Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Fenceline contrasts: grazing increases wetland surface roughness

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Wetlands Ecology and Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A warming earth has lost substantial mountain-stored frozen fresh water, thus generating a pressing need for greater liquid–water storage within upper-elevation riparian systems. Liquid–water storage can be enhanced by avoiding microtopographic channels that facilitate land drainage and rapid runoff. A number of authors have attributed certain forms of wetland hummocks and inter-hummock channels to grazing livestock but there is little evidence in the scientific literature for a cause and effect mechanism. We used comparisons at six fencelines on four meadow and wetland complexes to test the null hypothesis that grazing management makes no difference in hummocks and inter-hummock channels measured as surface roughness. Surface roughness was measured both photogrammetrically (photo) and with an erosion bridge (EB), and the measurements expressed as surface roughness indices (SRIs). Wetland surface roughness inside fenced areas was 44 (EB) and 41 (photo). Wetland surface roughness outside fenced areas was more than 50 % higher (p < 0.0001), measuring 76 (EB, n = 6) and 62 (photo, n = 4). The site with the longest period of conservation management (50+ years) had the lowest inside EB SRI at 27. The two independent measurement methods, EB and photo, yielded similar, correlated results (R = 0.71, n = 8). Historical aerial photography provides supporting evidence for our findings. We reject the null hypothesis and while we suspect macrotopography, hydrology, soil type, and climate are factors in hummock formation, our evidence supports the thesis that hummocks formed surface-down by inter-hummock channels result primarily from grazing by domestic livestock.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Booth DT, Cox SE, Berryman RD (2006) Precision measurements from very large scale aerial digital imagery using image measurement, Laserlog, and Merge software applications. Remote Sens Environ 112:293–307

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandler J, Ashmore P, Paola C, Gooch M, Varkaris F (2002) Monitoring river-channel change using terrestrial oblique digital imagery and automated digital photogrammetry. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 92:631–644

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chimner RA, Cooper DJ (2003) Carbon dynamics of pristine and hydrologically modified fens in the southern Rocky Mountains. Can J Bot 81:477–491

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Coffman K (2013) Property losses from Colorado flood projected at about $2 billion. Reuters US Edition. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/19/us-usa-colorado-flooding-idUSBRE98H1BA20130919, Accessed 23 Dec 2013

  • Corning RV (2002) Diminished sweetwater river flows from the high cold desert region of Wyoming. A whitepaper included in Part III of the 2002 Green Mountain Common Allotment Evaluation, Lander Field Office, Bureau of Land Management

  • Downard R, Endter-Wada J (2013) Keeping wetlands wet in the western United States: adaptations to drought in agriculture-dominated human-natural systems. J Environ Manag 131:394–406. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.10.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilley JE, Kottwitz ER (1995) Random roughness assessment by the pin and chain method. Biological Systems Engineering. DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska—Lincoln. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/biosysengfacpub/60

  • Girard M, Wheeler DL, Mills SB (1997) Classification of riparian communities on the Bighorn National Forest. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region R2-RR-97-0

  • Google Earth v7.1.1.1580 (2013) PB Creek Exclosure, Wyoming. 42.338°,-108.422°. http://www.earth.google.com, accessed 21 Jan 2014

  • Hairsine PB, Moran CJ, Rose CW (1992) Recent developments regarding the influence of soil surface characteristics on overland flow and erosion. Aust J Soil Res 30:249–264

  • Heede BH (1978) Designing gully control systems for eroding watersheds. Environ Manag 2:509–522

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jankovsky-Jones M (1999) Conservation strategy for wetlands in east-central Idaho. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, 600 South Walnut, P.O. Box 25, Boise, ID 83707

  • Jester W, Klik A (2005) Soil surface roughness measurements—methods, applicability, and surface representation. Catena 64:174–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson B, Carey T (2004) Cows and ditches make fen delineation a unique challenge or lessons learned in delineating an impacted, subalpine fen. Aquat Resour News 3(4):9–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Luk SH (1983) Effect of aggregate size and microtopgraphy on rainwash and rainsplash erosion. Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie (Ann Geomorphol) 27:283–295

