Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Perspectives on Maximizing Coastal Wetland Restoration Outcomes in Anthropogenically Altered Ecosystems

  • Special Issue: Concepts and Controversies in Tidal Marsh Ecology Revisited
  • Published:
Estuaries and Coasts Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

When restoring coastal wetlands, approaches can vary in construction technique, planting strategy, and site placement within an anthropogenically altered landscape comprising both relict wetlands and developed habitat. Constructed marshes are often composed of discrete terraces or mounds formed with excavated sediments, or beneficial uses (BU) dredge material can be used to fill continuous areas to emergent marsh elevation. Either construction approach can be seeded or planted with native species, or colonization can occur naturally. Sites can vary in the degree of hydrological isolation due to the presence of structures (e.g., roads or buildings) that limit connectivity to other marsh areas. Data collected across multiple sites on the upper Texas (USA) coast were used to assess how coastal wetland restoration “success,” measured as emergent plant cover, biomass, and species richness, was influenced by the localized configuration of individual restoration sites and by the placement of each site within a landscape matrix of reference wetlands and developed areas. Plant biomass and cover in BU marshes were similar to reference conditions and up to 70% higher than in excavated formations, regardless of planting technique or location in the landscape. Species richness was highest at the reference sites and lowest at planted beneficial uses sites, but none of the restoration sites had species assemblages similar to reference areas. Restoration outcomes were relatively robust to anthropogenic alterations of the landscape. Individual restoration sites were highly dissimilar from each other, and although some had very low (< 20%) emergent plant cover, these sites provided habitat for aquatic wildlife. This analysis demonstrates the importance of utilizing a range of restoration approaches within the broader landscape to achieve desirable ecosystem-level restoration outcomes.

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.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Armitage, A.R., C.-K. Ho, E.N. Madrid, M.T. Bell, and A. Quigg. 2014. The influence of habitat construction technique on the ecological characteristics of a restored brackish marsh. Ecological Engineering 62: 33–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, S.S., M.S. Fonseca, and L.B. Motten. 1997. Linking restoration and landscape ecology. Restoration Ecology 5 (4): 318–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benson, C.E., B. Carberry, and T.A. Langen. 2018. Public–private partnership wetland restoration programs benefit species of greatest conservation need and other wetland-associated wildlife. Wetlands Ecology and Management 26 (2): 195–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolam, S.G., and P. Whomersley. 2005. Development of macrofaunal communities on dredged material used for mudflat enhancement: a comparison of three beneficial use schemes after one year. Marine Pollution Bulletin 50 (1): 40–47.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, R.P. 2013. Conservation and management of wetlands and aquatic landscapes: the vital role of connectivity. In Mid-Atlantic freshwater wetlands: Advances in wetlands science, management, policy, and practice, ed. R.P. Brooks and D.H. Wardrop, 463–477. New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bruno, J.F. 2000. Facilitation of cobble beach plant communities through habitat modification by Spartina alterniflora. Ecology 81 (5): 1179–1192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chmura, G.L. 2013. What do we need to assess the sustainability of the tidal salt marsh carbon sink? Ocean & Coastal Management 83: 25–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole, C.A. 2002. The assessment of herbaceous plant cover in wetlands as an indicator of function. Ecological Indicators 2 (3): 287–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole, C.A., and D. Shafer. 2002. Section 404 wetland mitigation and permit success criteria in Pennsylvania, USA, 1986-1999. Environmental Management 30 (4): 508–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colombano, D.D., S.Y. Litvin, R.E. Turner, C.A. Currin, J. Cebrián, C.L. Martin, S.B. Alford, M.A. Barbeau, J. Lesser, R. Baker, B. Morrison, L. Deegan, S. Ziegler, J. Smith, C. McLuckie, L. Staver, N. Waltham, J. Pahl, C. Alcott, M. Risse, and A. McDonald. 2021. Climate change implications for tidal marshes and food web linkages to estuarine and coastal nekton. Estuaries and Coasts. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-020-00891-1.

