Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Floristic and Macroinvertebrate Responses to Different Wetland Restoration Techniques in Southeastern Wisconsin

  • Applied Wetland Science
  • Published:
Wetlands Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Assessments of wetland restoration quality, especially comparisons among restoration techniques, are essential to adaptive management, but are rarely reported. We evaluated wetlands in southeastern Wisconsin that were restored using different hydrological techniques along with wetlands in two reference groups: wetlands without hydrological modification and Waterfowl Production Areas. Our objectives were 1) to compare condition of wetlands using indices for plant communities and macroinvertebrates and 2) evaluate provisioning of macroinvertebrates for waterfowl broods as a measure of habitat quality. Overall, floristic quality of sedge meadows and emergent marshes was poor in restored wetlands (weighted mean C-values were 1.55 ± 0.13 (SE) and 1.47 ± 0.25, respectively); however, sedge meadow quality was greater in wetlands without surface modification (weighted mean C-value = 3.43 ± 0.82). On a scale from “excellent” to “very poor”, we classified condition of open water communities as “good” based on the macroinvertebrate index across all restoration categories. Density and abundance of macroinvertebrate taxa preferred by waterfowl broods were similar across restoration categories and indicated that wetland basins provide ample food resources. We recommend that conservation planners and wetland managers state quantifiable, appropriate objectives for restoration ahead of implementation and address conflicting objectives with stakeholders.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ankney CD, Afton AD, Alisauskas RT (1991) The role of nutrient reserves in limiting waterfowl reproduction. The Condor 93:1029–1032

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batzer DP (2013) The seemingly intractable ecological responses of invertebrates in north American wetlands: a review. Wetlands 33:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-012-0360-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batzer DP, Taylor BE, DeBiase AE et al (2015) Response of aquatic invertebrates to ecological rehabilitation of southeastern USA depressional wetlands. Wetlands. 35:803–813. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-015-0671-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernthal T (2003) Development of a floristic quality assessment methodology for Wisconsin. Rep. US Environ. Prot. Agency Reg. V Chic. Ill

  • Bouchard RW (2004) Guide to aquatic invertebrates of the upper Midwest: identification manual for students, citizen monitors, and aquatic resource professionals. University Of Minnesota

  • Bouffard SH, Hanson MA (1997) Fish in waterfowl marshes: waterfowl managers’ perspective. Wildlife Society Bulletin (1973-2006) 25:146–157

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdaghs M, Johnston CA, Regal RR (2006) Properties and performance of the floristic quality index in Great Lakes coastal wetlands. Wetlands 26:718–735. https://doi.org/10.1672/0277-5212(2006)26[718:PAPOTF]2.0.CO;2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brinson MM, Eckles SD (2011) US Department of Agriculture conservation program and practice effects on wetland ecosystem services: a synthesis. Ecological Applications 21:S116–S127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burton T, Brazner J, Ciborowski J et al (2008) Great Lakes coastal wetlands monitoring plan. Final Rep. US EPA Gt. Lakes Natl. Program Off

  • Chung-Gibson M (2017) The Wisconsin floristic quality assessment calculator. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/Wetlands/methods.html

  • Cox RR Jr, Hanson MA, Roy CC et al (1998) Mallard duckling growth and survival in relation to aquatic invertebrates. The Journal of Wildlife Management:124–133

  • Crossley A, Peterson T, Ugoretz S, Albright G (1990) Glacial habitat restoration area environmental impact statement and feasibility study. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI

  • Dahl TE (2011) Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States 2004 to 2009. US Department of the Interior, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC

  • Davidson NC (2014) How much wetland has the world lost? Long-term and recent trends in global wetland area. Marine and Freshwater Research 65:934. https://doi.org/10.1071/MF14173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Groot R, Brander L, van der Ploeg S et al (2012) Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units. Ecosystem Services 1:50–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeBerry D, Chamberlain S, Matthews J (2015) Trends in floristic quality assessment for wetland evaluation. Wetland Science and Practice 32:12–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Dessborn L, Elmberg J, Englund G (2011) Pike predation affects breeding success and habitat selection of ducks. Freshwater Biology 56:579–589

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Detenbeck NE, Galatowitsch SM, Atkinson J, Ball H (1999) Evaluating perturbations and developing restoration strategies for inland wetlands in the Great Lakes basin. Wetlands 19:789–820. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03161785

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elmberg J, Dessborn L, Englund G (2010) Presence of fish affects lake use and breeding success in ducks. Hydrobiologia 641:215–223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-009-0085-2

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Eriksson MO (1983) The role of fish in the selection of lakes by nonpiscivorous ducks: mallard, teal and goldeneye. Wildfowl 34:27–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Finger T, Williams J, Fowler D (2019) Waterfowl breeding population survey for Wisconsin, 1973-2019. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI

  • Fleming KS, Kaminski RM, Tietjen TE, Schummer ML, Ervin GN, Nelms KD (2012) Vegetative forage quality and moist-soil management on wetlands reserve program lands in Mississippi. Wetlands 32:919–929. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-012-0325-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frayer WE (1983) Status and trends of wetlands and deepwater habitats in the conterminous United States, 1950’s to 1970’s. Department of Forest and Wood Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO

  • Galatowitsch SM, Anderson NO, Ascher PD (1999) Invasiveness in wetland plants in temperate North America. Wetlands 19:733–755

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gurney KEB, Clark RG, Slattery SM, Ross LCM (2017) Connecting the trophic dots: responses of an aquatic bird species to variable abundance of macroinvertebrates in northern boreal wetlands. Hydrobiologia 785:1–17

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hentges VA, Stewart TW (2010) Macroinvertebrate assemblages in Iowa prairie pothole wetlands and relation to environmental features. Wetlands 30:501–511

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hitchcock AN (2008) Diets of spring − migrating waterfowl in the upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes region. Southern Illinois University Carbondale

  • Horton JA, Gatti RC (2014) Land cover mapping and change in the glacial habitat restoration area of Wisconsin, 1990-2012. 20. Wisconsin DNR report 196

  • Kenow KP, Rusch DH (1996) Food habits of redheads at the Horicon Marsh Wisconsin. Journal of Field Ornithology:649–659

  • Kercher SM, Zedler JB (2004) Multiple disturbances accelerate invasion of reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea L.) in a mesocosm study. Oecologia 138:455–464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koch J (2004) Wisconsin Land Economic Inventory Maps (The Bordner Survey). https://www.library.wisc.edu/steenbock/wisconsin-land-economic-inventory-the-bordner-survey-land-cover-maps/. Accessed 15 Aug 2019

  • Lillie RA, Garrison PJ, Dodson SI, et al (2002) Refinement and expansion of wetlands biological indices for Wisconsin. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI

  • Lopez RD, Fennessy MS (2002) Testing the floristic quality assessment index as an indicator of wetland condition. Ecological Applications 12:487–497. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2002)012[0487:TTFQAI]2.0.CO;2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mantyka-Pringle CS, Martin TG, Moffatt DB, Linke S, Rhodes JR (2014) Understanding and predicting the combined effects of climate change and land-use change on freshwater macroinvertebrates and fish. Journal of Applied Ecology 51:572–581

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marti A, Bernthal T (2019) Provisional wetland floristic quality benchmarks for wetland monitoring and assessment in Wisconsin. Final Report to US EPA Region V, Grants# CD00E01576 and# CD00E02075. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. EGAD 3200–2020

  • Martin AC, Uhler FM (1939) Food of game ducks in the United States and Canada. US Dept. of Agriculture

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinez P (2019) pairwiseAdonis: Pairwise multilevel comparison using adonis. Available at: https://github.com/pmartinezarbizu/pairwiseAdonis

  • Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources (2010) Minnesota Routine Assessment Method (MnRAM) Evaluating Wetland Function, Version 3.4. Available at: https://bwsr.state.mn.us/wetland-functional-assessment

  • Moreno-Mateos D, Comín FA (2010) Integrating objectives and scales for planning and implementing wetland restoration and creation in agricultural landscapes. Journal of Environmental Management 91:2087–2095

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno-Mateos D, Power ME, Comín FA, Yockteng R (2012) Structural and functional loss in restored wetland ecosystems. PLoS Biology 10:e1001247

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno-Mateos D, Meli P, Vara-Rodríguez MI, Aronson J (2015) Ecosystem response to interventions: lessons from restored and created wetland ecosystems. Journal of Applied Ecology 52:1528–1537

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murkin HR, Kadlec JA (1986) Relationships between waterfowl and macroinvertebrate densities in a northern prairie marsh. The Journal of Wildlife Management 50:212–217. https://doi.org/10.2307/3801899

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murkin HR, Wrubleski DA (1988) Aquatic invertebrates of freshwater wetlands: function and ecology. The ecology and management of wetlands. Springer, pp 239–249

  • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI). 2019. Global summary of the year for Ripon, WI

  • North American Waterfowl Management Plan Committee (2012) North American Waterfowl Management Plan: People conserving waterfowl and wetlands. U.S. Department of the Interior, Environment Canada, and Environment and Natural Resources Mexico, Washington, D.C., USA

  • O’Connor R, Doyle K (2017) Setting floristic quality assessment benchmarks for inland wetland plant community condition across Wisconsin: establishing a reference wetland network. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI

  • Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Kindt R et al (2010) Vegan: community ecology package. R package version 1.17–4. http://cranr-project.org

  • Pohlman J, Bartelt GA, Hanson AC, Scott PH, Thompson CT (2006) Wisconsin land legacy report: an inventory of places to meet Wisconsin’s future conservation and recreation needs. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI

  • R Core Team (2019) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria. Available at: https://www.R-project.org/

  • Reinartz JA (1993) Development of vegetation in small created wetlands in southeastern Wisconsin. Wetlands 13:153–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson MS, Gatti RC (1999) Prioritizing wetland restoration activity within a Wisconsin watershed using GIS modeling. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 54:537–542

    Google Scholar 

  • Soulliere G, Fish US, Coluccy J et al (2017) Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Region Joint Venture Waterfowl Habitat Conservation Strategy – 2017 Revision. 170

  • Stafford JD, Janke AK, Anteau MJ et al (2014) Spring migration of waterfowl in the northern hemisphere: a conservation perspective. Wildfowl 0:70–85

  • Straub JN, Gates RJ, Schultheis RD et al (2012) Wetland food resources for spring-migrating ducks in the upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes region. The Journal of Wildlife Management 76:768–777. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stryszowska-Hill KM, Benson CE, Carberry B et al (2019) Performance of wetland environmental quality assessment indicators at evaluating palustrine wetlands in northeastern New York state. Ecological Indicators 98:743–752

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swanson GA (1985) Invertebrates consumed by dabbling ducks (Anatinae) on the breeding grounds. Journal of the Minnesota Academy of Science 50:37–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Swanson GA, Meyer MI, Adomaitis VA (1985) Foods consumed by breeding mallards on wetlands of south-Central North Dakota. The Journal of Wildlife Management 49:197–203. https://doi.org/10.2307/3801871

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trochell P (2016) Timed-meander protocol for wetland floristic quality assessment. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/Wetlands/methods.html

  • Uzarski DG, Brady VJ, Cooper MJ, Wilcox DA, Albert DA, Axler RP, Bostwick P, Brown TN, Ciborowski JJH, Danz NP, Gathman JP, Gehring TM, Grabas GP, Garwood A, Howe RW, Johnson LB, Lamberti GA, Moerke AH, Murry BA, Niemi GJ, Norment CJ, Ruetz CR, Steinman AD, Tozer DC, Wheeler R, O’Donnell TK, Schneider JP (2017) Standardized measures of coastal wetland condition: implementation at a Laurentian Great Lakes basin-wide scale. Wetlands 37(1):15–32

  • Wang L, Robertson DM, Garrison PJ (2007) Linkages between nutrients and assemblages of macroinvertebrates and fish in wadeable streams: implication to nutrient criteria development. Environmental Management 39:194–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams BK, Koneff MD, Smith DA (1999) Evaluation of waterfowl conservation under the north American waterfowl management plan. The Journal of Wildlife Management 63:417–440. https://doi.org/10.2307/3802628

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (1992) Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Region Joint Venture – Wisconsin Plan. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI. Available at: https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/topic/WildlifeHabitat/waterfowlmanagement.html

  • Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (2014) WDNR wetland rapid assessment methodology version 2.0. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI Available at: https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/wetlands/documents/wramuserguide.pdf

  • Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (2016) Wisconsin Wiscland 2 Land Cover Database Level 4, 2016. https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/maps/WISCLAND. Accessed 15 Aug 2018

  • Zedler JB (2000) Progress in wetland restoration ecology. Nature 402:523–526

    Google Scholar 

  • Zedler JB (2003) Wetlands at your service: reducing impacts of agriculture at the watershed scale. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1:65–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zedler JB, Kercher S (2004) Causes and consequences of invasive plants in wetlands: opportunities, opportunists, and outcomes. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 23:431–452. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352680490514673

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank our collaborators and partners on this project: Jason Fleener, Brian Glenzinski, Scott Hygnstrom, Greg Kidd, and Kurt Waterstradt. Robert Geitner, Rachel Samerdyke, Eddie Shay, James Christopoulos, Rachel Brookins provided essential data and assisted with logistics. We especially thank our field technicians: David Aronson, Sarah Comstock, Zack Loken, Ben Schuyler and Bonnie Richards for their hard work under difficult conditions. We also acknowledge the many hours spent by our lab technicians sorting, weighing, and identifying macroinvertebrates: Jeff Williams, Monae Taylor, John Brezinka, and Ryan Brown as well as the training provided by Jeffrey Dimick at the Aquatic Biomonitoring Laboratory at the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point. We thank the private landowners for allowing us access to their property and two anonymous reviewers who greatly improved this manuscript.

Funding

Funding for this project was provided by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Joint Venture Flex Funds grant #F17 AC00937, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, and the James C. Kennedy-David T. Grohne Waterfowl and Wetlands Conservation Endowment at the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Rachel Schultz

    Present address: Department of Environmental Science and Ecology, SUNY Brockport, Brockport, NY, USA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Natural Resources, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, Stevens Point, WI, USA

    Rachel Schultz, Jacob Straub, Marissa Kaminski & Abbie Ebert

Authors
  1. Rachel Schultz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jacob Straub
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marissa Kaminski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Abbie Ebert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rachel Schultz.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 41 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schultz, R., Straub, J., Kaminski, M. et al. Floristic and Macroinvertebrate Responses to Different Wetland Restoration Techniques in Southeastern Wisconsin. Wetlands 40, 2025–2040 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-020-01269-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-020-01269-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation