Wetlands

, Volume 27, Issue 4, pp 999–1015

A reexamination of restored wetlands in Manitowoc County, Wisconsin

  • Thomas S. Nedland
  • Amy Wolf
  • Tara Reed
Article

Abstract

Since the late 1980s, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has helped restore hundreds of wetlands in Manitowoc County, Wisconsin, in an effort to enhance the production of waterfowl and other wetland associated species. During summer 2004, we re-examined 11 restorations to determine how their plant communities had changed since 1992. In addition, we re-evaluated waterfowl and anuran communities at eight restorations. Because 1992 data were compiled from separate studies, all three groups of organisms were simultaneously examined at only two wetlands. Significant decreases in plant diversity and plant species richness were detected between 1992 and 2004, while significant increases were detected for species classified as obligate or facultative wet. These changes suggest that the plant communities at the restorations have matured since 1992. Use of the wetlands by waterfowl and anurans, on the other hand, did not exhibit significant change over this period. Regular monitoring of restorations over even longer periods will provide new insights into the way in which restored communities develop and whether current restoration methods have succeeded in establishing stable, species-rich wetland communities.

Key Words

North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) restoration wetland development wetland succession 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Adams, L. W., L. E. Dove, and T. M. Franklin. 1985. Mallard pair and brood use of urban stormwater-control impoundments. Wildlife Society Bulletin 13: 46–51.Google Scholar
  2. Austin, J. E. 2002. Response of dabbling ducks to wetland conditions in the Prairie Pothole Region. Waterbirds 25: 465–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bakker, J. D. and S. D. Wilson. 2004. Using ecological restoration to constrain biological invasion. Journal of Applied Ecology 41: 1058–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Batzer, D. P., R. Cooper, and S. A. Wissinger. 2006. Wetland animal ecology. p. 242–84. In D. P. Batzer and R. R. Sharitz (eds.) Ecology of Freshwater and Esturarine Wetlands. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  5. Bernthal, T. W. 2003. Development of a floristic quality assessment methodology for Wisconsin. final report to the US Environmental Protection Agency, Region V. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI, USA.Google Scholar
  6. Budelsky, R. A. and S. M. Galatowitsch. 2000. Effects of water regime and competition on the establishment of a native sedge in restored wetlands. Journal of Applied Ecology 37: 971–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chadde, S. 1998. A Great Lakes Wetland Flora. PocketFlora Press, Calumet, MI, USA.Google Scholar
  8. Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. US Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  9. Curtis, J. T. 1959. The Vegetation of Wisconsin: An Ordination of Plant Communities. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI, USA.Google Scholar
  10. Cutright, N., B. Harriman, and R. Howe. 2006. The Atlas of Wisconsin Breeding Birds. Wisconsin Society for Ornithology, Waukesha, WI, USA.Google Scholar
  11. Czarapata, E. J. 2005. Invasive Plants of the Upper Midwest. The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI, USA.Google Scholar
  12. Denk, D. D. 1997. Vegetation development and waterfowl use of restored versus natural wetlands. M.S. Thesis. University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, Stevens Point, WI, USA.Google Scholar
  13. Detenbeck, N. E., S. M. Galatowitsch, J. Atkinson, and H. Ball. 1999. Evaluating perturbations and developing restoration strategies for inland wetlands in the Great Lakes Basin. Wetlands 19: 789–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ehrenfeld, J. G. 2000. Defining the limits of restoration: the need for realistic goals. Restoration Ecology 8: 2–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation. 1989. Federal manual for identifying and delineating jurisdictional wetlands. cooperative technical publication. US Army Corps of Engineers, US Environmental Protection Agency, US Fish and Wildlife Service, and USDA Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  16. Galatowitsch, S. M., R. Budelsky, and L. Yetka. 1999. Revegetation strategies for northern temperate glacial marshes and meadows. p. 225–41. In W. Streever (ed.) An International Perspective on Wetland Rehabilitation. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, Netherlands.Google Scholar
