U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY NATIONAL WETLANDS RESEARCH CENTER FINAL REPORT REGIONAL ESTIMATES OF ECOLOGICAL SERVICES DERIVED FROM U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE CONSERVATION PROGRAMS IN THE MISSISSIPPI ALLUVIAL VALLEY Stephen Faulkner1, Michael Baldwin1, Wylie Barrow1, Hardin Waddle1, Bobby Keeland1, Susan Walls1, Dale James2, and Tom Moorman2 1 U.S. Geological Survey National Wetlands Research Center 700 Cajundome Blvd Lafayette, LA 70506 2 Ducks Unlimited, Inc. 193 Business Park Drive, Suite E Ridgeland MS 39157 i Table of Contents List of Figures .....................................................................................................................................iii List of Tables .......................................................................................................................................v Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................1 Chapter I. Introduction .......................................................................................................................4 Chapter II. Biogeochemically Related Services: Carbon sequestration, Nutrient Retention, and Sediment Reduction .........................................................................................................9 Introduction .............................................................................................................................9 Methods .................................................................................................................................10 Results and Discussion ..........................................................................................................14 Conclusions ...........................................................................................................................16 Chapter III. Biological Conservation, Sustainability, and Habitat Quality ......................................17 Introduction ...........................................................................................................................17 Methods .................................................................................................................................18 Results and Discussion ..........................................................................................................30 Conclusions ...........................................................................................................................40 Acknowledgements ...............................................................................................................40 References .........................................................................................................................................42 ii List of Figures I.1. Location of study sites in the Lower White/Cache River Basin, Arkansas ..........................50 I.2. Location of study sites in the Tensas River Basin, Louisiana ..............................................51 I.3. Location of study sites in the Yazoo River Basin, Mississippi ............................................52 II.1. Plot design for vegetation sampling .....................................................................................53 II.2. Total carbon stored aboveground (tree, understory, and forest floor) and belowground (soil 0- 10 cm depth) in active crop land, Wetlands Reserve Program, and natural forest sites ......54 II.3. Total soil carbon at study sites in the Yazoo River Basin, Mississippi by ridge versus swale .....................................................................................................................................55 II.4. Differences in total soil carbon by land use type and river basin .........................................56 II.5. Differences in total soil carbon by land use type ..................................................................57 II.6. Regression analysis of total soil carbon and the number of years since tree planting on the Wetlands Reserve Program sites ...........................................................................................58 II.7. Sediment erosion losses by soil texture class from active crop land and Wetlands Reserve Program sites .........................................................................................................................59 II.8. Soil denitrification potentials by land use type .....................................................................60 II.9. Differences in soil denitrification potentials by river basin ..................................................61 III.1. Tree species importance values (IV300) for species detected in the natural forest and Wetlands Reserve Program study sites .................................................................................62 III.2. Mean basal area of trees and shrubs by size class in Wetlands Reserve Program and natural forest stands by river basin ....................................................................................................63 III.3. Mean stem density of woody species by size class in Wetlands Reserve Program and natural forest sites in each river basin ...............................................................................................64 iii III.4. Mean number of woody species detected by size class in Wetlands Reserve Program and natural forest in each river basin ...........................................................................................65 III.5. Mean species diversity using Jost’s method for measuring diversity. Means presented by land use type and river basin .........................................................................................................66 III.6. Importance values (IV300) of trees and shrubs on Wetlands Reserve Program sites in the Yazoo River Basin, Mississippi by strata: swale and ridge ..................................................67 III.7. Mean percent herbaceous cover in Wetlands Reserve Program and natural forest sites by river basin ......................................................................................................................................68 III.8. Mean observed bird species richness by land use type and sampling period in the Tensas, Louisiana and Lower White/Cache, Arkansas River Basins .................................................69 III.9. Mean observed bird species richness in the Tensas, Louisiana and Lower White/Cache, Arkansas River Basins by land use type and sampling period for resident species, nearctic- neotropical migrants, and temperate migrants .......................................................................70 III.10. Mean observed bird species richness in the Yazoo River Basin, Mississippi by sampling period for nearctic-neotropical migrants, resident species, and temperate migrants ............71 III.11. Estimates of probability of occurrence, , in each of the 3 land-use categories ..................72 iv List of Tables I.1. Summary information about the Wetlands Reserve Program easements used in this study. Variables include WRP size, tree planting date, species planted, and dominant soil map unit names .....................................................................................................................................73 III.1. Number of easements, total hectares of easements, and number of hectares within high, medium, and low flood frequencies for a sample of lands enrolled in the Wetlands Reserve Program in Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi .................................................................76 III.2. Trees and shrubs detected in the natural forests and Wetlands Reserve Program sites in each river basin ...............................................................................................................................77 III.3. Bird species detected on agricultural, Wetlands Reserve Program, and natural forest sites in the Tensas, Louisiana and Lower White/Cache, Arkansas River Basins ..............................81 III.4. Bird species that were only detected on agricultural, Wetlands Reserve Program or natural forest sites in the Tensas, Louisiana and Lower White/Cache, Arkansas River Basins .......85 III.5. Repeated measures analysis of variance for mean observed bird species richness in agricultural, Wetlands Reserve Program or natural forest sites in the Tensas, Louisiana and Lower White/Cache, Arkansas River Basins .........................................................................87 III.6. Bird species detected on Wetlands Reserve Program sites in the Yazoo River Basin, Mississippi .............................................................................................................................88 III.7. Estimated contribution of Wetlands Reserve Program Hydrology Management Units to Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture population-based foraging habitat objectives for Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, 2001-2005 .................................................................................91 v III.8. Estimated contribution of Wetlands Reserve Program reforested lands under intensive moist soil management to Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture population-based foraging habitat objectives for Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, 2001-2005 .............................92 III.9. Amphibian species detected on agricultural, Wetlands Reserve Program, and natural forest sites in the Tensas, Louisiana and