Wetland

14,000,000 Leading Edge Experts on the ideXlab platform

Scan Science and Technology

Contact Leading Edge Experts & Companies

Scan Science and Technology

Contact Leading Edge Experts & Companies

The Experts below are selected from a list of 251994 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

James T. Anderson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • An Introduction to Wetland Science and South Asian Wetlands
    Wetland Science, 2017
    Co-Authors: Ketan S. Tatu, James T. Anderson
    Abstract:

    A novice student in Wetland science may initially find oneself in a state of dilemma about how do Wetlands differ from waterbodies. Further, the student might get baffled on coming across multiple definitions of the term “Wetland”. The present chapter attempts to elucidate confusion over this fundamental issue at the outset and then leads the student to gain multi-faceted knowledge about Wetlands including extent, distribution and types of Wetlands in the world and in South Asia (especially, in India). We also discuss meaning and significance of hydric soil, hydrology and hydrophytes, issues of threats impacting Wetlands, Wetland conservation and conservation policies (especially, Ramsar Convention). The chapter is specifically written for the students of South Asian countries where the subject of Wetland science or Wetland ecology is not as widely found in formal university curriculum as in the developed countries of Europe and North America.

  • Wetland Creation: A Strategy for Mitigating Wetland Loss by Restoring Wetlands to Landscapes
    Wetland Science, 2017
    Co-Authors: Ketan S. Tatu, James T. Anderson
    Abstract:

    Owing to an ever-growing human population and the subsequent need for land development in India and other parts of South Asia, Wetlands are bound to get adversely impacted. The outcome of adverse impacts may vary from Wetland degradation to Wetland loss, and mitigation is an effective strategy in minimizing such damages. One of the proven effective strategies of Wetland mitigation is Wetland creation that restores Wetlands to a landscape that suffered Wetland loss. Wetland creation efforts typically lead to construction of “replacement Wetlands” (also called “mitigation Wetlands”) whose total area in an affected landscape has to be similar to or larger than the original Wetland area impacted in that landscape. The replacement Wetlands should be constructed mainly for ecological well-being of the landscape. Wetland creation to replace lost Wetlands in a landscape may require reestablishing original vegetation, hydrology, or other parameters to restore original or closer to original functions of Wetlands. For constructing a replacement Wetland, an area having diameter of at least 25 m can be selected as Wetland construction site in a flat barren land. In India, such land can be a “forest land” under the jurisdiction of a state forest department. Creation of a replacement Wetland may be carried out using manual tools or heavy equipment depending on type of site selected, size of the replacement Wetland required, and complexity level of the structure of the replacement Wetland. Some experience and knowledge regarding engineering surveys and use of survey instruments might be desirable.

  • Aquatic macroinvertebrate assemblages in mitigated and natural Wetlands
    Hydrobiologia, 2005
    Co-Authors: Collin K. Balcombe, Ronald H. Fortney, James T. Anderson, Walter S. Kordek
    Abstract:

    Many Wetlands have been constructed in West Virginia as mitigation for a variety of human disturbances, but no comprehensive evaluation on their success has been conducted. Macroinvertebrates are extremely valuable components of functioning Wetland ecosystems. As such, benthic and water column invertebrate communities were chosen as surrogates for Wetland function in the evaluation of 11 mitigation and 4 reference Wetlands in West Virginia. Mitigation Wetlands ranged in age from 4 to 21 years old. Overall familial richness, diversity, density and biomass were similar between mitigation and reference Wetlands (p > 0.05). Within open water habitats, total benthic invertebrate density was higher in reference Wetlands, but mass of common taxa from water column samples was higher in mitigation Wetlands (p < 0.05). Planorbidae density from benthic samples in emergent habitats was higher in reference than mitigated Wetlands. Benthic Oligochaeta density was higher across open water habitats in mitigation Wetlands. All other benthic taxa were similar between Wetland types. Among the most common water column orders, Isopoda density was higher in reference Wetlands, but Physidae density was higher in mitigation Wetlands. Within mitigation Wetlands, emergent areas contained higher richness and diversity than open areas. These data indicate that mitigation and reference Wetlands generally support similar invertebrate assemblages, especially among benthic populations. The few observed differences are likely attributable to differences in vegetative community composition and structure. Mitigation Wetlands currently support abundant and productive invertebrate communities, and as such, provide quality habitat for Wetland dependent wildlife species, especially waterbirds and anurans.

Yao Huang - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • a synthesis of soil carbon and nitrogen recovery after Wetland restoration and creation in the united states
    Scientific Reports, 2017
    Co-Authors: Lingfei Yu, Yao Huang
    Abstract:

    Wetland restoration and creation efforts have been widely attempted as a way to compensate for Wetland losses and to recover Wetland functions; however, to date, there has been no comprehensive evaluation of the efficacy of soil carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) content recovery at a regional scale. This meta-analysis synthesizes 48 articles to identify the general patterns of soil C and N change after Wetland restoration and creation in the United States. Our results indicate that, after 11–20 years, soil C and N in restored and created Wetlands are still significantly lower by 51.7% and 50.3%, respectively, than those in natural Wetlands. The soil C and N in restored Wetlands recovered faster than in created Wetlands. Furthermore, the soil C in restored organic flat and created depressional Wetlands recovered more rapidly than in restored and created hydrologically open Wetlands (riverine and tidal), respectively. Mean annual temperature and soil texture were recognized as two crucial abiotic factors affecting soil C and N recovery. Linear regression analysis revealed a positive relationship between the restoration and creation effect sizes on soil C and N, indicating that Wetlands may alleviate N limitations intrinsically during C recovery processes.

