, Volume 28, Issue 2, pp 300–310 | Cite as

Patterns of plant decomposition and nutrient cycling in natural and created wetlands

  • M. Siobhan Fennessy
  • Abby Rokosch
  • John J. Mack


Functional assessment is important to determine whether restored and created wetlands are similar to natural ones. We investigated ecosystem processes (decomposition, biomass production) and some aspects of biogeochemical cycles (plant uptake of nitrogen and phosphorus, litter N immobilization) in a population of natural and created (mitigation) wetlands. Our goals were to quantify ecosystem processes and compare some biological and physical characteristics, in order to assess the relative performance of created wetlands. The biological and biogeochemical characteristics of the natural and created sites were substantially different. Decomposition rates for both in-situ and control litter and tissue nutrient concentrations were higher in the natural wetlands, with final decomposition rate constant values (k (d−1)) averaging 0.009 for natural and 0.006 for restored sites over approximately a one-year incubation period. Aboveground biomass production was also significantly higher in the natural sites, averaging 347 g m−2 compared to 209 g m−2. Concentrations of soil percent organic carbon, percent nitrogen, and plant available P (μgP g soil−1) were significantly higher in the natural sites. Lower soil nutrient content in the created wetlands appears to propagate through the system resulting in low tissue nutrient levels, less biomass accumulation, and slower rates of decomposition.

Key Words

biomass production created wetlands decomposition nutrient cycling wetland soils 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Aber, J. D. and J. M. Melillo. 1991. Terrestrial Ecosystems. Saunders College Publishing, Philadelphia, PA, USA.Google Scholar
  2. Aerts, R. and H. de Caluwe. 1997. Initial litter respiration as indicator for long-term leaf litter decomposition of Carex species. Oikos 80: 353–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. AOAC. 1990. Official Methods of Analysis, fifteenth edition. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  4. Arp, C. D., D. J. Cooper, and J. D. Stednick. 1999. The effects of acid rock drainage on Carex aquatilis leaf litter decomposition in Rocky Mountain fens. Wetlands 19: 665–74.Google Scholar
  5. Atkinson, R. B. and J. J. Cairns. 2001. Plant decomposition and litter accumulation in depressional wetlands: functional performance of two wetland age classes that were created via excavation. Wetlands 21: 354–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Battle, J. M. and S. W. Golladay. 2001. Hydroperiod influence on breakdown of leaf litter in Cypress-gum wetlands. American Midland Naturalist 146: 128–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bishel-Machung, L., R. P. Brooks, S. S. Yates, and K. L. Hoover. 1996. Soil properties of reference wetlands and wetland creation projects in Pennyslvania. Wetlands 16: 532–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brinson, M. M., A. E. Lugo, and S. Brown. 1981. Primary productivity, decomposition and consumer activity in freshwater wetlands. Annual Review Ecology and Systematics 12: 123–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brinson, M. M. and R. Rheinhardt. 1996. The role of reference wetlands in functional assessment and mitigation. Ecological Applications 6: 69–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brooks, R. P., D. H. Wardrop, C. A. Cole, and D. A. Campbell. 2005. Are we purveyors of wetland homogeneity? a model of degradation and restoration to improve wetland mitigation performance. Ecological Engineering 24: 331–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brown, S. C. and P. L. Veneman. 2001. Effectiveness of compensatory wetland mitigation in Massachusetts, USA. Wetlands 21: 508–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Craft, C. 2000. Co-development of wetland soils and benthic invertebrate communities following salt marsh creation. Wetlands Ecology and Management 8: 197–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Day, F. P., Jr. 1982. Litter decomposition rates in the seasonally flooded Great Dismal Swamp. Ecology 63: 670–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Deghi, G. S., K. C. Ewel, and W. J. Mitsch. 1980. Effects of sewage effluent application on litterfall and litter decomposition in cypress swamps. Journal of Applied Ecology 17: 397–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fernandez, L. and L. Karp. 1998. Restoring wetlands through mitigation banks. Environmental and Resource Economics 12: 323–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gartner, T. B. and A. Cardon. 2004. Decomposition dynamics in a mixed-species leaf litter. Oikos 104: 230–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gusewell, S. and C. Freeman. 2005. Nutrient limitation and enzyme activities during litter decomposition of nine wetland species in relation to litter N: P ratios. Functional Ecology 19: 582–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Harmon, M. E., K. J. Nadelhoffer, and J. M. Blair. 1999. Measuring decomposition, nutrient turnover, and stores in plant litter. p. 202–40. In G. P. Robertson, D. C. Coleman, C. S. Bledsoe, and P. Sollins (eds.) Standard Soil Methods for Long-termEcological Research. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
  19. Hoeltje, S. M. and C. A. Cole. 2007. Losing function through wetland mitigation in Central Pennyslvania, USA. Environmental Management 39: 385–402.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Langis, R., M. Zalejko, and J. B. Zedler. 1991. Nitrogen assessments in a constructed and a natural salt marsh of San Diego Bay. Ecological Applications 1: 40–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lee, A. A. and P. A. Bukaveckas. 2002. Surface water nutrient concentrations and litter decomposition rates in wetlands impacted by agriculture and mining activities. Aquatic Botany 74: 273–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mitsch, W. J. and J. G. Gosselink. 2000. Wetlands, third edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  23. National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  24. Newman, S. M., H. M. Kumpf, J. M. Laing, and W. M. Kennedy. 2001. Decomposition responses to phosphorus enrichment in an Everglades (USA) slough. Biogeochemistry 54: 229–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Peet, R. K., T. R. Wendworth, and P. S. White. 1998. A flexible, multipurpose method for recording vegetation composition and structure. Castanea 63: 262–74.Google Scholar
  26. Peterson, B. J., L. Deegan, J. Helfrich, J. E. Hobbie, M. Hullar, B. Moller, T. E. Ford, A. Hershey, A. Hiltner, G. Kipphut, M. A. Lock, D. M. Fiebig, V. McKinley, M. C. Miller, J. Vestal, R. Ventullo, and G. Volk. 1993. Biological responses of a tundra river to fertilization. Ecology 74: 653–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Race, M. S. and M. S. Fonseca. 1996. Fixing compensatory mitigation: what will it take? Ecological Applications 6: 94–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Stolt, M. H., M. Genthner, L. Daniels, V. A. Groover, S. Nagle, and K. C. Harling. 2000. Comparison of soil and other environmental conditions in constructed and adjacent palustrine reference wetlands. Wetlands 20: 671–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Taylor, J. and B. Middleton. 2004. Comparison of litter decomposition in a natural versus coal-slurry pond reclaimed as a wetland. Land Degradation & Development 15: 439–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Vargo, S. M., R. K. Neely, and S. M. Kirkwood. 1998. Emergent plant decomposition and sedimentation: response to sediments. Environmental and Experimental Botany 40: 43–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wardle, D. A., K. I. Bonner, and K. S. Nicholson. 1997. Biodiversity and plant litter: experimental evidence which does not support the view that enhanced species richness improves ecosystem function. Oikos 79: 247–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Webster, J. R. and E. F. Benfield. 1986. Vascular plant breakdown in freshwater ecosystems. Annual Review Ecology and Systematics 17: 567–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Windham, L. and J. G. Eherenfeld. 2003. Net impact of a plant invasion on nitrogen-cycling processes within a brackish tidal marsh. Ecological Applications 13: 883–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Zedler, J. B. 1996. Ecological issues in wetland mitigation: an introduction to the forum. Ecological Applications 6: 33–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Zedler, J. B. 2000. Progress in wetland restoration. Trends in Evolution and Ecology 15: 402–07.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zedler, J. B., J. C. Callaway, and G. Sullivan. 2001. Declining biodiversity: Why species matter and how their functions might be restored in California tidal marshes. Bioscience 51: 1005–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society of Wetland Scientists 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Siobhan Fennessy
    • 1
  • Abby Rokosch
    • 1
  • John J. Mack
    • 2
  1. 1.Biology DepartmentKenyon CollegeGambierUSA
  2. 2.Ohio Environmental Protection AgencyGroveportUSA

Personalised recommendations