  • Cortina, J., F.T. Maestre, V. R, M.J. Baeza, A. Valdecantos, and M. Pérez-Devesa. 2006. Ecosystem structure, function, and restoration success: are they related? Journal for Nature Conservation 14 (3-4): 152–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craft, C., J. Reader, J.N. Sacco, and S.W. Broome. 1999. Twenty-five years of ecosystem development of constructed Spartina alterniflora (Loisel) marshes. Ecological Applications 9 (4): 1405–1419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • David, A.T., P.A. Goertler, S.H. Munsch, B.R. Jones, C.A. Simenstad, J.D. Toft, J.R. Cordell, E.R. Howe, A. Gray, and M.P. Hannam. 2016. Influences of natural and anthropogenic factors and tidal restoration on terrestrial arthropod assemblages in west coast north American estuarine wetlands. Estuaries and Coasts 39 (5): 1491–1504.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dresner, M., and K.A. Fischer. 2013. Environmental stewardship outcomes from year-long invasive species restoration projects in middle school. Invasive Plant Science and Management 6 (3): 444–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duggan-Edwards, M.F., J.F. Pagès, S.R. Jenkins, T.J. Bouma, M.W. Skov, and J. Moore. 2020. External conditions drive optimal planting configurations for salt marsh restoration. Journal of Applied Ecology 57 (3): 619–629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebbets, A.L., D.R. Lane, P. Dixon, T.A. Hollweg, M.T. Huisenga, and J. Gurevitch. 2020. Using meta-analysis to develop evidence-based recovery trajectories of vegetation and soils in restored wetlands in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Estuaries and Coasts 43 (7): 1692–1710.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, K.R., and C.E. Proffitt. 2003. Comparison of wetland structural characteristics between created and natural salt marshes in Southwest Louisiana, USA. Wetlands 23 (2): 344–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egerova, J., C.E. Proffitt, and S.E. Travis. 2003. Facilitation of survival and growth of Baccharis halimifolia L. by Spartina alterniflora Loisel. In a created Louisiana salt marsh. Wetlands 23 (2): 250–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engle, V.D. 2011. Estimating the provision of wetland services by Gulf of Mexico coastal wetlands. Wetlands 31 (1): 179–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzsimmons, O.N., B.M. Ballard, M.T. Merendino, G.A. Baldassarre, and K.M. Hartke. 2012. Implications of coastal wetland management to nonbreeding waterbirds in Texas. Wetlands 32 (6): 1057–1066.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • George, T.L., and S. Zack. 2001. Spatial and temporal considerations in restoring habitat for wildlife. Restoration Ecology 9 (3): 272–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gittman, R.K., C.J. Baillie, K.K. Arkema, R.O. Bennett, J. Benoit, S. Blitch, J. Brun, A. Chatwin, A. Colden, A. Dausman, B. DeAngelis, N. Herold, J. Henkel, R. Houge, R. Howard, A.R. Hughes, S.B. Scyphers, T. Shostik, A. Sutton-Grier, and J.H. Grabowski. 2019. Voluntary restoration: mitigation’s silent partner in the quest to reverse coastal wetland loss in the USA. Frontiers in Marine Science 6: 511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gratton, C., and R.F. Denno. 2006. Arthropod food web restoration following removal of an invasive wetland plant. Ecological Applications 16 (2): 622–631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagy, H.M., C.S. Hine, M.M. Horath, A.P. Yetter, R.V. Smith, and J.D. Stafford. 2017. Waterbird response indicates floodplain wetland restoration. Hydrobiologia 804 (1): 119–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hilderbrand, R.H., A.C. Watts, and A.M. Randle. 2005. The myths of restoration ecology. Ecology and Society 10: 19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollweg, T.A., M.C. Christman, J. Lipton, B.P. Wallace, M.T. Huisenga, D.R. Lane, and K.G. Benson. 2020. Meta-analysis of nekton recovery following marsh restoration in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Estuaries and Coasts 43 (7): 1746–1763.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kentula, M.E. 2000. Perspectives on setting success criteria for wetland restoration. Ecological Engineering 15 (3-4): 199–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kinney, E.L., A. Quigg, and A.R. Armitage. 2014. Acute effects of drought on emergent and aquatic communities in a brackish marsh. Estuaries and Coasts 37 (3): 636–645.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • La Peyre, M.K., B. Gossman, and J.A. Nyman. 2007. Assessing functional equivalency of nekton habitat in enhanced habitats: comparison of terraced and unterraced marsh ponds. Estuaries and Coasts 30 (3): 526–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levrel, H., S. Pioch, and R. Spieler. 2012. Compensatory mitigation in marine ecosystems: which indicators for assessing the “no net loss” goal of ecosystem services and ecological functions? Marine Policy 36 (6): 1202–1210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madrid, E.N., A. Quigg, and A.R. Armitage. 2012. Marsh construction techniques influence net plant carbon capture by emergent and submerged vegetation in a brackish marsh in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico. Ecological Engineering 42: 54–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, J.W., and A.G. Endress. 2008. Performance criteria, compliance success, and vegetation development in compensatory mitigation wetlands. Environmental Management 41 (1): 130–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, J.W., and G. Spyreas. 2010. Convergence and divergence in plant community trajectories as a framework for monitoring wetland restoration progress. Journal of Applied Ecology 47 (5): 1128–1136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazzotta, M., J. Bousquin, W. Berry, C. Ojo, R. McKinney, K. Hyckha, and C.G. Druschke. 2019. Evaluating the ecosystem services and benefits of wetland restoration by use of the rapid benefit indicators approach. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 15 (1): 148–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McBride, R.A., M.J. Taylor, and M.R. Byrnes. 2007. Coastal morphodynamics and Chenier-plain evolution in southwestern Louisiana, USA: a geomorphic model. Geomorphology 88 (3-4): 367–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, T., G.D. Gann, J. Jonson, and K.W. Dixon. 2016. International standards for the practice of ecological restoration–including principles and key concepts. DC: Washington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melvin, S.L., and J.W. Webb Jr. 1998. Differences in the avian communities of natural and created Spartina alterniflora salt marshes. Wetlands 18 (1): 59–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno-Mateos, D., M.E. Power, F.A. Comin, and R. Yockteng. 2012. Structural and functional loss in restored wetland ecosystems. PLoS Biology 10 (1): e1001247.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Naveh, Z. 1994. From biodiversity to ecodiversity: a landscape-ecology approach to conservation and restoration. Restoration Ecology 2 (3): 180–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ndebele, T., and V. Forgie. 2017. Estimating the economic benefits of a wetland restoration programme in New Zealand: a contingent valuation approach. Economic Analysis and Policy 55: 75–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O'Connell, J.L., and J.A. Nyman. 2010. Marsh terraces in coastal Louisiana increase marsh edge and densities of waterbirds. Wetlands 30 (1): 125–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parson, L.E., and R. Swafford. 2012. Beneficial use of sediments from dredging activities in the Gulf of Mexico. Journal of Coastal Research 60: 45–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perry, M.C., and A.S. Deller. 1996. Review of factors affecting the distribution and abundance of waterfowl in shallow-water habitats of Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries 19 (2): 272–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Core Team, R. 2020. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing https://www.R-project.org/.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rozas, L.P., P. Caldwell, and T.J. Minello. 2005. The fishery value of salt marsh restoration projects. Journal of Coastal Research SI 40: 37–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rozas, L.P., and T.J. Minello. 2001. Marsh terracing as a wetland restoration tool for creating fishery habitat. Wetlands 21 (3): 327–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz-Jaen, M.C., and T.M. Aide. 2005. Restoration success: how is it being measured? Restoration Ecology 13 (3): 569–577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R.L., R. Kaplan, and R.E. Grese. 2001. Predicting volunteer commitment in environmental stewardship programmes. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 44 (5): 629–648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rybicki, N.B., and J.M. Landwehr. 2007. Long-term changes in abundance and diversity of macrophyte and waterfowl populations in an estuary with exotic macrophytes and improving water quality. Limnology and Oceanography 52 (3): 1195–1207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silliman, B.R., E. Schrack, Q. He, R. Cope, A. Santoni, T. van der Heide, R. Jacobi, M. Jacobi, and J. van de Koppel. 2015. Facilitation shifts paradigms and can amplify coastal restoration efforts. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112 (46): 14295–14300.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Stagg, C.L., M.J. Osland, J.A. Moon, C.T. Hall, L.C. Feher, W.R. Jones, B.R. Couvillion, S.B. Hartley, and W.C. Vervaeke. 2020. Quantifying hydrologic controls on local- and landscape-scale indicators of coastal wetland loss. Annals of Botany 125 (2): 365–376.

    Google Scholar 

  • Staszak, L.A., and A.R. Armitage. 2013. Evaluating salt marsh restoration success with an index of ecosystem integrity. Journal of Coastal Research 29: 410–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stein, E.D., C.L. Doughty, J. Lowe, M. Cooper, E.B. Sloane, and D.L. Bram. 2020. Establishing targets for regional coastal wetland restoration planning using historical ecology and future scenario analysis: The past, present, future approach. Estuaries and Coasts 43 (2): 207–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Streever, W. 2000. Spartina alterniflora marshes on dredged material: a critical review of the ongoing debate over success. Wetlands Ecology and Management 8 (5): 295–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • TNRIS. 2015. Texas natural resources information system (TNRIS); Texas TOP imagery, 2015-12-31. Web.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tori, G.M., S. McLeod, K. McKnight, T. Moorman, and F.A. Reid. 2002. Wetland conservation and ducks unlimited: real world approaches to multispecies management. Waterbirds 25: 115–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • TPWD. 2013. Salt bayou watershed restoration plan, 39. USA: Texas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Travis, S.E., and J.B. Grace. 2010. Predicting performance for ecological restoration: a case study using Spartina alterniflora. Ecological Applications 20 (1): 192–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, R.E., and B. Streever. 2002. Approaches to coastal wetland restoration: Northern Gulf of Mexico. The Hague, Netherlands: SPB Academic Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bosch, K., and J.W. Matthews. 2017. An assessment of long-term compliance with performance standards in compensatory mitigation wetlands. Environmental Management 59 (4): 546–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Visser, J.M., C.E. Sasser, R. Linscombe, and R.H. Chabreck. 2000. Marsh vegetation types of the Chenier plain, Louisiana, USA. Estuaries 23 (3): 318–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wainright, S.C., M.P. Weinstein, K.W. Able, and C.A. Currin. 2000. Relative importance of benthic microalgae, phytoplankton and the detritus of smooth cordgrass Spartina alterniflora and the common reed Phragmites australis to brackish-marsh food webs. Marine Ecology Progress Series 200: 77–91.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Waltham, N.J., C. Alcott, M. Barbeau, J. Cebrian, R. Connolly, L. Deegan, K. Dodds, L. Gaines, B. Gilby, C. Henderson, C. McLuckie, T. Minello, G. Norris, J. Ollerhead, J. Pahl, J. Reinhardt, R. Rezek, C.A. Simenstad, J. Smith, E. Sparks, L. Staver, M.P. Weinstein, and S. Ziegler. 2021. Tidal marsh restoration optimism in a changing climate and urbanizing seascape. Estuaries and Coasts. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-020-00875-1.

  • Waltham, N.J., M. Elliott, S.Y. Lee, C. Lovelock, C.M. Duarte, C. Buelow, C. Simenstad, I. Nagelkerken, L. Claassens, C.K.C. Wen, M. Barletta, R.M. Connolly, C. Gillies, W.J. Mitsch, M.B. Ogburn, J. Purandare, H. Possingham, and M. Sheaves. 2020. UN decade on ecosystem restoration 2021–2030—what chance for success in restoring coastal ecosystems? Frontiers in Marine Science 7: 71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, J.W., and J.D. Dodd. 1989. Spartina alterniflora response to fertilizer, planting dates, and elevation in Galveston Bay, Texas. Wetlands 9 (1): 61–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitcraft, C.R., and L.A. Levin. 2007. Regulation of benthic algal and animal communities by salt marsh plants: Impact of shading. Ecology 88 (4): 904–917.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, S.J., G.W. Stone, and A.E. Burruss. 1997. A perspective on the Louisiana wetland loss and coastal erosion problem. Journal of Coastal Research 13: 593–594.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, K.L., G.B. Noe, and C. Ahn. 2013. Hydrologic connectivity to streams increases nitrogen and phosphorus inputs and cycling in soils of created and natural floodplain wetlands. Journal of Environmental Quality 42 (4): 1245–1255.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wozniak, A.S., C.T. Roman, S.C. Wainright, R.A. McKinney, and M.J. James-Pirri. 2006. Monitoring food web changes in tide-restored salt marshes: a carbon stable isotope approach. Estuaries and Coasts 29 (4): 568–578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yando, E.S., M.J. Osland, S.F. Jones, and M.W. Hester. 2019. Jump-starting coastal wetland restoration: a comparison of marsh and mangrove foundation species. Restoration Ecology 27 (5): 1145–1154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zedler, J.B. 2004. Compensating for wetland losses in the United States. Ibis 146: 92–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zedler, J.B. 2017. What’s new in adaptive management and restoration of coasts and estuaries? Estuaries and Coasts 40 (1): 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zedler, J.B., and J.C. Callaway. 1999. Tracking wetland restoration: do mitigation sites follow desired trajectories? Restoration Ecology 7 (1): 69–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • zu Ermgassen, P.S.E., R. Baker, M.W. Beck, K. Dodds, S.O.S.E zu Ermgassen, D. Mallick, M.D. Taylor, and R.E. Turner. this issue. Ecosystem services: delivering for salt marshes. Estuaries and Coasts.

Download references

Acknowledgments

This project was funded in part by a Texas Coastal Management Program Grant approved by the Texas Land Commissioner pursuant to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration award No. NA19NOS4190106. The views expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of NOAA or any of its sub-agencies. Additional support for this work came from the Research and Development program of the Texas General Land Office Oil Spill Prevention and Response Division under Grant No. 13-436-000-7895. Logistical support and access to the Old River Unit of the Lower Neches Wildlife Management Area were provided by the Wildlife Division of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. This work was made possible by many tireless field warriors, especially K. Bowers, M. Rathjen, J. Sigren, C. Weaver, A. Whitt, and C. Hall.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Marine Biology, Texas A&M University at Galveston, Galveston, TX, 77553, USA

    Anna R. Armitage

Authors
  1. Anna R. Armitage
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anna R. Armitage.

Additional information

Communicated by Just Cebrian

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Armitage, A.R. Perspectives on Maximizing Coastal Wetland Restoration Outcomes in Anthropogenically Altered Ecosystems. Estuaries and Coasts 44, 1699–1709 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-021-00907-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-021-00907-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation