Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Soil Properties Predict Plant Community Development of Mitigation Wetlands Created in the Virginia Piedmont, USA

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The study investigated vegetative and soil properties in four created mitigation wetlands, ranging in age from three to ten years, all created in the Virginia Piedmont. Vegetation attributes included percent cover, richness (S), diversity (H′), floristic quality assessment index (FQAI), prevalence index (PI), and productivity [i.e., peak above-ground biomass (AGB) and below-ground biomass]. Soil attributes included soil organic matter (SOM), gravimetric soil moisture (GSM), pH, and bulk density (Db) for the top 10 cm. Species dominance (e.g., Juncus effusus, Scirpus cyperinus, Arthraxon hispidus) led to a lack of differences in vegetative attributes between sites. However, site-based differences were found for GSM, pH, and SOM (P < 0.001). Soil attributes were analyzed using Euclidean cluster analysis, resulting in four soil condition (SC) categories where plots were grouped based on common attribute levels (i.e., SC1 > SC2 > SC3 > SC4, trended more to less developed). When vegetation attributes were compared between SC groups, greater SOM, lower Db, more circumneutral pH, and higher GSM, all indicative of maturation, were associated with higher H′ (P < 0.05), FQAI (P < 0.05), and total and volunteer percent cover (P < 0.05), and lower AGB (P < 0.001), PI (P < 0.05), and seeded percent cover (P < 0.05). The outcome of the study shows that site age does not necessarily equate with site development with soil and vegetation developmental rates varying both within and among sites. The inclusion of soil attributes in post-construction monitoring should be required to enhance our understanding and prediction of developmental trajectory of created mitigation wetlands.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles and news from researchers in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.

References

  • Ahn C, Dee SM (2011) Early development of plant community in a created mitigation wetland as affected by introduced hydrologic design elements. Ecological Engineering 37:1324–1333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, p 219

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson RB, Cairns J Jr (2001) Plant decomposition and litter accumulation in depressional wetlands: functional performance of two wetland age classes that were created via excavation. Wetlands 21:354–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson RB, Perry JE, Cairn J Jr (2005) Vegetation communities of 20-year-old created depressional wetlands. Wetlands Ecology and Management 13:469–478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson RB, Perry JE, Noe GB, Daniels WL, Cairn J Jr (2010) Primary productivity in 20-year old created wetlands in Southwestern Virginia. Wetlands 30:200–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bailey DE, Perry JE, Daniels WL (2007) Vegetation dynamics in response to organic matter loading rates in a created freshwater wetland in Southeastern Virginia. Wetlands 27:936–950

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balcombe CK, Anderson JT, Fortney RH, Rentch JS, Grafton WN, Kordek WS (2005) A comparison of plant communities in mitigation and reference wetlands in the mid-appalachians. Wetlands 25:130–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ballantine K, Schneider R (2009) Fifty-five years of soil development in restored freshwater depressional wetlands. Ecological Applications 19:1467–1480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bayley SE, Guimond JK (2009) Aboveground biomass and nutrient limitation in relation to river connectivity in montane floodplain marshes. Wetlands 29:1243–1254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandt AJ, Seabloom EW (2011) Regional and decadal patterns of native and exotic plant coexistence in California grasslands. Ecological Applications 21:704–714

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown SC, Veneman PLM (2001) Effectiveness of compensatory wetland mitigation in Massachusetts, USA. Wetlands 21:508–518

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruland GL, Richardson CJ (2004) Hydrologic gradients and topsoil additions affect soil properties of Virginia created wetlands. Soil Science Society of America Journal 68:2069–2077

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bruland GL, Richardson CJ (2005) Spatial variability of soil properties in created, restored, and paired natural wetlands. Soil Science Society of America Journal 69:272–284

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell DA, Cole CA, Brooks RP (2002) A comparison of created and natural wetlands in Pennsylvania, USA. Wetland Ecology and Management 10:41–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesapeake Bay Foundation (2010) Save the Bay, Accessed on-line February 2010: http://www.cbf.org

  • Cole CA, Brooks RP (2000) A comparison of the hydrologic characteristics of natural and created mainstem floodplain wetlands in Pennsylvania. Ecological Engineering 14:221–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole CA, Brooks RP, Wardrop DH (2001) Assessing the relationship between biomass and soil organic matter in created wetlands of Central Pennsylvania. Ecological Engineering 17:423–428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook BJ, Hauer FR (2007) Effect of hydrologic connectivity on water chemistry, soils, and vegetation structure and function in an intermontane depressional wetland landscape. Wetlands 27:719–738

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronk JK, Fennessy MS (2001) Wetland plants: biology and ecology. CRC, Boca Raton, pp 191–227, 363–383

  • Davis DL Harold CM (2006) Determining coefficient of conservatism values (C-values) for vascular plants frequently encountered in tidal and non-tidal wetlands in Virginia. Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ) Office of Wetlands and Water Quality