  17. Galatowitsch, S. M. and A. G. van der Valk. 1996. The vegetation of restored and natural prairie wetlands. Ecological Applications 6: 102–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Genet, S. K. and L. G. Sargent. 2003. Evaluation of methods and data quality from a volunteer-based amphibian call survey. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31: 703–14.Google Scholar
  19. Hine, R. L., B. L. Les, and B. F. Hellmich. 1981. Leopard frog populations and mortality in Wisconsin, 1974–1976. Technical Bulletin No. 122. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI, USA.Google Scholar
  20. Jaspen, E. 1996. Biotic and abiotic monitoring and experimental restoration at a wetland mitigation site. M.S. Thesis. University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, Stevens Point, WI, USA.Google Scholar
  21. Joyner, D. E. 1980. Influence of invertebrates on pond selection by ducks in Ontario. Journal of Wildlife Management 44: 700–05.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Keddy, P. 2000. Wetland Ecology: Principles and Conservation. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  23. Kitchens, L. J. 2003. Basic Statistics and Data Analysis. Brooks/ Cole, Pacific Grove, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  24. Kolozsvary, M. B. and R. K. Swihart. 1999. Habitat fragmentation and the distribution of amphibians: patch and landscape correlates in Farmland. Canadian Journal of Zoology 77: 1288–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lindig-Cisneros, R. and J. B. Zedler. 2002. Phalaris arundinacea seedling establishment: effects of canopy complexity in fen, mesocosm, and restoration experiments. Canadian Journal of Botany 80: 617–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Matthews, J. W., P. A. Tessene, S. M. Wiesbrook, and B. W. Zercher. 2005. Effect of area and isolation on species richness and indices of floristic quality in Illinois, USA wetlands. Wetlands 25: 607–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mitsch, W. J. and J. G. Gosselink. 2000. Wetlands, third edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  28. Mitsch, W. J. and R. F. Wilson. 1996. Improving the success of wetland creation and restoration with know-how, time, and self-design. Ecological Applications 6: 77–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mulhouse, J. M. and S. M. Galatowitsch. 2003. Revegetation of prairie pothole wetlands in the mid-continental US: twelve years post-reflooding. Plant Ecology 169: 143–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. National Climatic Data Center. State of WI Rainfall. http:// lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/WI.html. Last accessed 16 February 2005.Google Scholar
  31. Nichols, S. A. 1999. Floristic quality assessment of Wisconsin lake plant communities with example applications. Journal of Lake and Reservoir Management 15: 133–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Odland, A. and R. del Moral. 2002. Thirteen years of wetland vegetation succession following a permanent drawdown, Myrkdalen Lake, Norway. Plant Ecology 162: 185–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Otter, A. J. 1980. Soil Survey of Manitowoc and Calumet Counties, Wisconsin. National Cooperative Soil Survey, USDA, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  34. Perry, L. G., S. M. Galatowitsch, and C. J. Rosen. 2004. Competitive control of invasive vegetation: a native wetland sedge suppresses Phalaris arundinacea in carbon-enriched soil. Journal of Applied Ecology 41: 151–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pough, F. H., R. M. Andrews, J. E. Cadle, M. L. Crump, A. H. Savitzky, and K. D. Wells. 1998. Herpetology. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA.Google Scholar
  36. Reinartz, J. A. and E. L. Warne. 1993. Development of vegetation in small created wetlands in southeastern Wisconsin. Wetlands 13: 153–64.Google Scholar
  37. Robaidek, C. 1997. Macroinvertebrate and macrophyte communities of wetlands restored in Manitowoc County, WI. M.S. Thesis. University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, Green Bay, WI, USA.Google Scholar
  38. Schuyt, K. and L. Brander. 2004. Living Waters — Conserving the Source of Life. The Economic Values of the World’s Wetlands. World Wide Fund for Nature, Gland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  39. Schwar, M. T. 2002. Hydrologic restoration of a groundwater-fed sedge meadow wetland in south-central Wisconsin. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA.Google Scholar
  40. Skelly, D. K., E. E. Werner, and S. A. Cortwright. 1999. Longterm distibutional dynamics of a Michigan amphibian assemblage. Ecology 80: 2326–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sokal, R. R. and F. J. Rohlf. 1995. Biometry: The Principles and Practice of Statistics in Biological Research, third edition. Freeman, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  42. Stannard, M. and W. Crowder. 2001. Biology, History, and Supression of Reed Canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea L). Technical Notes. NRCS, Spokane, WA, USA.Google Scholar
  43. Trenham, P. C., W. D. Koenig, M. J. Mossman, S. L. Stark, and L. A. Jagger. 2003. Regional dynamics of wetland-breeding frogs and toads: turnover and synchrony. Ecological Applications 13: 1522–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Trochlell, P. and T. Bernthal. 1998. Small Wetlands and the Cumulative Impacts of Small Wetland Losses: A Synopsis of the Literature. WDNR, Madison, WI, USA.Google Scholar
  45. USACE. 2006. Historic Great Lake Levels. http://www.lre. usace.army.mil/greatlakes/hh/greatlakeswaterlevels/historicdata/ greatlakeshydrographs. Last accessed 16 September 2006.Google Scholar
  46. USDA. 2004. Plants Wetlands Database. http://plants.usda.gov/ cgi_bin/topics.cgi?earl=wetland.html. Last accessed 16 February 2005.Google Scholar
  47. USFWS. 1998. Expanding the vision. 1998 update. North American Waterfowl Management Plan. US Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  48. USFWS. 2000. Partners for Fish and Wildlife. Regional Highlights. Fiscal Year 2000. Great Lakes-Big Rivers Region. Bull. US Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  49. USGS. 1998. Regional landscape ecosystems of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/ resource/1998/rlandscp/wiscmap.html. Last accessed 23 May 2005.Google Scholar
  50. University of Wisconsin Extension. 2004. Manitowoc County Agriculture: Value and Economic Impact. http://www.uwex. edu/ces/cty/manitowoc/documents/ManitowocAgImpact.pdf. Last accessed 26 October 2005.Google Scholar
  51. van der Valk, A. G. 1981. Succession in wetlands: a Gleasonian approach. Ecology 62: 688–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. VanRees-Siewert, K. L. and J. J. Dinsmore. 1996. Influence of wetland age on bird use of restored wetlands in Iowa. Wetlands 16: 577–82.Google Scholar
  53. Voss, E. G. 1972. Michigan Flora, Part I. Cranbrook Institute of Science, Bloomfield Hills, MI, USA.Google Scholar
  54. Voss, E. G. 1985. Michigan Flora, Part II. Cranbrook Institute of Science, Bloomfield Hills, MI, USA.Google Scholar
  55. Voss, E. G. 1996. Michigan Flora, Part III. Cranbrook Institute of Science, Bloomfield Hills, MI, USA.Google Scholar
  56. WDNR. 2000. Reversing the loss: a strategy for protecting and restoring wetlands in Wisconsin. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI, USA.Google Scholar
  57. Wilhelm, G. S. and D. Ladd. 1988. Natural area assessment in the Chicago region. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 53: 361–75.Google Scholar
  58. Williams, B. K., M. D. Koneff, and D. A. Smith. 1999. Evaluation of waterfowl conservation under the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. Journal of Wildlife Management 63: 417–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Yencha, A. 1993. Fauna and vegetation of restored wetlands in eastern Wisconsin. M.S. Thesis. University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, Green Bay, WI, USA.Google Scholar
  60. Zedler, J. B. 2000. Progress in wetland restoration ecology. Ecology and Evolution 15: 402–07.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Zedler, J. B. and J. C. Callaway. 1999. Tracking wetland restoration: do mitigation sites follow desired trajectories? Restoration Ecology 7: 69–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Wetland Scientists 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas S. Nedland
    • 1
  • Amy Wolf
    • 1
  • Tara Reed
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Environmental Science and PolicyUniversity of Wisconsin-Green BayGreen BayUSA
  2. 2.Martenson & Eisele, Inc.MenashaUSA

Personalised recommendations