, Volume 32, Issue 5, pp 827–839 | Cite as

Using Vegetative Nutrient Stocks to Compare Restored and Reference Wetlands in the Upper Klamath Basin, Oregon

  • Andrew M. RayEmail author
  • Andy Hamilton
  • Chelsea Aquino
  • James C. Litts


Vegetative diversity metrics are often used to characterize wetland restoration success. Here we examine whether other important vegetative traits (nutrient standing stocks and tissue nutrient concentrations) can improve our understanding of the structure of restored and reference wetlands and aid in the assessment of functional equivalency. We focus on wetlands of the Upper Klamath Basin (UKB), Oregon because this basin supports a mosaic of remnant, restored, and degraded wetlands dominated by a limited number of common emergent plant species. We summarize nutrient standing stocks using 11 growth limiting micro- and macronutrients present in aboveground tissues of three emergent plant species. We show that interspecific variation in nutrient standing stocks and tissue nutrient concentrations was high and greater than inter-site differences. Interspecific variation for nitrogen standing stocks was 3X larger than inter-site variation. Although less common, inter-site differences in nutrient standing stocks and tissue nutrient concentrations were detected and tissue phosphorus concentrations in a recently restored wetland were nearly twice those of a reference wetland; corresponding levels of aboveground biomass in this wetland were not detected. Our detection of elevated phosphorus in the vegetation of a recently restored wetland is consistent with predictions from both experimental and observational work in UKB and demonstrates that nutrient standing stocks provide important clues about the fate and retention of nutrients in restoration wetlands. Importantly, we show that these vegetative attributes also provide a measure of functional equivalency that is rarely used in the assessment of restoration success.


Nutrient stocks, Tissue nutrients Aboveground biomass Nutrient ratios Upper Klamath Lake 



The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (R10AP20603 and 08FG200155 to AMR) and U.S. Bureau of Land Management providing funding for this work. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and The Nature Conservancy of Oregon provided access to field sites and logistical support. We would especially like to thank C. Doehring, C. Fujishin, H. Hendrixson, C. Erdman, and S. Wong for help in the field. We thank R. Inouye, S. Wong, H. Ray, and H. Hendrixson for their thoughtful reviews of earlier versions of this manuscript. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.