  • Davis MA, Chew MK, Hobbs RJ, Lugo AE, Ewel JJ, Vermeij GJ, Brown JH, Rosenzweig ML, Gardener MR, Carroll SP, Thompson K, Pickett STA, Stromberg JC, Del Tredici P, Suding KN, Ehrenfeld JG, Grime JP, Mascaro J, Briggs JC (2011) Don’t judge species on their origins. Nature 474:153–154

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • De Steven D, Sharitz RR (2007) Transplanting native dominant plants to facilitate community development in restored coastal plain wetlands. Wetlands 27:972–978

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dick DA, Gilliam FS (2007) Spatial heterogeneity and dependence of soils and herbaceous plant communities in adjacent seasonal wetland and pasture sites. Wetlands 27:951–963

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunn CP, Sharitz RR (1990) The History of Murdannia keisak (Commelinaceae) in the Southeastern United States. Castanea 55:122–129

    Google Scholar 

  • Dwire KA, Kauffman JB, Baham JE (2006) Plant species distribution in relation to water-table depth and soil redox potential in montane riparian meadows. Wetlands 26:131–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehrenfeld JG, Ravit B, Elgersma K (2005) Feedback in the plant-soil system. Annual Review of Environmental Resources 30:75–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fennessy MS, Mitsch WJ (2001) Effects of hydrology on spatial patterns of soil development in created riparian wetlands. Wetlands Ecology and Management 9:103–120

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fennessy MS, Rokosch A, Mack JJ (2008) Patterns of plant decomposition and nutrient cycling in natural and created wetlands. Wetlands 28:300–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galatowitsch SM, Anderson NO, Ascher PD (1999) Invasiveness in wetland plants in temperate North America. Wetlands 19:733–755

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner WH (1986) Water Content. In: Klute A (ed) Methods of soil analysis, part 1, physical and mineralogical methods, 2nd edn. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, pp 516–517

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutrich JJ, Taylor KJ, Fennessy MS (2008) Restoration of vegetation communities of created depressional marshes in Ohio and Colorado (USA): the importance of initial effort for mitigation success. Ecological Engineering 1376:1–18

    Google Scholar 

  • HDR, Inc. (2009) Manassas wetland compensation site project: 6234-076-F12, L80. Mitigation monitoring report-monitoring year 9 (2009) Prepared for Virginia Department of Transportation by HDR Inc.

  • Hernandez ME, Alter AE, Mitsch WJ (2003) Belowground biomass and nitrogen accumulation by four dominant wetland species in the experimental wetlands, Olengtangy Wetland Research Park Annual Report, pp 99–103

  • Hoeltje SM, Cole CA (2009) Comparison of function of created wetlands of two age classes in central Pennsylvania. Environmental Management 43:597–608

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hossler K, Bouchard V (2010) Soil development and establishment of carbon-based properties in created freshwater marshes. Ecological Applications 20:539–553

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kercher SM, Zedler JB (2004) Multiple disturbances accelerate invasion of reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea L.) in a mesocosm study. Oecologia 138:455–464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lopez RD, Fennessy MS (2002) Testing the floristic quality assessment index as an indicator of wetland condition. Ecological Applications 12:487–497

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magee TK, Kentula ME (2005) Response of wetland plant species to hydrologic conditions. Wetlands Ecology and Management 13:163–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews JW, Endress AG (2010) Rate of succession in restored wetlands and the role of site context. Applied Vegetation Science 13:346–355

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews JW, Spyreas G, Endress AG (2009) Trajectories of vegetation-based indicators used to assess wetland restoration progress. Ecological Applications 19:2093–2107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mertler CA, Vannatta RA (2010) Advanced and multivariate statistical methods, 4th edn. Pyrczak Publishing, Glendale, California, pp 25–288

    Google Scholar 

  • Moser K, Ahn C, Noe G (2007) Characterization of microtopography and its influence on vegetation patterns in created wetlands. Wetlands 27:1081–1097

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moser KF, Ahn C, Noe G (2009) The influence of microtopography on soil nutrients in created mitigation wetlands. Resource Ecology 17:641–651

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nair VD, Graetz DA, Reddy KR, Olila OG (2001) Soil development in phosphate-mined created wetlands of Florida, USA. Wetlands 21:232–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (2001) Compensating for wetland losses under the Clean Water Act. National Academy Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • National Weather Service (2010) Dulles International Airport monthly total precipitation records, Accessed on-line February 2010: http://www.erh.noaa.gov/lwx/climate/iad/iadprecip.txt

  • Nedland TS, Wolf A, Reed T (2007) A reexamination of restored wetlands in Manitowoc County, Wisconsin. Wetlands 27:999–1015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newcomb L (1977) Newcomb’s wildflower guide. Little, Brown and Company, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Noon KF (1996) A model of created wetland primary succession. Landscape and Urban Planning 34:97–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norfolk District Corps and Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Recommendations for Wetland Compensatory Mitigation: Including Site Design, Permit Conditions, Performance and Monitoring Criteria (2004) Accessed on-line January 2010. http://www.deq.virginia.gov/wetlands/mitigate.html

