Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Biomass and nutrient dynamics in restored wetlands on the outer coastal plain of Maryland, USA

  • Published:
Wetlands Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A three-year study of aboveground biomass and nutrient dynamics in twelve restored depressional wetlands of different ages demonstrated significant annual variability among sites. Annual variations appeared to be primarily due to differences in hydrologic conditions over the three years of the study. Differences among wetlands were not related to time since restoration. When data for all sites were combined, annual differences in biomass and most measurements of nutrients (concentrations and standing stocks) did not, however, differ significantly. These results suggest that differences that are measured at individual wetland sites may be less important at the landscape level. Biomass decreased from the outer temporary to inner submersed zone, and there were few differences among wetlands when the temporary, seasonal, and submersed zones were compared. Nutrient concentrations in the plant biomass increased from the temporary zone to the submersed zone, resulting in few differences in nutrient standing crops across zones. Results from this study demonstrate that some measurements of restoration success (i.e., biomass production) should be used cautiously because they are likely to be highly variable among sites and across years and thus may be of limited use in post-restoration monitoring. Other ecosystem parameters (e.g., nutrient concentrations of biomass) are much more constant spatially and temporally, indicating that nutrient cycling processes in vegetation were established quickly following restoration. Nutrient characteristics of wetland vegetation thus may be a useful metric for evaluating restoration success or failure.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Literature Cited

  • Bedford, B. L., M. R. Walbridge, and A. Aldous. 1999. Patterns in nutrient availability and plant diversity of temperate North American wetlands. Ecology 80:2151–2169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernard, J. M. and T. E. Lauve. 1995. A comparison of growth and nutrient uptake in Phalaris arundinacea L. growing in a wetland and a constructed bed receiving landfill leachate. Wetlands 15: 176–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brinson, M. M. 1993. A Hydrogeomorphic Classification of Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, USA. Wetlands Research Program Technical Report WRP-DE-4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, M. L. and R. G. Brown. 1984. Herbaceous Plants of Maryland. University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S. C. 1998. Remnant seed banks and vegetation as predictors of restored marsh vegetation. Canadian Journal of Botany 76:620–629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S. C. and B. L. Bedford. 1997. Restoration of wetland vegetation with transplanted wetland soil: An experimental study. Wetlands 17:424–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cargill, S. M. and R. L. Jefferies. 1984. The effects of grazing by lesser snow geese on the vegetation of a sub-arctic salt marsh. Journal of Applied Ecology 21:669–686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Confer, S. R. and W. A. Niering. 1992. Comparison of created and natural freshwater emergent wetlands in Connecticut (USA). Wetlands Ecology and Management 3:143–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahlquist, R. L. and J. W. Knoll. 1978. Inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometer: lysis of biological materials and major, trace, and ultratrace elements. Applied Spectroscopy 39:1–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galatowitsch, S. M. and A. G. van der Valk. 1995. Natural revegetation during restoration of wetlands in the southern prairie pothole region of North America. p. 129–142. In B. D. Wheeler, S. C. Shaw, W. J. Fojt, and R. A. Robertson (eds.) Restoration of Temperate Wetlands. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester, England.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galatowitsch, S. M. and A. G. van der Valk. 1996a. The vegetation of restored and natural prairie wetlands. Ecological Applications 6:102–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galatowitsch, S. M. and A. G. van der Valk. 1996b. Characteristics of recently restored wetlands in the Prairie Pothole region. Wetlands 16:75–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grillas, P. and G. Battedou. 1998. Effects of flooding date on the biomass, species composition and seed production in submerged macrophyte beds in temporary marshes in the Camargue (S. France). p. 205–218. In A. J. McComb and J. A. Davis (eds.) Wetlands for the Future. Gleneagles Publishing, Adelaide, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, R. J. 1996. Do Created Wetlands Replace the Wetlands that are Destroyed? U. S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet FS-246-96.

  • Jordan, T., D. Whigham, K. Hauser, and E. Chick. 1996. Effectiveness of constructed wetland for control of agricultural runoff and wildlife habitat. Progress Report — March 1996. Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Edgewater, MD, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, T. E., D. F. Whigham, K. Hofmockel, and N. Gerber. 1999. Restored wetlands in crop fields control nutrient runoff. p. 49–60. In J. Vymazal (ed.) Nutrient Cycling and Retention in Natural and Constructed Wetlands. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kantrud, H. A., J. B. Millar, and A. G. van der Valk. 1989. Vegetation of wetlands of the prairie pothole region. p. 132–187. In A. G. van der Valk (ed.) Northern Prairie Wetlands. Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirkman, L. K., R. F. Lide, G. Wein, and R. R. Sharitz. 1996. Vegetation changes and land-use legacies of depressional wetlands of the western Coastal Plain of South Carolina: 1951–1992. Wetlands 16:564–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirkman, L. K., P. C. Goebel, L. West, M. B. Drew, and B. J. Palik. 2000. Depressional wetland vegetation types: a question of plant community development. Wetlands 20:373–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klopatek, J. M. 1978. Nutrient dynamics of freshwater riverine marshes and the role of emergent macrophytes. p. 195–216. In R. E. Good, D. F. Whigham, and R. L. Simpson (eds.) Freshwater Wetlands. Ecological Processes and Management Potential. Academic Press, NY, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koerselman, W. and A. F. M. Meuleman 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 

