Professional Documents
Culture Documents
424-437
1997, The Society of Wetland Scientists
1Present address:
Department of Plant and Soil Science
University of Massachusetts, Stockbridge Hall
Amherst, MA 01003
e-mail Stephen.Brown @state.ma.us.
Abstract:
Restoration of drained wetlands requires the re-establishment of a native wetland plant community. This can be difficult in areas where long-term drainage has eliminated wetland vegetation and significantly reduced the number of viable wetland plant seeds in the seed bank. This study of U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service wetland restoration sites in northern New York examines the effectiveness of transplanting
wetland soil from small remnant wetlands in the drainage ditches to the area that becomes shallow marsh
following reflooding. The results of two experiments are reported, including a small-scale study of transplantation techniques using small plots with treatments and controls established by hand, and a large-scale
application of soil transplantation and site-preparation techniques using heavy equipment to establish large
plots across entire wetland basins. In the small-scale study, the transplant plots had significantly lower
wetland index values, indicating greater dominance of wetland plants, after one growing season but not after
two. Transplant plots also had more wetland plant species and more wetland plant cover than natural control
plots, and these differences persisted through the second growing season. Litter removal and soil disturbance
also lowered the wetland index values and increased wetland plant species number and cover, but only for
the first growing season. In the large-scale study, soil transplantation significantly increased both the number
of species and the amount of cover of wetland plants and of plants valuable as wildlife food sources. Mowing
and plowing treatments increased wetland plant establishment, but much less than soil transplantation, and
plowing significantly increased the establishment of cattail (Typha spp.), an undesirable invasive species in
small wildlife marshes. Soil transplantation should be a particularly effective technique for improving wetland
plant establishment and limiting cattail encroachment in areas disturbed by dike construction,
Key Words:
wetland restoration, wetland plants, soil amendments, soil transplantation, New York
l i s h m e n t o f d i v e r s e p l a n t c o m m u n i t i e s in r e s t o r e d w e t lands.
C a t t a i l i n v a s i o n is p r o b l e m a t i c b e c a u s e d e n s e m o n o c u l t u r e s r e d u c e the ratio o f o p e n w a t e r to v e g e t a t i o n ,
r e d u c e the d i v e r s i t y o f v e g e t a t i o n , a n d t h e r e f o r e r e d u c e
t h e h a b i t a t v a l u e o f the site ( W e l l e r 1975, K a m i n s k i
a n d P r i n c e 1981, M u r k i n et al. 1982). In a d d i t i o n , cattails are v e r y difficult to c o n t r o l o n c e t h e y are e s t a b lished, even with intensive management techniques
l i k e cutting, b u r n i n g , a n d the use o f h e r b i c i d e s ( B e u l e
1979, M a l l i k a n d W e i n 1986, C o m e s a n d K e l l y 1989,
B a l l 1990).
G o v e r n m e n t a l a g e n c i e s i n v o l v e d in r e s t o r a t i o n (sensu L e w i s 1989) o f w e t l a n d s n e e d r e s t o r a t i o n t e c h n i q u e s that i n c r e a s e the l i k e l i h o o d o f e s t a b l i s h i n g di-
INTRODUCTION
T h r o u g h o u t the U n i t e d States, g o v e r n m e n t a g e n c i e s
r e q u i r e that w e t l a n d s d e s t r o y e d b y v a r i o u s h u m a n activities b e r e p l a c e d w i t h c r e a t e d o r r e s t o r e d sites. H o w ever, f e w studies h a v e s y s t e m a t i c a l l y e x a m i n e d the eff e c t i v e n e s s o f d i f f e r e n t t e c h n i q u e s u s e d to r e c r e a t e natural w e t l a n d s . W e f o u n d in an o n g o i n g s t u d y o f w e t l a n d s r e s t o r e d b y the U.S. F i s h a n d W i l d l i f e S e r v i c e
( B r o w n 1995) that cattail (Typha spp.) o f t e n d o m i n a t e s
a r e a s o f the sites w h e r e c o n s t r u c t i o n a c t i v i t i e s disturb
the soil d u r i n g r e s t o r a t i o n . O d u m (1988), R e i n a r t z a n d
W a r n e (1993), a n d a r e v i e w o f w e t l a n d r e s t o r a t i o n b y
the N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C o u n c i l (1992) also r e p o r t the
t e n d e n c y o f m o n o t y p i c s t a n d s o f cattail a n d o t h e r a g g r e s s i v e n a t i v e a n d e x o t i c s p e c i e s to p r e c l u d e e s t a b 424
B r o w n & Bedford, W E T L A N D R E S T O R A T I O N W I T H T R A N S P L A N T E D S O I L
verse plant communities that resemble natural wetlands (National Research Council 1992). If increasing
avifauna habitat is a m o n g the restoration goals, the
techniques must establish plant communities that enhance habitat value for birds. Furthermore, the techniques must have the characteristic that they can be
applied to m a n y wetlands at the scale o f entire restoration sites and without excessive cost to the agency
or landowner.
Numerous studies of natural wetlands have tied the
maintenance of a diverse flora to the presence o f a diverse seed bank that responds to changing water levels
(van der Valk and Davis 1978, van der Valk 1981, Pederson and van der Valk 1984, Keddy and Ellis 1985).
Seed banks will not contribute to restoration o f wetland
plant communities, however, if they have been significantly depleted by long-term disturbance o f the former
wetland site. After m a n y years of drainage, for example,
the seed bank in a former wetland can b e c o m e relatively depauperate of wetland species (Weinhold and
van der Valk 1989, Brown 1995, Galatowitsch and van
der Valk 1996). This loss of viable seeds may slow or
prevent recovery o f wetland vegetation following restoration of wetland water levels. Desirable species m a y
not re-establish before a more aggressive species preempts the site (Reinartz and Warne 1993).
On sites drained with ditches, however, a remnant
wetland plant c o m m u n i t y often exists in the poorly
drained soil adjacent to the ditch. We hypothesized
that, if these remnant soils could be transplanted to the
intended restoration area, their relatively rich seed
banks would produce greater species richness and cover o f wetland plants following restoration of wetland
hydrology than the seed banks of areas that had been
effectively drained (Dunn and Best 1984). We further
hypothesized that the technique o f m o v i n g remnant
wetland soils was one that could be i m p l e m e n t e d on
a scale large enough to affect entire restoration sites.
Our goal was to determine if transplanting remnant
wetland soil could be an effective technique for recreating a wetland plant c o m m u n i t y at higher elevations
where drainage was m o r e complete. We conducted our
experiments at two scales, a small-scale study using
p l o t s with treatments established b y hand, and a largescale study using construction equipment to establish
treatment areas across entire wetland basins. Because
the goal of the restoration p r o g r a m we studied was to
increase avifauna habitat, we were particularly interested in the responses of wetland plants k n o w n to be
used as food sources by waterfowl and marsh birds.
Our experiments were designed to address the following major questions: 1) can the n u m b e r of wetland
plant species that germinate and establish be increased
by transplanting soil f r o m remnant wetland areas; 2)
does the inclusion of wetland plant rhizomes in the
425
transplanted soil affect the species richness and abundance o f wetland plants that b e c o m e established; 3)
h o w long do treatment effects persist; 4) do the treatments increase the abundance o f plant species k n o w n
to be used as food sources b y w a t e r f o w l and marshbirds; and 5) can these techniques be applied at the
scale of whole restoration sites?
METHODS
Small-Scale Study
We conducted the small-scale study on six restoration sites selected f r o m a total o f 21 in our ongoing
study of vegetation responses to restoration (Brown
1995). The study sites are located in Jefferson County,
N e w York (4400'N, 7 5 5 2 ' W ) in the L a k e Ontario
and St. L a w r e n c e River lowlands. At each study site,
Guffin series soils o c c u p y the lowest areas (a fine,
mixed, nonacid, mesic Mollic Epiaquept) grading to
C h a u m o n t series soils in the surrounding uplands (a
fine, mixed, mesic Aeric Epiaqualf).
