Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Article
  • Published:
Wetlands Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aerts R, Chapin FS (2000) The mineral nutrition of wild plants revisited: a re-evaluation of processes and patterns. Advances in Ecological Research 30:2–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Aerts R, Verhoeven JTA, Whigham DF (1999) Plant-mediated controls on nutrient cycling in temperate fens and bogs. Ecology 80:2170–2181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akins GJ (1970) The effects of land use and land management on the wetlands of the Upper Klamath Basin. MSc Thesis. Western Washington State College

  • Aldous AR, McCormick P, Ferguson C, Graham S, Craft C (2005) Hydrologic regime controls soil phosphorus fluxes in restoration and undisturbed wetlands. Restoration Ecology 13:341–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aldous AR, Craft CB, Stevens CJ, Barry MJ, Bach LB (2007) Soil phosphorus release from a restoration wetland, Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon. Wetlands 27:1025–1035

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyd CE (1970) Chemical analyses of some vascular aquatic plants. Archiv Fur Hydrobiologie 67:78–85

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyd CE, Hess LW (1970) Factors influencing shoot production and mineral nutrient levels in Typha latifolia. Ecology 51:296–300

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chapin FS III (1980) The mineral nutrition of wild plants. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 11:233–260

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 71:365–377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coveney MF, Stites DL, Lowe EF, Battoe LE, Conrow R (2002) Nutrient removal from eutrophic lake water by wetland filtration. Ecological Engineering 19:141–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 29:735–746

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 520:7–18

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Elseroad A, Rudd N, Hendrixson H (2011) Williamson River Delta Preserve vegetation monitoring: Tulana third-year post-breaching results. The Nature Conservancy, Portland

    Google Scholar 

  • Ernfeld JG (2000) Defining the limits restoration: the need for realistic goals. Restoration Ecology 8:2–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garten CT Jr (1978) Multivariate perspectives on the ecology of plant mineral element composition. The American Naturalist 112:533–544

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Geiger NS (2001) Reassociating wetlands with Upper Klamath Lake to improve water quality. Klamath Fish and Water Management Symposium, Arcata, CA

  • Gotelli NJ, Ellison AM (2004) A primer in ecological statistics. Sinauer Associates, Inc. Publishers, Sunderland

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 25:594–606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Güsewell S, Koerselman W (2002) Variation in nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations of wetland plants. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 5:37–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Güsewell S, Koerselman W, Verhoeven JTA (2003) Biomass N:P ratios as indicators of nutrient limitation for populations in wetlands. Ecological Applications 13:372–384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoagland CR, Gentry LE, David MB, Kovacik DA (2001) Plant nutrient uptake and biomass accumulation in a constructed wetland. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 16:527–540

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kentula ME (2000) Perspectives on setting success criteria for wetland restoration. Ecological Engineering 15:199–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King RS, Richardson CJ, Urban DL, Romanowicz EA (2004) Spatial dependency of vegetation-environment linkages in an anthropogenically influenced wetland ecosystem. Ecosystems 7:75–97

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Koerselman W, Meuleman AFM (1996) The vegetation N:P ratio: a new tool to detect the nature of nutrient limitation. Journal of Applied Ecology 33:1441–1450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 28:516–524

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 2009–5025

  • Meuleman AFM, Beekman JP, Verhoeven JTA (2002) Nutrient retention and nutrient-use efficiency in Phragmites australis stands after wastewater application. Wetlands 22:712–721

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 18:1–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mustafa A, Scholz M (2011) Nutrient accumulation in Typha latifolia L. and sediment of a representative integrated constructed wetland. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 219:329–341

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ray AM, Inouye RS (2006) Vegetative nutrient pools in a constructed wetland in southeastern Idaho. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 21:593–601

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz-Jaen MC, Mitchell Aide T (2005) Restoration success: how is it being measured? Restoration Ecology 13:569–577

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 92:149–156

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Silvan N, Vasander H, Laine J (2004) Vegetation is the main factor in nutrient retention in a constructed wetland buffer. Plant and Soil 258:179–187

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 97–4059

  • Sollie S, Coops H, Verhoeven JTA (2008) Natural and constructed littoral zones as nutrient traps in eutrophicated shallow lakes. Hydrobiologia 605:219–233

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Verhoeven JTA, Arheimer B, Yin C, Hefting MM (2006) Regional and global concerns over wetlands and water quality. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 21:96–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker WW (2001) Development of a phosphorus TMDL for Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Portland

  • 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 6:5–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willby NJ, Pulford ID, Flowers TH (2001) Tissue nutrient signatures predict herbaceous-wetland community responses to nutrient availability. New Phytologist 152:463–481

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 31:433–443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zedler JB, Kercher S (2005) Wetland resources: status, trends, ecosystem services, and restorability. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30:39–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

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.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Andrew M. Ray

    Present address: U.S. Geological Survey, Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center, 2327 University Way, Suite 2, Bozeman, MT, 59715, USA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Oregon Institute of Technology, 3201 Campus Drive, Klamath Falls, OR, 97601, USA

    Andrew M. Ray & Chelsea Aquino

  2. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Klamath Falls Resource Area, 2795 Anderson Ave, Bld # 25, Klamath Falls, OR, 97603, USA

    Andy Hamilton

  3. Klamath Wetland Education & Research Institute, 3612 Maidu Drive, Chiloquin, OR, 97624, USA

    James C. Litts

Authors
  1. Andrew M. Ray
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andy Hamilton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chelsea Aquino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. James C. Litts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew M. Ray.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Table 6 Summary of the nutrient standing stocks present in monospecific stands of vegetation in wetlands of Upper Klamath Basin. Standings stocks were estimated as the product of percentages of each element and the aboveground biomass present. Comparisons include tissues collected from three plant species, Schoenoplectus acutus var. acutus, Sparganium eurycarpum, and Typha latifolia, from three wetlands. All samples of the same species (regardless of wetland site) were pooled in order to make among species comparisons. The total number of samples from each species are shown in Table 1. Standing stocks are presented as gram dry mass of each element per m2. Species with standing stock groups that share the same letter are not significantly different at P = 0.05. Coefficient of variation (CV) values were derived from log-transformed nutrient standing stock data
Full size table

Appendix 2

Table 7 Summary of the nutrient concentrations present in plant tissues from wetlands of Upper Klamath Basin. Comparisons include tissues collected from three plant species, Schoenoplectus acutus var. acutus, Sparganium eurycarpum, and Typha latifolia, and from three wetlands. Elements are expressed as either percentages (mass/mass) or in parts per million (ppm); boron, copper, iron, manganese, and zinc are expressed as ppm. Species within an element group that share the same letter are not significantly different at P = 0.05. Coefficient of variation (CV) values were derived from log-transformed tissue nutrient percentage data
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ray, A.M., Hamilton, A., Aquino, C. et al. Using Vegetative Nutrient Stocks to Compare Restored and Reference Wetlands in the Upper Klamath Basin, Oregon. Wetlands 32, 827–839 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-012-0313-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-012-0313-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation