HARDWOOD WETLANDS THIRD MONITORING REPORT
THIRD MONITORING
REPORT FOR THE
QUANTUM PARK NON-JURISDICTIONAL
HARDWOOD WETLANDS
13 April 1989
by
Donald Richardson, ph D
Ecological Consultants
7301 Summerbridge Drive
Tampa, Florida 33614
Introduction
As specified in the Department of Environmental Regulation
Permit #501268889 under Specific Conditions Numbers 5 and 6, all
exotic vegetation will be removed from the nonjurisdictional
wetlands and replanted with hardwood swamp species. Specific
item Number 6 requires the locations, numbers and species of
plants that will be removed and a list of those to be installed
The following report details a plan to remove the existing punk
trees (Melaleuca quinquenervia) from both wetlands and the
recovery of the impacted areas
The southern wetland (2 2 acres) was dominated by two dense
stands (0 11 acres) of punk trees in the northwest corner and
we s t ern e d g e (F i g u r e l) A sma 11 erg r 0 up 0 f t r e e s we rea 1 so
found within a 20 foot band along the southeast and eastern edges
of the wetland.
As per the requ i remen ts establ i shed wi t hi n the Developmen t
Order, most of the fringing Melaleuca trees (ca 361) were
removed from the wetland by the general contractor Each tree
was removed from the berm wi th a front end loader and a chain
This would preclude the need for heavy equipment in the wetland
since the peat layers exceed 4 feet in many areas
The dense stands required special consideration since they
extend out into the wetland beyond the limits of the heavy
equipment A berm was constructed out into the wetland several
meters in order to reach the southern extent of the Melaleuca
head All berm materials were removed to existing grade to allow
germination from existing seed sources Under the present water
conditions, most of the naturally occurring herbaceous species
should germinate from the existing muck layers in the impacted
areas
Isolated trees within the wetland
treated with the herbic ide, Arsenal
(ca. 80 saplings) will be
This herbicide was
requested for use at Quantum Park by the Florida Department of
Agriculture. Arsenal has been used effectively for control of
Melaleuca and Brazilian pepper within Florida Prior to the
treatment of isolated Melaleuca trees, the water table within the
wetland will be slightly lowered to within a few inches of the
muck layer or applied during spring drought conditions All
treatments will be administered so that no herbicide reaches the
water table Application to Melaleuca will be done using the
frill/girdle technique as indicated in the Supplemental Labeling
r e p 0 r t ( E PAS L N No F L - 870011 ) for A r s e n a 1 . Sin c e mo s t 0 f the
trees are less than 6 inches in circumference, approximately 50%
of the bark will be removed and a cut made into at least two
growth rings Undiluted Arsenal will be brushed
Re-application may be required for those trees
killed during the first treatment
The above protocol for exotic removal
installation of some hardwood tree species.
in to
each cut
that are not
would require the
Approximately 48
,.
wetland trees were installed in the disturbed areas. A mixture
of pond apple (Annona glabra), bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) ,
wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), dahoon holly (Ilex cassine) and red
bay (persea palustris) were planted in the scarified areas All
trees (3 gallon nursery grown stock) were installed on 10 foot
centers.
Herbaceous species were allowed to germinate from seeds
stored in the muck layers After the area had been cleared of
Melaleuca, any exposed soil was lowered to grade elevations in
order to prevent Brazilian pepper colonization
The 3 8 acre wetland to the north and adjacent to the City
Park was dominated by 0 20 acres of dense Melaleuca (Figure 2)
Most of the existing Melaleuca trees (ca. 300-500 trees including
saplings) occurred in the southwest corner of the site and
average 3-8 inches dbh, becoming smaller to
remain ing trees were located in a small stand
corner of the site
The natural vegetation of this wetland is dominated by
several herbaceous species and scattered wax myrtles As stated
above, no herbaceous planting would be initiated unless natural
recruitment does not occur Approximately 89 trees were
installed in the former Melaleuca areas A mixture of the same
the ea st The
in the northeast
species as mentioned above were planted on 10 foot centers or in
small clumps to simulate natural swamp development
A maintenance program was initiated to curtail possible
exotic recruits or to further retreat those trees that might not
have been killed during the initial treatment with herbicide.
Since this herbicide will be applied during low water and by
hand, death the other woody species will be held to a minimal
level Maintenance will occur every 60 days in order to treat
new seedlings or to retreat saplings that were not killed during
the first application
All monitoring reports will be submitted to the developers
of the property for submittal to the required agencies
Monitoring will occur semi-annually for the first and second year
and at least one event will occur in the wet and dry portions of
the year A sampling program of line-transects and quadrats were
establ ished for each wetland A 50 meter I ine transect was
installed in each wetland from the shore of the wetland out into
the undisturbed portions All plant material breaking the plane
of the transect was recorded in order to detrmine percent cover
by species. In addition, 6 one meter square quadrats were
established along one side of each transect. Percent cover by
species will be recorded in order to monitor changes in the
wetland A plan view showing the location of the transects and
quadrats is included (Figures 1 and 2). Fixed photographic
sta t ions were es tabl i shed alo ng each tr an sect s with pho togra phs
of each quadrat Stations were also established at random
intervals along the edge of each wetland.
Monitoring reports will also include percent mortality of
treated exotics, percent cover by natural wetland species, and
survival data on planted trees
A m 0 nit 0 r in g pro g ram for the lit tor a Ish elf and ha r d wo 0 d
hammock plantings will also be included for all of the ponds
located within the project (Figure 16) A mixture of arrowhead
(Sagittaria lancifolia) , pickerelweed (pontederia cordata), soft
rush (Juncus effusus), fragrant white waterlily (Nymphaea
odorata) and spatterdock (Nuphar luteum) were installed in
specified areas around each of the eight ponds.
The banks were planted with a mixture of hardwood hammock
species that would add diversity to the lake systems Trees
species included pond apple (Annona glabra), red maple (~
rubrum), bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), swamp bay (persea
borbonia), and sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana). Understory herbs
and shrubs included swamp fern (Blechnum serrulatum), cinnamon
fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), Boston fern (Nephrolepis exaltata),
gallberry (~ glabra), Virginia willow (Itea virginica), and
buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis) All installed bank
species were well-watered by hand on a daily basis for several
months during the time when the irrigation system was being
installed. Percent survival and natural recruitment will be
discussed for each of the planted ponds.
RESULTS
/
WETLAND PRESERVE AREAS
To date, recovery of the scarified areas of former Melaleuca
has been excellent for both wetland preserve systems Natural
recruitment has been somewhat better in the southern wetland with
nearly 100% coverage of disturbed areas To control the growth
of unwanted weeds within the wetland due to the drought
conditions, the southern wetland was mowed and all weeds removed.
Transect data for the southern wetland indicates that 100%
oft he t ran s e c t 1 in e was co v e r ed wit h wet 1 and and t ran sit ion a 1
plant material (Figure 3) In the scarified areas, spikerush
(Eleocharis baldwinia), dogfennel (Eupatorium capi1lifolium),
arrowhead (Sagittaria lancifolia), marsh fleabane (Pluchea
rosea), red root (Lachnanthes caroliniana), Rhynchospora
In i c roca r pa, ma i d encane (Pan iCUIn hemi tomon), and Cyper us haspan
formed most of the above ground biomass (Table 1)
A total of 32
species were recorded along the transect for both the disturbed
and undisturbed portions of the marsh.
In the undisturbed portions of the transect, chain fern
(Woodwardia virginica), swamp fern (Blechnum serrulatum), royal
fern (Osmunda regalis), and buttonbush (Cephalanthus
occidentalis) were the dominant species
Percent cover estimates from one meter square quadrats
(Figures 4-6) indicate similar results as observed along the
transect (Table 2)
Spi ke rush and dogfennel was the dominant
ground cover species, followed by red root, marsh pennywort, and
hemp vine (Mikania scandens)
The ecotone or transition from the
disturbed area to the undisturbed marsh is sharp and well
defined.
Most of the disturbed area species are early
$
successional, pioneer species that require full sunlight in
contrast to the more shade adapted shrubs and ferns of the
undisturbed marsh.
Species richness is much reduced in the
undisturbed areas because of the lower light levels imposed by
the much taller vegetation
The presence of transitional weedy species is directly
related to the severe drought conditions
The entire wetland was
dry with some oxidation of oragnic material occurring in the gaps
created by the removal of punk tree
Recovery in the scarified portions of the northern wetland
(3 2 acre) have been somewhat slower because of the lack of
standing water to initiate rhizome/seed material in the soil
(Figure 7)
Species richness is similar with 29 species
recorderd along the transect, however, percent cover estimates
have increased slightly from the last report (Figures 8-10)
Seed bank replenishment in the scarified areas may have been
severely reduced since the area was dominated with mature
Melaleuca for many years The lack of understory vegetation, low
light levels, and the possible release of secondary inhibitory
chemicals from mature trees may have reduced the viability of
soil born seeds prior to Melaleuca establishment At any rate,
about 70-80% of the scarified area has been recolonized by native
wetland herbs
T ran s e c t d a t a sup p 0 r t s the 0 b s e r v ed d iff ere n c e sin co v e r
estimates About 93 1% of the 50 meter transect was occupied by
pIa n t mat e ria 1 and m u c h m 0 res 0 i 1 was e x po sed t h r 0 u g ho u t the
wetland than in the southern system Species richness was
similar, however, species composition was different (Table 3)
The northern wetland was covered with about 3-12 inches of
standing water during the last report This allowed the
establishment of more obligate wetland species such as arrowhead
<Sagittaria lancifolia}, pickerelweed (pontederia cordata), and
duck potato (Sagittaria latifolia) which are now stressed from
the dry soil conditions
Approximately 92% of the installed trees within the
scarified areas of the wetlands have survived. A few of the bays
have not responded from the initial shock of transplanting but
have resprouted from the base Bald cypress has flushed new
leaves for this season, while most of the hardwoods were in full
leaf with some growth despite the dry conditions
Of the original Melaleuca within the southern wetland,
nearly 100% of the trees have died following several Arsenal
a p p 1 i cat ion E a c h t r e e was g i r dIed and full s t r e n g t h A r s e an a 1
was applied to the cambial layers After approximately 4 weeks,
a second application was initiated on the trees that had not
died Since the second application, only a few seedlings have
germinated Most of the dead plant material was removed from the
wetland to encourage understory development
Treatment in the northern wetland has been better, about 40%
of the treated trees have died, however, very several hundred
seedlings have resprouted along the dry margins of the site
This may be directly attributed to the removal of more substrate
which contained Melaleuca seeds or sprouts whereas in the
so ut he r n wet land the deep muck layer s preven ted the removal of
soil borne seeds and sprouts A second application will be
applied within a few weeks to eliminate this pest species.
As indicated in the original monitoring scheme for these
wetland systems, photographic documentation along the edges of
each wetland was established. For the north wetland, photo plot
#1 (Figure 11, upper) was taken from the west bank looking east
a c r 0 s s t he t r an s e c t 1 i n e P ho to plot # 2 ( Fig u r e 11, 1 0 we r ) i s
looking north into the former deep water areas where cattails
have established Photo plot #3 was taken looking north
approximately 20 meters to the west of photo plot #2 on the south
bank (Figure 12, upper) Most of the punk trees and surrounding
brush will be removed within the next few months photo plot #4
(Figure 12, lower) was taken from the southeastern bank looking
o the east across the scarified area.
A few cat t ail s ha v e
l'
become established on the exposed muck near photo plot #4
Virtually no Melaleuca seedlings were visible in the northern
pho to pi 0 t s, however, man y seed 1 i ng s ha ve germina ted along the
southwestern corner of the site
In contrast, the southern wetland is far more accessible and
most of the photo plots were taken looking at the mature
vegetation, however, ruderal invasion along the top of bank has
been removed. Photo plot #1 was taken from the northwest corner
along the bike path looking east (Figure 13, upper) A small
stand of sawgrass and buttonbush occur in this portion of the
marsh Melaleuca sapling were visible during the last report,
but have been removed. Photo plot #2 is looking northeast from
the southwest bank into a former Melaleuca stand that was removed
(Figure 13, lower) Photo plot #3 is also looking north from the
south bank into an area that had scattered Melaleuca (Figure 14,
upper) Most of the trees along the southern edge of the south
wetland were removed by a chain attached to the bucket of a
front-end loader Very little disturbance of the muck was
noticed except for a few deeper holes that have been colonized
with arrowhead and other aquatics photo plot #4 (Figure 14,
lower) is 100 ki ng no r thwest into a fo rmer Mel al euca stand A few
Melaleuca saplings have resprouted from old tree roots left
behind after the trees were pulled from the swamp Most of the
area has been colonized by swamp fern, chain fern and some
primrose willow photo plot #5 (Figure 15, upper) was taken from
the north bank looking southwest into the scarified area of the
ransect.
