, Volume 29, Issue 3, pp 785–797 | Cite as

Vegetation and water-table relationships in a hydrologically restored riparian meadow

  • Christopher T. HammersmarkEmail author
  • Mark C. Rains
  • Allison C. Wickland
  • Jeffrey F. Mount


We examined the relationship between water-table elevations and plant community distributions in a hydrologically restored riparian meadow. The meadow, adjacent to Bear Creek in northeastern California, experienced hydrologic modification due to “pond and plug” stream restoration. Plant species composition and cover were sampled within 128 plots, and a hydrologic model was used to simulate a three-year time series of water-table for each plot. TWINSPAN was used to classify the vegetation into four community types:Eleocharis macrostachya / Eleocharis acicularis, Downingia bacigalupii / Psilocarphus brevissimus, Carex nebrascensis / Juncus balticus, andPoa pratensis / Bromus japonicus. Nonmetric multidimensional scaling was utilized to investigate the relationships between community types and hydrologic variables. Community types were distributed along the hydrologic gradient at reasonably similar positions to those found in previous studies; howeverCarex nebrascensis, a species frequently used as an indicator of shallow water tables, occurred at greater water-table depths than reported in other studies. The range of water-table depths in this meadow was greater than previously observed, presumably due to the higher temporal resolution of water-table measurements, in addition to the intermittent nature of stream flow in Bear Creek. This study provides an increased understanding of the ecology of meadow communities, and can be utilized for improved design and objective setting in future restoration projects.

Key Words

hydrologic model MIKE SHE northeastern California pond and plug stream restoration vegetation community wetland hydrology 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Abbott, M. B., J. C. Bathurst, J. A. Cunge, P. E. Oconnell, and J. Rasmussen. 1986. An introduction to the European Hydrological System — Systeme Hydrologique Europeen, She.1. History and philosophy of a physically-based, distributed modeling system. Journal of Hydrology 87: 45–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen-Diaz, B. H. 1991. Water table and plant species relationships in Sierra Nevada meadows California USA. American Midland Naturalist 126: 30–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allen, R. G., L. S. Pereira, D. Raes, and M. Smith. 1998. Crop evapotranspiration — Guidelines for computing crop water requirements — FAO Irrigation and drainage paper 56. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
  4. Atkinson, R. B., J. E. Perry, E. Smith, and J. Cairns. 1993. Use of created wetland delineation and weighted averages as a component of assessment. Wetlands 13: 185–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Castelli, R. M., J. C. Chambers, and R. J. Tausch. 2000. Soilplant relations along a soil-water gradient in great basin riparian meadows. Wetlands 20: 251–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chambers, J. C., R. R. Blank, D. C. Zamudio, and R. J. Tausch. 1999. Central Nevada riparian areas: physical and chemical properties of meadow soils. Journal of Range Management 52: 92–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chambers, J. C., R. J. Tausch, J. L. Korfmacher, D. Germanoski, J. R. Miller, and D. Jewett. 2004. Effects of geomorphic processes and hydrologic regimes on riparian vegetation. p. 196–231.In J. C. Chambers and J. R. Miller (eds.) Great Basin Riparian Ecosystems — Ecology, Management, and Restoration. Island Press, Covelo, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  8. Daubenmire, R. 1959. A canopy-coverage method of vegetation analysis. Northwest Science 33: 43–64.Google Scholar
  9. Dufrene, M. and P. Legendre. 1997. Species assemblages and indicator species: the need for a flexible asymmetrical approach. Ecological Monographs 67: 345–66.Google Scholar
  10. Dwire, K. A., J. B. Kauffman, and J. E. Baham. 2006. Plant species distribution in relation to water-table depth and soil redox potential in montane riparian meadows. Wetlands 26: 131–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dwire, K. A., J. B. Kauffman, E. N. J. Brookshire, and J. E. Baham. 2004. Plant biomass and species composition along an environmental gradient in montane riparian meadows. Oecologia 139: 309–17.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Emerson, J. W. 1971. Channelization: a case study. Science 173: 325–26.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Ffolliott, P. F., L. F. DeBano, M. B. Baker Jr., D. G. Neary, and K. N. Brooks. 2004. Hydrology and impacts of disturbances on hydrologic function.In M. Baker Jr., et al. (eds.) Ecology and Management of Riparian Areas in the Southwestern United States: Hydrology, Ecology and Management. Lewis Publ., Boca Raton, FL, USA.Google Scholar
  14. Ferrari, C. A. 2003. Soil survey of intermountain area, California: parts of Lassen, Modoc, Shasta, and Siskiyou Counties. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  15. Fleischner, T. L. 1994. Ecological costs of livestock grazing in western North-America. Conservation Biology 8: 629–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Germanoski, D. and J. R. Miller. 2004. Basin sensitivity to channel incision and response to natural and anthropogenic disturbance. p. 88–123.In J. C. Chambers and J. R. Miller (eds.) Great Basin Riparian Ecosystems — Ecology, Management and Restoration. Island Press, Covelo, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  17. Grose, T. L. T. 1996. Preliminary report: geologic mapping in the Fall River Valley region, northern California.Google Scholar
  18. Hammersmark, C. T., S. Dobrowski, M. C. Rains, and J. F. Mount. In press. Simulated Effects of Stream Restoration on the Distribution of Wet-Meadow Vegetation. Restoration Ecology.Google Scholar
  19. Hammersmark, C. T., M. C. Rains, and J. F. Mount. 2008. Quantifying the hydrological effects of stream restoration in a montane meadow, northern California, USA. River Research and Applications 24: 735–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Henszey, R. J., K. Pfeiffer, and J. R. Keough. 2004. Linking surface- and ground-water levels to riparian grassland species along the Platte River in Central Nebraska, USA. Wetlands 24: 665–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hickman, J. C. 1993. The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  22. Hill, M. O. 1979. TWINSPAN — A FORTRAN Program for Arranging Multivariate Data in an Ordered Two-Way Table by Classification of Individuals and Attributes. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  23. Hobson, W. A. and R. A. Dahlgren. 2001. Wetland soils of basins and depressions: case studies of vernal pools. p. 267–81.In J. L. Richardson and M. J. Vepraskas (eds.) Wetland Soils: Genesis, Hydrology, Landscapes, and Classification. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, USA.Google Scholar
  24. Jenson, S. E. and W. S. Platts. 1990. Restoration of degraded riverine/riparian habitat in the Great Basin and Snake River Regions. p. 367–98.In J. A. Kusler and M. E. Kentula (eds.) Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science. Island Press, Covelo, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  25. Kauffman, J. B. and W. C. Krueger. 1984. Livestock impacts on riparian ecosystems and streamside management implications — a review. Journal of Range Management 37: 430–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Keeler-Wolf, T., D. R. Elam, K. Lewis, and S. A. Flint. 1998. California vernal pool assessment preliminary report. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  27. Kruskal, J. B. 1964. Nonmetric multidimensional scaling: a numerical method. Psychometrika 29: 115–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Leyer, I. 2005. Predicting plant species’ responses to river regulation: the role of water level fluctuations. Journal of Applied Ecology 42: 239–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Loheide, S. P. and S. M. Gorelick. 2005. A local-scale, highresolution evapotranspiration mapping algorithm (ETMA) with hydroecological applications at riparian meadow restoration sites. Remote Sensing of Environment 98: 182–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Loheide, S. P. and S. M. Gorelick. 2007. Riparian hydroecology: a coupled model of the observed interactions between groundwater flow and meadow vegetation patterning. Water Resources Research 43.Google Scholar
  31. Martin, D. W. and J. C. Chambers. 2001. Effects of water table, clipping, and species interactions on Carex nebrascensis and Poa pratensis in riparian meadows. Wetlands 21: 422–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McCuen, R. H., Z. Knight, and A. G. Cutter. 2006. Evaluation of the Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency index. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering 11: 597–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McCune, B., J. B. Grace, and D. L. Urban. 2002. Analysis of Ecological Communities. MjM Software Design, Gleneden Beach, OR, USA.Google Scholar
  34. McCune, B. and M. J. Mefford. 1999. PC-ORD. Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data. MjM Software, Gleneden Beach, OR, USA.Google Scholar
  35. Meinzer, O. E. 1927. Large springs in the United States. U. S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 557, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  36. Mitsch, W. J. and J. G. Gosselink. 2000. Wetlands, third ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  37. Murrell-Stevenson, K. 2004. Conservation of plant and abiotic diversity in grazed and ungrazed meadows of the Sierra Nevada. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of California, Davis, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  38. Nash, I. E. and I. V. Sutcliffe. 1970. River flow forecasting through conceptual models. Journal of Hydrology 10: 282–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rains, M. C., J. E. Mount, and E. W. Larsen. 2004. Simulated changes in shallow groundwater and vegetation distributions under different reservoir operations scenarios. Ecological Applications 14: 192–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Refsgaard, J. C. and B. Storm. 1995. MIKE SHE. p. 809–46.In V. P. Singh (ed.) Computer Models in Watershed Hydrology. Water Resources Publications, Englewood, CO, USA.Google Scholar
  41. Rose, T. P., M. L. Davisson, and R. E. Criss. 1996. Isotope hydrology of voluminous cold springs in fractured rock from an active volcanic region, northeastern California. Journal of Hydrology 179: 207–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rosgen, D. L. 1997. A geomorphological approach to restoration of incised rivers.In S. S. Y. Wang, E. J. Langendoen, and F. D. Shields, Jr. (eds.) Proceedings of the Conference on Management of Landscapes Disturbed by Channel Incision. University of Mississippi, Oxford, MS, USA.Google Scholar
  43. SAS Institute. 2004. JMP 5.1. SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
  44. Smith, S. 1998. Riparian community type classification for national forests in northeastern California: a first approximation. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Modoc National Forest, Alturas, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  45. Stringham, T. K., W. C. Krueger, and D. R. Thomas. 2001. Application of non-equilibrium ecology to rangeland riparian zones. Journal of Range Management 54: 210–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tausch, R. J., C. L. Nowak, and S. A. Mensing. 2004. Climate change and the associated vegetation dynamics during the Holocene: the paleoecological record. p. 24–48.In J. C. Chambers and J. R. Miller (eds.) Great Basin Riparian Ecosystems — Ecology, Management and Restoration. Island Press, Covelo, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  47. Thompson, J. R. 2004. Simulation of wetland water-level manipulation using coupled hydrological/hydraulic modeling. Physical Geography 25: 39–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Trimble, S. W. and A. C. Mendel. 1995. The cow as a geomorphic agent — a critical-review. Geomorphology 13: 233–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. National list of vascular plant species that occur in wetlands. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, Washington, DC, USA. FWS/OBS-88/24.Google Scholar
  50. Wakabayashi, J. and T. L. Sawyer. 2001. Stream incision, tectonics, uplift, and evolution of topography of the Sierra Nevada, California. Journal of Geology 109: 539–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Weixelman, D. A., D. C. Zamudio, and K. A. Zamudio. 1996. Central Nevada Riparian Field Guide. USDA, Forest Service, Intermountain Region, Ogden, UT, USA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Wetland Scientists 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher T. Hammersmark
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mark C. Rains
    • 2
  • Allison C. Wickland
    • 3
  • Jeffrey F. Mount
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Watershed SciencesUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA
  2. 2.Department of GeologyUniversity of South FloridaTampaUSA
  3. 3.Department of Plant PathologyUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations