Premium
Wetland Soil Carbon in a Watershed Context for the Prairie Pothole Region
Author(s) -
Phillips Rebecca L.,
Ficken Cari,
Eken Mikki,
Hendrickson John,
Beeri Ofer
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
journal of environmental quality
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.888
H-Index - 171
eISSN - 1537-2537
pISSN - 0047-2425
DOI - 10.2134/jeq2015.06.0310
Subject(s) - pothole (geology) , watershed , wetland , environmental science , context (archaeology) , hydrology (agriculture) , soil carbon , land use , water resource management , geography , soil water , ecology , soil science , geology , archaeology , computer science , biology , petrology , geotechnical engineering , machine learning
Wetland restoration in the Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) often involves soil removal to enhance water storage volume and/or remove seedbanks of invasive species. Consequences of soil removal could include loss of soil organic carbon (SOC), which is important to ecosystem functions such as water‐holding capacity and nutrient retention needed for plant re‐establishment. We used watershed position and surface flow pathways to classify wetlands into headwater or network systems to address two questions relevant to carbon (C) cycling and wetland restoration practices: (i) Do SOC stocks and C mineralization rates vary with landscape position in the watershed (headwater vs. network systems) and land use (restored vs. native prairie grasslands)? (ii) How might soil removal affect plant emergence? We addressed these questions using wetlands at three large (?200 ha) study areas in the central North Dakota PPR. We found the cumulative amount of C mineralization over 90 d was 100% greater for network than headwater systems, but SOC stocks were similar, suggesting greater C inputs beneath wetlands connected by higher‐order drainage lines are balanced by greater rates of C turnover. Land use significantly affected SOC, with greater stocks beneath native prairie than restored grasslands for both watershed positions. Removal of mineral soil negatively affected plant emergence. This watershed‐based framework can be applied to guide restoration designs by (i) weighting wetlands based on surface flow connectivity and contributing area and (ii) mapping the effects of soil removal on plant and soil properties for network and headwater wetland systems in the PPR. Core Ideas Wetland soil carbon varies with upland land use but not landscape position. Carbon mineralization rates vary with landscape position. Soil removal for wetland restoration may affect plant re‐establishment.