    Google Scholar 

  • Magnusson B, Elmarsdottir A, Barkarson BH (1998) Horse ranges—a method to assess range condition. Agricultural Research Institute, Keldnaholt, 112 Reykjavik, Iceland. http://www.rala.is/umhvd/hhagar/edefault.htm. Accessed 20 Dec 2013

  • Mathews NA (2008) Aerial and close-range photogrammetric technology: Providing resource documentation, interpretation, and preservation. Tech Note 428. Bureau of Land Management, National Operations Center, Denver, CO

  • Maurin A, Berggren M (2011) Soil surface roughness (pin) meter. USDA Engineering & Wind Erosion Research Unit, Center for Grain and Animal Health Research, Manhattan, KS

  • McEldowney RR, Flenniken M, Frasier GW, Trlica MJ, Leininger WC (2002) Sediment movement and filtration in a riparian meadow following cattle use. J Range Manag 55:367–373

  • Miller RL, Fujii R (2010) Plant community, primary productivity, and environmental conditions following wetland re-establishment in the Sacramento-San Joaquim Delta, California. Wetl Ecol Manag 18:1–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naiman RJ, Decamps H (1997) The ecology of interfaces: riparian zones. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 28:621–658

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Aeronautics and Space Administration (2013) GISS surface temperature analysis. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/, Accessed 23 Dec 2013

  • National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (2011A) The Missouri/Souris River floods of May-August 2011. http://www.nws.noaa.gov/os/assessments/pdfs/Missouri_floods11.pdf, Accessed 03 Jan 2014

  • National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (2011B) United States Flood Loss Report – Water year 2011. http://www.nws.noaa.gov/hic/summaries/WY2011.pdf, Accessed 23 Dec 2013

  • Nayak A, Marks D, Chandler DG, Seyfried M (2010) Long-term snow, climate, and streamflow trends at the Reynolds Creek Experimental Watershed, Owyhee Mountains, Idaho, United States. Water Resour Res. doi:10.1029/2008WR007525

    Google Scholar 

  • Seidler H, Bernhard W, Teschler-Nicoloa M, Platzer W, zur Nedden D, Henn R, Oberhauser A, Sjovold T (1992) Some anthropological aspects of the prehistoric Tyrolean ice man. Science 258:455–457

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Smart G, Duncan MJ, Walsh JM (2002) Relatively rough flow resistance equations. J Hydraul Eng 128:568–578

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith ML, Meiman PJ, Brummer JE (2012) Characteristics of hummocked and non-hummocked Colorado riparian areas and wetlands. Wetl Ecol Manag 20:409–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taconet O, Ciarletti V (2007) Estimating soil roughness indices on a ridge-and-furrow surface using stereo photogrammetry. Soil Till Res 93:164–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ullah W, Dickinson WT (1979) Quantitative description of depression storage using a digital surface model. I. Determination of depression storage. J Hydrol 42:63–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warner WS, Kvaerner J (1998) Measuring trail erosion with a 35 mm camera. Mt Res Dev 18:273–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ypsilantis WG (2011) Upland soil erosion monitoring and assessment: an overview. Tech Note 438. Bureau of Land Management, National Operations Center, Denver, CO

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Mike Londe and Tom Noble, Bureau of Land Management, for their assistance in the project. Research was funded by the US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management and through volunteer work by Booth and Likins.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to D. T. Booth.

Additional information

Mention of proprietary products and services does not constitute a guarantee or warranty by USDA, USDI, or the authors and does not imply approval to the exclusion of other suitable products and services.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Booth, D.T., Cox, S.E. & Likins, J.C. Fenceline contrasts: grazing increases wetland surface roughness. Wetlands Ecol Manage 23, 183–194 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-014-9368-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-014-9368-0

Keywords

Navigation