  • Lide, R. F., V. G. Meentemeyer, J. E. Pinder, III, and L. M. Beatty. 1995. Hydrology of a Carolina bay located on the upper coastal plain of western South Carolina. Wetlands 15:47–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malakoff, O. 1998. Restored wetlands flunk real-world test. Science 280:371–372.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, D. F. 1972. Marine Chemistry. Vol. 1. Marcel Dekker, New York, NY, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Middleton, B. 1999. Wetland Restoration, Flood Pusling, and Disturbance Dynamics. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitsch, W. J. 1997. Olentangy River Wetland Research Park at the Ohio State University. Annual Report 1996. School of Natural Resources, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitsch, W. J. and J. G. Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitsch, W. J., X. Wu, R. W. Nairn, P. E. Weihe, N. Want, R. Deal, and C. E. Boucher. 1998. Creating and restoring wetlands. BioScience 48:1019–1029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, H. H., W. A. Niering, L. J. Marsicano, and M. Dowdell. 1999. Vegetation change in created emergent wetlands (1988–1996) in Connecticut (USA). Wetlands Ecology and Management 7:177–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murkin, H. R. 1989. The basis for food chains in prairie wetlands. p. 316–338. In A. G. van der Valk (ed.) Northern Prairie Wetlands. Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pepin, A. L. and D. F. Whigham, 1999. Species dynamics of vegetation. p. 54–93. In D. F. Whigham, T. E. Jordan, A. L. Pepin, M. A. Pittek, K. H. Hofmockel, and N. Gerber. Nutrient retention and vegetation dynamics in restored freshwater wetlands on the Maryland Coastal Plain. Final Report. Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Edgewater, MD, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pezzolesi, T. P., R. E. Zartman, E. B. Fish, and M. G. Hickey. 1998. Nutrients in a playa wetland receiving wastewater. Journal of Environmental Quality 27:67–74.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • SAS Institute, Inc. 1990. SAS Language: Reference, Version 6, First Edition. SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seabloom, E. W., K. A. Moloney, and A. G. van der Valk. 2001. Constraints on the establishment of plants along a fluctuating water-depth gradient. Ecology 82:2216–2232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharitz, R. R. and J. W. Gibbons. 1982. The Ecology of Southeastern Shrub Bogs (Pocosins) and Carolina Bays: a Community Profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Biological Services. Washington, DC, USA, FWS.OBS-82/04.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stauffer, A. L. and R. P. Brooks. 1997. Plant and soil responses to salvaged marsh surface and organic matter amendments at a created wetland in central Pennsylvania. Wetlands 17:90–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steward, R. E. and H. A. Kantrud. 1971. Classification of Natural Ponds and Lakes in the Glaciated Prairie Region. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC, USA. Research Publication 92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Wyngaert, I. 2001. Grazing of extensive reed beds by moulting Greylag geese: effects on nutrient dynamics and growth of the Phragmites australis vegetation and consequences for the lake ecosystem Ph.D. Thesis. Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vymazal, J., J. Dušek, and J. Kvét. 1999. Nutrient uptake and storage by plants in constructed wetland with horizontal sub-surface flow: a comparative study. p. 85–100. In J. Vymazal (ed.) Nutrient Cycling and Retention in Natural and Constructed Wetlands. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whigham, D. F., T. E. Jordan, A. L. Pepin, M. A. Pittek, K. H. Hofmockel, and N. Gerber. 1999. Nutrient Retention and Vegetation Dynamics in Restored Freshwater Wetlands on the Maryland Coastal Plain: Final Report. Smithsonian Environmental Research Center. Edgewater, MD, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 51:1005–1017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Mary Pittek

    Present address: Department of Biological Resource Engineering, University of Maryland, 20742, College Park, Maryland, USA

  2. Kirsten H. Hofmockel

    Present address: Department of Biology, Duke University, 27708, Durham, North Carolina, USA

  3. Antoinette L. Pepin

    Present address: Wetland Studies and Solutions, Inc., 14088-M Sullyfield Circle, 22021, Chantilly, Virginia, USA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Box 28, 21037, Edgewater, Maryland, USA

    Dennis Whigham, Mary Pittek, Kirsten H. Hofmockel, Thomas Jordan & Antoinette L. Pepin

Authors
  1. Dennis Whigham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mary Pittek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kirsten H. Hofmockel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Thomas Jordan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Antoinette L. Pepin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Whigham, D., Pittek, M., Hofmockel, K.H. et al. Biomass and nutrient dynamics in restored wetlands on the outer coastal plain of Maryland, USA. Wetlands 22, 562–574 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1672/0277-5212(2002)022[0562:BANDIR]2.0.CO;2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1672/0277-5212(2002)022[0562:BANDIR]2.0.CO;2

Key Words

Search

Navigation