<%BANNER%>

Revegetation of Wetland Ecosystems on Clay Settling Areas

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024125/00001

Material Information

Title: Revegetation of Wetland Ecosystems on Clay Settling Areas
Physical Description: 1 online resource (192 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Boyd, Mary
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: clay, revegetation, wetland
Environmental Engineering Sciences -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Environmental Engineering Sciences thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Clay Settling Areas (CSAs) occupy large areas in the post-phosphate mining landscape. Portions of these structures develop depressions, as a result of clay settling and post-mining topography, which tend to act as wetlands by holding water and supporting wetland vegetation. These areas exist in a state of arrested ecological succession, commonly dominated by pioneer and invasive species, as most CSAs are spatially disconnected from naturally occurring wetland communities and consequently lack desirable seed sources. As a result, the introduction of wetland herbaceous and woody species on CSAs may increase overall species richness and result in more fully functional wetland communities. Five wetland areas were designed and implemented with a high diversity of herbaceous and tree species on sites exhibiting a range of hydrologic conditions and existing vegetation. Open water depressional features with no canopy were planted at two sites with herbaceous marsh species and a periphery of trees and shrubs. Twenty-three species of wetland tree seedlings were planted under an existing Salix caroliniana-dominated canopy at three sites. A variety of herbaceous species were observed that were suited for wetland revegetation in open depressional marsh features including Scirpus californicus (giant bulrush), Saggitaria lancifolia (bulltongue arrowhead), and Pontederia cordata (pickerelweed) in deeper areas, Eleocharis cellulosa (club-rush) and Cladium jamaicense (saw-grass) in moderately flooded areas, and Spartina bakeri (sand cordgrass), Juncus effuses (common rush), Peltandra virgnica (green arrow arum), and Cladium jamaicense in shallow and transitional wetland areas. Canopy and subcanopy tree species from a variety of wetland ecosystems common to southwest Florida, including bay swamps, floodplain forests (river swamps), cypress domes, hydric hammocks, and mixed hardwood swamps, were able to successfully establish at planting sites, however for most species, seedling survival was greater under a stable canopy than in full sunlight likely due to less competition from volunteer species and a more suitable microclimate. Lack of success by several planted species should not indicate a general inappropriateness of these species for CSA wetlands due to the severe drought conditions experienced over the period of record. Several herbaceous and tree species exhibited trends in growth and survival based on available moisture along the sites? hydrologic gradient, most apparent at sites with a steep slope and greater sand content in soils. Composition and structure of volunteer and recruited vegetation was strongly influenced by hydrologic conditions and shading, most notably at marsh planting sites where minimal inundation and lack of canopy shade allowed the encroachment of upland and transitional wetland species including Imperata cylindrica (cogon grass), Ludwigia peruviana (Peruvian primrose willow), Eupatorium capillifolium (dog fennel), and Baccharis halimifolia (eastern baccharis).
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Mary Boyd.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Brown, Mark T.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2009-11-30

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0024125:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024125/00001

Material Information

Title: Revegetation of Wetland Ecosystems on Clay Settling Areas
Physical Description: 1 online resource (192 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Boyd, Mary
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: clay, revegetation, wetland
Environmental Engineering Sciences -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Environmental Engineering Sciences thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Clay Settling Areas (CSAs) occupy large areas in the post-phosphate mining landscape. Portions of these structures develop depressions, as a result of clay settling and post-mining topography, which tend to act as wetlands by holding water and supporting wetland vegetation. These areas exist in a state of arrested ecological succession, commonly dominated by pioneer and invasive species, as most CSAs are spatially disconnected from naturally occurring wetland communities and consequently lack desirable seed sources. As a result, the introduction of wetland herbaceous and woody species on CSAs may increase overall species richness and result in more fully functional wetland communities. Five wetland areas were designed and implemented with a high diversity of herbaceous and tree species on sites exhibiting a range of hydrologic conditions and existing vegetation. Open water depressional features with no canopy were planted at two sites with herbaceous marsh species and a periphery of trees and shrubs. Twenty-three species of wetland tree seedlings were planted under an existing Salix caroliniana-dominated canopy at three sites. A variety of herbaceous species were observed that were suited for wetland revegetation in open depressional marsh features including Scirpus californicus (giant bulrush), Saggitaria lancifolia (bulltongue arrowhead), and Pontederia cordata (pickerelweed) in deeper areas, Eleocharis cellulosa (club-rush) and Cladium jamaicense (saw-grass) in moderately flooded areas, and Spartina bakeri (sand cordgrass), Juncus effuses (common rush), Peltandra virgnica (green arrow arum), and Cladium jamaicense in shallow and transitional wetland areas. Canopy and subcanopy tree species from a variety of wetland ecosystems common to southwest Florida, including bay swamps, floodplain forests (river swamps), cypress domes, hydric hammocks, and mixed hardwood swamps, were able to successfully establish at planting sites, however for most species, seedling survival was greater under a stable canopy than in full sunlight likely due to less competition from volunteer species and a more suitable microclimate. Lack of success by several planted species should not indicate a general inappropriateness of these species for CSA wetlands due to the severe drought conditions experienced over the period of record. Several herbaceous and tree species exhibited trends in growth and survival based on available moisture along the sites? hydrologic gradient, most apparent at sites with a steep slope and greater sand content in soils. Composition and structure of volunteer and recruited vegetation was strongly influenced by hydrologic conditions and shading, most notably at marsh planting sites where minimal inundation and lack of canopy shade allowed the encroachment of upland and transitional wetland species including Imperata cylindrica (cogon grass), Ludwigia peruviana (Peruvian primrose willow), Eupatorium capillifolium (dog fennel), and Baccharis halimifolia (eastern baccharis).
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Mary Boyd.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Brown, Mark T.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2009-11-30

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0024125:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 REVEGETATION OF WETLAND ECOSYSTEMS ON CLAY SETTLING AREAS By MARY CAROLINE BOYD A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR TH E DEGREE OF MASTER O F SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2008

PAGE 2

2 2009 Mary Caroline Boyd

PAGE 3

3 To my Dad

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My sincerest thanks to my parents, Melissa and Michael Boyd, for loving and supporting me throughout my life and dragging me on weekends to every State Park and National Forest the Carolinas have to offer Those long walks helped me fall headfirst in love with nature, a love that has persisted longer than most others and sustained me through tough field seasons. Thanks go out as well to my brothe r Jeffery Boyd, a moving target of greatness and a source of much inspiration. Also, thanks to Matt Creswell for seeing me through my darkest times and joyously sharing all the rest. Thanks go out to Robert J. Goldstein, my mentor and former employer, for guiding me toward graduate school and introducing me to a world with wetlands, even if I did have to delineate in the snow. I am also grateful to my former professors and advisors, Dr. George Hess and Dr. Gary Blank, from North Carolina State University for the advice and research opportunities they provided. I express my utmost gratitude to my fellow graduate students : Wes Ingwersen, Daniel McLaughlin, Elliot Campbell, Sean King, and Shannon McMorrow for countless hours of support, both in the field and the office. As well, I thank my committee members Dr. William Wise and Dr. Wiley Kitchens as well as Mr. Stanley Lattimer for providing me with support, guidance, and much needed GPS equ ipment along the way. I thank the Florida Institute of Phosphate R esearch for funding my project as well as the Teneroc State Preserve and Mosaic and Potash Cooperations for providing my study areas. I tremendously thank my advisor, Dr. Mark Brown for supporting me financially, nurturing my research and writing, and exp osing me to systems ecology which will forever shape how I view the world.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................................... 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................ 8 LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................ 10 ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................................ 14 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 16 Statement of Problem .................................................................................................................. 16 Background .................................................................................................................................. 17 Wetlands on Clay Settling Areas ........................................................................................ 17 Ecosystem Development on Clay Settling Areas .............................................................. 18 Restoration of Wetland Ecosystems on CSAs ................................................................... 20 Restoration Approaches .............................................................................................................. 24 Underplanting ...................................................................................................................... 2 4 Herbaceous Marsh Restoration on Phosphate Mined Lands ............................................ 25 2 METHODS .................................................................................................................................. 26 Site Description ........................................................................................................................... 26 Marsh Revegetation Sites .................................................................................................... 26 Wetland Tree Underplanting Sites ...................................................................................... 27 Demonstration Wetland Monitoring Sites ......................................................................... 28 Planting Design ........................................................................................................................... 29 Topography .......................................................................................................................... 29 Marsh Revegetation Sites .................................................................................................... 29 Wetland Tre e Underplanting Sites ...................................................................................... 30 Field Data Collection .................................................................................................................. 31 Hydrologic Monitoring ........................................................................................................ 31 Revegetation Monitoring ..................................................................................................... 31 Marsh revegetation sites .............................................................................................. 31 Seedling underplanting sites ........................................................................................ 32 PPW 1 & PPW 2 .......................................................................................................... 33 Site Characterization ............................................................................................................ 33 Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 33 Wetland Hydroperiod .......................................................................................................... 33 Herbaceous Frequency ........................................................................................................ 34 Seedling Survival and Growth ............................................................................................ 34 Canopy Photographs ............................................................................................................ 34

PAGE 6

6 Soils ...................................................................................................................................... 35 Organic matter .............................................................................................................. 35 Particle size ................................................................................................................... 35 3 RESULTS .................................................................................................................................... 58 Marsh Revegetation Sites ........................................................................................................... 58 H 1 Marsh ............................................................................................................................ 58 Site characteristics ........................................................................................................ 58 Herbaceous planting zones .......................................................................................... 60 Seedling planting zone ................................................................................................. 65 PPW 3 Marsh ....................................................................................................................... 68 Site characteristics ........................................................................................................ 68 Herbaceous planting zones .......................................................................................... 71 Seedling planting zone ................................................................................................. 73 Seedling Underplanting Sites ..................................................................................................... 76 Site Characteristics .............................................................................................................. 77 Hydrology ..................................................................................................................... 77 Substrate ........................................................................................................................ 80 Canopy cover ................................................................................................................ 81 Understory vegetation .................................................................................................. 82 Survival ................................................................................................................................ 83 Growth .................................................................................................................................. 87 Seedling Growth and Hydrology ........................................................................................ 89 Monitoring Sites .......................................................................................................................... 90 PPW 1 and PPW 2 .............................................................................................................. 90 Hydrology and climate ................................................................................................. 90 Survival ......................................................................................................................... 90 4 DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................ 147 Marsh Revegetation .................................................................................................................. 148 Species Survival ................................................................................................................. 148 Wetland Hydrology ........................................................................................................... 149 H 1 Marsh ................................................................................................................... 151 PPW 3 Marsh ............................................................................................................. 155 Comparison with Previous Findings ................................................................................ 157 Recommendations for Marsh Revegetation on CSAs ..................................................... 159 Seedling Underplanting ............................................................................................................ 160 Survival and Growth .......................................................................................................... 161 Underplanting versus Planting in Full Sun ...................................................................... 165 Appropriate Wetland Community Types for CSAs ................................................................ 168

PAGE 7

7 APPENDI|X A VOLUNTEER VEGETATION AT MARSH REVEGETATION SITES ............................ 170 B SEEDLING GROWTH AT MARSH REVEGETATION SITES ......................................... 174 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 187 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ........................................................................................................... 192

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF TABLES T able page 2 1 Species planted at PPW 1 and PPW 2 (May 2003) ............................................................. 43 2 2 Species planted at the H 1 marsh revegetation (Octob er 2005). ......................................... 50 2 3 Supplemental planting at the H 1 revegetation (August 2006). .......................................... 51 2 4 Species planted at the PPW 3 revegetation ( August 2006). ................................................ 52 2 5 Planted species at SA 10 (July 2006). .................................................................................. 55 2 6 Planted species at H 1u (July 2006). ..................................................................................... 56 2 7 Planted species at Ten 1 (August 2006). .............................................................................. 57 3 1 Hydrologic regime at the H 1 marsh. .................................................................................... 94 3 2 Percent inundation at the H 1 marsh. .................................................................................... 95 3 3 Soil texture determinations at the H 1 marsh. ...................................................................... 96 3 4 Percent organic matter at the H 1 marsh by monitoring plot or transect. ........................... 97 3 5 Height data for tree seedlings at the H 1 marsh. ................................................................ 106 3 6 Percent (%) su rvival by transect at H 1 marsh. .................................................................. 107 3 7 Hydrologic Data for Monitoring Plots and Transects at PPW 3. ...................................... 108 3 8 Soil texture deter minations at the PPW 3 marsh. .............................................................. 108 3 9 Percent organic matter at the PPW 3 marsh. ...................................................................... 109 3 10 Survival and height of wetland tree se edlings at PPW 3. .................................................. 113 3 11 Seedling survival by transect at the PPW 3 marsh. ........................................................... 115 3 12 Transects, planting zones, and planted tre e species ......................................................... 125 3 13 Particle size distribution at SA 10. ...................................................................................... 133 3 14 Particle size distribution at H 1u. ........................................................................................ 133 3 15 Particle size distribution at Ten 1. ...................................................................................... 133 3 16 Percent organic matter at SA 10. ........................................................................................ 134

PAGE 9

9 3 17 Percent organic matter at H 1u. ........................................................................................... 134 3 18 Percent (%) organic matter at Ten 1. .................................................................................. 134 3 19 Canopy cover at SA 10 and Ten1. ..................................................................................... 135 3 20 Percent survival of seedlings at SA 10, H 1u, Ten1. ....................................................... 139 3 21 Percent change in mean seedling height at SA 10, Ten1, and H 1u. .............................. 141 3 22 Mean seedling growth for SA 10, Ten1, and H 1u. ......................................................... 142 3 23 Seedling growth al ong the hydrologic gradient at SA 10. ................................................ 143 3 24 Seedling growth along the hydrologic gradient at H 1u. ................................................... 143 3 25 Seedling growth a long the hydrologic gradient at Ten 1. ................................................. 144

PAGE 10

10 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2 1 H 1 marsh revegetation site. .................................................................................................. 36 2 2 H 1 marsh (a) before and (b) after manual clearing in July 2005. ...................................... 37 2 3 PPW 3 marsh revegetation site and PPW 1, PPW 2 demonstration wetlands. ................. 38 2 4 PPW 3 marsh prior to planting in 2006. ............................................................................... 38 2 5 SA 10 underplanting site. ...................................................................................................... 39 2 6 SA 10 prior to planting. ......................................................................................................... 39 2 7 H 1u underplanting site. ........................................................................................................ 40 2 8 H 1u canopy and understory (a) prior to planting and (b) at mon itoring in 2007. ............ 41 2 9 Ten 1 underplanting site. ....................................................................................................... 42 2 10 Ten 1 prior to planting. .......................................................................................................... 42 2 11 PPW 1 demonstration wetland at IMC -Agrico Peace River Park. ..................................... 43 2 12 PPW 2 demonstration wetland at IMC -Agrico Peace River Park. ..................................... 44 2 13 H 1 marsh contour map. ........................................................................................................ 45 2 14 PPW 3 contour map. .............................................................................................................. 46 2 15 H 1u contour map. ................................................................................................................. 47 2 16 SA 10 contour map. ............................................................................................................... 48 2 17 Ten 1 contour map. ................................................................................................................ 49 2 18 Planting design and monitoring locations at the H 1 marsh. ............................................... 53 2 19 Planting design and monitoring locations at the PPW 3 marsh. ......................................... 54 3 1 Precipitatio n totals for Polk County, Florida and the H 1 marsh. ....................................... 92 3 2 Monthly precipitation totals for Polk County, Florida and the H 1 marsh ......................... 92 3 3 Water levels at the H 1 marsh surface water well. ............................................................... 93 3 4 Scirpus californicus frequency at the H 1 marsh. ................................................................ 97

PAGE 11

11 3 5 Perc ent inundation at BR1 and BR2 at the H 1 marsh. ....................................................... 98 3 6 Eleocharis cellulosa frequency at H 1 marsh. ..................................................................... 98 3 7 Percent inundation (%) at SP1 and SP2 at the H 1 marsh. .................................................. 98 3 8 Extent of woody shrubs at the H 1 marsh ............................................................................ 99 3 9 (a) Sagittaria lancifolia frequency ( b) Pontederia cordata frequency, and (c) Thalia geniculata frequency at the H 1 marsh. .............................................................................. 100 3 10 (a) Percent inundation and (b) water levels(m) at the flag marsh planting zone at the H 1 marsh. ............................................................................................................................ 101 3 11 Cladium jamaicense frequency at the H 1 marsh. ............................................................. 101 3 12 Percent inundation at the saw -grass planting zone at the H 1 m arsh. .............................. 102 3 13 Juncus effusus frequency at H 1 marsh. ............................................................................. 102 3 14 Spartina bakerii frequency at H 1 marsh. .......................................................................... 102 3 15 Muhlenbergia capillaris frequency at H 1 marsh. ............................................................. 103 3 16 Panicum hemitomon frequency at H 1 marsh. ................................................................... 103 3 17 Bacopa caroliniana frequency at H 1 marsh. .................................................................... 103 3 18 Peltandra virginica frequency at H 1 marsh. ..................................................................... 104 3 19 Percent inundation at the gramminoid planting zone at H 1 marsh. ................................. 104 3 20 Percent survival for wetland tree seedlings (20052007) at H 1 marsh. .......................... 105 3 21 Monthly precipitation totals for Polk County, Florida and the PPW 3 marsh. ................ 107 3 22 Water levels at PPW 3 surface water well. ........................................................................ 107 3 23 Spike rush frequency at PPW 3. ......................................................................................... 109 3 24 Sagittaria lancifolia frequency at PPW 3. .......................................................................... 110 3 25 Thalia geniculata frequency at PPW 3. .............................................................................. 110 3 26 Pontederia cordata frequency at PPW 3. ........................................................................... 110 3 27 Cladium jamaicense frequency at PPW 3. ......................................................................... 111 3 28 Gramminoid species frequency at PPW 3. ......................................................................... 111

PAGE 12

12 3 29 Percent survival for wetland tree seedlings (20052007) at PPW 3 marsh. ..................... 112 3 30 Water level data for (a) T1, (b) T2, (c) T3 at PPW 3. ....................................................... 114 3 31 Persea palustris survival and growth at PPW 3. ............................................................... 115 3 32 Fraxinus caroliniana survival and growth at PPW 3. ....................................................... 116 3 33 (a) Annual and (b) monthly precipitation totals for SA 10. .............................................. 117 3 34 (a) Annual and (b) monthly precipitation totals for H 1u. ................................................. 118 3 35 (a) Annual and (b) monthly precipitation totals for T en 1. ............................................... 119 3 36 Water levels at the SA 10 surface water well. ................................................................... 120 3 37 T2 (a) Average Water Levels and (b) Root Zone Inundation ( %) at SA 10. ................... 121 3 38 T5 (a) Average Water Levels and (b) Root Zone Inundation (%) at SA 10. ................... 122 3 39 T7 (a) Average Water Level s and (b) Root Zone Inundation (%) at SA 10. ................... 123 3 40 Water levels at H 1u surface water well. ............................................................................ 124 3 41 T1 (a) Average Water Lev els, (b) Inundation (%), and (c) Root Zone Inundation (%) at H 1u. .......................................................................................................................... 126 3 42 T2 (a) Average Water Levels, (b) Inundation (%), and (c) Root Zone Inundation (%) at H 1u. .......................................................................................................................... 127 3 43 T3 (a) Average Water Levels, (b) Inundation (%), and (c) Root Zone Inundation (%) at H 1u. .......................................................................................................................... 128 3 44 Water leve ls at Ten 1 surface water well. .......................................................................... 129 3 45 T1 (a) Average Water Levels, (b) Inundation (%), (c) Root Zone Inundation (%) at Ten 1. .................................................................................................................................... 131 3 46 T2 (a) Average Water Levels, (b) Inundation (%), (c) Root Zone Inundation (%) at Ten 1. .................................................................................................................................... 131 3 47 T3 (a) Average Water Levels, (b) Inundation (%), (c) Root Zone Inundation (%) at T en 1. .................................................................................................................................... 132 3 48 Percent survival for zone 1 at SA 10. ................................................................................. 135 3 49 Percent survival for zone 2 at SA 10. ................................................................................. 136 3 50 Percent survival for zone 3 at SA 10. ................................................................................. 136

PAGE 13

13 3 51 Percent survival at H 1u. ..................................................................................................... 137 3 52 P ercent survival for zone 1 at Ten 1. .................................................................................. 137 3 53 Percent survival for zone 2 at Ten 1. .................................................................................. 138 3 54 Percent survival (%) for zone 3 at Ten 1. ........................................................................... 138 3 55 Percent change in seedling height at SA 10. ...................................................................... 139 3 56 Percent change in mean seedling height at H 1u. .............................................................. 140 3 57 Percent change in mean seedling height at Ten 1. ............................................................. 140 3 58 Hurricane paths across Polk County, Florida in 2004. ...................................................... 145 3 59 Percent survival at PPW 1. .................................................................................................. 145 3 60 Percent survival at PPW 2. .................................................................................................. 146

PAGE 14

14 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science REVEGETATION OF WETLAND ECOSYSTEMS ON CLAY SETTLING AREAS By Mary Caroline Boyd May 2009 Chair: Mark T. Brown Maj or: Environmental Engineering Sciences Clay S ettling Areas (CSAs) occupy large areas in the post -phosphate mining lands cape. Portions of these structures develop depressions, as a result of clay settling and post -mining topography, which tend to act as we tlands by holding water and supporting wetland vegetation. These areas exist in a state of arrested ecological succession, commonly dominated by pioneer and invasive species, as most CSAs are spatially disconnected from naturally occurring wetland commun ities and consequently lack desirable seed sources. As a result, the introduction of wetland herbaceous and woody species on CSAs may increase overall sp ecies richness and result in more fully functional wetland communities. Five wetland areas were desig ned and implemented with a high diversity of herbaceous and tree species on sites exhibiting a range of hydrologic conditions and existing vegetation. Open water depressional features with no canopy were planted at two sites with herbaceous marsh species a nd a periphery of trees and shrubs. Twenty-three species of w etl and tree seedlings were planted under an existing Salix carolinianadominated canopy at three sit es. A variety of herbaceous species were observed that were suited for wetland revegetation in open depressional marsh features including Scirpus californicus (giant bulrush), Saggitaria lancifolia (bulltongue arrowhead), and Pontederia cordata (pickerelweed) in deeper areas Eleocharis

PAGE 15

15 cellulosa (club rush) and Cladium jamaicense (saw -grass) in mod erately flooded areas, and Spartina bakeri (sand cordgrass), Juncus effuses (common rush), Peltandra virgnica (green arrow arum), and Cladium jamaicense in shallow and transitional wetland areas. Canopy and subcanopy t ree species from a variety of wetland ecosystems common to southwest Florida, including bay swamps, floodplain forests (river swamps), cypress domes, hydric hammocks, and mixed hardwood swamps, were able to successfully establish at planting sites, however for most species, seedling survival was greater under a stable canopy than in full sunlight likely due to less competition from volunteer species and a more suitable microclimate. Lack of success by several planted species should not indicate a general inappropriateness of these species for CSA wetlands due to the severe drought conditions experienced over the period of record. Several herbaceous and tree species exh ibited trends in growth and survival based on available moisture along the sites hydrologic gradient most apparent at sites with a steep slope and greater sand content in soils Composition and structure of volun teer and recruited vegetation was strongly influenced by hydrologic conditions and shading, most notably at marsh planting sites where minimal inundation and lack of c anopy shade allowed the encroachment of upland and transitional wetland species including Imperata cylindrica (cogon grass), Ludwigia peruviana (Peruvian primrose willow), Eupatorium capillifolium (dog fennel), and Baccharis halimifolia (eastern baccharis).

PAGE 16

16 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Statement of Problem Clay Settling Areas (CSAs) are byproduct landforms of the phosphate mining industry in central and northern Florida. Clay Settling Area s have been a necessary component of the phosphate mining process and encompass significant areas of the post -phosphate mining landscape. They serve a crucial role in the containment and consolidation of clay slurry byproduct that is gnereated through a benefication process used to separate phosphate from the mined soil matrix. These impoundment areas, with earthen dams, are stage-filled with slurry to allow for maximum containment, and after being filled to capacity, are left to further consolidate and dewater. The dewatering of this clay substrate takes many years an d is controlled by compression, permeability, and lack of interaction with surface or groundwaters (Callahan et al. 1991, Reigner and Winkler 2000). These landforms range from 50 acres to over 200 acres in size, constitute nearly 60% of the post -phosphate mining landscape, and currently, there are more than 90,000 acres of CSAs in the Florida Phosphate Mining District with approximately 2000 acres added each year. Wetland ecosystems have developed on CSAs, but in the past it has often been through happenstance, rather than construction or design (Odum et al., 1983; Callahan et al., 1991; Oates & Rivera, 2001). Depressions develop on portions of CSAs as a result of clay settling and past mining topography, and tend to act as wetlands by holding water and s upporting wetland vegetation. A diversity of desired later successional wetland vegetation, however, does not commonly recruit to these areas unless natural wetland communities are adjacent (Rushton 1983). Most CSAs are spatially disconnected, both late rally and vertically, from naturally occurring wetland communities, and thus diverse seed sources. Additionally, phosphate mined

PAGE 17

17 areas support large populations of invasive pioneer plant species, both native and exotic, which thrive in disturbed conditions (Callahan et al., 1991) and regularly recruit to CSA wetland features Due to their ability to easily disperse seed to and establish on CSAs, species such as Typha latifolia (cattail), Salix caroliniana (Carolina willow), Myrica cerifera (wax myrtle), B accharis halimifolia (eastern baccharis), Ludwigia peruviana (Peruvian primrose willow), and others volunteer and cover wet areas on many CSAs studied (Rushton 1983, Odum et al 1991). Thus, the introduction of wetland herbaceous and woody species is appropriate to enhance the development and succession o f functional ecological systems. Past research has outlined the success of several tree species planted on CSA wetlands, but there exists a paucity of information relating the effects of hydroperiod and soi l properties to a diverse array of both marsh and forest vegetation. The foregoing raises several questions that this research will answer as follows: 1. What herbaceous and woody species are appropriate for revegetating marsh ecosystems on CSAs ? 2. How do the hydrologic conditions of the site, such as length and depth of inundation and available soil moisture throughout the year, affect the survival and growth of planted marsh species as well as volunteer vegetation that natur ally recruits to CSAs? 3. What species of forested wetland tree seedlings survive best when planted under an existing Salix caroliniana canopy? 4. What environmental conditions favor the establishment of a variety of forested wetland tree species? Background Wetlands on Clay Set tling Areas Due to the past mining topography that may underlie the clay fill, as well as the differential settling of clay particles, depressions may form in the clay substrate, which differ in size, shape, and connectivity across the CSA. Retaining w ater for extended periods of time, these depression exhibit hydrologic dynamics that are similar to wetland ecosystems found

PAGE 18

18 throughout Florida. The vegetative community characteristic of CSA depressions tned to be depauparate, usually composed of only a few of the most robust pioneer species. Natural wetlands are sustained by the interaction between contributing and draining water sources, substrate, and vegetation. Wetlands hydroperiods are dependent on rainfall, evapotranspiration, surface run in, and exchange with groundwater. Due to their overburden impoundments, or dike walls, CSAs present a physical hydrology that prevents interaction with surface runin from the adjacent landscape. As well, there is minimal to no interaction between water held w ithin the CSA, and the underlying groundwater, although seepage through the dike walls may be variable and is still being investigated as part of a current study through the Florida Institute of Phosphate Research (Brown 2008 unpublished). Thus, precipita tion and evapotranspiration are the major hydrologic input and output from the system, and along with topography and internal movement of water within the CSA, dictate hydrologic conditions within we tland features present on site (Callahan et al 1991, Reigner & Winkler 2001) The hydrologic regime of these depressions are variable by site and may continue to change over time as depressions may become disconnected from other wet areas on site, or from outfalls used to initially dewater the CSA. Ecosystem Development on Clay Settling Areas Past research, which has been dedicated to understanding the major driving functions and biotic ecosystem components of wetland systems on CSAs, has led to a clearer understanding of how these features develop, sustain, and self -organize. Work by H. T. Odum and others in the early 1980s began to study these ecological systems and their major components in earnest in order to understand natural succession on CSA wetlands and identify conditions for maximum self restorati on. Succession of wetland ecosystems on CSAs usually begins with the rapid colonization of wet areas by herbaceous marsh species such as Typha latifolia that in the

PAGE 19

19 following years as the marsh dewaters to a certain degree, are replaced by monocultures of Salix caroliniana and Ludwigia peruviana adorned with areas of Baccharis halimifolia and Myrica cerifera as the wetland continues to dry (Rushton 1983, Robertson 1985). Older sites, which were studied in a time -series evaluation of succession on CSAs, di d not typically succeed past this Salix caroliniana dominated community (Rushton 1983). However, Rushtons study found several hydric hardwood species, such as Acer rubrum (red maple), Ulmus americana and several Quercus sp. growing on older CSAs adjacent to natural wetland communities. It was suggested that the inability of wetland tree species to disperse, not establish, precluded later successional wetland species on CSA wetland features. Through the modernization of the phosphate industry over the past several decades, large areas have been mined and processes in waste disposal have been segregated into small lakes, sand filled mining cuts, elevated clay settling areas, and overburden stacks. More and more of the natural landscape has disa ppeared and become fragmented, existing along streams and rivers disconnected from the disturbed surrounding environment. Decreased presence of natural areas with native wetland seedbanks within proximity for dispersal to CSA wetlands, has in effect, reta rded natural succession past the Salix caroliniana dominated forests except where CSAs are located adjacent to these natural areas (Rushton 1983, Harrell 1987). Lack of dispersal by desireable seed source has been further exacerbated by the physical isola tion and elevation of CSAs on the landscape. McClanahan 1983 suggested that distance to and density of available seed sources was a better predictor of natural succession on CSAs than site age, and that natural succession may not proceed to a climax state unless seeds are provided through some means. Wolfe 1990 found that seeds from forested areas within the mining district rarely dispersed by wind more than 45m past the forests edge, with the exception of Acer rubrum and Ulmus

PAGE 20

20 americana. Dispersal by fa unal species was also limited by distance, although Wolfe suggests that complex perches and snags may increase seed dispersal by birds. The assemblage of primarily windblown, early successional species that are able to disperse and establish on CSA wetland and transitional areas are mostly considered either undesireable native and nonnative species (Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62C 17) that often spread invasively throughout the wetland areas due to the disturbed abiotic elements of the ecosystem and lack of competition by more desireable species (Callahan et al 1991). Callahan et al 1991 summarized findings from previous planting trials on CSAs and concluded competition from nuisance vegetation, encouraged by unpredictable hydrologic conditions is a main factor that accounts for low survivability and growth of stocked trees on CSA wetlands. Harrell 1987 noted that supplying a CSA with a reliable seed source is one of the single most challenging steps in functional wetland development due to is olation from a seed source with later successional species and over influence from early successional environments where species diversity is low. However, two of these early successional species, Typha latifolia and Ludwigia peruviana, may function to fa cilitate ecosystem development through nutrient sequestration and cycling, and may not be persistent within CSA wetland features over time due to shading by Salix caroliniana (Brown et al 1997, Carstenn 2002, Jackson 2002). Their negative affect on plante d tree seedlings on phosphatic clay has also been questioned (Jackson 2002). Restoration of Wetland Ecosystems on CSAs Past research has focused on revegetation of forested wetland tree species as a way of accelerating the primary or mid -successional ecos ystem state on CSA wetlands. Field trials, beginning in the mid 1980s, investigated the establishment of forested wetland tree species on CSAs, from a variety of wetland communities native to central and northern Florida. Preliminary results from the fi rst, or first few growing seasons, suggest that several tree species

PAGE 21

21 may be appropriate for achieving short -term stocking diversity and density that approaches reclamation regulations for phosphate mined lands, not including CSAs. Suggestions for reclamat ion and planting techniques as well as species placement within CSA wetlands have also emerged. Harrell 1987 found Liquidambar syraciflua (sweet gum), Nyssa aquatica (tupelo gum, or water tupelo), Pinus taeda (loblolly pine), Taxodium distichum (bald cypre ss), and Pinus elliotii (slash pine) survived well within the first year after planting on CSAs, and although it was noted the trees were planted under existing vegetation such as Salix caroliniana (Carolina willow) and Myrica cerifera (wax myrtle), there were no specific findings relative to the density or composition of those species as well as the hydrologic conditions planted trees experienced. Feiertag 1990 found survival of Chamaecyparis thyoides (Atlantic White Cedar) to be highly variable on CSAs, but was greatest on a sand -clay mixture substrate. He found seedlings responded negatively to prolonged inundation experienced at several planting plots. A greenhouse experiment (Paulic and Rushton 1991a), conducted with Acer rubrum (red maple) seedling s on CSA soils of varying ages, found seedling growth was greatest on older clay soils and was comparable to growth on a typical nursery medium. Seedlings treated with fertilizer experienced better growth than untreated seedlings, especially on older clay soils. An additional experiement within the study found the effect of initial tree height on survival and growth was variable by hydrologic condition and tree species tested, which included Carya aquatica (water hickory), Fraxinus pennsylvanica (green a sh), Taxodium distichum (bald cypress), Quercus michauxii (swamp chesnut), and Quercus lyrata (overcup oak) (Paulic and Rushton 1991a).

PAGE 22

22 Everett 1991 compared survival and growth between Taxodium distichum and Taxodium ascendens (pond cypress) under a Salix caroliniana canopy. He found that although survival for Taxodium distichum was higher, both species survived well under field conditions, and both grew best on sand -clay mix substrate. Growth experiments for Taxodium distichum were also conducted using fertilizer tablets that emit a slow release of N:P:K (nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium). When conditions were wet, fertilized seedlings had significantly higher growth than unfertilized trees, however, no discernable difference in growth was found betw een tests on drier soils. When seedlings from cypress -gum forested wetlands were planted on CSAs, researchers found that Taxodium distichum (bald cypress) and Fraxinus pennsylvanica (green ash) survived best after one (Rushton 1990a) and three years (Pauli c and Rushton 1991b) and had favorable success over a wide range of environmental conditions. Nyssa aquatica and Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora survived poorly over the study period, possibly due to widely fluctuating water levels. Growth for tree species was highest on the sand/clay mix CSA substrate. Clearing of herbaceous and overstory vegetation yielded no significant differences in seedling survival, however removal of trees increased competition by plots herbaceous layer. The study also found that cattle grazing and wetland restoration were not compatible management activities. Paulic and Rushton 1991b emphasized the effect of site specific differences and hydrology on seedling survival. Rushton 1990b also planted eleven species of hydric hardwood swamp trees on CSAs. Monitoring after one (Rushton 1990b) and three years (Rushton 1991) found floodplain species Fraxinus caroliniana (popash), Ulmus americana (elm), and Acer rubrum (red maple) survived best, although species from cypress and bay commun ities also survived well including Taxodium

PAGE 23

23 distichum and Magnolia virginiana. Several tree species including Quercus laurifolia and Magnolia virginiana survived best under drier planting conditions, while Ulmus americana Taxodium distichum and Fraxinus caroliniana grew and survived best at the wettest planting locations. Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora and Sabal palmetto (cabbage palm) had poor survival at the majority of planting plots. Planting seedlings under a canopy of Salix caroliniana did not negat ively affect species survival. The study also tested the effect of mulch on seedling growth and found the addition had little affect on species growth Paulic and Rushton 1991c specifically investigated the survival of wetland tree species on CSAs planted u nder a canopy, or nurse crop, of Salix caroliniana and Populus deltoides (cottonwood). While the presence of canopy was not significant in the early survival rates of trees, hydrology and understory vegetation majorly impacted species survival. The rese archers found that species common to floodplain forests and backwater swamps had greater than 50% survival after one year, including Liquidambar styraciflua (sweet gum), Quercus lyrata (overcup oak), Betula nigra (river birch), Quercus michauxii (swamp che stnut oak), and Carya aquatica (water hickory) irregardless of herbaceous or canopy cover. Species including Ulmus americana (American elm), Carya cordiformis (bitternut hiclory), Prunus caroliniana (cherry laurel), Quercus laurifolia (laurel oak), and Lir iodendron tulipifera (tulip poplar) also had better than 50% survival after one year survival on clay, but had poorer survival at areas covered with Juncus sp. as a groundcover indicating wetter conditions. This research again emphasized the importance of site -specific differences and climatic conditions in determining short and longterm success of planted seedlings.

PAGE 24

24 Restoration Approaches Underplanting Underplanting or use of a nurse crop (Matthews 1989) is a technique common to silvaculture and fore st ecosystem restoration used to encourage desired canopy species while avoiding competition from undesireable mid -canopy and understory species. This technique has been studied and recommended for the restoration of forest ecosystems on abandoned pasture and agricultural lands (McKevlin 1992) and has been suggested as a prescription for rehabilitating degraded bottomland forests (Clewell & Lea 1990, Stanturf & Meadows 1994). In addition to its functions as a pioneer species in reestablishing habitat compl exity, improving soil structure and nutrient status, and benefiting wildlife in early successional environments, work has shown Salix sp. as an effective genus for restoration of structure and function within ecosystems, and has been used as a nurse crop in wetland floodplain restoration (Kuzovkina & Quigley 2005). Clewell 1999 found several wetland tree species survived well eleven years after planting occurred under a Salix caroliniana canopy as part of a riverine headwater forest restoration. Dulroney et al showed a Salix caroliniana canopy helped faciliatate wetland tree seedling establishment for four common wetland tree species, and ameliorate d the effects of herbaceous species. Also, McLeod et al showed through controlled experiements that Salix ni gra did not negatively affect the survival on the survival of four bottomland hardwood species. Thus, a goal of restoration on CSAs may be to transform the wetland site beyond willow dominance into an intact forested wetland by establishing later succesio nal species that can function as a future seed source by correct placement of seedlings within the CSA wetland with regard to hydrology, inundation, topography, and light and nutrient availability. Since past research has shown several tree species to be successful when underplanted beneath a Salix

PAGE 25

25 caroliniana canopy on CSAs (Paulic & Rushton 1991c) this approach should continue to be tested, refined, and monitored. Herbaceous Marsh Restoration on Phosphate Mined Lands Another option for ecologically en gineering the restoration of wetlands on CSAs, may be to revegetate herbaceous marsh features to a greater species diversity and structure through a proper understanding of these wetlands hydrologic regimes, however, little, if any, research has been dev oted to revegetation of herbaceous wetland systems on CSAs. One known marsh restoration was installed in late 2001 at the Florida Power Corporation Hines Energy Complex in Polk County on a CSA, however the projects methodology and evaluation have not bee n published. Although not installed on CSAs, herbaceous marsh restoration is a common goal on post phosphate mined lands to mitigate for mining impacts. Brown et al. 1997 analyzed vegetative cover data from 41 reclaimed herbaceous marsh systems on previo usly phosphate mined lands, excluding CSAs. Although variability in monitoring length, small sample size, and the quality of past data collected hampered a thorough statistical analysis, several findings emerged including (1) percent cover (%) within the marsh systems seemed to increase and then level off after three to five years, (2) species richness, on average, was comparable with natural systems, (3) mulching tended to increase initial percent cover (%) in herbaceous systems, and (4) initial water lev els were most likely a major determinant in the success of failure of marsh vegetation restoration. The most common planted species included Pontederia cordata (pickerelweed), Sagittaria lancifolia (bulltongue arrowhead), Spartina bakeri (sand cordgrass), and the most commonly recruited, or naturally occurring were Panicum hemitomon (maidencane), Pontederia cordata (pickerelweed), and Juncus effus u s (common rush).

PAGE 26

26 CHAPTER 2 METHODS Location, bathymetry, and wetland flora, prior to planting efforts, are described for each revegetation site. P lanting designs including species composition and placement for each wetland site are illustrated. Methods for monitoring and analyzing planted and volunteer vegetation, soil parameters, and wetland hydroperiod are summarized. Site Description Marsh Revegetation Sites Two marsh sites, both located on Clay Settling Areas (CSAs) in Polk County Florida, were selected for revegetation and study. Average maximum and minimum annual temperatures for Polk County (Bartow, F lorida) are 83.6F and 61.6F, and average annual rainfall is 136.5cm (http://sercc.ncsu .edu). The first site at Mosiacs Hookers Prairie 1 (H 1) CSA is located approximately 13 miles southwest of the town of Bartow on Hookers Prairie Mine Road (via Ag ricola Rd.. Constructed in 1978, this 56 ha CSA was retired from filling, ditched, and reclaimed approximately 20 years ago. In 2004, vegetation was sampled across the environmental gradient, from upland to wetland area. Imperata cylindrica (cogon gra ss), Ludwigia peruviana (Peruvian primrose willow), and Baccharis halimifolia (eastern baccharis) were present in drier areas, while deeper wetland areas were dominated by Typha latifolia (cattail) and Salix caroliniana (Carolina willow). A 0.36 ha wetlan d area, located on the northeastern side of H 1 was chosen for the revegetation ( Figure 2 1 ). Prior to planting the wetland area was dominated by Typha latifolia and surrounded by Salix caroliniana, Myrica cerifera (wax myrtle), and Momordica charantia (ba lsam pear) on higher ground. The entire H 1 CSA was treated with herbicide in April 2005, and burned under controlled conditions in July 2005. The planting area was manually cleared in July before planting occurred in October

PAGE 27

27 (Figure 2 2 ). No additiona l management of naturally recruiting vegetation was performed after manual clearing in 2005. The second site, at IMC -Agrico Peace River Park is a 161.87 ha CSA formerly owned by IMC -Agrico mining company that has been converted to a County Park. The sit e is located Homeland Garfield Rd in Homeland, Florida approximately 7 miles south of the town of Bartow The CSA was decomissioned in 1968 and then leased for pasture until 1986. This CSA contains upland areas as well as small wetland depression s throu ghout. A 0.35 ha wetland area (PPW 3) located at the southeast corner the CSA was selected for revegetation (Figure 2 3 ). Upland trees and Panicum hemitomum (maidencane) were planted to the south and west of the marsh site as part of an unrelated study conducted by the Florida Institute of Phosphate Research (FIPR). Further west are two demonstration wetlands, PPW 1 and PPW 2. Most existing vegetation within and adjacent to the revegetation site was eliminated through repetitive herbicidal treatments b y FIPR staff prior to planting in 2006 ( Figure 2 4 ). Wetland Tree Underplanting S ites To evaluate growth rates and surviva a l of tree seedlings planted under existing ca nopies on CSAs, three si tes were chosen: one in the North Florida phosphate district and two in the southern phosphate district. Aerial photographs, site visits, and personal communication with PCS, FIPR, and Mosaic staff were used to identify sites within CSA wetlands that provide (1) an existing canopy of early successional wetland tree species for underplanting of native wetland tree species and (2) an area with an appropriate slope to observe the effect of hydroperiod on survival and growth of planted seedlings. The first, a CSA owned by the PCS mining company (PCS SA 10) is located 4 miles northeast of White Springs Fl in Hamilton Co via Highway 41. in the Nort hern Florida Phosphate district. Average maximum and minimum annual temperatures for Hamilton County (Jasper,

PAGE 28

28 Florida) are 79.8F and 54.5F, and average annual rainfall is 135. 3 cm ( http://sercc.ncsu.edu). This 162 ha CSA contains a 20.23 ha wetland consisting of temporarily and semi -permanently flooded, low slope features adjacent to a permanently ponded area. Water depth in this wetland is controlled by an active outfall at t he northeast corner of the CSA. The underplanting site at SA 10 is located in the southern corner of the CSA ( Figure 2 5 ), where a canopy of Salix caroliniana (Carolina Willow) and Acer rubrum (Red Maple) is present at the temporarily flooded areas along the waters edge of the wetland ( Figure 2 6 ). Salix caroliniana is pervasive throughout the semi -permanently and permanently inundated areas of the wetland. The second underplanting site (H 1u) was a forested wetland area under a Salix caroliniana can opy on CSA H 1. The planting area was located within a wetland swale present along the nort hern edge of the CSA ( Figure 2 7 ). This site was selec ted to test planting under a dy ing canopy as much of the Salix caroliniana canopy had died due to burning an d herbicidal treatments in 2005. Most dead trees remained stan ding providing some shading (Figure 2 8 ). The third site a CSA at the Teneroc Fish and Game Preserve in northeast Lakeland, Florida (Ten 1), contained a large wetland area suitable for under planting along the southeastern corner ( Figure 2 9 ). The underplanting site (Ten 1) exists between a Typha latifolia marsh in the deepest part of the wetland and the CSA dike. The canopy was composed of mainly Salix caroliniana in wetter areas and Sabium seriferum (Chinese Tallow), a non-native invasive tree species along the dike slope (Figure 2 1 0 ). Demonstration Wetland Monitoring Sites Two wetland areas, planted in 2003 as part of earlier revegetation efforts were included in this study to evaluate more longterm wetland tree seedling survival. The wetland sites were located at the IMC -Agrico Peace River Park CSA, west o f the PPW 1 planting ( Figure 2 3 ). Both sites were approximately 0. 2 ha in size and were planted with 9 wetland tree species.

PAGE 29

29 P lanting design and species composition can be found in Table 1 and Figures 1 1 and 1 2. Figures 2 11 and 2 12 were provided by Kate Himel, a FIPR biologist, and included data from the 2005 monitoring. Planting was not random, with transitional wetland tree species concentrated at the edge of the wetlands, and more water tolerant, obligate wetland species toward the centers. Naturally recruiting vegetation surrounding each site has been removed through mowing and herbicidal treatments over the entire period of record (20032007). Planting Design Topography Planting at the marsh and underplanting sites was designed around each wetlands topography. Initially, a laser level was used to determine elevations along multiple permanently established transects a t each marsh and underplanting site. ArcMap Spatial Analyst was then used to interpolate ground elevation measurements (x -y -z) and create contour maps for each planting site. Contour maps for the H 1 and PPW 3 marsh revegetation sites are shown in Figure s 2 13 and 2 14. In 2006, Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) mapping was performed at CSAs H 1, SA 10, and Ten1 as part of another FIPR study. LIDAR is a remote sensing system used to collect topographic da ta with aircraft mounted lasers and yields topographic data on a one meter square basis with a vertical accuracy of less than 15 cm. Ele vation data from these maps allowed the creation of more detailed contour maps for the three underplanting sites (Figures 2 15, 2 16, 2 17). Marsh Revegetation Site s Planting zones, species composition, and planting densities at marsh sites are listed in Tables 2 2, 2 3 and 2 4 Final species planting zones and monitoring locations at H 1 and PPW 3 are presented in Figures 2 1 8 and 2 19. Marsh revegetation sites w ere planted with herbaceous wetland species in the central portion of sites and wetland tree species at the periphery. In

PAGE 30

30 addition to the main tree planting zone at the PPW 3 periphery, Taxodium distichum (bald cypress) (n=22) and Annona glabra (pond appl e) (n=21) were planted within the flag marsh and spi kerush planting zones ( Figure 2 1 9 ). These species naturally occur in wetter, more permanently flooded zones within wetlands (Godfrey and Wooten 1979) and were chosen, accordingly, for planting within th e central portion of the marsh in addition to the larger wetland tree planting zone to compare with the species survival in drier areas of the revegetation. Wetland species appropriate for planting were chosen using FLDEPs wetland species status wet l land vegetation zones (DeLotelle et al. 1981), Flood Tolerance Index values (Theriot, 1993), the USDA plant database, and other pertinent literature and personal communication with Mosaic staff Species planting locations were selected using the aforeme ntioned information in coordinati on with site contour maps Some planting zones contained a single species while others were planted with a mixture of species The lily marsh and bulrush planting zones were excluded from the PPW 3 revegetation, due to dr ier site conditions. One gallon size (15 cm diameter container ) tree seedlings were used for planting within the wetland tree planting zones. Seedlings were planted on 1 m centers. Wetland Tree Underplanting S ites Wetland tree species were grouped into three zones at each underplanting site (Tables 2 5, 2 6, 2 7 ). Groupings reflected species water tolerance and their natural zonation within forested wetland ecosystems, from wettest (zone 1) to driest (zone 3). Species selection and grouping was based on FLDEP wetland species status, Flood Tolerance Index values (Theriot, 1993), Water Logging Tolerance (Hook, 1984), and the USDA plant database. Two parallel rows of e ach species were planted perpendicular to the elevation gradient, from wet to dry, at eac h underplanting site (Figures 2 15 2 17). One gallon size (15 cm diameter container ) tree seedlings were used for planting on 1m centers.

PAGE 31

31 Field Data Collection Hydrologic Monitoring A shallow piezometer was established in the deepest portion of each marsh and underplanting wetland site with Solinst mini LT 15 electronic water level recorders and Solinst Barologgers correcting for barometric pressure. The location of piezometers were recorded using a Trimble GPS unit and Topcon RL 20 laser level, which allowed for determination of water depths and wetland hydroperiod at monitoring plots, using recorded plot locations and topographic data. Precipitation gauges were also installed at each site and recorded daily commulative precipitation. Reveget ation Monitoring Monitoring methods and sampling plot design for planted and volunteer vegetation at marsh revegetati on sites (H 1, PPW 3), seedling underplanting sites (H 1, SA 10, Ten1) and continued monitoring site (PPW 1, PPW 2) are presented. As w ell, the determination of hydrologic regime at monitoring areas for marsh and underplanting sites is described. Finally, methods are given for the characterization of revegetation sites in terms of their soils and pre planting floral composition. Marsh r evegetation sites In order to evaluate the success of herbaceous species plantings at H 1 and PPW 3 species frequency was monitored using multiple 3 m x 3 m (9 m2) permanent monitoring plots established along the hydrologic gradient within eac h planting z one (Figures 2 18 and 2 29). Monitoring plots were permanently established with rebar anchored PVC piping at the plots NE and SW corners. The presence or absence of species, both planted and volunteer, was documented in nine, 1 m2 quadrats within each pl ot immediately after planting occurred and after each subsequent growing season Nested sub quadrats within quadrats were used to observe

PAGE 32

32 individual plant growth over the period of record Trees planted randomly at the periphery of marsh plantings were mon itored for survival and growth using belt transects of sufficient length to sample planted populations The entire population of seedlings planted in the central portion of PPW 3 marsh were evaluated for survival and growth. E ach monitoring plot and transe ct was documented using a Trimble GPS unit, with horizontal sub -meter accur acy. GPS points were taken at the northwest and southeast corners of each monitoring plot and along the length and width of belted transects. The points were then overlain onto previously generated topographic maps using ArcMap to determine the corresponding elevations at each monitoring location Elevation values were then used to generate hydrologic characteristics for each plot or transect by adjusting the surface and groundw ater data at the pziezometer for the elevation difference between the sites piezometer and mointoring location. At the H 1 marsh, belted transects extend parallel to site contours and so elevation varied within belts. Minimum and maximum elevations at belted transects were used to calculate the range of hydrologic conditions experienced within the belt. At PPW 3, the peripheral tree planting zone is much wider than at the H 1 marsh, and so long belted transe cts could be established perpindicular to th e elevatio n gradient, rather than parallel Elevation for each meter of distance along each transect at PPW 3 was calculated by generating a slope for each transect. Seedling u nderplanting sites All trees planted at each site were monitored for survival and growth. In order to effectively monitor areas where cleared groundcover will overtake the height of the seedlings planted, permanent monitoring transects, with rebar and PVC, were established and the known location of each seedling were mapped. Grow th was monitored using height, and was measured to the top of the main stem of each seedling, unless splitting occurred and then the tallest main

PAGE 33

33 stem was used. GPS points along each transect (every 1 m) were overlain on topographic maps to relate elevati ons within each planting zone to the elevation of the surface water well at each site. Hydrologic characteristics along transects were then calculated by adjusting the surface and grou ndwater data at the pziezometer for the differences in elevation. PPW -1 & PPW -2 Both populations of trees planted at PPW 1 and PPW 2 were monitored for survival at the end of the 2007 growing season using previously generated planting maps. Since 2005 data set did not describe what qualified trees deemed absent, the location of all seedlings recorded as absent in 2005 were checked for possible regrowth. Site Characterization Cores of the top 20 cm of soil were collected using a 7.6 cm diameter auger at all monitoring locations at marsh sites and each sampling location at u nderstory sites shown in Figures 2 15 2 17. Each sample core was placed on ice and returned to Phelps Laboratory for analysis. At seedling underplanting sites, c anopy cover was captured at each sampling location with hemispherical photographs taken 50 c m above the ground surface, with a Nikon digital camera and 180 degree fish-eye lens. The camera was secured to the end of the tripod and the picture was zoomed to 100%, with the camera oriented in the same direction at each site. Species composistion of naturally recruiting understory vegetation was sampled using a 1 m2 q uadrat at each sampling location at seedling undeplanting sites Species that could not be identified in the field, were stored in a cooler and returned to the lab for correct identi fication. Data Analysis Wetland Hydroperiod Once elevation of each plot or transect relative to the surface water well was dete rmined, water levels at each location of interest were calculated on a daily basis. Annual and growing

PAGE 34

34 season a verage water le vels, percent (%) inundation, flooding frequency, and inundation of the herbaceous vegetation and seedling root zones were calculated for each 1m2 of interest Herbaceous Frequency Species f reque ncy within each monitoring quadrat was calculated for every planted and volunteer species at H 1 and PPW 3. Frequency is the percentage of quadrats in which a species occurs at least once, and results in a calculated value between 0 and 1, or 0% 100%. Frequency within each plot was the number of quadrats a speci es occurred over the total number of quadrats per plot. Annual ove rall frequency for a species was calculated by combining frequency data from all monitoring plots within the planting zone where it occurred Seedling Survival and Growth Percent survival of tree seedlings sampled at marsh sites and understory sites was calculated, as was the change in mean seedling height for each species over the period of record of each site. A t each site, growth was examined over the planting zones hydrologic gradi ent using linear regression and correlation. For each species, two tailed T tests were used to compare mean seedling height between underplanting sites. Canopy Photographs Adobe Photoshop software was used to analyze canopy photographs. First, shadows glare, and sunspots were edited out of the photographs. The photos were then transformed to 2color black and white images using the Threshold function, which transforms image pixels that contain vegetation to black and sky to white. The threshold used to transform the images ranged between values of 129 and 140, and were chosen to provide the most accurate conversion of vegetation to black pixels. After transformation, the images were cropped and exported to Keigan Systems MFworks software where black and white pixels were counted. The percent

PAGE 35

35 canopy cover for each image is calculated by dividing the number of black pixels by the total number of pixels. Soils Organic m atter Percent (%) organic matter for each soil sample was calculated using the ignition method without rehydration. Soils were manually homogenized and approximately 40g of wet soil from each sample was oven dried for 48 hours at 30 C in an Aluminum dish. The samples were then crushed, using a mortar and pestle, and placed in crucibles, which had been dried for at least 4 hours prior at 30 C. Three sub -samples, each weighing approximately 10g, were placed in crucibles and ashed in a muffle furnace for 6 hours at 450 C. Previous work (Ingwersen thesis, unpublished) with CSA soils found this temperature was appropriate for burning off organic matter without removing inorganic carbon (CaCO3). The following equation was used to calculate percent organic matter: ((dry weight -ashed weight)/dry weight)*100 = % organic matter [1] Particle s ize Each soil sample was analyzed for percent composition (% clay, % silt, % sand). Samples were processed using the hydrometer method through WATERS Agricultural Laboratories in Camilla, GA.

PAGE 36

36 Figure 2 1 H 1 marsh revegetati on site H1 marsh revegetation site

PAGE 37

37 (a) (b) Figure 2 2 H 1 marsh (a) before and (b) after manual clearing in July 2005.

