Quantifying Vegetation and Nekton Response to Tidal Restoration of a New England Salt Marsh

Tidal flow to salt marshes throughout the northeastern United States is often restricted by roads, dikes, impoundments, and inadequately sized culverts or bridge openings, resulting in altered ecological structure and function. In this study we evaluated the response of vegetation and nekton (fishes and decapod crustaceans) to restoration of full tidal flow to a portion of the Sachuest Point salt marsh, Middletown, Rhode Island. A before, after, control, impact study design was used, including evaluations of the tide-restricted marsh, the same marsh after reintroduction of tidal flow (i.e., tide-restored marsh), and an unrestricted control marsh. Before tidal restoration vegetation of the 3.7-ha tide-restricted marsh was dominated by Phragmites australis and was significantly different from the adjacent 6.3-ha Spartina-dominated unrestricted control marsh (analysis of similarities randomization test, p < 0.001). After one growing season vegetation of the tide-restored marsh had changed from its pre-restoration condition (analysis of similarities randomization test, p < 0.005). Although not similar to the unrestricted control marsh, Spartina patens and S. alterniflora abundance increased and abundance and height of Phragmites significantly declined, suggesting a convergence toward typical New England salt marsh vegetation. Before restoration shallow water habitat (creeks and pools) of the unrestricted control marsh supported a greater density of nekton compared with the tide-restricted marsh (analysis of variance, p < 0.001), but after one season of restored tidal flow nekton density was equivalent. A similar trend was documented for nekton species richness. Nekton density and species richness from marsh surface samples were similar between the tide-restored marsh and unrestricted control marsh. Fundulus heteroclitus and Palaemonetes pugio were the numerically dominant fish and decapod species in all sampled habitats. This study provides an example of a quantitative approach for assessing the response of vegetation and nekton to tidal restoration.

[1]  R. Garvine,et al.  Hydrologic modeling as a predictive basis for ecological restoration of salt marshes , 1995 .

[2]  Charles A. Simenstad,et al.  Functional Equivalency Trajectories of the Restored Gog‐Le‐Hi‐Te Estuarine Wetland , 1996 .

[3]  M. Peck,et al.  Gut contents of common mummichogs, Fundulus heteroclitus L., in a restored impounded marsh and in natural reference marshes , 1994 .

[4]  William A. Niering,et al.  Vegetation Patterns and Processes in New England Salt Marshes , 1980 .

[5]  K. Raposa.  Early Responses of Fishes and Crustaceans to Restoration of a Tidally Restricted New England Salt Marsh , 2002 .

[6]  W. Niering,et al.  Restoration of Salt and Brackish Tidelands in Southern New England , 2002 .

[7]  J. L. Gallagher,et al.  The effects of salinity and flooding on Phragmites australis , 1992 .

[8]  J. Heltshe,et al.  Estimating species richness using the jackknife procedure. , 1983, Biometrics.

[9]  K. R. Clarke,et al.  Change in marine communities : an approach to statistical analysis and interpretation , 2001 .

[10]  J. Portnoy.  Salt Marsh Diking and Restoration: Biogeochemical Implications of Altered Wetland Hydrology , 1999, Environmental management.

[11]  K. Able,et al.  Initial Response of Fishes to Marsh Restoration at a Former Salt Hay Farm Bordering Delaware Bay , 2002 .

[12]  P. Fell,et al.  Re-establishment of Melampus bidentatus (Say) and other macroinvertebrates on a restored impounded tidal marsh: comparison of populations above and below the impoundment dike , 1991 .

[13]  K. R. Clarke,et al.  Statistical Design And Analysis For A Biological Effects Study , 1988 .

[14]  W. Niering,et al.  Salt Marsh Restoration in Connecticut: 20 Years of Science and Management , 2002 .

[15]  J. Kushlan.  Sampling Characteristics of Enclosure Fish Traps , 1981 .

[16]  G. Benoit,et al.  Sedimentation rates in flow-restricted and restored salt marshes in Long Island Sound , 1999 .

[17]  W. Niering,et al.  Salt marsh vegetation change in response to tidal restriction , 1984 .

[18]  L. Rozas.  Bottomless lift net for quantitatively sampling nekton on intertidal marshes , 1992 .

[19]  M. Peck,et al.  Evaluation of tidal marsh restoration: Comparison of selected macroinvertebrate populations on a restored impounded valley marsh and an unimpounded valley marsh within the same salt marsh system in Connecticut, USA , 1994 .

[20]  N. Barrett,et al.  Tidal marsh restoration: trends in vegetation change using a geographical information system (GIS) , 1993 .

[21]  W. Niering,et al.  Restoration of an impounded salt marsh in New England , 1990 .

[22]  Allan Stewart-Oaten,et al.  ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT: "PSEUDOREPLICATION" IN TIME?' , 1986 .

[23]  Martin Kent,et al.  Vegetation Description and Analysis: A Practical Approach , 1992 .

[24]  D. Burdick,et al.  Modeling Habitat Change in Salt Marshes After Tidal Restoration , 2002 .

[25]  J. C. Ambrose,et al.  EFFECTS OF SALINITY AND SULFIDE ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF PHRAGMITES AUSTRALIS AND SPARTINA ALTERNIFLORA IN A TIDAL SALTMARSH , 1998 .

[26]  K. Raposa,et al.  Diet composition of mummichogs, Fundulus heteroclitus, from restoring and unrestricted regions of a New England (U.S.A.) salt marsh , 2001 .

[27]  D. Burdick,et al.  Fish Utilization of Restored, Created and Reference Salt-Marsh Habitat in the Gulf of Maine , 1999 .

[28]  G. Benoit,et al.  Impacts of Flow Restrictions on Salt Marshes: An Instance of Acidification , 1997 .

[29]  J. Portnoy.  Summer oxygen depletion in a diked New England estuary , 1991 .