  1. Aerts R, Chapin FS (2000) The mineral nutrition of wild plants revisited: a re-evaluation of processes and patterns. Advances in Ecological Research 30:2–67Google Scholar
  2. Aerts R, Verhoeven JTA, Whigham DF (1999) Plant-mediated controls on nutrient cycling in temperate fens and bogs. Ecology 80:2170–2181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Akins GJ (1970) The effects of land use and land management on the wetlands of the Upper Klamath Basin. MSc Thesis. Western Washington State CollegeGoogle Scholar
  4. Aldous AR, McCormick P, Ferguson C, Graham S, Craft C (2005) Hydrologic regime controls soil phosphorus fluxes in restoration and undisturbed wetlands. Restoration Ecology 13:341–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Aldous AR, Craft CB, Stevens CJ, Barry MJ, Bach LB (2007) Soil phosphorus release from a restoration wetland, Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon. Wetlands 27:1025–1035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boyd CE (1970) Chemical analyses of some vascular aquatic plants. Archiv Fur Hydrobiologie 67:78–85Google Scholar
  7. Boyd CE, Hess LW (1970) Factors influencing shoot production and mineral nutrient levels in Typha latifolia. Ecology 51:296–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chapin FS III (1980) The mineral nutrition of wild plants. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 11:233–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cooperman MS, Markle DF (2004) Abundance, size, and feeding success of larval shortnose suckers and Lost River suckers from different habitats of the littoral zone of Upper Klamath Lake. Environmental Biology of Fishes 71:365–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Coveney MF, Stites DL, Lowe EF, Battoe LE, Conrow R (2002) Nutrient removal from eutrophic lake water by wetland filtration. Ecological Engineering 19:141–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Duff JH, Carpenter KD, Snyder DT, Lee KK, Avanzino RJ, Triska FJ (2009) Phosphorus and nitrogen legacy in a restoration wetland, Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon. Wetlands 29:735–746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eilers JM, Kann J, Cornett J, Moser K, St Amand A (2004) Paleolimnological evidence of change in a shallow, hypereutrophic lake: Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon, USA. Hydrobiologia 520:7–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Elseroad A, Rudd N, Hendrixson H (2011) Williamson River Delta Preserve vegetation monitoring: Tulana third-year post-breaching results. The Nature Conservancy, PortlandGoogle Scholar
  14. Ernfeld JG (2000) Defining the limits restoration: the need for realistic goals. Restoration Ecology 8:2–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Garten CT Jr (1978) Multivariate perspectives on the ecology of plant mineral element composition. The American Naturalist 112:533–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Geiger NS (2001) Reassociating wetlands with Upper Klamath Lake to improve water quality. Klamath Fish and Water Management Symposium, Arcata, CAGoogle Scholar
  17. Gotelli NJ, Ellison AM (2004) A primer in ecological statistics. Sinauer Associates, Inc. Publishers, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  18. Graham SA, Craft CB, McCormick PV, Aldous A (2005) Forms and accumulation of soil P in natural and recently restored peatlands-Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon, USA. Wetlands 25:594–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Güsewell S, Koerselman W (2002) Variation in nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations of wetland plants. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 5:37–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Güsewell S, Koerselman W, Verhoeven JTA (2003) Biomass N:P ratios as indicators of nutrient limitation for populations in wetlands. Ecological Applications 13:372–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hoagland CR, Gentry LE, David MB, Kovacik DA (2001) Plant nutrient uptake and biomass accumulation in a constructed wetland. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 16:527–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kentula ME (2000) Perspectives on setting success criteria for wetland restoration. Ecological Engineering 15:199–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. King RS, Richardson CJ, Urban DL, Romanowicz EA (2004) Spatial dependency of vegetation-environment linkages in an anthropogenically influenced wetland ecosystem. Ecosystems 7:75–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Koerselman W, Meuleman AFM (1996) The vegetation N:P ratio: a new tool to detect the nature of nutrient limitation. Journal of Applied Ecology 33:1441–1450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kuwabara JS, Topping BR, Lynch DD, Carter JL, Essaid HI (2009) Benthic nutrient sources to hypereutrophic Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 28:516–524PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lindenberg MK, Wood TM (2009) Water quality of a drained wetland, Caledonia Marsh on Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon, after flooding in 2006: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5025Google Scholar
  27. Meuleman AFM, Beekman JP, Verhoeven JTA (2002) Nutrient retention and nutrient-use efficiency in Phragmites australis stands after wastewater application. Wetlands 22:712–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Miller RL, Fujii R (2010) Plant community, primary productivity, and environmental conditions following wetland re-establishment in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California. Wetlands Ecology and Management 18:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mustafa A, Scholz M (2011) Nutrient accumulation in Typha latifolia L. and sediment of a representative integrated constructed wetland. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 219:329–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ray AM, Inouye RS (2006) Vegetative nutrient pools in a constructed wetland in southeastern Idaho. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 21:593–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ruiz-Jaen MC, Mitchell Aide T (2005) Restoration success: how is it being measured? Restoration Ecology 13:569–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schmidt SR, Kleinebecker T, Vogel A, Hölzel N (2010) Interspecific and geographical differences of plant tissue nutrient concentrations along an environmental gradient in Southern Patagonia, Chile. Aquatic Botany 92:149–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Silvan N, Vasander H, Laine J (2004) Vegetation is the main factor in nutrient retention in a constructed wetland buffer. Plant and Soil 258:179–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Snyder DT, Morace JL (1997) Nitrogen and phosphorus loading from drained wetlands adjacent to Upper Klamath and Agency Lakes, Oregon. U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investigations Report 97–4059Google Scholar
  35. Sollie S, Coops H, Verhoeven JTA (2008) Natural and constructed littoral zones as nutrient traps in eutrophicated shallow lakes. Hydrobiologia 605:219–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Verhoeven JTA, Arheimer B, Yin C, Hefting MM (2006) Regional and global concerns over wetlands and water quality. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 21:96–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Walker WW (2001) Development of a phosphorus TMDL for Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, PortlandGoogle Scholar
  38. Wassen MJ, Olde Venterink HGM, Deswart EOAM (1995) Nutrient concentrations in mire vegetation as a measure of nutrient limitation in mire ecosystems. Journal of Vegetation Science 6:5–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Willby NJ, Pulford ID, Flowers TH (2001) Tissue nutrient signatures predict herbaceous-wetland community responses to nutrient availability. New Phytologist 152:463–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wong SW, Barry MJ, Aldous AR, Rudd NT, Hendrixson HA, Doehring CM (2011) Nutrient release from a recently flooded delta wetland: comparison of field measurements to laboratory results. Wetlands 31:433–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zedler JB, Kercher S (2005) Wetland resources: status, trends, ecosystem services, and restorability. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30:39–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Wetland Scientists 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrew M. Ray
    • 1
    • 4
    Email author
  • Andy Hamilton
    • 2
  • Chelsea Aquino
    • 1
  • James C. Litts
    • 3
  1. 1.Oregon Institute of TechnologyKlamath FallsUSA
  2. 2.U.S. Bureau of Land ManagementKlamath FallsUSA
  3. 3.Klamath Wetland Education & Research InstituteChiloquinUSA
  4. 4.U.S. Geological SurveyNorthern Rocky Mountain Science CenterBozemanUSA

Personalised recommendations