Advertisement

Wetland Heterogeneity

  • Daniel J. Larkin
Reference work entry

Abstract

Heterogeneity is a key feature of wetland ecosystems, which vary physically, chemically, and biologically over space and time. Today, longstanding interest in how heterogeneity influences fundamental ecological processes is coupled with concern that anthropogenic changes are reducing the heterogeneity of wetland and other ecosystems. Spatial heterogeneity is apparent in wetlands at landscape, habitat, and micro scales. Variation can be gradual along environmental gradients or abrupt; even relatively small changes in wetlands can exert large influences through interactions with hydrology. Temporal heterogeneity is an important feature of wetlands, from the decadal or longer scales associated with vegetation succession to diurnal variability in water levels. Origins, effects, and applications of heterogeneity to wetland management are discussed, with a focus on the spatial dimension of wetland heterogeneity at the habitat scale.

Keywords

Hydrology Landscape Restoration Spatial Temporal Topography 

References

  1. Able KW, Hagan SM, Brown SA. Mechanisms of marsh habitat alteration due to Phragmites: response of young-of-the-year Mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus) to treatment for Phragmites removal. Estuaries. 2003;26:484–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Angradi T, Hagan S, Able K. Vegetation type and the intertidal macroinvertebrate fauna of a brackish marsh: Phragmites vs Spartina. Wetlands 2001;21:75-92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bertness MD. Interspecies interactions among high marsh perennials in a New England salt marsh. Ecology 1991;72:125-137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brinson MM. A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands. Vicksburg: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Wetlands Research Program Technical Report WRP-DE-4. 1993.Google Scholar
  5. Brose U. Relative importance of isolation, area and habitat heterogeneity for vascular plant species richness of temporary wetlands in east-German farmland. Ecography. 2001;24:722–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Crain CM, Bertness ND. Community impacts of a tussock sedge: is ecosystem engineering important in benign habitats? Ecology. 2005;86:2695–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fogel BN, Crain CM, Bertness MD. Community level engineering effects of Triglochin maritima (seaside arrowgrass) in a salt marsh in northern New England, USA. J Ecol. 2004;92:589–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Larkin DJ, Madon SP, West JM, Zedler JB. Topographic heterogeneity influences fish use of an experimentally restored tidal marsh. Ecol Appl. 2008;18:483–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Larkin DJ, Vivian-Smith G, Zedler JB. Topographic heterogeneity theory and ecological restoration. In: Falk DA, Palmer MA, Zedler JB, editors. Foundations of Restoration Ecology. Washington, DC: Island Press; 2006. p. 142–64.Google Scholar
  10. Lawrence BA, Zedler JB. Formation of tussocks by sedges: effects of hydroperiod and nutrients. Ecol Appl. 2011;21:1745–59.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. McClain, ME, Boyer EW, Dent CL, Gergel SE, Grimm NB, Groffman PM, Hart SC, Harvey JW, Johnston CA, Mayorga E, McDowell WH, Pinay G. Biogeochemical hot spots and hot moments at the interface of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Ecosystems 2003;6:301–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. McKinney ML, Lockwood JL. Biotic homogenization: a few winners replacing many losers in the next mass extinction. Trends Ecol Evol. 1999;14:450–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Palmer MA. Reforming watershed restoration: science in need of application and applications in need of science. Estuar Coasts. 2009;32:1-17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Pennings SC, Callaway RM. Salt marsh plant zonation: the relative importance of competition and physical factors. Ecology. 1992;73:681–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Rehm EM, Baldassarre GA. The influence of interspersion on marsh bird abundance in New York. Wilson J Ornithol. 2007;119:648–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Squires L, van der Valk AG. Water-depth tolerances of the dominant emergent macrophytes of the Delta Marsh, Manitoba. Can J Bot. 1992;70:1860–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Swanson DK, Grigal DF. A simulation model of mire patterning. Oikos. 1988;53:309–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Vivian-Smith G. Microtopographic heterogeneity and floristic diversity in experimental wetland communities. J Ecol. 1997;85:71–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Werner KJ, Zedler JB. How sedge meadow soils, microtopography, and vegetation respond to sedimentation. Wetlands. 2002;22:451–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Williams PB, Orr MK, Garrity NJ. Hydraulic geometry: a geomorphic design tool for tidal marsh channel evolution in wetland restoration projects. Restor Ecol. 2002;10:577–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wolf KL, Ahn C, Noe GB. Microtopography enhances nitrogen cycling and removal in created mitigation wetlands. Ecol Eng. 2011;37:1398–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Conservation Biology and Minnesota Aquatic Invasive Species Research CenterUniversity of MinnesotaSt. PaulUSA

Personalised recommendations