A biodiversity assessment of compensatory mitigation wetlands in eastern South Dakota

Published source details Juni S. & Berry C.R. (2001) A biodiversity assessment of compensatory mitigation wetlands in eastern South Dakota. Proceedings of the South Dakota Academy of Science, 80, 185-200.
Share Tweet Email

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

	Action	Category
	Restore or create wetlands Action Link
	Restore wetland Action Link
	Create wetland Action Link
	Create or restore wetlands Action Link

Restore or create wetlands

A replicated, site comparison study in 1999–2000 of 17 wetlands in South Dakota, USA (Juni & Berry 2001) found that mammal species richness was similar in created, restored and enhanced wetlands compared to in natural wetlands. There was no significant difference in the average number of species found in created (2.7 species), restored (2.4 species) and enhanced wetlands (1.9 species) and in natural wetlands (1.4 species). Four created, four restored, four enhanced and five natural wetlands were sampled. Wetland creation involved either impounding a small stream or excavating a basin. Restoration included plugging drainage ditches or breaking sub-surface drainage tiles. Enhancement included manipulating water levels to increase wetland size or changing vegetation structure. Wetland creation, restoration and enhancement was carried out within the previous 10 years. Monitoring was undertaken in spring and autumn in 1999–2000. Sampling at each site included live-trapping (four transects, each with five traps spaced 5 m apart), complemented with pitfall traps and sightings.

(Summarised by: Ricardo Rocha)
Restore wetland

A replicated, site comparison study in 1999–2000 of 13 wetlands in South Dakota, USA (Juni & Berry 2001) found that combined amphibian and reptile species richness did not differ significantly between restored, enhanced and natural wetlands. Although not significant, there was a trend for higher numbers of species in restored and enhanced wetlands compared to natural wetlands. A total of 11 amphibian and reptile species were recorded. Study sites were four restored, four enhanced and five natural wetlands. Restoration tended to involve plugging drainage ditches or breaking sub-surface drainage tiles. Enhancement included manipulating water levels to increase wetland size or changing vegetation structure. Monitoring was undertaken using drift-fences with pitfall traps and visual surveys around wetland perimeters in spring and autumn in 1999–2000.
Create wetland

A replicated, site comparison study in 1999–2000 of nine wetlands in South Dakota, USA (Juni & Berry 2001) found that amphibian and reptile species richness did not differ significantly between created and natural wetlands. A total of 11 amphibian and reptile species were recorded in the wetlands. Four wetlands had been created during the previous 10 years by excavation or enclosing small streams. Five natural wetlands were used for comparison. Monitoring was undertaken using drift-fences and pitfall traps and visual surveys around wetland perimeters in spring and autumn in 1999–2000.
Create or restore wetlands

A replicated, site comparison study in 1999–2000 of 17 wetlands in South Dakota, USA (Juni & Berry 2001) found that combined reptile and amphibian species richness was similar between created, restored, enhanced and natural wetlands. There were a similar number of species in created, restored, enhanced and natural wetlands (1–3 species/wetland). A total of 11 reptile and amphibian species were recorded. Four created, four restored, four enhanced and five natural wetlands were sampled. Wetland creation involved either impounding a small stream or excavating a basin. Restoration included plugging drainage ditches or breaking sub-surface drainage tiles. Enhancement included manipulating water levels to increase wetland size or changing vegetation structure. Wetland creation, restoration and enhancement were carried out within the previous 10 years. Monitoring was undertaken using drift-fences with pitfall traps, fish nets and visual surveys around wetland perimeters in spring and autumn in 1999–2000.

(Summarised by: Katie Sainsbury)