PAGE 38

38 Figure 2 3 PPW 3 marsh revegetation site and PPW 1, PPW 2 demonstration wetlands Figure 2 4 PPW 3 marsh prior to planting in 2006

PAGE 39

3 9 Figure 2 5 SA 10 underplanting site Figure 2 6 SA 10 prior to planting. SA 10 underplanting site

PAGE 40

40 Figure 2 7 H 1u underplanting site H 1u underplanting site

PAGE 41

41 (a) (b) Figure 2 8 H 1u canopy and understory (a) prior to planting and (b) at monitoring in 2007

PAGE 42

42 Figure 2 9 Ten 1 underplant ing site Figure 2 10. Ten 1 prior to planting

PAGE 43

43 Table 2 1. Species planted at PPW 1 and PPW 2 (May 2003) PPW-1 PPW-2 Species Common Name # Seedlings # Seedlings Quercus laurifolia laurel oak137 219 Quercus virginiana live oak 163 193 Myrica cerifera wax myrtle 100 187 Carya aquatica water hickory 40 40 Liquidambar styraciflua sweet gum 40 40 Fraxinus caroliniana popash 39 40 Taxodium distichum bald cypress 51 50 Acer rubrum red maple 40 40 Quercus nigra water oak 3 4 Laurel Oak Live Oak Wax Myrtle Water Hickory Sweet Gum Popash Bald Cypress Red Maple N Tree that is dead Water Oaks PPW 1 Figure 2 11. PPW 1 demonstration wetland at IMC -Agrico Peace River Park

PAGE 44

44 Laurel Oak Live Oak Wax Myrtle Water Hickory Sweet Gum Popash Bald Cypress Red Maple N Water Oak Tree that is dead PPW 2 Figure 2 12. PPW 2 demonstration wet land at IMC -Agrico Peace River Park

PAGE 45

45 Figure 2 13. H 1 marsh contour map.

PAGE 46

46 Figure 2 1 4 PPW 3 contour m ap .

PAGE 47

47 Figure 2 1 5 H 1u contour map

PAGE 48

48 Figure 2 1 6 SA 10 contour map.

PAGE 49

49 Figure 2 17. Ten 1 contour map

PAGE 50

50 Table 2 2. Species planted at the H 1 marsh revegetation (October 2005) Zone of Planting Abbreviation Scientific Name Common Name FLDEP ClassificationcWetland Vegetation Zonea# Planted Gramminoid Marsh BACM Bacopa caroliniana lemon bacopa OBL shallow marsh 250 1 JUNE Juncus effusus soft rush OBL fresh meadow 250 PANH Panicum hemotomum maidencane FACW shallow marsh 250 SPAB Spartina bakeri spartina grass FACW transition zone 250 MUHL Muhlenbergia capillaris muhly grass OBL N/A 250 PELV Peltandra virginicum green arrow-arrum OBL shallow/deep marsh 250 Total 1500 Sawgrass Marsh CLAJ Cladium jamaicense saw-grass OBL shallow marsh 1050 1 p Total 1050 Scirpus Marsh SCIC Scirpus californicus giant bulrush OBL shallow/deep marsh 200 1 Total 200 Spike Rush Marsh ELEC Eleocharis cellulosa club-rush OBL deep marsh 375 1 p Total 375 Flag Marsh PONC Pontedaria cordata pickerelweed OBL shallow/deep marsh 600 1 SAGL Sagittaria lancifolia bulltongue arrowhead OBL shallow marsh 600 THAG Thalia geniculata bent-alligator flag OBL deep marsh 600 Total 1800

PAGE 51

51 Table 2 2. Continued. Zone of Planting Abbreviation Scientific Name Common Name FLDEP ClassificationcWetland Vegetation Zonea# Planted FLDEP classificationcFlood Tolerance Indexb Trees and Shrubs FRAC Fraxinus caroliniana pop ash OBL N/A 200 1 p NYSB Nyssa biflora swamp tupelo OBL 3.04 200 PERP Persea palustris swamp bay OBL N/A 200 TAXD Taxodium distichum bald cypress OBL 2.97 200 GLEA Gleditsia aquatica water locust OBL 3.5 200 CEPO Cephalanthus occidentalis buttonbush OBL 2.83 200 ITEV Itea virginica Virginia willow OBL 2.83 200 STYA Styrax americana American snowbell OBL 3.41 200 HYPF Hypericum fasciculatum St. John's wort OBL N/A 200 Total 1800 aVegetation Zones(DeLotelle et al. 1981) Transition zone: FACU-FACW. Duration of flooding: < 60 days with water levels less than 10cm. Shallow marsh zone: Depths to 100cm from 60 to 365 days. Deep Marsh Zone: Water depths to 130 cm for >6 months. bFTI = Flood Tolerance Index (Theriot 1993) cWetland Status, Department of Environmental Regulation (DEP): Source Delineation of the Landward Extent of Wetland and Surface Waters, Chapter 62-340 Florida Administrative Code. 1994. Table 2 3. Supplemental planting at the H 1 revegetation (August 2006) Zone of Planting Abbreviation Scientific Name Common Name FLDEP ClassificationcWetland Vegetation Zonea# Planted Density Lily Marsh NUPL Nuphar lutea spatter-dock OBL deep marsh 450 1 plant/1m2 NYMO Nymphaea odonata fragrant water lily OBL shallow/deep marsh 450 Total 900 FLDEP ClassificationcFlood Tolerance Indexb Trees ANNG Annona glabra pond apple OBL N/A 25 1 tree/1m2 Total 25 aVegetation Zones(DeLotelle et al. 1981) Transition zone: FACU-FACW. Duration of flooding: < 60 days with water levels less than 10cm. Shallow marsh zone: Depths to 100cm from 60 to 365 days. Deep Marsh Zone: Water depths to 130 cm for >6 months. bFTI = Flood Tolerance Index (Theriot 1993) cWetland Status, Department of Environmental Regulation (DEP): Source Delineation of the Landward Extent of Wetland and Surface Waters, Chapter 62-340 Florida Administrative Code. 1994.

PAGE 52

52 Table 2 4. Species planted at the PPW 3 revegetation (August 2006) Zone of Planting Abbreviation Scientific Name Common Name FLDEP classificationcWetland Vegetation Zonea# Planted Density Gramminoid Marsh BACM Bacopa caroliniana lemon bacopa OBL shallow marsh 30 1 plant/2.0 m2 SPAB Spartina bakeri spartina grass FACW transition zone 30 MUHC Muhlenbergia capillaris muhly grass OBL N/A 30 JUNE Juncus effusus soft rush OBL fresh meadow 30 Total 120 Sawgrass Marsh CLAJ Cladium jamaicense saw-grass OBL shallow marsh 280 1 plant/ ~0.718 m2 Total 280 Spikerush Marsh ELEC Eleocharis cellulosa club-rush OBL deep marsh 400 1 plant/0.5 m2 Total 400 Flag Marsh PONC Pontedaria cordata pickerelweed OBL shallow/deep marsh 30 1 plant/1.5 m2 SAGL Sagittaria lancifolia bulltongue arrowhead OBL shallow marsh 30 THAG Thalia geniculata bent-alligator flag OBL deep marsh 30 Total 90 FLDEP classificationcFlood Tolerance Indexb Trees and Shrubs ANNG Annona glabra pond apple OBL N/A 200 1 tree/1m2 FRAC Fraxinus caroliniana pop ash OBL N/A 200 NYSS Nyssa biflora swamp tupelo OBL 3.04 200 PERP Persea palustris sweet bay OBL N/A 200 TAXD Taxodium disticum bald cypress OBL 2.97 200 GLEA Gleditsia Aquatica water locust OBL 3.5 200 CEPO Cephalanthus occidentalis buttonbush OBL 2.83 200 ITEV Itea virginica Virginia willow OBL 2.83 200 STYA Styrax americana American snowbell OBL 3.41 200 HYPF Hypericum fasciculatum St. John's wort OBL N/A 200 Total 2000 aVegetation Zones(DeLotelle et al. 1981) Transition zone: FACU-FACW. Duration of flooding: < 60 days with water levels less than 10cm. Shallow marsh zone: Depths to 100cm from 60 to 365 days. Deep Marsh Zone: Water depths to 130 cm for >6 months. bFTI = Flood Tolerance Index (Theriot 1993) cWetland Status, Department of Environmental Regulation (DEP): Source Delineation of the Landward Extent of Wetland and Surface Waters, Chapter 62-340 Florida Administrative Code. 1994.

PAGE 53

53 Figure 2 18. Planting design and monitoring locations at the H 1 marsh.

PAGE 54

54 Figure 2 19. Planting design and monitoring locations at the PPW 3 marsh

PAGE 55

55 Table 2 5. Planted species at SA 10 (July 2006) Zone of Planting Abbreviation Scientific Name Common Name # Planted 1 ITEV Itea virginia Virginia willow 25 1 TAXD Taxodium distichum bald cypress 30 1 LIQS Liquidambar sytraciflua sweetgum 25 1 TAXA Taxodium distichum var. ascendens pond cypress 21 1 FRAP Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash 18 1 CEPO Cephalanthus occidentalis buttonbush 22 1 NYSA Nyssa aquatica water tupelo 3 2 ULMA Ulmus americana var. floridana American elm 24 2 CARA Carya aquatica water hickory 22 2 BETN Betula nigra river birch 24 2 QUEL Quercus lyrata overcup oak 22 2 NYSS Nyssa sylvatica var. bioflora swamp tupelo 25 3 PLAO Plantanus occidentalis American sycamore 23 3 LIRT Liriodendron tulipifera tulip poplar 23 3 CELL Celtis laevigata hackberry 25 3 MAGV Magnolia virginiana swamp bay 25 3 CORF Cornus foemina swamp dogwood 25 3 QUEM Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak 25 3 ILEC Ilex Cassine dahoon holly 22 3 NYSA Nyssa Aquatica water tupelo 25 3 QUEN Quercus nigra water oak 25 Total 479 FTIaWLTbDEPc Zone 1 2-3.25 Most OBL Zone 2 3.25-4.5 Moderate OBL/FACW Zone 3 4.5-> Weak FACW/FAC/FACU aFTI = Flood Tolerance Index (Theriot 1993) bWLT = Water Logging Tolerance Rating (Hook 1984) cWetland Status, Department of Environmental Regulation (DEP): Source Delineation of the Landward Extent of Wetlands and Surface Waters, Chapter 62-340, Florida Administrative Code. 1994.

PAGE 56

56 Table 2 6. Planted species at H 1u (July 2006) Zone of Planting Abbreviation Scientific Name Common Name # Planted 1 TAXD Taxodium distichum bald cypress 24 1 NYSS Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora swamp tupelo 24 1 FRAC Fraxinus caroliniana popash 28 2 CELL Celtis Laevigata hackberry 25 2 ULMA Ulmus americana American elm 25 2 ILEC Ilex cassine dahoon holly 25 3 CARA Carya aquatica water hickory 22 3 MAGV Magnolia virginiana swamp bay 24 3 LIQS Liquidambar styraciflua sweetgum 19 3 QUEN Quercus nigra water oak 24 3 SABP Sabal minor dwarf palmetto 26 Total 266 FTIaWLTbDEPc Zone 1 2-3.25 Most OBL Zone 2 3.25-4.5 Moderate OBL/FACW Zone 3 4.5-> Weak FACW/FAC/FACU aFTI = Flood Tolerance Index (Theriot 1993) bWLT = Water Logging Tolerance Rating (Hook 1984) cWetland Status, Department of Environmental Regulation (DEP): Source Delineation of the Landward Extent of Wetlands and Surface Waters, Chapter 62-340, Florida Administrative Code. 1994.

PAGE 57

57 Table 2 7 Planted species at Ten 1 (August 2006) Zone of Planting Abbreviation Scientific Name Common Name # Planted 1 ITEV Itea virginia Virginia willow 25 1 TAXD Taxodium distichum bald cypress 24 1 NYSS Nyssa sylvatica var. bioflora swamp tupelo 25 1 FRAC Fraxinus caroliniana popash 24 1 TAXA Taxodium distichum var. ascendens pond cypress 22 2 CELL Celtis laevigata hackberry 24 2 ULMA Ulmus americana var. floridana American elm 25 2 QUEL Quercus lyrata overcup oak 25 2 CARA Carya aquatica water hickory 24 2 ILEC Ilex cassine dahoon holly 23 2 BETN Betula nigra river birch 26 3 QUEN Quercus nigra water oak 27 3 SABP Sabal palmetto cabbage palm 26 3 CORF Cornus foemina swamp dogwood 26 3 QUEM Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak 27 3 LIRT Liriodendron tulipifera tulip poplar 26 3 LIQD Liquidambar styraciflua sweetgum 25 3 MAGV Magnolia virginiana swamp bay 23 Total 447 FTIaWLTbDEPc Zone 1 2-3.25 Most OBL Zone 2 3.25-4.5 Moderate OBL/FACW Zone 3 4.5-> Weak FACW/FAC/FACU aFTI = Flood Tolerance Index (Theriot 1993) bWLT = Water Logging Tolerance Rating (Hook 1984) cWetland Status, Department of Environmental Regulation (DEP): Source Delineation of the Landward Extent of Wetlands and Surface Waters, Chapter 62-340, Florida Administrative Code. 1994.

PAGE 58

58 CHAPTER 3 RESULTS Results are presented for marsh revegetation sites (H 1, PPW 3) seedling underplanting sites (SA 10, Ten1, H 1u) and monitoring sites (PPW 1, PPW2). Marsh Revegetation Sites For each site, hydrologic and soil characteristics are summarized first. Frequency data for planted and volunteer vegetation is presented and compared over two growing seasons. Wetland tree seedling survival and growth are evaluated. The effect of wetland hydroperiod is examined as it pertains to the survival and growth of planted species and the composition and dynamics of volunteer species. H -1 Marsh Site c haracteristics Hydrology. H ydrologic conditions at the Hookers Prairie 1 (H 1) were the result of two extremes the dramatic spikes in water levels late in the 2005 and 2006 growing season followed by extended periods of drought, most pronounced during the 20062007 growing season. H istoric average annua l precipitation (cm) for Bartow Florida, as well as cumulative precipitation at the CSA for the monitoring periods of September 2005August 2006 and September 2006 August 2007 are given in Figure 3 1 Totals for both years were be low the historic average, with cumulative rainfall between 2006 and 2007 much lower than the preceding year due to drought conditions. Monthly totals for both years, as well as historic monthly values for Bartow, Florida are given in Figure 3 2 Figure 3 3 presents water l evels (m) at the H 1 marsh over the period of record. S urface wate r levels at the well were approximately 0.4 m at the time of planting in early October 2005 but rose to 0.73 m approximately two weeks after planting on 10/03/2005. The

PAGE 59

59 w ell remained mostly inundated through the end of March 2006. Below average monthly rainfall during the 2006 growing season kept surface water levels below the ground surface through 07/09/2006, and then fluctuating between the ground surface and 0.25 m un til above average precipitation in August 2006 drove the water level at the well to 0.8 m Below average rainfall from September through November caused water levels at the wetland to drop, and like 2005, water levels remained low, fluctuating below the g round surface between March and July, 2007. Although precipitation was higher than average during August 2007, the wetland water budget was already at a deficit, and so inundation only occurred twice during the 2007 growing season and only to a maximum de pth of 0.09 m. Hydrologic conditions experienced over the period of record between 2005 and 2007 for monitoring plots and transects are presented in Tables 8 and 9. Values for various attributes of wetland hydroperiod were calculated from 10/3/2005 to 10/02/2006 (0506) and then from 10/03/2006 through 09/27/07 (0607). Water levels and flooding frequency at the marsh in the second year after planting were lower than the first year due to drought conditions over 2006 and 2007. A verage water levels decl ined by 0.23 m, maximum flooding depth decreased by 0.14 m, and minimum water table depths were 0.10 m lower As a result, the percentage of time the planting zones and root zones of the herbaceous and woody species were inundated were also lower. At p lots and transects, percent inundation fell between 37% and 16%, with wetter plots experiencing the greatest declines in inundation ( Table 3 2 ). At drier monitoring locations within the gramminoid planting zone and tree transects, inundation declined to between 7% and 0.5% of the year. Inundation, specifically during the 2007 growing season, only occurred within the bulrush planting zone and the wettest areas in the western fla g marsh planting zone

PAGE 60

60 Substrate. The majority of the H 1 marsh revegetation s ite is classified as clay soil ( Table 3 3 ). Sand tailing, from the dike to the east of the revegetation site, were present at Transect 1 (T 1), FM1, SG1, and GR1 ( Figure 2 1 8 ). The transition zone from pure sand soils to clay is narrow, with GR2 classifie d as sandy clay, and all other plots to the west classified as clay. Two bulrush monitoring plots, BR1 and BR2 contained a high sand content, and were classified as sandy clay loam soils. Table 3 4 presents percent organic matter at each monitoring plot and transect for the H 1 marsh. Organic matter content is generally high across the entire site indicating wet conditions have persisted at the site for at least the past several years, with several exceptions. The bulrush monitoring plots, BR1 and BR2, lo cated in the deepest, and therefore wettest, part of the marsh had the highest percentage of organic matter per sample. As would be expected drier sampling plots at each planting zone had lower organic matter content than w etter plots (Tables 2 8 and 2 9 ). All four sampling locations located on pure sand substrate ( Table 3 3 ) (SG1, FM1, GR1, and T1) had much low organic matter content relative to the rest of the site. Herbaceous planting z ones Bulrush planting zone. Scirpus californicus (giant bulru sh) was planted in the deeper portion of the marsh, an area occupied by cattail before clearing in 2005. Figure 3 4 presents frequency data for Scirpus californicus. The initial overall frequency for Scirpus californicus was low due to the spike in water level following planting in 2005 (Figure 3 3 ), which caused individual plants to dislodge from the clay soil and float to the water surface, thus decreasing the species presence within the planting area. While both monitoring plots, BR1 and BR2, experi enced similar hydrologic conditions ( Figure 3 5 ), bulrush frequency never rebounded at BR2 after the 2005 growing season. Overall frequency declined from 2005 to 2006, due to the absence of individuals at BR2, but rebounded to its initial value as the spe cies continued to

PAGE 61

61 spread within BR1 From 2005 to 2007, the species was able to increase each year in overall frequency at the BR1 monitoring plot, indicating survival and growth within portions of the planting area By 2006, Scirpus californicus was also pr esent at SP1, GR3, and GR4 within the spike rush and gramminoid planting zones ( Figure 2 1 8) By 2007, the spread of Scirpus californicus shifted mainly to the west and southwest of the bulrush planting zone and was no longer present at drier areas within the gram minoid planting zone (GR2, GR3). The species was present within the spike rush and flag marsh planting zones (SP1, FM1, and FM4) Detailed information on volunteer species frequency in all planting zones is presented in Appendix A A fter planting occurred in 2005, sparse Typha latifolia was present By 2006 its overall frequency within the planting area had increased to 0.83 Eupatorium capillifolium (Eupatorium capillifolium) had also recruited to the majority of the bulrush planting zone, wh ile Polygonum hydropiperiodes (swamp smartweed) Mikania scandens (climbing hempvine) and Ludwigia peruviana (primrose willow) were present in drier portions of the zone. By 2007, Eupatorium capillifolium Ludwigia peruviana, and Mikania scandens were no longer present, but Typha latifolia Polygonum hydropiperiodes and Pluchea odorata (sweet scent) had overall frequencies of 1.00, 1.00, and 0.056, respectively although the majority of Typha latifolia present generally brown with few green stems still present. Spike rush planting z one Eleocharis cellulosa (club -rush), was planted in two areas along the nort hern edge of the site ( Figure 2 1 8 ), referred to as the spike rush planting zone Eleocharis cellulos a increased in overall frequency between 2005 a nd 2007 ( Figure 3 6 ). By 2007, Eleocharis cellulosa was pervasive in an area to the south of the spike rush planting zone which is similar in elevation and hydroperiod with the or iginal planting area ( Figure 2 1 8 ).

PAGE 62

62 Eleocharis cellulosa and Scirpus californicus were the only two planted species found present outside their initial planting areas within two years of planting. In 2005, drier areas within the planting zone were occupied by Ludwigia peruvivana and Commelina diffusa while Typha latifolia and Mo mordica charantia (balsam pear) occupied wetter areas. Polygonum hydropiperiodes Eupatorium capillifolium and Baccharis halimifolia (Eastern baccharis) recruited heavily to the planting area. By 2007, Ludwigia peruviana, Eupatorium serotinum (lateflowe ring thoroughwort), Polygonum hydropiperiodes Mikania scandens Baccharis halimifolia and Eupatorium capillifolium were present throughout the entire planting zone at high overall frequencies with Ludwigia peruviana and Eupatorium serotinum forming a th ick shrub canopy (1 2 m in height) throughout the planting zone Woody shrub invasion. Between 2006 and 2007, a thick shrub canopy established over the majority of the spike rush, flag marsh, saw -grass, gramminoid, and tree planti ng zones as shown in Figur e 3 8 The canopy transitioned in species dominance from Pluchea odorata and Eupatorium serotinum in wetter areas to Ludwigia peruviana, Baccharis halimifolia and Myrica cerifera (wax myrtle) at the drier wetland edge. The canopys height, cover, and st em density increase with distance from the center of the marsh reaching 3 4 m in height within the gramminoid and wetland tree planting area. Flag marsh planting zone. Three flag marsh species, Sagittaria lancifolia (bulltongue arrowhead), Thalia genic ulata (bent alligator -flag), and Pontederia cordata (pickerelweed), were planted on the eastern and western sides of the marsh ( Figure 2 1 8 ). Figure 3 9 presents frequency data for the three species. Despite small declines between 2005 and 2006, Sagittar ia lancifolia performed well at the FM1, FM2, and F M3 monitoring plots. Plot FM4, where survival was poor, experienced the greatest inundation in 2005 and 2006 and water depths to

PAGE 63

63 0.63 m immedi ately after planting (Figure 3 10). Overall fre quency increase d to 0.69 over the period of record (0.93 with FM4 excluded) O verall frequency for Pontederia cordata increased slightly in from 0.44 to 0.50 from 20052007. The highest frequencies of Pontederia cordata were found in 2006 and 2007 at FM1 and FM2, the d riest plot s ( Figure 3 10). Thalia geniculata declined in overall frequency within the planting zones, with no individuals present within monitoring plots after two years Thalia geniculata was only present in one monit oring plot in 2006, but was observed to be present, reproducing vegetatively, and flowering throughout the eastern flag marsh planting zone. Additional monitoring plots, FM5 and FM6, were established in 2007 to capture flag marsh species frequency ( Figure 2 1 8 ) west of the FM4 monitoring plot. Sagittaria lancifolia was abundant in the area west of FM4 in 2007, with frequencies of 0.66 and 0.33 at FM5 and FM6. Pontederia cordata was not present within the random plots, but was visually observed within the area. No individuals of Thalia geniculata were present in the monitoring plots nor observed within the area. Volunteer species were not present within planting areas in 2005, but Eupatorium capillifolium volunteered to high frequencies at FM1 and FM4 in 2006. By 2007, Ludwigia peruviana, Eupatorium serotinum and Pluchea odorata had formed a thick shrub canopy over the eas tern planting zone ( Figure 3 9 ), while the western zone was dominated by a groundcover of Polygonum hydropiperiodes and sparse Pluchea odorata. Saw -grass planting zone. Cladium jamaicense (saw -grass), declined in frequency from 2005 to 2006, but rebounded slightly in 2007 ( Figure 3 11). Although frequency declined at all monitoring plots between 2005 and 2006, worst survival for the species occurred at the wettest plot, SG4 ( Figure 3 12). In 2007, Cladium jamaicense maintained its 2006 frequency at SG2

PAGE 64

64 and increased i n frequency at SG1 with t he size of surviving plants in these plots increasing from 2005 through 2007. Volunteer species were not present within the pl anting zone in 2005, but by 2006, Eupatorium capillifolium and Ludwigia peruviana were present in all plots, with Baccharis halimifolia occurring only on drier areas and Typha latifolia only at wetter. By 2007, a thick shrub canopy of Ludwigia peruviana an d Eupatorium serotinum had established over the entire planting zone ( Figure 3 8 ). Gramminoid planting zone. Five gramminoid species were planted along the so uthern edge of the H 1 marsh ( Figure 2 1 8 ). Most species were not successful, with the exception s of Spartina baker i (spartina grass) and Juncus effusus (soft rush) as seen in Figures 3 13 3 18. Juncus effusus was the only species of the five to increase in overall frequency between 2005 and 2007. The species either maintained or declined in freq uency at four of five monitoring plots between 2005 and 2006, but as conditions at the H 1 marsh became drier between 2006 and 2007 ( Figure 3 19), the species increased or maintained frequency at all five plots (Figure 3 13). Spartina baker ii experienced a similar trend in establishment and growth over first growing season, with declines in frequency over the first growing season and increase over the second (Figure 3 14). Muhlenbergia capillaris (hairawn muhly grass) was initially presen t GR3, GR4, and GR 5 (Figure 3 15). Frequency declined to zero at all three plots between 2005 and 2006, and never reestablished within monitoring plot s over the second growing season. Panicum hemitomon (maidencane) and Bacopa caroliniana (lemon bacopa) similarly occurred i n three monitoring plots in 2005 and declined to zero overall frequencies in 2006, with no rebound in 2007 (Figures

PAGE 65

65 3 16 and 37). Peltandra virginica (green arrow arum) maintained a slight frequency at only one plot over the entire period of record ( Figur e 3 18). In 2005, several volunteer species were present at low overall frequencies, especially at the driest monitoring plots, GR1 and GR4. Eupatorium capillifolium Polygonum hydropiperiodes and Baccharis halimifolia were present throughout the plantin g zone at high frequencies in 2006. By 2007, a thick shrub canopy had established over the planting area which transitioned in dominance from Eupatorium serotinum and Pluchea odorata to Baccharis halimifolia and Ludwigia peruviana along the sites hydrol o gic gradient, from wet to dry. Lily marsh. The site was supplemented with two species of floating leaf aquatics in May of 2006. Nymphaea odorata (Fragrant water lily) and Nuphar polysepala (Spatterdock) were planted in the deeper, central portion of the marsh. Stem length was appropriate for the planting areas water depth (personal communication, J. Allen, RSS field services) and floating leaves rested on the waters surface the day of planting. Two weeks after planting occurred, on 08/18/2006, water levels had risen by approximately 20 cm from the planting day water level. No individuals of either species were present when monitored (0% survival, frequency = 0) at two weeks and two and twelve months after planting. Seedling planting z one Seedling survival. Nine species of wetland trees were planted around the periphery of the marsh in 2005. Overall wetland tree seedling survival, an aggregate of the nine planted species, was 81% in 2006 and 56% in 2007 (n=140) Figure 3 20 present s seedling survi val data. Seedling survival for species was relat ively high after two growing seasons, with the exceptions of Persea palustris (s wamp bay) and Hypericum fasciculatum (peelbark St. Johns wort ), which both had zero survival after the second growing season.

PAGE 66

66 Taxodium distichum had the best survival in 2006 and 2007, maintaining 100% (n=19) survival two years after pl anting Itea virginica (Virginia willow) (85%, n=21), Cephalanthus occidentalis (button bush) (92%, n=13), Fraxinus caroliniana (pop ash) (8 5%, n=20), and Hypericum fasciculatum (peelbark St. Johns wort) (87%, n=8) also had high survival i n 2006. Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora (62%, n=8) and Persea palustris (53%, n=13) had the wor st survival after the first growing season Along with Taxodium distichum Cephalanthus occidentalis was able to maintain a high percent survival throug h 2007 (84%, n=13) The tree seedling periphery was supplemented in August, 2006 with a population of Annona glabra (pond app le) tree seedlings (Table 3). Annona gl abra had 85% (n=27) sur vival after one year Seedling growth. Height data for seedling s is presented in Table 3 5 Gleditsia aquatica (45.7cm, 52%) and Taxodium distichum (54.79cm, 61%) had the largest mean increase and largest percent (%) change in mea n height from over the period of record. Annon a glabra had a larger increase in mean seedling height and percent change in height after one growing seaso n than all other species after two growing seasons, wit h the exception Taxodium distichum Cephalanthus occidentalis in creased in mean height 11.9% between 2005 and 2007, although the stand only increased by 0.57% between 2005 and 2006. Itea virginica and Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora both experienced better growth over the first growing season. Fraxinus caroliniana experienced low gr owth both years, with mean height increasing 3.9% from 20052007. Styrax americana, Persea palustris, and Hypericum fasciculatum all exp erienced minimal to no increase in mean height, with Styrax americana experiencing a ne gative change in mean height due to seedling dieback and the other two species declining in survival to zero ove r the period of record ( Table 3 5 ).

PAGE 67

67 Survival, h ydro logy, substrate, and volunteer v egetation Survival and change in height for each seedl ing w ere graphed against the difference in elevation (dElevation) between the seedling location and the surface water well to observe any trends in survival and growth as they relate to hydrology. Graphs for seedling survival and change in height as they perta in to water levels are contained in Appendix B. Percent inundation experienced at tree transects ranged from 32% to 17% in the first year after planting and 7% to 0.6% in the second. Taxodium distichum was able to survive and grow along the entire gradie nt over which seedlings were planted, both in the first and second year after pl anting Hypericum fasciculatum and Persea palustris also survived and grew along the planting zones gradient, but from 2006 to 2007, experienced 100% mortality of planted se edlings Growth was mixed for Cephalanthus occidentalis but sampled seedlings were able to survive in 2006 and 2007, except for the driest areas along the gradient. Itea virginica seedlings seemed to survive and grow better at wetter sampling areas from 2005 to 2006, but experienced mortality and seedling dieback along the entire gradient from 2006 to 2007. Survival and growth was mixed along the planting zones gradient from 2005 through 2007 for Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora Styrax americana, Fraxinus caroliniana, and Gleditsia aquatica However, most planted species had low sample sizes and species survival was certainly affected by other environmental variables that interact strongly with hydrologic conditions, such as substrate and volunteer vegeta tion. Since the four belted transects experienced a similar range of wetland hydroperiod (Tables 8 and 9 ), seedlings were aggregated by transect in order to compare survival on diff ering substrates (Tables 10 and 11) T2, T3, and T4 were classifie d as cl ay with roughly equal parts sand and silt and had similar organic matter content while T1 wa s 100% sand and had only 0.5 0.1% organic matter. Table 3 6 lists overall survival by transect. In 2005, T1 had

PAGE 68

68 the highest survival (96%, n=58) of the four be lted transects used to monitor seedlings T4 also had relatively high seedling survival after one year. T1, located on the most well drained substrate, unbuffered by clay had the high est decline from 2006 to 2007, despite having the least woody shrub en croachment of the four transects. In 2005, the tree planting zone was mostly free of volunteer vegetation. By the time the site was monitored again in 2006, Eupatorium capillifolium had recruited to the tree planting zone along with Polygonum hydropiperiodes Baccharis halimifolia and Ludwigia peruviana, which was particularly dense at the periphery of the marsh In 2007, Baccharis halimifolia Ludwigia peruviana, and Eupatorium serotinum were the dominant volunteer species in the planting zone. The shrub canopy was taller than the height of nearly all tree seedlings, with the exception of seedlings at T1, where the canopy was not fully developed, and several individuals of Gleditsia aquatica at T4. PPW -3 M arsh Site c haracteristics Hydrology The PPW 3 marsh revegetation site experienced drought conditions lasting from planting in August 2006, through the end of the monitoring period in August 2007. Total precipitation in both 2006 and 2007 for Bartow, Florida was far less than 135 cm, the historical av erage annual rainfall for the area PPW 3 received a total of 99.77 cm of precipitation over the period of record (August 2006 September 2007). Monthly rainfall values, for all growing season months, except April, were lower than historic average monthl y rainfall totals for Bartow, Florida ( Figure 3 21). Figure 3 22 presents water levels at the PPW 3 well. The wetland site was dry and water level s at the well remained at 0.31 m or lower during the first m onth after planting. Flooding at the surface wa ter well occurred once for the period of record for nine days, from 09/10/2006 through 09/19/2006, a little over one month after planting occ urred in

PAGE 69

69 August. After September 2006, water levels fell to ove r 1 m below the ground surface. A precipitation event, which occurred between 02/02/2007 and 02/03/2007, caused water levels at the well to increase to a depth of 0.19 m. The well was established 1.62 m below the ground surface, with the assumption that water levels in the deepest portion of the wet land would not fall below this depth. Water levels appear to remain static at approximately 1.62 m between 12/01/2006 and 02/02/2007 and also from 03/30/2007 through 06/26/2007 ( Figure 3 22). After examining these readings, another well was constructed on 06/27/2007 to a depth of 3.09 m and water levels were found to be 2.6 m below the ground surface. For this reason, water levels recorded at 1.62 m can most likely be assumed to be below this value for the dates listed above. Additionally, water le vels between 03/30/2007 and 06/27/2007 likely experienced a sloped decline from 1.59 m on 03/29/07 to 2.60 m on 06/27/2007. After 06/27/2007, water levels never declined to the secondary well depth, 3.09 m. Water levels remained very low between June and August of 2007. Hydrologic characteristics for plots and transects at PPW 3 ar e presented in Table 3 7 This includes water level data during the period of record as well as the percent of time the soil surface and root zone (depths of 30.48 cm for herbaceous species and 50cm for tree seedlings) were inundated. As might be expected with the drought conditions experienced during the period of record, annual mean water levels were very low, ranging between 1.32 m at sawgrass plot 2 (SG2) and 2.19 m at the driest end of transect 1 (T1) ( Figure 2 1 9) Percent time inundated was minimal with three herbaceous monitoring plots never inundated and only six of the eight plots experiencing inundation of their root zones. Maximum inundation of the rooting zone was only 6% for SG2, the wettest plot. The revegetation was designed with the spikerush and flagmarsh planting zones in the deepest portions of the marsh, however shifts in planting

PAGE 70

70 design on the planting day led the sawgrass planting zone to experi ence the highest average water levels and inundation. The spikerush planting zone only experienced inundation within the root zone for 0.8% (SP1) and 3% (SP2) of the time over the period of record, and plots within the flagmarsh planting for 3% (FM1) and 4% (FM2) percent of the time. Inundation never occurred at either gramminoid planting zone monitoring plot, and only one plot experienced minimal root zone inundation. Each of the belted transects was inundated less than 3% of the time at their lowest e levation end ( Table 3 7 ). Root zone inundation occurred along all portions of belted transects, ranging between 0.55 and 7.67 percent of the time along T1, 1.64% and 3.84% at T2, and 3.01% and 5.71% at T3 No monitoring plots or portions of belted transec ts were inundated or experienced any root zone inundation between March 2007 and August 2007. Due to rain events, the majority of inundation and root zone inundation for plots and transects over the period of record occurred during September Due to the inadequacy of the initial surface water well depth, annual average and minimum water levels are likely much lower than presented for plots and transects. Substrate. Particle size distribution for soils at monitoring plots and transects are presented in Table 3 8 The majority of the site was classified as clay with percent sand (%) ranging between 18% and 24%. Flag marsh monitoring plot 1 (FM1) (Figure 3 1 ) was classified as a silt, with 29% sand, 26% clay, and 45% silt. Only monitoring transe ct 3 (T3 ) (Figure 3 1 ), is classified as sand, with 91% sand, 6% clay, and 3% silt Percent organic matter (%) for each plot and transect is listed in Table 3 9 Organic matter ranges between 6.28 0.65% and 10.06 1.02% across the entire site. Although per cent organic matter in wetlands is variable, these are relatively low amounts for a wetland system

PAGE 71

71 with moderate clay content, indicating the ephemeral nature of this wetland system. Soils at this wetland can be classified as mineral soils, containing less than 12% organic matter and less than 60% clay (Cowardin et al. 1979). Wetter monitoring plots at PPW 3 dont always exceed drier plots in organic matter content and sampling locations at tree transects (drier locations) have more organic matter per sam ple than the wetter, herbaceous planting areas. Herbaceous planting z ones Spike rush planting zone. Eleocharis cellulosa (club rush) was planted to the south of the flag marsh planting zone ( Figure 2 1 9 ). Frequency data are given in Figure 3 23. Eleoch aris cellulos a decreased in overall frequency between 2006 and 2007. Frequency at both monitoring plots dec lined to zero after one year. Neither monitoring plot experienced inundation within the fir st month of planting and while SP2 experienced greater above ground and root zone inundati on in September 2006, the survival of Eleocharis cellulosa was equally poor at the wetter (SP2) and d rier (SP1) monitoring plots. All Eleocharis cellulosa individuals within the planting zone experienced die back, when qualitatively observed on 10/12/2006. Detailed information on volunteer species frequency in all planting zones is presented in Appendix A No volunteer species were present when the planting zone was first monitored in 2006. After the 2007 growing season Polygonum hydropiperiodes Eupatorium capillifolium (dog fennel), Boehmeria cylindrica (smallspike false nettle), and Ambrosia artemisiifolia (common ragweed) were present at high overall frequencies throughout the spike rush planting zone Flag marsh planting zone. Three flag marsh species, Sagittaria lancifolia (bulltongue arrowhead), Thalia geniculata (bent alligator -flag), and Pontederia cordata (pickerelweed) were planted north of the spik e rush pl anting zone ( Figure 2 1 9 ). Sagittaria lancifolia increased in overall frequency from 0.22 to 0.27 from 2006 to 2007 ( Figure 3 24). FM1, the drier plot

PAGE 72

72 maintaine d its initial frequency, and FM2, the wetter plot, increased in frequency over one year (Table 3 7 ). Thalia geniculata (bent alligator -flag) survived well, maintaining its initial overall frequency of 0.16 ( Figure 3 25). Pontederia cordata (pickerelweed) had the worst survival of the t hree flag marsh species, with a decline in overall frequency from 0.33 to 0.11 bet ween 2006 and 2007 ( Figure 3 26). The species maintained its low initial frequency in the wetter plot, and declined in frequency from 0.55 to 0.22 at FM1, the drier plot (Table 3 7 ). Low initial frequencies for all three species are a result of planting density and to a lesser degree, some non random planting. The species mixture was planted at an approximate density of one plant per 1.7 m2 and monitored using 9 m2 plots. Also, although workers were instructed to plant the flag marsh zone with an even distribution of the mixture, i nevitably, several areas within the planting zone were clumped with the same species. V olunteer species were not present when the planting zone was first monitored in 2006, however several species were present when the planting zone was monitored in 2007. Polygonum hydropiperiodes Eupatorium capillifolium Boehmeria cylindrica and Cyperus virens (green flatsedge) volunteered to high overall frequencies within the flag m arsh planting zone Saw -grass planting zone. Cladium jamaicense (saw -grass) plan ted north of the flag marsh planting zone, declined in overall frequency between 2006 and 2007, with both monitoring plots experiencing declines in frequenc y from 0.88 to 0.44 (Figures 3 27). Both the wetter (SG2) a nd drier (SG1) plots experienced equal declines in frequency (Table 3 7 ). No volunteer species were present when the planting zon e was first monitored in 2006. Eupatorium capillifolium Polygonum hydropiperiodes and Indigofera hisuta (roughhair indigo) volunteered to high overall frequencies within the saw -grass pla nting zone in 2007.

PAGE 73

73 Gramminoid planting zone. Spartina bakeri (spartina grass) Juncus effusus (soft rush), Muhlenbergia capillaris (hairawn muhly), and Bacopa caroliniana (lemon bacopa) were planted within the gramminoid planti ng zone (Figure 2 1 9 ). Initially, the four species were to be evenly distributed throughout the planting zone, but due to dry conditions on the day of planting and the small size of available Bacopa caroliniana individuals, planting for this species was c oncentrated along the wetter, eastern edge of the planting zone. All species experienced total declines in overall frequency, with no individuals present within either monitoring plot after one year ( Figure 3 28). Only two Muhlenbergia capillaris individ ual were observed within the entire planting area in 2007. Individuals of Indigofera hirsuta were present within GR1 and GR2 at low frequencies when the planting zone was first monitored in 2006. Eupatorium capillifolium, Boehmeria cylindrica, Polygonum hydropiperiodes Lythrum alatum Ambrosia artemisiifolia (common ragweed), and Cyperus virens were present throughout the gramminoid planting zone. Seedling p lanting z one Seedling survival. Ten species of wetland trees were planted along the northern an d eastern periphery of the PPW 3 marsh planting shown in Figure 2 1 9 Seedling su rvival is presented in Figure 3 29 and Table 3 10. Overall wetland tree seedling survival, an aggregate of the ten planted species, excluding Taxodium distichum and Annona glabra seedlings planted within the central portion of the marsh, after one year was 62%. Cephalanthus occidentalis (common button bush) (96%, n=51) and Persea palustris (swamp bay) (95%, n=40) had the best first year survival of all planted species at th e marsh periphery. Gleditsia aquatica (water locust) (90%, n=54), Fraxinus caroliniana (pop ash) (79%, n=49), Taxodium distichum (75%, n=62), and Itea virginica (Virginia willow) (72%, n=85) also survived well after one year. Annona glabra (6%, n=61), Hy pericum fasciculatum (peelbark St. Johns wort) (25%, n=43), and Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora (swamp tupelo) (27%, n=54) had the lowest survival after one year.

PAGE 74

74 Percent survival after one year for Taxodium distichum and Annona glabra, within the central m arsh planting, was 100% and 0%, respectively (Table 3 14). The remains of the Annona glabra seedlings were desiccated, broken, and sometimes uprooted Seedling growth. Table 3 10 present s height data for seedlings at PPW 3. Fraxinus caroliniana had the l argest increase in mean seedling height (cm) and Itea virginica had the highest % increase in mean height Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora had the lowest positive increase in mean seedling height (cm) and % increase in mean height. Taxodium distichum and An nona glabra both experienced declines in mean seedling height (cm) between 2006 and 2007. Mean height for Taxodium distichum in the central marsh planting increased by 42%, from 88.3 cm 13.1 cm to 126.0 cm 17.8 (Table 3 10). Dieback of tree seedlings at PPW 3 may have been caused by one or more stressors including, root shock immediately after planting, drought stress, animal herbivory, or competition with dominant volunteer species within the tree se edling zone. Seedling survival, hydrology, substrate, and volunteer vegetation Taxodium distichum and Annona glabra seedlings planted within the flag marsh and spikerush planting zones in the central portion of the marsh experienced hydroperiods sim ilar to monitoring plots, FM1, FM2, and SP2 (Table 3 7 ). Seedlings experienced average water levels ranging from 139.45 cm to 156.45 cm. Wetland hydroperiod within this planting area was not sufficiently wet enough to support Annona glabra seedlings. Survival of Annona glabra in the tree planting zone was slightly higher than inidividuals of this species planted in the central portion of the marsh, however survival was very low at both sampling locations ( Table 3 10 ). Taxodium distichum however, thri ved within this planting area and had higher survival than Taxodium distichum seedlings sampled in the tree planting zone (Table 3 12).

PAGE 75

75 Figure 3 30 presents water level data for the three belted transects used to monitor tree seedlings. Belted Transec t 3 (T3) begins at a lower elevation than Transect 1 (T1) and Transect 2 (T2), and therefore has a higher average water level and most likely, greater soil moisture than at least the first 15m of T1 and first 10m of T2. In addition to increased water avai lability, volunteer vegetation was less dense at T3 and the transect had a higher sand content than T1 or T2. Six planted species had higher % survival at T3 than T2 or T1 ( Table 3 -11). Four of seven species present at all three transects, had higher me an growth at T3. Increase in mean height was low at all three transects for Annona glabra, due to low percent survival, and Taxodium distichum as a results of dieback and breakage of seedlings. Seedling survival and growth were graphed against the average water level experienced by seedlings. Graphs are found in Appendix B excluding those for Persea palustris and Fraxinus caroliniana. Both Persea palustris and Fraxinus caroliniana survived well along the entire gradient, and both had weak, positive corr elations of change in height with increasing average water levels (0.34 and 0.31, respectively), although the coefficients of determination (r2) were low (Figures 3 31 and 332). Survival and growth were low for Annona glabra and Hypericum fasciculatum alo ng the entire hydrologic gradient within the tree planting zone, which ranged in average water level from 219.5 cm at the driest end to 146.5 cm at the wettest Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora had slightly higher survival at the wetter end of the gradient, but percent survival and growth for the sample was very low Styrax americana and Taxodium distichum survived along the entire gradient, but growth for both species was generally low No correlation was found between average water levels and seedling gro wth for Gleditsia aquatica Cephalanthus occidentalis and Itea virginica

PAGE 76

76 Indigofera hisuta was observed growing throughout the tree planting zone during a site visit on 01/19/2007 ( Figure 2 1 9 ). This species is an erect, reseeding summer annual legume that can reach heights of 121 cm to 213 cm if not grazed, typically occurring in upland ecosystems (Chambliss and Ezenwa 2002). At PPW 3, the maximum height of Indigofera hisuta ranged 130 cm at lower elevations to 200 cm at higher elevations on the alon g the eastern edge of the planting zone. The species was observed pinning some seedlings to the ground surface and causing breakage of others. However, many tree seedlings appeared to be thriving. At the end of the 2007 growing season Eupatorium capillifolium had volunteered across the entire tree planting zone and Indigofera hirsuta was no longer dominant. Since Indigofera hirsuta can easily survive upland conditions, similar to those experienced at PPW 3 over the period of record, so competition with E upatorium capillifolium may have eliminated the majority of the population over the 2007 growing season. Along T1, Eupatorium capillifolium ranged in height from 100 cm to approximately 400 cm, with stem density exceeding 50 stems per m2. H eight and dens ity ranged from 100 to 200 cm at T2 and T3, with a variety of other species present including Baccharis halimifolia (eastern baccharis), Indigofera hisuta, Sambucus canadensis (elderberry), Ambrosia artemisiifolia (common ragweed) Phytolacca americana (pok eweed), Polygonum hydropiperiodes (swamp smartweed, Sambucus c anadensis Ludwigia peruviana (Peruvian primrose willow), Passiflora incarnata (purple passion flower), and Lythrum alatum (winged loosestrife) Seedling Underplanting Sites Hydrologi c conditio ns at the seedling underplanting sites are summarized and compared. Underplanting sites are further characterized through the analysis of substrate and existing canopy and understory vegetation. Seedling survival is explored at each site, along each site s hydrologic gradient, as well as between sites. Height data is examined for each site and

PAGE 77

77 differences in growth are evaluated between sites. The relationship between seedling growth and hydrology is explored. Site Characteristics Hydrology Precipitation. Annual, as well as monthly precipitation varied between sites, although all three were affected by drought conditions lasting from planting in 2006 through monitoring in 2007. Monthly and yearly rainfall amounts at each site are presented in Figure s 3 33, 334, and 3 35. Total precipitation for the 2005 2006 (08/01/2005 07/31/06) and 20062007 (08/01/2006 07/31/2007) rain years is lower than the historic annual average for all three underplanting sites (sercc@climate.ncsu.edu ). At SA 10, both years are below 134.72 cm, although the 20062007 year is lower than the pre c eding year by approximately 24.00 cm. This same trend in annual rainfall can be seen at the H 1u site. At Ten 1, total precipitation for 20052006 and 20062007 are roughly the same, with both total approximately 38.00 cm below the historic annual average. Growing season months in 2007 for all three sites were almost all lower than historic average rainfall for those months. Wetland h ydrology. Hydrologic conditions differ between the three underplanting sites, Hookers Prairie 1 (H 1u), PCS SA 10 (SA 10), and Tenoroc 1 (Ten1), due to each sites unique wetland water budget and topography. The underplanting at SA 10 took place at the low slope, wetland edge of a permanently ponded wet feature with an average slope of 0.02 (F igures 2 5 and 2 16) Figure 3 36 displays water level fluctuations at the surface water well between August of 2006 and July of 2007. Average monthly water leve ls at the surface water well, located in the ponded feature are lower from 20062007 than the previous years due to a lack of rainfall in the regio n

PAGE 78

78 Water levels along transects through the planting area are assumed to be directly connected with water levels at the surface water well. The height of water at a point along the transect is the surface water level minus the change in elevation between the well and corresponding transect point. Average water levels, along the three transects used to char acterize wetland hydroperiod at SA 10, are presented in Figures 3 37 3 39. Table 3 12 lists the planting zone and tree species that coincide with each transect. Average water levels at the driest portion of the site never exceed 1.6 m in depth below t he ground surface. Small hummocks in the ground surface account for the uneven slope of water levels along the transects. Inundation over the period of record (July 2006 through July 2007) only occurred for the first 8m of Transect 1 (T1), the first 3m o f Transect 2 (T2), and the first 0.5 m of Transect 3 (T3), Transect 5 (T5), a nd Transect 6 (T6) No aboveground inundation occurred at the site during the 2007 growing season, however, the substrate at SA 10 appeared moist at every site visit. T he low sl ope gradient allowed for saturation and available moisture within the seedlings root zone over a larger portion of the planting area, especially during the growing season when available moisture is cri tical The root zone for tree seedlings was assumed to be the top 0.5 m of soil. When groundwater levels were within 0.5 m of the ground surface, it was assumed that the capillary fringe that exists in mainly clayey soils would cause the soil to be saturated to at least 0.25 m, the planting depth for see dlings, thus saturating the seedlings root zone. This is most likely an underestimation of the capillary fringe depth, with published values estimating depth in clayey soils to be between 0.5m and 1m (Dingman 2002, Bell 2004). The underplanting at H 1u experienced hydrologic conditions similar to SA -10, and its topography is characterized as well by a low slope 0.02 and hummock features within the planting area. The H 1 underplanting site is located within a swath of wetland area that runs

PAGE 79

79 along the nor thern dike of the CSA ( Figure 2 7 and 2 15). Water backs up along the edge of the dike, flooding into the planting area. The surface water well is located north of the underplanting in a deeper wetland area that dries down at times throughout the year du e to a lack of connectivity with other wetland areas on the CSA and climatic conditions. Water levels at the H 1 surface water w ell are presented in Figure 3 40. Like SA 10, the surface water well was inundated during and after planting at the end of the 2006 growing season The water level fluctuated during the 2007 growing season, with the well inundated once between March and July of 2007. Sharper declines and rebounds in water levels contrast with steadier increases and decreases seen at SA 10. A verage water levels as well as above ground and root zone inundation for the three transects used to characterize the three planting zones at H 1u are presented in Figures 3 41, 3 42, and 3 43. T1, used to characterize zone 1, experienced above ground inundation along its entirety with the exception of the driest portion of the planting zone The low slope within zone 1, a change in elevation of only 0.4 m, accounts for similar hydrologic conditions wi th the entire zone Average water levels and root zon e inundation along T2, used to characterize planting zone 2, were similiar to T1, but the zone experienced less above ground inundation. Average water levels and root zone inundation within zone 1 and 2 at H 1u are similar with zones 1 a nd 2 at SA 10. Zo ne 3 at H 1u experienced almost no above ground inundation, with average water levels slightly lower than zones 1 and 2. Table 3 12 lists the planting zone and tree species that coincide with each transect at the H 1u. The underplanting at Ten1 took pl ace along a fairly steep gradient that stretches from a Typha latifolia marsh to the inside wall of the C SA dike (Figures 2 9, 2 17). Slope ranged between 0.13 at zone 1 and 0.58 at zones 2 and 3. Figure 3 44 displays the water levels at the

PAGE 80

80 surface wate r well located at the lowest elevation within the marsh. Like SA 10 and H 1u, the surface water feature was flooded at the end of the 2006 growing season, as well as between January and April of 2007, but not nearly to the depths seen at S A 10 or H 1u A fter a slight inundation occurred in April, water levels declined much faster and to much greater depths compared with SA 10 ( Figure 3 36). Increases in water levels following rain events are also more pronounced, possibly due to infiltration and drainaga e from the CSA dike which contains a higher proportion of sand than the clayey soils inside the CSA. Since species were planted along a steeper gradient and the adjacent water feature was so infrequently wetted, most average water levels along transects were lower at Ten 1 than those at SA 10 and H 1u. Each of the three transects used to characterize the three planting zones at Ten 1 encounters the toe of slope associated with the dik e wall (Figures 3 45, 3 46, and 3 47). This causes wetter conditions at the beginning of each transect, with a sharp transition to drier conditions as the planting zone encounters the dike. The first half of transect 1 (T1), used to characterized zone 1 at Ten 1, experienced average water levels within 0.5 m of the ground s urface, some above ground inundation, and root zone inundation for the majority of the year and growing season These conditions are reflective of those seen at zone 1 of SA 10 and H 1u. Inundation is limited after 8m along T1. T2 and T3, which were use d to characterized zones 2 and 3 at Ten 1, encountered the toe of slope sooner than T1 and thus much drier conditions Table 3 12 lists the planting zone and tree species that coincide with each transect for Ten 1. Substrate The majority of the SA 10 underplanting site is classified as clay, with percent (%) sand ranging be tween 16% and 24% ( Table 3 13). Particle size distributions for samples take n at H 1u are listed in Table 3 14. Like SA 10, the majority of this underplanting site was classified as clay, with percent (%) sand ranging between 17% and 32%. The underplanting at Ten 1 is

PAGE 81

81 located at the base of an overburden dike, where overburden material from the mining process meets the clay fill, thus sand makes up the majority of each sample acro ss the planting zones (Table 3 15). Because o f high sand c ontent in the substrate the soil drains more quickly after saturation and may have a more, narro w capillary fringe than mainly clay soils. Water levels after rainfall events may be more pronounced d ue to drainage from the adjacent sand dike that may continue well after the event has ceased. This can be seen in Figure 3 -44 during the 2007 growing season. Percent (%) organic matter (% OM) at SA 10, H 1u, a nd Ten 1 are listed in Tables 23, 24, and 2 6 Percent (%) organic matter at SA 10 ranges between 10% and 20%, with the wetter sampling locations containing a larger percentage of organic matter per sample. At H 1u, values for organic matter range between 10% and almost 12% (11.75 0.58). Although wetter areas of the planting zones have a higher percentage of organic matter, the range in organic matter content is narrow reflecting less variation in water levels across the site. As would be expected with drier site conditions and a higher sand cont ent, values for percent (%) organic matter at Ten 1 are the lower than both SA 10 and H 1u ( Table 3 15). Canopy c over Species composition of the existing forest canopies and associated canopy cover are unique to each underplanting site. The canopy at th e SA 10 underplanting site is composed of Salix caroliniana (Carolina willow), Acer rubrum (red maple), and Taxodium distichum (bald cypress) and ranges between 5 m and 7 m in height Salix caroliniana is the dominant tree species that grows throughout the ponded wet feature, north of the planting area. The canopy above the planting zones consisted of a mixture of all three species, with Taxodium distichum being the least dominant. Canopy cover measurments, taken along hydrologic transects, are presented i n Table 3 19. Percent (%) canopy cover at SA 10 ranges between 69% and 80%.

PAGE 82

82 A canopy consisting of Salix caroliniana was also present at H 1u. However, previous herbiciding and burning of the CSA in 2005, had left the majority of the canopy without foli age and many trees appeared dead, although standing, when the site was planted 2006. When the site was monitored in 2007, the majority of Salix caroliniana individuals that were standing in 2006, had fallen over within the underplanting site (Figure 2 8 ). Planting zone 3 appeared to be the least affected by tree fall, and several surviving Salix caroliniana trees were still standing. At Ten 1, t he canopy over the wettest parts of zone 1 through 3 consisted primarily of Salix caroliniana and Sapium sebiferum (Chinese tallow) between 3 and 5m in height As the planting zones transition from wet to dry, the canopy shifts in dominance from Salix caroliniana and Sap ium seriferum to Sap iu m seb iferum and Quercus nigra with Baccharis halimifolia (eastern bacch aris) and Schinus terebinthifolius (Brazilian pepper) interspersed. When the site was monitored in 2007, it was observed that Schinus terebinthifolius was present not only in the drier portions of the planting zones but also underneath the Salix carolinia na canopy in the wetter portions. This species as well as Sapium seriferum are both invasive nonindigenous species, which grow aggressively in both terrestrial and more aquatic environments in Florida and can outcompete native species (Burks 1996). At Te n 1, percent (%) canopy cover ranges between 59% and 79%, with lower coverage in the wetter areas (Table 3 19). Unders tory v egetation Understory vegetati on varied between the three sites, but several species were found at more than one including Eupatori um capillifolium (SA 10 and H 1u), Eupatorium serotinum (late -flowering thoroughwort) (H 1u and Ten1), Pluchea odorata (sweetscent) (H 1 and Ten 1), and Lygodium japonicum (Japanese climbing fern) (SA 10 and Ten1. Understory vegetation at SA 10 was domi nated by the fern, Thelypteris hispidula var. versicolor (hairy maiden fern). The vines Ampelopsis arborea (peppervine), Momordica charantia (balsampear), and the non-native

PAGE 83

83 Lygodium japonicum (Japanese climbing fern) were found growing within the underpla nting site on seedlings in 2007. At H 1u, in 2006, the wettest parts of planting zones 1, 2, and 3 were dominated by Polygonum hydropiperiodes (swamp smartweed) and Pluchea odorata (sweetscent). Those species transitioned, first to Eupatorium capillifolium (dog fennel) and then to Imperata cylindrica (cogon grass), an aggressive, nonnative invasive grass species, along the sites hydrologic gradient, from wet to dry. Understory vegetation at Ten 1, in 2006, consisted mainly of Pluchea odorata, Poly gonum hydropiperiodes Ludwigia peruviana, and the two vines Campsis radicans (trumpet creeper) and Parthenocissus quinquefolia (Virginia creeper) in the wetter areas of the underplanting site. The understory at drier areas, on the side of the CSA dike, c onsisted of Rubus argutus (sawtooth blackberry), Campsis radicans and Parthenocissus quinquefolia. Survival SA -10. Twenty species of wetland trees were planted as one gallon seedlings at SA 10 on 07/18/2006. Figure 3 48 displays percent survival after one year for species planted in zone 1, the wettest planting zone, at SA 10. Survival was high for all species within this zone. Taxodium distichum (n=30) and Liquidambar styraciflua (sweet gum) (n=25) had the best survival, and Cephalanthus occidentali s (n=23) had the worst. Figure 3 49 displays percent survival after one year for species planted in zone 2. All five planted species had high survival. Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora (swamp tupelo) (n=25), Ulmus Americana (elm) (n=24), and Quercus lyrata (overcup oak) (n=22) had the best survival. At zone 3, the driest planting zone, all nine species survived well, with four of the nine planted species having 100% survival after one year; Platanus occidentalis (sycamore) (n=24), Liriodendron tulipifera (tu lip poplar) (n=23), Celtis laevigata (hackberry) (n=25), and Quercus nigra (n=25) (Figure 3 50). Ilex cassine

