Artificial microtopography and herbivory protection facilitates wetland tree (Thuja occidentalis L.) survival and growth in created wetlands

Author

• Laura C. Kangas
• , Rose Schwartz
• , Michael R. Pennington
• , Christopher R. Webster
• , Rodney A. Chimner

Abstract

Northern white-cedar (Thuja occidentalis L.) wetlands are highly valuable both commercially and as wildlife habitat. However, northern white-cedar forested wetlands are declining in area from forestry activities and development, with mitigation efforts often failing to reproduce these ecosystems. For this reason, the goal of this project was to determine the feasibility of creating a northern white-cedar forested wetland as a wetland mitigation option. Microtopography has been shown to be important for northern white-cedar establishment and recruitment, so a series of hummocks and flat areas were created and planted with northern white-cedar seedlings in two created wetlands in northern Michigan, USA. We examined the influence of microtopography and exposure to deer browse on white-cedar survivorship and height growth, 2 and 5 years after establishment. Hummock microtopography increased both tree survival and height growth. Percent survival after 5 years in protected fenced areas was 75 % on hummocks, while percent survival was only 15 % in protected fenced flat areas. Height growth rates were also greater on fenced hummocks, averaging 30 cm per year, compared to an average of 8 cm per year on fenced flat areas. Protection from browsing also improved white-cedar survival and height growth. Fenced white-cedar had 15–20 % greater survival compared to unfenced white-cedar and had 25–100 % greater growth rates. Our results indicate that incorporating microtopography and protection from browsing into future restoration or regeneration projects involving northern white-cedar should be considered as a viable option where high or variable water tables are expected.

References

1. Ahn C, Dee S (2011) Early development of plant community in a created mitigation wetland as affected by introduced hydrologic design elements. Ecol Eng 37:1324–1333CrossRef
2. Barry WJ, Garlo AS, Wood CA (1996) Duplicating the mound-and-pool microtopography of forested wetlands. Ecol Restor 14:15–21
3. Beatty SW (1984) Influence of microtopography and canopy species on spatial patterns of forest understory plants. Ecology 65:1406–1419
4. Bing D, He X (2010) Linear mixed models in clinical trials using PROC MIXED. PharmaSUG2010—Paper SP07
5. Bouyoucos GJ (1962) Hydrometer method improved for making particle size analysis of soils. Agron J 54:464–465CrossRef
6. Brady NC, Weil RR (2008) The nature and properties of soils, 14th edn. Pearson Prentice Hall, Columbus, pp 207–208
7. Bruland GL, Richardson CJ (2005) Hydrologic, edaphic, and vegetation responses to microtopographic reestablishment in a restored wetland. Restor Ecol 13:515–523CrossRef
8. Chimner RA, Hart JB (1996) Hydrology and microtopography effects on northern white-cedar regeneration in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. Can J For Res 26:389–393CrossRef
9. Denneler B, Bergeron Y, Bégin Y (2010) Flooding effects on tree-ring formation of riparian eastern white-cedar (Thuja occidentalis L.), northwestern Quebec, Canada. Tree-Ring Res 66:3–17CrossRef
10. Dickey DA (2008) PROC MIXED: underlying ideas with examples. SAS global forum 2008, statistics and data analysis, Paper 374-2008
11. Doepker RV, Ozoga JJ (1990) Wildlife values of northern white-cedar. In: Lantagne D.O. (ed) Workshop proceedings of northern white cedar in Michigan. Michigan State University Agricultural Experimental Station 1991: Report #512, Sault Ste. Marie, MI, pp. 15–34
12. Doherty JM, Zedler JB (2015) Increasing substrate heterogeneity as a bet-hedging strategy for restoring wetland vegetation. Restor Ecol 23:15–25. doi:10.​1111/​rec.​12154 CrossRef
13. Elliot ET, Heil JW, Kelly EF, Monger HC (1999) Soil structural and other physical properties. In: Robertson GP, Coleman DC, Bledsoe CS, Sollins P (eds) Standard soil methods for long-term ecological research. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 58–75
14. Forester JD, Anderson DP, Turner MG (2008) Landscape and local factors affecting northern white cedar (Thuja occidentalis) recruitment in the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest, Wisconsin (U.S.A.). Am Midl Nat 160:438–453CrossRef
15. Glenz C, Schlaepfer R, Iorgulescu I, Kienast F (2006) Flooding tolerance of Central European tree and shrub species. For Ecol Manage 235:1–13CrossRef
16. Heitzman E, Pregitzer KS, Miller RO (1997) Origin and early development of northern white-cedar stands in northern Michigan. Can J For Res 27:1953–1961CrossRef
17. Hudson BD (1994) Soil organic matter and available water capacity. J Soil Water Conserv 49:189–194
18. Johnston WF (1990) Thuja occidentalis L. Northern white-cedar, In: Burns RM, Honkala BH (eds.) Silvics of north American trees. Vol. 1. Conifers, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Handbook 654, pp. 580–589
19. Kern CC, Reich PB, Montgomery RA, Strong TF (2012) Do deer and shrubs override canopy gap size effects on growth and survival of yellow birch, northern red oak, eastern white pine, and eastern hemlock seedlings? For Ecol Manag 267:134–143CrossRef
20. Kost MA (2002) Natural community abstract for rich conifer swamp. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Lansing, MI 9 pp
21. Kuijper DPJ, Cromsigt JPGM, Churski M, Adam B, Jędrzejewska B, Jędrzejewski W (2009) Do ungulates preferentially feed in forest gaps in European temperate forest? For Ecol Manag 258:1528–1535CrossRef
22. Kusler JA (2006) Developing performance standards for the mitigation and restoration of Northern Forested Wetlands. Discussion Paper. Association of State Wetland Managers, Inc., Michigan
23. Kusler JA, Kentula ME (eds) (1989) Wetland creation and restoration: the status of the science. Island Press, Washington, DC
24. Littell RC, Milliken GA, Stroup WW, Wolfinger RD, Schabenberger O (2006) SAS for mixed models, 2nd edn. SAS Institute Inc, Cary, pp 94–104
25. McLeod KW (2000) Species selection trials and silvicultural techniques for the restoration of bottomland hardwood forests. Ecol Eng 15:S35–S46CrossRef
26. Moser K, Ahn C, Noe G (2007) Characterization of microtopography and its influence on vegetation patterns in created wetlands. Wetlands 27:1081–1097CrossRef
27. NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) (2002) Climatography Of The United States No. 81: Monthly station normals of temperature, precipitation, and heating and cooling degree days 1971–2000 Report 20, National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina
28. Paratley RD, Fahey TJ (1986) Vegetation–environment relations in a conifer swamp in central New-York. Bull Torrey Bot Club 11:357–371CrossRef
29. Quinn GP, Keough MJ (2002) Experimental design and data analysis for biologists. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 322–323CrossRef
30. Rooney TP, Solheim SL, Waller DM (2002) Factors affecting the regeneration of northern white cedar in lowland forests of the Upper Great Lakes region, USA. For Ecol Manag 163:119–130CrossRef
31. Sandberg L (1983) The response of forest industries to a changing environment. In: Flader SL (ed) The great lakes forest, an environmental and social history. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp 194–204
32. Shi H, Laurent EJ, LeBouton J, Racevskis L, Hall KR, Donovan M, Doepker RV, Walters MB, Lupi F, Liu J (2006) Local spatial modeling of white-tailed deer distribution. Ecol Model 190:171–189CrossRef
33. Simmons ME, Wu XB, Whisenant SG (2011) Plant and soil responses to created microtopography and soil treatments in bottomland hardwood forest restoration. Restoration Ecology 19:136–146CrossRef
34. Simmons ME, Wu XB, Whisenant SG (2012) Responses of pioneer and later-successional plant assemblages to created microtopographic variation and soil treatments in riparian forest restoration. Restor Ecol 20:369–377CrossRef
35. Stanturf JA, Schoenholtz SH, Schweitzer CJ, Shepard JP (2001) Achieving restoration success: myths in bottomland hardwood forests. Restor Ecol 9:189–200CrossRef
36. Stanturf JA, Conner WH, Gardiner ES, Schweitzer CJ, Ezell AW (2004) Recognizing and overcoming difficult site conditions for afforestation of bottomland hardwoods. Ecol Restor 22:183–193CrossRef
37. Steel RGD, Torrie JH (1980) Principles and procedures of statistics: a biometrical approach, second edition. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, NY, pp 233–236
38. Stolt MH, Genthner MH, Daniels WL, Groover VA, Nagle S, Haering KC (2000) Comparison of soil and other environmental conditions in constructed and adjacent palustrine reference wetlands. Wetlands 20:671–683CrossRef
39. Storer DA (1984) A simple high sample volume ashing procedure for determination of soil organic-matter. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 15:759–772CrossRef
40. Toner M, Keddy P (1997) River hydrology and riparian wetlands: a predictive model for ecological assembly. Ecol Appl 7:236–246CrossRef
41. Ullrey DE, Youatt WG, Johnson HE, Fay LD, Brent BE, Kemp KE (1968) Digestibility of cedar and balsam fir browse for the white-tailed deer. J Wildl Manag 32:162–171CrossRef
42. Verme LJ (1965) Swamp conifer deeryards in northern Michigan: their ecology and management. J For 63:523–529
43. Witt JC, Webster CR, Froese RE, Drummer TD, Vucetich JA (2012) Scale-dependent drivers of ungulate patch use along a temporal and spatial gradient of snow depth. Can J Zool 90:972–983CrossRef
44. Zar JH (2010) Biostatistical analysis, 5th edn. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River 230

For further details log on website :
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11056-015-9483-7