MARSH DEVELOPMENT AT RESTORATION SITES ON THE WHITE MOUNTAIN APACHE RESERVATION, ARIZONA¹

Abstract

To prioritize sites for riparian restoration, resource managers need to understand how recovery processes vary within landscapes. Complex relationships between watershed conditions and riparian development make it difficult to predict the outcomes of restoration treatments in the semiarid Southwest. Large floods in 1993 scoured riparian areas in the Carrizo watershed on the White Mountain Apache Reservation in east‐central Arizona. We evaluated recovery at three of these sites using repeated photographs and measurements of channel cross sections and stream‐side vegetation along permanent transects. The sites were mapped as lying on the same soil type, had similar streamside vegetative communities, and were similarly treated through livestock exclusion and supplemental seeding. However, the sites and individual reaches within the sites followed strikingly different development paths. Dramatic recovery occurred at a perennial reach where cover of emergent wetland plants increased from 4.7 percent (standard error = 0.8 percent) in October 1995 to 55.5 percent (standard error = 2.7 percent) in September 2001. At several other reaches, geologic and hydro geomorphic characteristics of the sites limited inputs of fine sediment or surface water, resulting in modest or negligible increases in emergent cover. Recovery efforts for highly valued marshlands in this region should prioritize perennial reaches in low gradient valleys where salty sediments are abundant.

Effects of Livestock Exclusion on Stream Habitat and Aquatic Biota: A Review and Recommendations for Implementation and Monitoring

“…Several studies found that riparian vegetation metrics varied across seasons and years, making it difficult to detect change, particularly over short time periods (Long et al. 2003; Laine et al. 2015).…”

“…Cook (2003) found significantly higher periphyton in nonfenced reaches than in fenced reaches, with lower levels attributed to higher plant biomass just 1-2 years after exclusion implementation and changes in stream shading due to increases in riparian vegetation; however, our review included no other studies that measured periphyton. Results were mixed for aquatic vegetation cover, indicating that livestock grazing reduction does not lead to consistent changes in aquatic vegetation cover (2 of 4 studies reported decreases, with 1 being significant; 1 of 4 studies reported no change; Thibault et al 1999;Long et al 2003;Scrimgeour and Kendall 2003;Herbst et al 2012).…”

“…This is demonstrated by the fact that metrics such as woody plant cover, stream temperature, and potentially fish and other biota may take 10, 20, or more years to fully respond to livestock grazing reduction or removal. Several studies found that riparian vegetation metrics varied across seasons and years, making it difficult to detect change, particularly over short time periods (Long et al 2003;Laine et al 2015). As with most restoration projects, it is important to continue monitoring areas over the long term so that there can be adaptive management based on the site conditions and based on what is or is not working.…”

Ecologische opvolging van plasbermen langs het Kanaal Brussel-Schelde, het Kanaal Charleroi-Brussel en het Kanaal Leuven-Dijle

“…Er bestaan veel toepassingen in de literatuur: voor het detecteren van verschillen in soortendensiteit in graslandgemeenschappen onder verschillende beheervormen (Lörentzen et al, 2008), om verschillen in bodemkenmerken ten gevolge van begrazing te onderzoeken (Muscha & Hild, 2006), om vegetatieveranderingen langs begrazingsgradiënten met een verschillende begrazingsdruk te vergelijken (Hoshino et al, 2009), om wegbermgemeenschappen langs omgevingsgradiënten te beschrijven (Arévalo et al, 2005;Karim & Mallik, 2008), bij zonering van oevers van stilstaande waters en kustecosystemen (Keddy 1984;Steinhardt 2009), voor de beschrijving van successiegradiënten (Jerling, 1983), ter evaluatie van het herstel van oevergemeenschappen (Long et al, 2003).…”

Gallery Forest or Herbaceous Wetland? The Need for Multi‐Target Perspectives in Riparian Restoration Planning

“…Planting of wet meadow vegetation without corresponding restoration of hydrologic process may lead to limited recovery of sensitive, wetland obligates such as Carex , and to the invasion of woody plants (Meyer et al 2010). Where emergent wetlands have been reduced due to intense, scouring floods, recovery can be rapid where fine, silty sediment and surface water are fostered by geologic and geomorphic characteristics that occur commonly in low-gradient valley bottoms (Long et al 2003).…”