Abstract
We developed an assessment model to quantify the wildlife habitat value of New England salt marshes based on marsh characteristics and the presence of habitat types that influence habitat use by terrestrial wildlife. Applying the model to 12 salt marshes located in Narragansett Bay, RI resulted in assessment scores that ranged over a factor of 1.5 from lowest to highest. Pre-classifying the results based on marsh size and morphology helped to compare assessment scores between marshes, and demonstrated that even the lower ranking marshes had substantial habitat value. Stepwise multiple regression analysis of assessment scores and model components demonstrated that salt marsh morphology, the degree of anthropogenic modification, and salt marsh vegetative heterogeneity were significant variables and accounted for 91.3% of the variability in component scores. Our results suggest that targeting these components for restoration may lead to improved assessment scores for our study marshes. We also examined the use of lower resolution remote sensing data in the assessment in order to minimize the time and effort required to complete the model. Scores obtained using smaller-scale, lower resolution data were significantly lower than those obtained using larger-scale, higher resolution data (df = 11; t = 2.2; p < 0.001). The difference was significantly positively correlated with the portion of the assessment score that could be attributed to trees, pools, and pannes and marsh size (r 2 =0.50, F = 4.6, p = 0.04), and could indicate a bias against smaller, more heterogeneous marshes. We conclude that potential differences need to be weighed against the time benefit of using this type of data, bearing in mind the marsh size and the goals of the assessment. Overall, our assessment can provide information to aid in prioritizing marshes for protection and restoration, identify marshes that may harbor significant biodiversity, or help monitor changes in habitat value over time.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adamowicz, S. C., & Roman, C. T. (2005). New England salt marsh pools: A quantitative analysis of geomorphic and geographic features. Wetlands, 25, 279–288.
Benoit, L. K., & Askins, R. A. (2002). Relationship between habitat area and the distribution of tidal marsh birds. Wilson Bulletin, 114, 314–323.
Brinson, M. M. (1993). A hydrogeomorphic classification for wetlands. Wetlands Research Program Technical Report WRP-DE-4. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Brown, M., & Dinsmore, J. J. (1986). Implications of marsh size and isolation for marsh bird management. Journal of Wildlife Management, 50, 392–397.
Cowardin, L. M., Carter, V., Golet, F. C., & LaRoe, E. T. (1979). Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-79/31 (pp. 103)
Cramer, M. J., & Willig, M. R. (2005). Habitat heterogeneity, species diversity and null models. Oikos, 108, 209–218.
Esselink, P., Dijkema, K. S., Reents, S., & Hageman, G. (1998). Vertical accretion and profile changes in abandoned man-made tidal marshes in the Dollard Estuary, the Netherlands. Journal of Coastal Research, 14, 570–582.
Ewanchuk, P. J., & Bertness, M. D. (2004). Structure and organization of a New England salt marsh plant community. Journal of Ecology, 92, 72–85.
Farmer, A. H., & Parent, A. H. (1997). Effects of landscape on shorebird movements at spring migration stopovers. Condor, 99, 698–707.
Golet, F. C. (1976). Wildlife evaluation model. In J. S. Larson (Ed.), Models for assessment of freshwater wetlands (pp. 13–34). Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Water Resources Center Publication 32.
Golet, F. C. (1978). Rating the wildlife value of northeastern fresh water wetlands. In P. E. Greeson, J. R. Clark, & J. E. Clark (Eds.), Wetland functions and values: The state of our understanding (pp. 63–73). Minneapolis, MN: American Water Resources Association.
Huber, I. (2000). Photointerpretation of buffer zones, coastal wetland potential restoration sites, and hardened shorelines in the Narragansett Bay estuary, RI and MA. Natural Resources Assessment Group, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.
Kusler, J. (2006). Recommendations for reconciling wetland assessment techniques. Berne, NY: Association of State Wetland Managers. http://www.aswm.org/propub/reconciling.pdf
Larson, J. S. (1975). Evaluation models for public management of freshwater wetlands. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, 40, 220–228.
Larson, J. S. (Ed.) (1976). Models for assessment of freshwater wetlands. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Water Resources Center Publication 32.
McKinney, R. A., & Wigand, C. (2006). A framework for the assessment of the wildlife habitat value of New England salt marshes. EPA/600/R-06/132. Office of Research and Development. Washington, DC 20460. http://www.epa.gov/aed/html/research/wetland/pubs.html.
Mauser, D. M., Jarvis, R. L., & Gilmer, D. S. (1994). Movements and habitat use of Mallard broods in northeastern California. Journal of Wildlife Management, 58, 88–94.
Mitsch, W. J., & Gosselink, J. G. (2000). Wetlands, 3rd edn. New York: Wiley.
Nixon, S. W. (1982). The ecology of New England high salt marshes: A community profile. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Services Program, FWS/OBS-81/55.
Ramo, C., & Busto, B. (1993). Resource use by herons in a Yucatan wetland during the breeding season. Wilson Bulletin, 105, 573–586.
Ries, L., & Sisk, T. D. (2004). A predictive model of edge effects. Ecology, 85, 2917–2926.
Roman, C. T., Jaworski, N., Short, F. T., Findlay, S., & Warren, R. S. (2000). Estuaries of the northeastern United States: Habitat and land use signatures. Estuaries, 23, 743–764.
Rountree, R. A., & Able, K. W. (1992). Foraging habits, growth, and temporal patterns of salt-marsh creek habitat use by young-of-year summer flounder in New Jersey. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 121, 765–776.
SAS Institute (2000). SAS system for windows, version 8.2. Cary, NC, USA: SAS Institute Inc.
Shriver, W. G., Hodgman, T. P., Gibbs, J. P., & Vickery, P. D. (2004). Landscape context influences salt marsh bird diversity and area requirements in New England. Biological Conservation, 119, 545–553.
Sturdevant, A., Craft, C. B., & Sacco, J. N. (2002). Ecological functions of an impounded marsh and three natural estuarine marshes along Woodbridge River, NY/NJ Harbor. Urban Ecosystems, 6, 163–181.
Sun, S., Cai, Y., & Tian, X. (2003). Salt marsh vegetation change after a short-term tidal restriction in the Changjiang estuary. Wetlands, 23, 257–266.
Wigand, C., Comeleo, R., McKinney, R. A., Thursby, G., Chintala, M., & Charpentier, M. A. (2001). Outline of a new approach to evaluate ecological integrity of salt marshes. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 7, 1541–1554.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
McKinney, R.A., Charpentier, M.A. & Wigand, C. Assessing the wildlife habitat value of New England salt marshes: I. Model and application. Environ Monit Assess 154, 29–40 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-008-0375-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-008-0375-6