Bruce A. Kingsbury - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Wetland complexes and upland–Wetland linkages: landscape effects on the distribution of rare and common Wetland reptiles
    Journal of Zoology, 2008
    Co-Authors: Omar Attum, Bruce A. Kingsbury
    Abstract:

    We used landscape ecology concepts to test the importance of upland–Wetland linkages on the distribution of two common Wetland species, the northern watersnake Nerodia sipedon sipedon and midland painted turtle Chrysemys picta marginata, and two rare Wetland species, the copper-bellied watersnake Nerodia erythrogaster neglecta and Blanding’s turtle Emydoidea blandingii. We tested if connectivity (proximity to other Wetlands), connectivity quality (Wetland distance to roads and forest area within 30, 125, 250, 500 and 1000 m of the Wetland), and patch size (Wetland size and shoreline length) affected the distribution of these four species. Our results show that both common species were more likely to occur in larger, less isolated Wetlands, but their distribution were not influenced by proximity to roads or the amount of adjacent forest area surrounding the Wetland. Both rare species were more likely to occur in Wetlands that were farther away from roads and that had more surrounding forest. Proximity to other Wetlands was not a significant predictor of either rare species’ distribution. Our results suggest that management practices should focus on protecting Wetland complexes and maintaining upland–Wetland linkages by improving landscape connectivity, increasing forest area surrounding Wetlands and reducing road effects.

  • Upland–Wetland linkages: relationship of upland and Wetland characteristics with watersnake abundance
    Journal of Zoology, 2007
    Co-Authors: Omar Attum, Bruce A. Kingsbury
    Abstract:

    Land-use practices surrounding a Wetland may be as important for maintaining wildlife populations as the Wetland itself. Although imperiled species may appear to be more impacted than ubiquitous species from changes in the landscape surrounding Wetlands, studies of common Wetland species are useful for conservation because they provide insight into why some species persist despite landscape changes. We therefore investigated the relationship between connectivity, measured as the Wetland distance to other Wetlands; connectivity quality, implied by Wetland distance to roads and forest area within 30, 125, 250, 500 and 1000 m buffer zones around the Wetland; and patch size as indicated by Wetland size with northern watersnake Nerodia sipedon sipedon abundance. Our results suggest that both upland and Wetland characteristics influence the abundance of N. s. sipedon, as Wetland size and Wetland connectivity to other Wetlands were significantly associated with abundance. Abundance was positively correlated with increasing Wetland size and Wetland connectivity. We were not able to find a significant relationship between abundance and connectivity quality, and Wetland distance to road or forest area within 30, 125, 250, 500 and 1000 m buffer zones. We conclude that Wetland conservation should focus on Wetland complexes as well as individual Wetlands. In addition, common Wetland species such as the northern watersnake do not appear to be negatively impacted by modifications to nearby terrestrial habitats, such as deforestation and roads, and may benefit from the creation of larger, permanent Wetlands.

Walter S. Kordek - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Aquatic macroinvertebrate assemblages in mitigated and natural Wetlands
    Hydrobiologia, 2005
    Co-Authors: Collin K. Balcombe, Ronald H. Fortney, James T. Anderson, Walter S. Kordek
    Abstract:

    Many Wetlands have been constructed in West Virginia as mitigation for a variety of human disturbances, but no comprehensive evaluation on their success has been conducted. Macroinvertebrates are extremely valuable components of functioning Wetland ecosystems. As such, benthic and water column invertebrate communities were chosen as surrogates for Wetland function in the evaluation of 11 mitigation and 4 reference Wetlands in West Virginia. Mitigation Wetlands ranged in age from 4 to 21 years old. Overall familial richness, diversity, density and biomass were similar between mitigation and reference Wetlands (p > 0.05). Within open water habitats, total benthic invertebrate density was higher in reference Wetlands, but mass of common taxa from water column samples was higher in mitigation Wetlands (p < 0.05). Planorbidae density from benthic samples in emergent habitats was higher in reference than mitigated Wetlands. Benthic Oligochaeta density was higher across open water habitats in mitigation Wetlands. All other benthic taxa were similar between Wetland types. Among the most common water column orders, Isopoda density was higher in reference Wetlands, but Physidae density was higher in mitigation Wetlands. Within mitigation Wetlands, emergent areas contained higher richness and diversity than open areas. These data indicate that mitigation and reference Wetlands generally support similar invertebrate assemblages, especially among benthic populations. The few observed differences are likely attributable to differences in vegetative community composition and structure. Mitigation Wetlands currently support abundant and productive invertebrate communities, and as such, provide quality habitat for Wetland dependent wildlife species, especially waterbirds and anurans.

Lingfei Yu - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • a synthesis of soil carbon and nitrogen recovery after Wetland restoration and creation in the united states
    Scientific Reports, 2017
    Co-Authors: Lingfei Yu, Yao Huang
    Abstract:

    Wetland restoration and creation efforts have been widely attempted as a way to compensate for Wetland losses and to recover Wetland functions; however, to date, there has been no comprehensive evaluation of the efficacy of soil carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) content recovery at a regional scale. This meta-analysis synthesizes 48 articles to identify the general patterns of soil C and N change after Wetland restoration and creation in the United States. Our results indicate that, after 11–20 years, soil C and N in restored and created Wetlands are still significantly lower by 51.7% and 50.3%, respectively, than those in natural Wetlands. The soil C and N in restored Wetlands recovered faster than in created Wetlands. Furthermore, the soil C in restored organic flat and created depressional Wetlands recovered more rapidly than in restored and created hydrologically open Wetlands (riverine and tidal), respectively. Mean annual temperature and soil texture were recognized as two crucial abiotic factors affecting soil C and N recovery. Linear regression analysis revealed a positive relationship between the restoration and creation effect sizes on soil C and N, indicating that Wetlands may alleviate N limitations intrinsically during C recovery processes.