LITTORAL SHELF AND HARDWOOD HAMMOCK PLANTING AREAS
Overall plant survival for the littoral shelf planting areas
has been about 95% for all species except for fragrant white
waterlily
About 90% of the planted area is colonized by a dense
stand of native wetland hydrophytes (Figure 14-22)
A few of the
ponds have not progressed as quickly as planned due to the
drought conditions during installation
Percent survival by species by pond is as follows
---------------------------------------------------------------
SPEC I ES POND #
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Arrowhead 10 95 90 90 100 100 100 30
Pickerelweed 15 100 100 100 100 100 100 45
Soft rush 10 90 95 90 97 88 93 32
Fragrant waterlily 75 55 20 30 10 10 3*
Spatterdock 16 30 45 55 100 100 2*
* - Fragrant whitelilies were installed and due to the high
alkalinity conditions of the ponds were mostly eliminated As a
test procedure, spatterdock was planted in a few locations to
determine success survival potential It was determined that
spatterdock survival was much higher (about 60%) and was planted
in all the ponds
---------------------------------------------------------------
Survival within ponds #1 and #8 are low due to the drought
conditions and low water levels at the time of planting and the
i n va s ion 0 f to r p ed 0 g r ass f 0 110 win g in s tall a t i on
Pond #1 was
never intended to be planted as the littoral area is only a few
fee wide
Po nd # 8 is do i ng bet ter and s ho uld improve once the
torpedo grass is under control
Some natural recruitment of
pickerelweed and arrowhead was observed within this pond at the
time of this report
Some of the soft rush and other desirable
species within these two ponds were out-competed by the dense
growth of torpedo grass This species tends to become a problem
plant within mitigation areas and can only be controled with the
use of herbicide which tends to brown some of the planted
species
The remaining ponds look in excellent conditions and
survival has been good Soft rush plants vary in size from 110-
120 cm with 100+ sterns per planting unit About 95% of the
plants were in flower and fruit Arrowhead growth has been
excellent New seedlings have colonized the unplanted portion of
the ponds and new recruits were visible in the wet soil along the
waters edge of the planting areas Plants range in size from 70-
120 cm with 10-30 stems per plant About 80% of the plants were
in flower Pickerelweed growth has been extremely good
throughout the ponds Plants vary from 40-90 cm with 5-15 stems
per planting unit About 85% of the plants were in flower and
some fruits were observed
Fragrant waterlilies have been able to colonize selected
areas of the pond system The high alkalinity has precluded
development in some of the planted areas plants vary from 10-15
leaves per planting unit and about 75% of the plants were in
flower As a replacement species, spatterdock was installed and
has begun to take control of the deeper water areas Plants are
healthy and new individuals are scattered throughout the ponds
About 60% of the plants were in flower and plants varied from 10-
30 leaves per plant.
Nuisance vegetation such as cattails, primrose willow and
torpedo grass has been systematically controlled with the use of
herbicide and hand removal The ponds have steadily improved
over the past several months and much of the rapid growth of
torpedo grass has been curtailed
Natural recruitment has been excellent for the pond system
The most common species include marsh pennywort (Hydrocotyle
umellata) coinwort (Centella asiatica), water hyssop (Bacopa
monnieri), red ludwigia (Ludwigia repens), Cyperus surinamensis,
spikerush (Eleocharis baldwinii and E vivipara), yellow canna
lily (Canna flaccida), smartweed (polygonum punctatum), and
maidencane (panicum hemitomon)
Despite the severe drought conditions, the hardwood hammock
species have responded favorably About 91% of the trees, 87% of
the shrubs and 89% of the herbaceous species have survived the
dry soil conditions even though irrigation has been provided
Most of the trees range in size from 5-6 feet with some
approaching 10 feet in height Once the canopy is able to
provide some shade, the understory herbs and shrubs will expand
in density along the bank. Some damage to the ferns has occurred
by weed-eating around planted species To reduce the stress
caused to the installed species, small flags were installed in
the locations of all herbaceous and woody shrub material This
will allow the plants to reach some height and possibly produce
some seed material this growing season Some additional damage
was observed from the use of herbicide that had drifted into the
hydric hammock zone Several meeting with the maintenance staff
h a v eel i m i n a t ed t his pro b 1 ern ex c e p tin are a s 0 f den set 0 r p e d 0
grass that may have colonized the banks
Gallberry shrubs range from 1-40 cm in height and were in
flower at the time of this report Virginia willow has reached
heights of 90 cm and some of the plants were in flower
Buttonbush has responded very well with some plants exceeding 5
feet in height About 30% of the plants were in flower
The herbaceous components of the banks have survived the
drought and most of the planting units have put on new growth
Some of the ferns have attained 60 cm in height and some spore
production was observed
Common associates include redroot (Lachnanthes caroliniana) ,
co inwort, marsh pennywort, creeping charl ie (Lippia nodi flora) ,
dogfennel, Cyperus surinamensis, hemp vine, Bermuda grass, rush
(Juncus megacephalus), small-fruited beak rush (Rhynchopsora
microcarpa), beggar's tick (Bidens alba), and mock Bishop's weed
(ptilimnium capillaceum) Natural establishment within the
hammock area will be slow until the banks become wet enough to
terminate some of the periodic mowing
SUMMARY
Recovery of the scarified areas within the nonjurisdictional
wetlands has been good despite the drought Percent cover
estimates show that the northern wetland has progressed at a
somwhat slower pace of recovery than the smaller southern
wetland Approximately 97% of the installed trees have survived
l'
and new growth was observed on most trees
Melaleuca germination
from seed or resprouts poses a problem in the northern wetland
and removal will be conducted by a professional firm in the next
few months Herbaceous recruitment has been good for both areas
espite dry soil conditions
Nearly 100% of the southern wetland
is covered by vegetation whereas the northern site is much
red uced
Soil moisture conditions and the loss of seed material
in the muck is directly linked with the lack of cover in the
northern wetland
Overall plant survival within the littoral planting areas
has been good except in ponds #2 and #8 with time and some
careful management this situation should improve Nuisance
vegetation has been regularly maintained within all of the ponds
and wildlife usage by wading birds, waterfowl, turtles,
alligators and other species has been good Maturity of the
hardwood hammock area will provide additional roost sites for
local bird species and cover for other local animal species
Hardwood development has progressed as expected for the
banks of the ponds The severe drought conditions have precluded
expansion and recruitment of species within this area, however,
most of the planting units have nearly doubled in size
Table 1
Percent cover estimates along a 50 meter transect
in the southern (2 2 acre) wetland
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Eleocharis baldwinii
Woodwardia virginica
Eupatorium capillifolium
Sagittaria lancifolia
pluchea rosea
Blechnum serrulatum
Lachnanthes caroliniana
Osmunda regalis
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Rhynchospora microcephala
Cyperus haspan
scoparia dulcis
Hydrocotyle umbel lata
panicum hemitomom
Mikania scandens
persea borbonia (planted)
Ludwigia repens
Lygodium japonicum
Sarcostemma clausum
panicum hemitomon
Cyperus strigosus
Rhynchospora microcarpa
Oiodia virginiana
Ludwigia octovalvis
Arnmannia coccinea
polygonum punctatum
Iris hexagona
peltandra virginica
Boehmeria cylindrica
Xyris jupicai
Rhexia cubensis
Cyperus surinamensis
Species
% Cover
Total % Cover
32
% COVER
1st Qtr
41 0
11 4
8 4
7 8
7 4
6 4
6 4
4 6
4 0
3 0
2.6
1 8
1 6
1 6
1 6
1 4
1.2
1 2
1 0
1 0
o 8
o 6
o 6
o 4
o 4
o 4
o 2
o 2
o 2
119 2 *
92.4
% COVER
2nd Qtr
44 1
12 2
6 3
6 9
7 3
6 1
8 1
3 8
4 2
4 1
2 8
1 9
1 5
1 7
1 6
1 4
o 9
1 2
1.0
1 3
1 0
o 7
o 8
o 2
o 6
0.4
o 3
o 2
o 3
1 1
1 2
125 2 *
93 5
% COVER
3 rd
49 0
11 6
8 9
9 1
6 0
5 3
11 4
2 2
4 1
3 9
8 3
2 1
5.6
1 8
1 7
1 5
1 1
1 9
1 4
2.1
1 0
1 1
o 4
o 2
o 2
o 7
o 1
o 2
o 5
2 1
1 8
157 3
99 3
* indicates species overlap along transect. Total percent
cover indicates what percentage of the transect was bare
so il
Tab 1 e 2
Percent cover by species for the 6 quadrats
in the southern wetland
Percent Cover by Species
Plot #
1 2 3 4 5 6
Species
Eleocharis baldwinii
Woodwardia virginica
Eupatorium capi11ifolium
Sagittaria lancifolia
Pluchea rosea
B1echnum serrulatum
Lachnanthes caroliniana
pontederia cordata
Osmunda rega1is
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Rhynchospora microcephala
Cyperus haspan
Scoparia dulcis
Hydrocoty1e umbel lata
Mikania scandens
Ludwigia repens
Lygodium japonicum
Salix caroliniana
Cyperus strigosus
Rhynchospora microcarpa
Diodia virginiana
Ludwigia octovalvis
Ammannia coccinea
Andropogon virginicus
panicum hemitomon
Cente11a asiatica
Eclipta alba
85
6
4
21
1
12
12
2
22
14
56
54
100 100 43
21 61 21
2 10
4 6
42 72 11
1
12 4
7 4
2
1 2 16
12 3 20
2
9
6
1 1
8
41
1
12
41
23
56
41
23
3
6
81
Total % Cover
100 100 100 100 100 100
65
10
8
10
6
25
5
19
9
12
6
11
4
4
10
31 4
2
Table 3. Percent cover estimates along a 50 meter transect
in the northern (3 2 acre) wetland
SCIENTIFIC NAME % COVER % COVER % COVER
1st Qtr 2 nd Qtr 3 rd Qtr
Eleocharis baldwinii 31 8 33 1 30 0
pontederia cordata 19 0 18 8 15 6
Sagittaria lancifolia 12 2 12 0 21 0
Ludwigia peruviana 11 2 14 2 8 9
Acrostichum danaeifolium 7 8 8 1 8 0
Woodwardia virginica 7 6 7 1 7 9
Sagittaria latifloia 4 6 5 3 4 1
Mikania scandens 3 8 4 2 6 9
Fuirena breviseta 3 4 3 0 4 9
Habenaria repen s 3 2 3 9 2 .1
Osmund a regalis 2 8 3 1 4 2
Lygodium j a po n i c urn 2 4 11 2 9 1
Centella asiatica 2 4 3 8 6 2
Hydrocotyle umb ella ta 2 2 3 0 5 1
Blechn urn serrulatum 2 2 2 9 1 9
Salix caroliniana 2 0 3 9 2 1
Mitreola pet io 1 at us 2 0 2 2 2 0
Ludwigia m ic roc arpa 2 0 2 4 3.9
Pluchea rosea 1 8 2 3 2 5
Sarcostemma clausum 1 6 1 4 1 5
Eupatorium capillifloium 1 4 1 6 3 6
Bacopa caroliniana 1 4 1 3 2 1
Diodia virginiana 0 8 0 9 0 1
Echinochloa crusgalli 0 8 0 4 0 1
Cyperus haspan 0 8 1 1 1 0
Ammannia coccinea 0 6 0 4 0 1
Lachnanthes caroliniana 0 2 0 6 1 2
Polygonum punctatum 0 2 0 5 0 9
Species 28 % Cover 132.2 * 152 7* 157 0
Total % Cover 88 9 91 0 93 1
* indicates species overlap Total percent cover indicates what
percentage of the transect was bare soil
Table 4. Percent cover by species for the 6 quadrats
in the northern wetland.
Species
Percent Cover by Species
plot #
1 2 3 4 5 6
Eleocharis baldwinii
Dichromena colorata
pontederia cordata
Woodwardia virginica
Eupatorium capillifo1ium
Habenaria repens
Centella asiatica
Sagittaria lancifolia
Xyris jupacai
Pluchea rosea
Blechnum serrulatum
Lachnanthes caroliniana
Ludwigia microcarpa
Proserpinaca pectinata
Echinochloa crusgalli
Mitreola petiolatus
Fuirena breviseta
Saururus cernuus
Hydrocotyle umbel lata
Mikania scandens
Ludwigia peruviana
Lygodium japonicum
Acrostichum danaeifolium
Salix caroliniana
Annona glabra
Hypericum cistifolium
panicum hemitomon
Bacopa caroliniana
Boco pa monn i er i
Total % Cover
10
4
31
16 9
18 12
11 16
2
3 2
65
12
7 89
10 6
4 6
2 3
9
1
1 1
3
1
3 1
3 3
3
2
3
1
1
3
3 3
35 20
93
100 94
15
3
1
3
38
7
8
3
4
3
2
87
4
10
6
2
1
15
91
5
3
43
3
4
4
20
3
1
31
21
9
2
1
2
6
99
31
1
4
3
42
24
6
100
Figure 1
,
Locatlon map of southern (2 2 acre wetland) showing
locatlon of transect, quadrats, and photo plots
------------- -- -'-~ -----.-----------
"30 ef'
1.\lt..llOO<
~ . ~'l' HaO.
~
~o
..-,./,- "'b-p
.0 ~
\J C 1-.0 ~
::r OJ c:>
0 0..
rt" ., -<11- 0
0 OJ
LO c-r /'-c..
., Vl ~
OJ
'"0 OJ ~-5-l
::r
0
() :J 1-
lQ
(./)
rt- r-
OJ
...... :J
({)
0
~ -I
III .,
OJ
~
Vl
ro
()
c-r
- .~'.2-=z. ,'..-
-___ ..... J:J'
~-- ~I~:,~;r:;;-!.~:~--~~
"' ,~Oo--,-:-::'_:".!.J- B 0 U L _ ~ :()
j ....,UJ------.;__~\I.1r,'o '--.... . '1,
<0 -"/;::-~ )-;;"~~
6~ I ~..;JC'l'-"- ,
"/- ,-'
g _ ~ J", -)~ '\
~ ..io~ "'~~ \
~ ~ ~\
- .' \.
\.:;
'0
~~.g ll~
;riE: 10
,...\;---\ ':I
-.6
\-;2 ,R
7" 1/;;
> r
c!:!~-.-.!~~ 'XC J #
CJ ) I
'I , \~ I - -~I
I -,
) - - In
- -:,
, I I ,-
-< -I I_L ::C~
rC;
!..z u()
00 c~
E~
Vl..., ~I - ~
"\ 0",
N -~
N I c
1 u
.... i ,
"
f'l
'11 -
:.
'" f OJ ;; 1
... I m ..
... A In >;
.. , I
'" . 0
... : N I
-0
o
(1
,..~-~dl
S~...2'~W o~
~ n
~ .
- -
.
;;
"
.
Q
\'" ~z
\~'
;1/8 .
-----~ - ,I ~' CM~ L
--;:~~ I - IF;'"'
J _--=---,~
\? ~- ,., ~ I~ n
9 9
.. 7 :
"" ~,~ :;
I -.. ~ ~ f ;;
~J :: : J~ - -
'-'--.= - ~ 'n
t 1- -
...... !: X I-
e
-----.------
d~\U ~-=::::S~2:;~-
_~ ja __'::~_~~:
...... ar 1"'I_r'l
0-,-0 :_0;
::!O~=~... ~
0- t 1 - C' -....
:...,..,.:.0_;....:.1
.;,~~{-?:~~
~ .
. \
~~~
I~
I
- ~ ,:
I~
,!'~'1
'}.-- .....
o~
-.
.,...~ n~~-
. -
::
Figure
2
Location
location
--
... .
-0 ..cD
;r C
0 PI
rt 0-
0 .,
lD ~.
., rt
p,l l/>
-0
;r PI
-'. -"
n 0
:::l
VI ~
rt
PI I
......
-'. :::l
0 Itl
:::l
l/> -;
.,
p,l
:::l
l/>
Itl
n
rt
,
It
~
'\
map of oortbern D 8 acre wetland) sho\onng
of transect, quadrats, and photo plots
----
~- t
------__~I
- ,
V n Jl
-~~I
-.
~
'>-.1
<-
-
-'
~
-'J1',~
_) ..:; l
l'V
~
..
- -'~"~'hl:~t:
~\\[:'~~
_/~ fr
;] . ..~. _ 'i,;,
, . < '-
. .......
~..>>_ -'-'..J~~\~ -; ...~
--'':--::''~.r:;'_~~ .........:
'I -':..:-', ~':~ :..
. ---, --7..: iJ~'
~r- -: :_ I~.
GII
I I 'r. ( "IJ
l r '1
, ,
---
--- "
F\' ~
J
) y. \ ~
.
~ \
I \ .0 r
l ~ \~ h' ""
rJ 1:>
;::J 'J \ ~
':') . ~ -
-\~ :}
.4 A :..;
~ -I - 7:
~ :. J
..
.
...-: -; ~ ~~
~ . ~
')~;. z.-<.
t~~
~ :1)' ~
.., 'i
...
,... :n .1 :::
.. I 0 ,
0 v:';
O,J
'" ,~
.---
~
j.
()
_ tP~\
~\
~\ ~\
.. ~
~
;... ..-
~l.ll tl \I
-HI"
~ '-af)r)1 U ''1'
t -
,
.... -... ..
- --
--------
I , I c: . - I I I r I.... .......
). " . . , c ;
" 1
~
>>
---------
-----
""0
C
~
A
~
n
I
:-Qr.=- -:2
.r
} -
t J~~
( - \: ~ J
- \1
I:~"~
~~- ~
I
J - '" \
I - C .
- - I Q
; .
~ ...:
-~
~
~ J~ L, t-
--,
~
~ ~
---~
Figure 3
,
\
Transect line in southern wetland looking from
quadrat #1 south to the undisturbed portion of
the wetland
Figure 4
Quadrat #1 (upper) and quadrat #2 (lower) along
transect in southern wetland
Figure 5
Quadrat #3 (upper) and quadrat #4 (lower) along
transect in southern wetland
figUt:e 6
Quad<at tS (Upped and quad<at .6 (1o",e<) along
t<ansect in southe<n ",etland
-------------
Figure 7
Transect line in northern wetland looking north
from quadrat #1 to the undisturbed portion of the
marsh
Figure 8
Quadrat n (Upped and quadrat P (lO",er) along
transect in northern ",etland
~----------------
"fi.gure <)
Quaarat \3 (Upper) ana quaa~at \4
transect in nortnern ~etlan
~ 10'-Nel:) along
--------------
Figure 110 Quadrat #5 (upper) and quadrat #6 (lower) along
transect in northern wetland
", .' ~t?:~.
. -.. ',,", ',.,.~' '. --~, - -"'~ , ->
. ;..'.', .. .. :'~".' .' :.. " .. c :~'.: v ': '." ' '. '. ,
. ",. :".J. -,' · '. '>ij: "." .. V, .'. 'q" ",'. ~c.
"~:;:-r;;"-~ ~.~' ~:->'" . ""(;Rt.t~\ ., .. .. '.'y, ..
..J'l'ic' , ,...... )< ",":;" ':"": '. ~\ J '~~ : " " . "k-: '. '*.
':'" ....~ "i.. ". . ",,,'. ~...)ti.l,. \ ... f, ~ ...,:...~~ '2'
. '. .. ", " . ".." . , "
..;.....' ....j.'. ", " ,.,."" ....
· ,,:.~ ". ....l....~. ". . . '.' '~,": ,f
",;,r,. :',;;': \...... . . ~,~ :.;l. -:',~ .:., "'.or.
i'rl~'>...T'..~ ~i~J'1. ,''-l'!\ \'f.~ >(. ': ','!_ ;'_ '.: ..#~ ~ ,"~;~'
'. ~..... . '1._ ,,~. , , ... .
. .' .1>-l., .$ " '. , ~ \ , '" ~,J , '-', . '-'" ... 'J . .' ,
'f . ",. '..' -<, .. . j~J... -"" ,'" .. I . . ....... f '.
. .. ~:. . .;'. :. '<'~ '.'';'' ~:.. U';..e},~ ~. ,:~\ '" ~.; / '. C.; ,,~~...'
{', " '." " . ~ 2' ':'i.~. " .:\ --I"i ...... ~J'_,,";~ .t:~..,-
.. l., .., " ,'..,.... I.. '" \ , ", '.. ~" . , . .....~" .
" ...",\ '. - i, "'~... "..~ ,", '~,..:. . -;:. + ,::~, '1',
i1.... ''''I','' "', " 'c';\<!.' ~ '-(., '" ". . ,. "".' ". ", ,.F
"',' ,t. ""',: . ':,' C .t. '\( ......,.,", ~" .. '. ", ""1
~\~. .. ,., I . r.... .. . ,;..~. :\i,..;),.. . :..',..:. -;"':'.~..
-";'"i"; .,. :.. <.'; _ > ~ ';'~, ,\,.-;. "~.)!:;.~:);-,~ :~:
i;: . . I /' \ _ ,~~ .. _ _ ' . Ll '. "., .
'." ~;, ., i '>Ii- ..'...~< j -^: r;i:~":, ~,
'."=\'.,~ .l'$ ~"M'<").,:'---'" <\". /: ~'-'-''':'':'''\':i
'. "-".;." J. " I... \- '-",w
' ".' "" ". " " ,-." .,'w"..
.., /'IT ~'~,-"~'1 :..,>,,',1 J (:'.:...,' ~,'... <\.--;;..~~~~'\;\;.
' \, ; , ;, .. " " " """ ., .. ",. ".." ,
' · ... i I " ; ',;:i'-\ ;.
\ ~'~'-. '-, f 1, ,1: ...."
_~\ ! 1 ,',
'~ ~ t
.~. '
Figure 11 Photo plot #1 (upper) and photo plot #2 (lower)
in northern wetland
Figure 12 photo plot #3 (upper) and photo plot #4 (lower)
in northern wetland
Figure 13 photo plot #1 (upper) and photo plot #2 (lower)
in southern wetland
Figure 14
pM to plot t3 t uppe<) and pM to plot H t lo"e<)
in nortnern wetland
---------------
--------------------
FigU<e 15 photO plot ~5 in southern wetland
.---------
Figure 16
Location map of the planted ponds within the
Quantum Park project
~,
I"
iD
o
II
II
I'
II
II
II
1\
: II'
, \
Ii
Ii
i
,
~"
1 i
,
'-
I
d,;
~
Figure 17
Entrance pond #1 showing poor littoral shelf
establishment
Figure 18
Figure 19
Littoral zone establishment around Pond #2
..;e..
"'f.t~~":.:~.~,:~~_~
...- ~..... ur
"- .
....
~ ~~:;'l ~lt:~~
..,' ,
Littoral zone of pond #3
Figure 20
Figure 21
Littoral shelf establishmnet and hammock
development along Pond #4
Littoral zone around Pond #5
--- -
Figure 22
Figure 23
Littoral zone around Pond #6
Littoral zone development around Pond #7
Figure 24
Littoral zone around Pond #8 showing poor
establishment