Study

Freshwater marsh reclamation in west central Florida

  • Published source details Swanson L.J. Jr. & Shuey A.G. (1980) Freshwater marsh reclamation in west central Florida. Proceedings of the Annual Conference on Restoration and Creation of Wetlands, Tampa, Florida, 7, 51-61.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Transplant or replace wetland soil: freshwater marshes

Action Link
Marsh and Swamp Conservation

Restore/create freshwater marshes or swamps (multiple actions)

Action Link
Marsh and Swamp Conservation

Directly plant non-woody plants: freshwater wetlands

Action Link
Marsh and Swamp Conservation
  1. Transplant or replace wetland soil: freshwater marshes

    A controlled, site comparison study in 1978–1980 of four freshwater marshes in Florida, USA (Swanson & Shuey 1980) reported that an excavated marsh amended with wetland soil contained more plant species than unamended and natural marshes, and more marsh-characteristic plant species than the unamended marsh. Statistical significance was not assessed. After two years, the amended marsh contained 95 vascular plant species (vs 70 in the unamended marsh and 76–88 in natural marshes). The amended marsh also contained 17 marsh plant species (i.e. present in at least one natural marsh) that were not present in the unamended marsh. Methods: In summer 1978, two 0.16-ha depressions were excavated in rangeland. Topsoil and vegetation from a nearby natural marsh was added to one depression (30 cm depth) but not the other. The whole site was seeded with pioneer herbs before topsoil addition (to prevent erosion) and limed and fertilized after. In summer 1980, plant species were recorded in each excavated marsh and two natural marshes, along a transect extending from the centre to the edge of each.

    (Summarised by: Nigel Taylor)

  2. Restore/create freshwater marshes or swamps (multiple actions)

    A site comparison study in 1978–1980 of three freshwater marshes in Florida, USA (Swanson & Shuey 1980) reported that a created marsh contained fewer plant species than natural marshes. After two years, the created marsh contained 70 vascular plant species (vs 76–88 in natural marshes; statistical significance not assessed). Vegetation cover in the created marsh was dominated by broadleaf cattail Typha latifolia, but this was not quantified. Methods: In summer 1978, one 0.16-ha depression was excavated in rangeland. Initially, 1.8 m of topsoil was removed but 0.6 m was backfilled to reach the final depth. The depression and surrounding site were also seeded with two pioneer herb species (to prevent erosion), limed (2,245 kg/ha dolomite) and fertilized (450 kg/ha). In summer 1980, plant species were recorded in the created marsh and two natural marshes (along a transect extending from the centre to the edge of each).

    (Summarised by: Nigel Taylor)

  3. Directly plant non-woody plants: freshwater wetlands

    A controlled, site comparison study in 1978–1980 of four freshwater marshes in Florida, USA (Swanson & Shuey 1980) reported that an excavated marsh planted with wetland herbs contained a similar number of plant species to both unplanted and natural marshes. Statistical significance was not assessed. After two years, the planted marsh contained 76 vascular plant species (vs 70 in the unplanted marsh and 76–88 in natural marshes). The planted marsh was dominated by the three planted species whereas the unplanted marsh was dominated by broadleaf cattail Typha latifolia (cover was not quantified). Methods: In summer 1978, two 0.16-ha depressions were excavated in rangeland. One was then planted with three herb species collected from nearby marshes: maidencane Panicum hemitomon, pickerelweed Pontederia lanceolata and common rush Juncus effusus. The other depression was left unplanted. The whole site was seeded with pioneer herbs before planting (to prevent erosion) and limed and fertilized after. In summer 1980, plant species were recorded in each excavated marsh and two natural marshes, along a transect extending from the centre to the edge of each.

    (Summarised by: Nigel Taylor)

Output references

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, terrestrial 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 18

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 Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust