東華大學圖書館 |

Evaluating Mitigation Sites in Carolina Bay Wetlands that Were Previously Converted to Agriculture.

紀錄類型:	書目-電子資源 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	Evaluating Mitigation Sites in Carolina Bay Wetlands that Were Previously Converted to Agriculture./
作者:	Moritz, Christopher Michael.
出版者:	Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, : 2021,
面頁冊數:	339 p.
附註:	Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 83-03.
Contained By:	Masters Abstracts International83-03.
標題:	Water quality. -
電子資源:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=28688451
ISBN:	9798544205241

Evaluating Mitigation Sites in Carolina Bay Wetlands that Were Previously Converted to Agriculture.
Moritz, Christopher Michael.

Evaluating Mitigation Sites in Carolina Bay Wetlands that Were Previously Converted to Agriculture. - Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2021 - 339 p.

Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 83-03.

Thesis (M.S.)--North Carolina State University, 2021.

This item must not be sold to any third party vendors.

Restoring wetlands in the Southeastern United States Coastal Plain is extensive, however, methods for evaluating ecological success of the mitigation projects have not been established for Carolina Bay Wetlands (CBWs) that previously experienced agriculture. The objective of this research was to develop a Rapid Assessment Tool (RAT) that was based on C sequestration, which could be used to evaluate the quality of wetland restoration sites of different ages. The RAT needed to be quantitative, based on properties that were easily measured onsite, accounted for differences in hydrology and ages of the sites, and required no laboratory analyses. The main study site was Juniper Bay (JB), a CBW that had been restored for 15yrs following its use for agriculture. Plots were placed where previous studies determined pre-restoration soil properties and post-restoration hydrology. Vegetation at JB was characterized by determining vegetation type, and tree basal area and height. Hydrology indicators were collected at each sample location. Plots were grouped by saturation duration that occurred within 30cm of the soil surface: <14, 14-50, 51-100, and 101-225 consecutive days during the growing season. Where saturation occurred for >101d, tree basal area and height decreased 40-69% compared to where saturation occurred for shorter periods. Areas that experienced saturation for <51d contained trees that were 10cm larger in diameter, had 97-98% more shrubs and vines, and contained 68- 96% less graminoids than areas that had saturation for 101- 225d. Results showed that the number of hydrology indicators increased 50% going from <14 to 101-225d of saturation. Because plant species, as well as, abundance changed with hydrology across this restoration site, assessing vegetation at restoration sites must be done with regard to saturation durations that occur at the site. In addition, tree basal area and potential tree height were thought to be reliable indicators to use as part of the RAT to assess restoration quality.Soil organic C (SOC) dynamics were also determined at JB at the same plots used to characterize vegetation. Hydric soil indicators (HSIs), litter layer thickness, and SOC to 75cm were determined. Sampling plots were grouped by soil type: mineral or organic. There was a significant (p0.1). The litter layer was 29% thicker in the organic soils when compared to the mineral soils. Soil OC decreased 49% (370 vs. 190 Mg C/ha) in the mineral soils and 24% (880 vs. 670 Mg C/ha) in the organic soils following restoration. Soil OC concentrations in the restored JB were not significantly different than those found in reference wetlands for both soil types. Litter thickness was proposed to measure as part of the RAT.To develop the RAT, litter layer thickness, tree basal area, tree height, hydrology indicators, and general soil type were assessed from nine CBWs whose restoration ages ranged from 0-23yrs. In general, all variables were collected within a variable radius plot using a 10- factor prism. Plots were placed into the same Saturation Groups mentioned above.

ISBN: 9798544205241Subjects--Topical Terms:

556913
Water quality.

Evaluating Mitigation Sites in Carolina Bay Wetlands that Were Previously Converted to Agriculture.
LDR:04222nmm a2200349 4500 001 2342401
005 20220318093134.5
008 241004s2021 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9798544205241
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI28688451
035 $a (MiAaPQ)NCState_Univ18402038859
035 $a AAI28688451
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a Moritz, Christopher Michael. $3 3680760
245 1 0 $a Evaluating Mitigation Sites in Carolina Bay Wetlands that Were Previously Converted to Agriculture.
260 1 $a Ann Arbor : $b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, $c 2021
300 $a 339 p.
500 $a Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 83-03.
500 $a Advisor: Vepraskas, M. J.;Ricker, Matthew;King, John.
502 $a Thesis (M.S.)--North Carolina State University, 2021.
506 $a This item must not be sold to any third party vendors.
520 $a Restoring wetlands in the Southeastern United States Coastal Plain is extensive, however, methods for evaluating ecological success of the mitigation projects have not been established for Carolina Bay Wetlands (CBWs) that previously experienced agriculture. The objective of this research was to develop a Rapid Assessment Tool (RAT) that was based on C sequestration, which could be used to evaluate the quality of wetland restoration sites of different ages. The RAT needed to be quantitative, based on properties that were easily measured onsite, accounted for differences in hydrology and ages of the sites, and required no laboratory analyses. The main study site was Juniper Bay (JB), a CBW that had been restored for 15yrs following its use for agriculture. Plots were placed where previous studies determined pre-restoration soil properties and post-restoration hydrology. Vegetation at JB was characterized by determining vegetation type, and tree basal area and height. Hydrology indicators were collected at each sample location. Plots were grouped by saturation duration that occurred within 30cm of the soil surface: <14, 14-50, 51-100, and 101-225 consecutive days during the growing season. Where saturation occurred for >101d, tree basal area and height decreased 40-69% compared to where saturation occurred for shorter periods. Areas that experienced saturation for <51d contained trees that were 10cm larger in diameter, had 97-98% more shrubs and vines, and contained 68- 96% less graminoids than areas that had saturation for 101- 225d. Results showed that the number of hydrology indicators increased 50% going from <14 to 101-225d of saturation. Because plant species, as well as, abundance changed with hydrology across this restoration site, assessing vegetation at restoration sites must be done with regard to saturation durations that occur at the site. In addition, tree basal area and potential tree height were thought to be reliable indicators to use as part of the RAT to assess restoration quality.Soil organic C (SOC) dynamics were also determined at JB at the same plots used to characterize vegetation. Hydric soil indicators (HSIs), litter layer thickness, and SOC to 75cm were determined. Sampling plots were grouped by soil type: mineral or organic. There was a significant (p0.1). The litter layer was 29% thicker in the organic soils when compared to the mineral soils. Soil OC decreased 49% (370 vs. 190 Mg C/ha) in the mineral soils and 24% (880 vs. 670 Mg C/ha) in the organic soils following restoration. Soil OC concentrations in the restored JB were not significantly different than those found in reference wetlands for both soil types. Litter thickness was proposed to measure as part of the RAT.To develop the RAT, litter layer thickness, tree basal area, tree height, hydrology indicators, and general soil type were assessed from nine CBWs whose restoration ages ranged from 0-23yrs. In general, all variables were collected within a variable radius plot using a 10- factor prism. Plots were placed into the same Saturation Groups mentioned above.
590 $a School code: 0155.
650 4 $a Water quality. $3 556913
650 4 $a Agriculture. $3 518588
650 4 $a Vegetation. $3 3560047
650 4 $a Agricultural commodities. $3 3562094
650 4 $a Soil sciences. $3 2122699
650 4 $a Biogeochemistry. $3 545717
650 4 $a Success. $3 518195
650 4 $a Carbon. $3 604057
650 4 $a Seasons. $3 523975
650 4 $a Farms. $3 3221144
650 4 $a Environmental restoration. $3 3564335
650 4 $a Trees. $3 516384
650 4 $a Hydrology. $3 545716
650 4 $a Clean Water Act-US. $3 3680761
650 4 $a Coastal plains. $3 3680762
650 4 $a Wetlands. $3 530463
650 4 $a Water resources management. $3 794747
650 4 $a Ecology. $3 516476
650 4 $a Laboratories. $3 531588
650 4 $a Science. $3 516376
690 $a 0481
690 $a 0473
690 $a 0425
690 $a 0595
690 $a 0329
710 2 $a North Carolina State University. $3 1018772
773 0 $t Masters Abstracts International $g 83-03.
790 $a 0155
791 $a M.S.
792 $a 2021
793 $a English
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=28688451