Premium
Differences exist in bird communities using restored and natural wetlands in the Parkland region, Alberta, Canada
Author(s) -
Anderson Daina L.,
Rooney Rebecca C.
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
restoration ecology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.214
H-Index - 100
eISSN - 1526-100X
pISSN - 1061-2971
DOI - 10.1111/rec.13015
Subject(s) - wetland , species richness , ecology , abundance (ecology) , natural (archaeology) , environmental science , disturbance (geology) , species diversity , species evenness , shrub , geography , biology , paleontology , archaeology
Wetland restoration is used to compensate for historic and ongoing wetland losses. We compared bird community composition in 24 restored wetlands and 36 natural wetlands in the Parkland region of Alberta. Natural wetlands ranged in exposure to agricultural activity and were binned into three classes (low, medium, and high disturbance). Although the abundance and average species richness of birds were similar between restored and natural wetlands (analysis of variance: p > 0.22), the avian community composition differed significantly among wetland types (multiresponse permutation procedure [MRPP]: A = 0.05, p < 0.001). The avifauna using restored wetlands was distinct from the avifauna using natural wetlands spanning a range of disturbance levels ( A = 0.02–0.06; p ≤ 0.006). Notably, restored wetlands were surrounded by less shrub/forest cover and more open water than low‐disturbance, natural wetlands. The majority (58%) of species using the surveyed wetlands were not classified as wetland‐dependent. Interestingly, if only wetland‐dependent species are considered, the avifauna using restored wetlands is no longer distinctive (MRPP: A < 0.01, p = 0.187), although the abundance of wetland‐dependent birds was marginally higher in restored wetlands ( n = 24) than in low‐disturbance, natural wetlands ( n = 10; Tukey's honestly significant difference test: p = 0.041). Overall, restored wetlands had reduced beta diversity compared to natural wetlands, regardless of whether the avifauna were restricted to wetland‐dependent species or considered comprehensively. This draws into question the legitimacy of the assumption that restoration can fully offset continued losses of natural wetlands.