4.3 Article

VEGETATION AND WATER-TABLE RELATIONSHIPS IN A HYDROLOGICALLY RESTORED RIPARIAN MEADOW

期刊

WETLANDS
卷 29, 期 3, 页码 785-797

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1672/08-15.1

关键词

hydrologic model; MIKE SHE; northeastern California; pond and plug; stream restoration; vegetation community; wetland hydrology

资金

  1. University of California - Center for Water Resources [WR995]
  2. USDA US Geologic Survey [06HQGR0074]
  3. David and Lucile Packard Foundation [2001-16376]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We examined the relationship between water-table elevations and plant community distributions in a hydrologically restored riparian meadow. The meadow, adjacent to Bear Creek in northeastern California, experienced hydrologic modification due to pond and plug'' stream restoration. Plant species composition and cover were sampled within 128 plots, and a hydrologic model was used to simulate a three-year time series of water-table for each plot. TWINSPAN was used to classify the vegetation into four community types: Eleocharis macrostachya / Eleocharis acicularis, Downingia bacigalupii / Psilocarphus brevissimus, Carex nebrascensis / Juncus balticus, and Poa pratensis / Bromus japonicus. Nonmetric multidimensional scaling was utilized to investigate the relationships between community types and hydrologic variables. Community types were distributed along the hydrologic gradient at reasonably similar positions to those found in previous studies; however Carex nebrascensis, a species frequently used as an indicator of shallow water tables, occurred at greater water-table depths than reported in other studies. The range of water-table depths in this meadow was greater than previously observed, presumably due to the higher temporal resolution of water-table measurements, in addition to the intermittent nature of stream flow in Bear Creek. This study provides an increased understanding of the ecology of meadow communities, and can be utilized for improved design and objective setting in future restoration projects.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据