Each restoration site had a r e m n a n t wetland corridor
located in the drainage ditch constructed to r e m o v e
water from the basin. D r a i n a g e occurred at least 40
years ago at all sites and was probably completed
m u c h longer ago at most sites, but no records are available. The remnant wetland corridors h a v e m a n y m o r e
wetland plant species and species-rich seed banks than
the remaining drained areas that b e c o m e shallow
marsh following restoration o f wetland h y d r o l o g y
(Brown 1995). The original wetland vegetation at
higher elevations was entirely replaced by upland field
plants, as drained areas b e c a m e too d r y to support hydrophytic vegetation. T h e drained areas were used primarily for pasture and forage crops, with v e r y little
cultivation.
The experiment consisted o f two treatments and
three types of controls, all of which w e established in
M a y of 1992 (Table 1A). At e a c h o f the six restoration
sites, plots were established at 15 c m below the restored m a x i m u m water level b y surveying with an
auto-level. In the first treatment, we transplanted soil
blocks by r e m o v i n g all upland soil in 0.25 m 2 plots to
a depth of 15 cm, then transplanting all soil, plant
roots, and rhizomes f r o m an equal soil v o l u m e in the
remnant wetland to the e x p e r i m e n t a l plot. We transplanted the soil in four a p p r o x i m a t e l y equal sections,
which were m o v e d as intact as possible. We replicated
this treatment three times at e a c h o f the 6 wetlands. In
the second treatment, we first sieved the transplanted
soil by passing it through a 1-cm screen to r e m o v e
plant roots and rhizomes. We then transplanted the
sieved soil in the same w a y as the soil blocks. We
replicated this treatment three times at each o f two
426
Table 1. A) The numbers of quadrats in each treatment type in the small-scale study. (Trans. Blocks = transplanted soil
blocks; Sieved Soil = transplanted sieved soil; Unmanipulated = unmanipulated control plots; Litter Removed = litter removal
without soil disturbance; Disturbed = upland soil removed and replaced. Drawdown plots include the - 1 5 cm plots from 5
of the 6 sites where a natural drawdown exposed the soil surface.) B) Total numbers of quadrats established in each treatment
type in the large-scale study.
A) Small-Scale Experiment
Plot Type
Trans. Blocks
Plots at - 15 cm
Plots at - 3 0 cm
Total Plots
Drawdown Plots
B) Large-Scale Experiment
Treatment
Total Plots
Sieved Soil
Unmanipulated
Litter Removed
24
15
6
0
6
6
18
6
24
15
6
2
8
6
Control
Mowed
Plowed
Soil Trans.
Total
39
30
18
54
141
18
Disturbed
6
2
8
6
WI=
i=]
(IVl'WIS1)
100
RESTORATION
WITH TRANSPLANTED
SOIL
427
Table 2. Wetland plant species with high value as wildlife food sources that occurred at sites in this study, e = excellent, g
= good, f = fair, p = poor, but important for some species. Compiled from Martin et al. (1951) and Payne (1992).
Genus
Alisma
Bidens
Carex
Comus
Eleocharis
Glyceria
Juncus
Leersia
Lemna
Ludwigia
Polygonum
Polygonum
Potamogeton
Sagittaria
Sparganium
Species
sp.
sp.
sp.
sp.
sp.
striata Lam.
sp.
oryzoides L.
minor L.
palustris L.
hydropiper L.
sp.
sp.
latifolia Willd.
eurycarpum Engelm.
Part Consumed
Waterfowl
seeds
seeds
seeds
fruits
roots
seeds
seeds
seeds, roots
foliage
seeds
seeds
seeds
seeds, roots, stems
seeds, roots
seeds
f
p
f
g
p
f
f
g
g
f
g
e
g
f
f
w h e r e I V = the I m p o r t a n c e V a l u e o f s p e c i e s i in that
plot, a n d W I S --- the W e t l a n d I n d i c a t o r Status o f that
species. T h e r e l a t i v e p e r c e n t c o v e r o f e a c h s p e c i e s in
e a c h p l o t w a s u s e d to c a l c u l a t e its i m p o r t a n c e v a l u e in
that plot. W e s u m m e d the p e r c e n t c o v e r o f all s p e c i e s
r e c o r d e d in the p l o t a n d d i v i d e d t h e p e r c e n t c o v e r o f
e a c h s p e c i e s b y the total so i m p o r t a n c e v a l u e s for e a c h
p l o t s u m to 100. W e a l s o c o m p a r e d p l o t t y p e s w i t h
r e g a r d to the m e a n n u m b e r o f w e t l a n d s p e c i e s w i t h an
i n d i c a t o r status o f F A C , F A C W , o r O B L a n d the t o t a l
c o v e r o f these w e t l a n d plants.
