INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9* black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.
ProQuest Information and Learning 300 North Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor. Ml 48106-1346 USA 800-521-0600
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. VEGETATION AND ALGAL COMMUNITY COMPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THREE CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS RECEIVING AGRICULTURAL RUNOFF AND SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE, 1998 TO 2001
DISSERTATION
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the
Graduate School of The Ohio State University
By
Lee Marie Luckeydoo, M. S.
*****
The Ohio State University
2002
Dissertation Committee:
Dr. Craig B. Davis, Adviser
Dr. Norman Fausey, Adviser
Dr. Larry C. Brown Environmental Science Graduate Program
Dr. Emilie Regnier
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UMI Number 3049082
______(g> UMI
UMI Microform 3049082 Copyright 2002 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ABSTRACT
Wetland Reservoir Subirrigation Systems (WRSIS) aim to reduce non-point
source pollution from agricultural fields while maintaining crop yield and creating
wetland wildlife habitat. The WRSIS system directs drainage water from agricultural
fields to flow into a passively revegetated constructed wetland, where water undergoes
water quality improvement. Water leaving the wetland is stored in an adjacent reservoir
and used to subirrigate fields. Three WRSIS demonstration sites were constructed during
1995-1996 in Defiance, Fulton, and Van Wert Counties in Northwest Ohio, an area
historically known as the “Great Black Swamp.”
Vegetation is known to be important in the function and effectiveness of the
wetland in the WRSIS system. The passive revegetation approach chosen for the WRSIS
wetlands resulted in approximately similar or increased diversity for the WRSIS wetlands
in 2001 compared to 1998; and an overall increase in percent of total known species
ranked as wetland indicator species (WIS). Importance Factor Rankings over the study
period and seed budget modeling suggest that seeding of some desired species may
enhance and expedite WIS vegetation establishment.
Moderately similar algal communities were found to exist between sites, as
determined by Jaccard’s and Sorenson’s similarity indices. Attempts to use a
combination of Palmer’s list of pollutant tolerant genera and Nygaard’s Eutrophication
ii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Quotient based on genera and abundance shifts to serve as a simple qualitative estimation
of trophic level for the WRSIS wetlands resulted in limited success when compared to
water nutrient data. This methodology requires additional data collection and further
development before utilization as a quick reference tool for trophic estimation.
Peak biomass samples collected from the WRSIS constructed wetlands estimated
significantly higher production in the shore and mudflat zones over the open water zone.
Peak biomass production estimates for vascular vegetation and macro-algae point
estimates were greatest in 2000, the wettest year.
These constructed wetlands are developing established wetland species over time.
Importance factor rankings, seed budgeting, and observed low recruitment from the seed
banks indicate that seeding with WIS species would help expedite and sustain increases
in wetland species habitat within the WRSIS or similar type wetlands systems.
in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would first like to thank my committee for their guidance, help and patience
while working on this project and dissertation.
I would like to thank Eric Zwierschke, Ginny Roberts, Robert Meyer, Susan
Carty, Dedra Woner and others who have served as grunt labor, motivators, and aided in
laboratory activities during the course of this work.
I am extremely appreciative for the she information supplied by Bruce Clevenger,
Mary Shininger, Gary Prill and Fred Shininger.
I am especially thankful for the support of my family and friends.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. VITA
October 16,1974 ...... Born- Dayton, Ohio
1997 ...... B.Sc. Biology, Eastern New Mexico University.
1999 ...... M.S. Environmental Science, The Ohio State
University.
August 1997- Present ...... Graduate Research Associate, The Ohio State
University.
PUBLICATIONS
1. Luckeydoo, L.M. N. R. Fausey, L.C. Brown and C. B. Davis. "Early Development of Vascular Vegetation of Constructed Wetlands in Northwest Ohio Receiving Agricultural Waters." Agriculture. Ecosystems and Environment 88 (2002): 89- 94.
FIELDS OF STUDY
Major Field: Environmental Science
V
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page Abstract ...... ii
Acknowledgements ...... iv
Vita...... v
List of Tables ...... xiii
List of Figures...... xvi
Chapters:
1. Introduction
WRSIS project overview and goals ...... 1
The role of vegetation in effluent remediation in treatment wetlands ...... 5
Adaptations of wetland vegetation ...... 9
Passive revegetation studies of other wetland systems ...... 10
Research goals and hypothesis ...... 11
Research approach ...... 12
Primer...... 14
Wetland Indicator Species classification ...... 14
Diversity Indices ...... 15
Importance Factor ...... 17
Algal primer ...... 18
Passive revegetation ...... 22 vi
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Assorted definitions seed budget terms ...... 22
References ...... 24
Figures...... 30
Tables ...... 34
2. Vascular Vegetation Surveys for Wetland Reservoir Subirrigation System
(WRSIS) Wetlands 1998-2001
Abstract ...... 36
Introduction ...... 37
Vegetation within the wetland ...... 38
Species richness and diversity indices ...... 39
Methods and she descriptions ...... 40
She locations ...... 40
Survey information collection ...... 42
Data analysis ...... 43
Results and Discussion ...... 44
Single site diversity and community structure ...... 44
Wetland indicator status ...... 49
Life history ...... 51
Important Factor (IF) Ranking ...... 54
Passive revegetation in the WRSIS community development ...... 56
Conclusions ...... 57
List of References ...... 59
Figures...... 63 vii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Tables 70
3. Algal Communities as Qualitative Trophic Indicators
Abstract ...... 75
Introduction ...... 76
Methods ...... 79
Pre-collection ...... 79
Phytoplankton collection ...... 79
Macroalgae collection ...... 80
Periphyton collection ...... 80
Sample evaluation ...... 81
How to read algal abundance tables ...... 81
Nygaard Eutrophication Quotient (NEQ) ...... 82
Water Samples for determination of nutrient levels ...... 83
Results and discussion ...... 84
Genera richness ...... 84
Abundance change over time ...... 85
Algal abundance and relation to genera on Palmer’s List at the WRSIS
wetlands...... 89
Nygaard’s Eutrophication Quotient ...... 89
Comparison of qualitative measures to total nitrogen and phosphorus
levels in grab samples ...... 90
Beta diversity (Jaccard’s and Sorenson’s Indices) ...... 93
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Overall conclusions 94
References ...... 96
Figures...... 99
Tables ...... 101
4. Production Estimates of Wetlands Receiving Agricultural Drainage Waters
Abstract ...... 132
Introduction ...... 133
Methods ...... 135
Study Locations ...... 135
Biomass collection methods ...... 136
Vascular Vegetation ...... 136
Macroalgae Collection ...... 123
Periphyton Collection ...... 123
Results and Discussion ...... 138
Summary...... 148
List of References ...... 149
Figures...... 152
Tables ...... 154
5. Seed Budget for Two Functional Species in a Passively Revegetating Wetland
Receiving Agricultural Drainage
ix
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Abstract ...... 159
Introduction ...... 160
Study locations ...... 163
Seed budget methods ...... 163
Study species ...... 163
Seed Budget, conceptual model and equation ...... 165
Assumptions ...... 166
Seed bank year zero ...... 167
Emergence ...... 167
Seed Production ...... 168
Mature Plants and Thinning ...... 168
Seed Predation ...... 169
Decay...... 170
Oflsite delivery and loss oflsite ...... 170
Results...... 171
Seed bank ...... 171
Seed production ...... 171
Plant population densities ...... 172
Predation studies ...... 172
Oflsite delivery and loss oflsite ...... 175
Seed budget model results ...... 175
Future work...... 177
List of References ...... 178 x
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figures...... 182
Tables ...... 193
6. Summary and Conclusions ...... 195
7. Wetland Management Outline for WRSIS and Similar Use Wetlands
Basis of management decisions for this guide ...... 198
Basin Design ...... 198
Vegetation establishment ...... 199
Determine available/current vegetation composition ...... 200
Management of vegetation establishment via water level control ...... 201
The need for water level fluctuation ...... 201
The water level throughout the growing season ...... 202
The water level outside of the growing season ...... 203
Mowing and herbicides ...... 203
Planting in the WRSIS wetlands ...... 204
Plant considerations ...... 204
Plant sources ...... 204
Species suggestions ...... 205
Troubleshooting ...... 207
List of References ...... 210
Appendix A- Palmer’s list of pollutant tolerant genera ...... 213
Appendix B- Species Lists for WRSIS Wetlands, 1998 through 2001 including life
history type and WIS status ...... 215
xi
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix C- WIS summarized by percent of total belonging to each life history
type ...... 225
Appendix D- Importance Factor Ranking ...... 227
Appendix E- Grab sample (water) raw data and Standard Operating Procedures ...... 232
Appendix F- PAFF and Periphyton point biomass calculations year 2000 and 2001 at the
DARA and Fulton WRSIS wetlands ...... 245
References ...... 249
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1.1 Precipitation summary ...... 34
1.2 Summary of Cultural Practices...... 35
2.1 Jaccard’s Beta Diversity Index values for 1998-2001 ...... 70
2.2 Sorenson’s Beta Diversity Index values for 1998-2001 similarities ...... 71
2.3 Precipitation summary ...... 72
2.4 Life history of WRSIS wetland species, 1998 to 2001 ...... 73
2.5 Summarized Importance Factor ranking of species at the WRSIS wetlands 74
3.1 Nitrogen and phosphorus levels in grab samples ...... 101
3.2 Algal PAFF Genera Richness, DARA 2000, presented as phylum to genus
breakdown ...... 102
3.3 Algal PAFF Genera Richness, DARA 2001, presented as phylum to genus
breakdown ...... 104
3.4 Algal PAFF Genera Richness, Fulton 2000, presented as phylum to genus
breakdown ...... 106
3.5 Algal PAFF Genera Richness, Fulton 2001, presented as phylum to genus
breakdown ...... 108
3.6 Algal PAFF Genera Richness, Van Wert 2000, presented as phylum to genus
breakdown ...... 110
xiii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3.7 Algal PAFF Genera Richness, Van Wert 2001, presented as phylum to genus
breakdown ...... 112
3.8 Algal periphyton Genera Richness, DARA 2001, presented as phylum to genus
breakdown ...... 114
3.9 Algal periphyton Genera Richness, DARA 2001, presented as phylum to genus
breakdown ...... 115
3.10Abundances of genera in monthly samples at the DARA wetland, 2000...... 116
3.11 Abundances of genera in monthly samples at the DARA wetland, 2001 ...... 118
3.12 Abundances of genera from periphyton samplers at the DARA wetland, 2001. .120
3.13 Abundances of genera in monthly samples at the Fulton wetland, 2000 ...... 121
3.14 Abundances of genera in monthly samples at the Fulton wetland, 2001 ...... 123
3.15 Abundances of genera from periphyton samplers at the Fulton wetland, 2001....125
3.16 Abundances of genera in monthly samples at the Van Wert wetland, 2000 ...... 126
3.17 Abundances of genera in monthly samples at the Van Wert wetland, 2001 ...... 128
3.18 Nygaard’s Eutrophication Quotient values, by year, for the WRSIS wetlands... 130
3.19 Algal beta diversity ...... 131
4.1 Average peak biomass production in WRSIS constructed wetlands ...... 154
4.2 DARA 1999-2001 peak biomass contributors and percent contribution by zone. 155
4.3 Fulton 1999-2001 peak biomass contributors and percent contribution by zone..l56
4.4 Van Wert 1999-2001 peak biomass contributors and percent contribution by
zone ...... 157
4.5 Peak biomass production at WRSIS wetlands 1999-2001 by zone and year 158
5.1 Average +/- standard deviation of seed removed in 2000 ...... 193 xiv
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 5.2 Seed budget results years 0 through 5 at the DARA WRSIS wetland
xv
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1.1 Map of Ohio showing locations of WRSIS wetland sites ...... 30
1.2 Schematic of the Fulton County WRSIS site ...... 31
1.3 Schematic of the Fulton County WRSIS she ...... 32
1.4 Schematic of the Fulton County WRSIS site ...... 33
2.1 Map of Ohio showing locations of WRSIS wetland sites ...... 63
2.2 Species Richness from 1998-2001 ...... 65
2.3 Simpson’s Index Values from 1998-2001 ...... 66
2.4 Shannon-Wiener Index Values from 1998-2001 ...... 67
2.5 Shannon-Wiener Evenness Index Values from 1998-2001 ...... 68
2.6 Wetland Indicator Species 1998-2001 ...... 69
3.1 Plankton and mat forming algae displayed by phyla ...... 99
3.2 Periphyton algae displayed by phyla ...... 100
4.1 Map of Ohio showing locations of WRSIS wetland sites ...... 152
4.2 Conceptual drawing of zone locations within the wetland ...... 153
5.1 Conceptual model of the seed budget ...... 182
5.2 Average seed production per meter squared +/- S. E. for Echinochloa crus-galli for
the year 2000 ...... 183
xvi
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 5.3 Average seed production per meter squared +/- S. E. for Echinochloa crus-galli for
the year 2001 ...... 184
5.4 Average seed production per meter squared +/- S. E. for Polygonum persicaria for
the year 2000 ...... 185
5.5 Average seed production per meter squared +/- S. E. for Polygonum persicaria for
the year 2001 ...... 186
5.6 Display of Herbivory trap results for Echinochloa crus-galli in 2000 ...... 187
5.7 Display of Herbivory trap results for Echinochloa crus-galli in 2001 ...... 188
5.8 Display of Herbivory trap results for Polygonum persicaria in 2000 ...... 189
5.9 Display of Herbivory trap results for Polygonum persicaria in 2001 ...... 190
5.10 Prediction of Echinochloa crus-galli seed bank ...... 191
5.11 Prediction of Polygonum persicaria seed bank ...... 192
xvii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
WRSIS project overview and goals
The Wetland Reservoir Subirrigation System (WRSIS) is an innovative
agricultural water management system that directs water from overland and subsurface
drainage to flow into a passively revegetated constructed wetland. Within the wetland
the sediment load is reduced and various processes can take place, reducing and
biologically metabolizing chemicals, thereby improving the quality of the water. The
treated water can be stored in a conjoined reservoir then used to subirrigate fields during
periods of precipitation deficit. Goals of the project are to create a cost-effective system
that will help maintain crop health and enhance yield as well as significantly reduce
non-point source pollution o f streams by nutrients, agrichemicals and sediments. The
wetland portion of the WRSIS systems can reduce the delivery o f these pollutants by
intercepting them before they can reach other water bodies. The project has the
additional benefits in the creation of wetland environment and wildlife habitat.
The design of the wetland basins are based on the ability for them to hold
approximately a 66 mm (2.6 inch) rainfall event over a 24 hour period from the basin’s
watershed. Information on soil physical characteristics including hydraulic conductivity,
and soil characterization are located in Hothem (1999); cation exchange capacity and
l
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. particle size analysis are included in table 7.3 of Oztekin (2000); and bulk density and
chemical characteristics such as organic matter content and phosphorus levels of the
soils are located in Kemerer (2001). Additional information on site sizing, water
control structures, site design and agricultural field preparations are discussed in
Chester and Rehhman (1997), Hothem (1999) and Allred (2000).
Instrumentation was installed to monitor hydrological and water quality changes
within the WRSIS sites. Area-velocity sensors have been installed to detect water
delivered into the wetland through flumes and weirs. Also, submersible sensors and
flowmeters have been used to monitor water surface levels and pipe flow. Climatic
conditions and precipitation events were monitored by use of an onsite weather station
(Kemerer 2001; Oztekin et al.1998). At one location (Defiance County), a water
column sampling device was installed in both the wetland and the reservoir to allow
researchers to sample with depth (Myers et al. 1998). The collection of water quality
samples by use of ISCO 6700 automatic water samplers allows researchers to detect
changes in water quality as it moves throughout the WRSIS system (Oztekin et
al.1998). Work was also accomplished to measure sedimentation and phosphorus
reduction in the WRSIS Defiance County location (Kemerer 2001).
Data collected on water flow and water quality has been utilized in modeling
software, such as WEPP (Oztekin 2000) and SIMULINK (Hothem 1999). These
models allow researchers to predict potential flows, and other possible outcomes by
testing potential management alternatives and site alteration in WRSIS and similar
wetlands prior to initiating any changes.
2
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. A report on the economic viability of the WRSIS systems from the
farmer/owner’s perspective has been completed. A number of variables, including
capital required, size of system, yield potential, and production costs, are considered in
the analysis of value for the WRSIS system to the farmer/operator. A detailed
explanation of the cost and benefit analysis completed on one of the current WRSIS
wetlands can be obtained in Richard’s et al. (1999).
The goals of this study were to report the development, functionality, and
potential sustainability of vegetation in these passively revegetated treatment wetlands.
Observations on vascular community make-up, life history types, wetlands indicator
status and production were included to gain a better picture of the system changes over
time. Production and wetland indicator status components were also important in the
evaluation of the functionality of the system and reaching overall WRSIS project goals
of water quality improvement and creation of wetland wildlife habitat. A seed
budgeting model was calculated to estimate if active seeding could serve as an
alternative for expediting wetland vegetation establishment and consequent
sustainability in the WRSIS wetland system. In addition to vascular community
composition, algal community abundance and composition was examined as a
qualitative method to determine trophic status in the WRSIS wetlands.
In order to help she managers meet many of these goals, a water table
management guide has been constructed (Allred 2000). These guidelines direct she
managers on an subirrigation time-frame that best promotes crop health and the
potential for increasing yield. These guidelines vary by forecasted growing season
3
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. precipitation. The guidelines also report yield results from WRSIS sites for 1997
though the year 2000.
Site locations
There are currently three established WRSIS study sites located in northwest
Ohio in the Maumee River watershed. Each site has a wetland constructed on prior
converted cropland. The adjoining fields are subsurface drained and are subirrigated
during the growing season. These fields are in com (Zea mays L.) -soybean (Glycine
max L.) rotation cropping systems. All locations are shown on the map in figure 1.1. A
monthly precipitation summary for northwest Ohio for 1998-2001 is shown in table 1.1.
The Fulton County site (figure 1.2) has a 0.607 ha wetland, which was
completed in the spring of 1996. The wetland receives subsurface drainage water from
8.09 ha of subirrigated/drained cropland and overland drainage from a total of 16.59 ha.
Annual rainfall for Fulton County reported from the Wauseon Water Plant is 882.9
millimeters (34.76 inches) (NOAA 1998). The primary soil types at this site are
Hoytville silty clay (Subgroup- Mollic Ochraqualf) and Nappanee silty clay (Subgroup
Aerie Ochraqualf) (Chester and Riethman 1997; USDA-SCS 1984a). This wetland is
bordered by a stream along 50% of its perimeter, which serves as a source of seeds and
established animal habitat.
The Van Wert County she (figure 1.3) has a 1.21 ha wetland, which was also
constructed in the spring of 1996. A soil divider was installed centrally at the east end
of the wetland in September 1999. The wetland catchment includes 12.14 ha of
subirrigated/drained and drained only farmland and overland drainage from a total of 4
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 20.23 ha. At this site, water is pumped into the upground dugout rectangular wetland.
Annual rainfall for Van Wert County reported from NOAA weather station Van Wert 1
S averages 926.3 millimeters (36.47 inches) (NOAA 1998). The soil types at the Van
Wert site are Hoytville silty clay loam and Hoytville clay, both Mollic Ochraqualfs
(Chester and Riethman 1997; USDA-SCS 1972). A highway ditch and a windbreak of
mature pine trees border two sides of this wetland.
The Defiance County, Defiance Agricultural Research Association or DARA,
location (figure 1.4) has a 0.102 ha wetland constructed in June 1996. An eight-foot
wide shelf was constructed along the east side of the wetland in March, 1999. This
wetland receives water from 3.1 ha of subirrigated/drained cropland, 12.2 ha of drained
cropland, and overland drainage from 16 ha. Annual rainfall for Defiance County
reported from a NOAA weather station in Defiance averages 880.1 millimeters (34.65
inches) (NOAA 1998). The main soil types at this site are Paulding clay and Roselms
silty clay (Subgroup Aerie Ochraqualf) (USDA-SCS 1984b). The overland drainage
into this wetland includes contribution from an adjacent wooded wetland. An example
of common cultural practices that occur on the WRSIS sites is presented in table 1.2,
including applications and events that occurred in 2001 at the DARA location.
Literature review
The role of vegetation in agricultural drainage remediation in treatment wetlands
Sediment reduction and retention
Removal of sediments, “sedimentation”, is important in reducing the turbidity or
“cloudiness” of the downstream receiving water bodies. Sedimentation is facilitated by 5
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. increased friction when water flows over vegetation. This increase in friction causes the
water to siow. As the water velocity decreases, sediments fall out of suspension
(Brueske and Barrett 1994; Kemerer 2001). Removal of eroded sediments from the
water also helps to remove chemical pollutants associated with those sediments.
Phosphorus species reduction, removal and retention
Phosphorus enters runoff and drainage water as inorganic or organic compounds
usually bound to sediments, or, if soluble, the phosphorus can quickly be fixed in
insoluble compounds. Organic phosphorus bonds with organic materials. Inorganic
phosphorus forms complexes with clays and calcite, as well as iron and aluminum
oxides. In acidic situations, iron and aluminum will be the major mechanisms of
retention, as will calcite in more alkaline soils. These complexes of materials are
removed from the system because they settle out (Faulkner and Mitsch 1989; Good and
Patrick 1987; Mitsch and Gosselink 1993; Sloey, Spangler and Fetter 1978). Large
amounts of phosphorus are also temporarily removed from the water column in the
microbial community, algae, and to a lesser extent, vascular plants (Richardson and
Craft 1993). Total retention of phosphorus in a wetland over time will depend on yearly
loading, pH changes, hydrology, exposure of soils, and microbial and vegetation growth
cycles.
Nitrogen species reduction and retention
The soils within the wetland basin, when covered with water, quickly become
anaerobic. Reducing conditions created within waterlogged soils utilize the oxygen, 6
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. followed by nitrates, manganic manganese, ferric iron, sulfate, and finally carbon
dioxide, as terminal electron acceptors for microbial respiratory metabolites (Busnardo
et al. 1992; Drew and Lynch 1980; Mitsch and Gosselink 1993). The rate of chemical
reduction is dependent primarily on temperature and pH that encourages microbial
activity (Drew and Lynch 1980; Faulkner and Mitsch 1989). Temperature is dependent
on the season and time of day. Flooding soils tends to increase their pH, but the extent
of change depends on the soil’s chemical and organic composition (Drew and Lynch
1980; Mitsch and Gosselink 1993). The reduction of nitrates, denitrification, occurs in
the anaerobic layer of the wetland soil, where microbes utilize the oxygen in nitrates
and release nitrogen species that can escape into the atmosphere. The process of
denitrification is contingent on a carbon source for microbial activity (Baker 1998;
Kadlec and Knight 1996; Zhu and Sikora 1995). Removal of delivered ammonium or
converted organic nitrogen is slower than denitrification in flooded soils. Ammonium
in the system is first oxidized to nitrates by microbial activity in the aerobic layer at the
soil water interface and along the thin oxygenated layer along plant roots (Faulkner and
Mitsch 1989; Reddy, Patrick and Lindau 1989; Zhu and Sikora 1995). Nitrates formed
in this way can then by broken down as discussed earlier and can escape into the
atmosphere. Ammonium can also be removed as ammonia, which volatilizes into the
atmosphere (Faulkner and Mitsch 1989; Good and Patrick 1987; Zhu and Sikora 1995).
Nitrates and ammonium (Busnardo et al. 1992; Kadlec and Knight 1996) can also be
utilized by plants and incorporated into their tissues. The plant tissues are primarily
short-term storage, in that if not harvested or consumed by herbivores, the tissues will
remain on or in the basin. Decomposition of organic nitrogen from these plants will 7
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. depend on the amount of microbial activity, hence temperature, pH and the amount of
oxygenation that occurs when the basin is exposed.
Pesticide and herbicide removal and retention
Pesticides and herbicides are organic compounds. Their effects on the wetland
system will depend on their possible dilution, transportation mechanisms, mode of
action on target and non-target species, persistence, and frequency of use. Removal of
pesticides/herbicides from the wetland by microbial transformation, plant uptake, and
soil sorption is largely based on the characteristics of each chemical’s composition,
charge, toxicity and half-life (Kadlec and Knight 1996; Shann 1995). Time may be the
main mechanism for removal by volatilization, hydrolysis or photolysis of the
susceptible chemicals. Research done by Lee et al. (1995) studied the removal of
atrazine and alachlor, two herbicides, in Kansas based wetland mesocosms. Results
showed alachlor’s rate of loss in the mesocosm matched the published half-life values.
Atrazine loss was found to be affected most positively by emergent vegetation. The
authors suggest temperature effects are an important factor influencing the growth rate
of microbes and vegetation. At the time of publication, testing was being done on a
model that would predict the fate of pesticides delivered to treatment wetlands with
agricultural runoff (Rodgers and Dunn 1993).
Algae
Algae have an important role in the water purification process within a wetland.
First, algae store nutrients in their biomass. Reddy (1983) reported that within a pond
8
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. used as a control for observation of macrophyte removal of nutrients from agricultural
wastewater that algal biomass contained 4.4% of the labeled nitrogen and 3.4% of
labeled phosphorus added to waste-water treatment ponds. Besides biomass uptake,
algae can help reduce chemicals in the water by influencing the immediate
environment. Biomass production can lead to a heavy cover over the water surface,
decrease the overall oxygen levels in the water body and create reducing conditions
conducive to denitrification and further removal of nitrogen species from the system
(Reddy 1983). The increased production of biomass can result in the decrease of
inorganic carbon, which drives an increase in carbonates and thus an increase in pH
(Shapiro 1990). Alkaline conditions can result in the dominant nitrogen species shift
from ammonium (NH4+) under neutral conditions to ammonia (NH3). Ammonia can
more easily escape from the water system into the atmosphere (Nurdogan and Oswald
1995). Nurdogan and Oswald (1995) have demonstrated that algae flocculate
phosphorus and aids in sedimentation in High Rate Algal Ponds (HRAP).
Unfortunately, nutrients and physiochemical conditions created in the wetland system
by adding agricultural drainage water can also encourage the growth of undesirable
species (Paerl 1988; Shapiro 1990) or reduce the efficiency of the system to remove
agrichemicals (Cromar, Fallowfield and Martin 1996).
Adaptations of wetland vegetation
Hydrophytes, or species tolerant of waterlogged soils and inundation, have
physical and metabolic adaptations not present in upland species. Physical adaptations
important in herbaceous species include aerenchyma, elongation of the stem, 9
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. heterophylly, and specialized reproductive structures. Aerenchyma tissues help to
facilitate airflow from the aerial portions of the plants to the roots or anaerobic portions
of the plant (Drew and Lynch 1980). Oxygen can then leak into the rhizosphere where
it helps reduce the build up of toxic compounds (Brix 1993; Guntenspergen, Steams and
Kadlec1989; Riemer 1984) and create zones of aeration against a zone of anaerobic
conditions, which facilitates denitrification. Quick stem elongation, in response to
flooding, raises the upper portions of the plant out of the water (Blom, van de Steeg and
Voesenek 1996). Many hydrophytic species often display more than one type of leaf in
response to flooding, a condition called heterophylly (Riemer 1984). The lower leaves
can develop more narrow or feathery structures than aerial leaves, which facilitate
smooth movement of the water. Many hydrophytes, such as Potamogeton species, have
specialized flowering structures that lift flowers above the water surface for wind
pollination. Metabolic adaptations in hydrophytes deal with respiration in anaerobic
conditions, and reducing the amount of toxic chemicals produced. The presence of high
concentration of alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH) and the debated lack of enzymes
responsible for converting malate to pyruvate both aid in lowering the amount of
acetylaldehyde, a toxin, normally produced in anaerobic respiration (Drew and Lynch
1980; Mitsch and Gosselink 1993).
Passive revegetation studies of other wetland systems
Passive revegetation relies on the resident soil seed bank, or delivery of seed
from outside sources (Hammer 1997). The passive revegetation approach is included in
the definition of “self- design.” Self designing or colonizing means that restoring the 10
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. hydrology will encourage the site to revegetate with the most suitable species for those
conditions (Mitsch, Reeder and Klarer 1989; Mitsch et al. 1998; Odum 1989).
Allowing the wetland to undergo self-design should increase the successiveness of the
site. Seeds that were present in the seed bank have a good chance o f being adapted to
local climate and soil conditions. Seeds that arrive via seed rain, abiotic or mammal
delivery would primarily be from local sources with high probability of adaptation to
local conditions. There are risks in relying on seed banks as a seed source. Studies
have found that seed bank richness decreases over time (Erlandson 1987; Galatowitsch
and van der Valk 1995) primarily by management practices aimed at reducing non
desired vegetation, and these seed banks are unable to serve as revegetation sources.
Surrounding areas with “refugia” for aquatic species, have been found to be ready
sources for propagules (Galatowitsch and van der Valk 1995). Management of
wetlands can also partially determine which species will most likely germinate, if
present, from the seed bank (Collins and Wein 1995; Welling, Pederson and van der
Valk 1988). Passive revegetation is considered the most economical way to revegetate
an area, as it has no costs to initiate or maintain.
Research goals and hypothesis
The goal of my research was to examine the plant community development
occurring because of passive revegetation in the Wetland Reservoir Subirrigation
systems wetlands whose primary purpose is water quality improvement of argidrainage
waters. I hypothesized that the system will decrease in species richness over time as the
system “weeds out” species that are less tolerant to incoming water quality and site 11
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. management. Despite the overall decrease in species richness, it was expected that
there should be an increase in Wetland Indicator Species (WIS) as each system matures.
A second hypothesis was that algal genera richness and abundance could serve
as a qualitative indicator of trophic status of the wetlands. It was considered important
to examine the algal communities within the basins and over time within the systems
partially to serve as supporting evidence of water quality improvement within the
wetland, and to determine if conditions created within the systems resulted in the
production of harmful genera.
The third hypothesis in this study was that the wetland peak biomass would
remain high and similar across all WRSIS wetlands during the study period.
A final hypothesis related to the passive development of the wetlands was that
active seeding of the wetland versus passive revegetation will produce better vegetation
sustainability in the WRSIS constructed wetlands.
Research approach
The plant communities that formed within each wetland by passive revegetation
were examined by vascular vegetation surveys. Vegetation surveys examined
community composition and diversity of extant vegetation by analyzing life history and
the wetland indicator status of these species. Surveys also allowed for the examination
of zonation patterns and changes in diversity over time. Survey information and
analysis are presented in chapter two.
Algal community changes within the wetland and over time were also examined
via surveys. Surveys were used to relate community composition and relative 12
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. abundance to eutrophication quotient (Nygaard’s Eutrophication Quotient) and to
trophic status (Palmer’s list of pollutant tolerant genera). Data were analyzed for the
potential for the use of algae as a quick bioindicator of trophic status within the WRSIS
wetlands. Algal survey information is summarized in chapter three.
Production estimates were calculated using peak biomass methods on the
WRSIS wetlands sites, 1999 through 2001. Peak biomass was measured to estimate
biomass production and estimate maturity of the WRSIS wetlands. Results are
discussed in chapter four.
A seed budget that examines the potential for self-sustainability was created for
two “functional species” in the WRSIS system. One species, Echinochloa crus-galli,
which was planted for erosion control, and the other, Polygonum persicaria, a volunteer
present within the DARA wetland, were examined and modeled to compare the
effectiveness of active planting or providing local seed sources against passive
revegetation methods in creating a sustaining seed bank. The background and model
are presented in chapter five.
A summary of conclusions, results and ideas are presented in chapter six. A
management plan for current and future WRSIS wetlands or similar systems with an
emphasis on striving to encourage/establish “functional” vegetation that meets WRSIS
goals but allows for system adaptation and sustainability is presented in chapter seven.
A primer has been included for any person that is unfamiliar with the
terminology included in this dissertation. The primer may also be helpful in providing
background for the methodology chosen in this study. Additional tabulated and reduced
data referenced in the text has been included as appendices, and that results or 13
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. methodology that refer to 1998 baseline data were presented into the dissertation from
Luckeydoo (1999) or Luckeydoo et al. (2002).
Primer
Wetland Indicator Species classification
In this study, vegetation has been characterized by its status as wetland indicator
species as defined by the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands (Reed
1988), a publication commissioned by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Species are
grouped by the frequency that they are found in wetlands. The obligate wetland
category (OBL) is composed of species that are found in wetlands >99% of the time.
The facultative wetland category (FACW) includes species that are predominantly
found in wetlands; their probability of being found in a wetland is 67-99%. The
facultative category (FAC) are species that are equally common in both wetland and
non-wetland areas (34-66%). The facultative upland category (FACU) is composed of
species that are considered non-wetland plants, occurring in wetlands 1-33% of the
time. The last category consists of those that are obligate upland (UPL) species. These
species are not wetland plants, but are rarely found growing in wetlands (<1%).
Wetland indicator species in this study are those species that are listed as OBL, FACW,
and FAC in the Ohio-region. The number and distribution of species found, or that can
potentially be found, can be determined by site surveys and seed bank growth studies.
Knowing the number and distribution of these species can help the she managers’
monitor change over time. These indicator definitions are also useful when
characterizing an area as a wetland using delineation techniques such as the prevalence 14
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. index, an index used by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (US Army COE
1987).
Diversity Indices
Diversity at the WRSIS locations has been measured in a number of ways.
Species richness is the total of all species observed on a given site (Cox 1996). It can
be affected by sample size, but the assumption of sufficient sample size can be
supported by species area curves that plot number of species found against area
sampled. See Luckeydoo (1999) for an example. Species richness is a simple
indication of diversity, but is very limited in its use, as it does not include information
on the abundance aspect of the vegetation community structure.
Alpha diversity measures move a step beyond species richness in that these
indices give some indication of numbers of individuals in a species. Alpha diversity or
heterogeneity of the site is measured in this study using two methods. Simpson’s Index
was proposed in 1949, but still remains very popular. The Simpson’s index is sensitive
to the more dominant species giving rare species little weight in the calculation (Peet
1974). The reciprocal (1/D) of the original Simpson’s index (D) is typically given, so
that as the diversity increases, the calculated value increases (Magurran 1988). For
example, lower (1/D) values will be indicative of sites with low diversity. Simpson’s
index was calculated using the following equation as listed in Magurran (Magurran
1988):
l/D = Z[(ni(ni-l))/(N(N-l))]
Where ni = the number of stems in the ith species and 15
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. N= the total number o f stems of all species
D= Simpson’s index value
The second index used to calculate alpha diversity is the Shannon-Wiener Index,
which measures the probability that an individual drawn at random would belong to a
particular species (Barbour et al. 1999; Cox 1996). Shannon’s index assumes an
infinitely large population (Magurran 1988). The Shannon’s index favors rare species
and includes a measure of evenness. Index values range from zero for a community of
one species and increases for more diverse sites. The Shannon- Wiener index was
calculated using an equation in (Barbour et al. 1999):
H’ = - (I Pi In pO
Where pf= relative abundance of the ith species = (nj/N)
H’= Shannon -Wiener index value
There is a second type of diversity measure used in this study called beta
diversity. Beta diversity is a measure o f the difference in diversity between two areas,
or more simply, how alike they are (Magurran 1988); and is calculated by Jaccard’s
Coefficient of Community and Sorenson’s index. The more similar two habitats are
(maximum value of one), the higher the index value. Jaccard’s Coefficient of
Community and Sorenson’s index were calculated to determine similarity between sites
using the equation as listed in Magurran (1988).
Jaccard’s Coefficient of Community
Q = j/(a + b -j)
Where j = number of species in common
a = number of species on site A 16
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. b = number of species on site B
C j= Jaccard’s Coefficient of Community value
Sorenson’s Index
Cs = 2j/(a + b)
Where j = number of species in common
a = number of species on site A
b = number of species on she B
Cs= Sorenson’s Index value
Importance Factor
In addition to the diversity calculations, an importance factor of all species on
site by sampling date was calculated to determine relative importance of each species in
the community. These calculations followed Cox (1996) and examined density,
dominance, and frequency of each species relative to all others.
Frequency = Total number of plots in which species “x” occurs/ Total plots.
Relative frequency = (Frequency of species “x”/ Pooled frequency of all
species) x 100.
Dominance = Mean cover value1 of species “x”/ Area sampled.
Relative Dominance = (Dominance for species “x”/ Pooled dominance of ah
species) x 100.
Density = Mean number of individuals of species “x”/ Area.
1 Total Coverage value using J Braun-Blanquet, Plant Sociology- the Study o f Plant Communities (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1932). Scales are converted to “ Mean Cover Degrees” by D. and H. Ellenberg Mueller-Dombois, Aims and Methods of Vegetation Ecology (New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1974). 17
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Relative Density = (Density for species “x”/ Pooled density of all
species) x 100.
Importance Factor = Relative frequency + Relative Dominance +
Relative Density.
Algal primer
Algal fractions in the water column
Algae/phytoplankton can be described by location within the water column.
Macroalgae are large celled/many celled filaments or colonies that form mats. Examples
include Spirogyra and Hydrodictyon. These mats can be seen floating on the water
surface.
Periphyta are algal species that grow upon other objects or on sediments along
the basin. Examples include, Rhizoclonium and many diatoms. It should be noted that
many periphyton species can begin attached to other structures but become dislodged
and float to the surface; Ooedogonium is a prime example.
Planktonic algae, also known as phytoplankton, are very small single celled or
small colonies that are associated with the water column. Examples of phytoplankton
are Scenedesmus and Pediastrum. Although phytoplankters are motile, they are heavily
influenced by water motion.
General description on phyla important at the WRSIS wetlands
The Chlorophyta are both planktonic and periphytic. They are better known as
the “green” algae because they are grass green in color. This phylum contain single 18
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. celled to branched filaments configuration of cells. The main storage product is starch,
which reacts to the iodine in Lugol’s solution. An example of an important member of
this phylum is the “desmid” (Bold and Wynne 1985; Vymazal 1995).
The Chrysophyta are commonly known as the “yellow-green” algae, because of
their off-green color. They are as simple as single cells and can also form complex
filamentous structures. They are planktonic and periphytic, and many are motile.
Important members of this phylum are the Diatoms (Bacillariophyceae). Diatoms have
an upper and lower shell known as frustules and these shells are made of silica. Diatom
growth maximum is in the spring (Bold and Wynne 1985; Vymazal 1995).
The Cyanophyta have no membrane bound organelles, but contain chlorophyll
and are thus considered plants. This phylum is commonly called “blue-green algae.” It
is important to note that some members of this phylum have the ability to fix nitrogen,
even in anaerobic conditions. They perform best in neutral to alkaline conditions.
Members of this phylum are known for “blooms” and can produce toxins. An example
of this phylum is Microcystis. (Bold and Wynne 1985; Vymazal 1995)
The Euglenophyta are green or colorless single celled organism with flagella.
“Euglena” are known to occupy areas rich in organic material and minerals (Whitford
and Schumacher 1984; Vymazal 1995). Euglena have the ability to grow
autotrophically in the presence of light and heterotrophically in the absence of light.
(Bold and Wynne 1985; Vymazal 1995)
The Phyrrophyta are primarily planktonic. They are single celled, are
surrounded by cellulose “armor plate,” and have flagella. They are associated with “red
tides.” An important member is Peridinium. (Bold and Wynne 1985; Vymazal 1995) 19
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. General seasonal trends for fishless shallow systems
The following example of seasonal algal trends is specifically directed at
shallow lakes, ponds and wetlands that are inland, with little water movement and no
seasonal turnovers. In the spring as temperatures being to rise, there is some mixing
and release of nutrients in the basin; at this time the primary species should be diatoms
(Holtz 1997; Munawar and Munawar 1996), dinoflagellates, and some “greens”(Boney
1989; Harris 1986). Diatoms and dinoflagellates have the advantage of perennation
structures that allow them to over winter more successfully than other groups. Into the
summer, as nutrients decrease and temperatures continue to rise, greens should become
dominant, along with the presence o f desmids, Cryptophyceae (Harris 1986; Boney
1989), Euglenoids (Boney 1989; Casamatta, Beaver and Fleishman 1999; Harris 1986;
Wu and Mitsch 1998) and sometimes Cyanophytes (Holz 1997). In the fall,
temperatures will become cooler and there are more organics in the water. Organic
material being metabolized will rob the system of oxygen, deplete nitrate, and change
the overall water chemistry of the system. Diatoms may also have a chance to become
more prevalent due to cooler temperatures. Nutrient conditions may allow Cyanophyta
members to become prominent (Holz 1997; Munawar and Munawar 1996). With winter
comes a huge decline in the algal community and productivity, cooler temperature and
lower light availability will cause algal species to be present in small numbers (Boney
1989; Harris 1986; Holz 1997).
20
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Nygaard’s Eutrophication Quotient (NEQ):
The NEQ consists of four equations that relate presence or absence of groups
known to be associated with more eutrophic status to those groups that are associated
with “cleaner” trophic level. The NEQ was developed using Swedish lakes and ponds.
The different portions of the Nygaard quotient can be referenced to a number range that
give an estimation of trophic status of the water body studied. The NEQ is composed of
four separate calculations:
I. Myxophycean Quotient: # genera* Myxophyceae/ # genera*
Desmideaceae.
II. Chlorophycean Quotient: # genera* Chlorococcales/# genera*
Desmideaceae.
III. Diatom Quotient: # genera* Centrales/# genera* Pennales.
IV. Compound Quotient: (# gen.* Myxo.+ # gen.* Chloro. + # gen.*
Centr. +# gen* Euglena) / # genera* Desmideaceae.
For I, II and III, <1= oligotrophic and >1= eutrophic and for IV, <1=
oligotrophic, >1= eutrophic, and 5-20 is very eutrophic.
* Modification o f (Nygaard 1949) for genera in place of species.
Palmer’s List
The Palmer list (Palmer 1959; Palmer 1969) contains general lists of genera and
species that have been found to be associated repeatedly in the literature in
environments known to have certain levels of trophic status. Palmer reviewed reports of
165 authors and complied a list for the 60 most common genera tolerating the 21
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. conditions created in water bodies with high organic pollution. The list of genera is
presented as found in Palmer’s articles in appendix A. For use in this document, if the
genera with high abundance values (such as abundant (A) or rare (R)) and are included
in Palmer’s list outnumber genera with high abundance values but no Palmer’s list
values, then the sampled water body is very likely eutrophic.
Passive revegetation
Passive revegetation is a method of revegetation of an area that relies on the
resident soil seed bank and delivery of propagules from external sources. This method
may promote vegetation development at a site because the seeds that were present in the
seed bank are already adapted to local climate and soil conditions, and seeds that arrive
via seed rain, abiotic or mammal delivery would primarily be from local sources with
high probability of adaptation to local conditions. Potential downsides to this method
are inefficient supplies of appropriate seeds from the seed bank or local sources for the
conditions created at the wetland.
Assorted definitions seed budget terms
Braun-Blanquet Method (Braun-Blanquet 1932) involves qualitative estimates of aerial
coverage, grouping, frequency, and age of each species in the quadrat.
Peak biomass : A quantitative measure that involves a one -time destructive sampling
event during the growing season. Timing of biomass collection should occur when
biomass is considered greatest at that location.
22
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Functional Species: Species that provides a service that aids in achieving project goals.
For example, a species that grows within the mudflat area and encourages
sedimentation and/or creates habitat and food sources for wildlife that visit the wetland.
Seed bank: Seeds and propagules that are in the soil and may or may not be available
for germination under conditions found at any given time.
Seed rain: Seed shed from a parent plant. Various methods occur such as gravity,
expulsion, wind dispersion and others.
Herbivory/seedpredation: Seed collection or consumption by mammals, birds, or
invertebrates.
23
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. LIST OF REFRENCES
Allred, B. J., L. C. Brown, N. R. Fausey, R. L. Cooper, W. B. Clevenger, G. L. Prill, G. A. LaBarge, C. Thornton and B. J. Czartoski. "Water Table Management Guidelines for a Wetland Reservoir Subirrigation System." ASAE annual meeting paper 002040. American Society of Agricultural Engineers Annual Meeting 2000. 2000.
Baker, L. A. "Design Considerations and Applications for Wetland Treatment of High- Nitrate Waters." Water Science and Technology. 38.1 (1998): 389-95.
Barbour, M. G., J. H. Burk, W. D. Pitts, F. S. Gilliam, M. W. Swartz. Terrestrial Plant Ecology. Metro Park, CA: Benjamin Cummins, 1999.
Blom, C. W. P. M., H. M. van de Steeg and L. A. C. J. Voesenek. "Adaptive Mechanisms of Plants Occurring in Wetland Gradients." Wetlands: Environmental Gradients. Boundaries, and Buffers: proceedings of an international symposium. April 22-23.1994. Ed. B. G. Warner and E. A. McBean G. Mulamoottil. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1996. 91-112.
Bold, H. C. and M. J. Wynne. Introduction to the Algae. 2nd ed. Englewood Clifls, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1985.
Boney, A. D. Phvtoplankton. London: Edward Arnold, 1989.
Braun-Blanquet, J. Plant Sociology- the Study of Plant Communities. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1932.
Brix, H. "Wastewater Treatment in Constructed Wetlands: System Design, Removal Processes, and Treatment Performance." Constructed Wetlands for Water Quality Improvement. Ed. G. A. Moshiri. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1993. 9- 22.
Brueske, C. C. and G. W. Barrett. "Effects of Vegetation and Hydrologic Load on Sedimentation Patterns in Experimental Wetland Ecosystems." Ecological Engineering 3 (1994): 429-47.
