Macroinvertebrate community structure in created wetlands of different successional stage

Authors

  • Douglas J. Spieles McPhail Center for Environmental Studies, Denison University, Granville, OH, USA 43023
  • Jonathan D. Horn Department of Evolution, Ecology, and Organismal Biology, The Ohio State University, 1315 Kinnear Rd., Columbus, OH, USA

Keywords:

constructed wetland, trophic, guild, vegetation, temporal variation

Abstract

We analyzed biogeochemical characteristics of two temperate constructed wetlands in early and late spring to evaluate the utility of the macroinvertebrate community as an indicator of ecosystem development. The wetlands were similar in area, hydrologic regime, and influent water quality, but one was younger (15 y) and supported an early successional plant community while the older system (45 y) was forested. To characterize structural habitat in the two wetlands we analyzed water and soil quality, plant community characteristics, coarse woody debris, topographic variance and hydrologic regime. The correlation of macroinvertebrate community characteristics with structural variables was compared among wetlands, and macroinvertebrates were compared temporally within wetlands. Despite differences in nutrient concentration, substrate conditions, plant cover, and microtopography, the overall macroinvertebrate guild structure in the two systems was similar in terms of taxa richness, Simpson diversity, tolerance, and trophic distribution. Total abundance of macroinvertebrates was significantly correlated with a number of structural wetland characteristics, but trophic distribution was correlated only with nutrient availability. Temporal changes were apparent in both wetlands. The two wetlands supported proportionally different guild biomass in early spring, with the forested wetland dominated by grazing herbivores and shredders and the non-forested system by detritivores and predators. In late spring, however, there was no statistical difference in trophic distribution among the two wetlands, as both were dominated by grazing herbivores. These results suggest that macroinvertebrate community characteristics have limited utility as an indicator of successional development in created wetlands, as community characteristics are readily influenced by nutrient availability and temporal changes.

References

Adamus, P. R. and Gonyaw, A. 2001. National Database of Wetland Invertebrate Sensitivities to Enrichment and Hydrologic Alteration, Washington, DC: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/bawwg/publicat.html Prepared for Office of Water

APHA. 1998. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. , 20th edition, Washington, DC: American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, and Water Environment Federation.

Balcombe, C. K., Anderson, J. T., Fortney, R. H. and Kordek, W. S. 2005. Aquatic macroinvertebrate assemblages in mitigated and natural wetlands. Hydrobiologia, 541: 175–188.

Bedford, B. L. 1999. Cumulative effects on wetland landscapes: links to wetland restoration in the United States and southern Canada. Wetlands, 19: 775–788.

Breaux, A. and Serefiddin, F. 1999. Validity of performance criteria and a tentative model of regulatory use in compensatory wetland mitigation permitting. Environmental Management, 24: 327–336.

Brinson, M. M. and Malvarez, A. I. 2002. Temperate freshwater wetlands: types, status, and threats. Environmental Conservation, 29(2): 115–133.

Burton, T. M., Uzarski, D. G., Gathman, J. P., Genet, J. A., Keas, B. E. and Stricker, C. G. 1999. Development of a preliminary invertebrate index of biotic integrity for Lake Huron coastal wetlands. Wetlands, 19(4): 869–882.

Carter, M. R., ed. 1993. Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis, Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers.

Chipps, S. R., Hubbard, D. E., Werlin, K. B., Haugerud, N. J., Powell, K. A., Thompson, J. and Johnson, T. 2006. Association between wetland disturbance and biological attributes in floodplain wetlands. Wetlands, 26(2): 497–508.

de Szalay, F. A. and Resh, V. H. 2000. Factors influencing macroinvertebrate colonization of seasonal wetlands: responses to emergent plant cover. Freshwater Biology, 45: 295–308.

Flinn, M. B., Whiles, M. R., Adams, S. R. and Garvey, J. E. 2005. Macroinvertebrate and zooplankton responses to emergent plant production in upper Mississippi River floodplain wetlands. Archives Hydrobiologia, 162(2): 187–210.

Galat, D. L., Fredrickson, L. H., Humburg, D. D., Bataille, K. J., Bodie, J. R., Dohrenwend, J., Gelwicks, G. T., Havel, J. E., Helmers, D. L., Hooker, J. B., Jones, J. R., Knowlton, M. F., Kubisiak, J., Mazourek, J., McColpin, A. C., Renken, R. B. and Semlitsch, R. D. 1998. Flooding to restore connectivity of regulated, large river wetlands. Bioscience, 48(9): 721–733.

Hach Company. 2002. DR/2400 Spectrophotometer procedure manual, Loveland, CO: Hach Company.

Hansson, L. A., Bronmark, C., Nilsson, P. A. and Abjornsson, K. 2005. Conflicting demands on wetland ecosystem services: nutrient retention, biodiversity or both?. Freshwater Biology, 50: 705–714.

Hester, F. E. and Dendy, J. S. 1962. A multiple plate sampler for aquatic macroinvertebrates. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 91: 420–421.

Hey, D. L. and Philippi, N. S. 1995. Flood reduction through wetland restoration: the Upper Mississippi River basin as a case history. Restoration Ecology, 3: 4–17.

Kashian, D. R. and Burton, T. M. 2000. A Comparison of Macroinvertebrates of Two Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands: Testing Potential Metrics for an Index of Ecological Integrity. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 26(4): 460–481.

King, R. S., Nunnery, K. T. and Richardson, C. J. 2000. Macroinvertebrate assemblage response to highway crossings in forested wetlands: implications for biological assessment. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 8: 243–256.

Merritt, R. W. and Cummins, K. W. 1996. An introduction to the aquatic insects of North America, Third edition, Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/ Hunt Publishing Company.

Micacchion, M. 2002. Amphibian Index of Biotic Integrity (AmphIBI) for Wetlands Final Report to U. S. EPA. Grant No. CD985875-01. Testing Biological Metrics and Development of Wetland Assessment Techniques Using Reference Sites, Volume 3

Mitsch, W. J. and Gosselink, J. G. 2000. The value of wetlands: importance of scale and landscape setting. Ecological Economics, 35: 25–33.

Mitsch, W. J., Day, J. W. Jr., Gilliam, J. W., Groffman, P. M., Hey, D. L., Randall, G. W. and Wang, N. 2001. Reducing nitrogen loading to the Gulf of Mexico from the Mississippi River Basin: strategies to counter a persistent ecological problem. Bioscience, 51(5): 373–388.

Moss, B. 2000. Biodiversity in fresh waters—an issue of species preservation or system functioning?. Environmental Conservation, 27(1): 1–4.

Poff, N. L., Allen, J. D., Bain, M. B., Karr, J. R., Prestegaard, K. L., Richter, B. D., Sparks, R. E. and Stromberg, J. C. 1997. The natural flow regime: a paradigm for conservation and restoration of riverine ecosystems. BioScience, 47: 769–784.

Simon, T. P. 1998. Modification of an index of biotic integrity and development of reference condition expectations or dunal, palustrine wetland fish communities along the southern shore of Lake Michigan. Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management, 1(1): 49–62.

Simpson, E. H. 1949. Measurement of diversity. Nature, 163: 688

Smith, D. G. 2001. Pennak's freshwater invertebrates of the United States: Porifera to crustacea, , 4th Ed., New York, New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc..

Sørensen, T. 1948. A method of establishing groups of equal amplitude in plant sociology based on similarity of species and its application to analyses of the vegetation on Danish commons. Biologiske Skrifter / Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, 5(4): 1–34.

Spieles, D. J. 2005. Vegetation development in created, restored, and enhanced mitigation wetland banks of the United States. Wetlands, 25(1): 51–63.

Spieles, D. J. and Mitsch, W. J. 2000. Macroinvertebrate community structure in high and low nutrient constructed wetlands. Wetlands, 20(4): 716–729.

Spieles, D. J., Coneybeer, M. and Horn, J. 2006. Community structure and quality after 10 years in two central Ohio mitigation bank wetlands. Environmental Management, 38: 837–852.

Streever, W. J., Evans, D. L., Keenan, C. M. and Crisman, T. L. 1995. Chironomidae (Diptera) and vegetation in a created wetland and implications for sampling. Wetlands, 15: 285–289.

Thorp, J. H. and Covich, A. P., eds. 1991. Ecology and classification of North American freshwater invertebrates, San Diego, California: Academic Press, Inc..

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2002. Methods for Evaluating Wetland Condition: Biological Assessment Methods for Birds, Washington, DC: Office of Water, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-822-R-02-023

Voshell, J. R. Jr. 2002. A guide to common freshwater invertebrates of North America, Blacksburg, VA: The McDonald and Woodward Publishing Company.

Ward, J. V., Tockner, K. and Schiemer, F. 1999. Biodiversity of floodplain river ecosystems: ecotones and connectivity. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management, 15: 125–139.

Wigley, T. B. and Roberts, T. H. 1997. Landscape level effects of forest management on faunal diversity in bottomland hardwoods. Forest Ecology and Management, 90: 141–154.

Zedler, J. B. 2003. Wetlands at your service: reducing impacts of agriculture at the watershed scale. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 1(2): 65–72.

Downloads

Published

2009-09-24

Issue

Vol. 12 No. 3 (2009)

Section

Research article

License

Manuscripts must be original. They must not be published or be under consideration for publication elsewhere, in whole or in part. It is required that the lead author of accepted papers complete and sign the MSU Press AEHM Author Publishing Agreement and provide it to the publisher upon acceptance.