Wetlands Ecology and Management

, Volume 4, Issue 2, pp 129–144 | Cite as

Ecological responses to tidal restorations of two northern New England salt marshes

  • D. M. Burdick
  • M. Dionne
  • R. M. Boumans
  • F. T. Short
Article

Abstract

Efforts are underway to restore tidal flow in New England salt marshes that were negatively impacted by tidal restrictions. We evaluated a planned tidal restoration at Mill Brook Marsh (New Hampshire) and at Drakes Island Marsh (Maine) where partial tidal restoration inadvertently occurred. Salt marsh functions were evaluated in both marshes to determine the impacts from tidal restriction and the responses following restoration. Physical and biological indicators of salt marsh functions (tidal range, surface elevations, soil water levels and salinities, plant cover, and fish use) were measured and compared to those from nonimpounded reference sites. Common impacts from tidal restrictions at both sites were: loss of tidal flooding, declines in surface elevation, reduced soil salinity, replacement of salt marsh vegetation by fresh and brackish plants, and loss of fish use of the marsh.

Water levels, soil salinities and fish use increased immediately following tidal restoration. Salt-intolerant vegetation was killed within months. After two years, mildly salt-tolerant vegetation had been largely replaced in Mill Brook Marsh by several species characteristic of both high and low salt marshes. Eight years after the unplanned, partial tidal restoration at Drakes Island Marsh, the vegetation was dominated bySpartina alterniflora, a characteristic species of low marsh habitat.

Hydrologic restoration that allowed for unrestricted saltwater exchange at Mill Brook restored salt marsh functions relatively quickly in comparison to the partial tidal restoration at Drakes Island, where full tidal exchange was not achieved. The irregular tidal regime at Drakes Island resulted in vegetation cover and patterns dissimilar to those of the high marsh used as a reference. The proper hydrologic regime (flooding height, duration and frequency) is essential to promote the rapid recovery of salt marsh functions. We predict that functional recovery will be relatively quick at Mill Brook, but believe that the habitat at Drakes Island will not become equivalent to that of the reference marsh unless the hydrology is further modified.

Keywords

functional assessment hydrologic restoration New England salt marsh Spartina tidal restriction 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Beeftink, W.G. 1979. The structure of salt marsh communities in relation to environmental disturbances.In: Jefferies, R.I. and Davy, A.J. (eds). Ecological Processes in Coastal Environments. pp 77–93. Blackwell, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
  2. Bertness, M.D. 1991. Interspecific interactions among high marsh perennials in a New England salt marsh. Ecology, 72: 125–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bertness, M.D., and Ellison, A.M. 1987. Determinants of pattern in a New England salt marsh plant community. Ecol. Monogr., 57: 129–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bird, E.C.F. 1993. Submerging Coasts: The Effect of Rising Sea Level on Coastal Environments. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  5. Boumans, R.M.J., and Day, J.W. 1994. Effects of two Louisiana marsh management plans on water and materials flux and short-term sedimentation. Wetlands, 14: 247–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burdick, D.M., and Dionne, M. 1994. Comparison of salt marsh restoration and creation techniques in promoting native vegetation and functional values. Office of State Planning. Concord, NH. 65 pp.Google Scholar
  7. Burdick, D.M., Mendelssohn, I.A. and McKee, K.L. 1989. Production and metabolism of the marsh grassSpartina patens as related to edaphic factors in a brackish, mixed marsh community in Louisiana. Estuaries. 12: 195–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clark J.S. 1986. Late-Holocene vegetation and coastal processes at a Long Island tidal marsh. J. Ecol., 74: 561–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Frenkel R.E., and Morlan, J.C. 1991. Can we restore our salt marshes? Lessons from the Salmon River, Oregon. Northwest Environ. J., 7: 119–135.Google Scholar
  10. Herke, W., Knudsen, E., Knudsen, P. and Rogers, B. 1992. Effect of semi-impoundment on fish and crustacean nursery use and export. N. Amer. J. Fish. Mgmt., 12: 151–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Josselyn, M., Zedler, J. and Griswold, T. 1990. Wetland mitigation along the Pacific Coast of the United States.In: J. Kusler, A. and Kentula, M.E. (eds) Wetland Creation and Restoration. The Status of the Science. pp 3–36. Island Press. Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  12. Kelley, J.T., Gehrels, W.R. and Belnap, D.F. 1995. Late Holocene relative sea level rise and the geological development of tidal marshes at Wells, Maine, USA. J. Coast. Res., 11: 136–153.Google Scholar
  13. McKee, K.L., and Patrick, W.H. Jr. 1988. The relationship of smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) to tidal datums: a review. Estuaries, 11: 143–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mitsch, W.J., and Gosselink, J.G. 1986. Wetlands. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. 539 pp.Google Scholar
  15. Niering, W.A., and Bowers, R.M. 1966. Our disappearing tidal marshes. Conn. Abor. Bull. 12: 1–36.Google Scholar
  16. Niering, W.A., and Warren, R.S. 1980. Vegetation patterns and processes in New England salt marshes. BioScience. 30: 301–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pethick, J. 1993. Shoreline adjustments and coastal management: physical and biological processes under accelerated sea-level rise. Geogr. J., 159: 162–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Race, M.S. 1985. Critique of present wetlands mitigation policies in the United States based on an analysis of past restoration projects in San Francisco Bay. Environ. Mgmt., 9: 71–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rced, D.J., and Cahoon, D.R. 1992. The relationship between marsh surface topography, hydroperiod, and growth ofSpartina alterniflora in a deteriorating Louisiana salt marsh. J. Coast. Res., 8: 77–87.Google Scholar
  20. Roman, C.T., Niering, W.A. and Warren, R.S. 1984. Salt marsh vegetation change in response to tidal restrictions. Environ. Mgmt., 8: 141–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Roman, C.T., Garvine, R.W. and Portnoy, J.W. 1995. Hydrologic modeling as a predictive basis for ecological restoration of salt marshes. Environ. Mgmt., 19: 559–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rozsa, R. 1988. An overview of wetland restoration projects in Connecticut.In: Lefor, M. and Kennard, W. (eds) Proceedings of the IV Wetland Conference, pp 1–11. Connecticut Institute of Water Resources, University of Connecticut. Storrs, CT.Google Scholar
  23. Shisler, J.K. 1990. Creation and restoration of coastal wetlands of the northeastern United States.In: J. A. Kusler and M. E. Kentula (eds) Wetland creation and restoration. The status of the science. pp 143–170. Island Press, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  24. Shreffler, D.K., Simenstad, C.A. and Thom, R.A. 1992. Juvenile salmon foraging in a restored estuarine wetland. Estuaries, 15: 204–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Short, F.T. 1987. Production, Nutrition, and Ecological Health of the Wells Salt Marshes. NOAA Tech. Rep. Contract No. NA86AA-D-CZ032. 59 pp.Google Scholar
  26. Short, F.T.M., Davis, W. Gibson, R.A. and Zimmerman, C.F. 1985. Evidence for phosphorus limitation in carbonate sediments of the seagrassSyringodium filiforme Est. Coast. Shelf Sci., 20: 419–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Simenstad, C.A., and Thom, R.M. 1996. Functional equivalency trajectories of the restored Gog-Le-Hi-Te estuarine wetland. Ecolog. Appl., 6: 38–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sinicrope, T.L., Hine, P.G., Warren, R.S. and Niering, W.A. 1990. Restoration of an impounded salt marsh in New England. Estuaries, 13: 25–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Stevenson, J.C., Ward, L.G. and Kearney, M.S. 1986. Vertical accretion in marshes with varying rates of sea level rise.In: Wolfe, S.A. (ed) Estuarine Variability pp 212–259. Academic, New York.Google Scholar
  30. Stumpf, R.P. 1983. The process of sedimentation on the surface of a salt marsh. Est. Coast. Shelf Sci., 17: 495–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tiner, R.W. 1987. A field guide to coastal plants of the northeastern United States. The University of Massachusetts Press. Amherst, MA. 285 pp.Google Scholar
  32. USDA Soil Conservation Service. 1994. Evaluation of restorable salt marshes in New Hampshire. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Durham, NH. 32 pp.Google Scholar
  33. Warren, R.S., and Niering, W.A. 1993. Vegetation change on a northeast tidal marsh: Interaction of sea-level rise and marsh accretion. Ecology, 74: 96–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Zedler, J., Josselyn, M. and Onuf, C. 1982. Restoration techniques, research, and monitoring: Vegetation.In: Josselyn. M. (ed) Wetland restoration and enhancement in California. pp 63–72. California Sea Grant. Report No. T-CSGCP-007, La Jolla, CA.Google Scholar
  35. Zedler, J.B. 1992. Restoring cordgrass marshes in southern California.In: Thayer, G.W.. (ed) Restoring the nation's marine environment. pp 7–52. Maryland Sea Grant College. College Park, MD.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© SPB Academic Publishing 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. M. Burdick
    • 1
  • M. Dionne
    • 2
  • R. M. Boumans
    • 3
  • F. T. Short
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Natural Resources, Jackson Estuarine Laboratory. Center for Marine BiologyUniversity of New HampshireDurhamUSA
  2. 2.Wells National Estuarine Research ReserveWellsUSA
  3. 3.Chesapeake Biological LaboratorySolomonsUSA

Personalised recommendations