Study

Comparisons of bird, aquatic macroinvertebrate, and plant communities among dredged ponds and natural wetland habitats at Long Point, Lake Erie, Ontario

  • Published source details Schummer M.L., Palframan J., McNaughton E., Barney T. & Petrie S.A. (2012) Comparisons of bird, aquatic macroinvertebrate, and plant communities among dredged ponds and natural wetland habitats at Long Point, Lake Erie, Ontario. Wetlands, 32, 945-953.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Excavate freshwater pools

Action Link
Marsh and Swamp Conservation
  1. Excavate freshwater pools

    A replicated, paired, site comparison study in 2011 in a freshwater marsh in Ontario, Canada (Schummer et al. 2012) found that the margins of excavated pools had a richer and more diverse plant community, but were less dominated by wetland-characteristic plants, than the margins of natural pools and reed/cattail stands. After 1–3 years, plant species richness was significantly higher on the shores of excavated pools (11 species/60 sampling points) than on the shores of natural pools (7 species/60 points) or in areas of the marsh dominated by common reed Phragmites australis or cattails Typha spp. (7 species/60 points). The same was true for plant diversity (data reported as a diversity index). Only 93% of individual plants recorded on the shores of excavated pools were wetland-characteristic species, compared to 99% on natural shorelines and 98% in reed/cattail stands (statistical significance not assessed). The study also reported data on the abundance of individual plant species (see appendix to original paper). Methods: In summer 2011, vegetation was surveyed in 11 areas of a freshwater marsh on the shores of Lake Erie. Each area contained three sites: one excavated pool (≤4 ha; ≤1.5 m deep; dug in reed/cattail stands 1–3 years previously, with dredge spoil deposited around pool margins), one “natural” pool (substrate not disturbed for >10 years) and one site still containing reed/cattail stands. Plant species were recorded at 60 points/site. At pool sites, points were in the surrounding marsh but ≤3 m from the open water.

    (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