W e c o m p a r e d the t r a n s p l a n t e d w e t l a n d soil b l o c k s
and undisturbed controls with a two-way ANOVA on
w e t l a n d i n d e x v a l u e s , w i t h f a c t o r s o f t r e a t m e n t a n d site
( W e t l a n d I n d e x f o r C o v e r = W I ) . W e a l s o t e s t e d for
d i f f e r e n c e s in t h e n u m b e r o f w e t l a n d s p e c i e s p r e s e n t
( W e t l a n d S p e c i e s N u m b e r = W S N ) a n d the t o t a l perc e n t c o v e r o f w e t l a n d s p e c i e s in e a c h p l o t ( W e t l a n d
S p e c i e s C o v e r = W S C ) . E a c h test h a d t h r e e r e p l i c a t e
p l o t s p e r t r e a t m e n t in e a c h o f the six sites a n d the t w o
f a c t o r s o f p l o t t y p e a n d site. W e u s e d n o r m a l p r o b a -
Marshbirds and
Shorebirds
f
f
e
f
b i l i t y p l o t s to t e s t a s s u m p t i o n s o f n o r m a l i t y f o r r e s i d uals.
All other comparisons were tested using KruskalW a l l i s o n e - w a y a n a l y s e s o f v a r i a n c e b e c a u s e o f the
s a m p l e sizes in e a c h t r e a t m e n t a n d n o n - n o r m a l i t y o f
d a t a ( W i l k i n s o n 1992). W e r e p e a t e d the tests for all
three of the response variables described above (WI,
WSN, and WSC).
Large-Scale Study
W e s e l e c t e d five a d d i t i o n a l d r a i n e d w e t l a n d s in t h e
s u m m e r o f 1993 that w e r e s c h e d u l e d for r e s t o r a t i o n
w o r k that fall. E a c h site h a d s o i l s in the s a m e f a m i l y
as the sites in t h e s m a l l s c a l e s t u d y . A t e a c h site, w e
e s t a b l i s h e d soil t r a n s p l a n t p l o t s b y s u r v e y i n g the e l e v a t i o n s o f t h e site a n d m a r k i n g a n a r e a at l e a s t 1 0 - m
wide and extending across the entire wetland basin
p e r p e n d i c u l a r to the d r a i n a g e c h a n n e l ( b e t w e e n 55 a n d
95 m across). W e m a r k e d s i m i l a r l y s i z e d p l o t s for
m o w i n g a n d p l o w i n g at e a c h site a n d a l s o m a r k e d c o n -
Table 3. Results of two-way A N O V A s are shown by year for each response variable for drawdown plots in the small-scale
study. Factors were plot type and site. Plot types compared include only transplanted soil blocks and unmanipulated controls.
R ~ is the value for the model. (* = significant at alpha = 0.05; ** = significant at alpha = 0.01)
Response Variable
Wetland Index
Wetland Species Number
Wetland Species Cover
Year
R~
1992
1993
1992
1993
1992
1993
0.951
0.514
0.816
0.779
0.843
0.706
Site p
p
p
p
p
p
p
=
=
=
<
=
=
0.001"*
0.01"
0.003**
0.001"*
0.001"*
0.014"
Plot type p
p
p
p
p
p
p
<
=
<
<
<
<
0.001"*
0.69
0.001"*
0.001"*
0.001"*
0.001"*
428
X
"0
1992
_e 4
0
<
-o
I1
'
.C
0
a
-5
1993
"0
_c 4
01
<
~
t,,,
'~ 1
0
B
S
C
L
D
Transplant Plot Type
Figure 1. Box plots of weighted average wetland index values for each transplant plot type for 1992 (after one growing
season) and 1993 (after two growing seasons) for drawdown
plots in the small-scale study. Plot types are as follows: B
= transplanted soil blocks; S = transplanted sieved soil; C
= unmanipulated controls; L = litter removed; and D =
upland soil disturbed. Plot types that share a common letter
are not significantly different based on Mann-Whitney U
tests, with alpha = 0.05. Asterisks denote outliers.
trol areas that were not disturbed. Soil was transplanted with a bulldozer from the remnant wetland in the
drainage ditch in a band that extended upslope to the
edge of the proposed wetland. M o w e d plots had upland vegetation cut but not removed, and plowed plots
had upland soil turned over, both with standard farm
equipment. M o w i n g treatments were established at 4
sites and plowing treatments at only 2 sites because of
problems with equipment and early autumn flooding
caused by above-average precipitation.
Wetland h y d r o l o g y was restored at all five sites in
the fall o f 1993. During the spring of 1994, we established quadrats at k n o w n elevations at all sites by surveying with an autolevel. Within each treatment area,
we established two replicate transects of 3 plots each
at the elevation o f m a x i m u m water level and at 15 cm
and 30 c m below water level. At one very large site,
we established each treatment twice to test for consistency o f results within a site and installed a set o f
transects in each o f the two treatment blocks. At two
of the other sites, where the soil transplant area was
Transplanted Soil Blocks and Unmanipulated Controls. The transplanted wetland soil blocks had sig-
nificantly lower wetland index values than the unmanipulated control plots in the first year but not in the
second (Table 3, Figure 1). Transplanting soil from the
renmant wetland significantly increased the number of
B r o w n & Bedford, W E T L A N D R E S T O R A T I O N W I T H T R A N S P L A N T E D S O I L
429
"6
Block
50 ,
Sieved
Control
Litter
Disturbed
~. so . ~
,,
25
Block
Sieved
Control
Litter
Disturbed
Figure 2. Mean number of wetland plant species (A) and mean total percent cover of wetland plants (B) in drawdown plots
of each type in the small-scale study in each year, with standard deviations. Plot types are as follows: Block = transplanted
soil block; Sieved = transplanted sieved soil; Control = unmanipulated control; Litter = litter removed; and Disturbed =
upland soil disturbed.
wetland species and the amount o f c o v e r of wetland
species in each year (Table 3, Figure 2). Site was a
significant factor in each year, and there were two significant interactions between site and treatment type,
in 1992 for wetland index value (p = 0.016), and in
1993 for wetland species cover (p < 0.001).
430
WETLANDS,
Volume
17, N o . 3, 1 9 9 7
Table 4. Results of Kruskal-Wallis o n e - w a y analyses of variance comparing transplant types and control types at d r a w d o w n
plots in the small-scale study for the three response variables: W I = Wetland Index; W S N = Wetland Species N u m b e r ; W S C
= Wetland Species Cover. A) Comparisons between soil transplant types. B) Comparisons b e t w e e n control types. Abbreviations
f o l l o w Table 1. (* = significant at alpha = 0.05; ** = significant at alpha = 0.01)
Year
Comparison
WI
WSN
WSC
Trans. B l o c k - - S i e v e d Soil
Sieved Soil--Unmanipulated
Trans. B l o c k s - - S i e v e d Soil
S i e v e d Soil-----Unmanipulated
p
p
p
p
=
=
=
=
0.465
0.004**
0.743
0.949
p
p
p
p
=
=
=
=
0.070
0.127
0.013"
0.099
p
p
p
p
=
=
=
=
0.423
0.004**
0.846
0.048*
p
p
p
p
=
=
=
=
0.032*
0.018"
0.774
0.830
p
p
p
p
=
=
=
=
0.341
0.049*
0.359
0.412
p
p
p
p
=
=
=
=
0.028*
0.028*
0.374
0.200
1993
n i p u l a t e d c o n t r o l s ( T a b l e 5, a n d F i g u r e 3). W e t l a n d
i n d e x v a l u e s at all t h r e e e l e v a t i o n s s h o w e d s i m i l a r p a t terns, with no significant interaction between treatment
t y p e a n d e l e v a t i o n ( F = 1.634, d f = 6, p = 0 . 1 4 3 ) , s o
o n l y o n e e l e v a t i o n is p r e s e n t e d g r a p h i c a l l y . S o i l t r a n s plants also significantly increased both the number of
s p e c i e s a n d t h e c o v e r o f w e t l a n d p l a n t s at all e l e v a t i o n s ( T a b l e 5 a n d F i g u r e 4).
I n t h e s e c o n d year, n o s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s in w e t l a n d i n d e x v a l u e s e x i s t e d a m o n g t h e t r e a t m e n t s in
p l o t s at - 1 5 c m ( F i g u r e 3). A g a i n , t h e p a t t e r n w a s s i m i l a r at all t h r e e e l e v a t i o n s , w i t h n o s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r action between treatment type and elevation (F =
0 . 6 1 3 , d f = 6, p = 0 . 7 1 9 ) . T h e n u m b e r o f w e t l a n d
plant species was significantly increased by soil transplantation and plowing (Figure 4A). Soil-transplant
plots had significantly more species than control plots
at all e l e v a t i o n s . P l o w e d p l o t s h a d m o r e s p e c i e s t h a n
c o n t r o l s at t h e t w o h i g h e r e l e v a t i o n s . T h e s o i l - t r a n s plant plots also had significantly greater cover than
c o n t r o l s at all e l e v a t i o n s ( F i g u r e 5 A ) . P l o w e d p l o t s
h a d m o r e c o v e r t h a n c o n t r o l s at all e l e v a t i o n s a n d
m o r e c o v e r t h a n m o w e d p l o t s at t h e w e t l a n d e d g e . B y
the second growing season, the numbers of species and
t o t a l c o v e r at t h e c o n t r o l p l o t s h a d i n c r e a s e d b u t w e r e
still s i g n i f i c a n t l y l o w e r t h a n t h e s o i l t r a n s p l a n t p l o t s
Table 5. Results of t w o - w a y A N O V A s for the large-scale experiment are shown for each response variable at each elevation
in each year. Factors were treatment type and site, and R: is the value for the model. Treatments included m o w i n g , plowing.
and transplanting wetland soil, and controls were natural, unmanipulated areas. (* = significant at alpha = 0.05; ** = significant
at alpha = 0.01)
Response Variable
Wetland Index
Elev.
Edge
-15em
-30cm
Wetland Species N u m b e r
Edge
-15cm
-30cm
Wetland Species C o v e r
Edge
15cm
-30cm
Year
R2
Site p
Treatment p
1994
1995
1994
1995
1994
1995
0.793
0.751
0.595
0.793
0.605
0.746
p
p
p
p
p
p
==
=
=
<
<
0.014"
0.001"*
0.164
0.002**
0.001"*
0.001"*
p
p
p
p
p
p
<
<
<
=
<
=
0.001"*
0.001"*
0.001"*
0.049*
0.001"*
0.073
1994
1995
1994
1995
1994
1995
0.828
0.730
0.735
0.847
0.815
0.444
p
p
p
p
p
p
<
=
=
=
=
=
0.001"*
0.035*
0.001"*
0.012"
0.002**
0.160
p
p
p
p
p
p
<
<
<
<
<
=
0.001"*
0.001"*
0.001"*
0.001"*
0.001"*
0.034*
1994
1995
1994
1995
1994
1995
0.913
0.869
0.799
0.759
0.701
0.619
p
p
p
p
p
p
=
<
=
<
=
=
0.006**
0.001"*
0.181
0.001"*
0.001"*
0.001"*
p
p
p
p
p
p
<
<
<
=
<
-
0.001"*
0.001"*
0.001"*
0.002**
0.001"*
0.206
B r o w n & Bedford, W E T L A N D R E S T O R A T I O N W I T H T R A N S P L A N T E D S O I L
(Figures 4B and 5B). The number of wetland plant
species decreased in the plowed plots, which were
dominated by cattail.
The responses o f the plant species used by waterfowl and marshbirds as food sources were very similar
to the responses o f wetland vegetation in general. The
soil-transplant plots had significantly greater species
number and total cover than control plots at all elevations in the first year (Figures 6A and 7A). The
m o w e d and plowed plots had consistently lower values
than the soil-transplant plots, but the differences were
only significant at the lowest elevation. In the second
growing season, there were significantly more wildlife
food species at the soil-transplant plots at the upper
two elevations (Figure 6B), and the average number
o f species at the plowed plots had decreased. There
was significantly more cover of wildlife food plants at
the transplant plots than at the controls (Figure 7B),
and the plowed plots had less cover than any other
treatment at the two lower elevations.
The total cover of Typha spp. was significantly increased by the plowing treatment (Figure 8). At all
three elevations, the mean total cover o f cattail was
significantly greater in the plowed plots than in each
o f the other plot types (p<0.001 for all comparisons),
and there were no other significant differences.
DISCUSSION
Small-Scale Study
Because each restoration site had a remnant wetland
plant community in the drainage ditch and predominantly old-field species in the area that became shallow
marsh following restoration, we hypothesized that
re-establishment o f hydrophytic vegetation would proceed more quickly following transplantation of wetland propagules from the remnant wetland soil. Our
results strongly support this hypothesis and show that
transplantation o f remnant wetland soils can increase
the number and cover o f wetland species in the reflooded areas of restoration sites. The plots with transplanted soil blocks had lower wetland index values,
more wetland species present, and more cover o f wetland plants than the unmanipulated controls in 1992.
The differences in wetland species number and cover
persisted in 1993. These results agree with similar
work reported by McKnight (1992), who found that
transplanted wetland soil was effective at establishing
wetland vegetation on disturbed sites in Texas.
The increases in wetland plant germination occurred
only in plots with a natural drawdown period. Germination of wetland plants, and in particular wetland annuals, occurs most aggressively when standing water is
removed from the soil during a drawdown (Gallinato and
431
a
ab
1994
1995
o) 3
<[2
>
C M P ST
TreatmentType
I
Figure 3. Box plots of weighted average wetland index values for plots at - 1 5 c m in each large-scale experiment plot
type in 1994 and 1995. Plot types are as follows: C = unmanipulated control; M = mowed; P = plowed; ST = wetland soil transplanted. Plot types that do not share a common
letter are significantly different at alpha = 0.05. Asterisks
denote outliers and circles extreme outliers.
van der Valk 1986). Drawdowns have been shown to
have a significant influence on vegetation communities
in freshwater wetlands (Harris and Marshall 1963, van
der Valk and Davis 1978). The methods studied here
would be most effective at increasing wetland plant establishment in areas of restored wetland basins that have
a natural drawdown at least in some years. We expect
that over a longer time period, wetland plants will eventually become established at lower elevations as well, but
the study period was too short to observe this aspect of
plant community restoration.
Many of the other effects that were significant in
the first year did not persist into the second year. In
the first year, manipulated control plots were similar
to transplanted soil blocks, with similar wetland index
values and amounts of cover of wetland plants. After
the first year of the study, it seemed that these methods
might be considered as alternatives to actual transplantation of wetland soil. By the second year, however, manipulated upland plots without soil amendments showed no improvement in any of the response
variables relative to the unmanipulated controls. After
two years of flooding, e n o u g h wetland plant establish-
432
14
12
aab
bc c
b c
[ ] Control
13Mowed
E] Plowed
[] Soil Transplant
-30
14
12
10
-15
Edge
a a
aabb
ili_=
-30
aab
--
II Control
[ ] Mowed
[] Plowed
I~ Soil Transplant
-15
Edge
Figure 4. Mean number of wetland plant species in 1994 (A) and 1995 (B) in plot types in the large-scale experiment, with
standard deviations. Treatments within each elevation that do not share a common letter are significantly different at alpha =
0.05.
ment had occurred in the unmanipulated controls to
m a k e them similar to the litter-removal and soil-disturbance plots. Thus, it seems that while t e m p o r a r y
effects can be produced by removing litter or disturbing the upland soil, only the addition of soil f r o m the
remnant wetland has longer term effects on the wetland plant c o m m u n i t y that develops. Transplantation
of remnant wetland soil seems to be the m o s t effective
technique for increasing the re-establishment of wetland plants relative to natural recolonization.
There were no differences between plots with transplanted soil and plots with transplanted soil and rhizomes
in the first year, with both types showing significant increases in number and total cover of wetland plant species compared to unmanipulated controls. These results
suggest that, during the first growing season following
transplantation, there is no practical difference in the
re-establishment of wetland plants that results from these
two methods. However, in the second year, the plots with
transplanted rhizomes had significantly greater numbers
of wetland species than those with only sieved soil. This
B r o w n & Bedford, W E T L A N D R E S T O R A T I O N W I T H T R A N S P L A N T E D S O I L
A ) Mean Total Cover of W e t l a n d Plants in 1994
300
250
a ab bc c
200
"E
Control
IR Mowed
150
[ ] Plowed
[] Soil Transplant
n
I--
433
100
50
-30
>
Edge
300
250
-15
a abab
a ab b
200
Control
Mowed
150
rlPIowed
O tii/
[ ] Soil Transplant
"~ 100
50
-30
-15
Edge
Figure 5. Mean total percent cover of wetland plants in the large-scale experiment in 1994 (A) and 1995 (B), with plot
layout following Figure 4.
urated soils persisted, so the index values of the vegetation present were uniformly low across all treatment
types. At the same time, the transplanted soil blocks
had significantly more cover o f wetland plants and
m o r e plant species. The index values reflected the
changes in vegetation that occurred in the first growing
season following restoration of hydrology. However,
the index value did not reflect the differences in the
wetland plant c o m m u n i t y that persisted after the majority o f surviving plants were wetland species. Analysis of restored plant communities involving comparison with reference wetlands should include measurement of species richness and cover because index values c a n n o t d i s c r i m i n a t e i m p o r t a n t d i f f e r e n c e s in
c o m m u n i t y structure after the initial readjustment to
wetland conditions.
Large-Scale Study
The large-scale study confirmed that the increases
in wetland plant responses observed in the small-scale
434
a abab
a abab
III Control
1
[] Mowed
/
r-I Plowed
/
[] Soil Transplant j
T
-30
Edge
-15
a ab b
[]
[]
[]
-30
-15
Control
Mowed
Plowed
Soil Transplant i
Edge
Figure 6. Mean number of wildlife food plant species in the large-scale experiment in 1994 (A) and 1995 (B), with plot
layout following Figure 4.
B r o w n & Bedford, W E T L A N D R E S T O R A T I O N W I T H T R A N S P L A N T E D S O I L
435
a abab
a abab
~> 1
o
o
II
LT I
-30
175
150
[] Control
[]Mowed
I'llPIowed
[] Soil Transplant
T
Edge
-15
a a b c
aabb
125
100
g.
ol
=Mowed
t"llpIowed
[] Soil Transplant
-30
-15
Edge
Figure 7. Mean total percent cover of wildlife food plants in the large-scale experiment in 1994 (A) and 1995 (B), with plot
layout following Figure 4.
lacked undesirable invasive species such as purple
loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria L.). Transplanting remnant wetland soil is prudent only when the composition of the seed b a n k is k n o w n and is consistent with
200
180
M e a n Total C o v e r of
a
Typha spp.
a
in 1995
b
160
o~ 140
~ 120
g-5
I---
100
8o
60
4O
20
0
-30
Figure 8.
-15
IBControl
I
a]Mowed
/
131Plowed
]
[] Soil Transplant I
Edge
Mean total percent cover of Typha spp. in the large-scale experiment in 1995, with plot layout following Figure 4.
436
WETLANDS,
CITED
Volume
17, N o . 3, 1 9 9 7
Brown
RESTORATION
WITH
TRANSPLANTED
SOIL
437
toration of an abandoned sand mine: seed bank recruitment dynamics and plant colonization. Wetlands 16:185-196.
Weiher, E., I. C. Wisheu, R A. Keddy, and D. R. J. Moore. 1996.
Establishment, Persistence, and management implications of experimental wetland plant communities. Wetlands 16:208-218.
Weinhold, C. E. and A. G. van der Valk. 1989. The impact of duration of drainage on the seed banks of not'them prairie wetlands.
Canadian Joumai of Botany 67:1878-1884.
Weller, M. W. 1975. Studies of cattail in relation to management for
marsh wildlife. Iowa State Journal of Science 49:383-412.
Wentworth, T. R. and G. P Johnson. 1986. Use of vegetation for the
designation of wetlands. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC, USA.
Wilkinson, L. 1992. SYSTAT for Windows. SYSTAT Inc., Evanston, IL, USA.
Manuscript received 2 January 1997; revisions received 6 March
1997 and 28 April 1997; accepted 17 June 1997.