Busnardo, M. J., R. M. Gersberg, R. Langis, T. L. Sinicrope and J. B. Zedler. "Nitrogen and Phosphorus Removal by Wetland Mesocosms Subjected to Different Hydroperiods." Ecological Engineering 1 (1992): 287-307. 24
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Casamatta, D. J. R. Beaver, and D. J. Fleishman. "A Survey of Phytoplankton Taxa from Three Types of Wetlands in Ohio." Ohio Journal of Science 99.3 (1999): 53-56.
Chester, P. W., Riethman, D. "Runoff Storage Requirements for a Closed-Loop System." Presented at the 1997 ASAE Annual International Meeting. Minneapolis Convention Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota: ASAE, St. Joseph, MI., 1997. Vol. Paper number 972132.
Collins, B. and G. Wein. "Seed Bank Vegetation of a Constructed Reservoir." Wetlands 15.4(1995): 374-85.
Cox, G. W. Laboratory Manual of General Ecology. Dubuque: Wm. C. Brown Publishers, 1996.
Cromar, N. J., H. J. Fallowfield, and N. J. Martin. "Influence of Environmental Parameters in Biomass Production and Nutrient Removal in a High Rate Algal Pond Operated by Continuous Culture." Water Science and Technology 34.11 (1996): 133-40.
Drew, M. C. and J. M. Lynch. "Soil Anaerobiosis, Microorganisms, and Root Function." Annual Review of Phytopathology 18 (1980): 37-66.
Erlandson, C. S. "The Potential Role o f Seed Banks in the Restoration of Drained Prairie Wetlands." Master of Science. Iowa State University, 1987.
Faulkner, S. P. and W. J. Mitsch. "Physical and Chemical Characteristics o f Freshwater Soils." Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment: Municipal. Industrial and Agricultural. Ed. D.A. Hammer. Chelsea, MI: Lewis Publishers, 1989. 41- 72.
Galatowitsch, S. M. and A.G. van der valk. "Natural Revegetation during Restoration of Wetlands in the Southern Prairie Pothole Region of North America." Restoration of Temperate Wetlands. Ed. B. D. Wheeler, S. C. Shaw, W.J. Fojt, R. A. Robertson. New York: John Wiley &Sons, 1995.128-42.
Good, B. J. and W. H. Patrick Jr. "Root-Water-Sediment Interface Processes." Aquatic Plants for Wastewater Treatment and Resource Recovery. Ed. K. R. Reddy and W. H. Smith. Orlando, FL: Magnolia Publishing, Inc, 1987. 359-72.
Guntenspergen, G. R., F. Steams, and J. A. Kaldec. "Wetland Vegetation." Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment: MunicipaL Industrial and Agricultural. Ed. D. A. Hammer. Chelsea, MI: Lewis Publishers, 1989. 73-88.
25
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Hammer, D. A. Creating Freshwater Wetlands. Second ed. Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers, 1997.
Harris, G. P. Phvtoplankton Ecology- Structure. Function and Fluctuation. London: Chapman and Hall, 1986.
Holz J. C., K. D. Hoagland, R. L. Spawn, A Popp and J.L. Andersen. "Plankton Community Response to Reservoir Aging, 1968-1992." Hvdrobiologia 346 (1997): 183-92.
Hothem, J. A. "Modeling of Flow-Routing in a Linked Wetland-Reservoir-Subirrigation System (WRSIS) using SIMULINK." Master of Science. The Ohio State University, 1999.
Kadlec, R. H. and R. L. Knight. Treatment Wetlands. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1996.
Kemerer, J. L. "Phosphorus and Sediment Fate within a Wetland-Reservoir Subirrigation System." Master of Science. The Ohio State University, 2001.
Lee, K. E., D. G. Huggins and E. M. Thurman. Effects of Hydrophyte Community Structure on Atrazine and Alachlor Degradation in Wetlands. K. L. Campbell, ed. Versatility of Wetlands in the Agricultural Landscape- a publication by the American Society of Agricultural Engineers. 1995.
Luckeydoo, L. M. "Vegetation Composition of Three Constructed Wetlands Receiving Agricultural Runoff and Subsurface Drainage." Master of Science. The Ohio State University, 1999.
—. N. R. Fausey, L.C. Brown and C. B. Davis. "Early Development of Vascular Vegetation of Constructed Wetlands in Northwest Ohio Receiving Agricultural Waters." Agriculture. Ecosystems and Environment 88 (2002): 89-94.
Magurran, A. E. Ecological Diversity and Its Measurement. Princeton: Princeton University, 1988.
Mitsch, W. J. and J. G. Gosselink. Wetlands. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1993.
—., B. C. Reeder, and D. M. Klarer. "The Role of Wetlands in the Control of Nutrients with a Case Study in Western Lake Erie." Ecological Engineering: an Introduction to Ecotechnologv. Ed. W. J. Mitsch and S. E. Jorgenson. New York: J. Wiley and Sons, 1989. 129-58.
X. Wu, R.W. Naim, P.E. Weihe, N. Wang, R. Deal and C.E. Boucher. "Creating and Restoring Wetlands." Bioscience 48.12 (1998): 1019-30. 26
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Mueller-Dombois, D. and H. Ellenberg. Aims and Methods of Vegetation Ecology. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1974.
Munawar, M. and I.F. Munawar. Phvtoplankton Dynamics in the North American Great Lakes: Volume 1. Ontario. Erie and St. Clair. Amsterdam: SPB Academic publishing, 1996
Myers, M. J., M.D. N’Jie, B. Miller, M. Jacobs, A. Soboyejo, and L. C. Brown. "Water Column Sampling System for the Constructed Wetland and Water Supply Reservoir at the DARA WRSIS Site. ASAE Meeting Paper 982094." American Society of Agricultural Engineers Annual Meeting. July 12-15. Orlando. Florida. 1998.
(NOAA), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Climatological Data Annual Summary. Asheville, NC: National Climatic Data Center, 1998.
Nurdogan, Y. and W. J. Oswald. "Enhanced Nutrient Removal in High-Rate Ponds." Water Science and Technology 31.12 (1995): 33-43.
Nygaard, G. "Hydrobiological Studies on Some Danish Ponds and Lakes." Pet Kongelige danske videnskabemes selskab 7 (1949): 1-293.
Odum, E. P. "1989 Ecological Engineering and Self-Organization.” Ecological Engineering: An Introduction to Ecotechnologv. Ed. W. J. Mitsch and S. E. Jorgensen. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1989. 79-101.
Oztekin, T., N. N'jie, J. Hothem, L. Luckeydoo, L. C. Brown, N. R. Fausey, B. J. Czartoski and C. Mills. "Monitoring System for Water Quality and Quantity, and Ecological Parameters at the DARA Wetland-Reservoir Subirrigation System Site." ASAE Meeting Paper 982110. American Society of Agricultural Engineers Annual Meeting. July 12-15. Orlando Florida. 1998.
—. "Modification and Evaluation of WEPP Water Table Managment Model." Doctor of Philosophy. The Ohio State University, 2000.
Paerl, H. W. "Nuisance Plankton Blooms in Coastal, Estuarine, and Inland Waters." Limnology and Oceanography 33.(4prt2) (1988): 823-47.
Palmer, C. M. Algae in Water Supplies. Public Health Service Publication #657 ed. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1959.
—. "A Composite Rating of Algae Toleration Organic Pollution." Journal of Phvcologv 5 (1969): 78-82.
27
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Peet, R. K. "The Measurement of Species Diversity." Annual Review of Ecology and Svstematics 5 (1974): 285-307.
Reddy, K. R. "Fate of Nitrogen and Phosphorus in a Waste-Water Retention Reservoir Containing Aquatic Macrophytes." Journal of Environmental Quality 12.1 (1983): 137-41.
—., W. H. Patrick Jr. and C. W. Lindau. 'Nitrification-Denitrification at the Plant Root- Sediment Interface in Wetlands." Limnology and Oceanography 34.6 (1989): 1004-13.
Reed, P.B., Jr. National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: Ohio. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of the Interior-Fish and Wildlife Service., 1988.
Richards, S. T., M. T. Batte, L. C. Brown, B. J. Czartoski, N. R. Fausey, H. W. Belcher. "Farm Level Economic Analysis of a Wetland Reservoir Subirrigation System in Northwest Ohio." Journal of Production Agriculture 12.4 (1999): 588-96.
Richardson, C. J. and C. B. Craft. "Efficient Phosphorus Retention in Wetland: Fact or Fiction?" Constructed Wetlands for Water Quality Improvement. Ed. G. A. Moshiri. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1993.
Riemer, D. N. Introduction to Freshwater Vegetation. Westport, Connecticut: AVI Publishing, 1984.
Rodgers Jr., J. H. and A. Dunn, ed. Developing Design Guidelines for Constructed Wetlands to Remove Pesticides from Agricultural Runoff. Boca Raton, FL: C. K. Smoley, 1993.
Shann, Jodi R. The Role of Plants and Plant/Microbial Systems in Reduction of Exposure. 1995. URL. Environmental health perspectives. Available: http://ehpnetl.neihs.nih.gov/members/1995/suppl-5/shann-full.html. 2/21 2000.
Shapiro, J. "Current Beliefs Regarding Dominance by Blue-Greens: The Case for the Importance of Co2 and Ph." Verh. Intemat. Verein. Limnol 24 (1990): 38-54.
Sloey, W. E., F. F. Spangler, and C. W. Fetter Jr. "Management of Freshwater Wetlands for Nutrient Assimilation." Freshwater Wetlands: Ecological Processes and Management Potential. Ed. D. F. Whigham and R. L. Simpson R. E. Good. New York, NY: Academic Press, 1978. 321-40.
US Army COE USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual: Wetlands Research Program, Environmental Laboratory, 1987.
28
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. USDA-SCS , United States Department of Agriculture- Soil Conservation Service. Soil Survey of Defiance Countv. Ohio. 1984b.
—. Soil Survey of Fulton Countv. Ohio. 1984a.
—. Soil Survey of Van Wert Countv. Ohio.. 1972.
Vymazal, J. Aleae and Elemental Cycling in Wetlands. Boca Raton, FI: Lewis, 1995.
Welling, C. H., R. L. Pederson and A.G. van der valk. "Temporal Patterns in Recruitment from the Seed Bank During Drawdowns in a Prairie Wetland." Journal of Applied Ecology 25 (1988): 999-1007.
Whhford, L.A and G. J. Schumacher. A Manual of Freshwater Algae. Raleigh, N. C., 1984.
Wu, X W. J. Mitsch. "Spatial and Temporal Patterns of Algae in Newly Constructed Freshwater Wetlands." Wetlands 18.1 (1998): 9-20.
Zhu, T. and F. J. Sikora. "Ammonium and Nitrate Removal in Vegetated and Unvegetated Gravel Bed Microcosm Wetlands." Water Science and Technology 32.3 (1995): 219-28.
Zucker, L. A and L. C. Brown. Agricultural drainage: water quality and subsurface drainage studies in the Midwest: Ohio State University Extension Bulletin 871, 1998. 40 pgs.
29
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Lake Eria Basin * Demonstration Farms . . . _ . F - Fulton County Ohio River Basin D -Defiance County V-Van Wert County
Figure 1.1 Map of Ohio showing locations o f WRSIS wetland sites. (Zucker and Brown 1998).
30
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
trif A ui/vr A trif I A? MW A? I NOrTOSCAIJ- ShinineerFarm
Drainojte ioterxthDrainojte WhrrjHwv - Intake Structure Control Utrncturr Sktthm Intnkt Strurturr no wth
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 1.3 Schematic showing the layout of the Van Wert County Wetland Reservoir Subirrigation System Reservoir Subirrigation Wetland County the Wert Van of the layout showing Schematic Figure 1.3 location.
32
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. lUflamctCtmwly • Dej tmmct A p fc iH w l R n mrrh tenflnlton Wrtkm^funvlrSubbrinnliim Sy.ttrm Pmjrw
LEGEND 0 O B 3 I'wtp Station n o WeihmH/Rp.wrvftir Ouritt i ■ i Wafer Intake A CmM ftwewt ---^ u . Ca I Mbfrr Cmfnil Otrucinrr □ □ Water brti*T Sfmreart, r-o votvt [JED Warn intake Sin* nw • ith \hi.r [ ~ Z 3 ‘Main OmirMfte/Suhirri^wUm latenth #?«•€>!1 EEE1 Swam [ = □ Prniv/r VfaterUnt mm Vrxrtaih* Wttterway
KOTM2&J&V7 TO SC A IS
Figure 1.4 Schematic showing the layout of the Defiance County Wetland Reservoir Subirrigation System location. BNorthwest Ohio Procipitat on 1998 Northwest Ohio Procipitat on 1999 | Avg.Precip Avg.Precip Percent of I Month (mm) Percent of Normal Month [mm) Normal January 71 130 January 90 165 ;ebruary 68.75 149 February 52.25 11' March 94 131 March 33.75 47 April 107 129 April 134 162 May 60.25 60 May 75.5 85 June 117.5 123 June 75 7£ July 99.25 115 July 91.25 ioe August 192 262 August 55.5 7£ September 24 34 September 46.25 6* October 59 103 October 53.75 9< November 38.25 63 November 31.75 52 December 21 36 December 55.25 9f
northwest Ohio Procipitat on 2000 Northwest Ohio Procipitat on 2001 Avg.Precip Avg.Precip Percent of Month (mm) Percent of Normal Month (mm) Normal January 35 64 January 16.75 31 ;ebruary 46.25 101 February 56.75 122 March 47.5 66 March 19.75 2f April 78.25 95 April 91.5 111 May 141.75 160 May 137.5 155 June 171.25 179 June 76.25 8C July 58.5 68 July 61.25 71 August 93.25 127 August 87 11€ September 107.75 151 September 104.75 147 October 60.25 105 October 169.25 29C November 36.25 60 November 49.5 81 December 78.75 138 December 54.75 95 3ased on data from Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Monthly Water Inventory Reports.
Table 1.1 Precipitation summary in millimeters per month and percent of normal precipitation per month for the northwest region of Ohio. Data from Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Monthly Water Inventory Reports.
34
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. YEAR EVENT CROP/FIELD APPLICATION DATE LBS/AC 2000 Chisel plow *5.7,8,9 — fall — 2001 Harrow All — Spring — 2001 Planter Com (6.7.10S.11S) Nitrogen 5/4/01 5 2001 Planter Com (6.7.10S.11S) Phosphorus 5/4/01 18 2001 Plant Com (6.7.10S.11S) — 5/4/01 — 2001 Pre-plant Com (6.7.10S.11S) (28%) Nitrogen 5/7/01 45 2001 — Com (6.7.10S.11S) Heldmaster 5/7/01 igal 2001 — Com (6,7,10S,11S) Roundup Ultra 5/7/01 2 pints 2001 — Com (6.7.10S.11S) 2-4 D 5/7/01 2 pints 2001 — Com (6.7.10S.11S) Force (.75 rate) 5/7/01 3.25 2001 Subirrigation start Com (6,7,1 OS, 11S) — 6/26/01 — 2001 Side-dress Com (6,7,1 OS, 11S) Nitrogen 6/27/01 140 2001 Beans (8,9) P205 5/1/01 285 2001 Rant Beans (8,9,10N,11N) — 5/10/01 — 2001 Replant Beans (8,9,10N.11N) — 6/15/01 — 2001 Subirrigation start Beans (8,9,10N.11N) — 6/26/01 — 2001 — Beans (8.9.10N.11N) Ultra Blazer 7/11/01 1 pint 2001 - Beans (8.9,10N.11N) Select 7/11/01 8o z.
Table 1.2 Summary of cultural practices for the year 2001 at the DARA WRSIS system. A map showing field locations can be found in Figure 1.4.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 2
VASCULAR VEGETATION SURVEYS FOR WETLAND RESERVOIR
SUBIRRIGATION SYSTEM (WRSIS) WETLANDS, 1998-2001
Abstract
The goals of the Wetland Reservoir Subirrigation Systems (WRSIS) concept are
to create a cost-effective system that wall help maintain crop health and enhance yield
by use of subirrigation practices, as well as significantly reduce non-point source
pollution by nutrients, agricultural drainage and sediments by water quality
enhancement in the wetland portion of the system. Goals of the vascular vegetation
surveys were to document community development, determine zonation patterns
formed by vegetation, and to examine “functional” species occurrence within the
WRSIS wetland system. Vegetation is important in the function and effectiveness of the
wetland in the WRSIS system. The cost effective passive revegetation approach chosen
for the WRSIS wetlands resulted in approximately similar or increased diversity for the
WRSIS wetlands from 1998 to 2001; and an overall increase in percent of total known
species ranked as wetland indicator species (WIS). Importance Factor Rankings over
the study period, and low recruitment of new species from the seed bank to germinate
and establish suggest that some planting may enhance and expedite WIS vegetation
establishment.
36
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Introduction
Fanning activities used during crop production may lead to the loss of nutrients,
crop amendments, and sediments from the agricultural land and into local water bodies.
Some components of agricultural drainage have led to reduction of the overall health
and quality of the receiving water bodies (Ward and Elliot 1995; United States
Environmental Protection Agency 1996). Collaboration between researchers and
farmers including the Maumee Valley RC&D, The Ohio State University, USDA-
NRCS and USDA-ARS, produced an ecological engineering-based concept to treat and
recycle agricultural drainage water onsite, while enhancing crop yields.
The Wetland Reservoir Subirrigation System (WRSIS) concept is currently
being tested as a method to help reduce agricultural non-point source pollution while
enhancing yields. WRSIS involves the creation of conditions similar to natural
wetlands where internal processes remove sediment and chemicals within overland flow'
and subsurface drainage w'ater from agricultural fields. WRSIS systems therefore have
the potential to reduce agricultural pollutants by intercepting them before they can reach
other water bodies. The WRSIS system directs drainage water from overland runoff
and subsurface drainage of agricultural fields to flow into a passively revegetated
constructed wetland. Within the wetland the sediment load is reduced and various
processes can take place, including biological metabolism of chemicals, thereby
improving the quality' of the water. Water leaving the wetland can be stored in a
conjoined reservoir and used to subirrigate fields. The goals of the WRSIS project are
to create a cost-effective system that will maintain crop health and enhance yield as well
as significantly reduce non-point source pollution by nutrients, agricultural chemicals
37
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and sediments. The project will also help to create more wetland environment and
wildlife habitat. Goals of vascular vegetation surveys were to document plant
community development, determine zonation patterns formed by vegetation, and to
examine “functional” species occurrence within these passively revegetated WRSIS
wetland systems.
Vegetation within the wetland
Vegetation is an indispensable component to the function of a wetland and the
effectiveness of the WRSIS system. Hydrophytic vegetation, or vegetation “.. .typically
adapted for life in saturated soil conditions,” is part of the legal definition of a wetland
(US Army, COE 1987). Vegetation helps to reduce sediment (Brueske and Barrett
1994), provides conditions for microbes that are responsible for chemical
transformation processes such as denitrification (Reddy and Patrick 1986; Reddy et al.
1989; Zhu and Sikora 1995), and creates habitat for wildlife (Hammer 1997; Riemer
1984). Thus, it is important to observe vegetation community change over time as well
as which zones within the wetland basin encourage the most vegetation establishment.
This information will also be valuable to others in the creation and validation of models
of the WRSIS system and other non*planted constructed wetlands, as well as providing
a basis for long-term studies of vegetation changes in passively revegetated inland
treatment wetlands.
38
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Species richness and diversity indices
The presence of many different species within a wetland is important for
maintaining biological diversity and encouraging wildlife on a site. There is the
potential for greater stability in a site that has a polyculture of vegetation types and is
diverse (McNaughton 1988) than in a monoculture consisting of many individuals but
only one species. A more species diverse site can be especially important if there is an
occurrence of devastating disease to w'hich only a few' species are tolerant, or if the
dominant species in a low diversity' site happens to be the favorite food of migrating
Canadian geese. A more diverse site may offer more habitat opportunities for different
wildlife groups and may preserve functions within the site even if some species perform
poorly in response to different site conditions that occur (Surrency 1993). Loss of
dominant species in a low diversity system increases the risk of soil loss because of
exposure, loss of wildlife habitat, and concurrently a decrease in functionality of the
area (if other species are not readily available to fill newly created gaps).
Passive revegetation was the method adopted for the WRSIS wetlands system to
develop vegetation following their construction. Passive revegetation was a cost
effective approach for the WRSIS sites in that no addition equipment, labor or supplies
were required to establish vegetation. This method encourages self-design and increases
the potential for locally adapted seeds to develop communities within the WRSIS
wetlands. However, this method may or may not create a diverse system over time.
The w'etland will be revegetated only by propagules that are available in the seed bank
or recruited from off site. Thus, availability of seeds is greatly influenced by the
surrounding landscapes. Two of the three WRSIS locations have wooded w'etlands or
39
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. riparian areas adjacent to the wetland, and a highway and drainage ditch borders the
third. Potential shortcomings of the passive revegetation method are slow development,
high risk of inadequate amounts or varieties of suitable seed/propagules to be delivered
to the sites, and development of monocultures of aggressive species. I hypothesize that
species richness will decrease at the WRSIS wetlands as propagules that arrive on the
site are “weeded out” by environmental conditions created within the wetlands. I
hypothesize that perennial species and wetland indicator species will become more
prominent within the WRSIS wetlands over the study period.
The definition of functional vegetation for the purpose of this dissertation is
generally species that support WRSIS project goals. Characteristics of functional plants
that aid in water quality enhancement are those species that can grow in saturated or
flooded soils, thus creating microbial habitat that promotes denitrification in the
oxidation of ammonium in the root zone. Plants that have carbon: nitrogen ratios that
support microbial action for reduction/removal of nutrients are also deemed functional.
Additionally, species that have habitat value for wildlife as a food supply or in
providing hiding/housing/nesting sites are included in the definition of“functional”
species for the WRSIS wetlands.
Methods and site descriptions
Site locations (more detailed site information provided in chapter one)
There are currently three established WRSIS study sites located in northwest
Ohio in the Maumee River watershed. Each site has a wetland constructed on prior
converted cropland. The adjoining fields are subsurface drained and are subirrigated
40
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. during the growing season. These fields are in com (Zea mays L.) -soybean {Glycine
max L.) rotation cropping systems. Annual rainfall for northwest Ohio averages 889 to
1016 millimeters (35 to 40 inches). All locations are shown on the map in figure 2.1.
The Fulton County site has a 0.607 ha wetland, which was constructed in the
spring of 1996. The wetland receives drainage water from 8.09 ha of
subirrigated/drained cropland and overland drainage from a total of 16.59 ha. The
primary soil types at this she are Hoytville silty clay (Subgroup- Mollic Ochraqualf)
and Nappanee silty clay (Subgroup Aerie Ochraqualf) (USDA-SCS 1984a; Chester and
Riethman 1997). This she is bordered by a stream along 50% of hs perimeter, which
serves as a source of seeds and established animal habitat.
The Van Wert County she has a 1.21 ha wetland, which was also constructed in
the spring of 1996. A basin divider constructed with soil from within the basin was
installed centrally at one end of the wetland in September 1999. The wetland
catchment includes 12.14 ha of subirrigated/drained and drained only farmland and a
total o f20.23 ha contribute overland drainage. At this she, water is pumped into the
upground dugout rectangular wetland. The soil types at the Van Wert she are Hoytville
sihy clay loam and Hoytville clay, both Mollic Ochraqualfs (USDA-SCS 1972; Chester
and Riethman 1997). A highway ditch and a windbreak of mature pine trees border two
sides of this wetland.
The Defiance County (DARA) location has a 0.102 ha wetland constructed in
June 1996. An eight-foot wide shelf was constructed on the east side of the wetland in
March 1999. This wetland receives water from 3.1 ha of subirrigated/drained cropland,
12.2 ha of drained cropland, and receives overland drainage from 16 ha. The main soil
41
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. types at this site are Paulding clay and Roselms silty clay (Subgroup Aerie Ochraquali)
(USDA-SCS 1984b). The drainage into this wetland includes contributions from an
area of adjacent wooded wetland.
Survey information collection
Field surveys were conducted to gather data on species types and composition
growing within the wetlands and onto the banks. Qualitative information such as cover,
species composition, grouping and age were estimated in the field using the Braun-
Blanquet method (Braun-Blanquet 1932).
The Braun Blanquet scale was used to examine the following different aspects
of the vegetation community: dominance, frequency of occurrence and representation
by individuals. Importance Factor (IF) ranking was calculated using Braun-Blanquet
frequency, density and dominance values relative to other community members to allow
the different measures to be combined into one weighted IF factor. Ranked IF values
determined which species were most “important” on the site relevant to other species
present. Additional information and equations to calculate IF are included in the
primer in chapter 1.
Survey data collection began in 1998 and used a modified transect method
(Luckeydoo et al. 2002; Luckeydoo 1999). Surveys, 1999-2001, were subsequently
conducted using a stratified random sampling technique. Each WRSIS wetland had
four randomly placed quadrats for each of three subjectively designated zones: open
water, mudflat, and shore. Figure 2.2 provides a conceptual diagram of zones within
the wetlands. The permanent pool based average water line was at the center of the
42
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. one-meter mudflat zone. It was determined by the typical weir setting of each
individual wetland at study onset. One meter above the outside edge of the mudflat
zone was the shore zone. One meter below the inside edge of the mudflat zone was the
x-axis of the open water zone. The x-axis served as a location for an x -coordinate point
along the water edge and was coupled with a y-coordinate that placed the quadrat into
the open water. These quadrats remained permanent for the season, early May through
November. There were no less than three surveys conducted on each site each year.
Surveys in 1999 at DARA occurred: 11 June, 30 June, 4 August, 16 September, 15
October; at Fulton: 25 May, 21 July, 11 August, 10 September, 15 October; and at Van
Wert: 1 June, 30 June,l 1 August. Surveys in 2000 at DARA occurred: 9 June, 24 July,
14 September; at Fulton: 8 June, 26 July, 18 September; and at Van Wert: 14 June, 20
July, 13 September. Surveys in 2001 at DARA occurred: 13 June, 30 July, 27
September; at Fulton: 14 June, 6 August, 4 October; and at Van Wert: 5 June, 4 August,
2 October. Plants were identified to species whenever possible. Primary identification
keys were Gleason and Cronquist (1991) and Fassett (1969).
Data analysis
Data from the surveys were used to determine relative importance factors (Cox
1996), measure the alpha diversity by site (Simpson’s and Shannon-Weiner), calculate
species richness, and compare beta diversity by using Jaccard’s coefficient of plant
communities and Sorenson’s Index (Magurran 1988). For additional information on
diversity indices see the primer in chapter one. Beta diversity indices were used in this
study to compare similarities in species composition between years on the same
43
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. wetland. Beta diversity index value comparisons were made using two common
indices: Jaccard’s and Sorenson’s Indices. The calculation of the index is based on
shared species in compared years. Survey data were also analyzed for life history and
species’ wetland indicator status of each study location over the study period.
Results and Discussion
Single site diversity and community structure
There was a general overall decrease in species richness, the total number of
species, at the WRSIS wetlands from study onset (two years after construction) to study
end. These results, presented in figure 2.3, support the hypothesis of decrease in species
richness during the study period. The difference in species richness from 2001
compared to 1998 was -20 at DARA, -9 at Fulton, and -23 at Van Wert. There were 5
Wetland indicator species (WIS) including Carex squarrosa and 10 non-WIS including
Prunella vulgaris not detected in 2001 compared to the baseline year at DARA.
Complete species lists by site, 1998-2001 are located in Appendix B. There were 2
WIS including Atriplex patula and 9 non-WIS including Trifolium repens not detected
in the 2001 survey compared to the baseline year at the Fulton location. There were 5
WIS including Lactuca serriola and 10 non-WIS including Trifolium repens not
detected in 2001 compared to the baseline year at Van Wert. The species not detected in
surveys in 2001 but present in baseline year, 1998 included WIS, but were dominated
by non-WIS, which lends circumstantial evidence that the vascular vegetation
community was undergoing adjustment to the changes elicited by the wetland
environment.
44
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Results from the Jaccard’s Index calculations are shown in table 2.1 and the
Sorenson Index results in table 2.2. If species composition between two years were
identical, the Jaccard’s and Sorenson’s Indices value would be one.
Comparison of species composition in year 2001 to year 1998 for the DARA
wetland resulted in the Jaccard’s value of 0.42 and Sorenson’s index value of 0.59.
There were 24-shared species between the two years. There were 15 species present
across all four years; four were common weed species ( Ambrosia artemisiifola, Aster
pilosus, Cirsium arvense and Taraxacum officinale) six were wetland species (Carex
vulpinoidea, Juncus tenuis, Polygonum persicaria, Populus deltoides, Salix exiqua and
Typha angustifolia) and five were planted for erosion control on the bank ( Echinochloa
crus-galli, Festucapratense, Medicago sativa, Phleum pratense, and Trifolium repens).
There were two new species found in 2001, which were both upland grasses. A
complete species list and years found on site are located in Appendix B. Years 1999
and 2001, which were the most similar, were both noted to be deficient in precipitation
during the growing season. Monthly precipitation summaries for the study areas during
the study period can be found in table 2.3.
The comparison for the Fulton site of year 2001 to year 1998 produced a very
low Jaccard’s Index value of 0.19 and low Sorenson Index value of 0.32 (13 shared
species). There were six species shared across all four years. Four of the shared species
were among those planted for erosion control on the upper bank {Dactylis glomerata,
Echinochloa crus-galli, Festuca pratense, and Lolium perenne) and two were common
form “weeds” (Cirsium arvense and Rumex crispus). There were four new species seen
in 2001: two wetland species and two agricultural “weeds.” A complete species list and
45
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. years found on she are located in Appendix B. The years with the most similar
community composition at the Fulton location was found to be between years 1999 and
2000 with 17 shared species.
The species composition comparison for the Van Wert she of year 2001 to year
1998 resulted in a low Jaccard’s Index value of 0.25 (13 shared species) and a low
Sorenson’s Index value of 0.40. There were eight species shared across all four years.
Two species were among those planted for erosion control on the bank ( Bromus
intermis and Echinochloa crus-galli), five were wetland species ( Polygonum persicaria,
Populus deltoides, Salix exiqua, Scirpus airovirens and Xanthium strumarium) and one
was a weedy species ( Cirsium arvense). A complete species list and years found on site
are located in Appendix B. As found at DARA, the community composition between
years 1999 and 2001 was the most similar.
There is insufficient data to assign a true cause for the low similarity observed
at the WRSIS sites over the study period. There is the possibility of variable
recruitment of new species into the wetland during the study period. Disturbance
factors that occurred on the sites: construction, variation in precipitation frequency and
volume occurring on the site, and agricultural drainage can influence which species
perform well during a particular growing season. Low similarity values calculated
between years were likely a result of a number of these possible factors.
Proportional abundance indices such as Simpson’s index, shown in figure 2.4,
move beyond species richness and incorporate abundance. Diversity increases as
Simpson’s values increase from zero. As expressed through this index, there was a
decrease in diversity for DARA (4.47 to 2.42) over the first three years followed by an
46
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. increase of 6.31 index points from 2000 to 2001. There was a diversity increase for
Fulton from 1998 to 1999 (1.15 index points), a decrease (-2.91 index points) in
diversity in 2000, and an increase (1.85 index points) in 2001. The Van Wert location
had a shorter observation time in 1999 compared to other years because of onsite
construction in September o f 1999. Year 2001 had a higher (0.58 index points) index
value than 2000. Comparisons made from the baseline year, 1998, to the end of the
study, 2001, show that diversity at DARA was higher (+4.26 index points), while at
Fulton (+0.09 index points) and Van Wert (-0.87 index points) diversity was similar at
both ends of the study with less than a point gain or loss.
Alpha diversity was also examined using Shannon-Wiener’s Diversity Index,
another proportional abundance index that is more sensitive to rare species. Again
diversity increases from 0, and rarely exceeds a value of 4.5 (Magurran, 1988). Index
results are shown in figure 2.5 and evenness values are shown in figure 2.6. The
Shannon-Wiener Index value trends were similar to those calculated using Simpson's
Index viewed over the study period. DARA displayed a slight increase (+0.38 index
points) from 1998 to 2001 versus Van Wert and Fulton with their decrease in diversity
(-0.43 and - 0.15 index points respectively). It is believed that a combination of various
disturbance factors including construction, above and below average precipitation, and
community adaptation to the wetland environment affected community structure,
promoting or hindering different vegetation groups each growing season and resulted in
similar on site diversity values when comparing baseline to the study end.
The Shannon-Wiener Index associated “E” or evenness values describe the
distribution of individuals among species present. An E value of 0 would represent a
47
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. monoculture and an E value of one would express that individuals are evenly distributed
within species present. Evenness values calculated for the WRSIS locations are shown
in figure 2.6. All three sites were affected by "dominant" species; species that were able
to perform better in the conditions created that year within the wetland, and thus were
relatively more abundant than others in the studied quadrats over the study period.
Evenness (distribution of individuals among species) values increased at all locations
when comparing baseline to end of study. The E values occasionally fell below 0.50,
and all three locations fell below 0.5 in 2000, suggesting that a few species dominated
those locations that year. The fluctuation in diversity and she conditions that promoted
the less than 0.5 evenness values in 2000 both coincide with the above average
precipitation totals at the WRSIS locations in that year.
The years 1999 and 2001 were considered “dry” based on precipitation events
during the growing season. Monthly precipitation data (ODNR, 1998-2001) during the
study period for northwest Ohio are presented in table 2.3. Average precipitation (30
year period) is 880.1 mm (34.65 in.) per year at DARA (NOAA Defiance Station),
882.9 mm (34.76 in.) per year at Fulton (NOAA Wauseon Station) and 926.3 mm
(36.47 in.) per year at Van Wert (NOAA Van Wert Station) (NOAA 1998).
Precipitation deficits for 1999 were 72 mm (2.88 in.) for the year at DARA, 74.8 mm
(2.99 in.) for the year at Fulton, and 117.5 mm (4.7 in.) for the year at Van Wert. Year
2001 was considered dry despite average precipitation for the year, because of deficit
levels during the growing season, especially June and July. The year 2000 was
considered a “wet” year, with precipitation excesses of 88.5, 85.8,43 mm for DARA,
Fulton and Van Wert respectively. The Fulton and DARA locations exhibited similar
48
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. decreasing trends in diversity, evenness and percent WIS (discussed below) over the
study period. It seems that the Fulton and DARA locations were affected by the higher
rainfall experienced at the sites. Van Wert however, did not show community changes
similar to those of Fulton and DARA.
Wetland indicator status
Wetland species included those listed as facultative (FAC), facultative wetland
(FACW), or obligate (OBL) (Reed 1988). Complete species lists by site including
wetland indicator status and associated life histories for years 1998-2001 can be found
in Appendix B. Unknown species were subtracted from the total number of species
before calculation of percent wetland indicator species (WIS). Only species observed
within study quadrats are included in the total species richness and in the determination
of percent WIS. Percent WIS presented by site over the study period is shown in figure
2.7. Comparison of the overall study period, 1998 to 2001 resulted in an increase in
percent WIS for Fulton and Van Wert of 24 % and 15 % of total species respectively.
DARA percent WIS was similar from 1998 to 2001 with a slight loss of -2 %.
WRSIS site managers each manage their sites within project guidelines, but with
emphasis on different goals. The DARA and Fuhon sites both have larger areas o f
mudflat that encourage diversity of species that survive best at the mudflat condition.
These sites are managed by flashboard changes or more recently by a weep hole in a
dashboard to ensure that the water level is kept at the desired level for optimum habitat
and water quality improvement. Percent WIS representation decreased by 13 to 16 %
of the total species in 2000 over 1999, then increased in 2001 by +9 % over 2000
49
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. values at the DARA and Fulton locations. The Van Wert location gained 9 % WIS in
2000 over 1999 and lost 6 % in 2001 over 2000. The Van Wert location maintains a
higher average water level than that of the other WRSIS locations. The plant
communities at the Van Wert location have developed, from initial construction, at
higher average water levels and were able to tolerate frequent inundations during the
year 2000 in addition to recruiting new species following the late 1999 construction.
The Fulton and DARA locations lost diversity, evenness and percent WIS in 2000
because seeds and seedlings could not complete their lifecycle under the increased
frequency of inundation and water stress experienced in 2000 caused by above average
rainfall (field notes). Work by others has shown a reduction in community diversity by
long-term high water levels (van der Valk et al. 1994) and by fluctuating water levels
within the water body (Sherman 1996).
Aggressive wetland species such as Phalaris arundinacea L. at Fulton and
Typha angustifolia L. at DARA were more abundant as indicated by numbers of
individuals, as well as Braun Blanquet cover values, and indirectly by the decrease in
evenness values which is indicative of dominance effects on the wetland during the
2000 season. This trend of increase in abundance o f aggressive species has been found
in other studies that have examined effects of maintained high water tables or
fluctuating water levels above average (Ellison and Bedford 1995; Figiel et al. 1995;
Galatowitsch et al. 1999; Mitsch and Zhang 2001). Also, it was noted in the field data
that mudflat species were growing above the mudflat zone and into the shore zone in
2000 and returned to a more normal mudflat region in 2001. A study by Wallsten and
Forsgren (1989) showed high water levels, maintained over a number of years, also
50
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. resulted in shifting zonation and additionally in a large reduction of macrophyte
coverage.
The WRSIS wetlands receive agricultural drainage known to contain higher than
background levels of nutrients (Kemerer 2001). This increase in nutrients has not been
examined in relation to community development and species diversity shifts, but it is
believed that hydrology, availability of seed, and disturbances such as construction are
the primary factor in the germination of propagules in these wetlands. Others have
presented evidence that in wetlands receiving effluents, the biomass of vegetation
increased, but reported no evidence for nutrient laden effluent affecting seed
germination (Walsh et al. 1991; Willis and Mhsch 1995).
Life history
Life history summaries are shown in table 2.4. Generally, perennial life history
types became more common from study onset to finish. The DARA location decreased
in species with annual life history types by 1.6 % at study conclusion, but gained
biennial species by 2.2 % and perennials by 9.8 %. Van Wert similarly showed losses
of annuals of 5.1 % from study onset to finish and gains of perennial species
representation in the community by 16%, but showed a community reduction in
biennial growth types of 3.7 %. Fulton percent species expressing annual life histories
remained steady at + 0.4 %, there was a decrease in percent perennial species in 2001
compared to 1998 by 5.9 % and a 4.5 % increase in biennial life history species
representation.
51
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Most of the WIS species within the wetlands were perennials. Perennial species
included many grasses, rushes, sedges including Carex vulpinoidea, Juncus tenuis,
Scirpus atrovirens, and Typha angustifolia, trees such as Salix exiqua and Populus
deltoides, and others Potamogeton foliosus. Average percentages of annuals that were
WIS over the study periods were 28.6 %, 47.6 % and 42.7 % for the DARA, Fulton and
Van Wert locations respectively (Data in Appendix C). Perennials comprised 71.4 %,
52.4 % and 57.3 % of the wetland indicator species life history composition averaged
across the study period.
The WRSIS wetlands were constructed in 1995-1996. After analysis of baseline
data collected in 1998, site improvements, such as the construction of a shelf or dividers
were suggested to increase mudflat conditions at the DARA and Van Wert locations
and encourage the establishment of desirable mudflat and emergent species detected in
the seed bank (Luckeydoo 1999). Major construction occurred in March of 1999 at the
DARA location to install a 2.4 m (8 ft.) mudflat shelf on the west side. The Van Wert
location was also heavily modified in September of 1999 by regradation of the west
side, as well as the creation of a divider to increase the distance of water flow to the
outlet. The basins at both DARA and the Van Wert sites were severely disrupted. The
Fulton location did not receive any large basin altering changes.
The construction at DARA involved redistribution of soil to new locations
across the basin surface and occurred in March, prior to seed germination. This major
disturbance coincided with the system displaying more annuals (results shown in table
2.4) in 1999 in comparison to 1998 (+9.7 % of total species), and perennials were
similarly represented. The increase in annuals could be attributed to the construction
52
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. event that redistributed the seed bank and provided new open areas for possible
colonization.
The Van Wert site was heavily modified during late September 1999. The
timing of this construction prevented the late season survey from occurring at this site.
This loss of fall survey information was reflected when comparing life history results
(table 2.4) years 1999 and 1998. There was a loss of annuals (-8.2 % of total species),
the increase in perennials (21.9 % o f total species) and an overall decrease in richness,
diversity and evenness between the two years.
The Van Wert wetland seed bank had been repositioned by earth moving and
construction events in September o f 1999. There was an increase in the percent of
annuals (15.8 % of total) between 1999 and 2000. Perennials representation decreased
by 13.9 % from 1999 to 2000. There was an increase in percent of total species that
were WIS (+8 % of total). Understandably, with the full number of surveys, there was
an increase in species richness and diversity from 1999 to 2000. Additionally, there
were five new species in 2000 that had not been seen previously at the Van Wert site,
including Eleocharis obtusa and Rorippa islandica that were WIS ranked. A complete
species list and years found on she are located in Appendix B.
The Fulton County location did not receive any large basin altering disturbances
during the study period. Annuals remained at a similar percent of total species 1998
through 2000. Between years 1998 and 1999, perennials decreased by 7.5 % of the total
species, and biennials increased in 1999 as shown in table 2.4. Between 1999 and 2000
perennials increased 3.5 % o f the total species present.
53
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Perennial species increase at these locations was influenced by seed bank
depletion resulting from previous land use. Historically, these sites have all had
farming practices occurring on or near where the wetland was placed. The farming
practices discouraged the growth of annual weeds by mechanical mowing and
application of herbicides resulting in fewer annual seeds in the local seed bank.
Numerous annual WIS, such as the Polygonum spp., Xanthium strumarium, and Bidens
frondosa, seed was likely supplied from hardy annual weeds that survive in the nearby
agricultural fields or arrive with field equipment. Many of the perennial WIS, such as
Carex vulpinoidea, Eleocharis obtusa, Typha angustifolia, Cyperus strigosus and
Scirpus atrovirens, that established within the WRSIS wetlands were seen in the
forested wetlands at DARA, or stream/drainage ditches near the wetlands
Importance Factor (IF) Ranking
The “Important” species in reference to the ranking procedure are those species
that have the highest value based on a combination of dominance, density of individuals
and frequency of occurrence within the wetland basin relative to other species present.
The summary of 1998-2001 IF data presented in table 2.5 show which species are
“important” at each location. Important meaning that these species compose the
majority of individual plants, and are responsible for most of the aerial cover that occurs
within the wetland basin. Many species considered more “important” at each site, high
IF rankings, were species planted after construction by erosion control; species such as
Timothy ( Phleum pratense L.), alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.), brome ( Bromus sp.) and
fescue (Festuca sp.) which have served as a seed source for the shore and on occasion
54
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the mudflat zone. There have been natural additions of wetland species, such as
willows (Salix sp.), smartweed (Polygonum persicaria L.), and fox sedge ( Carex
vulpinoidea Michx.) that became established, and were calculated to have high IF ranks
at the WRSIS wetlands. These high IF ranked species can be considered the species
that are more dominant on the she and are most likely to be the species providing the
majority of habitat and participants in water quality improvements. Importance Factors
by season and location showing progression through the study period are presented in
Appendix D.
The importance factor ranking suggests which species are most likely to perform
as “functional” species. The species listed in table 2.5 are the most prominent within
the wetland relative to the other species at the WRSIS wetlands present consistently
over the study period. The species in the importance factor summary are tolerant of the
conditions created in the wetlands, as they had a consistent dominant role during the
study period. Many of the wetland indicator species as well as the shore species are
responsible for meeting site goals.
Species such as Salix exiqua, Echinochloa crus-galli, Scirpus atrovirens,
Phalaris arundinaceae, and Carex vulpinoidea have been reported to serve as sources
of food, cover, and nesting locations for waterfowl (McAtee 1939; Payne 1992).
Erosion control grasses such as Phleum pratense, Dactylis glomerata, Bromus spp., and
Fescue spp. are capable of providing cover for avian visitors. The waterline in the
mudflat zone provides areas of sparse vegetation favored by amphibians (field notes).
Water quality improvements can be influenced by species present in the IF for
the WRSIS wetlands. Emergent species including Echinochloa crus-galli, Scirpus
55
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. atrovirens, Phalaris arundinaceae, Carex vulpinoidea, and Juncus tenuis, which reside
in the saturated mudflat area provide a preferred carbon source and/or substrate for
microbial activity and can provide a microhabitat that promotes nutrient reduction and
removal (Baker 1998). All species in the IF list have the potential for short-term
removal of nutrients from the system by incorporation into biomass.
Passive revegetation and the WRSIS community development.
Diversity on the WRSIS constructed wetlands remained low over the study
period. This was a potential downside of the passive revegetation method. The seed
bank and local seed sources appear to have been insufficient to create wetlands with
50% or more WIS of the total species present within five years after construction. A
seed bank study of the DARA location (Luckeydoo et al. 2002; Luckeydoo 1999) did
show a potential for seven additional wetlands species. The seven species were
primarily mudflat and emergent species; therefore efforts were made to create more
mudflat habitat by construction of additional mudflat areas on the shelf constructed at
DARA in March 1999. This construction added more treatment area to the wetland and
an additional species found in the seed bank was recorded as present in the wetland by
2001.
The three studied WRSIS locations were all inland and did not have the
potential seed sources such as those of riverine systems (Bouchard and Mitsch 1999;
Godwin 1923). The areas surrounding the wetlands did contain many WIS species.
Farmers considered many of these species, such as Xanthium , weeds. These weedy or
even aggressive species that established within the wetland do functionally serve the
56
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. goals of habitat (Brown et al. 2000) and create conditions that promote water quality
improvement (Kemerer 2001).
The results of the importance factor rankings in addition to the characteristics o f
the established species recorded over the study period and a study comparing planted
and unplanted wetland basins (Bouchard and Mitsch 1999), suggest that planting
desirable species would increase the speed by which the WRSIS constructed systems
develop into wetlands. Planting may hasten development of good vegetative coverage
and would increase the number of reoccurring WIS species. The species planted for
erosion control served as seed sources that established in the shore zone and other areas
the growth type and tolerance level of the species has allowed.
Seeding with wetland species, instead of traditional upland seed mixes, would
serve as erosion control and as a secondary method to passive revegetation. Seeding
would help expedite vegetation establishment. Seeding would also initiate sustainable
wetland species that could serve as wildlife habitat.
Conclusions
Overall trends for the WRSIS constructed wetlands that were allowed to
revegetate passively under varied water levels and while receiving agricultural drainage
indicate a decrease in species richness from year 1998 to year 2001. Diversity remained
approximately the same or increased for the WRSIS wetlands from 1998 to 2001.
Although species richness decreased, percent species ranked as WIS increased from the
beginning of the study period to the end. This suggests that the WRSIS wetlands are
57
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. organizing according to the site environment and disturbances that occur within the
wetland.
Importance Factor Rankings over the study period, and low recruitment of new
species from the seed bank to germinate and establish suggest that some planting,
possibly by seeding of species that are tolerant of water stress and can serve as erosion
control for the wetlands after construction, would be both beneficial in creation of more
diverse sustained species within the wetland, and would maintain cost effectiveness by
merely being exchanged for practices already in existence. These species planted for
erosion control would likely be best if self-seeding or perennial in nature. This would
correlate with the increasing importance of perennial or high seed producers based on
the life history summary and the IF ranked species.
58
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. LIST OF REFRENCES
Baker, L. A. "Design Considerations and Applications for Wetland Treatment of High- Nitrate Waters." Water Science Technology 38.1 (1998): 389-95.
Bouchard, V. and W. J. Mitsch. "Plant Richness and Community Establishment after Five Growing Seasons in the Two Experimental Wetland Basins." Olentangv River Wetland Research Park at the Ohio State University: Annual Report 1998. Ed. W. J. Mitsch and V. Bouchard. Columbus, Oh: School of Natural Resources, 1999. 43-59.
Braun- Blanquet, J. Plant Sociology- the Study of Plant Communities. New York: McGRaw-Hill, 1932.
Brown, P., B. Allred, M. T. Batte, L. Brown, B. Czartoski, R. Cooper, N. Fausey, L. Luckeydoo. Marketing Wetlands for Profit Final Report: Maumee Valley Resource, Conservation & Development, 2000.
Brueske, C. C. and G. W. Barrett. "Effects of Vegetation and Hydrologic Load on Sedimentation Patterns in Experimental Wetland Ecosystems." Ecological Engineering 3 (1994): 429-47.
Chester, P. W., Riethman, D. "Runoff Storage Requirements for a Closed-Loop System." Presented at the 1997 ASAE Annual International Meeting. Minneapolis Convention Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota: ASAE, St. Joseph, MI., 1997. Vol. Paper number 972132.
Cox, G. W. Laboratory Manual o f General Ecology. Dubuque: Wm. C. Brown Publishers, 1996.
Ellison, A. M. and B. L. Bedford. "Response of a Wetland Vascular Plant Community to Disturbance: A Simulation Study." Ecological Applications 5.1 (1995): 109- 23.
Fassett, N. C. A Manual of Aquatic Plants. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969.
59
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figiel, Jr., C. R , B. Collins and G. Wein. "Variation in Survival and Biomass of Two Wetland Grasses at Different Nutrient and Water Levels over a Six Week Period." Bulletin of the Torrev Botanical Club 122.1 (1995): 24-29.
Galatowitsch, S. M., N. O. Anderson and P.D. Ascher. "Invasiveness in Wetland Plants in Temperate North America." Wetlands 19.4 (1999): 733-55.
Gleason, H. A. and A. Cronquist. Manual n f Vascular Plants of Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada. Bronx: The New York Botanical Garden, 1991.
Godwin, H. "Dispersal of Pond Floras." Journal of Ecology 11 (1923): 160-64.
Hammer, D. A. Creating Freshwater Wetlands, second ed. Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers, 1997.
Kemerer, J. L. "Phosphorus and Sediment Fate within a Wetland-Reservoir Subirrigation System." Master of Science. The Ohio State University, 2001.
Luckeydoo, L. M. "Vegetation Composition of Three Constructed Wetlands Receiving Agricultural Runoff and Subsurface Drainage." Master of Science. The Ohio State University, 1999.
—. N. R. Fausey, L.C. Brown and C. B. Davis. "Early Development of Vascular Vegetation of Constructed Wetlands in Northwest Ohio Receiving Agricultural Waters." Agriculture. Ecosystems and Environment 88 (2002): 89-94.
Magurran, A. E. Ecological Diversity and Its Measurement. Princeton: Princeton University, 1988.
McAtee, W. L. Wildfowl Food Plants. Ames, IA: Collegiate Press Inc., 1939
McNaughton, S. J. "Diversity and Stability." Nature 333 (1988): 204-05.
Mitsch, W. J. and L. Zhang. "Plant Community Development after Seven Growing Seasons in the Two Experimental Wetland Basins.” Olentangv River Wetland Research Park at the Ohio State University: Annual Report 2000. Ed. W. J. and V. Bouchard Mitsch. Columbus, Ohio: School of Natural Resources, 2001.43- 58.
(NOAA), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Climatological Data Annual Summary. Asheville, NC: National Climatic Data Center, 1998.
(ODNR) Ohio Department o f Natural Resources. Monthly Water Inventories. 1998- 2001. website. 5 April 2002.
60
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Payne, N. F. Techniques for Wildlife Habitat Management of Wetlands. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1992.
Reddy, K. R ., W. H. Patrick Jr. and C. W. Lindau. "Nitrification-Denitrification at the Plant Root-Sediment Interface in Wetlands.” Limnology and Oceanography 34.6 (1989): 1004-13.
—. and W. H. Patrick Jr. "Fate of Fertilizer Nitrogen in the Rice Root Zone." Soil Science Society of America Journal 50 (1986): 649-51.
Reed, P.B., Jr. National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: Ohio. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of the Interior-Fish and Wildlife Service., 1988.
Riemer, D. N. Introduction to Freshwater Vegetation. Westport, Connecticut: AVI Publishing, 1984.
Sherman, D. E., R. W. Kroll and T. L. Engle. "Flora of Diked and Undiked Southwestern Lake Erie Wetland." Ohio Journal of Science 96.1 (1996): 4-8.
Surrency, D. "Evaluation of Aquatic Plants for Constructed Wetlands." Constructed Wetlands for Water Quality Improvement. Ed. G. A. Moshiri. Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers, 1993.
US Army, COE. USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual: Wetlands Research Program, Environmental Laboratory, 1987.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. Non-Point Source Pollution: the Nation's Largest Water Quality Problem. 1996.
USDA-SCS, United States Department of Agriculture- Soil Conservation Service. Soil Survey of Defiance Countv. Ohio. 1984b.
—. Soil Survey of Fulton Countv. Ohio. 1984a.
—. Soil Survey of Van Wert Countv. Ohio.. 1972.
van der Valk, A. G., L. Squires, and C. H. Welling. "Assessing the Impacts of an Increase in Water Level on Wetland Vegetation." Ecological Applications 4.3 (1994): 525-34.
Wallsten, M. and P. Forsgren. "The Effects of Increased Water Level on Aquatic Macrophytes." Aquatic Plant Management 27 (1989): 32-37.
61
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Walsh, G. E., D. E. Weber, M. T. Nguyen and L. K. Esry. "Responses o f Wetland Plants to Effluents in Water and Sediment." Environmental and Experimental Botany 31.3 (1991): 351-58.
Ward, A. D. and W. J. Elliot. "The Hydrologic Cycle, Water Resources, and Society." Environmental Hydrology. Ed. A. D. and W. J. Elliot Ward. Boca Raton: Lewis, 1995.
Willis, C.and W. J. Mitsch. "Effects of Hydrology and Nutrients on Seedling Emergence and Biomass of Aquatic Macrophytes from Natural and Artificial Seed Banks." Ecological Engineering 4 (1995): 65-76.
Zhu, T. and F. J. Sikora. "Ammonium and Nitrate Removal in Vegetated and Unvegetated Gravel Bed Microcosm Wetlands." Water Science and Technology 32.3 (1995): 219-28.
Zucker, L. A and L. C. Brown. Agricultural drainage: water quality and subsurface drainage studies in the Midwest: Ohio State University Extension Bulletin 871, 1998. 40 pgs.
62
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Lake Erie
Ohio River
Lake Erie Basin A Demonstration Farms
Ohio River Basin E l J S S S S S * V-Van Wert County
Figure 2.1 Map of Ohio showing locations of WRSIS wetland sites. (Zucker.and Brown 1998)
63
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Shore zone Average water line 3 Mudflat zone
— u Open water zone “x”
Figure 2.2 Conceptual drawing of zones utilized in vascular surveys at the WRSIS wetlands.
64
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. without prohibited reproduction Further owner. copyright the of permission with Reproduced Figure 2.3 Species Richness at the DARA, Fulton and Van Wert WRSIS wetlands wetlands WRSIS Wert Van and Fulton DARA, years1998-2001. the at Richness Species 2.3 Figure
Number of Species Represented 40 20 30 60 50 10 98 99 2000 1999 1998 Species Richness at WRSIS at WetlandsSpecies Richness Year 1 65 2001 ■ Fulton Fulton ■ ♦ DARA DARA ♦ ▲Wert Van Simpson's Index 1998-2001
10 9 w 8 7
Figure 2.4 Simpson’s Index Values at the DARA, Fulton and Van Wert WRSIS wetlands years1998-2001. On-site diversity increases as the index value increases from 0.
66
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Shannon-Wiener Index 1998-2001
2.5
9> 3 73 ♦ DARA > 1.5 ■ Fulton S •o A Van Wert £
0.5
0 1998 avg 1999 avg 2000 avg 2001 avg Year
Figure 2.5 Shannon-Wiener Index Values at the DARA, Fulton and Van Wert WRSIS wetlands years1998-2001. On-site diversity increases as the index value increases from 0.
67
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Shannon-Wiener Evenness 1998-2001
0.9 0.8 0.7 4> J3 0.6 a ♦ DARA 0.5 > ■ Fulton x 0.4 •ou c 0.3 A Van Wert 0.2 0.1 0 1998 E avg 1999 E avg 2000 E avg 2001 E avg. Year
Figure 2.6 Shannon-Wiener Evenness Index Values at the DARA, Fulton and Van Wert WRSIS wetlands years1998-2001. Zero represents a single dominant species and 1 represents equal dominance among all species.
68
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Percent Wetland Indicator Species
60 in '322 50
1998 1999 2000 2001 Year
Figure 2.7 Wetland Indicator Species (FAC, FACW and OBL) over the study period, 1998-2001, at the three WRSIS study locations presented as percent of known species each study year.
69
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. A. DARA D98 099 POP D01 D98 XX 0.46 0.36 0.42
D99 - XX 0.51 0.55 DOO - - XX 0.38
0 0 1 --- XX
B. Fulton F98 F99 FOO F01 F 98 XX 0.28 0.19 0.19
F 99 - XX 0.47 0.29
FOO - - XX 0.26
F01 - - - XX
C. Van Wert VW98 VW 99 VWOO VW01 VW98 XX 0.28 0.31 0.25
VW99 - XX 0.42 0.45
VWOO - - XX 0.3
VW01 - -- XX
Table 2.1 Jaccard’s Beta Diversity Index values for evaluating 1998-2001 season similarities. Sub-table A displays the DARA location similarity values. Sub-table B displays the Fulton wetland similarity values. Sub-table C displays the Van Wert location similarity values. Similarity increases as index value increases from 0 to 1.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. A. DARA D98 D99 DOO D01 D98 XX 0.63 0.53 0.59 D99 XX 0.68 0.71 DOO XX 0.56 D01 XX
B. Fulton F98 F99 FOO F01 F98 XX 0.43 0.32 0.32
F99 - XX 0.61 0.45
FOO - - XX 0.41
F01 - - - XX
C. Van Wert VW98 VW 99 VWOO VW01 VW98 XX 0.44 0.48 0.4
VW99 - XX 0.59 0.62
VWOO -- XX 0.46
VW01 --- XX
Table 2.2 Sorenson’s Beta Diversity Index values for evaluating 1998-2001 season similarities. Sub-table A displays the DARA location similarity values. Sub-table B displays the Fulton wetland similarity values. Sub-table C displays the Van Wert location similarity values. Similarity increases from index value increases from 0 to 1.
71
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Northwest Ohio Precipitat on 1998 Northwest Ohio Precipitat on 1999 Avg.Predp Avg.Predp Percent of Month (mm) Percent of Normal Month mm) Normal January 71 130 January 90 16£ -etxuary 68.75 14S February 52.25 1H March 94 131 March 33.75 47 April 107 12S April 134 162 May 60.25 60 May 75.5 8£ June 117.5 123 June 75 71 July 99.25 115 July 91.25 106 August 192 262 August 55.5 76 September 24 34 September 46.25 66 October 5fl 103 October 53.75 9 i November 38.25 63 November 31.75 52 December 21 36 December 55.25 9C
Northwest Ohio Precipitat on 2000 Northwest ()hio Precipitat on 2001 Avg.Predp Avg.Predp Percent of Month (mm) Percent of Normal Month (mm) Normal January 35 64 January 16.75 31 ;ebruary 46.25 101 February 56.75 122 March 47.5 66 March 19.75 26 April 78.25 95 April 91.5 111 May 141.75 160 May 137.5 15* June 171.25 179 June 76.25 8C July 58.5 68 July 61.25 71 August 93.25 127 August 87 11S September 107.75 151 September 104.75 147 October 60.25 105 October 169.25 296 November 36.25 60 November 49.5 81 December 78.75 138 December 54.75 9* Based on data from Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Monthly Water Inventory Reports.
Table 2.3 Precipitation summary in millimeters per month and percent o f normal precipitation per month for the northwest region of Ohio. Information based on data from Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Monthly Water Inventory Reports.
72
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 11998 I %Annual %Perennial %Biennial %Unknown I DARA 21.6 56.9 7.8 13.7 rulton 40.6 46.9 0 12.5 Van Wert 43.2 36.4 4.5 15.9
1999 %Annual %Perennial %Biennial %Unknown DARA 31.3 59.4 6.3 3.1 ;ulton 39.4 39.4 9.1 12.1 Van Wert 25 58.3 0 16.7
2000 %Annual %Perennial %Biennial %Unknown DARA 33.3 58.4 0 8.3 ;utton 38.1 42.9 4.8 14.2 Van Wert 40.8 44.4 3.7 11.1
2001 %Annual %Perennial %Biennial %Unknown DARA 20 66.7 10 3.3 ;ulton 50 41 4.5 4.5 Van Wert 38.1 52.4 0 9.5
Table 2.4 Life history of WRSIS wetland species, 1998 to 2001. Numbers represent percent of total species in that life history category for the location and year.
73
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. SUMMARY IMPORTANCE FACTOR 1 1998-2001 DARA Fulton Van Wert
Juncus tenuis fWlSl Dactvlis glomerata (PLEC) Scirpus atrovirens fWISl
Medicago sativa (PLEC1 Festuca pratense (PLEC) Carex vulpinoidea fWIS'l
Salix exiqua (WIS) Echinochloa crusgalli (PLEC) Bromus inermis fPLEC f
Solidago canadensis (WD) Polvgonum persicaria CWISf Festuca pratense (PLEC1
Phleum pratense fPLEC) Phalaris arundinaceae fWISD
Echinochloa crusgalli (PLEC)
Codes: WIS=Wetland indicator species WISI= Wetland indicator species with invasive rating PLEC= Planted erosion control on upper bank WD- Weed species
Table 2.5 Summarized Importance Factor ranking of species that occurred greater than or equal to 50% on individual season IF lists during 1998 through 2001 at the WRSIS wetlands.
74
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 3
ALGAE COMMUNITIES AS QUALITATIVE TROPHIC INDICATORS FOR
CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS RECEIVING AGRICULTURAL DRAINAGE
WATERS
Abstract
Algal communities experience shifts in abundance and community make-up as
physical and chemical changes occur in the water column. The goals of algal surveys
were to detect and report changes in the algal community structure, and to create a
simple qualitative method to correlate algal community composition and abundance to
wetland trophic status. Eutrophic conditions were considered to be possible within the
wetland if total nitrogen level was lppm or higher and total phosphorus was 0.3 ppm or
higher. The Palmer list of pollutant tolerant genera and Nygaard’s Eutrophication
Quotient (NEQ) were examined to estimate trophic level in the WRSIS wetlands.
Estimation of trophic status using NEQ for yearly data were similar to estimates based
on the Nitrogen and Phosphorus levels in grab samples. Comparison of abundant
Palmer’s listed pollutant tolerant genera to abundant non-listed genera to total nitrogen
and total phosphorus levels in the wetland resulted in overestimation of trophic status at
the trophic status Van Wert location, underestimation of trophic status at the Fulton
location, and a good estimation o f trophic status at the DARA location. Insufficient 75
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. data were collected to determine causal relationships for this overestimation and
underestimation. This study will serve as a basis for additional work to further develop
this methodology.
Introduction
An algae primer is located in Chapter I.
Algae are prominent features of water bodies that collect waters receiving
drainage effluent enriched by nutrients and sediments. Because algal communities are
intimately associated with the water body, the community will react quickly to physical
and chemical changes of the water column. Algal communities have been investigated
as basis to create indices, indicator groups (Palmer 19S9; Palmer 1969) and quotients to
determine the trophic level of a water body (Nygaard 1949).
Indicator groups such as the Palmer list (Palmer 1959; Palmer 1969) give lists of
genera and species that have been reported repeatedly in the literature to be associated
with environments considered at the minimum to be eutrophic. Additional information
on Palmer’s list is located in chapter the primer in chapter one. Another approach is
Nygaard’s Eutrophication Quotient (NEQ) that consists of four equations that relate
presence or absence of algal groups known to be associated with more eutrophic status
to those algal groups that are associated with “cleaner” trophic status. The different
portions of the Nygaard quotient can be referenced to a number range that gives an
estimation of the trophic status o f the water body studied. Equations and additional
information on the NEQ is located in chapter the primer in chapter one.
76
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Many studies have shown that algal growth can occur rapidly when nutrient
additions are delivered to the water column; the influx allows algal cells to overcome
any nutrient deficiencies that have inhibited production of new biomass (Reynolds et al.
1998; Williams 1964; Marcus 1980). A paper by Hortobagyi (1969) found that waters
that were enriched were highly productive and tended to have similar algal group
associations: specifically Cyanophyta, Euglenophyta and Chlorophyta.
A study by Patrick (1968) shows by use of a simple replicated water box system
that similar water body conditions should result in similar diatom communities. Like
the diatoms found consistently in each portion of Patrick’s experimental water boxes,
members of the three phyla (Cyanophyta, Euglenophyta and Chlorophyta) tend to be
associated with eutrophic waters. The association of specific groups to trophic status is
that they have a competitive advantage over the other groups in environmental
conditions created by the eutrophication of waters. For example, diatoms require silica
and calcium more so than many other genera as those chemicals are required to create
new frustules and successfully reproduce new cells. Another example is that Blue-
green algae genera such as Anabaena and Nostoc have specialized cells called
heterocysts that can fix nitrogen from their surroundings when it is not otherwise
available (Vymazal 1995). Moss (1973) found that a eutrophic (adequate nitrogen and
phosphorus) environment created higher pH and lower free carbon dioxide conditions in
five experimentally manipulated lakes in Michigan, which resulted in a decrease of
natural oligotrophic algal species and an increase in more tolerant &/or bicarbonate
utilizing “eutrophic” species such as Cyanophyta. Caution, however, should be heeded
in complete phyla or even genera association with eutrophic conditions because even 77
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. within the same genera there are different abilities to compete under different trophic
levels (Spijkerman and Coesel 1998).
The ability of some algal groups to have an advantage over other algal groups
results in a visible shift in abundance of members of different genera as chemical
influences occur. Logically then, if the initial genera composition of algae within a
water body is very diverse and relatively evenly distributed, when conditions are
created in which certain groups have the ability to compete better, changes in algal
community richness, especially relative abundances of members could be used to
estimate trophic level within the water body at a given time. Studies have produced
evidence for the trend that diversity decreases with eutrophication of waters (Patrick
and Strawbridge 1963; Williams 1964), and that community genera representation shifts
with increased eutrophication of waters (Patrick et al. 1954; Hortobagyi 1969; Reynolds
et al. 1998; Williams 1964).
Cairns (1974) and Williams (1964) support the use of methodology that
examines changes in community structure over methodology targeting presence/absence
of indicator species alone. A combined approach which focuses on the indicator status
of the more most abundant genera within a sample has the potential to estimate
qualitatively and quickly the trophic status of WRSIS wetlands. Using the knowledge
of what species are more abundant under both oligotrophic and eutrophic conditions
(such as Palmer’s list), and evaluating genera present (NEQ) and examination of
relative abundance within test wetlands, estimation of general conditions within the
wetland can be attempted. This estimation of trophic conditions can serve as a tool to
aid in management of wetland systems such as the WRSIS systems receiving 78
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. agricultural drainage. Therefore, the goals of the algal surveys were to detect and report
changes in the algal community structure, and to begin to develop a simple qualitative
method to correlate algal community composition and abundance to wetland trophic
status for use by site managers.
Methods
Precollection:
Photos of the sites were taken and estimates of algal cover at 10% increments
were made prior to collection of samples. Information on general weather conditions,
recent rains, water level, and other pertinent observations were made at this time.
Phytoplankton collection:
Collection for identification was accomplished for plankton by grab samples at
random locations around the inlet and outlet of each wetland. Sampling events at
DARA occurred each month during March through November 2000, April, July-
September, and November 2001. Year 2000 sampling events also included samples
from deep pool or open water areas. Sampling events at Fulton occurred each month
during May through September 2000, April-August, and October through November
2001. Sampling events at Van Wert occurred each month during May through
September 2000, May, July-August, and October through November 2001. Samples of
500 ml were concentrated through 64-micrometer (silk number 25) nylon mesh and
collected in scintillation vials. Small volume grab samples were collected occasionally
in scintillation vials (~20ml) and allowed to undergo sedimentation. Water samples
79
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. were fixed using Lugol’s iodine solution (lOg KI, 5 g hin 100 ml of reagent grade
water).
Macroalgae collection
Mat algae samples for identification and abundance rating were collected
randomly from each wetland at least once a month starting in May until November 2000
and 2001 when mat algae could be seen. At least three sub-samples were taken, one
from each of the following locations if algae were present: inlet, open water and outlet.
Samples were fixed using Lugol’s iodine solution (lOg KI, 5 g hin 100 ml of reagent
grade water).
Periphyton collection
A wire and pulley system was used to suspend collection tiles no less than six
inches under the water surface. Pulley systems were constructed at Fulton and DARA
locations near the outlet of the wetland. Tiles were constructed from a 0.62S cm acrylic
sheet in the dimensions of a glass slide (25 mm wide by 100 mm long). A hole was
created in the top 25 mm. These tiles were suspended with 40 lb fishing line secured by
electrical or duct tape to the main wire and moved by the pulley system to the center of
the flow line at the outlet. The total number of slides placed at the onset of the study
period was 30. This was the total predicted sampling period (5 tiles collected each time
x 4 sampling times + two extra). Three tiles were for biomass estimation, one for
species richness and one for backup. These methods are modifications of Standard
Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (APHA 1992) section 10300 B 80
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and C. Sample collection occurred approximately every three weeks August through
November. Both faces of each tile was scraped with a straight edge and collected in a
sample vial. The algae remaining on the tile was then washed off into the collection
vial with distilled water. A small sample of algae scraped from rocks or other “natural”
populations were taken twice during the sampling period. Samples were fixed using
Lugol’s iodine solution (lOg KI, 5 g I2in 100 ml o f reagent grade water).
Sample evaluation
Samples for identification o f genera were created by pipetting from the sediment
in the bottom of the vial, placing two drops onto a glass microscope slide, and adding a
coverslip. Three replications were constructed for identification under a binocular light
microscope (Model: Reichert 150). Slides were scanned at 430X. Species were
counted for abundance using a modification of Deal and Kantz (1996); Rare<5,
Infrequent=5-10, Common= 11-20 and Abundant >20 members per cover slip area
(484mm2). Specimens were identified to genus using the following primary authorities:
Prescott (1978) and Whhford and Schumacher (1984).
How to read tables of algal abundance over time:
Using abundance values, I mapped genera present over the sampling period. In
2000, three target areas were sampled: inlet, open water and outlet. If the genus was
present, letters separated by slashes represent the three sample locations in the above
order, i.e. (-/R/-) under May 2000 would mean that Genus X was not found in samples
taken at the inlet and outlet and was found to be rare in the open water area during that 81
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. month. A blank cell means that that genus was not found during that month. The
abundance ranking and layout was the same for 2001, but only the inlet and outlet were
sampled. This was done in the interest of time and preserving counting quality. In the
presentation of data and discussion below, numbers in parenthesis beside genera names
are Palmer’s ranking within the list of pollutant tolerant genera. Palmer’s ranking list of
pollutant tolerant genera is presented in Appendix A.
Nygaard Eutrophication Quotient (NEQ)
Nygaard (1949) developed the NEQ through examination of Danish lakes and
ponds. The beginning of this work was in describing “constant associates,” or species
that occur prominently in more than 75% of the samples for a given trophic type, then
using these relationships to determine ratios of algal groups indicative of different
trophic status. The original NEQ calculation uses species. The qualitative methodology
being developed in this document is for use by site managers. Identification of an algal
sample to species can be arduous and time consuming, thus use of genera is being
utilized to calculate the NEQ. The use of genera instead of species will result in the loss
of some detail within the calculation, which may result in over- or under-estimation of
the final NEQ value. The assumption in using genera versus species is that the
calculated NEQ value will still adequately reflect trophic status of the water body. The
overall NEQ calculation included monthly data from April to November.
82
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The NEQ is composed of four separate calculations:
I. Myxophycean Quotient: # genera* Myxophyceae/ # genera
Desmideaceae.
II. Chlorophycean Quotient: # genera Chlorococcales/# genera
Desmideaceae.
III. Diatom Quotient: # genera Centrales/# genera Pennales.
IV. Compound Quotient: (# gen. Myxo.+ # gen. Chloro. + # gen. Centr. +#
Gen Euglena) / # genera Desmideaceae.
For I, II and III, <1= oligotrophic and >1= eutrophic and for IV, <1=
oligotrophic, >1= eutrophic, and 5-20 is very eutrophic.
*Modification of (Nygaard 1949) for genera in place of species.
Water sample collection for determination o f nutrient levels
Grab Samples were taken from surface waters at each wetland. Samples were
collected at DARA in September and November 2001, and collected at Fulton and Van
Wert in October and November 2001. These samples were analyzed in the USDA-ARS
Water Quality Laboratory, Columbus, Ohio via Kjeldahl digest methods followed by
analysis on a Lachat Auto-analyzer (QuikChem method 10-115-01-1-C modified and
QuikChem Method 10-107-06-2-D modified). The Total N and Total P data from grab
samples are presented in table 3.1. Total values are averaged using the inlet and outlet
samples. Raw data and standard operating procedures for digestion and analysis are
provided in Appendix E.
83
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Results and discussion
Genera Richness
Tables showing species richness for phytoplankton and floating fractions
(PAFF) are included for the DARA location in both 2000 (table 3.2) and 2001 (table
3.3), the Fulton location during 2000 (table 3.4) and 2001 (table 3.5) and the Van Wert
site in 2000 (table 3.6) and 2001 (table 3.7). There was greater genera richness in 2000
over 2001 for all three locations. There were 27 genera present in 2001 and 38 genera
present in 2000 at the Fulton location. These values represent the maximum and
minimum for all location during both sampled years.
A graphical representation o f PAFF by phylum for each site and year is
presented in figure 3.1. Members o f the Chlorophyta and Chrysophyta dominated
genera richness for all three locations in 2000 and 2001. The phylum Cyanophyta was
also important in genera present on each she, consisting o f as much as 26.1% in the year
2001 at Van Wert.
The periphyton fraction (PF) genera richness was reported separately from the
PAFF because of difference in sampling methods and times, as well as overlap in
periphyton species present in both PAFF sieved samples and PF sampler scrapings.
The genera richness of the PF represents genera present on periphyton samplers during
August through November 2001. Samplers collected 20 different genera at the DARA
location (table 3.8) and 21 genera at the Fulton location (table 3.9). A graphical
representation of PF by phylum for each site and year is presented in figure 3.2. Similar
to the PAFF, the Chlorophyta and Chrysophyta dominated genera richness with fair
representation by the Phylum Cyanophyta. There are members of all phyla that are often 84
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. associated the enriched conditions. Examination of abundance changes is used to detect
the changes in the structure of the community, which occur when members of different
genera fluctuate within the wetland as they respond to the conditions created within the
wetland.
Abundance change over time
In the presentation of data and discussion below, numbers in parenthesis beside
genera names are Palmer’s ranking within the list of pollutant tolerant genera.
DARA
The DARA 2000 PAFF (table 3.10) expressed only one deviation from the
community that was expected based on seasonal community norms in freshwater
systems (see the algal primer in chapter 1). May dominant phyla were
Bacillariophyceae represented by genera Navicula (7) and Synedra (9) and Cyanophyta,
genera Oscillatoria (2). The presence of a dominant Cyanophyta genus in early spring,
hints at enriched nutrient conditions not normally encountered. There was a decrease in
genera during October and November; those present were found primarily in open water
areas. The “clear water phase” or the reduction in algal presence in a water body is
often associated with the summer months, when the number o f zooplankton feeding on
phytoplankton is large and overgrazing results. The WRSIS systems are fishless;
therefore other mechanisms must regulate zooplankton numbers, and this may have
caused the clear water phase to occur later in the season.
85
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. In general, there was no difference between the number of Palmer’s list
representatives when comparing inlet and outlet genera. The open water area samples
had more species compared to the inlet or outlet, possibly because the water is very still,
reducing redistribution, in the open area. The two months of March and July had the
highest percentage of Palmer’s pollutant tolerant genera. Biomass coverage by floating
algae was 30% or greater June, July and late October 2000. Phosphorus and potassium
were applied to fields within drainage area on June 22nd, and nitrogen was applied on
May 8th /12th (sample date was 9 May, 2000) and also as side dress July 12* (sample
date 24 July, 2000).
The DARA 2001 PAFF (table 3.11) sampling began in April. Throughout the
sampling season in 2001, there was heavy dominance by pennate diatoms. There was
the same trend of the presence of Cyanophyta as dominants beginning in the spring
sampling events, which continued into the fall where again a reduction occurred as in
the year 2000. Dominant genera for DARA in June and July 2001 included many high
Palmer’s rank pinnate diatoms, such as Navicula (7), Gomphonema (14) and Synedra
(9), as well as the Cyanobacteria, Oscillatoria (2). There was a general increase in
greens and decrease in diatoms as samples moved from the inlet to the outlet in the June
sample. The outlet dominant genera included the periphyton genera Oedogonium,
pinnate diatoms from the inlet and Cosmarium (53). Fertilizers were applied to adjacent
fields on May 4* and June 27*. It is also important to note that subirrigation, which
increases average flow through the wetland was started in early June. This corresponds
with high mat algae standing crop in June and July (data not shown) and an increase in
86
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Chlorophyta. The highest percentage of dominant genera with Palmer’s tolerant values
occurred in June, July and September.
Diatoms heavily dominated the periphyton at DARA in 2001 (table 3.12), both
in diversity and in abundance. Representation was fairly even between genera
represented on Palmer’s list and those with no Palmer’s tolerant listing August through
October. There were more dominant species with Palmer’s listings in November
including: Scenedesmus (4), Gomphonema (14), Oscillatoria (2), Navicula (7) and
Nitzschia (6).
Fulton
The Fulton 2000 PAFF (table 3.13) and 2001 PAFF (table 3.14) did not detect
any non-expected seasonal shifts. Community structure at the Fulton location 2000 and
2001 was very similar to general seasonal trends. Areas of deeper water had more
species than in the outlet. A seasonal drop-off in June was also seen both years at the
Fulton location. Production (data not shown) was highest in August 2001 for both
PAFF and Periphyton.
Approximately equal numbers of genera present as dominants during sampling
either had been assigned low Palmer list numbers or had no listing in the Palmer List of
the top 60 pollutant tolerant genera in 2000. Slightly higher numbers of Palmer’s listed
species over non-listed species occurred in 2001.
Diatoms heavily dominated the periphyton at Fulton (table 3.15) location during
sampling in 2001, both in diversity and in abundance. In August, The diatoms
Cocconeis (52) and Navicula (7) were dominants along with Oedogonium. In 87
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. September, the diatoms Cocconeis (52), Cyclotella (15) and the green Spirogyra (21)
were dominants. Cocconeis (52) remained as a very abundant dominant until
November. In November, dominant genera included Cocconeis (52), Oedogonium,
Amphora, Gomphonema (14), and Oscillatoria (2). Most of the dominant genera
present on the periphyton sampler during August through November had very low or no
Palmer tolerant list values.
Van Wert
The Van Wert 2000 PAFF (table 3.16) sampling began in May. The
Cyanophyta, Oscillatoria (2), was unseasonably common during spring through fall.
There was a decrease in genera present in August, only Microcystis (14) was found
present at the inlet. Samples from each location in the fell within the Van Wert wetland
were heavily dominated by Cyanophyta and by pollutant tolerant Palmer’s genera:
Microcystis (14), Oscillatoria (2), Scenedesmus (4), and Synedra (9).
The Van Wert 2001 PAFF (table 3.17) sampling began in May, and was again
represented by very few genera, with Dinobyron and Synedra (9) dominate. As in 2000
there was low algal presence in July and August samples. Microcystis (14) continued as
a dominant with other “blue-greens” such as Oscillatoria (2) and Spirulina (37) from
early summer into the fell. Overall the evidence for severely impaired waters at the Van
Wert location in 2001 exists and is indeed supported by the use of the modified
Nygaard’s Eutrophication Quotient.
88
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Algal abundance and Palmer’s Listed genera at the WRSIS wetlands
At the DARA location in 2000 and 2001 there were no large community shifts
in abundance from one dominant phyla to another. Genera representative of pennate
diatoms and Chlorophyta were important, and there were similar numbers of genera
with and without a Palmer’s pollutant tolerant listing. Fulton 2001 had an increase in
Chlorophyta abundance and importance after June, but as at DARA, there were similar
numbers of genera with and without a Palmer’s pollutant tolerant listing. The Van Wert
location had a very high number of high ranked Palmer’s pollutant tolerant genera
across both years.
Nygaard’s Eutrophication Quotient. (NEQ)
The results of NEQ calculated with genera are presented in table 3.18. At the
DARA location in 2000 and 2001 there were no large community shifts in abundance
from one dominant phylum to another. Genera representative of pennate diatoms and
Chlorophyta were important, and there were similar numbers of genera with and
without a Palmer’s pollutant tolerant listing. NEQ values of 2.5 for the year 2000 and a
value of 2 for 2001 suggest eutrophic conditions were present at the DARA location.
Fulton, 2000 abundance data (table 3.13) show an increase in Cyanophyta and
high ranked Palmer’s listed genera in July 2000 then resurgence in importance of
Chlorophyta with fewer Palmer listed genera in September. The NEQ number o f 4.67
in 2000 supports these observations and is evidence for polluted conditions during that
year. There was an increase, in Chlorophyta abundance after June 2001, but there were
similar numbers of genera with and without a Palmer’s pollutant tolerant listing. 89
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The Van Wert location had high NEQ in 2000 and in 2001, which support the
severity of phylum dominance shifts that occurred during those study periods. The
NEQ for year 2000 at Van Wert reflect trends and shifts shown in abundance tables
(table 3.16). There was an increase in abundance o f Palmer’s listed genera that are
pollutant tolerant in September 2000. This same shift to predominantly Palmer’s
tolerant genera was seen the next year and remained constant July through October
2001, then began to shift back toward fewer pollutant tolerant genera in November.
The highest NEQ was found in 2001 at this location at the value of 10.
Comparison of qualitative measures to total nitrogen and phosphorus levels in grab
samples
Levels of nitrogen believed to create eutrophic conditions are concentrations of
1.0 mg/L or above in freshwater systems (Pierzynski et al. 1994; Pratt 1995).
Additionally, the EPA reports nitrogen concentration in surface waters is often lower
than lmg/L (EPA 2002). Phosphorus limitations in freshwater systems are overcome
by concentrations of about 30 ppb (Pierzynski et al. 1994; Pratt 1995).
The DARA location (table 3.1) had concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus
that were above the “eutrophication” concentration. The algal species (table 3.11)
found on Palmer’s genera list (appendix A) that dominated the she in September and
November were dominated by low ( Spirogyra(21), Dinobyron (hi )) to moderately high
(Navicula (7), Nitzchia(6)) listed pollution tolerant genera. Periphyton communities
(table 3.11) were dominated by low to moderate tolerant genera including genera with
no listing ( Merismopedia, Gyrosigma) up to high-ranking Oscillatoria (2). 90
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The DARA Palmer’s ranked genera as monthly qualitative estimates seemed to
adequately assess moderate levels of nutrients within the system. Nygaard’s quotient
(table 3.18) calculated over the year estimated the DARA wetland to have a moderate
eutrophication level. The NEQ did not have adequate information to report monthly or
spot estimates, but the yearly results did agree with grab sample nutrient levels.
The Fulton location (table 3.1) also had concentrations of nitrogen and
phosphorus that were above the “eutrophication” concentration. Examination of
dominant genera and relative abundance against the genera present were observed to be
comprised of average to low Palmer pollutant tolerance (appendix a) representation.
Genera that dominated the site in October included Spirogyra (21) and Gleocystis (nl).
Spirogyra (21) was the dominant genera in November with commonly abundant genera
including: Navicula (7), Nitzchia(6), and Synedra (9). Periphyton communities (table
3.12) were dominated primarily by genera with no listing Cocconeis (nl), Amphora(nl)
and with common ranked genera in high Palmer tolerance ranges such as Oscillatoria
(2) and Navicula (7).
The Palmer’s listing of genera dominant on these sampling dates at the Fulton
site seem to underestimate nutrient conditions on the she. Inadequate information
exists to calculate Nygaard’s quotient (table 3.18) to report monthly or spot estimates,
but does agree with the findings based on yearly moderate eutrophication level.
The Van Wert location (table 3.1) had concentrations of nitrogen that were
below “eutrophication” concentration and phosphorus concentrations that were above
the “eutrophication” concentration. Examination of dominant genera and relative
abundance to the genera present averaged moderate to high Palmer pollutant tolerance 91
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. (appendix a) representation. Genera that dominated the she in October and November
included Microcystis (2 sp.)(19), Oscillatoria (2) and Synedra (9).
The Palmer’s listing of genera dominant on these sampling dates at the Van
Wert site seem to overestimate nutrient conditions on the site. It seems that nitrogen
may be limiting at this location. Despite limited nitrogen, the dominant genera are not
nitrogen fixing, therefore causes for community composition other than nitrogen
limitation must exist. Again, inadequate information exists to calculate Nygaard’s
quotient (table 3.18) to report monthly or spot estimates, but available information does
agree with the findings based on an overall year high eutrophication estimation.
N:P ratios alone have offered a way to assess trophic status of a water body, but
studies have had such varying results that this is a highly debated method with ample
evidence both supporting and dismissing it as a valid method (Reynolds 1999; Smith
and Bennett 1999). Authors have also suggested that species presence or absence is not
dependant on N:P ratios alone, and study should incorporate measures of the physical
and chemical environment such as turbidity or light availability (Reynolds 1998;
Shapiro 1990), carbon dioxide concentration (Reynolds 1998; Shapiro 1990) and
residence time of water within the system (Olding 2000) as they all can affect
competitive ability of the different groups. Other suggestions have been to look at
functional groups (Reynolds 1998) or coarsely taxonomicaUy based groupings (Rojo et
al. 2000) to estimate trophic status.
The focus of this research was to test a simple qualitative estimation of trophic
level for the WRSIS wetlands. The focus was to look at dominant species/low diversity
(Williams 1964) or shifts in community structure (Cairns 1974). The Palmer’s List of 92
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. genera that are indicative of more polluted areas for spot estimation of trophic status
and Nygaard’s eutrophication quotient modified for genera for yearly estimation, were
chosen as simple and easy to use tools. Palmer’s list and NEQ, in addition to
observation of abundance shifts of communities within the wetland, are used to
determine if qualitative estimation with genera at these sites would be valid.
The above attempts to relate results of monthly sampling genera list and
abundances with Palmer’s index listings and NEQ to concentrations of nitrogen and
phosphorus in the systems during that sampling period was successful at the DARA
location. For the Fulton and Van Wert locations, NEQ calculated values for the year did
agree with grab sample nutrient levels. The Palmer’s categorization of dominant genera
at the Van Wert and Fulton locations did not successfully relate to the nutrient levels in
the wetland. Unfortunately data collected for this study are insufficient for speculation
on cause and effect. Additional work should involve identification to species,
manipulative studies, and more complete chemical and physical environmental
conditions monitoring across the growing season. This additional data would give more
information to relate why genera listings would deviate so much from what would be
expected based on nutrient availability.
Beta diversity (Jaccard’s and Sorenson’s Indices)
Similarities both on the same site between the years 2000 and 2001 and for
combined years 2000 and 2001 between sites were examined using Jaccard’s and
Sorenson’s Indices (table 3.19). As the index value increases from zero to one, the
amount of similarity also increases between compared years or locations. The 93
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. similarities of genera richness between years 2000 and 2001 on the same site were
calculated to be between 34 % using Jaccard’s Index and 51 % using Sorenson’s Index
for DARA PAFF. Beta diversity index value evaluation for the Fulton location PAFF
was 48 % using Jaccard’s Index and 65 % with the Sorenson’s Index. Between year
similarities for the Van Wert location was recorded as 51 % using Jaccard’s Index for
PAFF and 65 % using Sorenson’s Index for PAFF. Evaluation of combined year
species composition compared over sites was around 50 % or higher for all location
comparisons. The Jaccard’s Index values were lowest between Fulton PAFF and Van
Wert PAFF at 50%. The most similar Jaccard’s Index value was 59% between DARA
PAFF and Fulton PAFF. Similar results were found with Sorenson’s Index.
Comparison of the periphyton communities between DARA and Fulton locations during
the sample period, 2001 (table 3.18) resulted in similarities of 41 % for Jaccard’s and 59
% for Sorenson’s. These similarities for both PAFF and periphyton fractions between
sites supports the idea that many algal species are common in most water bodies, and
that similar communities of algae will develop under similar conditions as found by
Patrick (1968).
Overall conclusions
The combination of examining general phyla abundance shifts, Palmer’s listing
of pollution tolerance and NEQ together require additional work in order to be
developed as a quick reference tool for trophic status of wetlands such as the WRSIS
wetlands. Yearly NEQ calculations seemed to estimate trophic status adequately at each
location. There was relatively good correlation between the Palmer’s Pollution 94
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. tolerance listed species and nutrient status at the DARA she. The Fulton location’s
Palmer’s pollutant tolerant listings underestimated nutrients concentration below
eutrophic levels based on samples collected in late fall. The Van Wert location
Palmer’s pollutant tolerant listing overestimated nutrients concentration above eutrophic
levels. Insufficient data were collected to determine causal relationships for this
discrepancy. This study does create a basis for additional work either for comparison of
multiple methods and theories to determine which is best for determination of trophic
status or as background data for further development of this methodology.
95
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. LIST OF REFRENCES
APHA, American Public Health Association, ed. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 18 ed. Washington, D. C.: American Public Health Association, 1992.
Cairns, Jr., J. "Indicator Species Vs. The Concept of Community Structure as an Index of Pollution." Water Resources Bulletin 10.2 (1974): 338-47.
Deal, R., A. Kantz, Jr. "Seasonal and Successional Trends in Algal Diversity and Population Dynamics in Constructed Wetlands." Olentangv River Wetland Research Park at the Ohio State University Annual Report 1995. Ed. W. J. Mhsch. Columbus, Oh: School of Natural Resources, 1996. 137-40.
EPA, Environmental Protection Agency -Office of Water-. 5.7 Nitrates. 2002. Online guide. Available: http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/monhoring/volunteer/stream/vms57.html. 4/10 2002.
Hortobagyi, T. "Phytoplankton Organisms Form Three Reservoirs on the Jamuna River, India." Studia Biologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 8 (1969).
Marcus, M. D. "Periphytic Community Response to Chronic Nutrient Enrichment by a Reservoir Discharge." Ecology 61.2 (1980): 387-99.
Moss, B. "The Influence of Environmental Factors on the Distribution of Freshwater Algae: An Experimental Study." Journal of Ecology 61 (1973): 193-211.
Nygaard, G. "Hydrobiological Studies on Some Danish Ponds and Lakes." Pet Kongelige danske videnskabemes selskab 7 (1949): 1-293.
Olding, D. D. "Algal Communities as a Biological Indicator of Stormwater Management Pond Performance and Function.” Water Quality Resources Journal Canada 35 3(2000): 489-503.
Palmer, C. M. Algae in Water Supplies. Public Health Service Publication #657 ed. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1959.
