Skip to main content

Table 4 Evidence ratings of the success of wet meadow restoration projects

From: Have wet meadow restoration projects in the Southwestern U.S. been effective in restoring geomorphology, hydrology, soils, and plant species composition?

  Characteristics of a functional wet meadow ecosystem
Article Suitable stream morphology Stable streambanks High water table Organic matter assimilation Perennial vegetation Presence of native fauna Total evidence rating
Anderson et al. 2003 [28] 4 3 2 N/A 3 N/A 12
Borgmann et al.[29] 1 1 3 N/A 3 3 11
Chambers and Lesh[29] N/A N/A N/A N/A 3 3 7
Godwin 2004 [30] N/A N/A N/A N/A 3 N/A 3
Hammersmark et al. 2009 [31] 3* N/A 3* N/A 4 N/A 10
Herbst and Kane 2009 [32] 3 3 N/A N/A 3 3 12
Holmquist et al. 2010 [33] N/A N/A N/A N/A 3 3 6
Key and Gish 1989 [34] 3 2 2 N/A 3 2 12
Long and Endfield 2000 [35] 2 2 2 N/A 2 1 9
Long et al. 2004a [36] 1 1 1 N/A 1 1 5
Long et al. 2004b [37] 4 3 2 N/A 3 3 15
Medina and Long 2004 [38] 3 3 2 N/A 3 2 13
Medina and Steed 2002 [39] 3 3 2 N/A 3 3 14
Norman and Immeker 2009 [40] 4 4 4 N/A 3 N/A 15
Plumas Corporation 2004 [41] 3 2 2 N/A 2 N/A 9
Plumas Corporation 2011 [42] 3 2 N/A N/A 2 3 10
Ramstead 2011 [23] 1 3 N/A 4 4 N/A 12
Rosen et al. 1999 [43] 3 3 3 N/A 1 N/A 10
Sierra Valley Resource Conservation District 2004 [44] 2 2 2 N/A 1 3 10
State of California 2005 [45] 1 1 1 N/A 2 4 9
Swanson et al. 1988 [46] 3 3 1 N/A 2 2 11
Szewczak 2004 [47] N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3 3
Vrooman 2004 [48] 3 3 N/A N/A 3 N/A 9
Vrooman 2005 [49] 3 2 1 N/A 3 N/A 9
Wilcox 2010 [50] 4 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A 8
Wildlife Fish Habitat Initiative 2008 [29] 2 3 2 N/A 3 3 13
Wolf and Cooper 2011 [25] 3** 3** 4 1 3 N/A 14
Average Rating 2.7 2.5 2.2 2.5 2.6 2.6 10.0
  1. *These are addressed more completely in a related study.
  2. **The desired floodplain morphology in this case was a stable floodplain surface without a defined stream channel.
  3. The six characteristics assessed are described in Table 1 and the rating system is described in Table 2.