ArticlePloS one2024
Freshwater wetlands for flood control: How manipulating the hydroperiod affects plant and invertebrate communities.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Thoughtfully managed hydroperiods in natural and artificial wetlands could potentially provide a combination of desirable flood control services and high ecological functions. To explore how managed freshwater wetlands typical of the Houston, Texas area would respond to different hydrological regimes that might occur if wetlands were drained in anticipation of a heavy rain that did not materialize, we conducted a mesocosm experiment with six flooding depths and seven drought durations, followed by seven months of recovery. We found that the speed in which mesocosms dried out was a function of initial water depth, with mesocosms initially set with greater water depths (30 cm) taking ~ 38 days to dry out versus zero days for wetlands that were completely drained. Individual plant species (14 species planted; 8 species common at the end of the recovery period) were affected by drought length, flooding depth, or their interaction, although details of these responses varied among the species. The composition of the plant community at the end of the drought period was strongly affected by drought length, and the effect of the drought length treatment persisted through seven months of post-drought recovery, with the 80- and 160-day drought treatments diverging most strongly from shorter drought treatments. Above- and below-ground biomass of plants was not affected by the treatments, but above-ground dead biomass (litter) decreased with increasing drought length. Densities of mosquito larvae, snails and tadpoles were temporally variable, and were affected more during the treatment period and early in recovery than after a disturbance event late in recovery. Our results indicate that managed wetlands in southeast Texas would be quite resilient to dry periods of up to 40 days in duration, especially if water was not completely drained at the beginning of the drought. In addition, many species would persist in managed wetlands even with droughts of up to 160 days. This indicates considerable potential for managing the hydroperiods of artificial detention ponds by retaining water longer to increase ecological function, with little to no loss of flood control services, and for managing the hydroperiods of natural wetlands by draining them in advance of anticipated rains to increase flood control services, with little to no loss of ecological function.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.