96
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. —. "A Composite Rating of Algae Toleration Organic Pollution." Journal of. Phvcology 5 (1969): 78-82.
Patrick, R. "The Structure of Diatom Communities in Similar Ecological Conditions." The American Naturalist 102 (1968): 173-83.
—. and D. Strawbridge. "Variation in the Structure of Natural Diatom Communities." The American Naturalist XVCII (1963): 51-57.
— M. N. Hohn, and J.H. Wallace. "A New Method for Determining the Pattern of the Diatom Flora." Notulae Naturae of the Academy o f Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 29 0954): 1-12.
Pierzynski, G. M., J. T. Sims, and G. F. Vance. Soils and Environmental Quality. Boca, Raton, FI.: Lewis, 1994.
Pratt, C. R. Ecology. Springhouse, PA.: Springhouse Corporation, 1995.
Prescott, G. W. How to Know the Freshwater Algae. 3rd ed. Boston, Massachusetts: Mc-Graw-Hill, 1978.
Reynolds, C. S. "Non-Determinism to Probability, or N:P in the Community Ecology of Phytoplankton." Archiv fur Hvdrobiologie 146.1 (1999): 23-35.
—. "What Factors Influence the Species Composition of Phytoplankton in Lakes of Different Trophic Status." Hvdrobiologia 369/370 (1998): 11-26.
—. G. H. M. Jaworski, J. V. Roscoe, D. P. Hewitt and D.G. George. "Responses of the Phytoplankton to a Deliberate Attempt to Raise the Trophic Status Os an Acidic Oligiotrophic Mountain Lake." Hvdrobiologia 369/370 (1998): 127-31.
Rojo, C. E. Ortega-Mayagohia and M. Alvarez-Cobelas. "Lack of Pattern among Phytoplankton Assemblages. Or, What Does the Exception to the Rule Mean?" Hvdrobiologia 424 (2000): 133-39.
Shapiro, J. "Current Beliefs Regarding Dominance by Blue-Greens: The Case for the Importance of Co2 and Ph." Verh. Intemat. Verein. Limnol 24 (1990): 38-54.
Smith, V. H., S. J. Bennett. "Nitrogen: Phosphorus Supply Ratios and Phytoplankton Community Structure in Lakes." Archiv fur Hvdrobiologie 146 (1999): 37-53.
Spijkerman, e. and R. F. M. Coesel. "Ecophysiological Characteristics of Two Pianktonic Desmid Species Originating from Trophically Different Lakes." Hvdrobiologia 369/370 (19981: 109-16.
97
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Vymazal, J. Algae and Elemental Cycling in Wetlands. Boca Raton, FI: Lewis, 1995.
Whitford, L.A and G. J. Schumacher. A Manual of Freshwater Algae. Raleigh, N. C., 1984.
Williams, L. G. "Possible Relationships between Plankton-Diatom Species Numbers and Water-Quality Estimates." Ecology 45.4 (1964): 809-23.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Algal representation by Phyla for WRSIS wetlands 2000- 2001
100%
80% □ Unknown ■ Pyrrhophyta 60% □ Euglenophyta 40% ■ Cyanophyta H Chrysophyta 20% ■ Chlorophyta 0%^ DARA DARA Fulton Fulton Van Van 2000 2001 2000 2001 Wert Wert 2000 2001 Site and year
Figure 3.1 Plankton and mat forming algae presented as phylum representation for the year.
99
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Periphyton community as percent representation by phylum
100% 80% □ Euglenophyta 60% ■ Cyanophyta 40% □ Chrysophyta 20% □ Chlorophyta 0% DARA2001 Fulton 2001 Site and year
Figure 3.2 Periphyton presented as phylum representation for August through November 2001.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. A. DARA Sept. 2001 Nov.2001 avg. TN (mg/L) 1.75 1.56 avg. TP (mg/L) 0.57 0.37 avg.N:avg.P (mg/L) 3.0:1 4.2:1
B. Fulton Oct. 2001 Nov.2001 avg. TN (mg/L) 11.7 13.* avg. TP (mg/L) 0.24 0.1 avg.N:avg.P (mg/L) 48.8:1 134.4:1
C. Van Wert Oct. 2001 Nov.2001 avg. TN (mg/L) 0.77 0.76 avg. TP (mg/L) 0.11 0.05 avg.N:avg.P (mg/L) 7.0:1 15.2:1
Table 3.1 Total nitrogen and total phosphorus values, averaged over inlet and outlet grab samples. Part A presents DARA values for September and November 2001. Part B presents Fulton values for October and November 2001. Part C presents Van Wert values for October and November 2001.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Navicula 3innularia Surirella Amphora Cymbella Cosmarium Gyrosigma Stigeoclonium Oedogonium Scenedesmus | Gleocystis Tetraspora Closterium | Zygnema Meridion Synedra Anomoeoneis 1Green (fita) 1 1 1Pandorina 3 rragillaria 2 4 ^aviculaceae :ragllariaceae Somphonemaceae 1Gomphonema Surirellaceae 1 Zygnemataceae 2spirogyra FamilyChaetophoraceaeOedogoniaceaeScenedesmaceaeCladophoraceae 1 Gloeocystaceae 1 Tetrasporaceae 1 Genus V/olvocaceae 1Rhizoclonium Desmidiaceae 1 1 1 SCymbellaceae 2 2 3ennales fetrasporales VolvocalesZygnematales 2 1 Chlorococcales Siphonocladales 1 Order 7 Chaetophorales Chlorophyceae subphylum/class 13 12 Oedogoniales Chrysophyta 1 Badllariophyceae 1 Phylum 1Chlorophyta 1 2 3ARA2000 Table 3.2 Algal Plankton and Floating Fractions (PAFF) genera richness presented as phylum all breakdown toof genus phylum presented as richness genera (PAFF) Fractions Floating and Plankton 3.2 Algal Table genera found in monthly samples passed through a 64-micron mesh, March through November 2000 at the DARA 2000 at theWRSIS DARA November through March mesh, a 64-micron through passed samples monthly in genera found wetland. Continued.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. without prohibited reproduction Further owner. copyright the of permission with Reproduced
Table 3.2 (continued), _Q s 2 C'- Q {*• CM ** <0 o E A N Z 7 to 1 £ (0 s 0 Cyanophyta o o s o a o 0 CO O Anabaena I N Osdllatoriales Osdllatoriaceae Oscillatoria I ■w T" LU T I Ui £ 'S. 0 3 O) 0 c 0 3 a c 0 o 0 0 0 a 0 c (0 0 lEuglenophyta 3 N Phacus 0 m a i 1 Mavicula Mitzschia Cocconeis Cyclotella Achnanthes Gomphonema Synedra Tetraspora Closterium Cosmarium Staurastrum Sirogonium Spirogyra Genus Rhizoclonium 0 1 1 1 Fragillaria 1Gleocystis 1 1Oedogonium 1Scenedesmus 1 1 :ragilariaceae ^aviculaceae 2 Mitzschiaceae^aviculaceae:ragilariaceae 1 1 3innularia CymbellaceaeAchnanthaceae 1Amphora Achnanthaceae 1 Gomphonemaceae 1 Coscinodiscaceae Oedogoniaceae Scenedesmaceae Synuraceae 1ilallomonas DesmidiaceaeZygnemataceae 3 2 Tetrasporaceae 1 1 s 2 2 3inobryaceae 1 Dinobyron Oedogoniales Chlorococcales Zygnematales Tetrasporales 2 Gloeocystaceae Siphonocladales 1Cladophoraceae 2 Centrales 1 3adllariophyceae Chlorophyceae S subphylum/clss Order Family Chrysophyceae 1Ochromomadales 1 13 Pennales 10 Phylum 1Chlorophyta 2 Chrysophyta 2 DARA2001 Table 3.3 Algal PAFF Genera Richness presented as phylum to genus breakdown of all genera found in monthly samples passed passed samples monthly in genera found all breakdown of to genus as phylum presented Richness Genera PAFF 3.3 Algal Table through a 64-micron mesh, April, July through September, November 2001 wetland. 2001 atDARA WRSIS the November through September, July April, through mesh, a 64-micron Continued.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Merismopedia Aphanocapsa (Anacystis) Microcystis Spirulina Ceratium c.f.Dermacarpa 3 Chroococcaceae Ceratiaceae 1 1 Osdllatoriaceae 2 Oscillatoria Chroococcales J Osdllatoriales 2 i 5 PyrrhophytaUnknown 1 Dinophyceae 1Dinocapsales 1 Cyanophyta 1 na 3 Table 3.3 (continued), 3.3 Table
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3ediastrum :ragillaria 3andorina Eudorina Closterium Cosmarium Staurastrum Spirogyra Zygnema Achnanthes Synedra Cocconeis Amphora Cosdnodiscus Genus Scenedesmus Bulbochateae Gleocystis Tetraspora Cyclotella |Oedogonium 1 1 jreen?3 1Rhizoclonium 1 3 2 Fragilariaceae 2 Tetrasporaceaet/olvocaceae 1 Cymbellaceae 1 1Zygnemataceae 2 1 Desmidiaceae 1Cladophoraceae 1Coscinodiscaceae 2 2 -tydrodictyaceae 2 Gloeocystaceae Chlorococcales Zygnematales OedogonialesSiphonocladales 1Oedogoniaceae Volvocales 1 Pennales eAchnanthaceae 2 Tetrasporales 6 2 Centrales 1 Chlorophyceae 1 Badllariophyceae 15 Scenedesmaceae 1 12 3hylum 3ubphylum/clss Order -amily FULTON2000 1 Chlorophyta 2 Chrysophyta Table 3.4 Algal PAFF genera richness presented as phylum to genus breakdown of all genera found in monthly samples passed samples monthly in genera found ofall tobreakdown genus phylum as presented genera richness PAFF 3.4 Algal Table through a 64-micron mesh, May through September 2000 at the Fulton WRSIS wetland. wetland. at the2000 WRSIS throughFulton September May mesh, through 64-micron a Continued.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. without prohibited reproduction Further owner. copyright the of permission with Reproduced
Table 3.4 (continued), [S3 [S3 £ E c o m o o E u a> n « o E a o c o E CO 2 t f (D > a ex E 2 a O > 3 SO. •c 8 a u « co « 3 £ $ £ a a co c o a 5 3 o o a ® CO o s o a CO« < a N o E 0) c o •c 'C 1 3 1 3 2 a a a u e CO« a 10 17 J3 c ra 107 A 10 UL ■p £ ® ® a E CO E «o u C 3 JU. t f £ S. CO O) ® c a o o CO0 O) » co CJ! O O) o c co 3 ® C Q. Q o o E o n C C i Mavicula 3innularia Cocconeis Staurastrum Spirogyra Achnanthes Synedra Genus Oocystis Pediastrum Hydrodictyon Scenedesmus Rhizoclonium Closterium Cosmarium 1 Suriella 1 1 ^itzschia 1 1Gomphonema 1Oedogonium 1 1Amphora 3 Syrosigma 1Gleocystis 1 1 2 2 :ragillaria 3 2 Mitzschiaceae 4avicutaceae Surirellaceae Gomphonemaceae Oedogoniaceae Hydrodictyaceae Scenedesmaceae Cladophoraceae Zygnemataceae Achnanthaceae Cymbellaceae Fragilariaceae Family Oocystaceae 1 7 3 3ennales OedogonialesChlorococcales 1 Tetrasporales 1 Gloeocystaceae Zygnematales 2Desmidiaceae Siphonocladales 1 subphylum/clss Order 11 11 Chrysophyta 1 3adllariophyceae FULTON2001 Phylum 1Chlorophyta 1Chlorophyceae 5 2 Table 3.5 Algal PAFF genera richness presented as phylum to genus breakdown of all genera found in monthly samples passed passed samples monthly in genera found ofall tobreakdown genus phylum as presented genera richness PAFF 3.5 Algal Table through a 64-micron mesh, April through August, October through November 2001 Continued. wetland. the Fulton a 2001 WRSIS OctoberNovember through August, through April mesh, through64-micron a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. without prohibited reproduction Further owner. copyright the of permission with Reproduced
Table 3.5 (continued), < £ ■C c c (D (0 0) o a a c o Cyanophyta throococcales bhroococcaceae o n CN 3 (2 sp.micro) w a Microcystis a. I Microcystis f. I Oscillatoriales Osdllatoriaceae Oscillatoria I CL € £ , l f ■5. •e T5 > o a CO iDinophyceae iDinokontae |Peridiniaceae a> C 3 E Unknown c.f. dermacarpa | 109 'Javicula 3innularia -ragilaria Gyrosigma Synedra Stauroneis Pediastrum Oedogonium Gleocystis Cosmarium Staurastrum Green (fila) Amphora Cymbella 1Cyclotella 1 4 l|Scenedesmus 2 2 Bulbochaete 2 4aviculaceae Mitzschiaceae 1 Mitzschia :ragilariaceae HydrodictyaceaeScenedesmaceae 1 Desmidiaceae 3 Closterium Oedogoniaceae Gloeocystaceae 1 Cymbellaceae 1Coscinodiscaceae 1 1 4 2 3ennales Tetrasporales Centrales Oedogoniales Zygnematales 1 Chlorococcales 2 4 subphylum/clssChlorophyceae Order Family Genus 9 Chrysophyta 1 3adllariophyceae Chlorophyta 1 VAN WERT2000VAN Phylum 1 2 Table 3.6 Algal PAFF genera richness presented as phylum to genus breakdown of all genera found in monthly samples passed passed samples monthly in genera found all of breakdown to genus phylum as presented genera richness PAFF 3.6 Algal Table through a 64-micron mesh, May through September 2000 at the Van Wert WRSIS wetland. wetland. 2000 at theWert through Van WRSIS May September mesh, through64-micron a Continued.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Dactylococcopsis Merismopedia Microcystis a. Microcystis f. Oscillatoria Spirulina Ceratium 1 c.f. pseudophaerocystis [ 1Euglena 1 1Raphidiopsis 3eridiniaceae 1 3eridinium Euglenaceae Chroococcaceae 3(2sp) 1 1 1Hammatoidaceae 2 Ceratiaceae Nostocales Chroococcales Oscillatoriales 1Oscillatoriaceae 2 1Dinophyceae Dinophyceae 1 2 3 ^yrrhophyta Unknown 1 c.f. Geminella Euglenophyta 1 na 1Euglenales Cyanophyta 1 na 3 S 3 4 6 Table 3.6 (continued), Table
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Dinobryon Microcystis a. Microcystis Eudorina 5innularia Merismopedia Microcystis f. Microcystis Mavicula 3aphidiopsis Oedogonium Amphora Qyrosigma Spirulina Cosmarium Synedra 1 1 4itzschia 1 1 1 Anabaena 1Dictyospharium 1Pediastrum 1 2 Osdllatoria 2 :ragillaria 2<2sp.) Desmidiaceae :ragilariaceae Mitzschiaceae Dinobyraceae 4ostacaceae -lammatoideaceae Naviculaceae 3 Osdllatoriaceae Cymbellaceae 1 Hydrodictyaceae Oedogoniaceae 1 1y/olvocaceae 1 1 1 1 4 2 Vostocales 3ennales Chroococcales 1Chroococcaceae Osdllatoriales Volvocales Zygnematales Ochromomadales Oedogoniales Chlorococcales 2Dictyosphaeriaceae 1 1 a 3adllariophyceae na Chrysophyceae na 101 6 7 5 VAN WERT 2C VAN Chlorophyta 1Chlorophyceae 5 3 Cyanophyta 1 2 Chrysophyta 2 Continued. through a 64-micron mesh, May, July through August, October through November 2001 wetland. 2001 at the throughthrough OctoberVan Wert November August, WRSIS July May, through mesh, a 64-micron Table 3.7 Algal PAFF genera richness presented as phylum to genus breakdown of all genera found in monthly samples passed passed samples monthly in genera found all oftobreakdown genus phylum as presented genera richness PAFF 3.7 Table Algal K>
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. without prohibited reproduction Further owner. copyright the of permission with Reproduced
Table 3.7 (continued),
■if eu UJ Ui 3 § o (0 c 10 3 a a> c CO o a re a> Euglenales 3 a a> c <0 N
r* Phacus I (L ■E £ ■st > o re iDinophyceae Dinocapsales Ceratiaceae Ceratium 1 io 3 c c o c.f.Dermacarpa | 113 Wzschia Mavicula :ragillaria Caloneis Gyrosigma Spirulina Genus Gomphonema Amphora Synedra Oedogonium Rhizoclonium iPinnularia 1 1Scenedesmus 1Cyclotella 1 1 1Gleocystis 1Closterium 4 4itzschiaceae 1 Maviculaceae -amily Fragilariaceae 2 Gomphonemaceae Coscinodiscaceae Oedogoniaceae Gloeocystaceae 1 1 Mostocales 1 Nostacaceae 1 Anabaena Osdllatoriales 1Osdllatoriaceae 2 Osdllatoria Order Zygnematales 1Desmidiaceae Oedogoniales SiphonocladalesTetrasporales 1Cladophoraceae 1 1 Eugtenales 1 Euglenaceae 1 Euglena 3Chroococcales Chroococcaceae 1 1tAerismopedia 5Chlorococcales 1Scenedesmaceae 2 Centrales 1 3acillariophyceae subphylum/clss Chlorophyceae 1 1 1 4 5 10 3ennales 5Cymbellaceae Euglenophyta 1 na Phylum ’ERIPHYTON 1ADA 3 Cyanophyta 1 na 4 1Chlorophyta Table 3.8 Algal genera richness presented as phylum to genus breakdown of periphyton samples collected from periphyton periphyton from collected samples periphyton of to breakdown genus phylum as presented genera richness 3.8 Algal Table wetland. at 2001, November WRSIS throughthe DARA August samplers 2 Chrysophyta 2001
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Genus Scenedesmus Oedogonium Rhizoclonium Gleocystis Staurastrum Cyclotella Microcystis a. f. Microcystis Oscillatoria Spirulina Cocconeis Rhoicosphenia Amphora Navicula 1Spirogyra 1 1Nitzschia 1Suriella 1Aphanochaete 1 1 1 1Fragillaria 1Gomphonema 1 2 Cosmarium 2 2 1(2sp) Maviculaceae Yitzschiaceae 3ymbellaceae;ragilariaceae 1 Zygnemataceae Coscinodlscaceae Achnanthaceae 2 Gomphonemaceae Surirellaceae Aphanochaetaceae Cladophoraceae Family 1 1Scenedesmaceae 1 Pennales 7 Tetrasporales 1 GloeocystaceaeZygnematales 2 Desmidiaceae Centrales 1 Oscillatoriales 1 Oscillatoriaceae Chlorococcales Siphonocladales Oedogoniales 1Oedogoniaceae 2 Badllariophyceae subphylum/clss Order 1 1Chlorophyceae 6Chaetophorales S 4 S Phylum Chlorophyta HJLTON 1 3 Cyanophyta 1 na 2 Chroococcales 1Chroococcaceae 2 Chrysophyta 2001 PERIPHYTON Table 3.9 Algal genera richness presented as phylum to genus breakdown of periphyton samples collected from periphyton periphyton from collected samples periphyton of to breakdown genus as phylum presented richness genera 3.9 Algal Table wetland. at 2001, throughthe Fulton November WRSIS August samplers V)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. | j 00 Nov- R R C 1 Oct-00 Sep-00 ■/A/R -/R/- R -ICI- -mi- -/A/- -/R/- C -/!/- -/R/- -/R/R Aug-00 A/-/A A/-/R N-t- R/A/R -/R/- -/R/- Jul-00 -/A//-/- R -IRI- MR/C R -/R/- -/R/- -/R/- -l-IR R /-/- R -/-/A -/-/R R /-/- 1 C/A/A mi- ■n i- ■n A/A/A -IRI- R/-/-/-/- R m- -/R/-/-/- R l/R/- R/-/- A/A/A \l\l- Navicula Green (fila) TetrasporaPandorina R/-/R Closterium /-/- k Cosmarium Maviculaceae Fragilariaceae Fragillaria Naviculaceae fcnomoeoneis/-/- R Fragilariaceae Meridion Naviculaceae Pinnularia Cymbellaceae Cymbella Naviculaceae Gyrosigma/-/- R l/R/- QomphonemaceaeGomphonema -/i/- ■/A/R fetrasporaceae Desmidiaceae Desmidiaceae Cladophoraceae Rhizoclonium 3ennales 3ennales 3ennales Cymbellaceae Amphora R/-/-/-/- R l/C/R -/R/- 3ennales Pennales Fragilariaceae Synedra OrderChaetophoralesOedogoniales Chaetophoraceae Stigeoclonium Oedogoniaceae Family Oedogonium GenusZygnematales Mar-00 May-00 Jun-00 Zygnemataceae Zygnema -/C/- /I/- VolvocalesZygnematales Volvocaceae Bacillariophyceae Pennales Bacillariophyceae Pennales Bacillariophyceae Bacillariophyceae 3ennales Bacillariophyceae 3ennales Bacillariophyceae Bacillariophyceae 3ennales Bacillariophyceae Bacillariophyceae Chlorophyceae Chlorophyceae Zygnematales Zygnemataceae Spirogyra Chlorophyceae Chlorococcales Scenedesmaceae Scenedesmus -/R/- Chlorophyceae Zygnematales subphylum/class Chlorophyceae Tetrasporales Gloeocystaceae Gleocystis -/R/l Chlorophyceae SARA 2000 SARA Chrysophyta Chrysophyta Chrysophyta Chrysophyta Chrysophyta Chrysophyta Bacillariophyceae Chrysophyta Chrysophyta Chlorophyta Chlorophyta Chrysophyta Phylum Chrysophyta Table 3.10 Abundances of genera from monthly samples, passed through a 64 micro sieve, 2000 at November through March sieve, through a 64 micro passed samples, monthly genera offrom 3.10 Abundances Table wetland. WRSIS DARA the table. of base at the is Legend continued, Chlorophyta Chlorophyta ChlorophytaChlorophyta Chlorophyceae Chlorophyceae Chlorophyta Chlorophyta Chlorophyceae Tetrasporales Chlorophyta Chlorophyceae Siphonocladales ChlorophytaChlorophyta Chlorophyceae Chlorophyta
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. c ■IRI- ■IRI- ■/R/- I R /-/- l-l- R Rl-I- M-l- R R 3hacus Anabaena Diatom? -/R/- Nostocaceae Euglenaceae Oscillatoriaceae Oscillatoria -/R/- Euglenales 3ased on Deal and Krantz 1996 3ennales 3iatom?2 Inlet/Open Water/Outlet (single letter) =bulk sample 1-5=Rare(R) 6-10=lnfrequent(C) >20=Abundant (I) (A); averaged 11-20=Common areas.overthree 484mm2 Oscillatoriales Pennales Pennales Surirellaceae Surirella .egend: na Nostocales Table 3.10 (continued), Table Euglenophyta naEuglenophyta na Euglenales Euglenaceae Euglena Cvanophyta na ChrysophytaCyanophyta 3acillariophyceae Chrysophyta Bacillariophyceae Chrysophyta Bacillariophyceae
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 | | | I | /- R1- C/- A/R ■n R/R R ■IR Rl- Nov-01 Rl- ■IR R/R ■IR ■IR ■IR Sept-01 A/C ■IR ■1C R1- ■IR ■IR ■IR Aug-01 ■1C -/I R /- R ■m R/l /- R ■IR /- C A/I C/CR/R A/A R/l/- R R /- R /- C /- R R/R C /- C C/A •/A A/A R/- I/- R/l C/I ■/A ■IR ■1C ■1C ■IR -/I ■1C ■IR ■IR -/R ■IR Apr-01 Jun-01 Jul-01 N- Navicula NitzschiaPinnularia /- C Dinobyron Gleocystis Gyrosigma Synedra -/A C/R Achnanthes Amphora Cocconeis Oedogonium Sirogonium Spirogyra Cyclotella Tetraspora Closterium :ragilariaceae :ragillaria Naviculaceae Nitzschiaceae Fragilariaceae Gomphonemaceae Gomphonema Synuraceae Mallomonas Achnanthaceae Scenedesmaceae Scenedesmus Family Genus 3ennales 3ennales Ochromomadales Ochromomadales Dinobryaceae Siphonocladales Cladophoraceae Rhizoclonium Bacillariophyceae PennalesBacillariophyceae PennalesBacillariophyceae PennalesBacillariophyceae PennalesBacillariophyceae Pennales Naviculaceae Naviculaceae Bacillariophyceae Bacillariophyceae 3ennales Chrvsophyceae Bacillariophyceae Bacillariophyceae 3ennalesBacillariophyceae 3ennales Cymbellaceae Achnanthaceae Chrysophyceae Bacillariophyceae Centrales Coscinodiscaceae Chlorophyceae Oedogoniales Oedogoniaceae Chlorophyceae Chlorococcales Chlorophyceae Tetrasporales Gloeocystaceae subphylum/class Order ChlorophyceaeChlorophyceae Zygnematales Zygnematales Zygnemataceae Zygnemataceae Chlorophyceae Zygnematales Desmidiaceae Staurastrum R/- ChlorophyceaeChlorophyceae TetrasporalesChlorophyceae Zygnematales Zygnematales Tetrasporaceae Desmidiaceae Desmidiaceae Cosmarium 3hylum Chrysophyta Chrysophyta Chrysophyta Chrysophyta Chrysophyta Chrysophyta Chrysophyta Chrysophyta Chrysophyta and through June September April, through sieve, a 64 passed micro samples, monthly genera offrom 3.11 Abundances Table DARA 2001 DARA Chlorophyta Chrysophyta Chrysophyta Chrysophyta November, 2001 at DARA WRS1S wetland. wetland. the oftable. base at the is 2001 November, at Legend DARA WRS1S continued, Chlorophyta Chlorophyta Chlorophyta ChlorophyceaeChlorophyta Chlorophyta Chrysophyta Chlorophyta Chlorophyta Chlorophyta Chlorophyta
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I A/- A/A ■IR /- R/l R Rl- RIC ■IR ■IR ■IR R/R -/C C/R (single sample =bulk letter) Oscillatoria Oscillatoriaceae Chroococcaceae aer. Microcystis 1-5=Rare (R) 6-10=lnfrequent (I) 11-20=Common >20=Abundant(C) (A); averaged overthree484mm2 areas. Dinocapsales Ceratiaceae Ceratium Oscillatoriales Oscillatoriaceae Spirulina Based on Deal 1996.and Krantz Oscillatoriales Chroococcales ChroococcalesChroococcales Chroococcaceae Chroococcaceae Aphanocapsa Merismopedia Met/Open Water/Outlet .egend: na na yroht Dinophyceae Pyrrhophyta ynpyana Cyanophyta Cyanophyta ynpyana Cyanophyta ynpyana Cyanophyta Cyanophyta Table 3.11 (continued), 3.11 Table
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. A C A R A R c RC R C RR * Aug-01 Sept-01 Oct.-O1 Nov.01 r R RARAAA r | I -ragillaria 3innularia tflerismopedia R A A GomphonemaRCaloneis R A Anabaena Osdllatoria k C R A Spirulina Scenedesmus R GleocystisClosterium R Genus OedogoniumRhizoclonium R |R Naviculaceae Naviculaceae Gyrosigma Naviculaceae 2sp Navicula Nitzschiaceae Nitzschia C C Naviculaceae Fragilariaceae Fragilariaceae Synedra Oscillatoriaceae Cymbellaceae Amphora Euglenales Euglenaceae Euglena R 3ennales 3ennales Gomphonemaceae 3ennales 3ennales Nostocales Nostacaceae 3ennales 3ennales 3ennales 3ennales Oscillatoriales Oscillatoriaceae Centrales Cosdnodiscaceae 3yclotella Chroococcales Chroococcaceae Order Family Based Based on Deal and1996. Krantz (single sample =bulk letter) scraping sample from periphyton slide na Oscillatoriales subphylum/class Bacillariophyceae Bacillariophyceae Bacillariophyceae Bacillariophyceae Bacillariophyceae .egend: 1-5=Rare(R) 6-10=lnfrequent (I) 11-20=Common (C) >20=Abundant(A); averaged overthree 484mm2 areas. Euglenophyta na DARA ’ERIPHYTON 2001 WRSIS wetland. WRSIS 3hylum Table 3.12 Abundances of genera collected on periphyton sampler slides August through November 2001 2001 at the DARA November August through slides sampler on periphyton collected genera of 3.12 Abundances Table Cyanophyta Cyanophyta na Chrysophyta BacillariophyceaeChrysophyta 3ennales Chrysophyta Bacillariophyceae Chrysophyta Chrysophyta Chrysophyta Chrysophyta Bacillariophyceae Cyanophyta na Cyanophyta na Chrysophyta Chrysophyta Bacillariophyceae Chlorophyta Chlorophyceae Zygnematales Desmidiaceae Chrysophyta Bacillariophyceae Chlorophyta Chlorophyceae Tetrasporales Gloeocystaceae Chlorophyta Chlorophyceae Chlorococcales Scenedesmaceae Chlorophyta ChlorophyceaeChlorophyta Chlorophyceae Oedogoniales Siphonocladales Oedogoniaceae Cladophoraceae to o
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I
-NR -IR/- -NR -NR -IRIC -/R/R R/R/A R/RIR A/R/A Sep-00 /-/- R1-1- Rl-I- R 1-1- R -NR -IRI- -IRI- -NR -/A/- R/C /- R/C /-/-) (R
(C/R/R) (R/-/R)
R1-1- -NR NR/-) (-/R/-) (-IRI-) Jul-00 Aug-00 -/I/- (-/l/R) -/I/- -IR/- NR/-) -IR/- -IRI- -IRIRI -/C/R(R/R/R)/-/- R -/C/R -/C/R (C/C/R) R/A/A (C/A/A) R/A/A -/C/- A/-I- -/-/I -NA -NA -t-fR -NR -NR -/Am -NR -/-/R (R/R/-) May-00 Jun-00 Synedra A/-/R Achnanthes Cosdnodiscus Cocconeis Staurastrum Amphora Spirogyra Cyclotella Zygnema Cosmarium Closterium Pediastrum Genus Rhizoclonium -/-/R Gleocystis TetrasporaEudorina -/-/R Achnanthaceae Desmidiaceae Cymbellaceae t/olvocaceae 3andorina Hydrodictyaceae Family Volvocaceae Oedogoniaceae Bulbochateae Gloeocystaceae Oedogoniaceae Oedogonium Centrales Cosdnodiscaceae y/olvocales Pennales Achnanthaceae Tetrasporales Chlorococcales Scenedesmaceae Scenedesmus Siphonocladales Cladophoraceae Order bacillariophyceae IPennales Gomphonemaceae Gomphonema bacillariophyceaeIPennales Fragilariaceae Jadllariophyceae IPennales badllariophyceae IPennales Fragilariaceae =ragillaria Bacillariophyceae Chlorophyceae Chrysophyta Chrysophyta through May September collected sieve, 64 through a micro passed samples, monthly from of genera 3.13 Abundances Table wetland. 2000 at WRSIS Fulton the table. ofatbase is the Legend continued, Chlorophyta ireen?3 :ULTON ’hylum subphylum Chrysophyta Chrysophyta Chrysophyta Chrysophyta iBadllariophyceae Centrales Chrysophyta IBacillariophyceae Coscinodiscaceae Chrysophyta Chrysophyta IBacillariophyceae iPennales Chlorophyta ChlorophyceaeChrysophyta Zygnematales Zygnemataceae Chlorophyta ChlorophyceaeChlorophyta ChlorophyceaeChlorophyta Zygnematales Chlorophyceae besmidiaceae Zygnematales Zygnematales Zygnemataceae Chlorophyta Chlorophyceae Zygnematales Desmidiaceae Chlorophyta Chlorophyceae Chlorophyta ChlorophyceaeChlorophyta Chlorophyceae Tetrasporales y/olvocales Tetrasporaceae Chlorophyta Chlorophyceae Chlorophyta ChlorophyceaeChlorophyta Chlorophyceae Oedogoniales Oedogoniales Chlorophyta Chlorophyceae Chlorophyta Chlorophyta Chlorophyceae Chlorococcales 2000
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 I -HR -HR R/R/R R /-/- R -/R /- -/R RIRI- (-/R/C) R/-/I -/I/- -IRI- -IR l- -HR (C /-/-) (C HR/-) (R/R/-) (RIR t-) -l-IR R/A/A (A/R/C) R/A/A l/R/- __ -/-/I R/-/C -HR-IRI-
Jngbya Euglena c.f.Dermocarpa C-/I/R) Microcystis Anabaena Aphanizomenon Surirella Pinnularia Chroococcaceae Nostocaceae Nostocaceae OscillatoriaceaeOscillatoriaceae Oscillatoria Spirulina Chroococcaceae Merismopedia Oscillatoriales Surirellaceae Nostocales >20=Abundant (A); averaged>20=Abundant (A); overthree samples Based on Deal ,1996.and Krantz Pennales 1-5=Rare(R) 6-10=lnfrequent (I) 11-20=Common (C) Chroococcales Chroococcales Ilnlet/Open Water/OutletIlnlet/Open (single sampleletter) =bulk .egend: na Oscillatoriales Bacillariophyceae Pennales Naviculaceae Gyrosigma Bacillariophyceae Bacillariophyceae IPennalesBacillariophyceae IPennales Naviculaceae Naviculaceae iNavicula Euglenophyta na Euglenales Euglenaceae Euglenophyta na Euglenales Euglenaceae 3hacus Cyanophyta na Oscillatoriales Cyanophyta }luegreen Cyanophyta na Cyanophyta naCyanophyta naCyanophyta Mostocales Oscillatoriales Cyanophyta na Cyanophyta na Chrysophyta Chrysophyta Chrysophyta Chrysophyta Table 3.13 3.13 (continued), Table
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I I I | ■IR R/R ■IR ■IR ■IR R/- C/C ■IR ■IR INov-011 C/C R/R R/R | Rl- R/R ■IR A/- ■IR A/A R/R R/- Oct.01 ■IR ■IR -/A A/C A/A ■IR ■IR -/A ■IR ■IR ■IR IR R/lR/R -/A R/- R/- ■IR ■IR R/- R/- C/I R IR ■IR -/A A/I C/R ■1C R/R A/- ll/R R/C 1 M- ■IR R/A -/A May-01 Jun-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 A/A R/- -/A ■IR R l- A/- A/R Navicula Nitzschia Dlosterium Suriella Amphora R/R Pinnularia Achnanthes Spirogyra Staurastrum -/R Gyrosigma Cosmarium Pediastrum Oocystis R/- Genus Apr-01 Oedogonium Naviculaceae Nitzschiaceae Naviculaceae Desmidiaceae Desmidiaceae ^amily Surirellaceae Achnanthaceae Gomphonemaceae Gomphonema Hydrodictyaceae Scenedesmaceae Scenedesmus Zygnematales IPennales :ragilariaceae Synedra IPennales badllariophyceae badllariophyceae pennales bacillariophyceae Pennales Achnanthaceae Cocconeis badllariophyceae Pennalesbadllariophyceaepennales badllariophyceae IPennales ;ragilariaceae Naviculaceae -ragillaria Chlorophyceae Chlorophyceae Zygnematales Zygnemataceae badllariophyceaePennales Bacillariophyceae pennales Badllariophyceae IPennales Cymbellaceae Chlorophyceae Zygnematales Desmidiaceae Chlorophyceae Chlorococcales Oocystaceae Chlorophyceae Oedogoniales Oedogoniaceae Chrysophyta Chrysophyta Badllariophyceae 3hylum subphylum/class Order Chrysophyta Chrysophyta Chrysophyta Chrysophyta Chrysophyta :ULTON Table 3.14 Abundances of genera collected from monthly samples, passed through a 64-micro sieve, April through August, April sieve, through 64-micro a passed samples, monthly from collected of genera 3.14 Table Abundances wetland. Octoberat and 2001 November Fulton WRSIS throughthe table. ofat the is base Legend continued, Chrysophyta Chrysophyta Chrysophyta Chrysophyta badllariophyceae pennales Chlorophyta Chlorophyta Chlorophyta ChlorophyceaeChlorophyta TetrasporalesChlorophyta Chlorophyceae Gloeocystaceae Zygnematales Gleocystis Chlorophyta ChlorophyceaeChlorophyta Chlorophyceae Chlorococcales Siphonocladales Cladophoraceae Rhizoclonium Chlorophyta Chlorophyceae Chlorococcales Chlorophyta Chlorophyceae Chlorococcales Hydrodictyaceae Hydrodictyon Chlorophyta 2001 Chlorophyta
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. -IR-IR ■IR -/A ■/R -IR A/- R/- I (C) reas
3eridinium c.f. c.f. dermacarpa Microcystis aer. Microcystis flo. Peridiniaceae Chroococcaceae Aphanothece Chroococcaceae Oscillatoriaceae Osdllatoria nlet/Open Water/Outlet ksingle sample letter) =bulk 3ased on Deal 1996.and Krantz | Dinokontae 1-5=Rare(R) 6-10=lnfrequent (I) averaged>20=Abundant 11-20=Common(A); overthree 484mm2 a Chroococcales Legend: Dinophyceae na ’yrrhophyta Cyanophyta na Oscillatoriales Cyanophyta Chroococcales Cyanophyta Cyanophyta na Chroococcales Chroococcaceae Table 3.14 Table (continued), -p. w
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. FULTON PERIPHYTON 2001 Phylum subphylum/dass Order :amily Genus Aug-01 Sept-01 Oct-01 Nov.01 bhlorophyta Chlorophyceae Chaetophorales AphanochaetaceaeAphanochaete * Chlorophyta Chlorophyceae Chlorococcales Scenedesmaceae Scenedesmus quad. R I Chlorophyta Chlorophyceae Oedogoniales Oedogoniaceae Oedogonium C c Aa Chlorophyta Chlorophyceae Siphonodadales Cladophoraceae Rhizoclonium Chlorophyta Chlorophyceae Tetrasporales Gloeocystaceae Gleocystis R * Chlorophyta Chlorophyceae Zygnematales Desmidiaceae Cosmarium R Chlorophyta Chlorophyceae Zygnematales Desmidiaceae Staurastrum R Chlorophyta Chlorophyceae Zygnematales Zygnemataceae Spirogyra AR Chrysophyta Badllariophyceae Centrales Cosdnodiscaceae Cyclotella A Chrysophyta Badllariophyceae 3ennales Achnanthaceae Cocconeis |A AA AA AA Chrysophyta BadllariophyceaePennales Achnanthaceae Rhoicosphenia cur. * Chrysophyta Badllariophyceae Pennales Cymbellaceae Amphora C R A Chrysophyta Badllariophycead Pennales Fragilariaceae Fragillaria R R Chrysophyta Badllariophyceae Pennales Gomphonemaceae Gomphonema R A Chrysophyta Badllariophycead Pennales jNaviculaceae Navicula C c C Chrysophyta Badllariophyceae Pennales Mitzschiaceae Nitzschia C phrysophyta Badllariophyceae Pennales Surirellaceae Suriella \ R Cyanophyta na Chroococcales Chroococcaceae Microcystis flo. R pyanophyta na Chroococcales Chroococcaceae Microcystis aer. pyanophyta na Osdllatoriales Osdllatoriaceae Osdllatoria R R A pyanophyta na Osdllatoriales Osdllatoriaceae Spirulina iLegend: 1-5=Rare(R) 6-10=lnfrequent (I) 1 -20=Common (C) >20=Abundant (A); averaged over three 484mm2 areas. 1 Based on Deal and Krantz ,1996. (single letter) =bulk sample scraping from periphyton sample slide
Table 3.15 Abundances of genera collected on periphyton sampler slides August through November 2001 at the Fulton WRSIS wetland. Reproduced Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 I 1 -/R/- -/R/- -/R/R/ ■NR u-CSep-001 Aug-OC R/-/- C/A/l | -/A/R ■/-/R -/R/- -l\l- -/l/R -/R/- ■ICIR -/R/- -/-/R -/R/- I/-/I(R) -/I/- (R) (R) (C) (A) (R) (A) (C) Rl-I- May-00 Jun-0G Jul-OG Nitzschia Dactylococcopsis 3innularia -/-/R -/R/R Merismopedia Stauroneis Cymbella Gyrosigma Amphora Cyclotella Green (fila) R/-/R Cosmarium R/-/R Genus 'Jitzschiaceae :ragilariaceae Synedra Chroococcaceae Chroococcaceae Chroococcaceae flosaqua Microcystis NaviculaceaeNaviculaceae MaviculaNaviculaceae R/-/- Gloeocystaceae GleocystisCymbellaceae Fragilariaceae :ragilaria Naviculaceae ■/R/A Oedogoniaceae Oedogonium Desmidiaceae Closterium Cymbellaceae Hydrodictyaceae PediastrumScenedesmaceaeScenedesmusOedogoniaceae Bulbochaete (R) -/R/- R/A/R Chroococcales Chroococcales Chroococcales Zygnematales iDesmidiaceae Zygnematales Desmidiaceae Staurastrum Zygnematales Oedogoniales Chlorococcales Order Order |Family Oedogoniales Badllariophyceae Pennales BadllariophyceaeIPennales Bacillariophyceae IPennales BadllariophyceaeIPennales BacillariophyceaePennales na Bacillariophyceae Centrales Coscinodiscaceae Chlorophyceae Chlorophyceae Tetrasporales Chlorophyceae Chlorococcales subphylum/clss 3hylum Cyanophyta na Cyanophyta na Cyanophyta Chrysophyta Chrysophyta Chrysophyta Chrysophyta IBacillariophyceae IPennales Chrysophyta IBacillariophyceae IPennales Chrysophyta Table 3.16 Abundances of genera collected from monthly samples, passed through a 64-micro sieve, through May September sieve, through 64-micro a passed samples, monthly from collected genera of 3.16 Abundances Table Chrysophyta BadllariophyceaeIPennales Chrysophyta Chrysophyta Chlorophyta Chlorophyta Chrysophyta Chrysophyta IBacillariophyceae Pennales 2000 at the Van Wert WRSIS wetland. 2000 at the wetland. Wert Van WRSIS table. ofthe at the base is Legend continued, Chlorophyta Chlorophyceae Chlorophyta Chlorophyceae Chlorophyta Chlorophyta Chlorophyceae Chlorophyta Chlorophyceae Chlorophyta Chlorophyta Chlorophyceae VAN WERT 2000VAN
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I -/A/A ■NR -I-IR -/R/- -/R/- A/A/A -/-/c ■/R/R ■m/- ■/R/R -/-/R (R) (I) (A) C/-/C
Raphidiopsis 3eridinium Microcystis aeruginosa Microcystis (single sample letter) =bulk Ceratium c.f. Geminella c.f. c.f. pseudophaerocystis Peridiniaceae Hammatoidaceae Oscillatoriaceae Spirulina Euglenaceae Euglena (A); averaged(A); overthree 484mm2 areas. F10=lnfrequent (I) F10=lnfrequent (I) 11-20=Common (C) Dinophyceae 1-5=Rare (R) 6 >20=Abundant Chroococcales Chroococcaceae Based on Deal 1996.and Krantz Nostocales Oscillatoriales Oscillatoriales Oscillatoriaceae □sanatoria Inlet/Open Water/Outlet Legend: Dinophyceae na Euglenophyta natyrrhophyta Dinophyceae ’yrrhophyta iDinophyceae jCeratiaceae Euglenales Cyanophyta na Cyanophyta na Cyanophyta Cyanophyta na Table 3.16 (continued), 3.16 Table
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I I I ■IR ■IR ■IR ■IR ■IR CIA R /- R ■IR R/R/- R A/A A/A ■1C Oct.01 Nov-01 A/A A/C A/A (A) Aug-01 (R) (R) (A) (R) ■IR -/R -/A -/I A/A ■IR ■IR ■IR Jul-01 (R) (R) (R) (A) (R) (R) (R) (A) Raphidiopsis Dinobryon acu. Dinobryon Merismopedia Microcystis aer.Microcystis -/A Eudorina Cosmarium Pinnularia Nitzschia Navicula Gyrosigma Oedogonium Synedra GenusDictyospharium May-01 Fragillaria Dinobyraceae Chroococcaceae Naviculaceae Nitzschiaceae Naviculaceae Oscillatoriaceae Spirulina CymbellaceaeFragilariaceae Amphora Votvocaceae 3ennales Chroococcales Pennales Euglenales lEuglenaceae 3hacus R/- Euglenales Euglenaceae Euglena -/A Pennales Pennales PennalesPennales Fragilariaceae Oscillatoriales Oscillatoriaceae Osdllatoria Zygnematales Desmidiaceae Order Family Volvocales Chlorococcales Dictyosphaeriaceae Bacillariophyceae na Chroococcales Chroococcaceae flo. Microcystis Bacillariophyceae PennalesBacillariophyceae Naviculaceae Chrysophyceae Ochromomadales Bacillariophyceae Bacillariophyceae Bacillariophyceae Chlorophyceae Chlorophyceae Chlorophyceae Oedogoniales Oedogoniaceae Chlorophyceae Chlorophyceae Chlorococcales Hydrodictyaceae Pediastrum dup. >01 Euglenophyta na Euglenophyta na 3hylum subphylum/class Cyanophyta na Oscillatoriales Cyanophyta na Chroococcales Chroococcaceae through OctoberAugust, July May, sieve, through 64 a micro passed samples, monthly from genera of 3.17 Abundances Table Cyanophyta na Cyanophyta Cyanophyta naCyanophyta naCyanophyta na Mostocales Nostocales Hammatoideaceae Mostacaceae Anabaena Chrysophyta through November 2001 wetland. 2001 atNovember through Wert Van WRSIS the table. ofat the is base Legend continued, Chrysophyta Chlorophyta Chrysophyta Chrysophyta Chrysophyta Chrysophyta Chrysophyta Chrysophyta Bacillariophyceae Chlorophyta Chlorophyta Chrysophyta Chlorophyta Chlorophyta VAN WERT 2( VAN
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. -/R -/R
Ceratium c.f. c.f. dermacarpa (single sample letter) =bulk Ceratiaceae nlet/Open Water/Outlet 1-5=Rare(R) 6-10=lnfrequent (I) 11-20=Common (C) >20=Abundant (A); >20=Abundantaveraged (A); overthree 484mm2 areas Based on Deal 1996.and Krantz Dinocapsales Legend: Jyrrhophyta na Table 3.17 (continued), Table
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. NYGAARD’S EUTROPHICATION QUOTIENT* BlueGreen 1= (Desmid <1 Oliogtrophic 2= Chlorococca es/Desmids >1 Eutrophic — 3s Centrales/Pennales 5-20 Highly Eutrophic (Bluegreen+Chloro+Centrales+Euglena) 4= Desmids
*Used genera (not species) Modified from Nygaard 1949
DARA2000 /early Fulton2000 Yearly Van Wert 2000 Yearly 1 1 1 2.7 1 2 2 0.5 2 0 .7 2 0 .7 3 D 3 0.2 3 0.1 4 2.5 4 4 .7 4 3.3
OARA2001 /early Fulton2001 /early Van Wert2001 /early 1 1.7 1 1.3 1 5 2 0.3 2 1 2 2 3 0 3 D 3 D 4 2 4 2.3 4 10
Table 3.18 Nygaard’s Eutrophication Quotient calculated with genera list created from sampling events 2000 through 2001 in WRSIS wetland locations.
130
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. IA CJ DOO D01 E. CJ D F D00 XX 0.34 D XX 0.41 D01 - XX F XX XX Cj FOO F01 F00 XX 0.48 F. Cs D F F01 - XX D XX 0.58 Cj v w o o VW01 F XX XX v w o o XX 0.51 VW01 - XX
B. Cs DOO D01 DOO XX 0.51 D01 - XX Cs FOO F01 FOO XX 0.65 F01 - XX CS v w o o VW01 VWOO XX 0.68 VW01 - XX
C. Cj D FV D XX 0.59 0 .4 7 F - XX 0 .5 V -- XX
O. Cs D F V D XX 0.74 0 .6 4 F - XX 0 .6 7 V -- XX
Table 3.19 Algal beta diversity: Part A. Jaccard’s Index values comparing years 2000 and 2001 for each location’s genera richness (Plankton and Floating Fraction or PAFF). Part B. Sorenson’s Index values comparing years 2000 and 2001 for each location’s genera richness (PAFF). Part C. Jaccard’s Index values comparing sites using combined 2000 and 2001 genera richness. Part D. Sorenson’s Index values comparing sites using combined 2000 and 2001 genera richness. Part E. Jaccard’s Index values comparing similarity of periphyton genera richness at DARA and Fulton during the sampled period in 2001. Part F. Sorenson’s Index values comparing similarity of periphyton genera richness at DARA and Fulton during the sampled period in 2001.
131
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 4
PRODUCTION ESTIMATES OF WETLANDS RECEIVING
AGRICULTURAL DRAINAGE WATERS
Abstract
Vegetation biomass production is important in constructed wetlands treating
agricultural drainage. Vegetation biomass aids in sedimentation and helps facilitate
denitrification within the root zone. Biomass production also removes nutrients by
incorporation into tissues, thus providing short to long-term storage within the system.
Collection of production estimates at the Wetland Reservoir Subirrigation System
(WRSIS) sites adds information on community structure and development over the
study period following wetland construction. Vascular biomass was estimated using
peak biomass samples for years 1999 through 2001 at these WRSIS wetland locations.
Algal biomass was estimated in years 2000 and 2001 at one wetland. Peak biomass was
highest in the year 2000 at all sites possibly because of higher precipitation and growth
of aggressive high production species such as Typha sp. and Phalaris sp. Production in
the mudfiat and shore zones was significantly different than in the open water zone,
species’ with the dominant peak biomass consisted primarily of upland and emergent
growth habit. Peak biomass production at the WRSIS treatment wetlands was lower
than biomass estimates reported from other treatment wetlands. 132
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Introduction
Vegetation biomass production is especially important in constructed wetlands
used for agricultural drainage water treatment because o f its importance in nutrient
reduction and sediment removal. Vegetation biomass slows the velocity of incoming
water, enhancing sedimentation of suspended solids (Brueske and Barrett 1994) and
associated phosphorus compounds. Vegetation is also important in creating conditions
for microbes to carry out denitrification processes (Reddy and Patrick 1986; Reddy,
Patrick and Lindau 1989; Zhu and Sikora 1995). The production of vegetation biomass
incorporates nutrients into new growth (Davis et al.1983; Jordan et al. 1990; Reddy
1983); the biomass can also be buried in the basin and covered with sediments.
Estimates of biomass production and identification of the dominant producers can help
indicate the general conditions and development of the treatment wetland, as well as
serve in part to estimate nutrient removal from the constructed wetland. The goal of
collecting peak biomass estimates was to help describe and report on community
structure and development in the Wetland Reservoir Subirrigation System WRSIS
wetlands. Biomass was hypothesized to remain moderate to high in comparison to
similar treatment wetlands, based on the knowledge that the WRSIS wetlands were
receiving nutrient enriched runoff from agricultural fields.
The biomass production level of a wetland is controlled in part by the
hydrological conditions that exist and the ability of vegetation available to the wetland
to establish and tolerate those conditions. Vegetation of different growth types, such as
emergent or submerged, have adapted to certain water regimes, and will produce the
most biomass at the water level in which they have developed over time. The outcome 133
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. of vegetation growing at the optimum water levels and site conditions, such as normal
water level fluctuations and chemical constituents of the water, results in zones of
vegetation that have similar needs (Farney and Bookhout 1982; Smith and Huston 1989;
Squires and van der Valk 1992; van der Valk and Davis 1978). Different growth types
have been found to have different average biomass production. For instance, studies
have shown that emergent species produce larger amounts of biomass in comparison to
submersed (Reddy 1983; van der valk and Davis 1978).
The passive revegetation method, such as that chosen for the (WRSIS), causes
the wetland system to rely on local seed bank or imported propagules to build the plant
community. A model was proposed (van der Valk 1981) that shows how water level
acts as a “sieve” for determining species that establish within the wetland based on the
incoming seeds’ ability to germinate and establish under the dominant hydrological and
associated environmental conditions. Treatment wetlands must further receive/contain
species that are capable of tolerating non-point source pollution as well as hydrologic
regimes of the wetland.
It has been noted that the peak biomass method underestimates wetland
production in comparison to other methods (Shew et al. 1981; van der Valk and Davis
1978), but the peak biomass (maximum biomass) method has been found to be
insensitive to sample size (Dickerman et al. 1986). The peak biomass method was
chosen for the WRSIS wetlands because it would reduce the total amount of destructive
sampling of these small constructed wetlands, preserve habitat during the growing
season, and accommodate the vegetation patchiness in these developing wetlands.
134
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Methods
Study Locations (additional site information provided in chapter 1)
There are currently three established WRSIS study sites located in northwest
Ohio in the Maumee River watershed. Each site has a wetland constructed on prior
converted cropland and grassland. The adjoining fields are subsurface drained and are
subirrigated during the growing season. These fields are in com (Zea mays L.) -soybean
(Glycine max L.) rotation cropping systems. Annual rainfall for northwest Ohio
averages 889 to 1016 millimeters (35 to 40 inches). All locations are shown on the map
in figure 4.1.
The Fulton County she has a 0.607 ha wetland, which was completed in the
spring of 1996. The wetland receives drainage water from 8.09 ha of
subirrigated/drained cropland and overland drainage from a total of 16.59 ha. The
primary soil types at this she are Hoytville silty clay (Subgroup- Mollic Ochraqualf)
and Nappanee silty clay (Subgroup Aerie Ochraqualf) (USDA-SCS 1984a; Chester and
Riethman 1997). This she is bordered by a stream along 50% of hs perimeter, which
serves as a source of seeds and established animal habitat.
The Van Wert County she has a 1.21 ha wetland, which was also constructed in
the spring of 1996. A divider constructed from local soil was installed centrally at one
end of the wetland September 1999. The wetland catchment includes 12.14 ha of
subirrigated/drained and drained only farmland and a total o f20.23 ha contribute
overland drainage. At this she, water is pumped into the upground dugout rectangular
wetland. The soil types at the Van Wert site are Hoytville silty clay loam and Hoytville
135
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. clay, both Mollic Ochraqualfs (USDA-SCS 1972: Chester and Riethman 1997). A
highway ditch and a windbreak planting of mature pine trees border this wetland.
The Defiance County (DARA) location has a 0.102 ha wetland constructed in
1996. An eight-foot shelf was constructed on the east side of the wetland March 1999.
This wetland receives water from 3.1 ha of subirrigated/drained cropland, 12.2 ha of
drained cropland, and receives overland drainage from 16 ha. The main soil types at
this she are Paulding clay and Roselms silty clay (Subgroup Aerie Ochraqualf) (USDA-
SCS 1984b). The overland drainage into this wetland includes an area of wooded
wetland.
Biomass collection methods
Vascular vegetation
Sample collection occurred at the DARA location on 1 September 1999, 21
October 2000 and 13 September 2001. Samples were collected at the Fulton location
on 1 September 1999, 21 October 2000 and 10 September 2001. Samples were
collected from the Van Wert location on 25 August 1999,21 October 2000 and 5
September 2001.
Wetland area vegetation was sampled by using a stratified random sampling
scheme. Vascular vegetation production was estimated by using the peak biomass
method. Each wetland was divided into three zones; these zones were situated
perpendicular to the basin slope. A conceptual drawing of zonation within the wetland
is provided in figure 4.2. The waterline was at the center of a one-meter wide zone,
determined by the typical permanent pool weir setting of each individual wetland at
136
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. study onset. One meter above the outside edge of the waterline zone was the shore
zone. One meter below the inside edge of the waterline zone was the x-axis of the open
water zone. The x-axis served as a location for an x -coordinate point along the water
edge that coupled with a y-coordinate, placed the quadrat into the open water. For each
zone, the number of one-meter square quadrats was numbered sequentially for each
side. After the quadrats were chosen, they were divided into four equal 0.25 square
meter subdivisions. The subdivision sampled within the quadrat and zone (open water,
mudflat or shore) was chosen randomly. For those locations determined as open water,
a secondary number was determined using a random number chart for the y coordinate
into the open water zone.
The Fulton and Van Wert location wetlands each have four sides and the
Defiance location wetland has only three sides. Total sampling units per wetland in
1999 were 24 for the Defiance location (eight per zone), and 48 each for the Fulton and
Van Wert locations (12 per zone). In 2000 and 2001, DARA had twelve units per zone
and 36 total sampling units. Fulton and Van Wert had 15 units per zone and 60 total
sampling units.
Sample areas were 25 cm by 25 cm quadrats and the entire biomass was
removed with clippers. Samples were then separated into species and dried to a
constant temperature in a 60 ° C oven, after which weight was recorded. Harvest for a
particular site was completed all on the same day.
137
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Macroalgae Collection
Macroalgal samples were collected randomly from each wetland when mat algae
was present, at least once a month May till November 2000 at DARA and in 2001 at
DARA and Fulton. At least three 645 mm2 (2 in2) sub-samples were taken from the
inlet, open water and outlet if algae were present: Biomass was determined after the
samples reached a constant dry weight in a forced air oven at 105 ° C. These methods
are modified from the Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater
section 10300 D3a (APHA 1992).
Periphyton Collection
A wire and pulley system was used to suspend collection tiles no less than six
inches under the water surface. The wire and pulley systems were constructed at Fulton
and DARA locations near the outlet of the wetland. Tiles were constructed of acrylic in
the dimensions of a glass slide (25 mm wide by 100 mm long). A hole was created in
the top 25 mm. These tiles were attached with 40 lb fishing line and secured by
electrical or duct tape to the main pulley system wire by which they could be moved to
the center of the sampling area. A total of five tiles were placed in the wetland per
sampling event; three tiles were for biomass determination, one was for species richness
assessment and one was a reserve. These methods are modifications of Standard
Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater section 10300 B and C (APHA
1992). Sample collection occurred approximately every three weeks between August 6
through November 13, 2001. The top and bottom sides of each tile were scraped with a
straight edge and the algae were collected in a sample vial. After scraping algae from 138
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the top and bottom faces of the tile, the tile was then washed off into the collection vial
with distilled water. Biomass was measured after samples reached constant dry weight
in a forced air oven at 105 ° C and ash weight was measured after heating in a muffle
furnace (500 ° C). Data for the amount of periphyton collected in 2001 are presented in
Appendix F.
Results and Discussion
Average peak biomass and zonation
Peak biomass estimates that were sampled and calculated using the stratified
random sampling method for the WRSIS constructed wetlands 1999-2001 are presented
in table 4.1. Production was estimated to be greatest at all three study locations in 2000
with values ranging from 610.4 (+/- 178.0) g dry weight(dw)/m2 at Fulton to 1085.1
(+/- 175.3) g dw/m2 at Van Wert. Production was lowest in 1999 ranging from 48.8
(+/- 7.83) g dw/m2 at DARA to 157.8 (+/- 0.9) g dw/m2 at Van Wert.
Unstratified data were used to perform general linear model (GLM) procedures,
which were conducted to compare differences between the sites in each year.
Significance found in statistical analyses, are shown in table 4.1. These tests indicated
significant differences between sites in 1999 (p=0.04) but no significant differences in
2000 (p=0.148) and 2001 (p=0.904). One-way ANOVAs, and a GLM (used when
sampling efforts between desired comparisons are different) for DARA 1999 versus
2000 or 2001, comparing biomass of each year collected from a single site were found
to be significantly different in all instances except for Fulton when comparing years
2000 and 2001 (p=0.078).
139
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ANOVA methods were used to detect differences between zones at each WRSIS
location each year. All sites in all years showed significant differences in production
between zones. Significance was p=0.001 or less at all sites and years except Fulton
2000 with p=0.039. Means comparisons of the differences between zones were made
using Tukey’s and Fisher’s tests at a 5 % probability rate.
At DARA, the mudflat production was significantly larger than both the shore
and open water zone in 1999. Tukey’s test indicated significant differences between
the open water and mudflat zone and between the shore and mudflat zone (p= 0.00) in
1999. For year 2000, Tukey’s test indicated significant differences between the open
water zone and all other zones (p=0.001), the open water zone having significantly less
biomass. Fisher’s test indicated significant differences between all zones in 1999
(p=0.000) and between open water and all other zones in 2000 (p=0.001) and 2001
(p=0.000). In 2001, the shore and mudflat zones were both significantly greater than the
open water zone. The mudflat was significantly greater than the other zones in 1999.
In 2000 and 2001, the shore zone was found to have significantly higher average peak
biomass than the open water and mudflat zone.
At the Fulton location for 1999, Tukey’s and Fisher’s tests both indicated that all
zones were significantly different (p=0.000). Average peak biomass production was
greatest in the shore zone and least in the open water zone in 1999. For the year 2000,
Tukey’s and Fisher’s tests indicated shore zones to be significantly greater than the
open water zone (p=0.039) and for 2001 found additional significant differences
between the shore and mudflat zones (p=0.000). The shore zone average peak biomass
production was significantly higher than that of the mudflat zone in 2001. 140
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Van Wert peak biomass means comparisons indicated significant differences
between open water and mudflat zones as well as between the open water and shore
zones in 1999 (p=0.001) and 2001(p=0.000). The shore zone peak biomass production
was significantly greater than that of the open water zone. For 2000, Tukey’s and
Fisher’s tests indicated the shore zones to be significantly greater (p=0.00) than the
mudflat and open water zones.
The ANOVA and GLM tests lend evidence that the shore and mudflat zones of
the WRSIS wetlands have higher production than the open water zone. At DARA, the
production in the mudflat was significantly greater than the other zones in 1999. In
2000 and 2001, the shore zone was found to have significantly higher average peak
biomass than the open water and mudflat zone. At Fulton, the average peak biomass in
the shore zone was significantly greater than that of the open water zone all three
growing seasons. At Van Wert, again, the average shore zone peak biomass was found
to be significantly greater than the mudflat and open water zone for all three growing
seasons.
Wetland response to water flow levels from dry to flooded conditions was
examined during 1989-1991 at the Des Plains Experimental Wetlands, which receive
waters from the Des Plains River. The lowest production was lOOg dry matter (dm)/m2
in 1989 when dry areas were first flooded with water. The highest levels of peak
biomass production were observed in 1991 at 1090 g dm/m2 after two consecutive
flooded years (Fennessy et al. 1994). Emergent species dominated these elevated water
systems.
141
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. At the Olentangy River Wetland Research Park (ORWRP), in Columbus, OH,
two riverine, inland constructed wetlands, which receive water pumped from the
Olentangy River, are maintained at similar water levels, but biomass estimates are
found to vary by planting effort. The two main basins represented a planted basin and
an unplanted basin. After seven years of study, biomass that consisted primarily of
Typha in the unplanted system with peak biomass estimates in 1999 to be 1023 +/- 94
and 2000- 1013 +/-105 g dw/m2 was found to be higher than in the planted basin. The
more diverse, primarily emergent types, in the planted basin had recorded peak biomass
estimates o f657 +/-76 and 482 +/- 64 g dw/m2 in 1999 and 2000 respectively (Mitsch,
Ahn and Perry 2001).
A third example of peak biomass production comes from prairie marshes
examined in 1975 and 1976. The authors note that there are differences in average
biomass production o f different growth types in the wetlands. The reported maximum
standing crop for emergent vegetation was 330 to 1160 g dw/m2 and submersed species
ranged from 190 to 600 g dw/m2 (van der Valk and Davis 1978).
Comparison of the WRSIS wetlands peak biomass estimation to the above-
mentioned systems shows the WRSIS system to be producing less than the average of
these other systems in 1999 and 2001. The 1999 and 2001 estimates are comparable to
values reported by Fennessy et al. (1994) who measured biomass production of 100
grams dry weight per square meter during the transition year from dry to flooded
conditions in their experimental wetlands in 1989. The values recorded at the WRSIS
wetlands in 2000 are similar to production in other sampled wetland systems.
142
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Primary contributor evaluation
Emergent species in the shore and mudflat zones of the WRSIS wetlands are
responsible for the majority of the peak biomass production measured. Tables 4.2
through 4.4 present the dominant producing species by year at each WRSIS location.
All species listed are responsible for 5% or more of the total biomass during that year.
The tables further present the percent of the biomass per species by amount collected in
each zone.
The majority of the DARA location biomass, 90.7% (table 4.2), was contributed
in 1999 by two upland species, Medicago sativa and Aster pilosus and one flooding
tolerant species, Echinochloa crus-galli. E. crus-galli is not listed as a wetland plant in
the Ohio Region of Wetland Indicator species (WIS) (Reed 1988); but germinates
underwater and is a persistent emergent under low water levels in the WRSIS wetlands.
Production by this species was higher in the mudflat zone than in others zones. Year
2000 dominant producers included two upland species, Festuca pratense and A. pilosus
one emergent wetland indicator species (WIS), Typha angustifolia, and the flooding
tolerant E. crus-galli. Approximately 40 % of the peak biomass production was
produced in both the mudflat and in the shore zones. Year 2001 high producers
included four non-wetland (upland) species (Cirsium arvense, M. sativa, F. pratense,
Poa annua), one WIS, T. angustifolia, and E. crus-galli totaling 81.48 % of the total
biomass estimated by sampling that year. A total o f47.08 % of the biomass was
contributed by upland species in the shore zone, 12.1 % of the represented biomass was
by the emergent WIS and E. crus-galli in the mudflat zone and 2.79 % was by the
emergent WIS in the open water zone. 143
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The Fulton location peak biomass (table 4.3) was contributed in 1999 largely by
two upland species ( Lolium pererme and F. pratense) and three flooding tolerant
species ( Polygonum persicaria, Phalaris arundinaceae, and E. crus-galli ) that
accounted for 91.28 % of the total peak biomass. In the shore zone 38.7 % of the
production was by upland species and 18.0 % of the production was by emergent WIS
and E. crus-galli. In the mudflat zone 34.5 % of the total peak biomass produced was
by emergent WIS and E. crus-galli. In 2000, three species, two upland ( Dactylis
glomerata and C. arvense) and one aggressive emergent WIS (P. arundinaceae)
represented 100 % of the total biomass. Of the estimated peak biomass, 64.5 % was
produced by upland species found growing in the shore zone. The mudflat zone
contained 31.18 % of the total biomass by emergent WIS species and 4.34 % upland
species contributions. Year 2001 consisted of two upland species ( Bromus inermis and
Dactylis glomerata) and E. crus-galli producing 89.8 % of the total biomass estimated
by sampling that year. 50.97 % of year 2001 biomass was produced by upland species
in the shore zone, 23.05 % of the represented biomass was by E. crus-galli in the
mudflat zone and 11.32% was produced by E. crus-galli in the open water zone.
The Van Wert location (table 4.4) peak biomass in 1999 was dominated by three
upland species (F. pratense, B. inermis and Euthamia graminifolia) two emergent WIS
species ( Scirpus atrovirens and Xanthium strumarium), and E. crus-galli that produced
84.83% of the total peak biomass. The biomass in the shore zone consisted of 40.16 %
biomass contribution by upland and 1.36 % biomass contribution by emergent WIS
species in 1999. 42.01 % of represented biomass in the mudflat zone was by emergent
WIS and E. crus-galli and 13 % of the biomass was produced by upland species. 144
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Emergent WIS species and E. crus-galli made up the 1.17 % of the biomass in the open
water zone. For 2000, two emergent WIS (Polygonum pensylvanica and Scirpus
atrovirens) and one upland species (B. inermis) produced 91.31% of the total biomass
with 64.41% contributed by upland in the shore zone, 7.16 % contributed by emergent
WIS in the shore zone, and 19.74 % by emergent WIS in the mudflat zone. The year
2001 biomass summary dominant producers were two non-wetland species (B. inermis,
D. glomerata), two emergent WIS (S. atrovirens and P. persicaria) and E. crus-galli
that totaled 97.23 % of the total biomass estimated by sampling that year. The percent
of total biomass represented by dominants equaled 44.07 % by upland and 10.59 % by
emergent WIS in the shore zone. In the mudflat zone, 13.15 % of the biomass was by
upland species and 29.35 % by mudflat species. In the open water zone, 0.07 % was
contributed by emergent species.
Statistical analysis of the results in the pervious section show that the shore and
mudflat zones peak biomass values are significantly higher than the open water biomass
values. The basin depth in a majority of the open water areas is deeper than 30 cm.
Few emergent species can survive in water deeper than 30 cm, and few floating or
rooted submerged species have been noted to establish on these sites during the study
period.
Table 4.5 summarizes the data from tables 4.2-4.4 into less specific contributions
of species in the shore, mudflat and open water zones. The highest production at the
DARA location was recorded in the mudflat zone in 1999 and in the shore zone in
years 2000-2001. At the Fulton location, the shore zone had the highest production
level for all three years. The Van Wert location had approximately equal levels of peak 145
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. biomass production in the shore and mudflat in 1999, but higher biomass production in
the shore zone in 2000 and 2001.
A proposed explanation for the observed fluctuations of peak biomass production
over the study period is hydrological effects on vegetation dominance causing shifts in
the normal vegetation zones. All three WRSIS locations highest biomass estimate
during the three study years was the year 2000. The years 1999 and 2001 were both
considered normal to dry years, while 2000 was a “wet” year. As a result o f the
additional precipitation during 2000, there was a longer inundation period than
experienced in a normal or drier year. This increase of water into the wetland resulted
in changes of dominant species for the year 2000 (example: an increase in Phalaris at
Fulton) and there is evidence of a shift from the mudflat to the shore zones by some
species at two of the WRSIS sites.
Aggressive production species: Typha angustifolia and Echinochloa crus-galli at
DARA, Phalaris arundinaceae at Fulton, and weedy wetland species Polygonum
pensylvanica and Scirpus atrovirens at Van Wert, dominated the production in the year
2000. These species, in addition to the well-established shore species that were planted
after construction on the upper slope for erosion control, have produced higher biomass
than other species at these sites. In addition to dominance of these high biomass
production species, there is a noticeable shift (tables 4.2,4.4) in emergent species
producing biomass not only in the mudflat area, but also in the shore zone, as well as
lack of any shore vegetation production in the mudflat areas during 2000 at DARA and
Van Wert locations. The increased precipitation that occurred in 2000 increased water
stress on upland species that occurred in the mudflat zone. This allowed for the 146
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. increase in production capabilities of both wetland species and aggressive growing
water tolerant species such as E. crus-galli and Phalaris over that o f the upland species.
This possibility is supported by studies that have found species more tolerant of long
periods of inundation produced similar or more biomass when subjected to elevated
water levels versus less tolerant species that produced less biomass with increase
inundation time (Coops and van der Velde 199S; Squires and van der Valk 1992). This
trend, decreased shore species production in the mudflat zone, was not observed at the
Fulton location possibly because of the very gentle slope that occurs around half of the
wetland, allowing for some upland biomass production in half of the mudflat area.
Fennessy et al. (1994) reported that production increased with increased
flooding from dry conditions in 1989 to flooded conditions in 1990. The experimental
wetlands associated with the Des Plains River experienced biomass increases from 54
% to 274 % followed by a significant decrease in biomass the year after flooding in
some of the experimental wetland cells. The authors attributed the increase in biomass
to a shift from intolerant to water tolerant species from 1989 to 1990 followed by a
decrease in production as water tolerant emergents shifted to increased presence of
submerged species. Similarly at the WRSIS wetlands, an increase in production
occurred from 1999 to 2000 as water levels supported water stress tolerant and
aggressive species over non-tolerant species. This shift was followed by a decrease in
overall production as non-tolerant species are beginning to rebuild their presence over
the growing season in 2001.
DARA mat algae measurements further support the increased water level and
increase of water tolerant habitat reasoning. The point biomass estimates in 2000 are 147
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. higher than 2001. Higher water levels and increased flushing of nutrients into the
wetland system would support increased production of algal species. Point biomass
estimates were lowest in September 2000 at 66.4 g biomass for that point sample and
highest in October 2000 at 363.S g biomass for that sample day. Dominant algal
species in the biomass samples were Oedogonium. Point biomass estimates during 2001
were lowest in July at 21.8 g biomass that sample day and highest in April at 30.2 g
biomass that sample day. Dominant algal species in the biomass samples were
Oedogonium, Spirogyra and diatoms. Algal biomass data were reduced and are
presented in Appendix F.
Summary
Peak biomass estimates of production collected from the WRSIS constructed
wetlands receiving agricultural drainage indicated that the shore and mudflat zones
were significantly greater in production than open water zones. Comparisons of
biomass production across all three sites in one year were not significantly different in
2000 and 2001. Peak biomass production estimates for vascular vegetation and mat
algal production point estimates were higher in 2000 than in 1999 and 2001 potentially
as a result of hydrological variations over the study years. There were no distinct trends
in peak biomass estimates at the WRSIS wetlands. Sampling should continue and
additional physical and chemical information for the wetland water should be collected
to continue the evaluation of peak biomass data.
148
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. LIST OF REFRENCES
APHA, American Public Health Association, ed. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 18 ed. Washington, D. C.: American Public Health Association, 1992.
Brueske, C. C. and G. W. Barrett. "Effects of Vegetation and Hydrologic Load on Sedimentation Patterns in Experimental Wetland Ecosystems." Ecological Engineering 3 (1994): 429-47.
Chester, P. W., Riethman, D. "Runoff Storage Requirements for a Closed-Loop System." Presented at the 1997 ASAE Annual International Meeting. Minneapolis Convention Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota: ASAE, St. Joseph, MI., 1997. Vol. Paper number 972132.
Coops, H. and G. van der Velde. "Seed Dispersal, Germination and Seedling Growth of Six Helophyte Species in Relation to Water-Level Zonation." Freshwater Biology 34 (1995): 13-20.
Davis, C. B, A. G. van der Valk and J. L. Baker. "The Role of Four Macrophyte Species in the Removal of Nitrogen and Phosphorus from Nutrient-Rich Water in a Prairie Marsh, Iowa." Macrono 30.3 (1983): 133-42.
Dickerman, J. A. A. J. Stewart and R. G. Wetzel. "Estimates of Net Annual Aboveground Production: Sensitivity to Sampling Frequency." Ecology 67.3 (1986): 650-59.
Famey, R. A. and T. A. Bookhout. "Vegetation Changes in a Lake Erie Marsh (Winous Point, Ottawa County, Ohio) During High Water Years." Ohio Academy of Science 82.3 (1982): 103-07.
Fennessy, M. S. J. K. Cronk and W. J. Mhsch. "Macrophyte Productivity and Community Development in Created Wetlands under Experimental Hydrological Conditions." Ecological Engineering 3 (1994): 469-84.
Jordan, T. E., D. F. Whigham and D. L. Correll. "Effects of Nutrient and Litter Manipulations on the Narrow-Leaved Cattail, Typha Angustifolia L." Aquatic Botany 36 (1990): 179-91.
149
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Mitsch, W.J., C. Ahn and V. Perry. "Net Primary Productivity of Macrophyte Communities after Seven Growing Seasons in Experimental Planted and Unplanted Marshes." Olentangy River Wetland Research Park at The Ohio State University Annual report 2000 (2001): 49-53.
Reddy, K. R. "Fate of Nitrogen and Phosphorus in a Waste-Water Retention Reservoir Containing Aquatic Macrophytes." Journal of Environmental Quality 12.1 (1983): 137-41.
—., W. H. Patrick Jr. and C. W. Lindau. "Nhrification-Denitrification at the Plant Root-Sediment Interface in Wetlands." Limnology and Oceanography 34.6 (1989): 1004-13.
—. and W. H. Patrick Jr. "Fate of Fertilizer Nitrogen in the Rice Root Zone." Soil Science Society of America Journal 50 (1986): 649-51.
Reed, P.B., Jr. National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: Ohio. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of the Interior-Fish and Wildlife Service., 1988.
Shew, D. M., R. A. Linthurst, and Ernest D. Seneca. "Comparison of Production Computation Methods in a Southeastern North Carolina Spartina Altemiflora Salt Marsh." Estuaries 4.2 (1981): 97-109.
Smith, T. and M. Huston. "A Theory of the Spatial and Temporal Dynamics of Plant Communities." Vegetatio 83 (1989): 49-69.
Squires, L. and A. G. van der Valk. "Water-Depth Tolerances of the Dominant Emergent Macrophytes of the Delta Marsh, Manitoba." Canadian Journal of Botanv. 70 (1992): 1860-67.
USDA-SCS, United States Department of Agriculture- Soil Conservation Service. Soil Survey of Defiance Countv. Ohio. 1984b.
—. Soil Survey of Fulton County. Ohio. 1984a.
—. Soil Survey of Van Wert Countv. Ohio.. 1972.
van der Valk, A. G. "Succession in Wetlands: A Gleasonian Approach." Ecology 62.3 (1981): 688-96.
—. and C. B. Davis. "Primary Production of Prairie Glacial Marshes." Freshwater Wetlands. Ed. R. E. Good, D. F. Whigham, R. L. Simpson. New York: Academic Press, 1978. 21-37.
150
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Zhu, T. and F. J. Sikora. "Ammonium and Nitrate Removal in Vegetated and Unvegetated Gravel Bed Microcosm Wetlands." Water Science and Technology 32.3 (1995): 219-28.
Zucker, L. A and L. C. Brown. Agricultural drainage: water quality and subsurface drainage studies in the Midwest: Ohio State University Extension Bulletin 871, 1998.40pgs.
151
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Lake Erie
.: •'- ■fa— r ^ 1 ? • . * > —.vie.-;V v T t r ’■ «*.-■= -*f-■
S^S^ssksI?!® ! gW v,~
Ohio River
pH Lake Erie Basin A Demonstration Farms Ohio River Basin o^SHZSL^ V-Van Wert County
Figure 4.1 Map of Ohio showing locations of WRSIS wetland sites. (Zucker and Brown 1998).
152
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Shore zone Average water line Mudflat zone Open water zone “x' "X
Figure 4.2 Conceptual drawing of zones utilized in vascular surveys at the WRSIS wetlands.
153
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. IM \k lilO M \SS IN (, M 2
Location 1999 2000 2001 a A a B a C DARA 48.80+/- 7.83 793.68 +/- 129.40 269.28 +/- 25.66 ab A aB a B Fulton 135.70+/- 17.72 610.35 +/- 178.02 234.82 +/- 26.93 bA a B a C Van Wert 157.84 +/- 0.90 1085.07+/- 175.31 275.19 +/- 14.96
Table 4.1 Peak biomass samples were collected by and averages and standard errors calculated using the stratified random method. Lower case letters present statistical differences between sites in the same year. Upper case letters present statistical differences between years in the same site. Statistical tests were performed with unstratified values.
154
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 0 G G 0 0 G G 0 0 0 2.8 % openwater % zone % open water zone 0 0 0 0 1.8 8.15.6 0 6.5 6.3 32.0 0 67.9 in mudflat zone % open water zone in mudflat zone % % mudflat zonein % % 0 0 6.3 0 q 0 1.8 5.2 7.2 5.0 13.2 16.2 29.q 20.0 17.8 in shore zone % % shorein zone% % in shore zone 7.0 6.5 6.? 8.1 8.4 5.0 18.0 35.3 20.0 13.2 39.2 17.8 67.9
biomaaa biomass biomass % ofPeak % % ofPeak % % of Peak % 2001 1999 2000 Typha angustifolia Typha crus-galli Echinochloa Poa annua Poa Aster pilosus Aster angustifolia Typha arvense Cirsium Festuca pratense Festuca Medicago sativa Medicago Echinochloa crus-galli Echinochloa pratense Festuca Echinochloa crus-galli Echinochloa sativa Madicago Aster pilosus Aster Table 4.2 Table (> -5% contributors than percent and to primary DARA biomass peak total biomass) of1999-2001 zone. by contribution
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 0 openwater zone % 0.1 G 3.8 G 23.1 11.3 in zone in mudflat open water % zone in zonein mudflat % % 0 31.20 G 0 12.9 G 8.2 7.0 0 G 4.4 15.8 2.5 G 35.2 2.0 G 56.2 4.3 G 13.7 17.8 31.7 0 0 % shorein zone% % shorein % zone in zonemudflat % open water % zone % shorein zone% 8.3 8.2 7.0 37.2 18.3 34.4 31.2 60.5 31.7 12.9 31.5
biomaaa biomase biomass % of Peak % % ofPeak % % of Peak % 2001 1999 2000 Echinochloa crus-galli Echinochloa Dactylis glomerata Dactylis inermis Bromus Cirsium arvense Cirsium Dactylis glomerata Dactylis Phalaris arundinaceae Phalaris Lolium perenne Lolium Phalaris arundinaceae Phalaris Polygonum persicaria Polygonum Festuca pratense Festuca Echinochloa crus-galli Echinochloa :ULTON Table 4.3 Fulton 1999-2001 primary contributors (>than 5% of total biomass) to peak biomass and percent and to biomass total peak biomass) (>than contributorsof5% 4.3 Fulton primary Table 1999-2001 zone. by contribution
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 0 0 0 1.1 0.1 open water zone % open % water zone % 0 0 5.1 zonein mudflat open water % zone zonein mudflat % % 0 5.7 0.1 0 13.4 0 22.7 0 3.0 13.1 0 7.2 6.4 0 7.20.4 0 0 0.8 7.6 0.1 29.4 0 10.d 0.9 0 10.0 0 41.1 0 0 64.4 23.0 0.1 % shorein zone% % shorein zone% zonemudflat in % % shorein zone% 5.8 6.0 8.5 7.2 13.4 16.1 n i 13.6 22.7 10.0 41.1 64.4 23.1 29.5
biomass biomass biomass % ofPeak % % ofPeak % % ofPeak % 2001 1999 2000 Polygonum persicaria Polygonum Scirpus atrovirens Scirpus glomerata Dactylis crus-galli Echinochloa Scirpus atrovirens Scirpus Polygonum pensytvanica Polygonum inermis Bromus Xanthium strumarium Xanthium inermis Bromus Echinochloa crus-galli Echinochloa Euthamia graminifolia Euthamia Festuca pratanse Festuca Scirpus atrovirens Scirpus inermis Bromus Table 4.4 Van Wert 1999-2001 primary contributors (>than 5% of total biomass) to peak biomass and percent and to peak biomass oftotal (>than biomass) contributors 5% 4.4 primary Wert Van Table 1999-2001 zone. by contribution VAN WERT VAN
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. DARA %shore of total %mudflat of total %open water of total 1999 32.1 67.S 0.0C 2000 58.1 41.9 o.oc 2001 61.5 33.5 5.C
;ulton %shore of total %mudflat of total %open water of total 1999 63.5 36.5 o.oc 200C 64.5 35.5 o.oc 2001 53.1 28.5 18.4
Van Wert %shore of total %mudflat of total %open water of total 199£ 49.4 48.9 1.7 200C 73.2 26.8 0.0C 2001 54.8 44.4 O.f
Table 4.5 Peak biomass productions at WRSIS wetlands, 1999-2001, represented as percent contribution by zone and year.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 5
SEED BUDGET FOR TWO FUNCTIONAL SPECIES IN A PASSIVELY
REVEGETATING WETLAND RECEIVING AGRICULTURAL DRAINAGE
Abstract
Passive revegetation relies on propagules in the soil seed bank or arriving from
local sources to supply vegetation to the site. Seed bank, seed rain, herbivory and
population density studies were conducted to provide data for a seed budget. A
simplified seed budget equation was created and used to compare seed banks available
for germination for Echinochloa crus-galli and Polygonum persicaria, two species
that occur within the DARA location WRSIS wetlands. The goal of the seed budget
was to predict the sustainability of chosen species within the wetland and possible
resulting management implications. E. crus-galli was a species introduced to the site
as an erosion control species for the upper banks of the wetland after construction. P.
persicaria is a species that is known to be readily available in the adjacent fields.
E.crus-galli calculations resulted in a 43.3 % reduction in the seed bank over the five
years and P. persicaria results from the model estimate a 66 % reduction in the seed
bank over five years o f simulation. The addition of more detail to this model may
allow users to glean more information about the system. This model has the potential
159
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. to be used by wetlands managers to estimate potential seed banks with management
practices that may increase or decrease germination, establishment and herbivory.
Introduction
Passive revegetation relies on the resident soil seed bank, or delivery of seed
from outside sources (Hammer 1997). The passive revegetation approach is included
in the definition of “self- design.” Self designing or colonizing means that restoring
the hydrology will encourage the she to revegetate with the most suitable species for
those conditions (Mhsch et al. 1989; Mhsch et al. 1998; Odum 1989). This is a no to
low cost revegetation option. If there is a well-supplied seed bank (Smith and Kadlec
1983) or local seed sources such as local wetlands, drainage dhches containing
refugium species (Smith and Kadlec 1983) or remnants of vegetation (Brown 1998),
even irrigation dhches that supply seeds (Hope 1927), no equipment or labor would be
needed to install vegetation. If control of the water level exists, water level can be
managed to encourage growth from the seed bank (Galinato and van der Valk 1986)
and to possibly help manage invasive species.
Allowing the wetland to undergo self-design potentially could increase the
successfulness of the she. Seeds that were present in the seed bank are likely already
adapted to local climate and soil conditions. Seeds that arrive via seed rain, abiotic
means or mammal delivery would primarily be from local sources with high
probability of adaptation to local conditions.
There are however, risks in relying on seed banks as a seed source. Studies
have shown that shes chosen for a constructed wetland or a restored wetland that have 160
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I
! I
|
been drained for 20 or more years (Erlandson 1987; Galatowitsch and van der Valk
1995) or have undergone weed reduction practices (Smith and Kadlec 1983) have
reduced seed bank richness. Other studies have noted that poorly stocked seed banks
result in poorly vegetated or low diversity wetlands (Edwards and Crawley 1999) or
that species that are present in the seed bank are often invasive and/or spread by
vegetative means (Galatowitsch and van der Valk 1995). Species that arrive to newly
created/restored locations have been noted to be species capable of high dispersal
(Galatowitsch and van der Valk 1996) and that increased distance results in dispersal-
limited introduction of sources (Godwin 1923).
Early investigation of the seed bank may help determine species available for
germination (Luckeydoo 2002; Luckeydoo 1999), as well as alert site managers to
potential invasive species (Brown 1998), so management can be planned.
Management of wetlands can also partially determine which species will most likely
to germinate, if present, from the seed bank (Collins and Wein 1995; Welling et al.
1988). The seed bank, even with management, may not be reflected in the vegetation
(Brown 1998) and may take multiple years to establish good coverage of wetland
species (Galatowitsch and van der Valk 1995). Even with the potential drawbacks to
the use of passive re vegetation, this economical method does have the potential in
some sites with a suitable seed bank or seed source, to adequately revegetate
constructed/restored wetlands over time.
Seeding is a low cost alternative to passive revegetation. There is required
expenditure for seed purchase and application. Seed can be purchased or collected
from local sources that will potentially enhance seed germination and establishment in 161
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. that the seed is already adapted to local conditions. There are a number of texts that
discussed optimal planting rates, requirements and times for species including Seed
Information for Wetland Plant Species of the Northeast United States (Garbischand
Mclninch 1992). Seeding allows site managers to choose species for specific site
uses, such as erosion control or wildlife (Meeks 1969), as well as species that perform
best under hydrological conditions set-up at the site. Studies have found for example,
that mudflat conditions germinate and support a more diverse array o f species than do
flooded conditions (Collins and Wein 1995; Luckeydoo 1999; Luckeydoo et al.2002;
Smith and Kadlec 1983). Some additional benefits of seeding are that she diversity
can remain higher than with naturally revegetated wetlands (Bouchard and Mitsch
1999; Svengsouk and Mitsch 1998), and can increase competition against invasive
species (Svengsouk and Mitsch 1998).
Herbivores can seriously reduce seed presence (Edwards and Crawley 1999);
birds such as geese can completely remove recently planted species. There is the
potential for adequate cover and diversity to occur sooner after construction with
propagules supplied wetlands versus passively revegetated wetlands (Mitsch and
Zhang 2001; Svengsouk and Mhsch 1998).
The goal of this seed budget model was to determine if the vegetation that had
developed in the WRSIS wetlands could be sustaining over time. Specific interest for
this study is in the sustainability of specific wetland species of constructed wetlands
located within an agricultural watershed based on seed availability of a manager
supplied external species and a self-introduced species. The studied species, E. crus-
galli and P. persicaria, are considered “functional” species. “Functional vegetation” 162
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. is defined here as those species which aid in reaching the WRSIS wetland goals.
Characteristics of functional vegetation include a presence in the water for sediment
reduction, nutrient uptake and microbial habitat capabilities, and habitat value as food
supply or persistent vegetation for wildlife cover.
Study location (Additional site information in chapter 1)
The Defiance County (DARA) location has a 0.102 ha wetland constructed in
1996. A 2.4 m (8ft) shelf was constructed on the east side of the wetland March 1999.
This wetland receives water from 3.1 ha of subirrigated/drained cropland, 12.2 ha of
drained cropland, and overland drainage from 16 ha. The main soil types at this site
are Paulding clay and Roselms silty clay (Subgroup Aerie Ochraqualf) (USDA-SCS
1984). The drainage into this wetland includes an area of wooded wetland.
Seed budget methods
Studied Species
Two species were chosen to create a seed budget. Echinochloa crus-galli (E.
crus-galli), a species planted for erosion control, and Polygonum persicaria (P.
persicaria), a self-introduced species were evaluated using a seed budget model to
estimate their sustainability within the system. These species were chosen for a
number of reasons. Both species are emergents that grow in the “mudflat zone” of the
WRSIS wetlands; the mudflat zone includes an area one half meter above and below
the average water line. Because one species was introduced and the other self
introduced, the end seed bank predictions could be compared to aid in decisions on 163
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. future passive or active revegetation of WRSIS systems. Both species are considered
“functional” because of their presence in the water, which aids in sediment reduction,
value as a microbial habitat and substrate for microbes that hasten nutrient removal,
and habitat value as food and cover.
E. crus-galli commonly called barnyard grass or water-grass, is a member of
the Poaceae (Gramineae) or grass family and is a summer annual. The plant grows up
to 1.5 m tall. E. crus-galli grows in saturated soil conditions (Maun and Barrett 1986).
An absence of ligules distinguishes this species from many others. Seed production
can be highly affected by environment; a production range in seasonally flooded
locations was reported to be 1 to 17,000 seeds per plant (Barrett 1982). Seed size is
commonly 3.5 mm including the lemma; seeds often have a 2-10 mm terminal awn
(Uva et al. 1997). Longevity of the seeds of many grass species is summarized in
Harrington (1972); average grass longevity is 40 to 50 years in pastures and prairies.
E. crus-galli is used as cover by waterfowl and mammals (Payne 1992). Waterfowl
consume both the non-reproductive plant parts and seeds (McAtee 1939).
P. persicaria commonly called Lady’s thumb or smartweed, is a member of
the Polygonaceae or smartweed family and is also a summer annual. Smartweeds are
noted for the presence of ocrea. P. persicaria has fringed ocrea and often expresses a
central purple botch on the leaf that helps to distinguish this species from others.
Flowers are often pink, but sometimes white. P. persicaria is often found associated
with saturated areas (McAtee 1939; Uva et al. 1997) and has a wetland indicator status
of FAC W (Reed, 1988). Seeds of P. persicaria occur in multiple forms as circular
and flat or three sided (Martin 1954), and average 2.3 mm long (Uva et al. 1997). 164
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Seed numbers per plant of a close relative, Polygonum pensylvanicum has been
reported at 19,300 seeds/plant (Toole and Brown 1946). Average longevity for buried
P. persicaria is reported at 30 years (Toole and Brown 1946). Waterfowl consume
both the non-reproductive plant parts and seeds (McAtee 1939).
Seed Budget
Conceptual equation: Please see figure 5.1 for conceptual model
The model can be read as: the seed bank in year n is equal to the seed bank in
year n-1 after emergence, plus seed rain by thinned mature plants and after predation,
minus loss from winter decay, and minus annual loss o f non-germinating seeds by
decay.
SBn= (Seed bank year n-1) - Emergence + seed production by mature plants (after
predation and winter decay) - annual decay of seeds that did not germinate the
previous year.
SBn= [SBn-1 -(SBn-1 *E)]+ [(SP*(PD-(PD*T)))-(SP*(PD-(PD*T)))*P]-
[[(SP*(PD-(PD*T)))-(SP*(PD-(PD*T)))*P]*Dw] - [((SBn-1 )-(SBn-1 *E))*(Da)]
SB=Seed bank E=emergence PD=population density
T=thinning SP=Seed Production P=Predation
Dw=winter decay Da=annual decay or 2Dw
165
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Assumptions
1. Relevant seed bank germination depth is 5 cm.
a. Seed density for other weed species has been found to be greatest in the
top 5 cm (Buhler et al. 2001).
2. Vertical movement below 5 cm by invertebrates and upward movement by
freeze thaw are nil.
3. There is no pre-dispersal herbivory on plants or seeds.
4. Seed burial is nil during seed rain period
a. Seed production occurs primarily during the drier months, August
through October (field notes). Rain is a primary factor in seed burial
(Regnier, 2002)
5. Seeds are fully buried by December 1.
6. Predation does not occur on buried seeds.
7. Predation from December 1 to September 1 is zero.
a. See assumption 5 and 6.
8. The decay coefficient from June to November is the same from December to
May.
a. The wetland water level is elevated such that the basin is saturated
December until May. The remaining six months o f the year are
assumed to have similar decay rates.
9. The decay coefficient is constant throughout the seed bank profile.
10. Thinning is 1% o f germinated seeds
166
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. a. Thinning is primarily a density dependant phenomenon. There was a
low population density for both studies species, but a 1 % rate would
account for some loss that would inevitably occur as seedlings mature.
11. All seeds emerge at once.
12. All seeds produced are viable.
Seed bank year zero (SB)
The seed bank was estimated by manual sieving methods (Cardina 1991;
Regnier 1994). Collection for storage determinations occurred on May 31,2001 after
winter and prior to observed germination period for the studies species. Collection
occurred at random points along transects across the wetland. Thirty cores 2.S cm
diameter and 15 cm deep, were collected on each of the three wetland sides (Forcella
et al. 1992). After seeds were manually separated from the soil, E. crus-galli and P.
persicaria seed viability were estimated. Seeds were considered viable if they resisted
gentle pressure from forceps (Malone 1967). Seed bank density, seeds per square
centimeter, was calculated from the total soil surface area collected (441 cm2).
Emergence (E) and Population Density (PD)
Stand counts were recorded on August 15,2000 and August 27,2001 to
estimate emergence (seedlings/square meter) and to determine population density as
plants per square meter.
167
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Seed Production (SP)
Seed production was measured by area and by seeds per plant, by way of seed
rain collection cups. Seed rain cups were constructed using “Plastic cups,” the top
diameter was 9 cm, and the cups were 9 cm deep with the bottom removed and
replaced by screen. The bottom screen of the collection cups consisted of 1 mm mesh
covered by nylon window screen (2 mm mesh) each secured with duct tape. The top of
the cup was covered with (8 mm) bird screen. Completed seed rain cups were
attached to wire survey flags and secured with the bottoms of the collection cup flush
with the surface. There were ten replicates per side, and a total of 30 placed at the
study she each year.
Installation of seed rain cups occurred August 18 through November 13, 2000,
and April 30 through November 13,2001. Seed cups were monitored and contents
counted approximately weekly in 2000 and biweekly in 2001. Seed rain cups were all
placed randomly along the top of the mudflat zone, 0.5 meter above waterline, to
avoid high water. Average seeds per area were estimated by calculation of seeds
collected during each time unit scaled to a square meter. Seed production, seeds/plant,
was determined by dividing seeds/square meter by population density (average
number of plants per square meter plot). These methods are modified from Forcella,
Pederson and Barbour (1996).
Mature Plant and Thinning (T)
Mature plants, are plants capable of producing seeds. The section of the seed
budget model equation is represented by (PD*T) refers to mature plants, and was 168
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. determined by multiplying population density by a thinning coefficient of 1%.
Thinning is density dependent reduction in plant populations. The population density
was believed to be low enough (260 plants per square meter for E. crus-galli and 8
plants per square meter for P. persicaria ) that thinning rates would be expected to be
low to non-existent as a result of density dependent competition. A thinning
coefficient of 1% was chosen to apply to population density based on stem counts
conducted in August 2000 and 2001 to account for the inevitable loss of maturing
seedlings.
Seed Predation (P)
Seed predation rates were estimated using exclusion experiments. In 2000
there were three treatments: all predators excluded (2 mm screen), no predators
excluded (bottom with 2 mm screen and weed guard, the top was open), and insects
only (1.25 cm screen). A fourth treatment: large mammals excluded (2.45 cm holes in
wire caging) was added in 2001. There were four replicates per treatment type. Insect
only and large mammals excluded trap dimension were approximately 30.5 cm long,
17.8 cm deep and 17.8 cm wide. The “all” and “none” trap dimensions were
approximately 30.5 cm long and 17.8 cm wide.
Twenty-five seeds of each species were placed in petri dishes filled with sand
and placed at the bottom of the trap. Trap replicates were random placed over the
three sides at the DARA wetland. Traps were not less than one meter away from any
other trap. Traps were placed at the shore and mudflat zones, 0.5 meter above
waterline. Petri dishes with the sand and remaining seeds were collected in a 169
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. closeable plastic bag and a new sample supplied for each sampling period. After
collection, dishes, sand, and remaining seed were dried in a forced-air oven at low
temp (21 degrees Celsius) until dry (~3 to 4 days). All contents of the bag were
passed through a 1 mm mesh sieve to collect seeds, which were then counted by
species. The herbivory traps monitoring and data collection occurred from August 18
through November 13,2000, and April 30 through November 13, 2001. Exchanges of
petri dishes with seed occurred approximately weekly in 2000 and biweekly in 2001.
Average percent removal rates were calculated for each species for use as the
predation coefficient.
Decay (Dw & Da)
The decay coefficient for £. crus-galli for winter (saturated) conditions was
reported as 43% in 90 days (Shearer 1969). A decay coefficient for P. persicaria for
“wet” conditions was found to be 6% in 90 days (Shearer 1969). It is assumed that
annual decay for un-germinated seeds is twice the winter rate.
Immigration and loss oflsite
These components were measured by placing two seed rain sampling cups on
their side and half submerged facing into the direction of flow of water to determine if
seeds were arriving or leaving via these routes. Preliminary work with aerial seed
traps (data not shown) determined that neither E. crus-galli or P. persicaria were
dispersed via the wind.
170
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Results
All parameters used show in Table 5.2.
Seed Bank
Based on manual sieving of soil samples, the May 2001 seed bank was
calculated to be 2990 viable seeds per m2 for E. crus-galli. The P. persicaria May
2001 seed bank consisted o f793 viable seeds per m2.
Seed Production
Average seed production per plant is shown in Figures 5.2-5.5. E. crus-galli
seed production began in mid-August, 2000 and in mid-October in 2001. Seed
production declined at the end of both study periods in late October 2000 and mid-
November in 2001. The seed production period is considered to begin at the
beginning date of the collection period in which seeds were found to be present in the
seed collection cups and continue to the end of the collection period where no seeds
were found in the seed rain cups.
The seed production period for E. crus-galli was 65 days in 2000 beginning
day of the year 230 and continuing to day of the year 294, and the seed production
period was 77 days in 2001 beginning day of the year 241 and continuing to day of the
year 317. There was therefore an average seed production period of 71 days for this
species.
Seed production for P. persicaria began in mid-August in 2000 and 2001 and
ended late September 2000 and 2001 (Figures 5.4 and 5.5). The seed production
period for P. persicaria was 39 days in 2000, from day 230 to day 268, and the seed 171
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. production period was observed to be 46 days in 2001 beginning day 225 and
continuing to day 270. There was therefore an average for seed production period of
43 days for this species.
Plant population densities
Plant densities are averaged over 2000 and 2001. E. crus-galli was found to
have 260 +/- S.E. 39 plants per square meter. P. persicaria was recorded as 8.196 +/-
S.E. 1 plants per square meter.
Predation studies
Results of the herbivory trap studies for 2000 and 2001 are shown in figures
5.6 through 5.9. Although there are no distinct trends; these graphs show heavy
predation for both species across the study periods. There are a number of potential
problems in using these traps as a method to estimate herbivory. These seed traps are
artificial set-ups that are not found in nature. There may also be an effect of learned
response by small mammal predators that high densities of seeds are often found in the
traps, and thus they are more heavily predated than any random seed source in nature.
Also, these seeds are placed on the sand surface, not buried, which may result in
inflated predation values.
The study design was a generalized random block with a split. Using the year
2000-predation results, a general linear model was tested within Minitab version 12 to
determine differences and possible interactions between components within the study
design. There were no significant differences found in interactions between species 172
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. or between treatment and species. There was a significant interaction between
treatment and side for collection period day 257 at p<0.05. Significant differences
between exclusion types are shown in Table 5.1. Significant differences were found
for collection period day 236,243 and 321 within the GLM. These difference were
analyzed using LSD at p=0.05. For days 236, 243 and 321 there were significant
differences between the all and none excluded traps. There were also significant
differences found between the all excluded and the insect only trap types on days 236
and 243. The all excluded traps were expected to be significant^ different than the
other trap types, as it serves as a control and deters seed removal.
The year 2001 herbivory traps were installed earlier in the year and left out
longer, because data sets from 2000 seemed incomplete. By increasing the study
period, more complete information on the herbivory of these seeds during the seed
rain and non-seed rain portion of the season could be studied. Therefore in calculating
information for herbivory rates, the more complete season, 2001, was used. The
herbivory rate for E. crus-galli was calculated to be 87 % of the seeds available during
the seed rain period and 73.6 % of the available seeds during the non-seed rain
portions of the study period, with an annual predation average of 80%. The herbivory
rates for P. persicaria were calculated to be 88% during the seed rain period and 76 %
during the non-seed rain portions of the study period; the average predation coefficient
used for computation was 82%. Herbivory during seed rain was greater than
herbivory during non-seed rain, because herbivore will likely feed more when there
are higher densities of seeds.
173
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Small mammal traps, traps excluding mammals larger than 2.54 cm, were
added in 2001. These traps were added after examination of the 2000 data to
determine if insects or small mammals such as rodents were the primary feeders on the
seeds o f these two species at the wetland. Examination of the herbivory results in
graphs 5.7 and 5.9 show close similarities between the “small mammal” traps and the
insect only traps. Therefore it is assumed that insects are the primary feeders at the
DARA location on the studied species. Additionally, rodents prefer larger seed sizes
(Mittelbach and Gross 1984) than that o f E. crus-galli (3.5 mm) and P. persicaria (2.3
mm) (Uva et al.1997).
The herbivory graphs (5.6-5.9) show a “Dip” in herbivory activity at the
collection period ending on day 250 in 2000 and day 225 in 2001. There is interest in
this “dip” in herbivory because it occurs both study years. In 2000, on day 222
herbicide applications of “Select” were applied to the surrounding fields, and “Select”
and “Ultra-Blazer” were applied on day 192 in 2001. “Select” or clethodim is a post-
emergent cyclohexenone herbicide used to control grasses in broadleaf crops. It has
received an EPA Toxcity Class II rating (Extoxnet Pesticide Information Profile
Clethodim 2002). “Ultra-Blazer” or Acifluorfen is post-emergent contact diphenolic
ether used to control broadleaf weeds and grasses in soybean fields (Extoxnet
Pesticide Information Profile Acifluorfen 2002). This herbicide has been given a
toxicity class rating of I-II. Toxcity classes I and II are deemed toxic to fish and
aquatic invertebrates (NDSU 2002). It will require further investigation, but the
application of herbicides that are deemed toxic to aquatic insects coincides with a
decrease in herbivore activity (assumed to be the primary feeders). The removal of 174
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. herbivore insects as a result o f herbicide toxicity is a probable explanation for the
sudden dip in herbivory both years.
Immigration and loss oflsite
There was no evidence found of E. crus-galli or P. persicaria seed
immigration and loss ofishe. These parameters were therefore not included in the
seed budget calculations.
Seed budget model results
A summary of the predicted seed bank density from year zero to year five is
presented in table 5.2. The model predicts a reduction in the seed bank over time. E.
crus-galli calculations resulted in a 43.3 % reduction in the seed bank over the five
years and P. persicaria results from the model estimate a 66 % reduction in the seed
bank over the five years of calculations. The largest removal of seeds from both
species’ budgets is by predation on the seed rain. Figures 5.10 and 5.11 show the
predicted seed bank trend over ten years, using the same seed production and
population density values through all runs. It appears that E. crus-galli, whose seed
bank losses level out beginning in year five, may have a seed bank that is sustained
longer than that of the passive arrival P. persicaria. E. crus-galli was applied for
erosion control after construction in 1996. It was noted in field observation that P.
persicaria was available from adjacent fields in 1998 and therefore assumed to be
available at the time of construction. The seed production o f both species is similar as
mentioned above, but seed production can fluctuate each year (Leek and Simpson 175
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1995). Other studies have found that planting can maintain seed banks over time
(Mhsch and Zhang 2001) and also that planting does not build a seed bank over time
(Collins and Wein 1995). The results of this preliminary model provide evidence that
the manager supplied erosion control species; E. crus-galli will have a longer lasting
seed bank than the passive arriver, P. persicaria.
Field data collected using the Braun Blanquet method reported average stem
density per square meter for both species for 1999 and 2001 and was used as an
indirect test of budget validity. E. crus-galli average density over the growing season
was reported as 104.7 stems per square meter in 1999 and decreased to an average
density of 11.9 stems per square meter in 2001. P. persicaria average density over the
growing season was reported as 0.3 stems per square meter in 1999 and 0.3 stems per
square meter in 2001. The predicted decreasing trend in seed density using the seed
budget is supported by a decreasing trend in average density for E. crus-galli and not
supported based on P. persicaria average stem density in the field.
Despite the fact that there are many assumptions, this seed budget model
allows for preliminary investigation of seed bank conditions over time and the value of
supplying seed sources versus purely passive delivery of seeds for sustaining the
species within the wetland system. Managers could utilize this model to help predict
seed bank changes if management is applied that would increase emergence such as
installation of additional mudflat/emergent zones or changes in water level
management which could result in reduction or increase of emergence. Managers
could also potentially utilize this budget to detect changes in reduction of herbivory, if
deterrents or insecticides management options are being considered. 176
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Future work
The further development of this initial model should involve the creation of a
more in-depth model. The more comprehensive model should use daily coefficients
that take into account more detail such as water management at the site, herbivory
rates during seed rain versus periods of no seed rain, and herbivory issues such as
primary feeder activity periods.
177
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. LIST OF REFRENCES
Barrett, S. C. H. "Genetic Variation in Weeds." Biological Control o f Weeds with Plant Pathogens. Ed. R. and H. Walker Charudattan. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1982. 73-98.
Bouchard, V. and W. J. Mitsch. "Plant Richness and Community Establishment after. Five Growing Seasons in the Two Experimental Wetland Basins." Olentangv River Wetland Research Park at the Ohio State University: Annual Report 1998. Ed. W. J. Mitsch and V. Bouchard. Columbus, Oh: School of Natural Resources, 1999.43-59.
Brown, S. C. "Remnant Seed Banks and Vegetation as Predictors o f Restored Marsh Vegetation." Canadian Journal of Botany 76 (1998): 620-29.
Buhler, D. D., K. A. Kohler and R. L. Thompson. "Weed Seed Bank Dynamics During a Five-Year Crop Rotation." Weed Technology 15.1 (2001): 170-76.
Cardina, J, E. Regnier and K. Harrison. "Long-Term Tillage Effects on Seed Banks in Three Ohio SoUs." Weed Science 39 (1991): 189-94.
Collins, B. and G. Wein. "Seed Bank Vegetation of a Constructed Reservoir." Wetlands 15.4 (1995): 374-85.
Edwards, G. R and M. J. Crawley. "Herbivores, Seed Banks and Seedling Recruitment in Mesic Grassland." Journal of Ecology 87 (1999): 423-35.
Erlandson, C. S. "The Potential Role of Seed Banks in the Restoration of Drained Prairie Wetlands." Master of Science. Iowa State University, 1987.
Extoxnet. Pesticide Information Profile Acifluorfen. 2002. web page. Extension Toxicology Network. Available: http://pmep.cce.comell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/24d-captan/acifluorfen-ext.html. 3-8 2002.
178
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. —. Pesticide Information Profile Cletodime. 2002. Web page. Extension Toxicology Network. Available: http://pmep.cce.comell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/carbaryl- dicrotophos/clethodim-ext.html. 3-8 2002.
Forcella, F ., R. G. Wilson, K. A. Renner, J. Dekker, R. G. Harvey, D. A. Aim, D. D. Buhler and J. Cardina. "Weed Seedbanks of the U. S. Com Belt: Magnitude, Variation, Emergence, and Application." Weed Science 40 (1992): 636-44.
—., D. H. Peterson and J. C. Barbour. "Timing and Measurement o f Weed Seed Shed in Com (Zea Mays)." Weed Technology 10 (1996): 535-43.
Galatowitsch, S. M. and A.G. van der Valk. "Natural Revegetation During Restoration of Wetlands in the Southern Prairie Pothole Region of North America." Restoration of Temperate Wetlands. Ed. B. D. Wheeler, S. C. Shaw, W.J. Fojt, R. A. Robertson. New York: John Wiley &Sons, 1995. 128-42.
—. "The Vegetation of Restored and Natural Prairie Wetlands." Ecological applications 6.1 (1996): 102-12.
Galinato, M.l and A. G. van der Valk. "Seed Germination Traits of Annuals and Emergents Recruited During Drawdowns in the Delta Marsh, Manitoba, Canada." Aquatic Botany 26 (1986): 89-102.
Garbisch, E. W and S. Mclninch. "Seed Information for Wetland Plant Species of the Northeast United States." Restoration and Management Notes. (1992): 85-87.
Godwin, H. "Dispersal of Pond Floras." Journal of Ecology 11 (1923): 160-64.
Hammer, D. A. Creating Freshwater Wetlands, second ed. Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers, 1997.
Harrington, J. F. "Seed Storage and Longevity." Seed Biology. Ed. T. T. Kozlowski. Vol. III. New York: Academic Press, 1972.145-245.
Hope, A. "The Dissemination of Weed Seeds by Irrigation Water in Alberta." Scientific Agriculture 7 (1927): 268-76.
Leek, M.A. and R. L. Simpson. "Ten-Year Seed Bank and Vegetation Dynamics of a Tidal Freshwater Marsh." American Journal of Botany 82.12 (1995): 1547-57.
Luckeydoo, L. M. "Vegetation Composition of Three Constructed Wetlands Receiving Agricultural Runoff and Subsurface Drainage." Master of Science. The Ohio State University, 1999.
179
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. — N. R. Fausey, L.C. Brown and C. B. Davis. "Early Development of Vascular Vegetation of Constructed Wetlands in Northwest Ohio Receiving Agricultural Waters." Agriculture. Ecosystems and Environment 88 (2002): 89-94.
Malone, C. R. "A Rapid Method for Enumeration of Viable Seeds in Soil." Weeds 15.4(1967): 381-82.
Martin, A. C. "Identifying Polygonum Seeds." Journal of Wildlife Management 18.4 (1954): 514-20.
Maun, M. A. and C.H. Barrett. "The Biology of Canadian Weeds. 77. Echinochloa Crus-galli (L.) Beauv." Canadian Journal of Plant Science 66 (1986): 739-59.
McAtee, W. L. Wildfowl Food Plants. Ames, IA: Collegiate Press Inc., 1939.
Meeks, R. L. "The Effect of Drawdown Date on Wetland Plant Succession." Journal of Wildlife Management 33.4 (1969): 817-21.
Mittelbach, G. G. and K. L. Gross. "Experimental Studies of Seed Predation in Old- Fields." Oecologia 65 (1984): 7-13.
Mitsch, W. J. and L. Zhang. "Plant Community Development after Seven Growing Seasons in the Two Experimental Wetland Basins." Olentangy River Wetland Research Park at the Ohio State University: Annual Report 2000. Ed. W. J. and V. Bouchard Mitsch. Columbus, Ohio: School of Natural Resources, 2001. 43- 58.
—., B. C. Reeder, and D. M. Klarer. "The Role of Wetlands in the Control of Nutrients with a Case Study in Western Lake Erie." Ecological Engineering: an Introduction to Ecotechnologv. Ed. W. J. Mhsch and S. E. Jorgenson. New York: J. Wiley and Sons, 1989. 129-58.
—., X. Wu, R.W. Naim, P.E. Weihe, N. Wang, R. Deal and C.E. Boucher. "Creating and Restoring Wetlands." Bioscience 48.12 (1998): 1019-30.
NDSU Extension Service. Wildlife and Pesticides: A Practical Guide to Reducing the Risk. 2002. Web Page. North Dakota State University. Available: Http://www.ext.nodak.edu/extpubs/ansci/wildlife/wll 017-2.htm. 3-8 2002.
Odum, E. P. "1989 Ecological Engineering and Self-Organization." Ecological Engineering: An Introduction to Ecotechnologv. Ed. W. J. Mhsch and S. E. Jorgensen. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1989. 79-101.
Payne, N. F. Techniques for Wildlife Habitat Management of Wetlands. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1992. 180
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reed, P.B., Jr. National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: Ohio. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of the Interior-Fish and Wildlife Service., 1988.
Regnier, E. E. "Teaching Seed Bank Ecology in an Undergraduate Laboratory Exercise." Weed Technology 9 (1994): 5-16.
—,.: Personal communication, 2002
Shearer, L. A., B. J Jahn and L. Lenz. "Deterioration of Duck Foods When Flooded." Journal of Wildlife Management 33.4 (1969V. 1012-15.
Smith, L. M. and J. A. Kadlec. "Seed Banks and Their Role During Drawdown of a North American Marsh." Journal of Applied Ecology 20 (1983): 673-84.
Svengsouk, L.J. and W. J. Mitsch. "Patterns of Typha Latifolia and Schoenoplectus Tabemaemontani (C.C. Gmel) Along a Nutrient Gradient in the Olentangy River Experimental Wetlands." Olentangy River Wetland Research Park at the Ohio State University Annual Report 1997. Ed. W. J. and V. Bouchard Mitsch. Columbus: School of Natural Resources, 1998. 81-88.
Toole, E. H. and E. Brown. "Final Results of the Duvel Buried Seed Experiment." Journal of Agricultural Research 72 (1946): 201-10.
USDA-SCS, United States Department of Agriculture- Soil Conservation Service. Soil Survey of Defiance Countv. Ohio. 1984.
Uva, R. H. J. C. Neal and J. M. DiTomaso. Weeds of the Northeast. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1997.
Welling, C. H., R. L. Pederson and A.G. van der Valk. "Temporal patterns in recruitment from the seed bank during drawdowns in a prairie Wetland." Journal of Applied Ecology 25 (1988): 999-1007.
181
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Thinning
Mature Seed Seedlings plants Production
Seed Rain
Predation Seed Bank (SBn) Decay Seed Bank (SBn-1)
Figure 5.1 Conceptual model of the seed budget.
182
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Echinochloa crus-galli Average Seed Production 2000
25 E Um 20 8. oe 15 *5 us 10 Seed Prod.m2 5
> 0 < 238 245 252 259 270 282 294 •5 Date of collection as day of year
Figure 5.2 Average seed production per square meter and associated standard error for Echinochloa crus-galli for the year 2000. Seed production is expressed as seeds per plant.
183
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Echinochloa crus-galli Average Seed Production 2001 25
CN 20
15
10
V) 5
0 211 225 241 255 270 291 322 Date of collection as day of year
Figure 5.3 Average seed production per square meter and associated standard error for Echinochloa crus-galli for the year 2001. Seed production is expressed as seeds per plant.
184
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Polygonum persicaria Average Seed Production 2000
25
20
§ 15
•2 10 — Seed Prod
238 245 252 259 270 282 294 5 Date of collection as day of year
Figure 5.4 Average seed production per square meter and associated standard error for Polygonum persicaria for the year 2000. Seed production is expressed as seeds per plant.
185
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Polygonum persicaria Average Seed Production 2001
E VL. Q. oC + ~ i o — Seed ”33 8 Prod
211 225 241 255 270 291 322 Date of collection as day of year
Figure 5.5 Average seed production per square meter and associated standard error for Polygonum persicaria for the year 2001. Seed production is expressed as seeds per plant.
186
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Echinochloa crus-galli Herbivory 2000
25
TV 3 > o 20 E •All £ co T 3 15 uU co none
10 E s •Insect e only ob 5 I
0 236 243 250 257 268 294 321 Date of collection as day of year 2000
Figure 5.6 Display of herbivory trap results for Echinochloa crus-galli in 2000. Average number seeds removed are of 25 included at the beginning of each study period.
187
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Echinochloa crus-galli Herbivory 2001
30 -a > ■All o 25 E 2 w 20 •O ♦ “Insect oV ca only 15 a> x> a none E 10 3 C 00 5 •SM I exclude d 0 1 A’-'y A —,—A—i—A—t" -A- 151 164 175 196 211 225 241 255 270 291 317 Date of collection period as day of year 2001
Figure 5.7 Display of herbivory trap results for Echinochloa crus-galli in 2001. Average number seeds removed are of 25 included at the beginning of each study period.
188
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. without prohibited reproduction Further owner. copyright the of permission with Reproduced number seeds removed are of numberseeds removed25of eachstudytheincludedof are at beginning period. FigureDisplay5.8 of herbivory for results trap Avg. number of seeds removed 20 30 25 10 15 0 5 3 243 236 Date of Date of ascollection period day of 2000 year Polygonum persicaria Polygonum 5 27 268 257 250 11 ------189 1 ------Herbivory 2000 Herbivory Polygonum persicaria Polygonum 9 321 294 i 00 Average in 2000. ■♦"All -♦-Insect a none only Polygonum perscaria Herbivory 2001
30 —♦—All 25 20 — Insect 15 only 10 none 5 SM 0 excluded 0 0
Date of collection period as day of year 2001
Figure 5.9 Display of herbivory trap results for Polygonum persicaria in 2001. Average number seeds removed are of 25 included at the beginning of each study period.
190
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Predicted seed bank for Polygonum persicaria
8 0 0 u. U> 600 0 1 400 SBn P.p or V i
0 1 234567 89D year
Figure 5.11 Predicted seed bank for Polygonum persicaria after ten years using the seed budget model.
192
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Predicted seed bank for Echinochloa
crus-vallio
1900
U !«C0 1800 H C5 1750 3 SBn E.c. 17 0C if*o 8 165 C C/3 1600 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Y ear
Figure 5.10 Predicted seed bank for Echinochloa crus-galli after ten years using the seed budget model.
191
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TREATMENTS Day of year 2000 none excluded all excluded insects only 236 13+/-1.6 a Q.375+/-0.13 b B.875+/-2.4 ac 243 22.375+/-0.6 a 7.25+/-2.6 b 22.875+/-8.1 ac 250 9.875+/-1.9 0.125+/-0.04 7.125+/-2.5 257 20.125+/-.78 2.5+/-.89 15.875+/-5.6 268 18.25+/-1.5 4.125+/-1.5 11.375+/-4.0 294 20.125+/-1.7 2.5+/-.89 14.125+/-5.0 321 21.625+/-1.3 a 7.7S+/-2.74 b B.625+/-3.0 b
Table 5.1 Average (+/- standard error) number of seeds removed during one- week periods with different herbivory trap treatments in 2000. Lower case letters indicate significant differences found using mean separation, LSD p=0.05
193
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
86 79 72 67 1461 1334 1332 1348 23481 Echinochloa crus-galli: Non-germ, decay Loss Non-germ, Non-germ, decay Loss Non-germ, 2 2 2 2 2 94 1116 1116 1116 1116 1116 Winter decay Loss decay Winter Winter decay Loss decay Winter 35 35 35 35 2595 2595 2595 2595 2595 SR post-thinning andSR Predation 557 655 603 1699 1567 at the DARA WRSIS wetland. ParameterValues for 5 5 to 0 SB after emergence SB post-thinning SR and Predation emergenceafter SB SB=Seed bank: 793; E=emergence; 8.2 seedlings/m2; PD=population density: 8.2 seedlings/m2; 8.2 seedlings/m2; density: PD=population seedlings/m2; 8.2 E=emergence; 793; bank: SB=Seed 523 609 1698 SBn SBn Units are Seeds/square Units meter year 3 year 4 year 5 year 563 year year 1 1861 2730 year year 1 723 784 35 year 2 year 662 715 year 2year 1717 Echinochloacrus-galli 4 year yearS 1696persicaria Polygonum 1695 1551 1548 year 3 year Seed budget resultsyears S.2 S.2 %. 12 SB=Seed bank: 2990; E=emergence: 260 seedlings/m2; PD=population density:260 seedlings/m2; T=thinning: 1%; SP=Seed T=thinning: 1%; seedlings/m2; density:260 PD=population 260 seedlings/m2; E=emergence: 2990; bank: SB=Seed Production: 50.4 seeds/plant; P=Predation:80 %; Dw=winter decay: 43%; Da=annual decay or 2Dw: decay 86%. Da=annual 43%; decay: %; Dw=winter P=Predation:80 ParameterProduction: Values seeds/plant; 50.4 T=thinning: 1%; SP=Seed Production: 24.2 seeds/plant; P=Predation; 80 %; Dw=winter decay: 6%; Da=annual decay or 2Dw: decay or 2Dw: 6%; Da=annual decay: %; Dw=winter 80 P=Predation; 24.2 Production: SP=Seed seeds/plant; T=thinning: 1%; forPolygonum persicaria: Table
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 6
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Overall vascular vegetation species richness trends for the WRSIS constructed
wetlands that were allowed to passively revegetate under varied water levels and
received agricultural drainage decreased from 1998 to 2001. Species alpha diversity
increased or remained approximately the same for the WRSIS wetlands comparing
1998 to 2001. Although species richness decreased, percent of total known species
ranked as wetland indicator species increased from the beginning of the study period
to the end. This suggests that the WRSIS wetlands are organizing according to
conditions and disturbances that exist in their site environment.
A focus of the algal portion of the research was not only to examine which
genera were present and in what abundance over time, but also to test a simple
qualitative methodology to estimate trophic level for the WRSIS wetlands. Attempts
to use a combination of Palmer’s list of pollutant tolerant genera, Nygaard’s
Eutrophication Quotient and abundance shifts resulted in limited success when
compared to water quality nutrient data collected from the sites. This methodology
requires additional data collection of physical and chemical environmental
components and further development before utilization as a quick reference tool for
195
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. trophic estimation and management decisions. Also, moderately similar algal
communities were found to exist between sites, based on beta diversity calculations,
this supports the idea that similar communities of algae will develop under similar
conditions.
Peak biomass estimates of production collected from the WRSIS constructed
wetlands illustrated that peak biomass amounts in the shore and mudflat zones were
significantly higher than peak biomass estimates in open water zones. Overall peak
biomass for vascular vegetation in 1999 and 2001 was lower in comparison to other
wetlands receiving nutrient/sediment-laden effluent. The 2000 biomass estimates
were within the average range of other studies. Significant differences were found for
production estimates between sites in 1999, but not in 2000 or 2001. Peak biomass
production estimates for vascular vegetation and mat algal production point estimates
were higher in 2000 over other studied years, potentially as a result of precipitation in
2000 being above normal while precipitation in 1999 and 2001 was lower than
normal. Peak biomass collection should be continued to determine other potential
causes and explore management implications.
The WRSIS wetlands exhibited a good coverage of vegetation throughout the
study period. These wetlands are indeed developing wetland species over time, but at
the five-year mark, only one of the three locations has reached 50% or greater wetland
indicator species of total known species on site. Many o f the species of vascular
vegetation that have established on the WRSIS wetlands, whether they be designated
as wetland indicator species or upland species, are “functional,” in that there is
196
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. evidence in WRSIS results that support that the goals of the WRSIS wetland (water
quality enhancement and wetland/wildlife habitat) are being met.
The results from importance factor rankings, seed budgeting, and observed low
recruitment from the seed bank after alterations, suggest that planting or seeding of
wetland indicator species or desirable water tolerant species as erosion control on the
upper bank, or over the entire basin would likely result in a more expedient, efficient,
and sustainable establishment of wetland species. Seeding would be beneficial in
creation of a more sustainable seed bank for many species within the wetlands, and
would maintain cost effectiveness.
197
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 7
WETLAND MANAGEMENT FACTSHEET OUTLINE
FOR WRSIS AND SIMILAR USE WETLANDS
Table of Contents
1. Basis of management decisions for this guide ...... 198
2. Basin Design ...... 198
3. Vegetation establishment ...... 199
a. Determine available/current vegetation composition ...... 200
b. Management of vegetation establishment via water level control ...201
c. The need for water level fluctuation ...... 201
d. The water level throughout the growing season ...... 202
e. The water level outside of the growing season ...... 203
4. Mowing and herbicides ...... 203
5. Planting in the WRSIS wetlands ...... 204
a. Plant considerations ...... 204
b. Plant sources ...... 204
6. Species suggestions ...... 205
7. Troubleshooting ...... 207
8. List of References ...... 210
198
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1. Management decisions in this outline are based on the four main functions of the
WRSIS wetlands: Water storage for subirrigation, nutrient retention/reduction,
serves as temporary storm water storage and wetland/wildlife habitat.
a. This management guideline includes considerations for management and
design suggested in “Marsh management techniques” in Weller (1994),
“Management plans for vegetation enhancement” Luckeydoo (1999),
Techniques for Wildlife Habitat Management o f Wetlands (Payne1992),
Restoring Prairie Wetlands (Galatowitsch and van der Valk 1998) and
Chapter 13 of the Engineering Field Handbook (USD A- SCS 1992).
2. Basin Design:
Management decisions recommended in this document will be intended to
guide decisions after WRSIS or similar basin construction, but certain
factors should be noted as important for vegetation establishment as related
to basin design:
a. Slope-6:1 or gentler slope is recommended (USDA- SCS 1992). This
type of slope aids in vegetation establishment and helps to create shallow
water areas.
b. Development of shelves or “hummocks”- These areas are important in
encouraging water- vegetation interaction to reduce sediments and in
supporting the microbial community required for nutrient reduction.
“Hummocks” are drier areas within the wetland for wildlife to “lounge.”
199
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. c. Installation of a water control structure. This will allow water level
manipulation. If present, control over average water level can be
achieved, which also allows managers to determine water stored in the
wetland and can plan how to meet water needs on the site. If there is no
water control structure, information on average rainfall and distribution
should be considered for vegetation tolerances and moisture needs for
establishment.
d. Topsoil is replaced after basin construction. This is important if passive
revegetation is the chosen method of vegetation establishment (as has
been on the DARA, Fulton and Van Wert locations). If erosion control
plantings are to be used, species should include wetland indicator species
&/or functional species (desired moisture tolerance and aid in meeting
the goals of the she). Examples of some desired species are: redtop
(Agrostis alba), panic grass (Panicum sp.), bulrushes (Scirpus sp.),
rushes (Juncus sp.), mannagrass (Glyceria acutiflora) or the like. These
species can aid in meeting a primary site goal of water quality by having
C: N ratios that support microbial activities and/or have the potential to
create dense vegetation to slow water flow and remove turbidity and
sediments. Plantings should take into consideration she soil types,
climate and inundation patterns that match vegetation tolerances.
3. Vegetation establishment
a. Determine available/current vegetation composition
200
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. i. Seed bank analysis of the location prior to construction should be
conducted to determine what species are present for passive
revegetation after construction. Methods include the germination
method (van der Valk and Davis 1978) or the physical separation
method (Forcella et al. 1992).
ii. If the seed bank or potential contribution of local vegetation does
not seem to be adequate, planting or other revegetation methods
may be required to aid in vegetation establishment. Seed banks
of land that has been managed for agricultural use for 20 years or
more often have a low seed bank (Galatowitsch and van der Valk,
1998)
iii. Seed bank analysis and examination of local seed sources will
also give managers an idea of any potential nuisance species for
the wetland such as Lythrum salicaria (purple loosestrife) and
Phragmites australis (Common Reed). Nuisance species could
also include crop pests such as Cirsium sp. (thistles).
Management needs to includes procedures for reduction of
potential nuisance species in the seed bank or as they arrive in the
wetland over time.
iv. If a seed bank analysis cannot be done, a survey of existing
vegetation near the wetland site (200 meter circle) should be
conducted to determine which species are present. This survey
201
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. should include woodlots, road ditches, stream banks, ponds, or
other potential seed sources.
v. General information on seed banks can be found in Rosburg
(2001) and detailed information on agricultural, wetland and
other seed bank types can be found in Leek et al. (1989).
b. Management of vegetation establishment via water level control
i. Decisions for water level manipulation for vegetation
establishment must also consider water needs to meet other site
functions such as crop water needs and habitat concerns.
1. Information on water table management for crop yield
enhancement at the WRSIS wetlands can be found in
Allred et al, 2000
ii. Maintenance of a high water level throughout the growing season
will result in pond like conditions. This is not conducive to many
types of vegetation growth (emergent, floating roots, mudflat),
and can result in the development of an undesirable monoculture.
iii. Higher water levels should be maintained for at least part of the
growing season or at a level sufficient to retain some deep water
areas if the seed bank or survey shows that there are a number of
submerged or floating species present. Examples of common
submerged species are pondweeds (Potamogeton sp.) and of
floating species are duckweeds (Lemna sp.)
202
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. c. Work on the three current WRSIS wetlands has shown seed banks
contain many mudflat species, which require water level fluctuation.
i. To encourage germination and establishment of emergent and
mudflat species a drawdown is used. A drawdown exposes soil
containing the seeds and creates more suitable germination
conditions. Mid>May was found to be the best drawdown time in
Northern Ohio (Meeks 1969). Drawdown is accomplished by
removing of boards in the control weir, but maintaining a low
water level with pumping in water if necessary. Drawdown
depth should result in a water level that is no more than 30 cm in
the deepest portion of the wetland. Drawdown done in this
fashion should result in moist areas on the basin sides and still
maintain a deeper water pool for floating and submerged species
if present.
1. Additional information discussing the rationale for
drawdowns can be found in Weller (1994).
ii. When seedlings reach about S inches in height, the water level
can be slowly raised, making sure that the vegetation remains
exposed (Galatowitsch and van der Valk 1998; Weller 1994).
iii. If nuisance species or upland seedlings appear, raising the water
level should discourage further growth.
d. The water level throughout the growing season should be kept at a level
that does not stress vegetation and allows for rainwater and field runoff 203
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. storage and treatment. There is no “ideal design:” the level in each
wetland will depend on basin design and site goals. For example, the
DARA wetland’s water level is kept about 2 cm below the shelf. This
encourages emergent and mudflat species, and discourages upland
species while maintaining deeper water areas for wildlife use and water
treatment. This level should be allowed to fluctuate with rainfall events,
but not to maintain high water levels for more than 7-10 days. This can
be accomplished by installing a board with a “weephole” set at the
desired water elevation with a diameter that will allow excess water to
slowly be removed from the wetland.
e. In late August the water level can be dropped to expose higher elevation
areas (shelf). This period will allow the soil to dry and organic matter to
breakdown. The water level can be raised again in late October to
increase waterfowl habitat (Weller 1994).
4. Mowing and herbicides
a. Mowing is a common practice for form ponds, but because one of the
goals of the WRSIS wetlands is wetland habitat, mowing should not
occur.
i. Mowing or mulching a walking path, however, would be an
exception.
b. Herbicides and algaecides should not be applied to the wetland or
surrounding areas unless absolutely necessary.
204
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 5. Planting in the WRSIS wetlands
a. Plant considerations
i. Which locations require planting- what is the inundation depth
and regime?
ii. Is there a lack of habitat (shelter and food) species, treatment type
species, or an overall low supply o f seed?
iii. How much time, money and effort is the manager willing to
invest in planting?
iv. What are the basin characteristics, soil characteristics, wetland
water supply quality, site climate, site function priorities and any
other characteristics that can influence which species will do well
on the wetland?
v. Are there soil preparation requirements? Planting time available
in the spring is preferred.
b. Plant sources
i. Seed bank
1. This is inexpensive and requires little additional effort on
the manager’s part to establish. This method selects for
local species that disperse well and can result in many
undesired species. This method may not be capable of
establishing adequate desired vegetation diversity and
coverage within the project timeline.
205
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ii. Salvage soil from a wetland
1. This method can have good diversity and establishment,
but can also contain unwanted species. This method
requires collection of soil from a wetland site, transport
and dispersal onto the new site.
iii. Seeding
1. This method is inexpensive and can result in a diverse
mix. Seeds can be lost if not applied at the proper time
and conditions. Some effort must be put into
broadcasting seeds. Grasses are best seeded in the spring
and summer (Wild Ones 1997).
iv. Planting
1. Managers can establish a diverse group of species and
control their placement within the wetland. This method
is very labor intensive and does not guarantee good
establishment of species. Transplants of perennials or
grass plugs are believed to perform best when installed in
the spring or early fell (Wild Ones 1997).
6. Species suggestions
a. Open water (30 cm +)
i. Potamogeton sp.- Pondweeds, submerged ii. Ceratophylum- Coontail, submerged iii. Nelumbo lutea- water lotus, floating
206
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. iv. Lemna sp.- Duckweed, floating v. Azolla sp.- water fern, floating vi. Salvinia sp.- water fern, floating vii. Typha sp. —Cattails, emergent b. Shallow water (~15 cm or less—fluctuating shallow to saturated) i. Leersia oryzoides- Rice cut grass ii. Carex sp.- Sedges iii. Scirpus (e sp. S.cyperinus, S.fluviatilis, S.validus, S.atrovirens)- Bulrushes iv. Zizania aquatica-wM rice v. Eleocharis sp- Spikerush vi. Sparganium sp.- Burreed c. Mudflat (saturated soil-occasional short term flooding) i. Echinochloa crusgalli- Barnyard grass (not a wetland species in Ohio- but effective functional species on other WRSIS sites) ii. Hordeum jubatum- Foxtail barley iii. Polygonum sp. -Smartweeds iv. Panicum virgatum- Switchgrass v. Asclepias incarnata- Butterfly weed vi. Alisma plantago-aquatica- water plantain d. Woody species- tolerant of flooding through part of the growing season i. Salix sp. - Willows ii. Quercus sp.- Oaks iii. Cornus stolonifera- Red Osier Dogwood iv. Rhus typhina- Staghom sumac v. Cephalanthus occidentalis- Buttonbush e. Information on moisture level desired by the above species was located in Galatowitsch and van der Valk (1998), Hammer (1997) and Payne (1992). f. Information on germination requirements, propagules types and wildlife uses for many wetland species are summarized in Middleton (1999).
207
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 7. Troubleshooting
a. Algae growth:
i. This site will receive nutrient runoff from agricultural fields that
will result in large algal blooms. If this growth becomes
problematic, especially before drawdown events, it will need to
be physically removed from the edges before the water level is
drawn down. Algal mats remaining before drawdown would
blanket soil and prevent aeration and penetration of sunlight,
discouraging seed germination.
b. Invasive/less valuable species:
i. Species such as Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) that are
very aggressive species and are currently believed to have limited
value in water quality enhancement will be removed from the site
if seen. If the plant is present as a seedling, it should be removed
with its root ball by digging. If blooming (June - September), the
upper portions of the plant should be tightly bagged, and the
lower portions removed by digging- remove all parts of the roots.
Cattails, Typha, may become a less valuable species if it becomes
weedy. Mechanical control has proven effective (Garbisch 1994;
Sale and Wetzel 1983). Typha should be cut in patches below
the water surface to remove air supply.
208
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. c. Weedy annuals:
i. If weedy herbaceous species become a problem due to low water
level and other wetland species seem well established, a slight
water level increase for a few days would help reduce terrestrial
populations (Hammer 1997; Weller 1994).
d. Herbicide applications:
i. Round up (Glyphosate), 2-4 D, Banvel (Dicamba) and fungicide
treated com is known to be applied to crop fields in WRSIS
locations starting in April and will be incorporated into the
drainage and runoff that serves as a supply water to the wetland.
Applications to the field are expected, but application equipment
should not be cleaned or mixed near or in the wetland.
ii. Direct application of herbicides to buffer areas or in the wetland
is strongly discouraged. However, if species become a risk to
field crops or neighboring farms, careful and appropriate
applications can be made. Attempts should be made to minimize
wetland exposure to extraneous chemicals.
e. Weedy willows and tall species:
i. Woody species desirability on a WRSIS or similar site will
depend on site goals and limitations.
ii. The DARA wetland is in proximity to an airport, which has
specific limitations on the height of vegetation around runways.
If species that extend this height requirement are herbaceous,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. they should be trimmed to a level below the height requirement
based on the speed of growth. Methods used for removal should
minimize perturbation of the soil and other vegetation. Mowing
should not occur on the buffer or within the wetland, unless
periodic (2-3 years) to control plant density (after July) (Hartman
1998) or necessary to create a narrow walking path to equipment
or sampling locations,
f. Vegetation is no longer providing good coverage, or is composed of only
one or two species:
i. Consider a drawdown the next season. Also, consider seeding or
planting additional species of varying germination requirements
or life types (i.e., floating, submerged, emergent).
210
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. LIST OF REFRENCES
Allred, B. J., L. C. Brown, N. R. Fausey, R. L. Cooper, W. B. Clevenger, G. L. Prill, G. A. LaBarge, C. Thornton and B. J. Czartoski. "Water Table Management Guidelines for a Wetland Reservoir Subirrigation System." ASAE paper no. 00- 2040. American Society of Agricultural Engineers Annual Meeting 2000.2000.
Forcella, F., R. G. Wilson, K. A. Renner, J. Dekker, R. G. Harvey, D. A. Aim, D. D. Buhler and J. Cardina. "Weed Seedbanks of the U. S. Com Belt: Magnitude, Variation, Emergence, and Application." Weed Science 40 (1992): 636-44.
Galatowhsch, S. M. and A.G. van der Valk. Restoring Prairie Wetlands- an Ecological Approach. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press, 1998.
Garbisch, E. W. The physical control of narrow- leaved cattail (Typha angustifolia) [sic]. Wetland Journal 6.3(1994): 14-15.
Hammer, D. A. Creating Freshwater Wetlands, second ed. Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers, 1997.
Hartman, F. Wetland habitat considerations for breeding waterfowl. Wetland Journal. 10.3 (1998): 3-6, 11.
Leek, M. A., V. T. Parker and R. L. Simpson (eds.). Ecology o f Soil Seed Banks. San Diego: Academic Press Inc., 1989.
Luckeydoo, L. M. "Vegetation Composition of Three Constructed Wetlands Receiving Agricultural Runoff and Subsurface Drainage." Master of Science. The Ohio State University, 1999.
Meeks, R. L. "The Effect of Drawdown Date on Wetland Plant Succession." Journal of Wildlife Management 33.4 (1969): 817-21.
Middleton, Beth. Wetland Restoration. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1999.
Payne, N. F. Techniques for Wildlife Habitat Management o f Wetlands. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1992. 211
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Rosburg, T. Secrets of the Seed Bank. 2001. Iowa Natural Heritage. Available: http://www.inhf.org/seedbank.htrnl. 6 April 2001.
Sale, P. J. M., and R. G. Wetzel. Growth and metabolism of Typha species in relation to cutting treatments. Aquatic Botany 15 (1983): 321-334.
United States Department of Agriculture- Soil Conservation Service. Chapter 13- Wetland Restoration, Enhancement, or Creation. Engineering Field Handbook (210-EFH) 1992.
van der Valk, A. G. and C. B. Davis. The role of seed banks in the vegetation dynamics of prairie glacial marshes. Ecology. 59.2 (1978): 322-335.
Weller, M. W. Freshwater Marshes: Ecology and Wildlife Management. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1994.
Wild Ones. Wild Ones Handbook. Wild Ones Natural Landscapes, Ltd., 1997.
212
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX A
PALMER’S LIST OF POLLUTANT TOLERANT GENERA
213
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. - j yallulrin'iolfrcr.l grntrn 0 } slfac. tu t • - • / in ® * ^ n o i f ieIrTunt gcnera' ir' ardcT °! b a s in g tmphasii ’ fr y 16' autkoTitUs.
• N'o. ' Taut Cum/ .utthon . pfjict. eitgb™ F ST 172 . Oicittalofjui . - r a BS 161 j gjitamrdamonas •f- 6« : 115 ... -r s ^ a u d e s m n i c TO 112 . j • Cklnrella c :■ - fiO 103 g X iu u h ia n 58 - . 98 - /} : - yimnila D 61 " . 92 . g . •'.• c ..■-•• so: 69 ■- 9 ■T-r. Syntdxal D -M -. ■.' 58 - IP: . 4**uln>dM »nul • G . » - -" 57-- I I ■ B « M • .. : r : J9' 57 : H P hotm kU uvi : • B J7 52 : |j: Httajrn _.■ D 37 .:•- : 51 14 C cm pkanrm n D . ss 48 - U ' Cjttoleflfl : - .■ n ' 35 47 - |p : C learrium ■_ c M • 45 • I " ■ . a 27 44 ' ."• . • .-<.F' :S2 42 ' 19 U««y»/i» ■; ;; : B ■ 2 « :-. '3 9 2 0 l*poirhtclt\ _ - ■ :F 25 • 35 rtt ^Spirog}n _ •; c ■. • 26 : - 37 • . B - 27 . 36 O Cryptamonas : "-. f 27 ' . 36 •‘S* :- P H im lm m - ' C SS " - 35 B A n k m p ir a jr : B 18 •34 a ; Trortrtoimmir F . » / :34 17 CarUrU • :F . 21 33 If CAlcmjgeimiJxj ; . . • -r' • 23 •" 33 •-2S Frafilma '■ .. ■■■ D « S3. SD C b r im x ., . •/-' c ■ 25 ■ 33 SI SinrirslLi - D 2T : ; 34 S t - itrfim otlacut D : 22 • 32 M Eudarina - • ' T. • 23 / 30 M l.yngbya •- . B / IT 2H 13 Ootfite: ■ ■" ••- c. 20 ' 28 7 1 6 - : rfgrnencUlun : • • • •.B -. • 19 : 27 / IT ' 5"|wr*lm« • r B. .17 . . 25 38 ■ Pfrabotrff r 24 ' D j s : 24 - ' *0; ■ c • 2b 24 C -> •■■■ 21 84 Ckfti^uira C , / 22 : 24 . - -D 18 -23 - « .DutOflM. O 19 : . 22 .%4^IWNirfR f 16 - 21 . jjfllfiiliwii •'*'• /•.. c • ■- H ■ 19 • AchnauHes '• - D 16 . 19 SjiMirc. v. /" r .« - 1? :• Pomuiuna D IS .18 C^onxncctuvt" •'*' ' C : 'n . SI U •IjMnoaWfe b . M . . 17 ' it Cflmneb D - M 17 SI Cotminian , : -.■■"• G 14 17 ./•si- . v'.;- F 15 S i 17 a 10. 16 * _ StamMwir D 14 16 * ; fc Appendix A. Palmer’s list of pollutant tolerant genera provided for reference (Palmer 1969). 214 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX B SPECIES LISTS FOR WRSIS WETLANDS, 1998 THROUGH 2001 INCLUDING LIFE HISTORY TYPE AND WIS STATUS 215 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2001 2001 2001 2000 2000 2001 1999 2000 1999 2000 2001 1998 1998 1999 2000 2001 1998 1999 1998 2001 1998 1999 2000 2001 1998 1999 B1 1998 2001 na 1998 na 1998 na 1998 na 1998 na 1998 1999 2000 PIG PIG 1998 1999 PNF PNF 1998 1999 2000 2001 ANF 1998 1999 2000 ANF PNGL 1998 (SU)AIG 1999 APNEGL 1998 1999 (SU)A (SU)A IG 1998 1999 2000 2001 Category/status na P na na na na 1998 NA P 1998 NA P OBL PNEGL OBL FACU FACU (SU)ANF FACW- PNF 1998 1999 FACWOBL PIG FACU/FAC ANF 1998 FACU-/FAC (FL)P, IF 1998 FACU-/FAC FACU/FAC- FACU+/FAC FACU/FACW FACU/FACW (WI)BIF 1998 na na na nana na na NA NA NA NA FACU FACU-/FAC- FACU FACU FACU/FACU+ FACU FACU/FAC FACU FACW FACW/OBL Code OhioCode Nat Code Wild carrot Wild Annual fleabane fleabaneRough topped goldenrod Flat fescueMeadow FACU+ FACU Squarerose sedge Squarerose sedgeFox OBL Tall thistle Canadathistle Barnyard grass FACU FACU GrassJuncus or Sedge Crabgrass Common mercury3-seeded RedtopRagweed FACU- FACW FACU chicory na Yellow Rocket Yellow Perennial Perennial ragweedWhite heath asterAstersp. FACU NC Orchardgrass Composite Composite New EnglandNew aster FAC Bluntspikerush OBL Eleocharisobtusa J.A. (Willd.)Schultes. Erigeron Pers. (L.) annuus Euthamia graminifoliaEuthamia (L.) Nutt. Digitariasanguinalis Echinochloa crusgalli Beauv. (L.) Cirsium arvense Scop. (L.) Erigeron strigosusMuhl. Graminoid Carexsquarrosa L. Carexvulpinoidea Michx. Dactylisglomerata L. Daucuscarota L. Carexsp. DARA-compiled DARA-compiled 1998-2001 BarbareaBR. vulgaris R. Name Acalypharhomboidea Raf. Ambrosiaartemistifolia L. 1 1 SCirsium altissima Sprengel. (L.) 2 Agroslis2 gigantea Roth. 3 1 Aster1 sp. family%Asteraceae 1 9Asteraceaefamily 2 5 Aster 5 novae-angliae L. A Ambrosia psilostachya A DC. 6 Aster6pilosus Willd. 1 1 19 19 16 16 18 XACichorium intybusXACichorium L. 12 12 13 17 17 11 11 10 10 21 21 22 22 23 24 24 Festucapratense25 Hudson. 26 20 Appendix B Compiled species list for DARA, Fulton and Van Wert WRSIS wetland, wetland, WRSIS Van Wert and 1998-2001. B Fulton DARA, for Appendix list species Compiled Continued. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2001 2001 2000 2000 1999 2001 1999 2000 2001 1999 2001 1999 2001 1999 19981998 2000 1998 1998 1999 2000 2001 1998 1999 2001 P 1998 1999 2000 2001 na 1998 NT 1998 1999 2000 2001 PIF PIF 1998 ANEF 1998 (SU)APIF 2000 (SPSU)PIF (SUWI)ABIF 1998 FAC/OBL (su)AIF 1998 FACW/FAC FAC/FACW PNG 1998 FAC/FACW PNGL FACW-/OBL (SU)ANEF FACU/FACW na na na na na 1998 NANA NA NA (WI)AB 1998 NA NA ABPIF FAC FAC/FACW FAC OBL OBL ANF 1999 OBLOBL OBL FAC/OBL PNZF FAC- FAC- FACU FACU/FAC (SPSU)ABPNF FACU FACU PIG 1998 1999 2000 2001 FACU FACU/FACW FACUFACU FAC/FACW FACU.FACW-FACU FACU/FACW AIG FACW FACW FACU- FACU-/+ ABIF 1998 FACU- FACU-/FACU PIG 1998 FACU+ FACW- FAC, FACW ANG FACW+ FACW+/OBL PNEGL 1998 2001 Code Ohio Code Nat Code Category/status Field cress Field Perennial ryegrass Alfalfa clover sweet Yellow Panic grass Rough cinquefoil Rough Selfheal Marsh yellowcress false pimpernel false plantain Broad leaf Prostrate knotweed Penn.smartweed thumb Lady's Cottonwood pondweed Leafy Path rush Prickly lettuce Foxtail barley Foxtail Soft rush Soft Timothy Narrow plantainleaf Annual grass Grass 1 dock Curly Lindernia dubia L. Pennell perenneLolium L. Panicum dichotomiflorum Michx. pratense Phleum L. Lactucaserriola L. Plantago lanceolata L. Polygonumpersicaria L. Populusdeltoides Marshall. Prunella vulgarisL. Lepidium campestre R.Br. (L.) Melilotusofficinalis Pallas. (L.) Plantago majorL. Polygonum aviculare L. Name Common Hordeum jubatumHordeum L. Rumexcrispus L. Appendix B (continued), B Appendix 32 32 33 34Medicago saliva L. 35 36 31 31 30 37 29 Juncustenuis 29 Willd. 38 39 2%Juncus effitsus 2%Juncus L. SORorippa islandica Besser. (L.) 42Poaceae family 2 45 46 Potamogeton41foliosus 4iPotenillanorvegica L. Grass 2 49 51 27 27 40 Poa40annua L. 41 Poaceae family Poaceae 41 1 43 43 44 Polygonum44pensylvanicum L. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2001 2001 2001 2000 2001 2000 2000 1999 1999 1999 2000 1999 1998 1998 1998 1999 PIF PIF PNF 1998 BPIF 1998 1999 2001 PNEF 1998 1999 2000 APNF 1998 (SU)AI 2000 PNEGL 1998 PNEGL 1998 Category/status NA OBL OBL Code Nat Code FACU+/- FAC+/FAC FACW/OBL NS FACU-/FAC FACU-/FAC FACW+/OBL FACU/FACU+ NA OBL OBL OBL FACU FACU- FACU- FACU- FACW+ FACW+ Code Ohio Code Blue vervain Blue Woolgrass Woolgrass Narrow leaf cattail cattail Narrow leaf Sandbar willow Sandbar willow Foxtail Common goldenrod Dandelion Clover Red Common Common Green bulrush white clover Data from Reed Data from Reed 1988 F=Forb G=grass GL=grass-like E= Emergent S-Shrub T=Tree Verbena hastataVerbena L. Taraxacum Taraxacum officinale G.H. Weber pratense Trifolium L. repensTrifolium L. Typha angustifolia L. Name Salixexiqua (Nutt.) Scirpusatrovirens Willd Scirpuscyperinus L. 53 53 54 55Seteriafaberi R. Herrm. dago canadensisSoli 56 57 58 58 59 52 52 61 60 l=lntroduced N=Native STATUS CODES: STATUS (Su)=summer annual (Wi)=winter annual P=Perennial B=Biennial (Sp)=spring annual A=Annual Appendix B B (continued), Appendix N) 00 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2001 2001 2001 2000 2000 2001 2000 2000 2000 2001 2000 2000 2001 2000 2000 2001 2000 1999 1999 1999 na 1998 na 1999 na 1999 PIG PIG 1998 1999 PIG PIG 1998 PNC 1999 PNEGL 1999 2000 2001 (FL)P, 1 F (FL)P, 19981 1999 2000 2001 (SU)A, (SU)A, IG 1998 1999 na na 1998 2000 2001 OBL ~F PN OBL FACW FACW/FAC (SUWI)ABIF 1999 FACU-/FAC FACW/OBL PIG 1998 1999 2000 FACU/FACW FACU/FACW (Wl)BIF nana na na na na na na na na na na na 1998 na na na na 1998 na na NC FACU NA FACU NA NA P 1999 NA NA (SU)A, 19981 2001 OBL OBL FAC- FACU FACU FACU FACU/FACU+ PIG 1998 1999 FACU FACU FACW FACW FAC/FACW ANF 1998 FACW FACU- FACU-/FAC NF 1998 1999 FACU+ FACU/FAC ANF 1998 tde Ohio tde Nat. Code Category/status lost sample lost fescue Meadow lettuce Prickly grass cut Rice sdl Rough fleabane Rough sdl sdl duckweed Brome grass Brome Canadian thistle Thistle straw sedge colored Barnyard grass Tall Tall thistle Orchard grass Quackgrass Western ragweed Western ragweed sp. Ragweed Fathen saltbush Rocket Yellow Velvetleaf Redtop algae(oedogonium) Notes Lactucaserriola L. Festucapratense Hudson. Leersia oryzoides Swartz. (L.) Lemna minorL. Erigeron strigosusMuhl. Cirsium arvense Scop. (L.) Cirsium sp. Cyperusstrigosus L. Echinochloacrusgalli L. Beauv. Elytrigia repens (L.) Nersk. Barbarea vulgarisR.BR. *) (japonica0 Bromussp. Cirsium altissima Sprengel. (L.) Dactylglomeratais L. Species Fulton-compiled 1998-2001 Fulton-compiled 1998-2001 Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. Ambrosiapsilostachya DC. Abutilon theophrasti Medikus 1 1 8 9 f3 19 3 3 algae 5 7 f2 18 16 16 fl 17 2 2 Agrostisgigantea Roth. 4 6 Atriplexpatula L. 11 10 10 12 13 14 15 22 22 20 Fabaceaefamily 21 23 23 24 Appendix B B (continued), Appendix Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2001 2001 2001 2001 2000 2000 1999 2001 1999* 1998 1998 1998 1998 1999 2000 1998 1999 1998 na na 1998 1999 NT PIF 1998 1999 PIG 1998 1999 2000 2001 PIG 1998 1999 AIG 2001 AIG 1999* 2000 2001 ANG AIEF 2000* PNZF AN$F 1999* ANEF 1999* 2000 ABPIF (SU)A1 (su)AIF 1999* 2000 2001 (WI)AB 1998 2000 (SU)AIF (SU)ANF 1998 1999 2001 (SU)APIF 1998 1999 2000 (SPSU)PIF 1998 1999 2000 2001 (SU)ANEF (SPSU)ABPNF 1998 1999 Category/status na NA FACU Code Nat. Code FAC/OBL FAC/FACW FAC, FAC, FACW FACU/FACW FACU-/FACU na na na NA NA NA NA NA FACU/FAC FAC FAC FACU, FAC FAC/FACW OBL FAC/OBL OBL OBL OBL FACW/OBL FACU FACU FACU/FAC FACU FACU FACU FAC/FACW FACU FACW FACW FACW FACW FACW-/OBL FACU- FACW- FACW+ FAC/OBL FACW+ OBL FACW, Code Ohio Code Foxtail thistle Sow Lady's thumb Lady's Peach-leaf willow Peach-leaf Giantfoxtail goldenrod water pepper Nodding smartweed Penn.smartweed smartweed Purslane pondweed Leafy Rough cinquefoil Rough Marsh yellowcress dock Curly Prostrate knotweed reed canary grass reed Cottonwood Pepperplant English grass rye Common plantain Panicgrass Timothygrass Narrow plantainleaf Sonchusoleracus L. Polygonum lapathifolium L. Polygonumpersicaria L. Portulaca oleracea L. Potenillanorvegica L. Seteriafaberi R. Herrm. Seteriasp. Solidagosp. Polygonum hydropiper L. Polygonum sp. Polygonumpensylvanicum L. Populusdeltoides Marshall. Potamogetonfoliosus Raf. Rorippa islandica Besser. (L.) Rumexcrispus L. Saixamygdaloides Anderss. Species Notes Polygonum aviculare L. Plantago major L. Lepidium campestre R.Br. (L.) Panicum dichotomiflorum Michx. Phalarisarundinaceae L. pratensePhleum L. Plantago lanceolata L. 46 48 35 35 37 43 43 44 45 47 49 34 34 38 36 39 40 42 42 32 Poaceae family Poaceae 32 33 Grass 31 31 41 41 28 28 29 30 25 25 26Loliumperenne L. 27 Appendix B B (continued), Appendix Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1999 1999* 1998 1998 APNF UPL (WI/SU)A UPL FACU-/FAC BPIF FACU-/FAC PIF 1998 NA FACU/FAC FACU FACU White clover White Verbena prostrate Red clover Red Field pennycressField UPL S=Shrub $= succulent E= E= Emergent ~= floating Data from Reed Data from Reed 1988 F=Forb G=grass GL=grass-like T=Tree Verbena bracteataVerbena Lagasca & Rodriguez Thaspi Thaspi arvense L. Trifolium pratense Trifolium L. Trifolium repensTrifolium L. SO SO 51 51 52 52 53 53 I=Introduced P=Perennial B=Biennial N=Native (Sp)=springannual A=Annual Appendix B B (continued), Appendix STATUS CODES: (Su)=summerannual (Wi)=winterannual to to Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000* 1999 19991999 2000 1999 1998 1999 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1999 2000 1998 1999 - P na 1998 na na PIF 1999 PIG AIG 1998 2000 ANF 1998 ANF 1998 PNEGL (SU)AIG 1998 APNEGL (SU)A (SU)A IG Category/Status NA OBL FACU/ FAC FACU-/FAC (FL)P, IF 1998 FACU/FAC- PNF 1998 1999 na na nana na na na na na 1998 NA NA Algae NC NA NA NA NA NA (SU)A, 1 1998 OBL OBL OBL FACU FACU/FAC FACU FACU/FACW FACU FACU-/FAC- FACU FACU FACU/FACU+ FACU FACU ANF 1998 FACU FACU-/FAC ANF 1998 FACW FACW/FACW+ (SU)ANF 1998 2000 FACU- FACU- FACU- FACU/FACU- FACU- FACU-/FAC NF FACU+ Code Ohio Code Nat. Code Rough fleabane Rough Barnyard grass Barnyard Annual fleabane Brome grass Brome sedge Fox Smooth brome Smooth only Foliage Sedge Crabgrass Stone wart Stone 3-seed ed mercury ed 3-seed Ragweed Western ragweed aster heath White Japanese brome Orchard grass Devil's beggarticks Devil's chickweed Tall thistle thistle Canada Velvetleaf Astersp. Blunt spikerush Echinochloa crusgalli Beauv. (L.) EleocharisobtusaJ.A. Schultes. (Willd.) Muhi. strigosus Erigeron Carex vulpinoideaMichx. Van Wert-compiled 1998-2001 Bromus japonicusBromus Thunb. Dactylisrataglome L. Digitariasanguinalis Scop. (L.) Bromus intermis Leysser. Pers. (L.) annuus Erigeron Cerastium vulgatum Chara vulgaris Cirsium altissima Sprengel. (L.) Cirsium arvense Scop. (L.) Name Common Bidens frondosaBidens L. sp. Bromus Abutilon theophrastiMedikus. Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. DC. psiloslachya Ambrosia Asterpiiosus Willd. 1 1 9 3 3 5 8 2 Acalypharhomboidea Raf. 4 7 6 sp. Aster 10 10 19 11 11 12 13 15 15 16 Cut grass Live 17 17 Cyperaceae Family 18 14 14 Appendix B (continued), B Appendix 21 21 23 22 22 20 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2000 2000 2000 2000 2001 2000 2000 1999 2000 1999 2000 2001 1998 1998 1998 1999 1998 1998 2000 1998 1998 P na 1998 na 1998 NT 1998 PNF 1998 PNC 1998 1999 2000 PNG ABIF 1998 PZNF ANEF PNGL 1999 (WI)AB 1998 (SPSU)PIF 1998 1999 (SU)ANEF 1998 FAC/OBL (SU)AIF FACU/FAC ABPIF FAC/FACW PIF FAC/FACW FAC, FAC, FACW ANG FACW-/OBL FACU-/FACU PIG na na na na na na na na na na NA NA NA NA NA NA NA P FAC FAC/FACW OBL OBL OBL FAC/OBL OBL OBL FAC OBL OBL FAC- FACW/FAC ABIF FAC- FAC-/FACW FACU FACU FAC/FACW FACU FACU PIG FACW FACW FACU- FACU- FACU- FACU- FACU-/FACU A1F FACW- Code OhioCode Code Nat. Category/Status Leafy Pondweed Leafy Marsh yellowcress Broad leafplantain Curly dock Ditch stonecrop Penn. Smartweed Lady's thumb Smartweed Yellow sweet clover sweet Yellow Panicgrass Cottonwood Narrow leafplantain Grass Alfalfa Path rush Prickly lettuce Rice cut grass Field cress Perennial ryegrass legume barley Foxtail Eyebane goldenrod topped Flat Meadow fescue Meadow GrassorJuncus Common sp. Rorippa islandica (L.) Besser. Rumexcrispus L. Panicum dichotomiflorumMichx. Penthorum sedoidesL. Polygonumpersicaria L. Populus deltoidesMarshall. Potamogetonpectinatus Plantago lanceolata L. Plantago majorL. Polygonumpensylvanicum L. Polygonum Polygonum Melilotusofficinalis Pallas. (L.) Lepidium campestre R.Br. (L.) Medicagosativa L. Lactucaserriola L. Leersia oryzoides Swartz. (L.) perenneLolium L. Festuca pratenseFestuca Hudson. Fabaceae family Hordeum jubatumHordeum L. Name Euphorbia nutans Lagasca. nutans Euphorbia Juncus tenuis Willd. 47 47 48 37 37 38 39 36 36 43 45 46 40 41 Poaceae family 44 35 35 42 31 31 32 34 30 33 33 28 28 Graminoid** 29 27 27 25 graminifolia Euthamia Nutt. (L.) 26 24 24 Appendix B B (continued), Appendix Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2001 2001 2001 2001 2000 2000 2000 1999 1999 2000 1999 1999 2000 1998 na NS PIF 1998 PNF BPIF 1998 NA (SU)AIF 1998 1999 NA (SU)AI 1998 OBL PNEGL 1998 1999 Code Nat.Code Category/Status Data from Reed Reed Data from 1988 NA NA FAC FAC-/FAC (SU)ANF 1998 1999 2000 OBL FACU- FACU-/FAC PIF 1998 FACU- FACU-/FAC FACU- FACU+/- l=lntroduced N=Native E= E= Emergent S=Shrub GL=grass-like F=Forb G=grass T=Tree Red Clover Red clover White Narrow cattailleaf Corn speedwell OBL NA OBL NA PNEF 1999 NA 1998 Cocklebur Annual sowthistle Annual Dandelion Goldenrod na na Foxtail Sandbar willow Black Willow OBL FACW+ FACW/OBL OBL UPL, NS 1998 1999 2000 Common goldenrodCommon FACU FACU/FACU+ CommonGreen bulrush Ohio Code P=Perennial B=Biennial (Sp)=springannual A=Annual Trifolium repensTrifolium L. Typha angustifolia I. STATUS CODES: (Su)=summerannual (Wi)=winterannual Taraxacum officinale G.H. Weber Sonchusoleraceus L. Name Xanthium strumarium L. Setariafaberi r. Herrm. Solidago canadensis Salixexiqua (Nutt.) Solidago sp. Solidago Scirpusatrovirens Willd. Salixnigra Marshall SI pratense Trifolium L. 58 59 55 55 56 60 Veronica arvensis L. arvensis 60 Veronica 61 61 VW?2 63 54 54 62 VW?3 53 53 52 52 49 51 50 50 Appendix B B (continued), Appendix Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX C WETLAND INDICATOR SPECIES SUMMARIZED BY PERCENT OF TOTAL SPECIES BELONGING TO EACH LIFE HISTORY TYPE 225 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. DARA 1998 % of WIS 1999 % of WIS 2000 % ofWIS 2001 % ofWIS A 7 41.2 5 38.5 1 16.7 2 18.2 B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P 10 58.8 8 61.5 5 83.3 9 81.8 WIS 17 13 6 11 Total sp. (includes unknowns) 51 32 24 30 %WIS of total 33.3 40.6 25 36.7 Fulton 1998 % of WIS 1999 % of WIS 2000% of WIS 2001 % of WIS A 2 40 8 61.5 2 33.3 5 55.6 B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P 3 60 5 38.5 4 66.7 4 44.4 WIS 5 13 6 9 Total sp. (includes unknowns) 32 33 21 22 %WIS of total 15.6 39.4 28.6 40.9 Van Wert 1998 % of WIS 1999 % of WIS 2000% of WIS 2001 % of WIS A 7 53.8 2 20 8 57.1 4 40 B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P 6 46.2 8 80 6 42.9 6 60 WIS 13 10 14 10 Total sp. (includes unknowns) 44 24 27 21 %WIS of total 29.5 41.7 51.9 47.6 Appendix C Wetland indicator species (WIS) broken down by life history types. The number of total species includes unknowns. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX D IMPORTANCE FACTOR RANKINGS 227 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. DARA Survey 1 ( 9 June 1998): Survey 1 (11 June 1999) Survey 1 ( 9 June 2000) Surveyl (13 June 2001) l.Eleocharis ovata 1. Solidago canadensis 1 .Medicago sativa 1. Juncus tenuis 2Juncus tenuis 2-Echinochloa crusgalli 2.Salix exiqua 2. Cirsium arvense 3.Scirpus cyperinus 3 .Medicago sativa 3 Juncus tenuis 3. Solidago sp. 4Juncus effiises 4.Festuca pretense 4.Phleum pratense 4. Carex vulpinoidea S. Medicago sativa 5 Juncus tenuis 5-Ambrosia artemisiifolia 5. Phleum pratense Survey2 (14 July 1998) Survey2 (30 Jun 1999) Survey2 (24 July 2000) Survey2 (30 July 2001) 1. Eleocharis ovata 1. Ediinochloa crusgalli 1. Ediinochloa crusgalli 1. Solidago canadensis ZGraminoid 2. Medicago sativa 2. Medicago sativa 2. Phleum pratense 3 .Aster sp. 3. Juncus tenuis 3. Phleum pratense 3. Salix exiqua 4. Salix exiqua 4. Solidago canadensis 4. Polygonum persicaria 4. Typha angustifolia 5. Juncus tenuis 5.Taraxacum officinale 5. Ambrosia artemisiifolia 5. Medicago sativa Survey (4 Aug 1999) 1. Ediinochloa crusgalli 2. Medicago sativa 3. Juncus tenuis 4. Festuca pratense 5. Solidago canadensis Survey3 (27 August 1998) Survey3 ( 16 Sept 1999) Survey3 (14 Sept 2000) Survey3 (27 Sept. 2001) 1.Graminoid 1. Ediinochloa crusgalli 1. Ediinochloa crusgalli 1. Solidago canadensis 2. Eleocharis ovata 2. Festuca pratense 2. Salix exiqua 2. Phleum pratense 3. Salix exiqua 3.Aster pilosus 3. Polygonum pensylvanicum3. Medicago sativa 4.Poaceae family 4. Medicago sativa 4. Medicago sativa 4 .Potamogeton foliosus 5. Medicago sativa 3. Solidago canadensis 5.Typha angustifolia 5.Typha angustifolia Survey (15 Oct 1999) 1 .Ediinochloa crusgalli 2.Festuca pretense 3. Panicum dichotomiflorum 4. Aster pilosus 5. Medicago sativa Summaryl998 Summary 1999 Summary2000 Summary2001 1. Eleocharis ovata 1. Solidago canadensis 1. Medicago sativa 1. Solidago canadensis 2. Juncus tenuis 2. Ediinochloa crusgalli 2. Salix exiqua 2. Medicago sativa 3. Medicago sativa 3. Medicago sativa 3. Phleum pratense 3. Phleum pratense 4. Salix exiqua 4. Festuca pratense 4. Ambrosia artemisiifolia 4. Typha angustifolia 5. Juncus tenuis 5. Ediinochloa crusgalli Summary 1998-2001: DARA 1. Juncus tenuis 2. Medicago sativa 3. Salix exiqua 4. Solidago canadensis 5. Phleum pratense 6. Echinochloa crusgalli Appendix D. Yearly summary IF species were >or = to 50% of IF list of surveys in that year. Overall summary IF species were >or = to 50% of IF list of summary surveys. Summary IF are in no particular order. Continued. 228 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix D (continued), Fulton Survey 1 (17 June 1998): Survey 1 (25 May 1999) Survey 1(8 June 2000) Surveyl (14 June 2001) 1 .Elytrigia repens 1. Dactyl is glomerata 1. Dactylis glomerata 1. Phalaris arundinaceae 2.Dactylis glomerata 2. Festuca pratense 2. Polygonum 2. Lolium perenne 3.Phleum pratense 3. Ediinochloa crusgalli 3. Barbarea vulgaris 3. Cirsium arvense 4 .Polygonum pensylvanicum 4. Polygonum aviculare 4. Rumex crispus 4. Festuca pratense S.Lolium perenne 5. Poaceae family 5. Polygonum aviculare 5. Bromus japonicus Survey2 (8 July 1998) Survey2 (12 July 1999) Survey2 (27 June 2000) Survey2 (6 August 2001) 1. Elytrigia repens 1. Potamogeton foliosus 1.Phalaris arundinaceae 1. Polygonum pensylvanicum 2.Trifolium repens 2. Phalaris arundinaceae 2. Lolium perenne 2. Ediinochloa crusgalli 3. Dactylis glomerata 3. Festuca pratense 3. Patamogeton foliosus 3. Polygonum persicaria 4. Phleum pratense 4. Agrostis alba 4. Rumex crispus 4. Festuca pratense 5. Agrostis alba(giganta) 5. Phleum pratense 5. Cirsium arvense 5. Polygonum species Survey (11 Aug. 1999) 1. Phalaris arundinaceae 2. Ediinochloa crusgalli 3. Polygonum persicaria 4. Lolium perenne 5. Patamogeton foliosus Survey3 (31 August 1998) Survey3 (10 Sept. 1999) Survey3(18 Sept 2000) Survey 3 (14 O ct 2001) 1. Elytrigia repens 1. Dactylis glomerata 1. Phalaris arundinaceae 1. Ediinochloa crusgalli 2. Patamogeton foliosus 2. Ediinochloa crusgalli 2. Cirsium arvense 2. Polygonum persicaria 3. Bromus sp. 3. Panicum dichotomiflorum 3. Rumex crispus 3. Polygonum pensylvanicum 4. Poaceae family 4. Lolium perenne 4. Polygonum hydropiper 4. Panicum dichotomiflomm 5. Ediinochloa crusgalli 5. Phalaris arundinaceae 5. Polygonum persicaria 5. Rumex crispus Survey (15 Oct. 1999) 1. Dactylis glomerata 2. Ediinochloa crusgalli 3. Panicum dichotomiflonim 4. Lolium pererme 5. Cirsium arvense Summary 1998 Summary 1999 Summary 2000 Summary 2001 1. Elytrigia repens 1. Dactylis glomerata 1. Polygonum persicaria 1. Festuca pratense 2. Dactylis glomerata 2. Festuca pratense 2. Rumex crispus 2. Polygonum pensylvanicum 3. Phleum pratense 3. Ediinochloa crusgalli 3. Phalaris arundinaceae 3. Polygonum persicaria 4. Phalaris arundinaceae 4. Cirsium arvense 4. Ediinochloa crusgalli 5. Lolium perenne 6. Panicum dichotomiflorum Summary 1998-2001: Fulton 1. Dactylis glomerata 2. Festuca pratense 3. Ediinochloa crusgalli 4. Polygonum persicaria 5. Phalaris arundinaceae 229 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix D (continued), Van Wert Survey 1 (6 June 1998) Survey 1 (1 June 1999) Surveyl (14 June 2000) Surveyl(5 June 2001) 1 .Bromus japonicus 1. Festuca pratense 1 .Bromus inermis 1. Dactylis glomerata 2. Scirpus alrovirens 2. Bromus inermis 2. Festuca pratense 2. Bromus japonicus 3-Poaceae family 3. Scirpus atrovirens 3. Scirpus atrovirens 3. .Festuca pratense 4.Carex vulpinoidea 4. Carex vulpinoidea 4.Polygonum persicaria 4. Salix exiqua 5.Veronica arvensis 5. Cirsium arvense 5. Cirsium arvense 5. Bromus inermis Survey2 (16 July 1998) Survey2 (30 June 1999) Survey2 (20 July 2000) Survey2 (4 Aug. 2001) 1. Poaceae family 1. Bromus inermis 1. Bromus inermis 1. Bromus japonicus 2.Aster pilosus 2. Scirpus atrovirens 2. Scirpus atrovirens 2. Festuca pratense 3. Sciipus atrovirens 3. Ediinochloa crusgalli 3. Festuca pratense 3. Dactylis glomerata 4. Carex vulpinoidea 4. Salix interior 4. Polygonum pensytvanicum4. Salix exiqua 5. Trifolium repens 5. Carex vulpinoidea 5. Bromus japonicus 5. Bromus inermis Survey3 (2 Sept 1998) Survey3 (1 1 Aug 1999) Survey3(13 Sept 2000) Survey3 (2 Oct. 2001) 1. Poaceae family 1. Bromus inermis 1. Bromus inermis 1. Bromus japonicus 2 .Leersia oryziodes 2. Carex vulpinoidea 2. Scirpus atrovirens 2. Festuca pratense 3. Scirpus atrovirens 3. Scirpus atrovirens 3. Ediinochloa crusgalli 3. Dactylis glomerata 4. Ediinochloa crusgalli 4. Ediinochloa crusgalli 4. Polygonum persicaria 4. Salix exiqua 5. Trifolium repens 5. Xanthium strumarium 5. Xanthium strumarium 5. Bromus inermis Summary 1998 Summary 1999 Summary 2000 Summary 2001 1. Scirpus atrovirens 1. Bromus inermis 1. Bromus inermis 1. Dactylis glomerata 2. Carex vulpinoidea 2. Scirpus atrovirens 2. Scirpus atrovirens 2. Bromus japonicus 3. Trifolium repens 3. Carex vulpinoidea 3. Festuca pratense 3. Bromus inermis 4. Ediinochloa crusgalli 4. Polygonum persicaria 4. Festuca pratense 5. Salix exiqua Summary 1998-2001 Van Wert 1. Scirpus atrovirens 2. Carex vulpinoidea 3. Bromus inermis 4. Festuca pratense Yearly summary IF species must be in >or = to 50% of IF list of surveys in that year. Overall summary IF species must be in >or = to 50% of IF list of summary surveys. Summary IF in no particular order. 230 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix D (continued), Summary IF 1998-2001: DARA Fulton Van Wert Juncus tenuis (W1S) Dactvlis glomerata (PLEC) Scirpus atrovirens (WIS) Medicago saliva (PLEC) Festuca pratense (PLEC) Carex vulpinoidea (WIS) Salix exiqua (W1S) Echinochloa crusgaili Bromus inermis (PLEC) (PLEC) Solidago canadensis (WD) Polygonum persicaria (WIS) Festuca pratense (PLEC) Phleum pratense (PLEC) Phalaris arundinaceae (W1S1) Echinochloa crusgaili (PLEC) Codes: WIS=Wetland indicator species WISI= Wetland indicator species with invasive rating PLEC= Planted erosion control on upper bank WD= Weed species Note: Overall summary IF spedes must be in >or = lo 50% of IF list of summary surveys. Summary IF in no particular order. 231 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX E RAW DATA PRINTOUT AND STANDARD OPERATING PROCEUDRES FOR “GRAB” WATER SAMPLES TAKEN AT WRSIS WETLANDS IN 2001 232 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I 0.03 0.01 o.oa 0.02 o.od 001 continued. 5.04 4.98 0.01 N03 (mg N- N03/L) P 04 (mg P-P04/L) 0.03 12.98 0.01 0.56 12.51 0.02 2.29 0.01 NH4 (mg N- NH3/L) 14.17 0.03 12.97 0.01 17.0818.06 0.26 17.51 0.05 2.32 0.01 29.53 <0.01 0.55 26.5425.65 0.07 0.05 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 24.54 <0.01 9.21 IC (mgIC C/L) 9.05 13.40 10.06 13.09 15.30 10.17 10.44 11.23 17.55 0.24 9.45 10.76 10.12 27.57 <0.01 0.22 5.00 7.54 48.00 29.00 6.18 10.17 8.20 28.00 12.89 12.22 8.23 7.93 18 9.93 10.52 10/2/01 10/2/01 7.98 28 9.68 11/13/01 9.11 11/13/01 8.21 38.00 12.38 12.48 11/13/01 8.15 13 Date pH TFS (mg/L) DOC (mg C/L) TOC (mg C/L) GRABGRAB 11/13/01 9.12GRAB 3.00 9/27/01 7.8^ 7.39 223.00 12.24 12.44 GRAB 9/27/01 8.09 IN OUT INOUT GRAB GRAB 11/13/01 OUT GRAB 10/4/01 8.00 15.00 8.76 IN 11/13/01 8.23 11 9.32 However, doingfor calculations,However, the value be will given as 0. I Hote 1 1 - aHote values lessthan the berangecalibration will entered and range asvalue. "<" DARA SARA SARA SARA This appliesThis to Data tab columns FTN, ON, SN, TN, FTP, OP, SP, TP. Appendix E Raw data printout for grab samples taken at WRSIS wetlands in 2001. in wetlands taken at WRSIS E Raw data forprintout grab samples Appendix Shininger IN Shininger Shininger OUT Shininger IN GRAB 10/4/01 Site Location Sample Method Van WertVan OUT Van WertVan IN WertVan OUT Wert Van Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 0.34 o.os 0.2S 0.04 0.11 0.05 0.04 SP (mg P/L) TP (mg P/L) 0.04 0.74 0.81 0.02 0.18 OP (mg P/L) 0.07 0.11 0.05 0.07 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.1 FTP (mg P/L) 1.93 0.07 O.Or 0.34 0.41 2.40 0.76 0.00 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.12 13.58 0.08 0.07 0.02 1.47 1.41 0.11 0.32 0.50 1.05 0.07 0.04 0.27 0.65 0.15 0.67 0.82 ON ON (mg N/L) SN (mg N/L) TN (mg N/L) I 0.460.29 0.38 0.24 0.89 1.18 0.07 0.06 0.26 0.33 0.54 3.02 5.44 1 1 9/27/01 9/27/01 0.98 0.43 GRAB 11/13/01 GRAB 11/13/01 GRAB 10/4/01 9.21 0.00 0.83 10.04 0.12 Method Date Sample N 10/2/01 OUT GRAB INOUT GRAB GRAB 11/13/01 11/13/01 12.98 13.11 0.00 0.11 0.57 0.18 13.29 0.06 0.05 OUT GRAB 10/4/01 14.02 0.95 0.00 13.36 INOUT 11/13/01 11/13/01 2.87 0.56 0.2 0.76 OUT 10/2/01 5.81 0.59 0.13 sJote 1 -1 values all sJote less than the rangebecalibration will enteredand range asvalue. "<" DARA OUT doing for However, calculations, the value be will given as 0. | DARA IN This appliesThis to Data tab columns FTN, ON, SN, TN, FTP, OP, SP, TP. DARA DARA IN GRAB Shininger IN Shininger Shininger Shininger Van Wert Van Wert Van Wert Van Van Wert Van Site Location Appendix G. (continued), G. Appendix Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix E. (continued), 2.4 GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS * ASM Automatic Sampling Module or autosampler. Hj c Inorganic Carbon. It is a classification which includes all C O ,'. HCO,-. and CO, found tn a water sample. -NRQC £ion-Purgcabie Organic Carbon. It is the fraction of the aqueous sample that remains after acidification and sparging (inert gas stripping}. T»BG Purgeable Organic Carbon. It is the organic fraction of the sample removed from an aqueous solution by inert gas stripping. IVJ.fl Repetitive Sampling Module. In the DC-190. this is a sampling mode using the autosampler (ASM) in which a single sample is repetitively analyzed. '■^TC Total Carbon. The sum of both the organic and inorganic fractions present in a sample. x f TOC Total Qrganic Carbon. 235 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix E. (continued), Kiedsbl PiccM SOP Open a new contain lt of boiling stones, and empty into a beaker. Submerge the boiling stones in 1M HC1 (Gloves, Glasses and Apron must be worn), and let them soak overnight. Drain the acid, and dispose of property. Rinse the boiling stones with UhraPurc water. II. Preparation for Digest 1. Fill out digest form, and add corresponding labels to digest tubes and bottles. Be sure to include a replicate sample, a 'spiked' sample, and a blank to each set. 2. Add 15-25 boiling stones to each digest lube. 3. Add 25.O0g +/-U.05g of sample to their respectivedigest tube. NOTE: Shake the samples until all of (he sediment is re-dissolved before pouring. The replicate sample and the 'spiked* sample should all be poured horn the same sample bottle. The blank wilt contain UltraPure water. 4. Allow samples tn warm up until (here is no condensation on the outside of the digest tubes (DANGER!!? If there is condensation w the lubes when they ■re placed an the digest block, the tabes may break, or be ejected from the digest Mock). Closes. Glasses and Apron must be worn for the rest of the digest process. 5. Add 5.0 ml of Digest Solution to each lube ( see recipes section at the end to make Digest Solution). 6. To the "Spiked* sample, add 100 uJ of spike HI. Digestion 1. Turn on digest block (located inside of the (umc hood), and allow it to warm up to I60°C (NOTE: Close the sash to the fume hood when the digest block is in use). 2. Place the samples on the digest block and heat them tor I hour at 160°C. 3. Alter one hour, place GLASS funnels on each of the tubes, and turn the temperature to 350°C (WARNING: Elbow length gloves must be worn for this step to prevent boiling acid burns). 4. llcat samples al 350CC for 2 hours. 5. Puli the samples off of the digest block, and allow them to cool until tfiey can be comfortably handled. 6. Make sure to turn the digest block otf 236 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix E. (continued), ]V. Filtering the Samples 1. Set out the respective sample bottles. 2. Add a tunnel (preferably plastic) to each bottle. 3. Add a paper filter to each of the funnels. 4. Remove the glass funnels from the digest tubes, and rinse them before putting them in the dish area. 5. Add 24.0 ml o f Ultra Pure water into each of (he tubes. 6. Vortex the sample for approximately 10-20 seconds, or until all of the sediment has broken loose from the bottom of the tube, and is thoroughly mixed up. 7. Pour the sample from the digest lubes into their respective bottles. 8. Cap and refrigerate the bottles when done. 9. Rinse the filter papers, used boiling stones before discarding. Also rinse the funnels, used to filter, before placing them in the dish area. StiSiBB I. Stock Copper UP Sulfate Solution: (Gloves and Glasses are required) 1. Fill a 1L volumetric flask with approximately 800 ml of UhraPure water. 2. Add 40.0 g o f Copper Sulfate Pentahydrate (CuS()4x5H20). 3. Mix thoroughly until completely dissolved. 4. Bring to volume with UltraPurc water. II. Digest Solution: (Gloves, Glasses, Apron and Fume Hood arc required) 1. Add approximately 600 ml o f UhraPure water to a 11, volumetric flask. 2. Add 200 ml of Concentrate Sulfuric Acid (18 M H2S04). (Caution: Solution gets very HOT!!!) 3. Allow solution to coot untO it can be comfortably handled. 4. Add 133 g of Potassium Sulfate (K2S04). 5. Add 100 ml o f Stock Copper Sulfate Solution. 6. Mix until completely dissolved. 7. Allow solution to cool to room temperature. 8. Bring to volume with UltraPurc water. (Solution is stable for -1 month). III. 200 ppm Nitrogen and Phosphorus Spike Solution: (Gloves and Glasses are required) 1. Add approximately 800 mJ o f UhraPure water to a I L volumetric flask. 2. Add 0.76 g o f DRIED NH4CI 3. Add 0.92 g o f DRIED Na2HPQ4. 4. Mix completely. 5. Bring to volume with UltraPure water. 237 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix E (continued), »S95 ID- LfiCHAT irtSTPUMEJiTS TC- rv:: ~ :--3S S -4£'& O C I3 2 r » zellw eger analytics QuikChem9 Method 10-115-01-1-C Total Phosphorus in Kjeldahl Digests 0.1 to £ 0 m g P/L — Principle — Water samples are digested with sulfuric acid in a block digeslor. Using a mercuric oxide catalyst, the samples’ phosphorus is converted to the orthophosphate anion. Potassium sulfate is also added to raise the boiling temperature of the digestion and speed the conversion to ortltopiiosphale. The digest is diluted with water. The orthophosphate ion (PG 43-) reacts with ammonium molybdatc and antimony potassium tartrate under acidic conditions to form a complex. This com plex is reduced with ascorbic acid to form a blue complex which absorbs light at 880 nm. The absorbance is proportional to the concentration o f orthophosphate in the sample. ■jr k»-> f — 'V rL. t- V tvs-s. J.. ‘t — j ‘ scr“ f*"" 5 * — IntnInterferences — I .Silica forms a pale blue complex which also absorbs at 880 nm. This interference is generally insignificant as a silica concentration of approximately 4000 ppm would be required to produce a 1 ppm positive error in orthophosphate. 2. Concentrations o f ferric iron greater than 50 m g t. will cause a negative error due to competition with the complex for the reducing agent ascorbic acid. Samples high in iron can be pretreatcd with sodium bisulfite to eliminate this interference. Treatment with bisulfite will also remove the interference due to arsenates. 3. Glassware contamination isa problem in low level phosphorus determinations. Glassware should be washed with 1:1 HCf and rinsed with deionized water. Commercial detergents should rarely be needed but, if they are used, use special phosphate-free preparations tor lab glassware — Special Apparatus — I Heating Unit 2. Block Digestor75 mL (Lachat Part No. 1800-000) Revised by K.8ogreit uS December 199S and written and copyrighted bv N. Liao i on 10 October 1994 by Zellweger Analytics. Lachat Inatnimeats Division. 6645 West Milt Road. Milwaukee, Wi 53218 , USA Phene- 1-4t4-3s8^l20C> FAX- 1-414-355-4-206. This document is the property of Lachat instruments Unauthorized copying of this document is prohibited Wtw- u- i-.x e ^ |£ - l-t LA.C LjsV rvu e-*' "I 1a ^ s f t y ^ 238 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix E (continued). c 3b SEP 17, 1995 ID: lACHPT IMST3UMEHT5 QUIKCHEM® METHOD 10-115-01-1-C DETERMINATION OF TOTAL PHOSPHORUS BY FLOW INJECTION ANALYSIS COLORIMETRY 1. SCOPE AM? APPLICATION 1.1. This method covers the determination of total phosphorus in Kjeldahi digests. 1.2. The method is based on reactions that are spccilic for the orthophosphate ion. 1.3. The applicable range is O.i to 5.0 mg P/L The method detection limit (MDL) is 0 015 mg P/L. Approximately 60 samples per hour can be analyzed. 2. SUMMARY OF METHOD 2.1. Water samples are digested with sulfuric acid in a block digester with a mercuric oxide catalyst, the samples' phosphorus is converted to the orthophosphate anion. Potassium sulfate is also added to raise the boiling temperature o f the digestion and speed the conversion to orthophosphate. The digest is diluted with water. 2.2. The orthophosphate ion (PO 43-) reacts with ammonium moivbdate and antimony potassium tartrate under acidic conditions to form a complex. This complex is reduced with ascorbic acid to form a blue complex which absorbs light at 880 nm. The absorbance is proportional to the concentration o f orthophosphate in the sample. S. SAFETY 5.1. The toxicity or carcinogenicity of each reagent used in this method has not been hilly established. Each chemical should be regarded as a potential health hazard and exposure should be as low as reasonably achievable. Cautions are included for known extremely hazardous materials. 5.2. Each laboratory is responsible for maintaining a current awareness file of OS HA regulations regarding the safe handling of the chemicals specified in this method. A reference file o f Material Safety Data sheets (MSDS) should be made available to all personnel involved iri.the chemical analysis. The preparation o f a formal safety plan is also advisable 5.3 TIic following dieinicals liave the potential to be highly toxic or hazardous, consult MSDS. 5.3ri:—M ercury for.-rwc A i >ln ^ 5.3.2. Sulfuric acid I IgUw-v. 1 ape*. y t.K.) * u-'i.*-. WVSV j i i v-'.-w, i - .- j « t. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix E (continued), 7. REAGENTS AND STANDARDS 7.1 PREPARATION OK REAGENTS Use deionized water(lG megohm) for all solutions. Degassing with helium: To prevent bubble formation, degas all solutions except the standards with helium Use He at 140 kPa (20 Ib/trt2) through a helium degassing tube (Lachat Part 50100). Bubble He vigorously through the solution Tor one minute Reagent 4. Stock Ammonium .Vlotybdate Solution By Volume: In a I L volumetric flask, dissolve 40.0 g ammonium moiytodate tetrahydrmte ((NH4)6Mo7024-4H20j in approximately 800 mL water. Dilute to the mark and mix with a magnetic stirrer for at least four hours Store up to two months in pkulk and refrigerate. Reagent & Stock Antimony Potassium Tartrate Solution By Volume: In a 1 I. volumetric flask, dissolve 3.22 g antimony potassium tartrate (potassium antimonyl tartrate trihydrate K(SbO)C.iliiOe 3 H ;0) or dissolve 3.1) g antimony potassium tartrate (potassium antimony! tartrate hemihydrate K(SbO)C«H40« '*2Hl tO) in approximately 800 mL water. Dilute to the mark and mix with a magnetic stirrer until dissolved. Store, up to two months, in a dark bottle and refrigerate. ' Reagent 6. Molybdate Color Reagent By Volume: To a 1- L volumetric flask add about 500 mL water, and then add 213 mL Ammonium Molybdate Solution (Reagent 4) and 72 mL Antimony Potassium Tartrate Solution (Reagent 5). Dilute to the mark and invert to mix. Degas with helium. Prepare weekly. **so W 3S.c --- ■■ Reagent 7. Ascorbic Acid Reducing Solution By Volume: In a I L volumetric flask dissolve 6 0 .0 g ascorbic acid in about 7IM) mL water. Dilute to the mark and mix with a magnetic stirrer. Degas this solution wtth helium, a i n n [■ i awe ftmtnrvbMdtitis-.AMifa m. M go m b Vfix with a magnetic stirrer. Prepare fresh every two days. Reagent 10. Sodium Hydroxide • EDTA Rinse Dissolve 65 g sodium hydroxide (NaOH) and 6 g let ra sodium ethyirnediamine tetraacetic ad d (NadEDTA) in 1.0 L or 1.0 kg water. Prepare fresh monthly 240 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix E (continued), LACHAT INSTRUMENTS QuikChem Method 10-107-06-2-D Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen in Waters 0.1 to 20.0 mg N/L — Principle — This method covers the determination o f total Kjeldahl nitrogen in drinking, ground, and surface waters, domestic and industrial wastes. The procedure converts nitrogen components o f biological origin such as amino acids, proteins and peptides to ammonia but not the nitrogenous compounds of some industrial wastes such as amines, nitro compounds, hvdrazanes. oximes. semicarbazones and some refractors' tertiary amines. — interferences — 1. Samples must not consume more than IO° o of the sulfuric acid during ihe digestion. The buffer will accommodate a range o f 4.5 - 5 0“n (v-'v) H 2SO4 in the diluted digestion sample with no change in signal intensity. 2 High nitrate concentrations (I0X or more than the TK.N level) result in low TK..V values, if interference is suspected, samples should be diluted and reanalyzed - Special Apparatus — 1 Heating Unit 2. Block Digestor75 mL tubes (1.achat I'art. No, 1800-000) 3 J mL and 20 mL Kepipct Dispensers Revised by A Westphalen 7 October 1997. written by K- Wendt and copyrighted on 05 August 1995 1 r. Lachat Instruments, 6645 Wnt Mill Road. Mitw»uk». \V1 53218. USA Phone-■sl4-35S«i29ti FAX j;c.:-55-ccre> This document i* the property of Lachat Instruments Unauthorized copy mg at this document :s prohibited 241 reproduction prohibited without permission of the copyright owner. Further Reproducedwith permission Appendix E (continued), QUIKCHEM METHOD 10-107-06-2-D DETERMINATION OF TOTAL KJEDAHL NITROGEN BY FLOW INJECTION ANALYSIS COLORIMETRY (Block Digestor Method) 1. SCOPE AND APPLICATION 1.1. The method covers the determination of total Kjeldahl nitrogen in water and wastewater. 1.2. The colorimetric method is based on reactions that are specific fcvr the ammonia ion. The digestion converts organic forms o f nitrogen to the ammonium form. Nitrate is not converted to ammonium during digestion. 1 3 The applicable range is 0.3 to 20 mg NV1.. The method detection limit is0.07 mg N’t. 80 samples per hour can be analyzed. 1.4 Samples containing particulates should be tillered or homogenized 2. SUMMARY OF METHOD 2 I. The sample is heated in the presence of sulfuric acid. H 2SO4. for two and one half hours. The residue is cooled, diluted with water and analyzed for ammonia. This digested sample may also be used for phosphorus determination. 2 2 Total Kjeldahl nitrogen is the sum of free-ammonia and organic nitrogen compounds which are converted to ammonium sulfate (NfDjSO,}. under the conditions of the digestion described. 2.3. Organic nitrogenous equals the difference obtained by subtracting the free-ammonia ! concentration from the total Kjeldahl nitrogen concentration. 1i ; 2.4. Approximately 0.3 mL o f the digested sample is injected onto the chemistry manitbid ] where its pH is controlled by' raising it to a known, hasic pH by neutralization and with a 1 concentrated buffin'. Tltrs in-lmc neutralization converts the ammonium cation to ammonia. I and also prevents undue influence of the sulfuric acid matrix on the pH-sertsitive color | reaction which follow s. 2 5. The ammonia thus produced is heated with salicylate and hypochlorite to produce blue color which is proportional to the ammonia concentration. The color is intensified by [ adding sodium mtroprusside. 'Hie presence of potassium tartrate tn the buffer prevents precipitation o f calcium and magnesium 3. DEFINITIONS p mefhoiivineJdah? lOHV^D DOC' 242 Permission C h e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohMed without permission. Appendix E (continued). LABORATORY DUPLICATES (LD1 AND LD2.) - Two aliquots ol'the same sample lhal are treated the same throughout preparation and analytical procedures Analyses of laboratory; duplicates indicate the precision associated with laboratory procedures 4. INTERFERENCES 4.1. Samples must not consume more than 10% o f the sulfuric acid during the digestion. The buffer will accommodate a range of 4.5-5.0% (v.v) H 2SO4 in the diluted digestion sample with no change in signal intensity. 4.2. High nitrate concentrations ( I OX or more than the TK.N level) result in low TKLN values. If interference is suspected, samples should be diluted and reanalyzed. 4.3. Digests must he free o f turbidity. Some boiling stones have been shown to crumble upon vigorous vortexing. 5. SAFETY 5.1: The toxicity or carcinogenicity of each reagent used in this method has not been fully established. Each chemical should be regarded as a potential health hazard and exposure should be as Tow as reasonably achievable. Cautions are included for known extremely hazardous materials. 5.2. Each.laboratory' is responsible for maintaining a current awareness file o f the Occupational Health and Safely Act (OSHA) regulations regarding the safe handling of the chemicals specified in this method. A reference file u f Material Safety Data sheets (MSDS) should be made available to all personnel involved in the cliemical analysis. The preparation of a formal safety plan is also.advisable 5.3 The following chemicals have the potential to be highly toxic or hazardous, for detailed explanations consult the MSDS 3.3.11.—bleivury (Rmgunts 1 and i) iv v . 4 5.3 2. Sulfuric Acid (Reagents 1. 2 and 7) 5.3 .3. Sodium Hydroxide fReagent 1) 5.3.4. Sodium Nitroprusside (Reagent 5) \ Vsw;c \ ' ^ f ...t or..- lh 1 Ulc wUx * UhXw 0 . 0 ^ auid. g^’inettKT 243 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix E (continued), -7. REAGENTS AND STANDARDS 7.1. PREPARATION OF REAGENTS Use ASTW Type H water for all solutions. D«cutting; with helium: To prevent bubble formation, Reagent 3. Buffer Note: To reduce the possibility of the potassium tartrate being contaminated it is recommended that die tartrate buffer is boiled for 10 minutes. To verify that the tartrate buffer is pure enough compare the reagent baseline to the D1 baseline. The baseline, with all reagents (lowing should not be greater than 0.I5V difference from just the DI water pumping in all the lines. Bv Volume: In a 1 I. container add 900 mf. water, 50 g potassium tartrate (•* potassium sodium tartrate. D.L-NaKC.R1Ot-4HI0) SO g sodium hydroxide (NaOHj. and 3S.-9 - g p h n tp h af dibaMr heptahvdaals (X«4f PO, 7HrO)-m ix until dissolved. Boil fur 10 minutes Cool liriLSmi lunpwtim anil itamfea In a I I- ■Milnmeirii: flaJi. Dilute to the mark and invert to mix. hrfd- W.Aor rt SwU-— daewWsjAo-r— s t-o t*—4 . Rnigfnt 5. Saiktb(e Nilroprusaide By Volume. Inal L volumetric flask dissolve 150,0 g sodium salicylate (salicylic acid sodium salt, C6H4(OHXCOO)Naf. and 1.00 g sodium nitropnassidc (sodium nitroferricyanidc dih\dr*tc. Na2f« Reagent 6. Hypochlorite Solution By Volume-: In a ISO ml.* volumetric flask, dilute 15.0 mi. Regular C.'loros Bleach (5,25°-* sodium hypochlorite. The Clorox Company. Oakland, CA) to the mark with water Invert to mix. Prepare fresh daily. Modified standard operating procedures supplied by USDA-ARS Soil Drainage Research Unit, Columbus, Ohio. Original QuikChem® methodology from the Lachat Company and Zellweger Analytics. 244 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX F PLANKTON AND FLOATING FRACTION (PAFF) AND PERIPHYTON BIOMASS CALCULATIONS FOR SPOT SAMPLES TAKEN YEARS 2000 AND 2001 AT THE DARA AND FULTON WRSIS WETLANDS 245 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Algal (Floating) Biomass at DARA, 2000 _ 500 ® 400 |1 300 « 200 E 2 100 O June D174 JulyD207 SeptD267 Oct. D295 Day of Year 2000 Algal (Floating) Biomass at DARA, 2001 600 g> 400 1 200 TJ 0 * tn E Date 2001 Appendix F PAFF and periphyton point biomass calculations years 2000 and 2001 at the DARA and Fulton WRSIS wetlands. Error bars represent standard deviation. DARA surface area used in calculation was 11371.5 square feet; this is based on average water line, approximately 0.61 m above lowest point in wetland. Fulton surface area used for calculation was 34848 square feet; this is based on average water line, at 0.8 acre fell. Error bars represent standard deviation. Continued. 246 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. without prohibited reproduction Further owner. copyright the of permission with Reproduced Appendix F (continued), Grams dry weight 1200 1000 -400 -200 600 200 400 800 PERIPHYTON DARA 2001 Time period 9/12/2001-10/4/2001 8/20/2001-9/12/2001 8/6/2001-8/20/2001 Total production 10/18/2001- 11/13/2001 10/18/2001 10/4/2001- Algal (floating) Biomass Fulton, 2001 Fulton, Biomass (floating) Algal prd/tn2/d 0.15 .60.9 0.06 0.1 0.1 0 Date 2001 Date period m2 per Accumulation over time CN 2.87 2.27 2.7 8.6 0 Production (g) Production Wetland 10384.02 Appendix F (continued), FULTON 2001 PERIPHYTON Accumulation over time period per Wetland 2 Time period prd/m2/d m Production (g) 8/6/2001-8/20/2001 0.15 3.6 8/20/2001-9/12/2001 0.07 1.7 9/12/2001-10/4/2001 0.08 1.6 10/18/2001-11/13/2001 0 0 6.9 22376.9 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. LIST OF REFRENCES Allred, B. J., L. C. Brown, N. R. Fausey, R. L. Cooper, W. B. Clevenger, G. L. Prill, G. A. LaBarge, C. Thornton and B. J. Czartoski. "Water Table Management Guidelines for a Wetland Reservoir Subirrigation System." American Society of Agricultural Engineers Annual Meeting 2000. 2000. APHA, American Public Health Association, Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 18 ed. Washington, D. C.: American Public Health Association, 1992. Baker, L. A. "Design Considerations and Applications for Wetland Treatment of High-Nitrate Waters." Water Science and Technology. 38.1 (1998): 389-95. Barbour, M. G., J. H. Burk, W. D. Pitts, F. S. Gilliam, M. W. Swartz. Terrestrial Plant Ecology. Metro Park, CA: Benjamin Cummins, 1999. Barrett, S. C. H. "Genetic Variation in Weeds." Biological Control of Weeds with Plant Pathogens. Ed. R. and H. Walker Charudattan. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1982. 73-98. Blom, C. W. P. M., H. M. van de Steeg and L. A. C. J. Voesenek. "Adaptive Mechanisms of Plants Occurring in Wetland Gradients." Wetlands: Environmental Gradients. Boundaries, and Buffers: proceedings of an international symposium. April 22-23. 1994. Ed. B. G. Warner and E. A. McBean G. Mulamoottil. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1996. 91-112. Bold, H. C. and M. J. Wynne. Introduction to the Algae. 2nd ed. Englewood Clifis, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1985. Boney, A. D. Phvtoplankton. London: Edward Arnold, 1989. Bouchard, V. and W. J. Mitsch. "Plant Richness and Community Establishment alter Five Growing Seasons in the Two Experimental Wetland Basins." Olentangv River Wetland Research Park at the Ohio State University: Annual Report 1998. Ed. W. J. Mitsch and V. Bouchard. Columbus, OH: School of Natural Resources, 1999.43-59. Braun-Blanquet, J. Plant Sociology- the Study of Plant Communities. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1932. 249 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Brix, H. "Wastewater Treatment in Constructed Wetlands: System Design, Removal Processes, and Treatment Performance." Constructed Wetlands for Water Quality Improvement. Ed. G. A. Moshiri. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1993. 9-22. Brown, P., B. Allred, M. T. Batte, L. Brown, B. Czartoski, R. Cooper, N. Fausey, L. Luckeydoo. Marketing Wetlands for Profit Final Report: Maumee Valley Resource, Conservation & Development, 2000. Brown, S. C. "Remnant Seed Banks and Vegetation as Predictors of Restored Marsh Vegetation." Canadian Journal of Botany 76 (1998): 620-29. Brueske, C. C. and G. W. Barrett. "Effects of Vegetation and Hydrologic Load on Sedimentation Patterns in Experimental Wetland Ecosystems." Ecological Engineering 3 (1994): 429-47. Buhler, D. D., K. A. Kohler and R. L. Thompson. "Weed Seed Bank Dynamics During a Five-Year Crop Rotation." Weed Technology 15.1 (2001): 170-76. Busnardo, M. J., R. M. Gersberg, R. Langis, T. L. Sinicrope and J. B. Zedler. "Nitrogen and Phosphorus Removal by Wetland Mesocosms Subjected to Different Hydroperiods." Ecological Engineering 1 (1992): 287-307. Cairns, Jr., J. "Indicator Species Vs. The Concept of Community Structure as an Index of Pollution." Water Resources Bulletin 10.2 (1974): 338-47. Cardina, J, E. Regnier and K. Harrison. "Long-Term Tillage Effects on Seed Banks in Three Ohio Soils." Weed Science 39 (1991): 189-94. Casamatta, D. J. R. Beaver, and D. J. Fleishman. "A Survey of Phytoplankton Taxa from Three Types of Wetlands in Ohio." Ohio Journal of Science 99.3 (1999): 53-56. Chester, P. W., Riethman, D. "Runoff Storage Requirements for a Closed-Loop System." Presented at the 1997 ASAE Annual International Meeting. Minneapolis Convention Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota: ASAE, St. Joseph, MI., 1997. Vol. Paper number 972132. Collins, B. and G. Wein. "Seed Bank Vegetation of a Constructed Reservoir." Wetlands 15.4 (1995): 374-85. 250 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Coops, H. and G. van der Velde. "Seed Dispersal, Germination and Seedling Growth of Six Helophyte Species in Relation to Water-Level Zonation." Freshwater Biology 34 (1995): 13-20. Cox, G. W. Laboratory Manual of General Ecology. Dubuque: Wm. C. Brown Publishers, 1996. Cromar, N. J., H. J. Fallowfield, and N. J. Martin. "Influence of Environmental Parameters in Biomass Production and Nutrient Removal in a High Rate Algal Pond Operated by Continuous Culture." Water Science and Technology 34.11 (1996): 133-40. Davis, C. B, A. G. van der Valk and J. L. Baker. "The Role of Four Macrophyte Species in the Removal of Nitrogen and Phosphorus from Nutrient-Rich Water in a Prairie Marsh, Iowa." Macrono 30.3 (1983): 133-42. Deal, R., A. Kantz, Jr. "Seasonal and Successional Trends in Algal Diversity and Population Dynamics in Constructed Wetlands." Olentangy River Wetland Research Park at the Ohio State University Annual Report 1995. Ed. W. J. Mitsch. Columbus, Oh: School of Natural Resources, 1996. 137-40. Dickerman, J. A. A. J. Stewart and R; G. Wetzel. "Estimates of Net Annual Aboveground Production: Sensitivity to Sampling Frequency." Ecology 67.3 (1986): 650-59 Drew, M. C. and J. M. Lynch. "Soil Anaerobiosis, Microorganisms, and Root Function." Annual Review of Phytopathology 18 (1980): 37-66. Edwards, G. R and M. J. Crawley. "Herbivores, Seed Banks and Seedling Recruitment in Mesic Grassland." Journal of Ecology 87 (1999): 423-35. Ellison, A. M. and B. L. Bedford. "Response of a Wetland Vascular Plant Community to Disturbance: A Simulation Study." Ecological Applications 5.1 (1995): 109- 23. EPA, Environmental Protection Agency -Office of Water-. 5.7 Nitrates. 2002. Online guide. Available: http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/monitoring/volunteer/stream/vms57.htinl. 4/10 2002. Erlandson, C. S. "The Potential Role of Seed Banks in the Restoration of Drained Prairie Wetlands." Master of Science. Iowa State University, 1987. Extoxnet. Pesticide Information Profile Acifluorfen. 2002. web page. Extension Toxicology Network. Available: 251 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. http://pmep.cce.comell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/24d-captan/acifluorfen-ext.htmI. 3-8 2002. —. Pesticide Information Profile Cletodime. 2002. Web page. Extension Toxicology Network. Available: http://pmep.cce.comell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/carbaryl- dicrotophos/clethodim-ext.html. 3-8 2002. Famey, R. A. and T. A. Bookhout. "Vegetation Changes in a Lake Erie Marsh (Winous Point, Ottawa County, Ohio) During High Water Years." Ohio Academy of Science 82.3 (1982): 103-07. Faulkner, S. P. and W. J. Mitsch. "Physical and Chemical Characteristics of Freshwater Soils." Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment: Municipal Industrial and Agricultural. Ed. D.A. Hammer. Chelsea, MI: Lewis Publishers, 1989. 41-72. Fassett, N. C. A Manual of Aquatic Plants. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969. Fennessy, M. S. J. K. Cronk and W. J. Mitsch. "Macrophyte Productivity and Community Development in Created Wetlands under Experimental Hydrological Conditions." Ecological Engineering 3 (1994): 469-84. Figiel, Jr., C. R , B. Collins and G. Wein. "Variation in Survival and Biomass of Two Wetland Grasses at Different Nutrient and Water Levels over a Six Week Period." Bulletin of the Torrev Botanical Chib 122.1 (1995): 24-29. Forcella, F ., R. G. Wilson, K. A. Renner, J. Dekker, R. G. Harvey, D. A. Aim, D. D. Buhler and J. Cardina. "Weed Seedbanks of the U. S. Cora Belt: Magnitude, Variation, Emergence, and Application." Weed Science 40 (1992): 636-44. —., D. H. Peterson and J. C. Barbour. "Timing and Measurement of Weed Seed Shed in Com (Zea Mays)." Weed Technology 10 (1996): 535-43. Galatowitsch, S. M. and A.G. van der Valk. "Natural Revegetation During Restoration of Wetlands in the Southern Prairie Pothole Region ofNorth America." Restoration of Temperate Wetlands. Ed. B. D. Wheeler, S. C. Shaw, W.J. Fojt, R. A. Robertson. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1995. 128-42. —. "The Vegetation of Restored and Natural Prairie Wetlands." Ecological applications 6.1 (1996): 102-12. —. Restoring Prairie Wetlands- an Ecological Approach. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press, 1998. 252 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. — N. O. Anderson and P.D. Ascher. "Invasiveness in Wetland Plants in Temperate North America." Wetlands 19.4 (1999): 733-55. Galinato, M.I and A. G. van der Valk. "Seed Germination traits of annuals and emergents recruited during drawdowns in the Delta Marsh, Manitoba, Canada." Aquatic Botany 26 (1986): 89-102. Garbisch, E. W. The physical control of narrow- leaved cattail (Typha angustifolia) [sic]. Wetland Journal 6.3( 19941: 14-15. —. and S. Mclninch. "Seed Information for Wetland Plant Species of the Northeast United States." Restoration and Management Notes. (1992): 85-87. Gleason, H. A. and A. Cronquist. Manual of Vascular Plants of Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada. Bronx: The New York Botanical Garden, 1991. Godwin, H. "Dispersal of Pond Floras." Journal of Ecology 11 (1923): 160-64. Good, B. J. and W. H. Patrick Jr. "Root-Water-Sediment Interface Processes." Aquatic Plants for Wastewater Treatment and Resource Recovery. Ed. K. R. Reddy and W. H. Smith. Orlando, FL: Magnolia Publishing, Inc, 1987. 359- 72. Guntenspergen, G. R., F. Stearns, and J. A. Kaldec. "Wetland Vegetation." Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment: Municipal. Industrial and Agricultural. Ed. D. A. Hammer. Chelsea, MI: Lewis Publishers, 1989. 73-88. Hammer, D. A. Creating Freshwater Wetlands. 2nd ed. Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers, 1997. Harris, G. P. Phytoplankton Ecology- Structure. Function and Fluctuation. London: Chapman and Hall, 1986. Harrington, J. F. "Seed Storage and Longevity." Seed Biology. Ed. T. T. Kozlowski. Vol. III. New York: Academic Press, 1972. 145-245. Hartman, F. Wetland habitat considerations for breeding waterfowl. Wetland Journal. 10.3(1998): 3-6,11. Holz J. C., K. D. Hoagland, R. L. Spawn, A Popp and J.L. Andersen. "Plankton Community Response to Reservoir Aging, 1968-1992." Hvdrobiologia 346 (1997): 183-92. Hope, A. "The Dissemination of Weed Seeds by Irrigation Water in Alberta." Scientific Agriculture 7 (1927): 268-76. 253 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Hortobagyi, T. "Phytoplankton Organisms Form Three Reservoirs on the Jamuna River, India." Studia Bioloeica Academiae Scientiarum Hunearicae 8 (1969). Hothem, J. A. "Modeling of Flow-Routing in a Linked Wetland-Reservoir- Subirrigation System (WRSIS) Using Simulink." Master of Science. The Ohio State University, 1999. Jordan, T. E., D. F. Whigham and D. L. Correll. "Effects of Nutrient and Litter Manipulations on the Narrow-Leaved Cattail, Typha Angustifolia L." Aquatic Botany 36 (1990): 179-91. Kadlec, R. H. and R. L. Knight. Treatment Wetlands. Boca Raton, FI.: CRC Press, 1996. Kemerer, J. L. "Phosphorus and Sediment Fate within a Wetland-Reservoir Subirrigation System." Master o f Science. The Ohio State University, 2001. Leek, M. A., V. T. Parker and R. L. Simpson (eds.). Ecology of Soil Seed Banks. San Diego: Academic Press Inc., 1989. —., M. A. and R. L. Simpson. "Ten-Year Seed Bank and Vegetation Dynamics of a Tidal Freshwater Marsh." American Journal of Botany 82.12 (1995): 1547-57. Lee, K. E., D. G. Huggins and E. M. Thurman. Effects of Hvdrophvte Community Structure on Atrazine and Alachlor Degradation in Wetlands. K. L. Campbell, ed. Versatility of Wetlands in the Agricultural Landscape- a publication by the American Society of Agricultural Engineers. 1995. Luckeydoo, L. M. "Vegetation Composition of Three Constructed Wetlands Receiving Agricultural Runoff and Subsurface Drainage." Master of Science. The Ohio State University, 1999. —., N. R. Fausey, L.C. Brown and C. B. Davis. "Early Development of Vascular Vegetation of Constructed Wetlands in Northwest Ohio Receiving Agricultural Waters." Agriculture. Ecosystems and Environment 88 (2002): 89-94. Magurran, A. E. Ecological Diversity and Its Measurement. Princeton: Princeton University, 1988. Malone, C. R. "A Rapid Method for Enumeration of Viable Seeds in Soil." Weeds 15.4 (1967): 381-82. Marcus, M. D. "Periphytic Community Response to Chronic Nutrient Enrichment by a Reservoir Discharge." Ecology 61.2 (1980): 387-99. 254 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Martin, A. C. "Identifying Polygonum Seeds." Journal of Wildlife Management 18.4 (1954): 514-20. Maun, M. A. and C.H. Barrett. "The Biology of Canadian Weeds. 77. Echinochloa Crus-galli (L.) Beauv” Canadian Journal of Plant Science 66 (1986): 739-59. McAtee, W. L. Wildfowl Food Plants. Ames, IA: Collegiate Press Inc., 1939. McNaughton, S. J. "Diversity and Stability." Nature 333 (1988): 204-05. Meeks, R. L. "The Effect o f Drawdown Date on Wetland Plant Succession." Journal ofWildlife Management 33.4 (1969): 817-21. Middleton, Beth. Wetland Restoration. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1999. Mittelbach, G. G. and K. L. Gross. "Experimental Studies of Seed Predation in Old- Fields." Oecologia 65 (1984): 7-13. Mitsch, W.J., C. Ahn and V. Perry. "Net Primary Productivity of Macrophyte Communities after Seven Growing Seasons in Experimental Planted and Unplanted Marshes.” Olentangv River Wetland Research Park at The Ohio State University Annual report 2000 (2001): 49-53 —. and J. G. Gosselink. Wetlands. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1993. —., B. C. Reeder, and D. M. Klarer. "The Role of Wetlands in the Control of Nutrients with a Case Study in Western Lake Erie." Ecological Engineering: an Introduction to Ecotechnologv. Ed. W. J. Mitsch and S. E. Jorgenson. New York: J. Wiley and Sons, 1989. 129-58. —., X. Wu, R.W. Nairn, P.E. Weihe, N. Wang, R. Deal and C.E. Boucher. "Creating and Restoring Wetlands." Bioscience 48.12 (1998): 1019-30. —. and L. Zhang. "Plant Community Development after Seven Growing Seasons in the Two Experimental Wetland Basins." Olentangv River Wetland Research Park at the Ohio State University. Annual Report 2000. Ed. W. J. and V. Bouchard Mitsch. Columbus, Ohio: School of Natural Resources, 2001. 43-58. Moss, B. "The Influence of Environmental Factors on the Distribution of Freshwater Algae: An Experimental Study." Journal of Ecology 61 (1973): 193-211. Mueller-Dombois, D. and H. Ellenberg. Aims and Methods of Vegetation Ecology. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1974. 255 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Munawar, M. and I.F. Munawar. Phvtoplankton Dynamics in the North American Great Lakes: Volume 1. Ontario. Erie and St. Clair. Amsterdam: SPB Academic publishing, 1996 Myers, M. J., M.D. N'Jie, B. Miller, M. Jacobs, A. Soboyejo, and L. C. Brown. "Water Column Sampling System for the Constructed Wetland and Water Supply Reservoir at the Dara WRSIS Site. ASAE Meeting Paper 982094." American Society of Agricultural Engineers Annual Meeting. July 12-15. Orlando. Florida. 1998. NDSU Extension Service. Wildlife and Pesticides: A Practical Guide to Reducing the Risk. 2002. Web Page. North Dakota State University. Available: Http://www.ext.nodak.edu/extpubs/ansci/wildlife/wll017-2.htm. 3-8 2002. (NOAA), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Climatological Data Annual Summary Asheville, NC: National Climatic Data Center, 1998. Nurdogan, Y. and W. J. Oswald. "Enhanced Nutrient Removal in High-Rate Ponds." Water Science and Technology 31.12 (1995): 33-43. Nygaard, G. "Hydrobiological Studies on Some Danish Ponds and Lakes." Pet Kongelige danske videnskabemes selskab 7 (1949): 1-293. (ODNR) Ohio Department of Natural Resources. Monthly Water Inventories. 1998- 2001. website. 5 April 2002. Odum, E. P. "1989 Ecological Engineering and Self-Organization." Ecological Engineering: An Introduction to Ecotechnologv. Ed. W. J. Mitsch and S. E. Jorgensen. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1989. 79-101. Olding, D. D. "Algal Communities as a Biological Indicator of Stormwater Management Pond Performance and Function." Water Quality Resources Journal Canada 35.3 (2000): 489-503. Oztekin, T. "Modification and Evaluation of WEPP Water Table Management Model." Doctor of Philosophy. The Ohio State University, 2000. —., N. N'jie, J. Hothem, L. Luckeydoo, L. C. Brown, N. R. Fausey, B. J. Czartoski and C. Mills. "Monitoring System for Water Quality and Quantity, and Ecological Parameters at the Dara Wetland-Reservoir Subirrigation System Site." American Society of Agricultural Engineers Annual Meeting. July 12- 15. Orlando Florida. 1998. Paerl, H. W. "Nuisance Plankton Blooms in Coastal, Estuarine, and Inland Waters." Limnology and Oceanography 33.(4prt2) (1988): 823-47. 256 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Palmer, C. M. Algae in Water Supplies. Public Health Service Publication #657 ed. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1959. —. "A Composite Rating of Algae Toleration Organic Pollution." Journal of Phvcologv 5 (1969): 78-82. Patrick, R. "The Structure of Diatom Communities in Similar Ecological Conditions." The American Naturalist 102 (1968): 173-83. —. and D. Strawbridge. "Variation in the Structure of Natural Diatom Communities." The American Naturalist XVCTI (1963): 51-57. —., R., M. N. Hohn, and J.H. Wallace. "A New Method for Determining the Pattern of the Diatom Flora." Notulae Naturae o f the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 29 Cl 954V 1-12. Payne, N. F. Techniques for Wildlife Habitat Management of Wetlands. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1992. Peet, R. K. "The Measurement of Species Diversity." Annual Review of Ecology and Svstematics 5 (1974): 285-307. Pierzynski, G. M., J. T. Sims, and G. F. Vance. Soils and Environmental Quality. Boca, Raton, FI.: Lewis, 1994. Pratt, C. R. Ecology. Springhouse, PA.: Springhouse Corporation, 1995. Prescott, G. W. How to Know the Freshwater Algae. 3rd ed. Boston, Massachusetts: McGraw-Hill, 1978. Reddy, K. R. "Fate of Nitrogen and Phosphorus in a Waste-Water Retention Reservoir Containing Aquatic Macrophytes." Journal of Environmental Quality 12.1 (1983): 137-41. —., W. H. Patrick Jr. and C. W. Lindau. "Nhrification-Denhrification at the Plant Root-Sediment Interface in Wetlands." Limnology and Oceanography 34.6 (1989): 1004-13. —. and W. H. Patrick Jr. "Fate of Fertilizer Nitrogen in the Rice Root Zone." Soil Science Society of America Journal 50 (1986): 649-51. Reed, P.B., Jr. National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: Ohio. Washington, D.C.: United States Department o f the Interior-Fish and Wildlife Service., 1988. 257 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Regnier, E. E. "Teaching Seed Bank Ecology in an Undergraduate Laboratory Exercise." Weed Technology 9 (1994): 5-16. —. "Personal Communication." 2002. Reynolds, C. S. "Non-Determinism to Probability, or N:P in the Community Ecology of Phytoplankton." Archiv fur Hvdrobiologie 146.1 (1999): 23-35. —. "What Factors Influence the Species Composition of Phytoplankton in Lakes of Different Trophic Status." Hvdrobiologia 369/370 (1998): 11-26. —., G. H. M. Jaworski, J. V. Roscoe, D. P. Hewitt and D.G. George. "Responses of the Phytoplankton to a Deliberate Attempt to Raise the Trophic Status Os an Acidic Oligiotrophic Mountain Lake." Hvdrobiologia 369/370 (1998): 127-31. Richards, S. T., M. T. Batte, L. C. Brown, B. J. Czartoski, N. R. Fausey, H. W. Belcher. "Farm Level Economic Analysis of a Wetland Reservoir Subirrigation System in Northwest Ohio." Journal of Production Agriculture 12.4 (1999): 588-96. Richardson, C. J. and C. B. Craft. "Efficient Phosphorus Retention in Wetland: Fact or Fiction?" Constructed Wetlands for Water Quality Improvement. Ed. G. A. Moshiri. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1993. Riemer, D. N. Introduction to Freshwater Vegetation. Westport, Connecticut: AVI Publishing, 1984. Rodgers Jr., J. H. and A. Dunn, ed. Developing Design Guidelines for Constructed Wetlands to Remove Pesticides from Agricultural Runoff. Boca Raton, FL: C. K. Smoley, 1993. Rojo, C. E. Ortega-Mayagoitia and M. Alvarez-Cobelas. "Lack of Pattern among Phytoplankton Assemblages. Or, What Does the Exception to the Rule Mean?" Hvdrobiologia 424 (2000): 133-39. Sale, P. J. M., and R. G. Wetzel Growth and metabolism of Typha species in relation to cutting treatments. Aquatic Botany 15 (1983): 321-334. Shann, Jodi R. The Role of Plants and Plant/Microbial Systems in Reduction of Exposure. 1995. URL. Environmental health perspectives. Available: http://ehpnetl .neihs.nih.gov/members/1995/suppl-5/shann-full.html. 2/21 2000. 258 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Shapiro, J. "Current Beliefs Regarding Dominance by Blue-Greens: The Case for the Importance ofCo2 and Ph." Verh. Intemat. Verein. Limnol 24 (1990): 38-54. Shearer, L. A., B. J Jahn and L. Lenz. "Deterioration of Duck Foods When Flooded." Journal of Wildlife Management 33.4 (19691: 1012-15. Sherman, D. E., R. W. Kroll and T. L. Engle. "Flora of Diked and Undiked Southwestern Lake Erie Wetland." Ohio Journal of Science 96.1 (1996): 4-8. Shew, D. M., R. A. Linthurst, and Ernest D. Seneca. "Comparison of Production Computation Methods in a Southeastern North Carolina Spartina Altemiflora Salt Marsh." Estuaries 4.2 (1981): 97-109. Sloey, W. E., F. F. Spangler, and C. W. Fetter Jr. "Management o f Freshwater Wetlands for Nutrient Assimilation." Freshwater Wetlands: Ecological Processes and Management Potential. Ed. D. F. Whigham and R. L. Simpson R. E. Good. New York, NY: Academic Press, 1978. 321-40. Smith, L. M. and J. A. Kadlec. "Seed Banks and Their Role During Drawdown of a North American Marsh." Journal of Applied Ecology 20 (1983): 673-84. Smith, T. and M. Huston. "A Theory of the Spatial and Temporal Dynamics of Plant Communities." Vegetatio 83 (1989): 49-69. Smith, V. H., S. J. Bennett. "Nitrogen: Phosphorus Supply Ratios and Phytoplankton Community Structure in Lakes." Archiv fur Hvdrobiologie 146 (1999): 37-53. Spijkerman, e. and R. F. M. Coesel. "Ecophysiological Characteristics of Two Planktonic Desmid Species Originating from Trophically Different Lakes." Hvdrobiologia 369/370 (1998): 109-16. Squires, L. and A. G. van der Valk. "Water-Depth Tolerances of the Dominant Emergent Macrophytes of the Delta Marsh, Manitoba." Canadian Journal of Botanv. 70 (19921: 1860-67. Surrency, D. "Evaluation o f Aquatic Plants for Constructed Wetlands." Constructed Wetlands for Water Quality Improvement. Ed. G. A. Moshiri. Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers, 1993. Svengsouk, L.J. and W. J. Mhsch. "Patterns of Typha Latifolia and Schoenoplectus Tabernaemontani (C.C. Gmel) Along a Nutrient Gradient in the Olentangy River Experimental Wetlands." Olentangy River Wetland Research Park at the Ohio State University Annual Report 1997. Ed. W. J. and V. Bouchard Mhsch. Columbus: School o f Natural Resources, 1998. 81-88. 259 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Toole, E. H. and E. Brown. "Final Results of the Duvel Buried Seed Experiment." Journal of Agricultural Research. 72 (1946): 201-10. US Army, COE. USACE Wetlands Delineation M anual: Wetlands Research Program, Environmental Laboratory, 1987. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. Non-Point Source Pollution: the Nation's Largest Water Quality Problem. 1996. USDA-SCS, United States Department of Agriculture- Soil Conservation Service Chapter 13-Wetland Restoration, Enhancement, or Creation. Engineering Field Handbook (210-EFH11992. USDA-SCS, United States Department of Agriculture- Soil Conservation Service. Soil Survey of Defiance Countv. Ohio. 1984b. —. Soil Survey of Fulton Countv. Ohio. 1984a. —. Soil Survey of Van Wert Countv. Ohio.. 1972. Uva, R. H. J. C. Neal and J. M. DiTomaso. Weeds of the Northeast. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1997. van der Valk, A. G. "Succession in Wetlands: A Gleasonian Approach." Ecology 62.3 (1981): 688-96. —. and C. B. Davis. "Primary Production of Prairie Glacial Marshes." Freshwater Wetlands. Ed. R. E. Good, D. F. Whigham, R. L. Simpson. New York: Academic Press, 1978. 21-37. —. The role of seed banks in the vegetation dynamics of prairie glacial marshes. Ecology. 59.2 ( 1978b): 322-335. —., L. Squires, and C. H. Welling. "Assessing the Impacts of an Increase in Water Level on Wetland Vegetation." Ecological Applications 4.3 (1994): 525-34. Vymazal, J. Algae and Elemental Cycling in Wetlands. Boca Raton, FI: Lewis, 1995. Wallsten, M. and P. Forsgren. "The Effects of Increased Water Level on Aquatic Macrophytes." Aquatic Plant Management 27 (1989): 32-37. Walsh, G. E., D. E. Weber, M. T. Nguyen and L. K. Esry. "Responses of Wetland Plants to Effluents in Water and Sediment." Environmental and Experimental Botany 31.3 (1991): 351-58. 260 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Ward, A. D. and W. J. Elliot. "The Hydrologic Cycle, Water Resources, and Society." Environmental Hydrology. Ed. A. D. and W. J. Elliot Ward. Boca Raton: Lewis, 1995. Weller, M. W. Freshwater Marshes: Ecology and Wildlife Management. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1994. Welling, C. H., R. L. Pederson and A.G. van der Valk. "Temporal Patterns in recruitment from the seed bank during drawdowns in a Prairie Wetland." Journal of Applied Ecology 25 (1988): 999-1007. Whitford, L.A and G. J. Schumacher. A Manual of Freshwater Algae. Raleigh, N. C., 1984. Wild Ones. Wild Ones Handbook.: Wild Ones Natural Landscapes, Ltd., 1997. Williams, L. G. "Possible Relationships between Plankton-Diatom Species Numbers and Water-Quality Estimates." Ecology 45.4 (1964): 809-23. Willis, C. and W. J. Mhsch. "Effects of Hydrology and Nutrients on Seedling Emergence and Biomass of Aquatic Macrophytes from Natural and Artificial Seed Banks." Ecological Engineering 4 (1995): 65-76. Wu, X W. J. Mhsch. "Spatial and Temporal Patterns of Algae in Newly Constructed Freshwater Wetlands." Wetlands 18.1 (1998): 9-20. Zhu, T. and F. J. Sikora. "Ammonium and Nitrate Removal in Vegetated and Unvegetated Gravel Bed Microcosm Wetlands." Water Science and Technology 32.3 (1995): 219-28. Zucker, L. A and L. C. Brown. Agricultural Drainage: Water quality and Subsurface Drainage Studies in the Midwest: Ohio State University Extension Bulletin 871, 1998. 261 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.