  • Odum EP (1969) The strategy of ecosystem development. Science 164:262–270

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Olde Venterink H, Wassen MJ, Verkroost AWM, De Ruiter PC (2003) Species richness-productivity patterns differ between N-, P-, and K-limited wetlands. Ecology 84:2191–2199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peet RK, Wentworth TR, White PS (1998) A flexible, multipurpose method for recording vegetation composition and structure. Castanea 63:262–274

    Google Scholar 

  • Ravit B, Rohleder L, Johnson L, Ehrenfeld J, Kalin P (2006) A vegetation survey of Teaneck Creek wetlands. Urban Habitat 5:199–214

    Google Scholar 

  • Reddy KR, DeLaune RD (2008) Biogeochemistry of wetlands: science and applications. Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, Florida, pp 157–181

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Shaffer PW, Kentula ME, Gwin SE (1999) Characterization of wetland hydrology using hydrogeomorphic classification. Wetlands 19:490–504

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spieles DJ (2005) Vegetation development in created, restored, and enhanced mitigation wetland banks of the United States. Wetlands 25:51–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SPSS/PASW Statistics version 19 (2011) SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois

  • Stolt MH, Genthner MH, Daniels WL, Groover VA, Nagle S, Haering KC (2000) Comparison of soil and other environmental conditions in constructed and adjacent palustrine reference wetlands. Wetlands 20:671–683

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strausbaugh PD, Core EL (1977) Flora of West Virginia, 2nd edn. Seneca Books, West Virginia

    Google Scholar 

  • Swink F, Wilhelm G (1979) Plants of the Chicago region, 3rd edn. Morton Arboretum, Lisle

    Google Scholar 

  • Swink F, Wilhelm G (1994) Plants of the Chicago region, 4th edn. Indiana Academy of Science, Indianapolis, IN

    Google Scholar 

  • Tenaglia D (2009) Missouri plants. Accessed on-line frequently:http://www.missouriplants.com/

  • Thomas GW (1996) Soil pH and Soil Acidity. In: Sparks DL (ed) Methods of soil analysis: Part 3-chemical methods. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI, p 487

    Google Scholar 

  • Tiner R (1993) Field guide to coastal wetland plants of the Southeastern United States. University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst

    Google Scholar 

  • U. S. Department of Agriculture, National Resources Conservation Service (2002) Plant fact sheet. Common rush: Juncus effusus L. Accessed on-line June 2011: http://plants.usda.gov

  • U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Resources Conservation Service (2009) The plants database national plant data team, Greensboro, NC 27401-4901 USA, Accessed on-line frequently: http://plants.usda.gov/

  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2002a) Methods for evaluating wetland condition: #10 using vegetation to assess environmental conditions in wetlands. Office of Water, EPA-822-R-02-020, U.S. EPA, Washington

  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2002b) Methods for evaluating wetland condition:#16 vegetation-based indicators of wetland nutrient enrichment. Office of Water, EPA-822-R-02-024, U.S. EPA, Washington

  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Department of the Army (1990) Memorandum of agreement between the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Army concerning the determination of mitigation under the Clean Water Act, Section 404(b)(1) guidelines, U.S. EPA, Washington

  • Wilson DW, Sander LE (1996) Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter. In: Sparks DL (ed) Methods of soil analysis: part 3-chemical methods. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, pp 1002–1005

  • Wolf KL, Ahn C, Noe GB (2011a) Microtopography enhances nitrogen cycling and removal in created mitigation wetlands. Ecological Engineering 37:1398–1406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolf KL, Ahn C, Noe GB (2011b) Development of soil properties and nitrogen cycling in created wetlands. Wetlands 31:699–712

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • WSSI portfolio for wetland and stream mitigation banking (2009). Accessed on-line May 2009. www.wetlandstudies.com

  • Zedler J (1996) Ecological issues in wetland mitigation: an introduction to the forum. Ecological Applications 6:33–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zedler JB, Callaway JC (1999) Tracking wetland restoration: do mitigation sites follow desired trajectories? Restoration Ecology 7:69–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Smith GM (2007) Analysing ecological data. Springer, New York, pp 189–264

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Research was supported by the Thomas F. and Kate Miller Jeffress Memorial Trust. For site access and monitoring well data, thanks go to Wetland Studies and Solutions, Inc. and the Virginia Department of Transportation. Thanks go to Rita Peralta, Johnny Kim, Kyle, Gretchen, and Timothy Goeke Dee for their valuable assistance in the field and lab. Thanks go to Jeff Matthews for his thorough review of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Environmental Science and Policy, George Mason University, 4400 University Drive, Fairfax, VA, 22030, USA

    Suzanne M. Dee & Changwoo Ahn

Authors
  1. Suzanne M. Dee
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Changwoo Ahn
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Changwoo Ahn.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dee, S.M., Ahn, C. Soil Properties Predict Plant Community Development of Mitigation Wetlands Created in the Virginia Piedmont, USA. Environmental Management 49, 1022–1036 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-012-9838-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-012-9838-1

Keywords