Assessment of the

Hydrology, Soils, Vegetation

and Amphibians of a
Restored Wetland in WestCentral Illinois
Taylor Bookout
Senior Thesis Presentation, December 2, 2016

Intro
Why?

Nearly 50% of wetlands (Dahl 2000) have been

destroyed over the last century through agricultural and
urban development
Wetland provide important ecosystem services:

Retain and purify flood water

Provide habitat for aquatic and terrestrial species
Sequester carbon
Act as nursery habitat for amphibians and fish

Shift in policy from draining to protection under Clean

Water Act (1972)
Restoration and mitigation has become more common
Important to understand how methods of restoration
effect the establishment of wetland function
http://www.heinsohndiggingandtiling.
com/files/JOBS/Tiling_5-19-11.jpg

Intro:
Hydrology

Wetlands have to be inundated at least 5-12% of the

growing season

Hydrology separate wetlands from aquatic and upland

ecosystems
Soil characteristics and plant community composition
varies across hydrologic gradients within a site

Intro: Plants &

Amphibians

Wetland plants are the primary producers in wetland

ecosystem and many have adapted to live in the
saturated wetland soils
It has been found that generally restored wetlands
progress from more facultative annuals in early
succession to more clonal perennials as the restoration
progresses
Amphibians rely on wetlands as breeding sites

Tadpole development dependent on hydroperiod

Require at least 35 days of water to metamorph (Wilbur 1977;
Semlitsch et al. 2000)

Intro:
Objectives

The objectives of the study were to assess the success of

the wetland restoration through

1) comparing the water levels of the three studied cells,

2) determining trends in soil development among the
cells and across the hydrologic gradient,

3) surveying vegetation to determine differences in

community composition among the cells, and
4) monitoring relative call frequency to determine the
use of the wetland by amphibians in spring 2016

Methods:
Site

Former farm land restoration finished spring 2015 by

Great Rivers Land Trust as mitigation for Americas
Central Port south loading facility
In floodplain of lower reach of Piasa Creek in Jersey
County, Illinois
Random points were generated in the wetter,
intermediate and drier zones of three wetland cells

Methods:
Soil &
Vegetation

Soil cores (n=54) from 0-15cm at each point

6 drier, 6 intermediate and 6 wetter in each cell (n=3)

Cores dried at 105C for 24 hours for soil moisture

content (SMC) and bulk density (BD)
Sub-samples placed in muffle furnace at 450C for 4
hours to find soil organic matter (SOM)

Species and cover class (Matthews and Endress 2008)

were determined in a 1m2 quadrat at each plot (n=54)
Sampling took place 8/17-8/19 at peak growing season

Methods:
Amphibians

Relative call frequency (RCF) collected 30 nights from

March 13th to May 30th after sunset

Relative call frequency is a scale of approximately how

many individuals of a species are calling (Weir 2001)
0= no call
1= calls present, not overlapping
2= Overlap but individuals still discernable
3=full chorus with overlap

Visual encounter surveys conducted after RCF

monitoring
Water depth and soil temp recorded as well

Results:
Hydrology

Cell 1 averaged 0.27 m depth, inundated for 104

consecutive days from the start of the study

Cell 2 averaged 0.40 m depth, inundated for 104

consecutive days from the start of the study
Cell 3 averaged 0.11 m depth, inundated for at least 38
consecutive days at the end of the study period
All cells dried June 25- June 30
Cell 3 pulsed with rain before drying in
9 to 11 days in spring

Results:
Hydrology

Cell 3 and Cell 1 on 5/13

Cell 3

Cell 1

10

Results:
Soil
SMC across cells

Mean BD= 1.29 g/cm3

Mean SMC= 20.54%
Mean SOM= 2.69g
No significant trends in BD or SOM across site or
gradient
SMC in C1 was significantly different than SMC in C2
and C3

SMC across zones

SMC was significantly different between drier and

wetter zones

11

Results:
Vegetation
VegCoverPCA28spp Zone
p43

Zone
0
1
2

p20

p44
p50
p41
p53
p36 p40
p48

Ecsp

p19

p46

p38
Ecsp
p54

p34

p51
p52

Wetter

p21
Posp

p45

Axis 2

Drier

p3
Pohy
Cyst

p14

p39 p1

p5

p18

Sesp
p9
p33

p17

p47

p25

Sasp
p2

p6

Bode
Biar

Capr
p10
p42 Rucr
Trfl
Trsp

p37

Disp

p8

Pope

Poce

Coca
Huja

Rora

Speu
Acca
Elpa
Sala

34 species identified
Most common were grasses: Echinochloa spp. (25 plots),
Setaria spp. (19), and Digitaria spp. (18)
Principle Components Analysis (PCA) of 28 species
Axis 1 accounted for 29.1% of the variance,
and axis 2 accounted for 14.9% of the
variance
Drier plots grouped on left of biplot where
grass species loaded
Wetter plots clumped on right where
mostly OBL species loaded
Intermediate plots were centrally located
where Echinochloa sp (FACW) loaded

Rora

Elob

Elob

p31

Sala
Baro
Tysp

Sasp

Baro
Tysp

Elpr

p13

Disp

p7

p28
p22

p16
p4

p15

p12
p24

p27

p30

p23

p29
Elpr
p49
p35
p32
p11
Sesp
p26

Axis 1

12

Results:
Vegetation

Indicator species analysis was conducted for each

hydrologic zone

Bacopa rotundafolia (OBL) was a significant indicator of

the wetter zone (p= 0.0001), and was only found in the
wetter zone
Cyperus strigosus (FACW) a significant indicator of the
intermediate zone (p= 0.01)
Humulus japonicas (FACU) was a significant indicator of
the drier zone (p=0.01)

13

Results:
Amphibians

10 species calling + 1 salamander observed

Acris crepitans (northern cricket frog),

Ambystoma texanum (smallmouth salamander),
Bufo americanus (American toad),
Bufo fowleri (Fowlers toad),
Hyla versicolor (grey treefrog),
Pseudacris crucifer (spring peeper),
Pseudacris illinoensis (Illinois chorus frog)*,
Pseudacaris trisariata (western chorus frog),
Rana catesbeiana (bullfrog),
Rana clamitans (green frog),
Rana sphenocephala (southern leopard frog)

RCF varied over time

C1 and C2 generally had similar RCF, C3 had periods of no calls

14

Results:
Amphibians

Cell 1

Strong linear relation between soil temperature and

total call frequency in C1 (R2=0.63)

Water level significantly (R2=0.79) related to call

frequency in C3 where dry conditions limited calling

Cell 3

15

Conclusions

Hydrology is more stable in C1, C2; pulses in C3

Leads to site diversity, different rates of development

Soils are as expected for such a young restoration

Established OBL vegetation community excellent in C1 &
C2
C3 is on a different vegetative development trajectory
Hydroperiod may need to altered if establishment of
more OBL species desired
Assessment of soil texture to determine drainage

High number of amphibian species present

11 vs average of 3.6 found in restored wetlands in
Michigan (Lehtinen and Galatowitsch 2001) , or 5-6
species in smaller natural wetlands on Principia College
campus (Klehm 2016)

16

Conclusions:
Future
Research

Look at soil development over time

Investigate changes in plant community with
recruitment and as woody species develop
Continue to study amphibian use of site and changes in
community composition as site develops
Verify presence of Illinois chorus frog and more
intensive amphibian monitoring (drift fence, etc.)

Comparison of this site to other restored and natural

wetlands in the region

17

Acknowledgments
Great Rivers Land Trust for allowing access to the
wetland.

Alley Ringhausen for his support and information about

the site and its development.
Mike Rhaesa for helping with plant identification

Jeff Cornelius and the Chemistry department for the

use of their muffle furnace.
All the BNR department , especially Greg Bruland, Scott
Eckert, Chrissy McAllister, and John Loveseth.
Also Bess Bookout and Ariana Dale for their help in data
collection and soil processing.

18

Questions?

19

Works Cited

Ballantine K, Schneider R. 2009. Fifty-Five Years of Soil Development in Restored Freshwater Depressional
Wetlands. Ecological Applications 19:14671480.
Bantilan-Smith M, Bruland GL, MacKenzie RA, Henry AR, Ryder CR. 2009. A Comparison of the Vegetation and Soils
of Natural, Restored, and Created Coastal Lowland Wetlands in Hawaii. Wetlands 29:10231035.
Bruland GL, Richardson CJ. 2005. Hydrologic, edaphic, and vegetative responses to microtopographic
reestablishment in a restored wetland. Restoration Ecology 13:515523.
Conover D, Klein J. 2010. Changes in a Restored Wetland during 18 Years of Management (Ohio). Ecological
Restoration 28:248250.
Crouch III WBC, Paton PWC. 2002. Assessing the Use of Call Surveys to Monitor Breeding Anurans in Rhode Island.
Journal of Herpetology 36:185192.
Dahl TE. 2000. Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States 1986 to 1997. US Fish and Wildlife
Service. [accessed 2016 Nov 8]. http://repositories.tdl.org/tamug-ir/handle/1969.3/26244
DeBerry DA, Perry JE. 2004. Primary Succession in a Created Freshwater Wetland. Castanea 69:185193.
Hausman CE, Fraser LH, Kershner MW, Szalay FA de. 2007. Plant Community Establishment in a Restored Wetland:
Effects of Soil Removal. Applied Vegetation Science 10:383390.
Heaven JB, Gross FE, Gannon AT. 2003. Vegetation Comparison of a Natural and a Created Emergent Marsh
Wetland. Southeastern Naturalist 2:195206.
Henning JA, Schirato G. 2006. Amphibian Use of Chehalis River Floodplain Wetlands. Northwestern Naturalist
87:209214.
Hopple A, Craft C. 2013. Managed disturbance enhances biodiversity of restored wetlands in the agricultural
Midwest. Ecological Engineering 61:505510.
J. Taylor, B.A. Middleton. 2004. Comparison of litter decomposition in a natural versus coal?slurry pond reclaimed
as a wetland. Land Degradation & Development 15:439446.
Knutson MG, Sauer JR, Olsen DA, Mossman MJ, Hemesath LM, Lannoo MJ. 1999. Effects of Landscape Composition
and Wetland Fragmentation on Frog and Toad Abundance and Species Richness in Iowa and Wisconsin, U.S.A.
Conservation Biology 13:14371446.

20

Works Cited

Lehtinen RM, Galatowitsch SM. 2001. Colonization of Restored Wetlands by Amphibians in Minnesota. American
Midland Naturalist 145:388396.
Matthews J, Endress A. 2008. Performance Criteria, Compliance Success, and Vegetation Development in
Compensatory Mitigation Wetlands. Environmental Management 41:130141.
Matthews JW, Endress AG. 2010. Rate of succession in restored wetlands and the role of site context. Applied
Vegetation Science 13:346355.
Matthews JW, Peralta AL, Flanagan DN, Baldwin PM, Soni A, Kent AD, Endress AG. 2009. Relative Influence of
Landscape vs. Local Factors on Plant Community Assembly in Restored Wetlands. Ecological Applications
19:21082123.
Matthews JW, Peralta AL, Soni A, Baldwin P, Kent AD, Endress AG. 2009. Local and landscape correlates of nonnative species invasion in restored wetlands. Ecography 32:10311039.
Matthews JW, Spyreas G, Endress AG. 2009. Trajectories of Vegetation-Based Indicators Used to Assess Wetland
Restoration Progress. Ecological Applications 19:20932107.
Pillsbury FC, Miller JR. 2008. Habitat and Landscape Characteristics Underlying Anuran Community Structure along
an Urban-Rural Gradient. Ecological Applications 18:11071118.
Semlitsch RD, Bridges CM, Welch AM. 2000. Genetic Variation and a Fitness Tradeoff in the Tolerance of Gray
Treefrog (Hyla versicolor) Tadpoles to the Insecticide Carbaryl. Oecologia 125:179185.
Shirose LJ, Bishop CA, Green DM, MacDonald CJ, Brooks RJ, Helferty NJ. 1997. Validation Tests of an Amphibian Call
Count Survey Technique in Ontario, Canada. Herpetologica 53:312320.
Shulse CD, Semlitsch RD, Trauth KM, Gardner JE. 2012. Testing wetland features to increase amphibian
reproductive success and species richness for mitigation and restoration. Ecological Applications 22:16751688.
Todd BD, Luhring TM, Rothermel BB, Gibbons JW. 2009. Effects of Forest Removal on Amphibian Migrations:
Implications for Habitat and Landscape Connectivity. Journal of Applied Ecology 46:554561.
Tucker JK, Chick JH, Szafoni R. 2008. The Illinois chorus frog (Pseudacris illinoensis) and wetland mitigation: What
has worked? Illinois Natural History Survey Technical Report INHS 2008 (26). [accessed 2016 Nov 3].
https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/handle/2142/18099
Wilbur HM. 1977. Density-Dependent Aspects of Growth and Metamorphosis in Bufo Americanus. Ecology 58:196
200.

21

Results:
Soil

22

Methods:
Site

8/2012

Development of site from 2012-2016

11/2013

4/2016

23