The Mississippi Alluvial Valley (USA)

  • J. Brian Davis
Reference work entry


The Mississippi Alluvial Valley (MAV) is over 800 km long, drains about 41% of the conterminous United States, and is the largest continuous system of wetlands and aquatic habitats in North America comprising approximately 10 million ha. Elevation and hydrology primarily influence the frequency, duration, and periodicity of flooding, which in turn determine plant community composition and species distribution. Largely forested prior to the arrival of Europeans, flood control for agriculture and human settlement caused nearly 75% loss of riparian forests in the MAV by the late twentieth century, with only highly fragmented patches remaining today. However, diverse landforms and ecological communities in the MAV provide unique habitats for myriad species. Many sources of nonpoint source pollution (e.g., fertilizers, toxic chemicals, livestock waste) negatively influence water quality in the MAV. Primary crops grown in the MAV include corn, cotton, rice, and soybeans. Rice fields are especially important to diverse waterbirds during migration and winter.


Bottomland hardwood forests Delta Floodplains Hydrology MAV Mississippi Mississippi River Waterbirds Waterfowl Wetlands 


  1. Barlow JRB, Clark BR. Simulation of water-use conservation scenarios for the Mississippi Delta using an existing regional groundwater flow model: U. S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations report 2011–5019, Reston; 2011.Google Scholar
  2. Brown CR, Baxter C, Pashley DN. The ecological basis for the conservation of migratory birds in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. In: Bonney R, Pashley DN, Cooper RJ, Niles L, editors. Strategies for bird conservation: the partners in flight planning process. Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; 2000. p. 1–7. Accessed 14 Oct 2013.
  3. Conner WH, Sharitz RR. Forest communities of bottomlands. In: Fredrickson LH, King SL, Kaminski RM, editors. Ecology and management of bottomland hardwood ecosystems: the state of our understanding, Special publication No. 10. Puxico: University of Missouri-Columbia, Gaylord Memorial Laboratory; 2005. p. 93–120.Google Scholar
  4. Dembkowski DJ, Miranda LE. Hierarchy in factors affecting fish biodiversity in floodplain lakes of the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. Environ Biol Fishes. 2012;93:357–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Faulkner SW, Barrow JRB, Keeland B, Walls S. Interim report assessment of ecological services derived from U. S. Department of Agriculture conservation programs in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley: Regional estimates and functional condition indicator models. 2008.Google Scholar
  6. Feaga JS. Winter waterbird use and food resources of aquaculture lands in Mississippi [thesis]. Mississippi State: Mississippi State University; 2014.Google Scholar
  7. Gardiner ES, Oliver JM. Restoration of bottomland hardwood forests in Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley, U.S.A. In: Stanturf JA, Madsen P, editors. Restoration of boreal and temperate forests. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2005. p. 235–51.Google Scholar
  8. Griep MT, Collins B. Chapter 14: Wildlife and forest communities. The Southern Forest Futures Project Technical Report. General Technical Report 178. Asheville: USFS Southern Research Station; 2011. Accessed 20 Nov 2013.
  9. Henderson JE, Grado SC, Munn IA, Jones WD. Economic impacts of wildlife- and- fisheries- associated recreation on the Mississippi economy: An input-output analysis. Forest and Wildlife Research Center, Research Bulletin FO398, Mississippi State University; 2010.Google Scholar
  10. Howarth RW, Boyer EW, Pabich WJ, Galloway JN. Nitrogen use in the United States from 1961–2000 and potential future trends. Ambio. 2002;31:88–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Jenkins WA, Murray BC, Kramer RA, Faulkner SP. Valuing ecosystem services from wetlands restoration in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. Ecol Econ. 2010;69:1051–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. King SL, Shepard JP, Ouchley K, Neal JA. Bottomland hardwood forests: past, present, and future. In: Fredrickson LH, King SL, Kaminski RM, editors. Ecology and management of bottomland hardwood systems: the state of our understanding, Gaylord Memorial Laboratory special publication No. 10. Puxico: University of Missouri-Columbia; 2005. p. 1–17.Google Scholar
  13. Klimas C, Foti T, Pagan J, Williamson M, Murray E. Potential natural vegetation maps for ecosystem restoration in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. EMRRP technical notes collection. ERDC TN-EMRRP-ER-16. Vicksburg: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center; 2012.Google Scholar
  14. Kross J, Kaminski RM, Reinecke KJ, Penny EJ, Pearse AT. Moist-soil seed abundance in managed wetlands of the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. J Wildl Manag. 2008;72:707–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lehnen SE, Krementz DG. Use of aquaculture ponds and other habitats by autumn migrating shorebirds along the lower Mississippi River. Environ Manag. 2013;52:417–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture: Management Board. 2013.
  17. Mitsch WJ, Day Jr JW, Gilliam JW, Groffman PM, Hey DL. Reducing nitrogen loading to the Gulf of Mexico from the Mississippi River basin: strategies to counter a persistent ecological problem. Bioscience. 2001;51:373–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. National Aquaculture Sector Overview. United States of America. National aquaculture sector overview fact sheets. Text by Olin PG. In: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department [online]. Rome. [updated 2011 Feb 1; cited 2013 Oct 14].Google Scholar
  19. Oswalt SJ. Forest resources of the lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-117. Asheville: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station; 2013.Google Scholar
  20. Pearse AT, Kaminski RM, Reinecke KJ, Dinsmore SJ. Local and landscape associations between wintering dabbling ducks and wetlands complexes in Mississippi. Wetlands. 2012;32:859–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Petrie M, Brasher M, James D. Estimating the biological and economic contributions that rice habitats make in support of North American waterfowl. Stuttgart: The Rice Foundation; 2014.Google Scholar
  22. Rabalais NN, Turner RE, Scavia D. Beyond science into policy: Gulf of Mexico hypoxia and the Mississippi River. Bioscience. 2002;52:129–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ranalli N, Ritchison G. Phenology of shorebird migration in western Kentucky. Southeast Nat. 2012;11:99–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Reinecke KJ, Kaminski RM, Moorhead DJ, Hodges JD, Nassar JR. Mississippi Alluvial Valley. In: Smith LM, Pederson RL, Kaminski RM, editors. Habitat management for migration and wintering waterfowl in North America. Lubbock: Texas Tech University Press; 1989. p. 203–47.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and AquacultureMississippi State UniversityMississippi StateUSA

Personalised recommendations