PAGE 84

84 (dahoon holly) (86%, n=23) and Nyssa aquatica (88%, n=27) had the lowest percent survival after one year. Overall survival for the entire site, using an aggregate of the twenty planted species, was 94% (n=493). Nine of the 20 planted species had 100% survival after one year. Due to only slight variations in average water levels along transects and lack of aboveground inundation, species surviva l was compared with its distance along the transect used to monitor it. This assumes that distance alo ng a transect compares survival along a gradient from wetter to drier conditions. No clear trend in survival was found along t he hydrologic gradient at t he site, however the two seedlings of Taxodium ascendens which experienced the wettest conditions (>76%) did not survive, and Cephalanthus occidentalis had less mortality in the drier portion of the planting zone. H -1u Eleven species of wetland trees we re planted as one gallon seedlings at H 1u on 07/11/2006. In contrast to SA 10, H 1u is located in central Florida and so the more southernly occurring ash species, Fraxinus caroliniana (pop ash), was used instead of Fraxinus pennsylvanica (green ash). Also, the palm species Sabal palmetto (cabbage palm) was chosen, as this species is common to the edge of freshwater wetlands in Florida (Alexander 1995) Unfortunately, the nursery delivered another variety of palm, Sabal minor (dwarf palmetto) This spe cies is commonly found on well drained soils and is tolerant of drought conditions, but has a FACW status is Florida (Gilman 1999) Figure 3 51 presents seedling survival at H 1u. At zone 1, the wettest area, Fraxinus caroliniana had the best survival w ith 81% (n=27) of seedling present after one year. Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora had the worst survival with only 36% (n=25) of seedling present. Species within this zone were subject to breakage and mortality due to the toppling of the Salix caroliniana stand. At zone 2, Celtis laevigata (84%, n=25) and Ulmus Americana (64%, n=25)

PAGE 85

85 had the best surivival, while Ilex cassine had the worst (40%, n=25). The majority of zone 2 was also subject to damage due to the toppling of Salix Caroliniana, as well as re cruitment of Imperata cylindrica within the dry, canopy free areas at the southern end of zone 2. The majority of seedling decline for Celtis laevigata occurred in the drier portion of zone 2, while mortality for the other two species occurred throughout t he zone. At zone 3, three of the five species had the highest percent survival of all planted species at H 1u; Quercus nigra (96%, n=25), Liquidambar styraciflua (90%, n=20), and Sabal minor (84%, n=26) ( Figure 2 4 29) (Figure 3 54). Carya aquatica had t he worst survival at zone 3 with only 50% (n=22) of seedlings present after one year. Mortality for Carya aquatica and Magnolia virginiana, the species with the lowest percent survival in zone 3, occurred throughout the planting zone and no trends in morta lity along the hydrologic gradient were found. This zone had the least amount of damage from toppling Salix caroliniana individuals. Ten -1 Eighteen species of wetland trees were planted at Ten 1 on 08/06/2006. The site was planted with the same speci es as SA10 with the exceptions of Platanus occidentalis (sycamore) and Nyssa aquatica (water tupelo). When Ten 1 was first mo nitored on 08/18/2006, the site appeared extremely dry and the foliage of several species planted in zones 2 and 3 had already di ed back Figure 3 52 displays percent survival for species planted within zone 1 at Ten 1. Taxodium distichum (100%, n=24) and Fraxinus caroliniana (91%, n=24) had the best survival at zone 1, while Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora (37%, n=24) had the worst with seedling mortality occurring throughout the planting area Percent survival for the six species planted within zone 2 at T en 1 is presented in Figure 3 53. Ulmus americana (92%, n=25) had the best survival, and Ilex cassine (47%, n=23) and Quercus lyrata (52%, n=25) had the worst. Quercus lyrata had

PAGE 86

86 poor survival within the entire planting zone, while Ilex cassine, Carya aquatica, and Betula nigra had the majority of seedling mortality within zone 2, 8m or greater along T2 ( Figure 3 49). After this point along within the planting zone, average water levels fall below 3.52 m in depth, and also no inundation within the root zone occurs during the period of record. Sabal palmetto had the highest percent su rvival (100%, n=26) ( Figure 3 54). Quercus nigra (88%, n=27), Cornus foemina (swamp dogwood) (84%, n=26), and Magnolia virginiana (sweet bay) (82%, n=23) also survived well after one year. Liquidambar styraciflua had the lowest percent survival (48%, n=25), and this species as well as Liriodendron tulipifera (57%, n=26), experienced the highest mortality after 5m along T3, where average water level drops to below 1 m and the root zone is never inundated. S everal species were able to exist from the wettest to the driest conditions along the dikes gradient; Ulmus a mericana Celtis laevigata Sabal palmetto, Quercus nigra, Cornus foemina, and Magnolia virginiana. Overall. SA 10 (94%, n=493) had the highest overall percent survival for seedlings among the three underplanting sites, and H 1u (69%, n=271) had the worst. Overall survival for all seedlings from the three underplanting sit es (n=1210) was 81%. Table 3 -20 compa res survival of each species by site. Eight species of wetland trees were planted within a planting zone 1, the wettest plantin g area at each site. Fraxinus caroliniana Fraxinus pennsylvanica, Taxodium distichum Taxodium ascendenes Itea virginica and Cephalanthus occidentalis all survived well, despite differences in planting zone 1 hydrology between sites. Liquidambar styr aciflua i ncluded within zone 1 of SA 10 due to spacing constraints, survived well at both the wetter and drier locations (zone 3 at H 1u and Ten1). Survival was highest for Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora at

PAGE 87

87 SA 10 (100%, n=25) where average water levels ranged between 0.06 m and 1 m with root inundation within most of i ts planting zone ( Figure 3 40). Eight species of wetland trees were also planted within a planting zone 2 Ulmus americana survived well where average water levels ranged from 0.2 m to -7 .0 m and root zone inundation ranges from 0 to 93% of the peri od of record. Betula nigra Quercus lyrata Carya aquatica, Celtis laevigata, and Ilex cassine all survived best at SA 10 where conditions were the wettest and the canopy and subcanopy were s table. Quercus nigra and Magnolia virginiana survived well, at zone 3 at all three sites, across a large range in hydrologic conditions. Quercus michauxii Cornus foemina, Liriodendron tulipifera were all planted in zone 3 at SA 10 and Ten1. While Corn us foemina survived well at both site s, Quercus michauxii and Liriodendron tulipifera had did not survive well at portions of the Ten 1 planting zone 3, where average water levels ranged betwee n 1.39 m and 4.67 m (Figure 3 47). Growth SA -10. Figure 3 55 present height data for tree seedlings planted at SA 10. Change in mean seedling height after one year ranged between 42.34 cm and 9.18 cm for the twenty planted species. Platanus occidentalis had the highest increase in mean seedling height (42.34 cm ) as well as the highest percent change in mean seedling height (29%) of the 20 planted species. Itea virginica had the lowest positive increase in average height (4.06 cm), and Quercus lyrata had the lowest positive percent change in height (4%). Cephal anthus occidentalis and Betula nigra had declines in mean seedling height and negative percent change in height after one year H -1u Figure 3 56 present height data for the planted tree species at H 1u. Change in mean seedling height for the remaining t en species ranged from 6.92 cm to -24.86 cm. Six of the

PAGE 88

88 ten species experienced decline in mean seedling height. Ilex cassine had the largest increase in mean seedling height (6.92 cm) and the highest percent change (18.46%) in height at H 1u, however th is species had one of the lowest percent survivals (40%, n=25) at the site Taxodium distichum and Ulmus americana had the largest decrease in mean height over the period of record. Both species appear to have been negatively affected by the toppling Sal ix caroliniana canopy, but were able to survive at 64% after one year. Ten -1 Height data for the underplanting at Ten 1 is presented in Figure 3 57 Ulmus americana had the greatest increase in mean seedling height and percent increase in height at T en 1. However, this species varied in growth across the planting area. Minimum height only increased from 23 cm to 24 cm, but maximum height increased by 135 49.65 in 2007. Quercus lyrata declined in mean height by 8.11 cm, and had the worst growth at Ten 1. This species also had low survival (52%) and was observed wilting shortl y after planting occurred ( Figure 3 53). Overall Ta ble 3 21 compares percent change in mean seedling height for each species at each site. Eight species planted at all three sites had the highest percent change in mean height at SA 10. H 1u had the worst percent change in growth for all but two site com parisons. Two tailed T tests with F tests for equal variance, were used to test for significant differences in mean seedling growth (or decline) for species between sites Each site was tested against one another, and results from the t ests are presented in Table 3 22. Mean growth was significantly lower (p<0.025) at H 1u for Nyssa sylvatica Taxodium distichum Fraxinus caroliniana (only H 1u vs. Ten1), Celtis laevigata Carya aquatica (only H 1u vs. SA 10) and Ulmus americana At Ten 1, mean growth f or Ulmus americana and Quercus nigra was significantly higher (p<0.025) than for those two species at either SA 10 or H 1u

PAGE 89

89 Seedling G rowth and H ydrology The association between hydrologic conditions and seedling growth, the change in height after one year, was investigated with linear regression to test for correlation and the strength of association. Since the cause of poor growth was not specifically controlled and tested for, values for seedlings that declined from or maintained their initial height were included. The inclusion of these values weakened the strength of the regression for several species. SA -10. Results from correlation and regression using distance within the planting zone as the independent variable are pres ented for SA 10 in T able 3 21. Nine of the 20 tree species were negatively correlated (r) with decreasing average water levels and root zone inundation, which decreased between 0 m and the endpoint of the planting zone. H -1u Correlation of growth and average water conditi ons is confounded by tree fall that occurred mainly in zones 1 and 2 of H 1u. Due to this, the relationship between seedling growth and planting zone hydrology was only explored for zone 3. Results from correlation and regression within planting zone 2 a re presented for H 1u in Table 3 22. At zone 3, water levels do not follow a clear hydrologic gradient, fluctuating within the planting zone ( Figure 3 43). A slight negative correlation with decreasing average water levels was found for Magnolia virginiana and Liquidambar styraciflua. Ten -1 Most species growth was correlated negatively with distance along the planting zone; decreased growth w ith drier conditions ( Table 3 25). Ilex cassine had the strongest association with decreased water availability (r = 0.733, r2 = 0.54).

PAGE 90

90 Monitoring Sites PPW -1 and PPW -2 This section presents data on wetland tree survival at two wetland sites, two and four years after planting occurred. Seedling growth is presented for selected species. The effect of hurricanes and severe drought on species survival is also addressed. Hydrology and c limate PPW 1 and PPW 2 are in close proximity ( Figure 2 3 ) and are subject to the same climatic conditions. The first two years after planting (20032005) were characterized by h urricanes, Charley, Frances, and Jeanne ( Figure 3 58), whose paths all crossed Polk County, Florida, causing high water events and wind damage to seedlings (personal communication, Kate Himel FIPR). Those wet conditions were juxtaposed with a severe droug ht, beginning in the third year after planting and lasting through the 2007 growing season and monitoring. This led to a decrease in cumulative precipitation, as well as quantity and frequency of rainfall events, in 2006 and 2007, compared with average ye arly precipitation in Polk County, Florida Hydrologic conditions at PPW 1 and PPW 2 were comparable due to similar topography and wetland/watershed ratios. Survival Percent survival, in 2005 and 2007, for each species at PPW 1 and PPW 2 is pr es ented in F igures 3 59 and 3 60. Species survival rates at PPW 1 are analogous to rates at PPW 2 at two, and four years, after planting likely due to similar climatic conditions, wetland hydrology, pre and post planting invasive species management, and substrate composition. Quercus virginiana (live oak) had the best survival after two years at each site (93% PPW 1; 94% PPW 2) with the exception of Quercus nigra (water oak) (100% PPW 1; 100% PPW 2). However, sample size for Quercus nigra was extremely low comp ared with other

PAGE 91

91 species planted (n=3 PPW 1; n=3 PPW 2). Taxodium distichum (bald cypress), Fraxinus caroliniana (pop ash), Carya aquatica (water hickory), and Myrica cerifera (wax myrtle) established with over 50% survival at both sites after two years. Quercus laurifolia (laurel oak) had the lowest survival at both sites after two years (27% PPW 1; 17% PPW 2). Quercus virginiana had the best survival at both sites after four years (92% PPW 1 & PPW 2), again with the exception of Quercus nigra Quercus laurifolia had the lowest survival after four years (24% PPW 1; 15% PPW 2), but only experienced 3% and 1% declines in survival between 2005 and 2007 at PPW 1 and PPW 2. D eclines in seedling survival between 2003 and 2005 were greater than 2005 through 2007 for all species at both sites, with the exception of Taxodium distichum which experienced similar declines over both monitoring periods. This may indicate that hurricane activity immediately after planting, affected survival more negatively than drou ght conditions over 2006 2007. When an aggregate of all species at both PPW 1 and PPW 2 was formed, overall survival was 59% in 2005 and 55% in 2007 (n=14 19).

PAGE 92

92 135.00 115.11 96.47 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 1 Total Rainfall (cm) Average Annual H-1 05-06 H-1 06-07 Figure 3 1 Precipitation totals for Polk County, Florida and the H 1 marsh. aHistoric a nnual average precipitation for Bartow, Florida was provided by the Southeast Regional Climate Center, sercc@climate.ncsu.edu 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Rainfall (cm) Average Monthly H-1 06-07 Figure 3 2 Monthly precipitation totals for Polk County, Florida and the H -1 marsh aHistoric monthly average precipitation f or Bartow, Florida was provided by the Southeast Regional Climate Center, sercc@climate.ncsu.edu

PAGE 93

93 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 25-Sep 25-Nov 25-Jan 25-Mar 25-May 25-Jul 25-Sep Date Water Level (m) 2005-2006 2006-2007 Figure 3 3 Water levels at the H 1 marsh surface water well.

PAGE 94

94 Table 3 1 Hydrologic regime at the H 1 marsh. Plot Average Water Level (05-06) (cm) Minimum Water Level (05-06) (cm) Maximum Water Level (06-07) (cm) Average Water Level (06-07) (cm) Minimum Water Level (06-07) (cm) Maximum Water Level (06-07) (cm) Flooding Frequency (05-06) Flooding Frequency (06-07) FM1 -0.02 -0.68 0.55 -0.25 -0.79 0.42 3 2 FM2 -0.14 -0.80 0.44 -0.37 -0.90 0.30 4 1 FM3 -0.02 -0.68 0.56 -0.25 -0.78 0.42 4 2 FM4 0.13 -0.53 0.70 -0.11 -0.64 0.57 3 2 FM5 0.13 -0.53 0.70 -0.12 -0.64 0.57 3 3 FM6 0.02 -0.65 0.59 -0.23 -0.75 0.45 4 3 SP1 -0.29 -0.95 0.29 -0.52 -1.05 0.15 2 1 SP2 -0.20 -0.86 0.37 -0.44 -0.97 0.24 2 1 BR1 0.14 -0.52 0.72 -0.09 -0.62 0.58 3 3 BR2 0.17 -0.49 0.74 -0.07 -0.60 0.61 2 3 SG1 -0.11 -0.77 0.46 -0.34 -0.87 0.33 4 1 SG2 -0.10 -0.76 0.48 -0.33 -0.86 0.34 4 1 SG3 -0.01 -0.67 0.56 -0.24 -0.77 0.43 4 2 SG4 0.00 -0.66 0.57 0.53 -0.77 0.44 4 2 GR1 -0.27 -0.93 0.31 -0.50 -1.03 0.17 3 1 GR2 -0.16 -0.82 0.41 -0.40 -0.93 0.28 3 1 GR3 -0.18 -0.84 0.40 -0.41 0.29 0.26 2 1 GR4 -0.30 -0.96 0.28 -0.53 -1.06 0.14 3 1 GR5 -0.25 -0.91 0.32 -0.48 -1.01 0.19 2 1 T1NW -0.24 -0.91 0.33 -0.49 -1.01 0.19 2 1 T1SW -0.25 -0.92 0.32 -0.50 -1.02 0.18 2 1 T1NE -0.42 -1.08 0.15 -0.67 -1.18 0.02 2 1 T1SE -0.36 -1.03 0.21 -0.61 -1.13 0.07 2 1 T2NW -0.38 -1.04 0.19 -0.63 -1.15 0.06 2 1 T2SW -0.30 -0.96 0.27 -0.55 -1.07 0.14 2 1 T2NE -0.21 -0.87 0.36 -0.46 -0.98 0.23 2 1 T2SE -0.15 -0.81 0.42 -0.40 -0.92 0.29 3 1 T3NW -0.34 -1.00 0.23 -0.59 -1.11 0.10 2 1 T3SW -0.40 -1.07 0.17 -0.65 -1.17 0.03 2 1 T3NE -0.41 -1.07 0.16 -0.66 -1.18 0.03 2 1 T3SE -0.42 -1.08 0.15 -0.67 -1.19 0.02 2 1 T4NW -0.27 -0.93 0.30 -0.52 -1.03 0.17 2 1 T4SW -0.22 -0.88 0.35 -0.47 -0.99 0.22 2 1 T4NE -0.40 -1.06 0.17 -0.65 -1.17 0.04 2 1 T4SE -0.31 -0.98 0.26 -0.57 -1.08 0.12 2 1

PAGE 95

95 Table 3 2 Percent inundati on at the H 1 marsh. Plot Percent Inundation (05-06) Percent Inundation (06-07) Growing Season Percent Inundation (05-06) Growing Season Percent Inundation (06-07) Root Zone Percent Inundation (05-06) Root Zone Percent Inundation (06-07) Growing Season Root Zone Percent Inundation (05-06) Growing Season Root Zone Percent Inundation (06-07) FM1 48.77 13.65 20.48 0.00 75.07 53.20 57.75 20.10 FM2 32.60 7.52 21.60 0.00 68.22 40.95 46.01 6.22 FM3 49.86 14.21 22.54 0.00 75.62 53.20 58.69 20.10 FM4 66.03 34.26 42.25 2.87 85.75 71.03 76.06 50.72 FM5 66.03 33.15 42.25 2.39 85.75 70.19 76.06 48.36 FM6 54.52 16.99 26.76 0.00 77.81 55.71 62.44 23.94 SP1 22.47 3.34 20.66 0.00 55.07 17.83 26.76 0.00 SP2 29.04 5.29 21.13 0.00 64.38 27.86 39.44 1.44 BR1 66.85 37.33 43.66 4.31 86.58 72.98 77.46 54.07 BR2 68.22 40.95 46.01 6.22 88.49 77.44 80.75 61.72 SG1 37.26 8.36 21.60 0.00 70.14 45.13 49.30 8.61 SG2 38.08 8.91 21.60 0.00 70.68 46.24 50.23 9.57 SG3 50.41 14.76 22.54 0.00 76.16 54.04 59.62 21.53 SG4 52.05 15.88 23.94 0.00 77.26 54.60 61.50 22.49 GR1 24.11 3.90 20.66 0.00 57.81 19.50 29.58 0.00 GR2 31.51 5.85 21.60 0.00 66.85 37.33 43.66 4.31 GR3 30.68 5.57 21.60 0.00 66.03 34.26 42.25 2.87 GR4 21.37 3.34 20.66 0.00 52.88 16.43 24.41 0.00 GR5 26.30 4.18 21.13 0.00 60.55 22.28 33.33 0.00 T1NW 26.30 4.18 21.13 0.00 73.15 50.14 54.46 14.83 T1SW 25.75 4.18 21.13 0.00 72.88 49.58 53.99 13.88 T1NE 16.99 0.56 20.66 0.00 63.29 25.07 37.56 0.48 T1SE 18.90 1.67 20.66 0.00 66.30 35.38 42.72 3.35 T2NW 18.36 1.39 20.66 0.00 65.48 31.75 41.31 2.39 T2SW 21.37 3.06 20.66 0.00 70.14 45.13 49.30 8.61 T2NE 28.77 5.01 21.13 0.00 75.34 53.20 58.22 20.10 T2SE 31.51 6.69 21.60 0.00 80.27 59.05 66.67 30.14 T3NW 19.45 2.23 20.66 0.00 67.40 39.00 44.60 5.26 T3SW 17.53 0.84 20.66 0.00 63.56 26.74 38.03 0.96 T3NE 17.53 0.84 20.66 0.00 63.56 25.91 38.03 0.48 T3SE 16.99 0.56 20.66 0.00 63.01 24.79 37.09 0.00 T4NW 24.11 3.90 20.66 0.00 72.33 48.75 53.05 12.44 T4SW 28.22 4.74 21.13 0.00 75.07 52.37 57.75 18.66 T4NE 17.81 1.11 20.66 0.00 64.11 27.02 38.97 0.96 T4SE 20.82 2.79 20.66 0.00 69.32 42.62 47.89 7.18

PAGE 96

96 Table 3 3 Soil texture determinations at the H 1 marsh. Site Sample Location Soil Type % Sand % Clay % Silt H-1 marsh BR1 Sandy Clay Loam 63.20 21.60 15.20 BR2 Sandy Clay Loam 55.20 29.60 15.20 SP1 Clay 25.60 66.80 7.60 SP2 Clay 15.20 74.80 10.00 FM1 Sand 100.00 0.00 0.00 FM2 Clay 21.20 46.80 32.00 FM3 Clay 35.60 56.80 7.60 FM4 Clay 35.20 53.60 11.20 GR1 Sand 100.00 0.00 0.00 GR2 Sandy Clay 48.00 41.60 10.40 GR3 Clay 27.20 66.40 6.40 GR4 Clay 19.60 74.80 5.60 GR5 Clay 24.00 69.60 6.40 SG1 Sand 100.00 0.00 0.00 SG2 Clay 25.60 68.80 5.60 SG3 Clay 25.60 68.80 5.60 SG4 Clay 25.60 68.80 5.60 T1 Sand 100.00 0.00 0.00 T2 Clay 24.00 69.60 6.40 T3 Clay 19.60 74.80 5.60 T4 Clay 25.60 66.80 7.60

PAGE 97

97 Table 3 4 Percent organic matter at the H 1 marsh by monitoring plot or transect. Site Sampling Location H-1 marsh BR1 39.74 3.56 BR2 36.81 5.43 SP1 15.94 0.16 SP2 17.08 3.90 FM1 1.82 1.61 FM2 16.61 1.67 FM3 28.36 9.07 FM4 24.89 14.29 SG1 1.19 0.14 SG2 17.52 0.96 SG3 18.67 3.16 SG4 17.01 1.34 GR1 1.50 0.43 GR2 15.37 1.87 GR3 22.25 1.38 GR4 17.27 1.61 GR5 18.77 1.76 T1 0.56 0.13 T2 13.98 0.88 T3 12.55 0.98 T4 15.43 2.93 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.44 0.00 0.22 0.67 0.00 0.33 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 BR1 BR2 Overall Frequency 2005 2006 2007 Figure 3 4 Scirpus californicus frequency at the H 1 marsh.

PAGE 98

98 43.66 46.01 4.31 6.22 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 BR1 BR2 % 2005-2006 2006-2007 Fi gure 3 5 Percent inundation at BR1 and BR2 at the H 1 marsh. 0.67 0.78 0.72 0.78 0.56 0.67 0.89 0.67 0.78 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 SP1 SP2 Overall Frequency 2005 2006 2007 Figure 3 6 Eleocharis cellulosa frequency at H 1 marsh. 22.47 29.04 3.34 5.29 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SP1 SP2 % 2005-2006 2006-2007 Figure 3 7 Percent inundation (%) at SP1 and SP2 at the H 1 marsh.

PAGE 99

99 Figure 3 8 Extent of woody shrubs at the H 1 marsh

PAGE 100

100 (a ) 0.67 0.78 0.67 0.22 0.58 0.56 0.67 0.78 0.00 0.50 1.00 0.89 0.89 0.00 0.69 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 FM1 FM2 FM3 FM4 Overall Frequency 2005 2006 2007 (b ) 0.56 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.44 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.25 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 FM1 FM2 FM3 FM4 Overall Frequency 2005 2006 2007 (c ) 0.11 0.56 0.33 0.56 0.39 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 FM1 FM2 FM3 FM4 Overall Frequency 2005 2006 2007 Figure 3 9 (a) Sagittaria lancifolia frequency (b) Pontederia cordata frequency and (c) Thalia geniculata frequency at the H 1 marsh.

PAGE 101

101 (a) 48.91 32.79 50.00 66.12 15.30 9.29 15.85 35.52 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 FM1 FM2 FM3 FM4 % 2005 2006 2006 2007 (b) -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Sep-05 Oct-05 Nov-05 Dec-05 Jan-06 Feb-06 Mar-06 Apr-06 May-06 Jun-06 Jul-06 Aug-06 Sep-06 Oct-06 Nov-06 Dec-06 Jan-07 Feb-07 Mar-07 Apr-07 May-07 Jun-07 Jul-07 Aug-07 FM1 FM2 FM3 FM4 Figure 3 10. (a) Percent inundation and (b) water levels(m) at the flag marsh planting zone at the H 1 marsh. 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.67 0.92 0.22 0.89 0.22 0.00 0.33 0.44 0.89 0.11 0.00 0.36 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 SG1 SG2 SG3 SG4 Overall Frequency 2005 2006 2007 Figure 3 11. Cladium jamaicense frequency at the H 1 marsh.

PAGE 102

102 37.26 38.08 50.41 52.05 8.36 8.91 14.76 15.88 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SG1 SG2 SG3 SG4 % 2005-2006 2006-2007 Figure 3 12. Percent inundation at the saw -grass planting zone at the H 1 marsh. 0.33 0.22 0.11 0.22 0.33 0.31 0.22 0.22 0.44 0.11 0.22 0.31 0.56 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.67 0.64 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 GR1 GR2 GR3 GR4 GR5 Overall Frequency 2005 2006 2007 Figure 3 13. Juncus effusus frequency at H 1 marsh. 0.44 0.67 0.33 0.56 0.33 0.47 0.44 0.44 0.22 0.22 0.11 0.29 0.67 0.56 0.00 0.11 0.33 0.33 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 GR1 GR2 GR3 GR4 GR5 Overall Frequency 2005 2006 2007 Figure 3 14. Spartina bakerii frequency at H 1 marsh.

PAGE 103

103 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.22 0.33 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 GR1 GR2 GR3 GR4 GR5 Overall Frequency 2005 2006 2007 Figure 3 15. Muhlenbergia capillaris frequency at H 1 marsh. 0.22 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.67 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 GR1 GR2 GR3 GR4 GR5 Overall Frequency 2005 2006 2007 Figure 3 16. Panicum hemitomon frequency at H 1 marsh. 0.56 0.11 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 GR1 GR2 GR3 GR4 GR5 Overall Frequency 2005 2006 2007 Figure 3 17. Bacopa caroliniana frequency at H 1 marsh.

PAGE 104

104 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.02 0.07 0.07 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 GR1 GR2 GR3 GR4 GR5 Overall Frequency 2005 2006 2007 Figure 3 18. Peltandra virginica frequency at H 1 marsh. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GR1 GR2 GR3 GR4 GR5 % 2005-2006 2006-2007 F igure 3 19. Percent inundation at the gramminoid planting zone at H 1 marsh.

PAGE 105

105 79.17 85.71 92.31 85.00 53.85 87.50 62.50 71.43 85.19 100.00 54.17 100.00 52.38 84.62 65.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 57.14 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GLEA TAXD ITEV CEPO FRAC PERP HYPF NYSS STYA ANNG % 2006 2007 Figure 3 20. Percent survival for wetland tree seedlings (2005 2007) at H 1 marsh.

PAGE 106

106 Table 3 5 Height data for tree seedlings at the H 1 marsh. Species Average Height (05) MIN (05) MAX (05) Average Height (06) MIN (06) MAX (06) Average Height (07) MIN (07) MAX (07) GLEA 87.38 16.23 32.00 110.00 117.58 37.88 65.00 215.00 133.08 72.85 74.00 300.00 TAXD 89.63 12.03 65.00 105.00 108.53 10.09 95.00 135.00 144.42 33.37 80.00 195.00 ITEV 67.76 16.37 25.00 95.00 76.11 18.19 40.00 110.00 71.00 36.92 19.00 118.00 CEPO 80.46 14.54 60.00 105.00 80.92 17.84 55.00 105.00 90.55 22.43 60.00 131.00 FRAC 69.15 9.76 55.00 85.00 70.76 20.15 35.00 105.00 71.85 20.91 43.00 101.00 PERP 42.62 7.10 30.00 55.00 41.43 8.52 30.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 HYPF 47.50 8.86 35.00 60.00 51.43 12.15 35.00 65.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NYSS 65.75 12.42 45.00 85.00 77.75 6.34 70.00 85.00 81.75 27.40 46.00 111.00 STYA 69.36 11.83 52.00 90.00 70.00 6.12 60.00 75.00 59.13 18.73 31.00 84.00 ANNG n/a n/a n/a n/a 83.11 18.77 23.00 110.00 133.53 19.42 77.00 175.00 Species (05-06) (cm) (06-07) (cm) (05-07) (cm) % Change (05-06) % Change (06-07) % Change (05-07) GLEA 30.20 15.50 45.71 34.57 13.19 52.31 TAXD 18.89 35.89 54.79 21.08 33.07 61.13 ITEV 8.35 -5.11 3.24 12.32 -6.72 4.78 CEPO 0.46 9.63 10.08 0.57 11.90 12.53 FRAC 1.61 1.08 2.70 2.34 1.53 3.90 PERP -1.19 -41.43 -42.62 -2.78 -100.00 -100.00 HYPF 3.93 -51.43 -47.50 8.27 -100.00 -100.00 NYSS 12.00 4.00 16.00 18.25 5.14 24.33 STYA 0.64 -10.88 -10.23 0.93 -15.54 -14.75 ANNG n/a 50.42 n/a n/a 60.66 n/a

PAGE 107

107 Table 3 6 Percent (%) survival by transect at H 1 marsh. Transect Trees Present (2005) Trees Present (2006) Trees Present (2007) % Survival (05-06) % Survival (06-07) T1 58 56 34 96.55 58.62 T2 21 14 14 66.67 66.67 T3 22 14 11 63.64 50.00 T4 39 30 20 76.92 51.28 Overall 140 114 79 81.43 56.43 0 5 10 15 20 25 Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Precipitation (cm) Average Monthly Precipitation PPW-3 Monthly Precipitation Figure 3 21. Monthly precipitation totals for Polk County, Florida and the PPW 3 marsh. aHistoric monthly average precipitation for Bartow, Florida was provided by the Southeast Regional Climate Center, sercc@cl imate.ncsu.edu -3.5 -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 8/3/2006 9/3/2006 10/3/2006 11/3/2006 12/3/2006 1/3/2007 2/3/2007 3/3/2007 4/3/2007 5/3/2007 6/3/2007 7/3/2007 8/3/2007 9/3/2007 Date Water Level (m) Figure 3 22. Water levels at PPW 3 surface water well.

PAGE 108

108 Table 3 7 Hydrologic Data for Monitoring Plots and Transects at PPW 3. Plot Mean Water Level (cm) Minimum Water Level (cm) Maximum Water Level (cm) Percent Inundation (%) Root Zone Percent Inundation (%)ab Well -141.45 -274.25 32.46 2.47 4.38 T1start -219.45 -352.25 -45.54 0.00 0.55 T1end -140.45 -273.25 33.46 2.74 7.67 T2 start -205.45 -338.25 -31.54 0.00 1.64 T2 end -171.45 -304.25 2.46 0.27 3.84 T3 start -186.45 -319.25 -12.54 0.00 3.01 T3 end -154.45 -287.25 19.46 1.64 5.75 SP1 -195.95 -328.75 -22.04 0.00 0.82 SP2 -161.45 -294.25 12.46 1.10 3.29 SG1 -145.95 -278.75 27.96 2.19 4.38 SG2 -132.45 -265.25 41.46 3.29 6.03 FM1 -159.45 -292.25 14.46 1.37 3.56 FM2 -144.45 -277.25 29.46 2.19 4.38 GR1 -208.95 -341.75 -35.04 0.00 1.92 GR2 -179.45 -312.25 -5.54 0.00 0.00 aThe root zone depth for herbaceous species is assumed to be 30.48cm (12.00in) below the ground surface. bT he root zone depth for tree seedlings is assumed to be 50.00cm (19.68in) below the ground surfac Table 3 8 Soil texture determinations at the PPW 3 marsh. Site Sample Location Soil Type % Sand % Clay % Silt PPW-3 FM1 Loam 28.80 26.40 44.80 FM2 Clay 20.80 52.40 26.80 SG1 Clay 20.80 36.40 42.80 SG2 Clay 20.80 36.40 42.80 SP1 Clay 24.80 30.40 44.80 SP2 Clay 18.40 44.40 37.20 GR1 Clay 18.80 46.40 34.80 GR2 Clay 20.80 42.40 36.80 T1 start Clay 18.40 50.40 31.20 T1 end Clay 20.80 36.40 42.80 T2 midpoint Clay 14.40 52.40 33.20 T3 midpoint Sand 90.80 6.40 2.80

PAGE 109

109 Table 3 9 Percent organic matter at the PPW 3 marsh. Site Sampling Location PPW-3 marsh FM1 6.28 0.65 FM2 7.87 0.54 SP1 6.85 1.76 SP2 8.95 0.63 SG1 6.39 0.41 SG2 8.57 0.84 GR1 9.17 0.61 GR2 8.97 0.84 T1 Start 10.06 0.34 T1 20m 9.24 0.85 T1 End 8.68 0.37 T2 Start 9.38 0.40 T2 End 10.06 1.02 T3 Start 9.13 0.52 T3 End 9.03 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.94 0.89 1.00 0.00 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 SP1 SP2 Overall Frequency 2006 2007 Figure 3 23. Spike ru sh frequency at PPW 3.

PAGE 110

110 0.33 0.11 0.22 0.33 0.22 0.28 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 FM1 FM2 Overall Frequency 2006 2007 Figure 3 24. Sagittaria lancifolia frequency at PPW 3. 0.22 0.11 0.17 0.11 0.22 0.17 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 FM1 FM2 Overall Frequency 2006 2007 Figure 3 25. Thalia geniculata frequency at PPW 3. 0.11 0.22 0.33 0.11 0.22 0.11 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 FM1 FM2 Overall Frequency 2006 2007 Figure 3 26. Pontederia cordata frequency at PPW 3.

PAGE 111

111 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.44 0.44 0.44 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 SG1 SG2 Overall Frequency 2006 2007 Figure 3 27. Cladium jamaicense frequency at PPW 3. 0.14 0.10 0.08 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 BACC JUNE MUHC SPAB Frequency 2006 2007 Figure 3 28. Gramminoid species frequency at PPW 3.

PAGE 112

112 27.78 79.59 95.00 90.74 96.08 72.94 61.64 25.58 75.81 6.56 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 NYSS FRAC PERP GLEA CEPO ITEV STYA HYPF TAXD ANNG % Figure 3 29. Percent survival for wetland tree seedlings (2005 2007) at PPW 3 marsh.

PAGE 113

113 Table 3 10. Survival and height of wetland tree seedlings at PPW 3. Species n n present in 2007 % Survival % Decline in Survival Average Height (06) STDDEV Height (06) STD ERROR 06 Min Height (06) Max Height (06) Average Height (07) STDDEV Height (07) STD ERROR 07 Min Height (07) Max Height (07) Height (cm) % Change Mean Height NYSS 54 15 27.78 -72.22 53.09 8.20 1.12 40.00 85.00 53.93 8.70 2.25 35.00 67.00 0.84 1.58 FRAC 49 39 79.59 -20.41 81.60 19.58 2.80 30.00 115.00 125.51 41.43 6.63 55.00 229.00 43.91 53.81 PERP 40 38 95.00 -5.00 55.33 11.45 1.81 40.00 100.00 78.82 21.35 3.46 29.00 133.00 23.49 42.46 GLEA 54 49 90.74 -9.26 69.44 21.67 2.95 28.00 125.00 103.10 63.37 9.05 38.00 258.00 33.66 48.47 CEPO 51 49 96.08 -3.92 49.10 5.84 0.82 33.00 60.00 68.84 30.13 4.30 24.00 150.00 19.74 40.20 ITEV 85 62 72.94 -27.06 52.80 12.92 1.40 20.00 97.00 85.68 29.72 3.77 30.00 153.00 32.88 62.28 STYA 73 45 61.64 -38.36 42.21 9.09 1.06 25.00 65.00 47.36 23.34 3.48 21.00 170.00 5.15 12.20 HYPF 43 11 25.58 -74.42 44.33 11.76 1.79 22.00 75.00 54.91 10.77 3.25 35.00 71.00 10.58 23.88 TAXD 62 47 75.81 -24.19 85.39 11.56 1.4675 55.00 110.00 70.73 42.69 6.22693 20.00 156.00 -14.65 -17.16 ANNG 61 4 6.56 -93.44 87.34 13.02 1.67 50.00 125.00 80.50 39.97 0.00 25.00 138.00 -6.84 -7.84 OVERALL 572 359 62.76 -37.24 TAXD central 22 22 100.00 0.00 88.27 13.11 2.79 57.00 110.00 126.00 17.83 3.80 89.00 164.00 37.73 42.74 ANNG central 21 0 0.00 -100.00 89.52 9.53 2.08 71.00 105.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -89.52 -100.00

PAGE 114

114 (a) -4 -3.5 -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Distance along T1 (m) T1 Start T1 End Water Level (m) mean water level minimum water level maximum water level (b) -4 -3.5 -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 0 5 10 15 20 Distance along T2 (m) T2 start T2 End Water Level (m) mean water level minimum water level maximum water level (c) -3.5 -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Distance along T3 (m) T3 start T3 end Water Level (m) mean water level minimum water level maximum water level Figure 3 30. Water level data for ( a) T1, (b) T2, (c) T3 at PPW 3.

PAGE 115

115 Table 3 11. Seedling survival by transect at the PPW 3 marsh Species T1 T2 T3 NYSS 37.50 7.69 22.22 ANNG 7.89 5.56 0.00 FRAC 83.33 54.55 86.67 PERP 95.00 93.33 100.00 TAXD 72.73 76.92 100.00 GLEA 92.68 91.67 n/a CEPO 94.74 85.71 100.00 ITEV 77.78 58.82 100.00 STYA 63.33 55.56 85.71 HYPF 33.33 7.14 n/a Species with the highest survival are highlighted. (a) -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 -205 -195 -190 -188 -186 -183 -180 -178 -177 -177 -169 -167 -163 -146 Average Water Level (cm) dHeight (cm) (b) R2 = 0.1174 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 -206 -196 -186 -176 -166 -156 -146 Average Water Level (cm) dHeight (cm) Figure 3 31. Persea palustris survival and growth at PPW 3.

PAGE 116

116 (a) -120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 -216 -200 -197 -193 -185 -183 -182 -180 -180 -179 -177 -170 -169 -165 -161 -156 -156 Average Water Level (cm) dHeight (cm) (b) R2 = 0.0977 -50 0 50 100 150 200 -220 -210 -200 -190 -180 -170 -160 -150 Average Water Level (cm) dHeight (cm) Figure 3 32. Fraxinu s caroliniana survival and growth at PPW 3.

PAGE 117

117 (a) 134.72 114.05 90.322 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 1 Rainfall (cm) Average Annual SA-10 (05-06) SA-10 (06-07) (b) 0 5 10 15 20 Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Rainfall (cm) Average Annual SA-10 (06-07) Figure 3 33. (a) Annual and (b) monthly precipitation totals for SA 10. aHistoric annual average precipitation for Live Oak

PAGE 118

118 (a) 135.00 115.11 96.47 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 1 Total Rainfall (cm) Average Annual H-1 05-06 H-1 06-07 (b) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Rainfall (cm) Average Monthly H-1 06-07 Figure 3 34. (a) Annual and (b) monthly precipitation t otals for H 1u. aHistoric annual average precipitation for Bartow, Florida.

PAGE 119

119 (a) 126.42 88.21 87.68 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 1 Rainfall (cm) Average Annual Ten-1 (05-06) Ten-1 (06-07) b) 0 5 10 15 20 25 Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Rainfall (cm) Average Annual Ten-1 (06-07) Figure 3 35. (a) Annual and (b) monthly precipitation totals for Ten 1. *Historic annual average precipitation for Lakeland.

PAGE 120

120 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 Jul-06 Aug-06 Sep-06 Oct-06 Nov-06 Dec-06 Jan-07 Feb-07 Mar-07 Apr-07 May-07 Jun-07 Jul-07 Aug-07 Sep-07 Water Level (m) Figure 3 36. Water levels at the SA 10 surface water well.

PAGE 121

121 (a) -1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Distance along T2 (m) Water Level (m) Maximum Averaage Minimum (b) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 T2-0m T2-2m T2-4m T2-6m T2-8m T2-10m T2-12m T2-14m T2-16m % Figure 3 37. T2 (a) Average Water Levels and (b) Root Zone Inundation (%) at SA 10.

PAGE 122

122 (a) -1.8 -1.6 -1.4 -1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 Distance along T5 (m) Water Level (m) Maximum Average Minimum (b) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 T5-0m T5-2m T5-4m T5-6m T5-8m T5-10m T5-12m T5-14m T5-16m T5-18m T5-20m T5-22m T5-24m T5-26m T5-28m T5-30m % Figure 3 38. T5 (a) Average Water Levels and (b) Root Zone Inundation (%) at SA 10.

PAGE 123

123 (a ) -1.6 -1.4 -1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 Distance along T7 (m) Water Level (m) Maximum Average Minimum (b) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 T7-0m T7-2m T7-4m T7-6m T7-8m T7-10m T7-12m T7-14m T7-16m T7-18m T7-20m T7-22m T7-24m % Figure 3 39. T7 (a) Average Water Levels and (b) Root Zone Inundation (%) at SA 10.

PAGE 124

124 -1.4 -1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Jul-06 Aug-06 Aug-06 Sep-06 Oct-06 Nov-06 Dec-06 Jan-07 Feb-07 Mar-07 Apr-07 May-07 Jun-07 Jul-07 Aug-07 Water level (m) Figure 3 40. Water levels at H 1u surface water well.

PAGE 125

125 Table 3 12. Transects, planting zones, and planted tree species for (a) SA 10, (b) H 1u, (c) Ten 1 (a) Transect Zone Species 1 1 ITEV 1 TAXD 1 LIQS 1 TAXA 2 1 ITEV 1 TAXD 1 TRAP 3 1 FRAP 1 CEPO 2 ULMA 2 CARA 4 2 BETN 2 CARA 2 QUEL 5 2 NYSS 3 PLAO 3 LIRT 3 CELL 3 MAGV 6 3 PLAO 3 MAGV 3 CORF 3 QUEM 3 ILEC 7 3 QUEM 3 ILEC 3 NYSA 3 QUEN (b) Transect Zone Species T1 1 FRAC 1 NYSS 1 TAXD T2 2 CELL 2 ULMA 2 ILEC T3 3 QUEN 3 LIQS 3 SABM 3 MAGV 3 CARA (c) Transect Zone Species T1 1 TAXD 1 NYSS 1 FRAC 1 ITEV 1 TAXA T2 2 CELL 2 ULMA 2 QUEL 2 CARA 2 ILEC 2 BETN T3 3 QUEN 3 SABP 3 CORF 3 QUEM 3 LIRT 3 LIQS 3 MAGV

PAGE 126

126 (a) -2 -1.8 -1.6 -1.4 -1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Distance along T1 (m) Water level (m) Maximum Average Minimum (b) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 T1-0m T1-2m T1-4m T1-6m T1-8m T1-10m T1-12m T1-14m T1-16m % (c) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 T1-0m T1-2m T1-4m T1-6m T1-8m T1-10m T1-12m T1-14m T1-16m % Figure 3 41. T1 (a) Average Water Levels, (b) Inundation (%), and (c) Root Zone Inundation (%) at H 1u.

PAGE 127

127 (a) -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Distance along T2 (m) Water level (m) Maximum Average Minimum (b) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 T2-0m T2-2m T2-4m T2-6m T2-8m T2-10m T2-12m T2-14m T2-16m T2-18m % (c) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 T2-0m T2-2m T2-4m T2-6m T2-8m T2-10m T2-12m T2-14m T2-16m T2-18m % Figure 3 42. T2 (a) Average Water Levels, (b) Inundation (%), and (c) Root Zone Inundation (%) at H 1u.

PAGE 128

128 (a) -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Distance along T3 (m) Water level (m) Average Minimum Maximum (b) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 T3-0m T3-2mT3-4m T3-6m T3-8m T3-10m T3-12m T3-14m T3-16m % (c) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 T3-0m T3-2m T3-4m T3-6m T3-8m T3-10m T3-12m T3-14m T3-16m % Figure 3 43. T3 (a) Average Water Levels, (b) Inundation (%), and (c) Root Zone Inundation (%) at H 1u.

PAGE 129

129 -1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 Aug-06 Sep-06 Oct-06 Nov-06 Dec-06 Jan-07 Feb-07 Mar-07 Apr-07 May-07 Jun-07 Jul-07 Aug-07 Sep-07 Water Level (m) Figure 3 44. Water levels at Ten 1 surface water well.

PAGE 130

130 (a) -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Distance along T1 (m) Water level (m) Maximum Average Minimum (b) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 T3-0m T3-1m T3-2m T3-3m T3-4m T3-5m T3-6m T3-7m T3-8m T3-9m T3-10m T3-11m T3-12m T3-13m T3-14m % (c) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 T3-0m T3-1m T3-2m T3-3m T3-4m T3-5m T3-6m T3-7m T3-8m T3-9m T3-10m T3-11m T3-12m T3-13m T3-14m %

PAGE 131

131 Figure 3 45. T 1 (a) Average Water Levels, (b) Inundation (%), (c) Root Zone Inundation (%) at Ten 1. (a) -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Distance along T2 (m) Water level (m) Maximum Average Minimum (b) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 T1-0m T1-1m T1-2m T1-3m T1-4m T1-5m T1-6m T1-7m T1-8m T1-9m T1-10m T1-11m T1-12m T1-13m T1-14m % (c) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 T1-0m T1-1m T1-2m T1-3m T1-4m T1-5m T1-6m T1-7m T1-8m T1-9m T1-10m T1-11m T1-12m T1-13m T1-14m % Figure 3 46. T2 (a) Average Water Levels, (b) Inundation (%), (c) Root Zone Inundation (%) at Ten 1.

PAGE 132

132 (a) -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Distance along T3 (m) Water level (m) Maximum Average Minimum (b) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 T2-0m T2-1m T2-2m T2-3m T2-4m T2-5m T2-6m T2-7m T2-8m T2-9m T2-10m T2-11m T2-12m T2-13m % (c) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 T2-0m T2-1m T2-2m T2-3m T2-4m T2-5m T2-6m T2-7m T2-8m T2-9m T2-10m T2-11m T2-12m T2-13m % Figure 3 47. T3 (a) Average W ater Levels, (b) Inundation (%), (c) Root Zone Inundation (%) at Ten 1.

PAGE 133

133 Table 3 13. Particle size distribution at SA 10. Sample Location Soil Type % Sand % Clay % Silt Zone 1, 5m Silty Loam 20.00 12.80 67.20 Zone 1, 15m Clay 20.00 66.40 13.60 Zone 2, 5m Clay 16.00 75.20 8.80 Zone2, 15m Clay 24.80 65.60 9.60 Zone 3, 5m Clay 16.00 75.20 8.80 Zone 3, 15m Clay 24.80 65.60 9.60 Table 3 14. Particle size distribution at H 1u. Sample Location Soil Type % Sand % Clay % Silt Zone 1, 5m Clay 17.60 56.00 26.40 Zone 1, 15m Clay 18.40 72.00 9.60 Zone 2, 5m Clay 17.60 76.80 5.60 Zone2, 15m Clay 21.60 72.80 5.60 Zone 3, 5m Clay 32.80 60.80 6.40 Zone 3, 15m Clay Loam 25.60 32.40 42.00 Table 3 15. Particle size distribution at Ten 1. Sample Location Soil Type % Sand % Clay % Silt Zone 1, 5m Sandy Clay 56.80 36.40 6.80 Zone 1, 10m Sandy Loam 72.80 20.40 6.80 Zone 2, 5m Sandy Clay Loam 64.80 26.40 8.80 Zone2, 10m Sandy Loam 76.40 18.40 5.20 Zone 3, 5m Sandy Loam 80.40 12.40 7.20 Zone 3, 10m Sandy Loam 74.40 10.80 14.80

PAGE 134

134 Table 3 16. Per cent organic matter at SA 10. Sampling Location Zone 1, 5m 20.64 2.13 Zone 1, 15m 11.30 0.55 Zone 2, 5m 13.02 0.78 Zone 2, 15m 11.29 0.40 Zone 3, 5m 10.48 1.20 Zone 3, 15m 10.01 0.59 Table 3 17. Percent organic matter at H 1u. Sampling Location Zone 1, 5m 11.75 0.58 Zone 1, 15m 11.50 0.64 Zone 2, 5m 11.86 0.46 Zone 2, 15m 11.29 0.48 Zone 3, 5m 10.96 0.31 Zone 3, 15m 10.46 0.30 Table 3 18. Percent (%) organic matter at Ten 1. Sampling Location Zone 1, 5m 6.94 0.99 Zone 1, 10m 3.96 1.03 Zone 2, 5m 3.10 0.15 Zone 2, 10m 3.63 0.48 Zone 3, 5m 5.42 1.21 Zone 3, 10m 4.03 0.33

PAGE 135

135 Table 3 19. Canopy cover at SA 10 and Ten1. Site Planting Zone Station Percent Cover Ten-1 1 5m 73.62 1 15m 78.74 2 5m 58.88 2 15m 76.44 3 5m 59.96 3 15m 64.51 SA-10 1 5m 77.75 1 15m 80.54 2 5m 68.99 2 15m 73.14 3 5m 77.70 3 15m 72.50 100.00 100.00 100.00 96.15 90.91 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.00 1 % NYSS ULMA QUEL BETN CARA Figure 3 48. Percent survival for zone 1 at SA 10.

PAGE 136

136 96.15 88.00 80.95 100.00 100.00 73.91 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.00 1 % TAXD LIQS FRAP ITEV TAXA CEPO Figure 3 4 9 Percent survival for zone 2 at SA 10. 96.30 96.00 96.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 88.89 86.96 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.00 1 % PLAO LIRT CELL QUEN CORF QUEM PERP NYSA ILEC Figure 3 50. Percent survival for zone 3 at SA 10.

PAGE 137

137 36.00 64.00 81.48 84.00 64.00 40.00 69.23 96.00 50.00 90.00 84.62 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 NYSS TAXD FRAC CELL ULMA ILEC MAGV QUEN CARA LIQS SABM % Figure 3 51. Percent survival at H 1u. 37.50 100.00 91.67 86.36 72.00 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 % TAXD FRAC TAXA ITEV NYSS Figure 3 52. Percent survival for zone 1 at Ten 1.

PAGE 138

138 92.00 79.17 75.00 61.54 52.00 47.83 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 % ULMA CELL CARA BETN QUEL ILEC Figure 3 53. Percent survival for zone 2 at Ten 1. 100.00 88.89 84.62 82.61 62.96 57.69 48.00 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 % SABP QUEN CORF MAGV QUEM LIRT LIQS Figu re 3 54. Percent survival (%) for zone 3 at Ten 1

PAGE 139

139 Table 3 20. Percent survival of seedlings at SA 10, H 1u, Ten1 SA-10 Ten-1 H-1100 37.5 36 100 100 64 n/a 91.6 81.5 96.2 n/a n/a 100 79.2 84 100 92 64 87 47.8 40 96 82.6 69.2 100 88.9 96 90.9 75 50 100 48 90 n/a 100 n/a n/a n/a 84.6 88 72 n/a 80.9 86.4 n/a 96.1 61.5 n/a 100 52 n/a 100 57.7 n/a 96.3 84.6 n/a 96 63 n/a 73.9 n/a n/a 88.9 n/a n/a 100 n/a n/a 100 100 96 73.9 37.5 36 Species CORF QUEM Max CEPO BETN QUEL NYSA SABM Min PLAO LIRT MAGV ITEV TAXA FRAP QUEN CARA LIQS SABP CELL ULMA ILEC NYSS TAXD FRAC -13.04 -2.31 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 ITEV TAXD LIQS TAXA FRAP CEPO NYSS ULMA CARA BETN QUEL NYSA PLAO LIRT CELL PERP CORF QUEM ILEC QUEN Species % Figure 3 55. Percent change in seedling height at SA 10.

PAGE 140

140 -10.46 -2.34 -41.22 -35.48 -33.83 -20.34 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 NYSS TAXD FRAC CELL ULMA ILEC MAGV QUEN CARA LIQS Species % Figure 3 56. Percent change in mean seedling height at H 1u. 0.34 -4.43 -9.46 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 ITEV TAXD NYSS FRAC TAXA BETN ILEC CARA QUEL ULMA CELL QUEN CORF QUEM LIRT LIQS MAGV Species % Figur e 3 57. Percent change in mean seedling height at Ten 1.

PAGE 141

141 Table 3 21. Percent change in mean seedling height at SA 10, Ten1, and H 1u. SA-10 Ten-1 H-1 17.735.85 -20.34 24.24 21.48 -33.83 n/a 23.75 5.64 24.43 n/a n/a 13.52 45.82 -35.48 13.00 53.20 -41.22 7.66 33.32 18.46 22.77 3.58 15.71 5.52 31.79 -2.34 7.65 12.32 -10.46 15.27 -4.43 1.61 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 6.17 16.81 n/a 19.50 6.70 n/a -13.04 n/a n/a -2.31 12.14 n/a 4.12 -9.46 n/a 21.11 n/a n/a 29.91 n/a n/a 8.61 12.65 n/a 24.20 18.35 n/a 10.17 0.34 n/a 29.91 53.20 18.46 -13.04 -9.46 -41.22 Species FRAP CARA LIQS SABP QUEN MAGV ITEV TAXA QUEM CORF CEPO BETN QUEL NYSA PLAO LIRT Max Min NYSS TAXD FRAC CELL ULMA ILEC SABM

PAGE 142

142 Table 3 22. Mean seedling growth for SA 10, Ten1, and H 1u. Species SA-10 Ten-1 H-1u NYSS21.13 7.33 -9.5 ATAXD 29.07 22.67 -26.063 A FRAC 27.55 A -6.09 n/a FRAP 29.56 n/a n/a CELL21.04 41.84 -13.67 AULMA 19.29 A 54.09 A -26.44 A ILEC6.37 16.18 6.70MAGV19.58 6.05 7.25QUEN5.28 20.08 A 0.00CARA4.95 A 2.21 -3.60 ALIQS 20.56 A -2.92 2.94 ITEV 4.91 16.28 n/a TAXA 16.53 7.68 n/a CEPO -8.06 n/a n/a BETN -2.71 22.53 n/a QUEL 4.86 -11.54 n/a NYSA 17.21 n/a n/a PLAO 36.68 n/a n/a LIRT10.26 20.13n/a CORF25.04 9.78n/a ILEC 8.595.47n/a A = statistically differentalpha= 0.025tails= 2.00

PAGE 143

143 Table 3 23. Seedli ng growth along the hydrologic gra dient at SA 10. Regression Species ITEV TAXD LIQS TAXA FRAP CEPO NYSS ULMA CARA BETN QUEL NYSA PLAO LIRT CELL MAGV CORF QUEM ILEC QUEN r value -0.3319 -0.5078 0.6785 -0.6091 -0.6767 -0.4747 0.1731 -0.2128 -0.3870 -0.2596 0.1327 0.0656 0.0975 0.0055 0.1049 0.0548 0.2943 -0.3871 0.0907 0.0289 r2 value 0.1102 0.2578 0.4604 0.3710 0.4579 0.2254 0.0300 0.0453 0.1498 0.0674 0.0176 0.0043 0.0095 0.0000 0.0110 0.0030 0.0866 0.1498 0.0082 0.0008 n 22 30 25 17 25 17 25 24 20 25 22 24 24 23 25 24 26 24 20 25 4.06 29.56 20.56 18.67 29.31 -9.18 21.32 19.29 4.57 -3.67 4.86 17.94 42.34 10.26 21.04 21.11 29.42 9.78 6.09 5.28 r = Pearson product moment correlation coefficient; measures the direction and strength of a linear relationship between seedling growth and water availability r2 value = the ratio of variation in growth explained by water availability; the strength of the linear association between growth and water availability n = number of individuals used in the regression = difference in mean height over the period of record Table 3 24. Seedling growth a lon g the hydrologic gradient at H 1u. Regression Species CARA r value-0.00152398 0.075922637 -0.145040997 r2 value0.00240459 0.005764247 0.021036891 n24 11 18-1.2 3.7 1.22r = Pearson product moment correlation coefficient; measures the direction and strength of a linear relationship between seedling growth and water availability r2 value= coefficient of determination;the ratio of variation in growth explained by water availability; the strength of the linear association between growth and water availabn= number of individuals used in the regression = difference in mean height over the period of record MAGV QUEN LIQS -0.29 0.08 18 5.25

PAGE 144

144 Table 3 25. Seedling growth along the hydrologic gradient at Ten 1. Regression Species ITEV TAXD NYSS FRAC TAXA BETN ILEC CARA QUELr value0.13 -0.46 -0.462269 -0.5816479 0.056441676 -0.474776 -0.733324 -0.4172195 -0.05202626 r2 value0.02 0.21 0.213693 0.33831424 0.003185663 0.2254127 0.5377638 0.17407211 0.00270673 n r = Pearson product moment correlation coefficient; measures the direction and strength of a linear relationship between seedling growth and water availability r2 value= coefficient of determination;the ratio of variation in growth explained by water availability; the strength of the linear association between growth and water availabilityn= number of individuals used in the regression = difference in mean height over the period of record Regression Species ULMA CELL QUEN CORF QUEM LIRT LIQS MAGVr value-0.46382 -0.611949 -0.600389 -0.5239844 -0.126265005 -0.597398 0.1464629 -0.0276811 r2 value0.215125 0.3744817 0.360468 0.27455969 0.015942852 0.3568842 0.0214514 0.00076624 n

PAGE 145

145 Figure 3 58. Hurricane paths across Polk County, Florida in 2004. 52.94 68.29 45.00 60.53 90.20 42.11 100.00 92.73 27.07 39.47 78.43 100.00 52.63 30.00 60.98 49.02 91.52 24.06 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 QUEL QUEV MYRC CARA LIQS FRAC TAXD ACER QUEN % Survival 2005 Survival 2007 Figure 3 59. Percent survival at PPW 1.

PAGE 146

146 16.82 59.04 64.10 42.50 77.50 90.00 42.50 100.00 93.81 15.42 92.27 67.50 56.91 61.54 42.50 100.00 37.50 82.00 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 QUEL QUEV MYRC CARA LIQS FRAC TAXD ACER QUEN % Survival 2005 Survival 2007 Figure 3 60. Percent survival at PPW 2.

PAGE 147

147 CHAPTER 4 DISCUSSION Major findings are first listed and then elablorated upon. Species survival at marsh revegetation sites is synthesized and discussed in relation to wetland hydrology. Recruitment of volunteer vegetation at marsh sites is discussed as it relates to planted species survival and wetland hydroperiod. Seedling survival at underplanting sites is discussed and optimal conditions for underplanting are explored. Seedling sur vival is compared between marsh and underplanting sites, and the results of past work by B. Rushton are discussed and compared with this studys findings. Recommendations for successful marsh and forested wetland ecosystem revegetations, as well as for the selection of appropriate community types for revegetation depending on abitoic and biotic site characterstics are presented. Several herbaceous species, from freshwater marsh ecosystems, were able to establish and reproduce in deepwater, moderately floode d, shallow, and transitional wetland environments on CSAs. Hydrologic conditions at marsh revegetation sites were dictated by climatic conditions as well as site topography and lack of outfall structures. Wetland hydroperiod influenced herbaceous and woo dy species survival as well as the recruitment of volunteer vegetation. While several species survived well, t rees that establish in full sun environments are often subject to overgrowth by volunteer vegetation and greater drought stress than those plant ed under an existing canopy, likely affecting long term survival Freshwater marsh wetlands on CSAs are vulnerable to invasion by herbaceous and woody upland and transitional wetland volunteer vegetation during prolonged periods of drought. A variety of wetland tree species were able to survive well both in periodically flooded and transitional wetland environments when established under an existing forested canopy. Survival for the majority of tree species underplanted was greatest under a stable canopy with buffered hydrologic conditions.

PAGE 148

148 Short -term survival for tree species planted in open sun as well underneath canopies generally agrees with previous studies of tree survival under similar conditions on CSAs. M arsh Revegetation Several planted herba ceous species were able to establish within the H 1 and PPW 3 marsh revegetation sites, and either maintained or increased in frequency after revegetation in 2005 and 2006. Likewise, several trees species were able to survive and increase in height over t he period of record at each site. Lack of success by other planted species, however, should not indicate inappropriateness of these species on CSA wetlands in general. Drought conditions over the period of record for both sites strongly influenced wetland hydroperiod and the dynamics of planted and volunteer vegetation. Volunteer species recruited heavily to both sites over the period of record, possibly affecting the success planted species. Different preand post volunteer species management and more controllable hydrologic conditions could have yielded a different set of results for both planted and volunteer species at marsh sites. Species Survival Herbaceous species capable of establishing and surviving at the marsh revegetations include Scirpus californicus Saggitaria lancifolia, and Pontederia cordata in the most frequently inundated areas, flooded to depths of almost one meter, Eleocharis cellulosa and Cladium jamaicense in less frequently inundated and more moderately flooded areas, and Spartina bakeri Juncus effus u s Peltandra virgnica, and Cladium jamaicense in infrequent, shallowly flooded, transitional wetland areas. At H 1 these species were able to establish and persist through high water conditions, drought, and on primarily clay subst rate, although Juncus effusus and Spartina bakeri survived well on mainly sandy soils as well as clay. While survival was relatively low at H 1 for Cladium jamaicense the species was able to maintain its presence between 2006 and 2007 in drier areas of the planting zone. Where Cladium jamaicense was able

PAGE 149

149 to establish, individuals grew prodigiously. Species recruitment was seen within planting areas at H 1 for all species listed above. Scirpus californicus and Eleocharis cellulosa were able to survive h igh water conditions with partial to full submergence immediately after planting, and then recruit vegetatively and possibly through seeding to areas outside their initial planting zone when drier conditions were encountered over the 2006 and 2007 growing seasons. Survival and recruitment was limited to a smaller set of planted species at PPW 3 than the H 1 marsh. Hydrologic conditions experienced within herbaceous revegetation areas at PPW 3 were much drier than those experienced by the same species at th e H 1 marsh. Although declines in frequency occurred within the planting zones, Cladium jamaicense and the flag marsh species were able to establish over the period of record, although reproduction only occurred for one individual of both Thalia geniculata and Saggitaria lancifolia. Successful tree species, able to survive and grow under full sun conditions with competition from volunteer vegetation, at least structurally although likely hydrologically, include Annona glabra, Taxodium distichum Cephalanthus occidentalis Gleditsia aquatica Itea virginica and Styrax americana. Most of these species were able to survive and grow well across a gradient of hydrologic conditions, excluding Annona glabra and Taxodium distichum which experienced greater surv ival at the H 1 marsh where conditions were wetter. Wetland Hydrology Due to their isolated position on the landscape and negligible offsite infiltration, wetland hydrology on CSAs is largely dictated by precipitation and evapotranspiration (ET) (Callaha n and others 1991, Reigner and Winkler 2001). Therefore, climatic conditions strongly affect wetland hydroperiod, thus influencing site vegetation. The H 1 marsh experienced two opposing hydrologic events, first dramatic spikes in water levels in the late r part of the 2005 and 2006 growing seasons, and second, a prolonged period of drought which began in 2006 and continued

PAGE 150

150 over the entire period of record. The quick spikes in water levels seen at H 1 are due to large rain events, exacerbated by mainly clay substrate which limits infiltration, and a lack of connectivity with other surface water features on the CSA. At PPW 3, hydrologic conditions during 2006 and 2007 resembled an upland environment, with only fleeting inundation at the wettest portions of th e marsh and water levels well below the ground surface for the majority of the year. Even without the shortfall in annual and growing season precipitation, the PPW 3 marsh site is more shallow and ephemeral in terms of water storage when compared with the H 1 marsh site. PPW 3 is completely isolated from other existing wetland features on site, even during the most extreme climatic events, unlike the H 1 marsh, which in the past possibly connected with wetland areas to the northwest as a surface water fea ture. This fact, in combination with repetitive herbicidal treatments and volunteer species control, has led to little organic matter accumulation on site, which has been shown to retain soil moisture in wetlands (Stauffer and Brooks 1996). Outfall stru ctures are sometimes installed on CSAs for site drainage after filling, however, settling of clay substrate typically results in ground elevations much lower than outfall structures at the perimeter of the CSA, making them inactive for the majority of the year or only when extreme climatic conditions occur, depending on the sites topography and age (Reigner and Winkler, 2001). Even if outfall structures exist and are actively adjusted for settling, wetland features may become hydrologically disconnected f rom the portion of the site controlled by the outfall, rendering them useless in controlling the wetland features water levels. The H 1 marsh site has no working outlet structure that would function to control water levels by retaining water on site or dampening spikes in water levels following storm events. Likewise, the PPW 3 marsh

PAGE 151

151 site is isolated from other existing wetland features on the CSA, as well as any relic outfall structures. Both high water conditions and drought strongly influenced plante d species survival and recruitment over the period of record at H 1 and PPW 3. Likewise, wetland hydroperiod and existing seed bank, influenced the recruitment, composition, and structure of volunteer vegetation within the revegetation sites. H -1 Marsh Hig h water conditions that recede only through ET, especially immediately after planting occurs, may eliminate the success of species adapted to more shallow water and transitional wetland environments. This may have been the case with Peltandra virginica, B acopa caroliniana, Muhlenbergia capillaris, and Panicum hemitomon, which were planted within the gramminoid planting zone at the H 1 marsh, and experienced large declines in species frequency in the first year after planting Spikes in high water levels c an also negatively affect plantings by causing immediate mortality through dislodging and floating of individual plants as seen with the Scirpus californicus planting, and most likely the lily marsh planting of Nymphaea odorata and Nuphar polysepala at H 1 in 2006. Outfall structures and site topography, if properly designed prior to planting and maintained throughout the life of the revegetation, could help stabilize wetland hydrology on CSAs allowing greater control and confidence in plantings, both in deepwater and shallow wetland environments. Since many wetland features on CSAs are strongly affected by variable precipitation, drought conditions can cause drastic changes in wetland hydroperiod from year to year. Lack of rainfall during the 2006 winter and growing season decreased the extent and length of flooding at the H 1 marsh and several planted species responded positively. The three species within the flag marsh planting zone, Saggitaria lancifolia, Thalia geniculata, and Pontederia cordata, were

PAGE 152

152 qualitatively observed flowering, producing new leaves and increasing in stem count over the 2006 growing season. This is reflected in the species frequency data, with the exception of Thalia geniculata. Despite the initial spike in water levels followe d by drier than normal growing season conditions, most tree species planted at the periphery of the marsh survived well. Taxodium distichum and Cephalanthus occidentalis had the best survival after one year, and Persea palustris had the worst, possibly af fected by prolonged high water conditions immediately after planting. Eupatorium capillifolium responded positively to drought conditions, by volunteering across the H 1 marsh over the 2006 growing season. Neither this species nor Polygonum hydropiperiodes which volunteered across the majority of the site, appeared to out -compete nor physically damage planted species, although experiments to test this hypothesis were not performed in this study. Typha latifolia which dominated the marsh prior to planti ng, only reestablished in the wettest areas. Ludwigia peruviana and Baccharis halimifolia that occurred within monitoring plots were observed to be small sprouts, only several centimeters in height. Drier conditions, available seed source, and lack of post -planting species management allowed a thick regrowth of Ludwigia peruviana along the northern and western periphery of the H 1 site, which would continue to thrive during the second year after planting. As drought conditions intensified over the 2007 winter and growing season, the dynamic nature of both planted and volunteer vegetation became evident at H 1. The wetter, western portion of the marsh, including the bulrush and flag marsh planting zones, were not dominated by the shrubbier species found across the rest of the site, although Polygonum hydropiperiodes was present throughout. Scirpus californicus continued to thrive and reproduce both within and outside of its original planting zone. Eleocharis cellulos a also survived and reproduced well, as

PAGE 153

153 an understory species to the shrubby canopy of Lu d wigia peruviana and Eupatoriu m serotinum that established over its entire planting zone. Individuals recruited to the northern edge of the saw -grass planting zone, where wetland hydroperiod was similar but volunteer vegetation was less dense and composed of Polygonum hydropiperiodes Pluchea odorata, and Eupatorium capillifolium Saggitaria lancifolia and Pontederia cordata were the most successful flag marsh species planted, and seemed to grow best at the drier areas of the planting zone. Neither species survived well at FM4, the wettest monitoring plot, located in the western planting zone. However, both species were present further west of FM4 in the drier portion of the western flag marsh plantin g zone, indicating a specific range of success for both species on CSA wetlands. While the western zone was not occupied by shrubby species, the eastern zone was almost completely overtaken, and yet these two species were able to survive and reproduce des pite competition from volunteer vegetation. Juncus effusus and Spartina bakeri which either maintained or declined in frequency during the first year after planting, experienced better growth as the site dried down between 2006 and 2007, despite overgrow th by shrubby species. Regrowth by other planted species within the graminoid planting zone did not occur. The overall decline in seedling survival was greater in the second year after planting, when seedlings experienced drier conditions and pressure fr om volunteer, invasive shrub species, and all but two individual species experienced greater survival between 2005 and 2006. Still, after two years, all planted species had at least 50% survival, with the exceptions of Persea palustris and Hypericum fascic ulatum which both had 0% survival in 2007. Taxodium distichum and Cephalanthus occidentalis by far survived best over the period of record. Most planted species were able to grow, as well as survive, under varying site conditions, in terms of hydroperiod and volunteer vegetation, however growth was relatively low over the period for Cephalanthus

PAGE 154

154 occidentalis despite its high survival. Dominance by shrub vegetation in terms of height and density was greatest at the tree planting zone, which is the driest portion of the H 1 marsh site. Annona glabra, planted in 2006, survived and grew well within its planting area at H 1. This species is able to quickly create shade and is highly tolerant of flooding, and therefore may be ideal for planting within flooded portions of CSAs. The area of planting occurred on a swale which connected as a surface water feature with wetlands north of H 1 during wet years. Due to wetter conditions, the planting zone was mainly occupied by Eupatorium serotinum and Polygonum hydropiperiodes as well as recruited Eleocharis cellulosa. Pre -planting management of all types of volunteer vegetation was included in the revegetation scheme to ensure less competition for planted species as they established, and while species did volunteer over the 2006 growing season, water levels were deep and prolonged to such an extent that drier volunteer species such as Ludwigia peruviana, Baccharis halimifolia and Myrica cerifera did not establish as dominant species within the site. As the H 1 mars h continued to dry over the 2007 winter and growing season, smaller individuals of drier species present in 2006 were able to flourish, and the moving front of Ludwigia peruviana to the north, south, and west of the planting area encroached heavily. Howev er, it cannot be determined if higher water levels and increased inundation during 2007 would have excluded Ludwigia peruviana or the other shrubby species, completely or at all. Also unclear, is the long term effect of invasive, volunteer species encroachment on the success of freshwater marsh plantings under current field conditions or in a more hydrologically controlled wetland setting. While Baccharis halimifolia Myrica cerifera and Eupatorium serotinum are all species that normally occur in trans itional wetland areas (USDA 2004), Ludwigia peruviana is able to form dense, monotypic stands with tremendous seeding potential at moist sites along streams and

PAGE 155

155 swamps and also areas with shallow, standing water (Jacobs and others 1994, ISSG 2004). Since this species seems to thrive even when flooded, Carstenn 2002 (in Brown and others 2002) tested the effect of shade on Ludwigia peruviana robustness to conclude if a maturing forest canopy could eventually thin, or possibly exclude, this species from an ecosystem. It was found that a reduction in available light (30%) significantly decreased species height, leaf area, percent cover, and productivity; however, the study also found that species such as Ludwigia peruviana can significantly contribute to nu trient sequestration in newly constructed wetlands, indicating their usefulness in ecosystem development on CSAs. PPW -3 Marsh The establishment of planted herbaceous species at PPW 3 was negatively affected by drought conditions and the subsequent lack of available soil moisture in the later part of the 2006 growing season, and during the 2007 growing season. Dry conditions caused complete mortality of planted Eleocharis cellulosa within the first three months of planting, even though the wettest conditio ns over the period of record occurred approximately one month after planting. Graminoid planting zone species also survived poorly, most likely due to extremely dry conditions. Of the 120 individuals, composed of four species, only one Muhlenbergia capil laris was observed in the entire planting zone in 2007. The lack of above ground inundation and saturation of the immediate root zone of herbaceous plantings did not allow for real comparison of species frequency along a hydrologic gradient at PPW 3. Wh ile several species were able to survive drought conditions at PPW 3 and H 1, the sustained presence of the planted herbaceous species is in question, due to the disconnected nature of the revegetation sites, especially if drought conditions persist. Sinc e herbaceous wetland vegetation is integrally tied to hydrologic conditions and may be more sensitive to decreased water availability than woody species, and thus more susceptible to die

PAGE 156

156 off, an understanding of the effects of drought on planted herbaceous species survival and the invasion of revegetation projects by volunteer species, more tolerant to extreme fluctuations in wetland water levels, is crucial. Dry site conditions, negatively affected tree seedlings as well, especially Annona glabra, whic h was unable to survive at PPW 3 even at the wettest areas it was planted (relatively speaking). Survival for Annona glabra at H 1 was markedly greater where average water levels were much higher. Van der Valk and others (2007) found Annona glabra seedli ngs survived and grew at both wet and dry locations on constructed tree islands after almost two years, while investigating flooding tolerance of tree species typical of these formations within the Everglades. However, water levels at dry locations at H 1 where the species survived well ranged between 18 cm and 35 cm at least 88% of the time, with consistent flooding between August and December. These conditions are still much wetter than those experienced at the wettest planting location for Annona glabra at PPW 3. Many Taxodium distichum seedlings experienced losses in height, possibly due to pinning and breakage by Indigofera hirsuta during the 2006 growing season, since Taxodium distichum is known to survive and grow well in well drained soils. L ike the H 1 marsh site during 2006, Eupatorium capillifolium volunteered to the majority of the site over the 2007 growing season, with the highest density and height at the tree planting zone, shading most tree seedlings and outcompeting Indigofera hirsut a It is unclear at this time whether the establishment of this species with such dominance will hinder seedling survival and growth in the future, as the species seemed to grow with more vigor, than the population of individuals at H 1 in 2006. Overall first year seedling survival at the PPW 3 site was lower than first year survival at the H 1 marsh, although the sample size for H 1 was considerably lower. Cephalanthus

PAGE 157

157 occidentalis and Gleditsia aquatica survived well under the hydrologic regime of PPW 3, which was unusually dry, and also at H 1 where the species experienced high water conditions. Interestingly, Persea palustris survived well (95%) across the PPW 3 planting zone, despite the drought conditions. The species had poorer survival after one year at the H -1 marsh where average water levels ranged between 0.25 m and 1.07 m and transects were inundated for several weeks in the 2005 and 2006 growing seasons. All other planted species had higher survival after one year at the H 1 marsh, possib ly due to greater available moisture, but even so, species survival was relatively high for the planted species at PPW 3 with the exceptions of Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora and Hypericum fasciculatum Hypericum fasciculatum performed poorly at both sites during dry years. Percent change in mean seedling height per species was greater after one year at PPW 3 for seven tree species, although hydrologic conditions differed dramatically between the two planting sites, PPW 3 (06 07) and H 1 (05 06). If this sa me species attribute is compared between PPW 3 and the second year of growth at H 1, when available moisture is more comparable, growth for the same seven species is still higher. Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora and Taxodium distichum had lower growth at PPW 3 compared with both years at the H 1 marsh. This data indicates the variability of wetland tree survival and growth on CSA wetlands that encounter different hydrologic conditions and competitive pressure from volunteer vegetation. No strong correlations or associations were found between seedling survival and growth and average water levels at PPW 3, meaning certain species can successfully establish over a range of hydrologic condition present at CSA wetlands. Comparison with Previous Findings Several tree species planted as part of the marsh revegetations were planted on CSA wetland sites as part of the Rushton 1988 study. As was the case with H 1 and PPW 3 in 2006

PAGE 158

158 and 2007, Fraxinus caroliniana had high survival and growth along a gradient of hydrolo gic conditions and overstory and understory vegetation after one growing season. Taxodium distichum also had high survival and growth, especially at hydric swamp plots with wetter conditions (Rushton 1988). Since such a large number of Taxodium distichum seedlings experienced breakage and dieback at the drier marsh site, PPW 3, Rushton plots where the species experienced negative growth were investigated. Negative change occurred at sites where average water levels were at or below 0.3 m and usually Sali x caroliniana canopy was present. Persea palustris was planted in the wettest plots within Rushtons hydric swamp experimental plots on CSAs as part of her dissertation and the associated FIPR (Florida Institute for Phosphate Research) study. The specie s was planted at ten hydric swamp experimental plots in the wet species grouping. Plots differed in canopy cover and understory species, but Persea palustris had consistently higher growth after one year at drier plots, with average water levels below the ground surface or sites only flooded for brief periods of time (Rushton 1988). Similarly, the highest survival for Persea palustris occurred at PPW 3, the drier revegetation site. Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora survived the worst of the cohort planted at PPW 3, while survival and growth were slightly higher at H 1. Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora was also planted at Rushtons hydric swamp plots in the wet and transitional groupings and had an average survival of 39% after one year. This is consistent with t he low, first year survival at the H 1 and PPW 3. The sites where the species performed well in the Rushton study were at three sites with average water level ranging between the ground surface and 0.36 m (Rushton 1988). When hydric swamp plots with at l east 50% first year survival were monitored 19 years later, no individuals of Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora or Persea palustris were monitored (Ingwersen 2006), while surviving Taxodium distichum and Fraxinus caroliniana trees were still present. If surviv al

PAGE 159

159 within the first few years after planting is a good predictor of long term survival (Ingwersen 2006), excluding the occurrence of fire or other catastrophic events, seedlings of successful tree species planted at the two revegetation sites will most lik ely survive over time if current hydrologic conditions persist and sustain the wetland features. Recommendations for Marsh Revegetation on CSAs Establishing marsh wetland ecosystems on CSA wetland features presents challenges. Wetland size, topography, we tland:watershed ratio, connectivity to other wetland features, and outfall control are all variable at wetlands occurring on CSAs (Brown 2008 unpublished). Features are also subject to inavailability of a desireable freshwater marsh seedbank on the CSAs (Rushton in Odum and others 1983), the variability in wetland hydroperiod due to clay settling and climatic conditions, and the presence and pressure of both upland and wetland pioneer species, which may be considered non -native or invasive (Odum 1983, Odum 1991, Cates 1991). To effectively restore freshwater marsh ecosystems on CSAs, several considerations must be employed. Control over the initial site topography may be crucial to both achieve an appropriate wetland size and shape, as well as ensure more predictable hydrologic conditions. Although not specifically studied, cracks that form in the clay substrate of CSA wetlands, disconnected from surrounding wetland systems and subject to drought conditions, may decrease their long term viability as water storage and movement internal to the CSA may shift away from that wetland feature. Cracks in the substrate at the H 1 marsh site became visible after dry down in 2007, although there is no way of knowing when these cracks formed. If these formations allow water to drain away from the wetland feature, even in years with average and above average precipitation, planted vegetation may not persist, and drier, more transitional species may invade and dominate those areas.

PAGE 160

160 While desired marsh species can sur vive and expand in appropriate conditions, volunteer species will likely always recruit to CSAs both in wetland and upland areas. Controlling water levels at wetland features, and intensive spraying of any undesired species within and at the periphery of sites is possible, but the later seems inefficient in a long term sense and does not address the need for whole system restoration including upland, transitional, and wetland areas. Planting the upland and transitional areas of a site with tree species ma y establish shade, which over time, can exclude shade intolerant pioneer invasive offering an alternative to yearly spraying (Richardson and Kluson 2000). The facultative species Quercus virginiana and Myrica cerifera seem to survive and grow well on CSAs despite very wet and very dry conditions experienced over the period of record at PPW 1 and PPW 2. Since survival in the first years after planting is high, and both species seemed to create shade quickly, these are obvious choices for planting in transi tional and upland areas adjacent to CSA wetlands. Herbiciding, manual clearing, and other methods of species management can certainly aid in wetland establishment success especially prior to planting of wetland sites. Selective species treatment, if ti med correctly with seasonal rainfall and performed repeatedly, can give planted species the opportunity to establish and reproduce without invasive competition after planting occurs. Since species such as Ludwigia peruviana can still persist in wet conditions, it may be necessary to eliminate the species manually both in transitional and wetland areas through active species management using herbicide. Seedling Underplanting Underplanting wetland features with trees that are able to establish underneath an existing canopy, as well as appropriate placement of species within the wetland feature in terms of water tolerance, has been studied in the past as a way of accelerating natural succession of forested wetlands on CSAs (Harrell 1987, Rushton 1988, Ingwerse n 2006). This concept, in terms of

PAGE 161

161 planted species assemblage, placement, and success, was further explored on three CSA wetlands, differing in canopy composition and structure, substrate, and hydroperiod; although a greater diversity of tree species were planted, compared with this past work. As with the freshwater marsh revegetations, drought conditions greatly affected seedling inundation and moisture availability, which in turn affected the survival and growth of certain planted species. The proximit y of planting to dike features and the stability of the underplanting canopy also influenced planted seedling success. Survival and Growth Twenty three wetland tree species from differing forested wetland community types were planted across three sites lo cated in northern (SA 10) and central Florida (H 1u and Ten1). Planted species were representative canopy and subcanopy species from forested wetland communities common to southwest Florida, including bay swamps, floodplain forests (river swamps), cypres s domes, hydric hammocks, and mixed hardwood swamps (Myers and Ewel, 1990). Most planted tree species survived well, although site specific differences caused first year survival rates for certain species to differ between underplanting sites. Habitat g eneralists Taxodium distichum Ulmus americana Quercus nigra and Fraxinus sp. survived well at all underplanting sites, which was also the case in Rushton 1988. Celtis laevigata and Cornus foemina both found in hydric hammocks and floodplain forests als o survived well. Both Sabal palmetto and Sabal minor had high first year survival in the drier planting areas of Ten 1 and H 1u, respectively. Results, both from this study and past work, may indicate a variety of forested wetland ecosystems can be repre sented through species on CSA wetlands, if hydrologic, canopy, and understory conditions remain stable as was the case with SA 10. However, when species encounter more extreme fluctuations in water level, as is the case with hurricane and drought

PAGE 162

162 years, a s well as pressure from invasive understory species, their range for successful planting on CSA wetlands begin to shrink. SA -10. Survival after one year was high for all species planted at the SA 10 underplanting site. The high clay content of the substra te and low slope wetland edge, extending south from the sites permanently ponded feature, ensured available soil moisture along the entire gradient species were planted across and buffered against drydown during the drought conditions experienced over the 2007 growing season. This type of wetland feature, with its closed canopy, was the most successful for wetland tree planting, of the three sites studied, with 94% overall survival. Taxodium distichum Liquidambar styraciflua, Cephalanthus occidentalis Nyssa aquatica, Ulmus americana Carya aquatica, Betula nigra Quercus lyrata Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora Platanus occidentalis Liriodendron tulipifera, Celtis laevigata Cornus foemina, Ilex cassine and Quercus nigra all had 100 % survival after on e year. Survival for the remaining species, Itea virginica Taxodium ascendens Fraxinus pennsylvanica, Magnolia virginiana, and Quercus michauxii ranged between 88% and 96%, and did not seem to be strongly correlated with wet or drier areas within the sp ecies planting zone. Growth for species was equally good, with positive percent change in height ranging between 4% and 30%. Dieback, or a negative percent change in height, occurred for Cephelanthus occidentalis and Betula nigra although the cause of this is unknown. Neither species seemed particularly affected by growth of the vine, Lygodium japonicum which was seen especially covering Carya aquatica and Plantanus occidentis Most species had larger variation in seedling height after one year due to seedling dieback and regrowth. Many species had low r and r2 values implying there is little association of growth and the hydrologic gradient over which certain species were planted, although the growth of many of the more obligate wetland tree species was negatively correlated with

PAGE 163

163 decreasing average water levels, or distance away from the surface water feature. The buffering effect of the sites low slope, high clay content, and adjacent wet feature is the likely cause of mostly equal growth along the hydrologic gradient. An active outfall weir, present in the northeast corner of the site, ensures that water levels will not spike and submerge tree seedlings in wetter years, if maintained and adjusted for settling at the CSA. However, years which receiv e average or above average precipitation, will certainly inundate the wettest portions of all three planting zones, possibly affecting growth and survival. The outfall also functions to retain the permanently ponded feature, which has provided the plantin g site with a stable source of moisture and water table despite drought conditions, leading to less drastic drydown conditions in the early part of the growing season as seen at the Ten1 site. Ten -1. Overall survival at Ten 1 was lower than that at SA 10, and 100% survival after one growing season only occurred for Taxodium distichum and Sabal palmetto, a palm species not included at the SA 10 planting. Fraxinus caroliniana, Ulmus americana Quercus nigra Cornus foemina, and Magnolia virginiana also survived well along the entire gradient over which they were planted, indicating usefulness for planting during drier years and along dike or overburden areas present near CSA wetlands. Other species were negatively affected by drought conditions that wer e exacerbated by the planting location. The site, located at the edge of the CSA dike, had substrate with higher sand content leading to faster drainage within planting areas after precipitation occurred, and was planted along a much steeper slope than SA 10 or H 1. The deeper wetland feature adjacent to the planting is not regulated by outfall structures and experienced dry conditions for the majority of the 2006 and 2007 growing seasons. Several species were able to survive at the most downslope areas o f the planting, but were unable to do

PAGE 164

164 so at the drier areas along the dikes slope and planting of those species in these areas should be avoided. Likewise, many species growth were negatively correlated with decreasing average water levels, or distance along the gradient from wet to dry, although associations were weak, most likely due to small sample size. The range in percent change in mean seedling height at Ten 1 was broader than SA 10, with the populations of Ulmus americana and Celtis laevigata ex periencing greater increases at Ten 1, although most of this growth was concentrated in the wetter areas at the species planting zone. Unlike the canopy at SA 10, which was stable over the period of record and composed of native wetland tree species, th e majority of the canopy in the drier areas of Ten1 was occupied by Sap ium seriferum, and the canopy of Salix caroliniana in the wetter areas experienced some tree fall. This allowed several species of shade-intolerant pioneers to volunteer where the can opy opened. Tree fall is a likely occurrence associated with planting under Salix caroliniana as the canopy ages and dies back or is negatively affected by storm events, and although invasive herbaceous species may volunteer to areas where the canopy has o pened, this also offers the opportunity for growth over the existing canopy by planted species. The tree species Sapium seb iferum is non -native and considered by some to be detrimental to Floridas ecosystems (Burks 1996, Bruce and others 1997). Removal of this species from understory planting sites, however, may negatively affect underplanted tree species. Manual removal of the canopy, or burning and herbicidal removal which may cause extensive tree fall that may damage seedlings as seen at H 1u, will e ncourage shade -intolerant herbaceous species to copiously volunteer, thus eliminating the advantage of planting under an existing canopy. A more effective approach may be to leave the existing canopy and underplant with species that will eventually shade out Sabium se b iferum

PAGE 165

165 with removal of recruited Sabium sebiferum seedlings at regular intervals either manually or with herbicide. H -1u. Overall survival was lowest at H 1u, of all three sites, and no species was able to maintain 100% survival over the pe riod of record. However, first year survival was still above 50% for all planted species except Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora and Ilex cassine. Only three species, Celtis laevigata Quercus nigra and Liquidambar styraciflua, had higher survival than popul ations of the same species planted at Ten 1, and two of those were present in an area of the underplanting that was least affected by tree fall. While hydrologic conditions at H 1u were similar to SA 10, the majority of the canopy, present in 2006, had fa llen by 2007 allowing an increased presence by volunteer understory and vine species. Tree fall was extremely damaging to seedlings causing breakage of many seedlings below their initial planting height. Animal herbivory by rabbits may have also affected seedling survival and growth. Six of the ten planted species, monitored for height, to experience a negative percent change in mean seedling height, and also significantly lower mean growth for several species at H 1u compared with SA 10 and Ten 1. If d ead limbs had not fallen, water levels were such that higher species survival and growth would have most likely occurred. Underpl anting versus Planting in Full Sun Although hydrology most closely controls where seedlings will establish and persist within restored and created wetland environments, light availability and the control of competitive weedy species are also major determinants of planted seedling success (Clewell and Lea in Kusler and Kentula 1990). Survival and growth were compared between under planting and marsh revegetation sites to explore any advantages or disadvantages to planting wetland tree seedlings under an existing canopy. As previously discussed, the instability of the canopy at H 1u caused unusually high mortality and seedling breakage, and thus provides little useful data for

PAGE 166

166 this comparison with either type of site. Five species were planted at both marsh and underplanting sites. Results were mixed when survival and growth of those species was compared between sites with a stable canopy and those without Growth was highest for three of the fi ve species where light was most available an d site conditions were the very dry at PPW 3. Itea virginica survived well at sites with full sun and underplanting sites with adequate moisture (SA 10, H 1 0506), but grew best at the driest planting location, PPW 3. Taxodium distichum was able to survive well at all four sites, and after two years at the H 1 marsh, but experienced its lowest growth at the m arsh sites, PPW 3 possibly due to bre akage by Indigofera hirsuta. Cephalanthus occidentalis survived and grew worst underneath canopy despite adequate moisture (SA 10). Survival was high after one year for Fraxinus sp. seedlings at all four planting locations, while Nyssa sylvatica var. bif lora survived worst sites at the driest planting sites (Ten 1, PPW 3) in the first year after planting, regardless of canopy cover. Although results were inconclusive on a species basis and hydrologic conditions differed, overall first year survival was h igher at the two sites with canopy versus the two without, and the aggressive overgrowth of shrubby invasive species and subsequent declines in overall survival at the H 1 marsh in the second year after planting, indicate the lack of control over planting success in full sun environments without volunteer invasive species management. Underplanting with an existing canopy composed of early successional species such as Salix caroliniana and Acer rubrum can likely provide an advantage to planting tree species in full sun, where longterm management of volunteer species through herbicidal and manual clearing are likely necessary components to any revegetation scheme in order to ensure the success of planted seedlings. Wetland sites without an existing canopy c an also be invaded by Imperata cylindrica, which may increase the planting sites susceptibility fire and limit the success of planted seedlings

PAGE 167

167 (Ingwersen 2006, Lippencott, 2000). This species was observed recruiting to the drier areas of H 1u in 2007, a fter the canopy fall occurred. Nine species of wetland and transitional tree species were planted in full sun at PPW 1 and PPW 2. Declines in survival were lower during the first two years after planting as seedlings established and were also encountered with a disproportionate amount of hurricane activity. In general, tree species survived well in the third and fourth years after planting despite drought conditions, although all volunteer species were routinely eliminated around the periphery of each w etland. Quercus laurifolia had poor survival in the full sun environment, although this may be mainly due to hurricane damage and high water conditions, as the remaining populations maintained survival rates in the third and fourth years after planting. Fraxinus caroliniana, Carya aquatica, and Taxodium distichum were planted in the wetter areas of the wetland and all survived well after four years. Survival for these three species was also high at the SA 10 and Ten1 underplanting sites after only one ye ar. Likewise, Quercus virginiana was located at the drier planting periphery and also survived well. Although not quantitatively measured, shade was greater and groundcover beneath these individuals was less than in other areas of the wetland, thus this species may serve to establish structure and shade in transitional wetland environments over time. Results from these two wetlands prove a variety of wetland tree species that can survive in a full sun environment while experiencing hydrologic extremes wi th accompanying management of upland vegetation Since no effort was made to plant the upland areas surrounding PPW 1 and PPW 2 these areas will have to be managed well into the future to prevent the spread of Imperata cylindrica into the wetland, especia lly in drier years.

PAGE 168

168 Appropriate Wetland Community Types for CSAs CSA wetland features can be revegetated with species occurring in both forested wetland and freshwater marsh communities, however, the long term viability of these species additions remain s in question. This is especially true for the restoration of herbaceous marsh ecosystems through revegetation. While establishment may be possible, the initial site design and invasive species management are both energy intensive aspects of restoration, and do not ensure the long term success of planted species to the exclusion of more invasive, undesireable species, and so the unmanaged restoration of a freshwater marsh ecosystem as it occurs naturally may never be achieved. However, further research and more extensive marsh plantings must take place during years without extreme drought to conclude the success of revegetating freshwater marsh ecosystems on CSAs. Since many wetland features on CSAs self -organize and succeed to a forested wetland domina ted by Salix caroliniana (Odum and others 1983), typical of primary succession in some floodplain and bottomland hardwood wetlands, restoration through proper placement of forested wetland species beneath this canopy may be a natural fit for CSA wetlands. CSAs and the wetland features they support may be thought of as emergent or novel ecosystems resulting from a human induced change of the abiotic environment and the limited seed dispersal from native ecosystems in the post -mining environment (Hobbs and others 2006). As a result, restoration goals for herbaceous marsh and forested wetlands on CSAs, in terms of community composition and structure, may need to be adapted to align with the specific biotic and abiotic characteristics of each wetland feature. Specifically, species composition may reflect a combination of species not typically found growing together, including combinations of planted and volunteer vegetation, but all seem to survive well despite harsh conditions at CSA wetlands. Although pos sessing abiotic and biotic characteristics distinct from natural wetlands

PAGE 169

169 in the region, these ecosystems may still provide valuable wetland functions and mitigate for regional wetland loss in the post -mining landscape.

PAGE 170

170 APPENDIX A VOLUNTEER VEGE TATION AT MARSH REVEGETATION SITES 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 TYPL EUPC MIKS LUDP POLH PLUO Frequency 2007 2006 2005 Figure A 1. Volunteer vegetation within the bulrush planting zone at the H -1 marsh 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 MOMC TYPL LUDP COMD SALC SCHT EUPC MIKS POLH EUPS BACH LYTA Frequency 2007 2006 2005 Figure A 2. Volunteer vegetation within the spike rush planting zone at the H 1 marsh

PAGE 171

171 Table A 1 Volunteer vegetatio n Abbreviation Scientific Name Common Name POLH Polygonum hydropiperiodes swamp smartweed EUPC Eupatorium cappilifolium dog fennel BOEC Boehmeria cylindrica smallspike false nettle AMBA Ambrosia artemisiifolia annual ragweed INDH Indigo hirsuta roughhairy indigo PHYA Phytolacca americana pokeweed CYPV Cyperus virens green flatsedge LYTA Lythrum alatum winged lythrum LUDP Ludwigia peruviana primrose willow TYPL Typha latifolia cattail MIKS Mikania scandens climbing hempvine PLUO Pluchea odorata sweetscent SALC Salix caroliniana coastal plain willow BACH Baccharis halimifolia eastern baccharis EUPS Eupatorium serotinum lateflowering thoroughwort SCHT Schinus terebinthifolius brazillian peppertree COMD Commelina diffusa climbing dayflower MOMC Momordica charantia bitter melon 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 TYPL EUPC MIKS POLH PLUO EUPS LUDP BACH LYTA SALC Frequency 2007 2006 Figure A 3 Volunteer vegetation within the flag marsh planting zone at H -1 marsh

PAGE 172

172 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 TYPL EUPC MIKS LUDP POLH BACH SALC LYTA PLUO EUPS AMBA CYPO CYPS BOEC Frequency 2007 2006 Figure A 4. Volunteer vegetation within the saw -grass monitoring plots at H 1 marsh 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 MOMC AMBA PLUO MIKS TYPL EUPC LUDP POLH BACH LYTA EUPS Frequency 2007 2006 2005 Figure A 5. Volunteer vegetation within the graminoid planting zone at H 1 marsh 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 POLH EUPC BOEC AMBA INDF PHYA CYPV Frequency 2007 Figure A 6. Volunteer vegetation within the spike rush planting zone at the PPW 3 marsh

PAGE 173

173 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 POLH EUPC BOEC LYTA INDH CYPV Frequency 2007 Figure A 7. Volunteer vegetation within the flag marsh planting zone at the PPW 3 marsh 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 EUPC POLH INDH BOEC AMBA LYTA LUDP PHYA CYPV Frequency 2007 Figure A 8. Volunteer vegetation within the saw -grass planting zone at the PPW 3 marsh

PAGE 174

174 APPENDIX B SEEDLING GROWTH AT MARSH REVEGETATION SITES -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 0.64 0.63 0.63 0.61 0.61 0.57 0.57 0.54 0.54 0.53 0.49 0.49 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.38 dElevation (m) dHeight (cm) (b) -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 0.64 0.63 0.63 0.61 0.61 0.57 0.57 0.54 0.54 0.53 0.49 0.49 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.38 dElevation (m) dHeight (cm) Figure B 1 Taxodium distichum seedlings in (a) 2006 and (b) 2007 at the H 1 ma r sh

PAGE 175

175 (a) -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.48 dElevation (m) dHeight (cm) (b) -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.48 dElevation (m) dHeight (cm) Figure B 2 Hypericum fasciculatum seedlings in (a) 2006 and (b) 2007 at the H 1 ma r sh aBlack outlined bars indicate seedling mortality and green lines indicate s urvival and change ( in seedling height (cm).

PAGE 176

176 (a) -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 0.64 0.64 0.59 0.59 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.47 0.45 0.45 dElevation (m) dHeight (cm) (b) -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 0.64 0.64 0.59 0.59 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.47 0.45 0.45 dElevation (m) dHeight (cm) Figure B 3. Persea palustris seedlings in (a) 2006 and (b) 2007 at the H 1 ma r sh

PAGE 177

177 (a) -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 0.64 0.64 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.53 0.53 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.48 0.48 0.45 dElevation (m) dHeight (cm) (b) -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 0.64 0.64 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.53 0.53 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.48 0.48 0.45 dElevation (m) dHeight (cm) Figure B 4. Cephalanthus occidentalis seedlings in (a) 2006 and (b) 2007 at the H 1 M arsh

PAGE 178

178 (a) -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 0.65 0.64 0.64 0.63 0.59 0.59 0.57 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 dElevation (m) dHeight (cm) (b) -120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 0.65 0.64 0.64 0.63 0.59 0.59 0.57 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 dElevation (m) dHeight (cm) Figure B 5 Itea virginica seedlings in (a) 2006 and (b) 2007 at the H 1 ma r sh

PAGE 179

179 (a) -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.64 0.64 0.63 0.47 dElevation (m) dHeight (cm) (b) -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.64 0.64 0.63 0.47 dElevation (m) dHeight (cm) Figure B 6. Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora seedlings in (a) 2006 and (b) 2007 at the H 1 M arsh

PAGE 180

180 (a) -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.57 0.54 0.54 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 dElevation (m) dHeight (cm) (b) -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.57 0.54 0.54 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 dElevation (m) dHeight (cm) Figure B 7. Styrax americana see dlings in (a) 2006 and (b) 2007 at the H 1 marsh

PAGE 181

181 (a) -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.63 0.61 0.61 0.54 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.47 0.38 0.38 0.38 dElevation (m) dHeight (cm) (b) -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.63 0.61 0.61 0.54 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.47 0.38 0.38 0.38 dElevation (m) dHeight (cm) Figure B 8. Fraxinus caroliniana seedlings in (a) 2006 and (b) 2007 at the H 1 marsh

PAGE 182

182 (a) -120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 0.65 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.63 0.61 0.59 0.59 0.54 0.54 0.49 dElevation (m) dHeight (cm) (b) -120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 0.65 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.63 0.61 0.59 0.59 0.54 0.54 0.49 dElevation (m) dHeight (cm) Figure B 9. Gleditsia aquatica seedlings in (a) 2006 and (b) 2007 at the H -1 marsh

PAGE 183

183 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 -218 -205 -200 -190 -186 -183 -183 -180 -180 -178 -177 -175 -172 -163 -154 -153 -149 -147 Average Water Level (cm) dHeight (cm) F igure B 10. Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora seedlings in 2007 at the PPW 3 marsh aBlack bars indicate seedling mortality and green lines indicate survival and change ( in seedling height (cm). -140 -120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 -219 -214 -211 -209 -207 -204 -200 -197 -194 -192 -190 -187 -186 -183 -181 -178 -170 -169 -161 -146 Average Water Level (cm) dHeight (cm) Figure B 11. Annona glabra seedlings in 2007 at the PPW 3 marsh

PAGE 184

184 -120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 -207 -199 -197 -193 -191 -188 -188 -186 -184 -183 -178 -177 -174 -172 -169 -167 -163 -162 -160 -149 -146 Average Water Level (cm) dHeight (cm) Figure B 12. Taxodium distichum seedlings in 2007 at the PPW 3 marsh -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 -219 -218 -218 -216 -214 -214 -211 -211 -207 -205 -204 -204 -187 -167 -162 -162 -151 -147 Average Water Level (cm) dHeight (cm) Figure B 13. Gleditsia aquatica seedlings in 2007 at the PPW 3 marsh -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 -218 -209 -202 -200 -197 -193 -191 -190 -180 -177 -174 -174 -172 -169 -158 -154 -151 Average Water Level (cm) dHeight (cm) Figure B 14. Cephalanthus occidentalis seedlings in 2007 at the PPW 3 marsh

PAGE 185

185 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 -209 -204 -202 -202 -200 -197 -195 -194 -192 -192 -188 -187 -184 -181 -177 -174 -173 -170 -165 -164 -154 Average Water Level (cm) dHeight (cm) Figure B 15. Itea virgin ica seedlings in 2007 at the PPW 3 marsh -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 -216 -202 -199 -197 -195 -193 -192 -187 -183 -183 -182 -179 -177 -177 -173 -170 -161 -154 -140 Average Water Level (cm) dHeight (cm) Figure B 16. Styrax americana seedlings in 2007 at the PPW 3 marsh

PAGE 186

186 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 -216 -212 -207 -205 -202 -198 -198 -193 -192 -190 -186 -183 -181 -179 -177 -175 -175 -173 -162 -160 -151 -146 Average Water Level (cm) dHeight (cm) Figure B 17. Hypericum fasciculatum seedlings in 2007 at the PPW 3 marsh

PAGE 187

187 LIST OF REFERENCES Brown, M. T., G. R. Best, D. Clayton, T. Bower, A. Kendall, A. Prado and J. Wiggington. 1997. Vegetation. Chapter 6 In: Erwin, K.L., S.J. Doherty, M.T. Brown and G.R. Best. Evaluation of Constructed Wetlands on Phosphate Mined Lands in Florida, Volume III. Florida Institute of Phosphate Research. Bartow, Florida. Brown, M. T., S. Carstenn, J. Baker, B. J. Bukata, T. Gysan, K. Jackson, K. Chinners Reiss, M. Sloan. 2002. Successional Development of Forested Wetlands on Reclaimed Phosphate Mined Lands in Florida. Volume 2. Florida Institute for Phosphate Research. Bartow, Florida Brown, M. T., W. Ingwersen, D. McLauglin, M. Boyd, S. King. 2008. Wetlands on Clay. Florida Institute of Phosphate Research. Bartow, FL. Bruce, K. A., G. N. Cameron, P. A. Harcombe, G. Jubinsky. 1997. Introduction, Impact on N ative Habitats, and Management of a Woody Invader, the Chinese Tallow Tree, Sapium sebiferum (L.) Roxb.. Natural Areas Journal 17(3): 255260. Burks, K.C. 1996. Adverse Effects of Invasive Exotic P lants on Florida's Rare Native F lora. Resource Manage. Not es 8(1):15 16. Callahan, J., O. Rivera, and B. Cates. 1991. Status Assessment of Reclaimed Clay Settling Areas with Forested and Herbaceous Wetlands. Florida Department of Natural Resources. Carstenn, S. M. 2002. Effects of Shading on Nuisance Spec ies in Constructed Forested Wetlands on Phosphate Mined Lands. In: Successional Development of Forested Wetlands on Reclaimed Phosphate Mined Lands in Florida. Florida Institute of Phosphate Research. Bartow, FL. Cates, B. and O. Rivera. 2001. Guidance in the Reclamation of Forested and Herbaceous Wetland on Clay Settling Areas. Florida Department of Environmental Protection and Bureau of Mine Reclamation. Tallahassee, FL. Chambliss, C. G., Ezenwa, I. V. 2002. Minor Use Summer Annual Forage Legumes. Florida Cooperative Extension Service SS -AGR 79. Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida. Gainesville, Fl. Clewell, A.F. and R. Lea. 1990. Creat ion and Restoration of F orested Wetland Vegetation in the S outheastern United States Pp. 195231 in Kuslar, J.A. and Kentula, M.E. (eds.). Wetland creation and restoration: the status of the science. Island Press,Washington, D.C. Clewell, A. F. 1999. Restoration of Riverine Forest at Hall Branch on Phosphate Mined Land, Florida Resto ration Ecology, Vol. 7(1). Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, E. T. La Roe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater H abitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

PAGE 188

188 DeLotelle, R. S., S.W. Fletcher, and A.N. Acuri. 1981. "Patterns of Wading Bird Utilization of Natural and Altered Freshwater Marshes," Progress in Wetlands Utlization and Management, Proceedings of a Symposium sponsored by the Coordinating Council on the Restoration of the Kissimmee River Valley and Taylor Creek. Dulohery, C. J., R.K. Kolka, and M. R. McKevlin. 2000. Effects of a Willow Overstory on Planted Seedlings in a Bottomland Restoration. Ecological Engineering Vol. 15, 5766. Everett, S. 1991. Growth of Ba ld Cypress and Pond Cypress Seedlings and the Effect of Nutrient Tablets. In: Odum, H. T., B. T. Rushton, M. Paulic, S. Everett, T. R. McClanahan, M. Munroe, R. W. Wolfe. 1991. Evaluation of Alternatives for Restoration of Soil and Vegetation on Phophatic Clay Settling Ponds. Florida Institute of Phosphate Research. Bartow, FL. Feiertag, J. 1990. Establishment of Atlantic White Cedar. In: Odum, H. T., G. R. Best, M. A. Miller, B. T. Rushton, R. Wolfe, C. Bersok, and J. Feiertag. 1990. Accelerating Na tural Processes for Wetland Restoration After Phosphate Mining. Florida Institute of Phosphate Research. Bartow, FL. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 1994. Wetland Status: Delineation of Extent of Wetlands and Surface Waters. Ch. 62 340. Florida Administrative Code. Godfrey, R. K. and Wooten, J. W. 1979. Aquatic and Wetland Plants of Southeastern United States University of Georgia Press Athens GA. Harrell, J. 1987. The Development of Techniques for the Use of Trees in the Reclamation of Phosphate Lands. Florida Institute of Phosphate Research. Bartow, FL. Hobbs, R. J., Arico, S., Aronson, J., Baron, J. S., Bridgewat er, P., Cramer, V. A., Epstein, P. R., Ewel, J. J., Klink, C. A., Lugo, A. E., Norton, D., Ojima, D., Richardson, D. M. Sanderson, E. W., Valladares, F., Vila, M., Zamora, R., and M. Zobel. 2006. Novel Ecosystems: Theoretical and Management Aspects of the New Ecological World O rder. Global Ecology a nd Biogeography 15: 1 7. Hook, D. D. 1984. Waterlogging Tolerance of Lowla nd Tree S pecies of the South. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 8 : 136 149. Ingwerson, W. 2006. Viability of Wetland Trees after Twenty Years on Phosphatic Clay Settling Areas and their role in ecosystem development. Thesis. University of Florida. Gai nesville, FL Invasive Species Specialist Group. 2004. Global Invasive Species Database Global Invasive Species Programme: Nairobi, Kenya.

PAGE 189

189 Jackson, K. M. 2002. Competition and Contributions of Pioneer Plants in Forested Wetland Succession after Phosph ate Mining. In: Successional Development of Forested Wetlands on Reclaimed Phosphate Mined Lands in Florida. Florida Institute of Phosphate Research. Bartow, FL. Kuzovkina, Yulia A. and Martin F. Quigley. 2005. Willows Beyond Wetlands: Uses of Salix L. Species for Environmental Projects. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution Vol. 162, 183204. Lippencott, CL. 2000. Effects of Imperata Cylindrica (L.) Beauv. (Cogongrass) Invasion on Fire Regime in Florida Sandhill (USA). Natural Areas Journal 20(2): 140 149. Matthews, John D. 1989. Silvicult ural S ystems. Oxford University Press, New York. McClanahan, T. 1983. A Preliminary Analysis of the Effects of Distance and Density of a Seed Source on the Fate of Natural Succession in Phophate Mined Lands. In: Odum, H. T., M. A. Miller, B. T. Rushton, T. R. McClanahan, and G. R. Best. 1983. Interactions of Wetlands with the Phosphate Industry. Florida Institute of Phosphate Research. Bartow, FL. McKevlin, M.R. 1992. Guide to Regeneration of B ottomland H ardwoods. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, General Technical Report SE 76 Asheville, NC. McLeod, K. W., M. R. Reed, and E. A. Nelson. 2001. Influence of a Willow Canopy on Tree Seedling Establishment for Wetlan d Restoration. Wetlands, Vol. 21, Issue 3. Myers, R. L. and J. J. Ewell (Ed). 1990. Ecosystems of Florida. University Press of Florida. Gainesville, FL. Odum, H. T., M. A. Miller, B. T. Rushton, T. R. McClanahan, and G. R. Best. 1983. Interactions of W etlands with the Phosphate Industry. Florida Institute of Phosphate Research. Bartow, FL. Odum, H. T., B. T. Rushton, M. Paulic, S. Everett, T. R. McClanahan, M. Munroe, R. W. Wolfe. 1991. Evaluation of Alternatives for Restoration of Soil and Vegetation on Phophatic Clay Settling Ponds. Florida Institute of Phosphate Research. Bartow, FL. Paulic, M. and B. T. Rushton. 1991a. Factors Influencing the Establishment of Hardwood Swamps on Clay Settling Ponds. In: Odum, H. T., B. T. Rushton, M. Paulic, S. Ev erett, T. R. McClanahan, M. Munroe, R. W. Wolfe. 1991. Evaluation of Alternatives for Restoration of Soil and Vegetation on Phophatic Clay Settling Ponds. Florida Institute of Phosphate Research. Bartow, FL. Paulic, M. and B. T. Rushton. 1991b. Longterm Success of Planted Wetland Trees in Clay Settling Ponds. In: Odum, H. T., B. T. Rushton, M. Paulic, S. Everett, T. R. McClanahan, M. Munroe, R. W. Wolfe. 1991. Evaluation of Alternatives for Restoration of Soil and Vegetation on Phophatic Clay Settling Po nds. Florida Institute of Phosphate Research. Bartow, FL.

PAGE 190

190 Paulic, M and B. T. Rushton. 1991c. Success of Seedlings Planted Under a Mature Canopy. In: Odum, H. T., B. T. Rushton, M. Paulic, S. Everett, T. R. McClanahan, M. Munroe, R. W. Wolfe. 1991. Evaluation of Alternatives for Restoration of Soil and Vegetation on Phophatic Clay Settling Ponds. Florida Institute of Phosphate Research. Bartow, FL. Reigner, W. R. and C. Winkler. 2001. Reclaimed Phosphate Clay Settling Area Investigation Hydrologic Model Calibration and Ultimate Clay Elevation Prediction. Florida Institute of Phosphate Research. Bartow, FL. Richardson, S.G., a nd R.A. Kluson. 2000. Managing Nuisance Plant Species in Forested Wetlands on Reclaimed Phosphate Mined L ands in Florida, p. 104 118. In P.J. Cannizzaro (ed.). Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference on Ecosystems Restoration and Creation. Hillsborough Community College, Tampa, Florida. Robertson, D. J. 1985. Freshwater Wetland Reclamation in Florida. Florida Institute of Phos phate Research. Bartow, FL. Rushton, B. T. 1983. Ecosystem Organization on Phosphatic Clay Settling Ponds. In : Odum, H. T., M. A. Miller, B. T. Rushton, T. R. McClanahan, and G. R. Best. 1983. Interactions of Wetlands with the Phosphate Industry. Flor ida Institute of Phosphate Research. Bartow, FL. Rushton B. 1988. Wetland Reclamation b y Accelerating Succession. Dissertation, University of Florida. Gainesville, Fl. Rushton, B. T. 1990a. Seedlings for Enhancing Wetland Succession. In: Odum, H. T., G.R. B est, M.A. Miller, B.T. Rushton, R. Wolfe, C. Bersok, and J. Feiertag Accelerating Natural Processes for Wetland Restoration After Phosphate Mining. Florida Institute of Phosphate Research. Bartow, FL. Rushton, B. T. 1990b. Seedlings of Hydric Swamp Species for Reclamation. In: Odum, H. T., G.R. B est, M.A. Miller, B.T. Rushton, R. Wolfe, C. Bersok, and J. Feiertag Accelerating Natural Processes for Wetland Restoration After Phosphate Mining. Florida Institute of Phosphate Research. Bartow, FL. Rushto n, B. T. 1991. Matching Tree Species to Site Conditions in Reclamation. In: Odum, H. T., B. T. Rushton, M. Paulic, S. Everett, T. R. McClanahan, M. Munroe, R. W. Wolfe. 1991. Evaluation of Alternatives for Restoration of Soil and Vegetation on Phophatic Clay Settling Ponds. Florida Institute of Phosphate Research. Bartow, FL. Southeast Regional Climate Center. Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary. Station Number 080478, Bartow, FL. sercc@climate.ncsu.edu Stanturf, John A.; Meadows, J. Steven 1994. Research Challenges And Opportunities To Enhance Ecological Functions In Forested Wetlands In: Roberts, Scott D.; Rathfon, Ronald A., eds. Management of Forested Wetland Ecosystems in the Central Hardwood R egion: a Regional

PAGE 191

191 Ecosystem Management W orkshop; 1994 October 11 13; Evansville, IN. Publ. No. FNR 151. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University, Department of Forestry and Natural Resources: 91 100. Stauffer, A. L. and R. P. Brooks. 1996. Salvaged Marsh Sur face and Organic Matter Amendments at a Created Wetland in Central Pensylvania. Wetlands 17(1): 90 Theriot, Russell F. 1993. Flood Tolerance of Plant Species in Bottomland Forests of the Southeastern United States. Wetland Research Program Technical Repo rt WRP DE 6. US Army Corps of Engineers (Waterways Experiment Station). Final Report. USDA. 2004. The PLANTS Database, Version 3.5. Baton Rouge, LA: National Plants Data Center. Van der Valk, A. G, P. Wetzel, E. Cline, and F. H. Sklar. 2007. Restoring Tree Islands in the Everglades: Experimental Studies of Tree Seedling Survival and Growth. Restoration Ecology Vol. 16 Issue 2 pp. 281289. Wolfe, R. W. 1990. Seed dispersal and Wetland Restoration. In: Odum, H. T., G. R. Best, M. A. Miller, B. T. Ru shton, R. Wolfe, C. Bersok, and J. Feiertag. 1990. Accelerating Natural Processes for Wetland Restoration After Phosphate Mining. Florida Institute of Phosphate Research. Bartow, FL.

PAGE 192

192 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Mary Caroline Boyd w as born in 1982 in Fredricksburg Virginia. She grew up in Rockingham, North Carolina, and completed high school at the North Carolina School of Science and Math in Durham, North Carolina She received her Bachelor of Science in Natural Resources from Nor th Carolina State University in 2004. She received her M.S. from the University of Florida in 2009.