Study

Comparison of created and natural freshwater emergent wetlands in Connecticut (USA)

  • Published source details Confer S.R. & Niering W.A. (1992) Comparison of created and natural freshwater emergent wetlands in Connecticut (USA). Wetlands Ecology and Management, 2, 143-156.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Reprofile/relandscape: freshwater marshes

Action Link 		Marsh and Swamp Conservation
  1. Reprofile/relandscape: freshwater marshes

    A replicated, site comparison study in 1988 of ten freshwater marshes in Connecticut, USA (Confer & Niering 1992) found that excavated marshes contained more open water and less vegetation cover than natural marshes, but similar richness of wetland plant species. After 4–5 years, the area of open water was greater in excavated marshes (5–90%) than in natural marshes (0–40%). Within vegetated areas, excavated marshes had only 71% vegetation cover on average (vs natural: 97%). Cover and frequency of individual species showed mixed results (see original paper for data; statistical significance not assessed). For example, broadleaf cattail Typha latifolia cover was lower in excavated than natural marshes in three of five comparisons, but higher in excavated than natural marshes in the other two comparisons. In contrast, tussock sedge Carex stricta always had similar or lower cover in excavated marshes compared to natural marshes. Finally, there was a statistically similar number of wetland plant species, on average, in excavated marshes (33 species/marsh) and natural marshes (30 species/marsh). Methods: In summer 1988, vegetation was surveyed in five created marshes (excavated in 1983–1984) and five nearby natural marshes. All marshes were <1 ha. Although paired geographically, created and natural marshes contained different soils and water levels. The total open water area was visually estimated. Plant species and their cover were recorded in at least forty 1-m2 quadrats/marsh, placed in vegetated areas. Some of the marshes in this study were also studied in (4).

    (Summarised by: Nigel Taylor)

Output references
What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 21

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape ProgrammeRed List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Mauritian Wildlife Supporting Conservation Leaders
Sustainability Dashboard National Biodiversity Network Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust
For a full list of, and information about, our champions:
All Evidence Champions
About our champions, why and how to become one:
Become an Evidence Champion

This website uses Cookies

We use limited Cookies to run the site and to analyse our traffic (none for site vendors). By using this site, you will be providing your consent to our use of Cookies.

Accept & continue