticut, U.S.A. Environmental Management 22: 625–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burger, J., J. Shisler, and F. Lesser. 1982. Avian utilization of six salt marshes in New Jersey. Biological Conservation 23: 187–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Byers, S.E. and G.L. Chmura. 2007. Salt marsh vegetation recovery on the Bay of Fundy. Estuaries and Coasts 30: 869–877.Google Scholar
  6. Crooks, S., J. Schutten, G.D. Sheern, K. Pye, and A.J. Davy. 2002. Drainage and elevation as factors in the restoration of salt marsh in Britain. Restoration Ecology 10: 591–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Erwin, R.M., D.K. Dawson, D.B. Stotts, L.S. McAllister, and P.H. Geissler. 1991. Open marsh water management in the Mid-Atlantic region: aerial surveys of water bird use. Wetlands 11: 209–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Erwin, R.M., G.M. Sanders, and D.J. Prosser. 2004. Changes in lagoonal marsh morphology at selected northeastern Atlantic coast sites of significance to migratory waterbirds. Wetlands 24: 891–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fell, P.F., R.S. Warren, and W.A. Niering. 2000. Restoration of salt and brackish tidelands in southern New England: angiosperms, macroinvertebrates, fish and birds. In Concepts and controversies in tidal marsh ecology, ed. M.P. Weinstein and D.A. Kreeger, 845–858. Boston: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  10. Friedrichs, C.T. and J.E. Perry. 2001. Tidal salt marsh morphodynamics: a synthesis. Journal of Coastal Research 27: 7–37.Google Scholar
  11. Ganong, W. F. 1903. The vegetation of the Bay of Fundy salt and diked marshes: an ecological study. Botanical Gazette 36: 161–186, 280–302, 349–367, 429–455.Google Scholar
  12. Hanson, A. and L. Calkins. 1996. Wetlands of the Maritime Provinces: revised documentation for the wetlands inventory. Technical Report 267, 67 p. Canadian Wildlife Service, Atlantic Region, Sackville, New Brunswick.Google Scholar
  13. Hood, G.W. 2004. Indirect environmental effects of dikes on estuarine tidal channels: thinking outside of the dike for habitat restoration and monitoring. Estuaries 27: 273–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kneib, R.T. 1994. Spatial pattern, spatial scale, and feeding in fishes. In Theory and Application in Fish Feeding Ecology, ed. D.J. Stouder, K.L. Fresh, R.J. Feller, and M. Duke, 171–185. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  15. Larkin, D.J., S.P. Madon, J.M. West, B. Joy, and J.B. Zedler. 2008. Topographic heterogeneity influences fish use of an experimentally restored tidal marsh. Ecological Applications 18: 483–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lathrop, R.G., M.B. Cole, and R.D. Showalter. 2000. Quantifying the habitat structure and spatial pattern of New Jersey (U.S.A.) salt marshes under different management regimes. Wetlands Ecology and Management 8: 163–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. MacKenzie, R.A. and M. Dionne. 2008. Habitat heterogeneity: importance of salt marsh pools and high marsh surfaces to fish production in two Gulf of Maine salt marshes. Marine Ecology Progress Series 368: 217–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McGarigal, K., S. A. Cushman, M. C. Neel, and E. Ene. 2002. FRAGSTATS: Spatial Pattern Analysis Program for Categorical Maps (Version 3.3, available at http://www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/fragstats.html).
  19. McIvor, C.C. and W.E. Odum. 1988. Food, predation risk, and microhabitat selection in a marsh fish assemblage. Ecology 69: 1241–1351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pestrong, R. 1965. The development of drainage patterns on tidal marshes. Stanford University publications 10(2): 1–85. School of Earth Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford.Google Scholar
  21. Sheaves, M. and R. Johnston. 2008. Influence of marine and freshwater connectivity on the dynamics of subtropical estuarine wetland fish metapopulations. Marine Ecology and Progress Series 357: 225–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Trocki, C.L. and P.W.C. Paton. 2006. Assessing habitat selection by foraging egrets in salt marshes at multiple spatial scales. Wetlands 26: 307–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Turner, R.E. 1997. Wetland loss in the Northern Gulf of Mexico: multiple working hypotheses. Estuaries 20: 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. van Proosdij, D., J. Ollerhead, and R.G.D. Davidson-Arnott. 2006. Seasonal and annual variations in the sediment budget of a temperate, macro-tidal saltmarsh, Bay of Fundy. Marine Geology 225: 103–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sources of unpublished material

  1. Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. 1950. [Black & white aerial photograph]. 1:20,000. Photo # A12676-94. Ottawa, Canada.Google Scholar
  2. Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. 1958. [Black & white aerial photograph]. 1:12,000. Photo # A16318-134. Ottawa, Canada.Google Scholar
  3. Department of Natural Resources. 1994. [2 Colour aerial photographs]. 1:12,500. Photos # DNRE 94502-111 and # DNRE 94503-103. Ottawa, Canada.Google Scholar
  4. Department of Natural Resources. 2001. [1 Colour aerial photograph]. 1:12,500. Photo # DNRE 01512-89. Ottawa, Canada.Google Scholar
  5. Nova Scotia Geomatics Centre. 1995. [1 Colour aerial photograph]. 1:10,000. Photo #DNRE 95001-11. Amherst, NS.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Graham K. MacDonald
    • 1
    • 2
  • Paula E. Noel
    • 1
    • 3
  • Danika van Proosdij
    • 4
  • Gail L. Chmura
    • 5
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Geography and Global Environmental and Climate Change CentreMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada
  2. 2.Department of Natural Resource SciencesMcGill UniversitySainte Anne de BellevueCanada
  3. 3.Nature Conservancy of Canada, Atlantic RegionFrederictonCanada
  4. 4.Department of GeographySaint Mary’s UniversityHalifaxCanada
  5. 5.Department of Geography and Global Environmental and Climate Change CentreMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations