Next Article in Journal
Cryptic Triploids and Leaky Premating Isolation in an Odontophrynus Hybrid Zone
Previous Article in Journal
Factors of Detection Deficits in Vascular Plant Inventories—An Island Case Study
Previous Article in Special Issue
Fatty Acid Changes in Nearshore Phytoplankton under Anthropogenic Impact as a Biodiversity Risk Factor for the World’s Deepest Lake Baikal
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Biodiversity Monitoring of a Riparian Wetland in a Mixed-Use Watershed in the Central Appalachians, USA, before Restoration

by
Darien N. Becker
1,2,
Jason A. Hubbart
3 and
James T. Anderson
4,*
1
School of Natural Resources, West Virginia University, 1145 Evansdale Drive, Morgantown, WV 26506, USA
2
Welty Environmental Center, 1201 Big Hill Court, Beloit, WI 53511, USA
3
Division of Forestry and Natural Resources, West Virginia University, 322-B Percival Hall, Morgantown, WV 26506, USA
4
James C. Kennedy Waterfowl and Wetlands Conservation Center, Belle W. Baruch Institute of Coastal Ecology and Forest Science, Clemson University, P.O. Box 596, Georgetown, SC 29442, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Diversity 2022, 14(4), 304; https://doi.org/10.3390/d14040304
Submission received: 10 March 2022 / Revised: 8 April 2022 / Accepted: 11 April 2022 / Published: 17 April 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Aquatic Restoration Ecology and Monitoring)

Abstract

:
Wetland mitigation efforts have increased in numbers over the past two decades to combat wetland loss in the United States. Data regarding wetland function such as biodiversity are required to be collected 5–10 years after a project is complete; however, pre-restoration data that can inform the effectiveness of mitigation are often not collected. We conducted pre-restoration surveys on various taxa along or within Ruby Run, a tributary of Deckers Creek in north-central West Virginia, USA, from 2016 to 2020 to determine the baseline relative abundance and diversity within the stream and the associated riparian zone. In five years, we observed 237 species (154 plant, 58 bird, 13 fish, 6 small mammal, and 6 anuran) and 25 families of macroinvertebrates. Seasonal fluctuations in diversity were present, but mean diversity was relatively consistent among years across taxa, except in anurans, where there was a decrease each year. Wetland mitigation efforts should continue to be monitored for success using multiple taxa, because land use change can affect taxa in different ways, resulting in well-rounded assessments that can improve wetland management practices.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Wetlands are among the most valuable ecosystems in the world [1,2]. Between 1986 and 1997, after the establishment of the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986, there was a recorded net loss of 256,600 ha of freshwater wetlands due to land use changes such as rural (21%) and urban (30%) development as well as agriculture (26%) and silviculture (23%) in the United States [3]. Since 1970, the greatest losses of wetlands have occurred in Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas, Florida, and the Carolinas [1]. In West Virginia, 24% of historical wetlands have been lost due to anthropogenic change [4]. Most wetland losses in West Virginia have been due, at least in part, to agricultural land use change, where wetlands were drained and filled to make the land more suitable for crop production [1]. Coal mining also has historically been one of the more common anthropogenic changes in the Central Appalachian region since World War II, where natural forests were cleared for surface mines thereby altering wetland numbers and extent [5,6].
Riparian wetlands have been accepted as important migration corridors and stopovers and are regularly used by many mammals, herpetofauna, fish, birds, and invertebrates throughout the world for breeding and foraging as well as safe havens for rearing offspring [7,8,9]. Land managers have been creating and restoring riparian wetlands through mitigation efforts over the last two decades to decrease the rate of wetland loss in the United States [3,10,11,12].
It is essential to periodically assess created and restored wetlands for their ecological diversity to ensure successful restoration practices. Vegetative community structures within created wetlands have been, on average, 26% lower than reference sites [2], and studies have showed that restored wetlands have significantly lower vegetative cover than natural wetlands [13,14]. Studies have alternatively found that mitigated wetlands have a higher diversity and abundance of wetland vertebrates (e.g., birds and anurans [15,16,17]) and provide similar or better wetland functions than reference wetlands [18,19,20,21,22]. Few studies have evaluated multiple taxa, and even fewer have evaluated faunal and floral response before, during, and after restoration, which could assist managers in identifying possible challenges and improvements to wetland mitigation.
In 2017, a headwater dam of Deckers Creek in Preston County, West Virginia, USA, was renovated to increase the water capacity of the impoundment. Because of the natural riverine wetland loss in this project, the West Virginia Conservation Agency planned a mitigation project on Ruby Run, a tributary of Deckers Creek that flows through pasture at the JW Ruby Research Farm in Preston County to compensate for the wetland loss. Six cover treatments, with two replicates of each (i.e., twelve treatment areas) were proposed within the riparian zone of Ruby Run and used to delineate areas for faunal and floral sampling (Figure 1).
The primary objective of this research was to establish a baseline of relative abundance and diversity for plant and animal taxa within the Ruby Run riparian wetland. These baseline data will be used to quantify the ecological response to restoration activities conducted during summer 2021 and continuing into spring 2022 in Ruby Run, demonstrate how surveys for multiple taxa can be obtained in one area, and provide a characterization of the diversity and abundance of species occupying a typical central Appalachian mixed-use watershed. Specific monitoring objectives included: (1) quantifying the year-round relative abundance and diversity of birds; (2) determining the annual relative abundance and diversity of wetland macroinvertebrates, small mammals, and anurans; (3) documenting annual plant diversity and relative abundance; and (4) identifying annual changes in in-stream community composition (i.e., fish and invertebrates). With these baseline data, we hypothesized there would not be a significant difference in biodiversity or vegetative composition after the wetlands and riparian zones had five years to undergo succession. Once cover treatments are applied, post-restoration data can be used to relate observed biological response to patterns in physicochemical conditions and restoration treatments, as we carefully placed survey points and monitoring plots of select taxa to facilitate monitoring after restoration.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

We conducted our study along Ruby Run, a tributary of Deckers Creek, at the JW Ruby Research Farm (hereafter “the Farm”) that falls within the Upper Deckers Creek watershed, a Hydrologic Unit Code 12 watershed that covers 7778 ha in Preston County, West Virginia, USA, and encompasses 89.9 km of stream (Deckers Creek headwaters and its tributaries). Deciduous forests, palustrine wetlands (emergent, unconsolidated bottom, forested, and scrub–shrub), and rivers have been significantly fragmented and altered from agriculture. Developments of varying intensities also have impacted the watershed.
Elevation at the Ruby Run study site ranges from 517 to 524 m [23]. Soil is classified as silt loam, primarily Atkins silt loam, with lesser amounts of Ernest silt loam and Brinkerton Series [24]. The underlying geology is composed of sandstone, shale, clay, coal, and limestone [25].
Climate data were obtained from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) online weather repository from the Morgantown, West Virginia airport, located approximately 22.5 km from the study site [26]. The historic climate (1980 to 2020) of the local area is characterized by hot summers (i.e., hottest monthly mean temperature >22 °C), cold winters (i.e., coldest monthly mean temperature <0 °C), and no dry season (i.e., Dfa climate type; [27]). The long-term annual average precipitation is approximately 106 cm, and annual averages of daily maximum and minimum temperatures are approximately 17 °C and 6.3 °C, respectively [28]. July is the hottest and wettest month, with an average daily temperature of 23 °C and average monthly precipitation of 11.7 cm. January is the coldest month, with an average daily temperature of −0.4 °C, and February is the driest month with average monthly precipitation of 6.6 cm (28). During the period of study (2017 through 2020), the average air temperature (°C) ranged from 12.4 °C to 13.0 °C for 2018 and 2020, respectively (Figure 2). The minimum air temperature ranged from 0.2 °C to 2.1 °C in 2017 and 2020, respectively. The maximum air temperature ranged from 23.3 °C to 25.5 °C in 2017 and 2020, respectively. The total precipitation ranged from 1033 (mm) to 1389 mm in 2020 and 2018, respectively (Figure 3).
Ruby Run is an unnamed tributary of Deckers Creek that is 1.62 km in length, with 65% of Ruby Run flowing through the Farm, and the remaining 35% of the stream flows through hardwood forest further upstream directly outside of the Farm boundary. In 2010, fencing was installed around 679 m (0.73 ha) of Ruby Run that protects approximately 2.22 ha of palustrine emergent wetlands and upland riparian areas from constant cow disturbance, ranging from 22 to 91 m of riparian buffer area on either side of the stream, where most of the wetland area is located on the west side of the stream channel and continues into the pasture outside of the fenced area, with some wetland area located on the east side. Cattle are allowed into the fenced area for limited periods of grazing and access to water during the summer. Fall mowing around the fences also occurs to maximize access for repairs. Ruby Run is a first-order headwater stream of Deckers Creek, so the stream is narrow (mean ± SE width: 2.44 ± 0.32 m) and shallow (mean ± SE depth: 25.37 ± 4.23 cm) with increasing water depth and fine, mucky substrate further downstream compared to upstream, where channel braiding is present, and most large riffles are located with larger rocks and cobble substrate.
This area is representative of similar mixed farm–woodland headwater streams and riparian habitats within the central and southern Appalachian regions. These regions are the focus of the Appalachian Landscape Conservation Cooperative, a regional effort with the goal of promoting larger contiguous deciduous forest landscape and improving stream water quality [29]. Agricultural land use makes up 26% of the region, and forested riparian areas are promoted as a best management practice; however, the effectiveness of this best management practice can vary based on factors such as adjacent land use, stream size, and topography [29,30].
Stream habitat degradation within the Upper Deckers Creek watershed primarily results from coal mining (i.e., acid mine drainage [31]). Acid mine drainage from active and abandoned surface and underground mines lead to lower water pH and higher concentrations of contaminants such as iron oxide and selenium [32], which directly affect organisms such as macroinvertebrates [33,34]. Treatments such as limestone channels and settlement ponds were applied since 2002 and receiving waters have improved in terms of water quality and macroinvertebrate and fish diversity and abundance [35].

2.2. Bird Surveys

To determine bird use of wetlands, we conducted five ten-minute, 50 m radius point count surveys monthly from 2018 to 2020. We used removal sampling methods during each point count survey, where individuals were only accounted for at first detection (either visual or auditory) to avoid double-counting individuals [36,37]. Survey locations were about 250 m apart along Ruby Run to prevent counting the same individuals between surveys [38]. We ensured all surveys were conducted no earlier than sunrise and no later than four hours after. We did not conduct surveys during periods of precipitation or on mornings with winds >11 km/h to prevent decreased detection rates [39]. We randomized the order of conducting point counts (starting upstream or downstream) to decrease time-of-day effects on detection.
We obtained detection and non-detection data using visual and auditory observations from the 50 m radius. Because of how narrow the wetland area was, the 50 m radius sometimes included birds using adjacent agriculture or forested areas. For each point count location, we recorded the date, time, temperature (to the nearest degree Celsius), level of noise disturbance, wind, and sky condition [40]. We also recorded whether each bird was present within one of the twelve proposed vegetative cover treatment areas using cursory maps to elucidate wetland area used after the treatments are implemented (Figure 1).

2.3. Wetland Macroinvertebrate Sampling

We sampled benthic macroinvertebrates at five locations that generally contained standing water within the riparian wetland along Ruby Run from 2018 to 2020 using a 5 cm diameter handheld PVC core sampler (with samples taken to a depth of 15 cm [41]). At each visit, we collected five randomly located benthic core samples at each of the five locations between the stream and fence, as determined using a random point generator in ArcGIS (v. 10.7, ESRI, Redlands, CA, USA). We collected samples quarterly (February, May, August, and November) to account for seasonal fluctuation. We refrigerated soil core samples until analysis and sorted samples within one week of collection. Macroinvertebrates were preserved in 70% ethanol [41]. We identified and enumerated individuals to family (except earthworms [42]) for each soil core sample.

2.4. Small Mammal Surveys

We assessed temporal variation in small mammal relative abundance and diversity from 2017 to 2020 with Sherman live traps (5.1 cm × 6.4 cm × 16.5 cm, H.B. Sherman Traps, Tallahassee, FL, USA) placed 10 m apart along a 20 m × 50 m transect grid (3 rows of 6 traps each (18 traps total)) within each of the 12 proposed cover treatment areas (216 traps total). Transect rows were located parallel to the stream at <1 m, 5 m, and 15 m, and transect grids were placed 50 m from each other. We baited traps with an oatmeal and peanut butter mixture wrapped in wax paper [43] along with 20 dried mealworms to attract insectivores (e.g., short-tailed shrews (Blarina brevicauda)) and enhance the survival of captured individuals [44]. Every 24 h for 3 consecutive nights, we checked and rebaited traps if bait was missing. Trap sessions occurred once a month from May to September.
We marked shrews on their tails with unique color combinations of nail polish [45] and equipped all other captured animals with #1005-1 Monel ear tags (National Band and Tag Company, Newport, KY, USA) to determine recapture rates. Recapture rates were calculated as the total number of new living individuals captured in a year divided by the number of unique individuals (living or dead) captured [46].
With each capture, we took note of the date and time of capture, trap number, ear tag number or color combination, species, sex, and mass of each animal. We scheduled trap days according to weather forecasts provided by the National Weather Service to avoid trapping on severe cold, hot, or rainy days to reduce mortality [47,48]. We took proper precautions against Hantavirus according to Mills et al. [49] and Kelt and Hafner [50].

2.5. Anuran Surveys

We evaluated anuran communities from 2017 to 2020 using nocturnal call count surveys. We followed standardized protocols developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (outlined by Balcombe et al. [16]) when conducting surveys, where air temperatures could not be lower than 5.5 °C and the wind code could not exceed wind code 3 (17.7 km/h [40,51]). We conducted point count surveys once in late February; twice monthly during March, April, and May; and once in early June to account for temporal breeding differences among species. We randomized the order of conducting surveys (starting upstream or downstream) for each visit to account for species that call at different times in the evening.
For each survey, we allowed a two-minute acclimation period followed by a five-minute listening period, where we assigned a Wisconsin Index (WI) value [52] to each species heard according to call intensity [16]: 1 indicated non-overlapping calls and an exact count of individuals could be made, 2 indicated overlapping calls and only estimates of numbers could be made, and 3 indicated species that were calling in full chorus and were assigned a standardized estimate of 50 individuals [17,53]. We recorded call locations within one of the twelve proposed vegetative cover treatment areas, and we used maps to determine where they belong after the treatments have been implemented.

2.6. Vegetation Surveys

We assessed riparian wetland vegetation on the west side of Ruby Run in September 2016, June and September 2017 and 2018, and September 2020. We visited twice in 2017 and 2018 to improve species identification, as all plants do not flower at the same time [54]. We identified plants within 1 m2 quadrats spaced every 10 m along a continuous transect placed parallel (1–5 m away) to Ruby Run. We used the midpoint of the Daubenmire [55] cover classes (1 = 0–5% [2.5]; 2 = >5–25% [15]; 3 = >25–50% [37.5]; 4 = >50–75% [62.5]; 5 = >75–90% [82.5]; and 6 = >95% [97.5]) to record the percent cover of bryophytes, woody debris, rock/barren/open water, plant litter, and each plant species at each quadrat. There were limited trees or shrubs along Ruby Run (e.g., blackberry (Rubus spp.), alder (Alnus sp.), and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora)), so we only used quadrats sized for herbaceous plants [56]. We used Radford et al. [57], Strausbaugh and Core [58], and Gleason and Cronquist [59] to identify plants to species.

2.7. In-stream Community Assessments

We surveyed fish communities in Ruby Run once annually between August and November from 2017 to 2020 using single-pass shocking methods by Huntsman and Petty [60] with a Smith-Root LR-24 electrofishing unit. We separated Ruby Run into seven 100 m reaches and measured conductivity before shocking to ensure we were using proper wattage. After a reach was shocked, we identified each captured fish to species and recorded the weight (to the nearest 0.1 g) and length (mm) according to standard length (caudal–peduncle). After processing, we returned each fish to the stream near their capture location.
We sampled stream macroinvertebrates once annually in May from 2017 to 2020 by obtaining kicknet samples (net dimensions 335 mm × 508 mm with 500 μm mesh) from four representative riffles [61]. We preserved all samples in 70% ethanol in the field, and we identified individuals to family for most individuals (except earthworms [42]).

2.8. Statistical Analysis

The mean annual diversity for each taxon with three or more species was calculated using R statistical software [62]. Because the primary objectives of this study were to establish baseline data prior to restoration and to document biodiversity in a typical mixed-use Appalachian watershed, we did not conduct any formal temporal, statistical comparisons.
We calculated bird species diversity using a Shannon–Weiner Diversity Index (H’ [63]) for each month, including all individuals detected visually and audibly among all point count locations and transects between point counts, and calculated the number of birds per 50 m radius plot. We calculated the number of individuals per m2 and H’ of soil core samples for macroinvertebrates for each of the five wetland locations seasonally [64,65].
For small mammals captured at each trapline, we calculated the monthly relative abundance by species and H’ based on survey data collected for each year. We also calculated species richness for each trapline per month according to the number of species captured within the year. We defined catch-per-unit effort (CPUE) as the number of captures per 100 trap nights, and we calculated CPUE as the percentage of individuals captured divided by the number of trap nights for each survey period [66]. We determined the number of trap nights as the number of traps set at each trapline times the number of nights set each month (n = 54 possible trap nights/trapline/month). For each capture, falsely snapped trap, or trap with missing bait, we subtracted a half trap night from the total [67].
We calculated species abundance and H’ for anurans based on surveys in Ruby Run. We used WI metrics for each anuran species to calculate relative abundance. Similarly, we calculated annual fish and stream macroinvertebrate H’ and abundance. We also calculated plant H’ for each 1 m2 quadrat and species richness and coverage based on plants identified to species during surveys. We calculated evenness (J’) using Pielou’s evenness index [68]:
J’ = H’/H’max,
where H’ = Shannon–Wiener diversity index and H’max = the maximum Shannon–Wiener diversity index. We present standard errors with the means because we are most interested in the precision of the sample means.

3. Results

3.1. Birds

Fifty-eight bird species were observed between 2018 and 2020 [40]. Out of the 2880 observations, 80% of the birds were detected within the fenced wetland area, while the remaining 20% of observations were in the adjacent forested or agricultural areas. The most common species across years were song sparrows (Melospiza melodia) that made up 45% of all observations (3.26 ± 0.28 birds per 50 m radius plot per month) and red-winged blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus) that made up 10% of all observations (0.73 ± 0.17 birds per 50 m radius plot per month; Table 1).
The highest Shannon diversity was observed in the summer months (May–July) and attributable to the presence of less common migratory birds such as the Nashville warbler (Leiothlypis ruficapilla) observed in 2018 and even less common out-of-range observations such as the western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta) found in May 2020 (Figure 4 [40]). Song sparrows were observed to favor more central sections of the wetland and were less likely to be observed in edge point counts. The point count furthest upstream was directly adjacent to a wooded area across a two-lane road, so most species detected were most likely attracted to the forested edge.
Birds such as red-bellied (Melanerpes carolinus) and downy woodpeckers (Picoides pubescens), chickadees (Poecile spp.), and white-breasted nuthatches (Sitta carolinensis) were regularly observed flying between trees within the upstream riparian wetland area and the wooded area across the road. Other species more associated with the surrounding open fields such as bobolink (Dolichonyz oryzivorus) used the wetland area for foraging across all years in early summer (May–June) and early fall (September) months. Late-season mowing in different locations within the wetland area negatively affected the presence of birds each year. All birds observed were considered native (e.g., migratory and resident) species to West Virginia and the Appalachian region [69].

3.2. Wetland Macroinvertebrates

All macroinvertebrates sampled were in various larval stages, except for earthworms, which consisted of both adults and juveniles. Wetland soil core samples revealed 11 families across seven orders between 2018 and 2020 (n = 275 soil samples across five wetlands; Table 2 [40]), where earthworms (Oligochaeta) were the most abundant taxon out of the 89 individuals collected across years (47.0%), followed by mosquito larvae (Chironomidae; 15.7%) and biting midge larvae (Ceratopogonidae; 13.5%). The mean annual H’ ranged from 0.27 to 0.34 (Figure 5).

3.3. Small Mammals

Six species of small mammals were captured from 2017 to 2020 (Table 3 [40]), where most captures were meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus) and short-tailed shrews. Meadow voles, short-tailed shrews, and deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus) were captured in all years, while white-footed mice (Peromyscus leucopus) were captured in 2018 and 2020. Meadow jumping mice (Zapus hudsonius) were only captured in 2020, and one eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus) was captured in 2018 [40]. All observed small mammals were native species to West Virginia [70].
The number of trap nights in a session for a trapline varied from 27.5 to 54 per month and was primarily affected by bait loss (presumably raccoons (Procyon lotor)). Damage to and the loss of traps also affected the number of trap nights due to the occasional presence of cattle (i.e., stepping on and smashing traps) and raccoons (i.e., removing pins or stealing entire traps) in the wetland. Ants or slugs also consumed some bait, thereby potentially affecting the trapping success. The highest CPUE reported was 49.2 captures per 100 trap nights in September 2020 (Figure 6). Recapture rates were 10.87% in 2017, 10.67% in 2018, 2.80% in 2019, and 15.15% in 2020.

3.4. Anurans

Six species were detected across four years of surveys—spring peeper (Pseudacris crucifer), Cope’s gray tree frog (Hyla chrysoscelis), wood frog (Lithobates sylvaticus), American toad (Anaxyrus americanus), American bullfrog (Lithobates catesbeianus), and green frog (Lithobates clamitans)—where spring peepers were the most common species detected (Table 4 [40]). Leopard frogs (Lithobates pipiens) were also detected within the riparian zone but not during surveys. Almost half of the 19 total visits (47.3%) had no individuals detected, and the highest Shannon diversity score was observed in May 2017 (H’ = 1.22). Annual variation in H’ decreased from 0.94 in 2017 to 0.45 in 2018, 0.27 in 2019, and 0.26 in 2020. All anurans observed in Ruby Run were native species to West Virginia [71].

3.5. Vegetation

The number of surveyed quadrats varied from 63 in 2016 to 82 in 2020 (n = 445 plots across six visits in 4 years; mean ± SE: 74.17 ± 2.91 quadrats) with 154 total plant species observed, where 67% of the plants observed were native [40]. Plant diversity per 1 m2 quadrat among years ranged from 0.22 to 0.26 (Table 5). The most abundant species (as determined by mean percent cover across all quadrats) in 2016 was sallow sedge (Carex lurida; 12.73 ± 2.92%) followed by soft rush (Juncus effusus) in 2017 (18.48 ± 3.11%) and rough-leafed goldenrod (Solidago rugosa) in 2018 and 2020 (14.59 ± 2.32% and 15.27 ± 2.50%, respectively; Table 6).

3.6. In-stream Communities

Between the seven reaches across four years, 13 species of fish were captured (Table 7 [40]). All fish species sampled were native to West Virginia [72]. The relative abundance varied across years, as only three species were captured in 2017, while five species were captured in 2018, four were captured in 2019, and ten were captured in 2020 [40]. Shannon diversity ranged from 0.69 to 1.11 (mean ± SD: 0.87 ± 0.03; Table 8).
From the four stream riffles assessed from 2018 to 2019 (no macroinvertebrates were found in 2020), 16 invertebrate families across eight orders were represented (Table 9), with ceratopogonids as the dominant species (19%) followed by earthworms and chironomids (12%). Shannon diversity varied from 2.21 in 2018 to 1.24 in 2019. The primary taxa that were surveyed in stream riffles in 2018 were earthworms, dipterans (Simuliidae), and plecopterans (Perlotidae), which accounted for 50.7% of all samples. Ceratopogonids were the most common taxon represented in 2019 (56%; Table 9).

4. Discussion

4.1. Bird Diversity

We found over 50% of the birds consisted of song sparrows and red-winged blackbirds consistently across the study period. Red-winged blackbirds are obligate wetland birds and were observed using the riparian wetland area for foraging, courtship, and nesting, but they are tolerant of human-induced habitat change [73], and most observations of red-winged blackbirds were singing males during the breeding season on fence posts near the wetland edge. Some females were flushed during surveys, but no nests were found. Song sparrows alternatively are facultative wetland birds as they more commonly utilize open meadows as ground-foraging omnivorous birds.
Some of the remaining species detected were considered wetland specialists, such as green heron (Butorides virescens) and spotted sandpiper (Actitis macularia [73]), and were regular but not abundant in Ruby Run. Most of the remaining birds detected across years such as American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis) and yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia) were habitat generalists that only occasionally use wetlands [73], which could be due to increased edge effects from the small size of the wetland area. The intersection of the adjacent woodlands with the riparian area along Ruby Run likely created an edge effect that attracted generalist bird species and specialists of open grassland and forested areas [74]. It is also possible that Ruby Run serves as a keystone structure for increasing habitat heterogeneity and thus attracting diverse avian species [75]. Increased wetland size and vegetative diversity and heterogeneity are associated with riparian wetland bird richness and abundance in general [76,77]. Moreno-Mateos et al. [78] found opposite relationships between bird species abundance and wetland size; however, they attributed this to inconsistent surveying effort to account for larger wetlands. Seasonal patterns in avian abundance and diversity also were evident, with the lowest numbers occurring during the winter, as the pool of potential species is diminished, and the lack of winter cover reduced bird use. Although, changes in water availability in relation to phenological patterns also potentially influenced some species [79], such as Canada Geese.

4.2. Macroinvertebrate Assemblages

The current study showed that stream macroinvertebrate diversity was higher than benthic macroinvertebrates in riparian wetlands surrounding Ruby Run. Macroinvertebrate assemblages are expected to be different based on the wetland type [80], where characteristics such as hydroperiod and water and soil chemistry can influence wetland macroinvertebrate taxa. Oligochaetes were most abundant across years in soil core samples, indicating that while standing water was not consistently present across the riparian area during the study, moist soil conditions were met to make the area sufficient for earthworms to reside [81]. Ephemeropterans, plecopterans, and trichopterans (EPT) were present within stream samples, thus indicating Ruby Run has improved stream water quality since an upstream segment was identified as low priority (iron load: 0.59 kg/day as of 2014) and management was implemented to address acid mine drainage in the Deckers Creek watershed [31]. EPT richness is negatively related to percent sand in streams [82], so monitoring sedimentation from runoff and channel degradation is necessary to ensure stream habitat quality.

4.3. Small Mammal Communities

Catch-per-unit effort for small mammals within the riparian area of Ruby Run was much lower compared to a similar study elsewhere in Preston County, West Virginia [83]. Despite using similar trapping methods, Osbourne and Anderson [83] had higher CPUE for taxa such as Peromyscus spp., which may have been due to trapping near field–forest transition zones that were not abundant in our study. The low CPUE in the current investigation may be due to ants and slugs that consumed bait in Sherman traps. Slugs were noticed when there were lower dewpoints in the morning, while ants were mostly associated with areas with minimal vegetative ground cover. It is possible that small mammals avoided traps infested with ants, slugs, or both.
Variations in average diversity between years for this study could be due, at least in part, to mowing that occurred within the wetland at different times each year. Capture effort was also affected by the presence of cattle during summer months in 2019 because of destroyed traps leading to a loss of trap nights. Some species were more abundant in certain traplines as well, where Peromyscus species favored more upstream areas and meadow voles were captured more frequently in downstream areas. The road that ran directly adjacent to the upstream riparian zone could have been a factor, as increased road density has been reported to negatively affect species richness for plants, reptiles, birds, and mammals [84]. Alternatively, Bissonette and Rosa [85] showed that road distance did not affect the diversity or density of small mammals in Utah. Other factors such as vegetative density and diversity could be a factor in the inconsistent use of the wetland area by species.

4.4. Anuran Diversity

Most anuran detections were found in wetland areas in the cattle field. Species such as American bullfrogs, leopard frogs, and green frogs were observed (anecdotally and bycatch during fish surveys) in the stream channel throughout the year. It is possible they relocated to shallow flooded areas in adjacent pastures at night to minimize predation because of fish being present in Ruby Run; however, most fish observed in Ruby Run may have been too small to prey on adult frogs (fish size range: 7–855 mm; mean length ± SE: 76.83 ± 2.12 mm; unpublished data), and these species are tolerant of fish presence [86,87]. Babbitt et al. [88] compared tadpole abundance in pasture, prairie, rangeland, and wooded wetlands and found pasture wetland abundance to be lowest, likely due to the lack of proximity between breeding and upland habitat. Evidence of anurans using the Ruby Run riparian area for foraging and laying eggs was evident as per tadpole bycatch during macroinvertebrate surveys as well as leopard frog and green frog bycatch during small mammal surveys. Amphibian diversity declined over the four years of the study. Continued monitoring is necessary to determine if the observed declines in anuran diversity are attributable to long-term trends on the study site, representative of the general decline in amphibians around the word, or the result of short-term land use and precipitation patterns [89,90].

4.5. Wetland Vegetation Diversity

Wetland vegetation diversity and evenness did not deviate significantly among years despite the inconsistent sampling effort. The relative wetness of each quadrat was calculated, and the mean weighted average indicated the plant assemblages fulfilled the hydrophytic vegetation requirement for the area to be considered a wetland [40,91,92]. The dominant plant species such as soft rush and sallow sedge were consistent with what has been found in previous studies in West Virginia wetlands [93]. Other plant species such as glossy-leafed aster (Symphyotrichum puniceum) and Allegheny blackberry (Rubus allegheniensis) were not detected by Balcombe et al. [93], which could be because both species are facultative upland species.
Temporal variation in the riparian wetland vegetation between 2016 and 2020 indicated consistent percent covers of facultative upland species relative to obligate or facultative wetland species [40], and the probability of facultative upland species occurrence in wetlands is relatively low (1–33% [94]). Ho and Richardson [95] showed that wetland-dependent species (obligate or facultative wetland species) increased in richness over time with higher water inundation. Additionally, because riparian wetlands are occasionally inundated for short periods of time (e.g., flooding from snowmelt or significant rain events), upland species can establish within the riparian area during times of flood recession.
The presence of cattle or heavy mowing equipment can drastically alter the microtopography in wetlands, which can alter natural pooling within a wetland [96]; however, the effects of microtopographic change in wetland plant diversity is inconsistent. Hong et al. [97] found that nutrient runoff has a stronger effect on plant diversity than microtopography, and the effects that cattle have on the microtopography is not certain [98]. Alternatively, wetlands managed via disking, which is considered among the most intense form of wetland management [99], had microtopographies comparable to natural wetlands and exhibited the highest plant diversity compared to natural and non-disked wetlands [96].

4.6. Fish Assemblages

The only fish species sampled in 2017 were largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus) and creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus [40]), which are considered species tolerant of disturbance in streams [100]. Leonard and Orth [101] found that green sunfish and creek chub were comparable when used as tolerant species for indices of biological integrity in southern West Virginia. Similar assemblages were found in subsequent years, with increased abundance in tolerant species such as bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) in 2018 and pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus) in 2020.
Surveys in 2020 had noticeably more young-of-year fish than previous years with the increased presence of disturbance-intolerant species such as spottail shiner (Notropis hudsonius) and central stoneroller (Campostoma anomalum), which could be due to the survey being conducted later in the year (November rather than August–September). Stream characteristics such as water temperature influence fish abundance and diversity [102] and should be compared with more frequent sampling to elucidate possible seasonal habitat use of Ruby Run throughout the year as either a core habitat or a corridor.

5. Conclusions

We documented 235 species (6 anurans, 6 small mammals, 13 fish, 58 birds, and 154 plants) of which 78% were native and 25 families of macroinvertebrates in this mixed-use watershed, which is typical of the mid-Appalachians (Table 10). Ruby Run had a good representation of anurans and to a lesser degree small mammals and turtles, but lacked many wetland-dependent birds, likely due to a lack of open water and the small size of the wetland. However, this lack of species richness indicates that Ruby Run is a prime candidate for restoration. Wetland mitigation efforts should continue to be monitored for success using multiple taxa given that land use change can affect taxa in many ways. This approach would result in a well-rounded assessment rather than focusing on a single taxon [103]. The multiple taxa approach used here can serve as an example of monitoring for other systems and localities globally. Taxa within Ruby Run such as benthic macroinvertebrates and plants did not have noticeable annual change in diversity; however, anurans exhibited overall decreases in annual diversity, and the cause of this decline is currently unknown. However, lacking documented species richness, it is unlikely that land managers would be aware that a decline is occurring. Hence, this underscores the importance of the approach illustrated in the current investigation.
The continued monitoring of plant and animal abundance and diversity post-restoration is important to determine restoration success [104]. Efforts from government organizations such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency are clear in that they want to reach a goal of “no net loss” of wetlands. However, the quantity of wetlands alone will not reverse wetland losses in Central Appalachia. Monitoring the effectiveness of mitigation projects is necessary to ensure that high-functioning natural wetlands are not being replaced with lower-quality mitigated wetlands. Without careful monitoring and the incorporation of additional adaptive restoration and management activities [105], wetlands can become habitat sinks, especially for organisms such as macroinvertebrates and amphibians that depend on water quality, nutrient cycling, and hydrologic cycles for the majority of their life history [106]. Wetland size reduction up to 50% has been predicted to reduce richness by 10–16% in any taxa [84]. The hydroperiod of mitigated wetlands is also important to consider as some amphibians depend on semipermanent wetlands to breed and safely undergo metamorphosis [107].
Once mitigation has been implemented on the Ruby Run riparian zone, pre-restoration data will provide a baseline for abundance and diversity for each taxon. Comparing baseline data to post-restoration monitoring data can provide additional information regarding time requirements for riparian wetland succession. Commonly, wetland monitoring continues 3–5 years post-restoration to determine restoration success; however, the time required to monitor post-restoration can vary based on the wetland hydrology and structure (e.g., 10–15 years to monitor bogs or fens [108]). With each following year post-restoration, abundance and diversity can be calculated to determine if mitigation efforts need to be modified using an adaptive management framework to ensure the improvement of wetland conditions.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.T.A. and J.A.H.; methodology, J.T.A.; formal analysis, D.N.B.; investigation, D.N.B. and J.T.A.; data curation, D.N.B.; writing—original draft preparation, D.N.B.; writing—review and editing, J.T.A. and J.A.H.; visualization, D.N.B.; supervision, J.T.A. and J.A.H.; funding acquisition, J.A.H. and J.T.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant OIA-1458952; USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture McIntire Stennis under Grant WVA00812; the West Virginia Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station; the West Virginia Conservation Agency; and the West Virginia University Natural History Museum.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee Review Board of West Virginia University (Protocol #1702005283_R1).

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from J.T.A. upon request.

Acknowledgments

We thank the West Virginia University Davis College and Institute of Water Security and Science for providing logistic support. We thank D. Brown and four anonymous reviewers for comments on this manuscript. We thank the J.W. Ruby Research Farm for permission to conduct research on the property. We thank D. Hartman and K. Eliason for assistance in macroinvertebrate identification and J. Rentch for assistance in plant identification. We thank B. Gordon, K. Eliason, K. Zipp, B. Huntsman, and K. Sigler for assistance in electroshocking and identifying fishes. We thank M. Tenney, J. Gordon, and N. Garavuso for additional field assistance.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Mitsch, W.J.; Gosselink, J.G. Wetlands, 2nd ed.; Van Nostrand Reinhold: New York, NY, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  2. Moreno-Mateos, D.; Power, M.E.; Comín, F.A.; Yockteng, R. Structural and Functional Loss in Restored Wetland Ecosystems. PLoS Biol. 2012, 10, e1001247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Dahl, T.E. Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous United States 1986 to 1997; U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service: Washington, DC, USA, 2000.
  4. Dahl, T. Wetland Losses in the United States 1780s to 1980s; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory: St. Petersburg, FL, USA, 1990; pp. 1–13.
  5. Townsend, P.A.; Helmers, D.P.; Kingdon, C.C.; McNeil, B.E.; de Beurs, K.M.; Eshleman, K.N. Changes in the Extent of Surface Mining and Reclamation in the Central Appalachians Detected Using a 1976–2006 Landsat Time Series. Remote Sens. Environ. 2009, 113, 62–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Shapley, P. Coal Mining and the Environment; University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign: Champaign, IL, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  7. Cowardin, L.M.; Carter, V.; Golet, F.C.; LaRoe, E.T. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States; FWS/OBS-79/31; U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service: Washington, DC, USA, 1979; pp. 1–142.
  8. Ramsar, I. The Ramsar Convention Manual, 6th edition. 2013. Available online: https://www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/library/manual6-2013-e.pdf (accessed on 26 May 2018).
  9. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). NWI Program Overview. 2018. Available online: https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/nwi/overview.html#:~:text=The%20NWI%20relies%20on%20trained,or%20approximately%207%2C400%20square%20miles) (accessed on 21 May 2018).
  10. Tiner, R.W. Wetland Restoration and Creation; University of Massachusetts: Boston, MA, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  11. Tiner, R.W. Current Status of West Virginia’s Wetlands; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Washington, DC, USA, 1996. Available online: https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Documents%5CCurrent-Status-of-West-Virginias-Wetlands.pdf (accessed on 15 February 2022).
  12. Kentula, M.E.; US Geological Survey National Water Summary on Wetland Resources. Wetland Restoration and Creation; 2002. Available online: https://water.usgs.gov/nwsum/WSP2425/ (accessed on 15 February 2022).
  13. Campbell, D.A.; Cole, C.A.; Brooks, R.P. A Comparison of Created and Natural Wetlands in Pennsylvania, USA. Wetl. Ecol. Manag. 2002, 10, 41–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Seabloom, E.W.; van der Valk, A.G. Plant Diversity, Composition, and Invasion of Restored and Natural Prairie Pothole Wetlands: Implications for Restoration. Wetlands 2003, 23, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Stevens, C.E.; Diamond, A.W.; Gabor, T.S. Anuran Call Surveys on Small Wetlands in Prince Edward Island, Canada Restored by Dredging of Sediments. Wetlands 2002, 22, 90–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Balcombe, C.K.; Anderson, J.T.; Fortney, R.H.; Kordek, W.S. Wildlife Use of Mitigation and Reference Wetlands in West Virginia. Ecol. Eng. 2005, 25, 85–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Balcombe, C.K.; Anderson, J.T.; Fortney, R.H.; Kordek, W.S. Vegetation, Invertebrate, and Wildlife Community Rankings and Habitat Analysis of Mitigation Wetlands in West Virginia. Wetl. Ecol. Manag. 2005, 13, 517–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Taylor, J.; Middleton, B.A. Comparison of Litter Decomposition in a Natural versus Coal-Slurry Pond Reclaimed as a Wetland. Land Degrad. Dev. 2004, 15, 439–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Spieles, D.J.; Mora, J.W. Detrital Decomposition as a Measure of Ecosystem Function in Created Wetlands. J. Freshw. Ecol. 2007, 22, 571–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Gingerich, R.T.; Anderson, J.T. Litter Decomposition in Created and Reference Wetlands in West Virginia, USA. Wetl. Ecol. Manag. 2011, 19, 449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Strain, G.F.; Turk, P.J.; Anderson, J.T. Functional Equivalency of Created and Natural Wetlands: Diet Composition of Red-Spotted Newts (Notophthalmus viridescens viridescens). Wetl. Ecol. Manag. 2014, 22, 659–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Bartholomew, M.K.; Anderson, C.J.; Berkowitz, J. Soil Conditions Following Hydrologic Restoration in Cypress Dome Wetlands. Wetlands 2019, 39, 185–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Cardwell, D.H.; Erwin, R.B.; Woodward, H.P. Geologic Map of West Virginia. West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey. 1968. Available online: https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/proddesc_13205.htm (accessed on 6 February 2022).
  24. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Web Soil Survey. Available online: https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx (accessed on 5 February 2022).
  25. Nicholson, S.W.; Dicken, C.L.; Horton, J.D.; Labay, K.A.; Foose, M.P.; Mueller, J.A.L. Preliminary Integrated Geologic Map Databases for the United States: Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, and West Virginia. Version 1.1 (OFR 2004-1324). 2007. Available online: https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1324/ (accessed on 6 February 2022).
  26. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Climate Data Online. Available online: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/ (accessed on 5 February 2022).
  27. Peel, M.C.; Finlayson, B.L.; McMahon, T.A. Updated World Map of the Köppen-Geiger Climate Classification. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss. 2007, 4, 439–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Arguez, A.; Durre, I.; Applequist, S.; Squires, M.; Vose, R.; Yin, X.; Bilotta, R.; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Climate Normals (1981–2010). NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information. Available online: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/metadata/landing-page/bin/iso?id=gov.noaa.ncdc:C00822 (accessed on 7 December 2017). [CrossRef]
  29. Landscape Partnership. Section 1: Biodiversity and Conservation Challenges Across the Appalachian Region; Landscape Partnership: Bedford, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  30. USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). Riparian Forest Buffers. 2021. Available online: https://www.fs.usda.gov/nac/practices/riparian-forest-buffers.php (accessed on 4 March 2021).
  31. Denicola, T.A.; Christ, M.; Pavlick, M.; Gilbert, D.; Spencer, H. Updates to Watershed Based Plan; Friends of Deckers Creek: Morgantown, WV, USA, 2015; Available online: https://spcwater.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/DeckersCreek_WaterPlan_2015.pdf (accessed on 15 February 2022).
  32. USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). Reducing Acid Mine Drainage (AMD) in Deckers Creek. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2018. Available online: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/wv/newsroom/stories/?cid=nrcs144p2_074474 (accessed on 18 September 2018).
  33. Pond, G.J.; Passmore, M.E.; Borsuk, F.A.; Reynolds, L.; Rose, C.J. Downstream Effects of Mountaintop Coal Mining: Comparing Biological Conditions Using Family- and Genus-Level Macroinvertebrate Bioassessment Tools. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 2008, 27, 717–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Cianciolo, T.R.; McLaughlin, D.L.; Zipper, C.E.; Timpano, A.J.; Soucek, D.J.; Schoenholtz, S.H. Impacts to Water Quality and Biota Persist in Mining-Influenced Appalachian Streams. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 717, 137216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Friends of Deckers Creek. State of the Creek Report; 2017; pp. 1–2. Available online: https://deckerscreek.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/State-of-the-Creek-2018-Final.pdf (accessed on 15 February 2022).
  36. Farnsworth, G.L.; Pollock, K.H.; Nichols, J.D.; Simons, T.R.; Hines, J.E.; Sauer, J.R. A Removal Model for Estimating Detection Probabilities from Point-Count Surveys. Auk 2002, 119, 414–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. McCallum, D.A. A Conceptual Guide to Detection Probability for Point Counts and Other Count-Based Survey Methods. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. 2005, PSW-GTR-191, 754–761. [Google Scholar]
  38. Hanowski, J.M.; Niemi, G.J. Experimental Design Considerations for Establishing an Off-Road, Habitat-Specific Bird Monitoring Program Using Point-Counts; USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-GTR-149; USDA Forest Service: Washington, DC, USA, 1995; pp. 145–150.
  39. Ralph, C.J.; Droege, S.; Sauer, J.R. Managing and Monitoring Birds Using Point Counts: Standards and Applications. In Publication of an Organization Other than the U.S. Geological Survey; USDA Forest Service General Technical Report; Pacific Southwest Research Station: Albany, CA, USA, 1995; pp. d161–d168. [Google Scholar]
  40. Lozon, D.N. Ecology of Freshwater Turtles and Other Wetland Wildlife in a North-Central West Virginia Watershed. Master’s Thesis, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  41. Anderson, J.T.; Zilli, F.L.; Montalto, L.; Marchese, M.R.; McKinney, M.; Park, Y.-L. Sampling and Processing Aquatic and Terrestrial Invertebrates in Wetlands. In Wetland Techniques; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2013; Volume 2, pp. 143–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Voshell, J.R. A Guide to Common Freshwater Invertebrates of North America; McDonald & Woodward Pub.: Blacksburg, VA, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  43. Edalgo, J.; Anderson, J.T. Effects of Prebaiting on Small Mammal Trapping Success in a Morrow’s Honeysuckle-Dominated Area. J. Wildl. Manag. 2007, 71, 246–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. van Boekel, W.H.M. Reducing Shrew Mortality in Longworth Live-Traps. Lutra 2013, 56, 121–127. [Google Scholar]
  45. Bergström, A. Small Mammal Diversity in Kalahari: Impact of Land-Use and Pans in a Semi-arid Savanna, Southwestern Botswana. Master’s Thesis, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  46. Romairone, J.; Jiménez, J.; Luque-Larena, J.J.; Mougeot, F. Spatial Capture-Recapture Design and Modelling for the Study of Small Mammals. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0198766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Manley, P.N. Multiple Species Inventory and Monitoring Technical Guide; United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service: Washington, DC, USA, 2006; p. 216.
  48. Natoli, R.; Schadegg, R.; Nichols-Russell, L.; Mallinoff, J. Mammal Surveying Protocol; Jug Bay Wetlands Sanctuary: Lothian, MD, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  49. Mills, J.N.; Yates, T.L.; Childs, J.E.; Parmenter, R.R.; Ksiazek, T.G.; Rollin, P.E.; Peters, C.J. Guidelines for Working with Rodents Potentially Infected with Hantavirus. J. Mammal. 1995, 76, 716–722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Kelt, D.A.; Hafner, M.S. Updated Guidelines for Protection of Mammalogists and Wildlife Researchers from Hantavirus Pulmonary Syndrome (HPS). J. Mammal. 2010, 91, 1524–1527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Grant, E.H. North American Amphibian Monitoring Program (NAAMP) Anuran Detection Data from the Eastern and Central United States (1994–2015); U.S. Geological Survey: Reston, VA, USA, 2017. [CrossRef]
  52. Mossman, M. Wisconsin Frog and Toad Survey Instructions; Endangered Species Branch, Department of Natural Resources: Madison, WI, USA, 1994.
  53. Crouch, W.B.; Paton, P.W.C. Assessing the Use of Call Surveys to Monitor Breeding Anurans in Rhode Island. J. Herpetol. 2002, 36, 185–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Veselka, W.; Rentch, J.S.; Grafton, W.N.; Kordek, W.S.; Anderson, J.T. Using Two Classification Schemes to Develop Vegetation Indices of Biological Integrity for Wetlands in West Virginia, USA. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2010, 170, 555–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Daubenmire, R. Plant Communities, 1st ed.; Harper and Row Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 1968. [Google Scholar]
  56. Rentch, J.S.; Fortney, R.H.; Anderson, J.T.; Grafton, W.N. Plant Communities of Abes Run Wetland, Canaan Valley State Park, West Virginia. Southeast. Nat. 2015, 14, 136–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Radford, A.E.; Ahles, H.E.; Bell, C.R. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas; University of North Carolina Press: Chapel Hill, NC, USA, 1968. [Google Scholar]
  58. Strausbaugh, P.D.; Core, E.L. Flora of West Virginia; Seneca Books, Inc.: Morgantown, WV, USA, 1977. [Google Scholar]
  59. Gleason, H.H.; Cronquist, A. Manual of Vascular Plants of Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada; New York Botanical Garden: Bronx, NY, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  60. Huntsman, B.M.; Petty, J.T. Density-Dependent Regulation of Brook Trout Population Dynamics Along a Core-Periphery Distribution Gradient in a Central Appalachian Watershed. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e91673. [Google Scholar]
  61. WVDEP (West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection). Standard Operating Procedures; West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection: Charleston, WV, USA, 2014. Available online: http://dep.wv.gov/WWE/watershed/wqmonitoring/Documents/SOP%20Doc/WABSOP/2018%20FINAL%20WAB%20Field%20Sampling%20SOP.pdf (accessed on 24 May 2018).
  62. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. 2020. Available online: https://www.R-project.org/ (accessed on 26 May 2018).
  63. Tramer, E.J. Bird Species Diversity: Components of Shannon’s Formula. Ecology 1969, 50, 927–929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Wilhm, J.L.; Dorris, T.C. Species Diversity of Benthic Macroinvertebrates in a Stream Receiving Domestic and Oil Refinery Effluents. Am. Midl. Nat. 1966, 76, 427–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Brooks, R.T. Annual and Seasonal Variation and the Effects of Hydroperiod on Benthic Macroinvertebrates of Seasonal Forest (“Vernal”) Ponds in Central Massachusetts, USA. Wetlands 2000, 20, 707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Nicolas, V.; Colyn, M. Relative Efficiency of Three Types of Small Mammal Traps in an African Rainforest. Belg. J. Zool. 2006, 136, 107–111. [Google Scholar]
  67. Hannon, S.J.; Paszkowski, C.A.; Boutin, S.; DeGroot, J.; Macdonald, S.E.; Wheatley, M.; Eaton, B.R. Abundance and Species Composition of Amphibians, Small Mammals, and Songbirds in Riparian Forest Buffer Strips of Varying Widths in the Boreal Mixedwood of Alberta. Can. J. For. Res. 2002, 32, 1784–1800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Pielou, E.C. The Measurement of Diversity in Different Types of Biological Collections. J. Theor. Biol. 1966, 13, 131–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. WVDNR (West Virginia Division of Natural Resources). Birds of West Virginia; West Virginia Nongame Wildlife and Natural Heritage Program: South Charleston, WV, USA, 1998.
  70. WVDNR (West Virginia Division of Natural Resources). Mammals of West Virginia: A Field Checklist. West Virginia Division of Natural Resources Wildlife Division; 2001. Available online: http://wvdnr.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/mammalsbrochure.pdf (accessed on 15 February 2022).
  71. Pauley, T.K. Amphibians and Reptiles of West Virginia. 2021. Available online: https://www.marshall.edu/herp/WVHERPS.HTM (accessed on 15 February 2022).
  72. WVDEP (West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection). West Virginia Fish. 2021. Available online: https://dep.wv.gov/WWE/getinvolved/sos/Pages/Fishes.aspx (accessed on 24 April 2021).
  73. Veselka, W.; Anderson, J.T.; Kordek, W.S. Using Dual Classifications in the Development of Avian Wetland Indices of Biological Integrity for Wetlands in West Virginia, USA. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2010, 164, 533–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Keten, A.; Eroglu, E.; Kaya, S.; Anderson, J.T. Bird Diversity Along a Riparian Corridor in a Moderate Urban Landscape. Ecol. Indic. 2020, 118, 106751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Tews, J.; Brose, U.; Grimm, V.; Tielbörger, K.; Wichmann, M.C.; Schwager, M.; Jeltsch, F. Animal Species Diversity Driven by Habitat Heterogeneity/Diversity: The Importance of Keystone Structures. J. Biogeogr. 2004, 31, 79–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Lewis, K.E.; Rota, C.T.; Lituma, C.M.; Anderson, J.T. Influence of the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program Wetland Practices on Winter Occupancy of Passerellidae Sparrows and Avian Species Richness. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0210878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Elliott, L.H.; Igl, L.D.; Johnson, D.H. The Relative Importance of Wetland Area versus Habitat Heterogeneity for Promoting Species Richness and Abundance of Wetland Birds in the Prairie Pothole Region, USA. Condor 2020, 122, duz060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  78. Moreno-Mateos, D.; Pedrocchi, C.; Comín, F.A. Avian Communities’ Preferences in Recently Created Agricultural Wetlands in Irrigated Landscapes of Semi-Arid Areas. Biodivers. Conserv. 2009, 18, 811–828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Zacchei, D.; Battisti, C.; Carpaneto, G.M. Contrasting Effects of Water Stress on Wetland-obligated Birds in a Semi-natural Mediterranean Wetland. Lakes Reserv. Res. Manag. 2011, 16, 281–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Battle, J.; Golladay, S.W. Water Quality and Macroinvertebrate Assemblages in Three Types of Seasonally Inundated Limesink Wetlands in Southwest Georgia. J. Freshw. Ecol. 2001, 16, 189–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Tripathi, G.; Bhardwaj, P. Earthworm Diversity and Habitat Preferences in Arid Regions of Rajasthan. Zoos Print J. 2004, 19, 1515–1519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Linear Regression: EPT Taxa Richness vs. Percent Sand and Fines for Minnesota Streams. Causal Analysis/Diagnosis Decision Information System (CADDIS); Office of Research and Development: Washington, DC, USA, 2017; Volume 3. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/caddis-vol3/linear-regression-ept-taxa-richness-vs-percent-sand-and-fines-minnesota-streams#main-content (accessed on 18 October 2020).
  83. Osbourne, J.D.; Anderson, J.T. Small Mammal Response to Coarse Woody Debris in the Central Appalachians. In Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeast Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Baltimore, MD, USA, 1 March 2002; 2002; Volume 56, pp. 198–209. Available online: https://seafwa.org/sites/default/files/journal-articles/Osbourne-198-209.pdf (accessed on 15 February 2022).
  84. Findlay, C.S.; Houlahan, J. Anthropogenic Correlates of Species Richness in Southeastern Ontario Wetlands. Conserv. Biol. 1997, 11, 1000–1009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Bissonette, J.A.; Rosa, S.A. Road Zone Effects in Small-Mammal Communities. Ecol. Soc. 2009, 14, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  86. Smith, G.R.; Burgett, A.A.; Temple, K.G.; Sparks, K.A. Differential Effects of Bluegill Sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus) on Two Fish-Tolerant Species of Tadpoles (Anaxyrus americanus and Lithobates catesbeianus). Hydrobiologia 2016, 773, 77–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Swanson, J.E.; Pierce, C.L.; Dinsmore, S.J.; Smalling, K.L.; Vandever, M.W.; Stewart, T.W.; Muths, E. Factors Influencing Anuran Wetland Occupancy in an Agricultural Landscape. Herpetologica 2019, 75, 47–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Babbitt, K.J.; Baber, M.J.; Childers, D.L.; Hocking, D. Influence of Agricultural Upland Habitat Type on Larval Anuran Assemblages in Seasonally Inundated Wetlands. Wetlands 2009, 29, 294–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Houlahan, J.E.; Findlay, C.S. The Effects of Adjacent Land Use on Wetland Amphibian Species Richness and Community Composition. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2003, 60, 1078–1094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Campbell Grant, E.H.; Miller, D.A.W.; Muths, E. A Synthesis of Evidence of Drivers of Amphibian Declines. Herpetologica 2020, 76, 101–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Atkinson, R.; Perry, J.; Smith, E.; Cairns, J. Use of Created Wetland Delineation and Weighted Averages as a Component of Assessment. Wetlands 1993, 13, 185–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). How Wetlands are Defined and Identified Under CWA Section 404; US EPA: Washington, DC, USA, 2015. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/cwa-404/how-wetlands-are-defined-and-identified-under-cwa-section-404 (accessed on 16 February 2022).
  93. Balcombe, C.K.; Anderson, J.T.; Fortney, R.H.; Rentch, J.S.; Grafton, W.N.; Kordek, W.S. A Comparison of Plant Communities in Mitigation and Reference Wetlands in the mid-Appalachians. Wetlands 2005, 25, 130–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Reed, P.B., Jr. Revision of the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Region, I., Northeast; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Washington, DC, USA, 1996; 209p.
  95. Ho, M.; Richardson, C.J. A Five Year Study of Floristic Succession in a Restored Urban Wetland. Ecol. Eng. 2013, 61, 511–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Moser, K.; Ahn, C.; Noe, G. Characterization of Microtopography and Its Influence on Vegetation Patterns in Created Wetlands. Wetlands 2007, 27, 1081–1097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Hong, M.G.; Nam, B.E.; Kim, J.G. Effects of Microtopography and Nutrients on Biomass Production and Plant Species Diversity in Experimental Wetland Communities. Ecol. Eng. 2021, 159, 106–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Morris, K.; Reich, P. Understanding the Relationship between Livestock Grazing and Wetland Condition; Technical Report 252; Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research and La Trobe University: Bundoora, VIC, Australia, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  99. Rainwater Basin Joint Venture Public Lands Workgroup. Best Management Practices for Rainwater Basin Wetlands. Available online: https://www.rwbjv.org/wp-content/uploads/Best-Management-Practices-for-Rainwater-Basin-Wetlands.pdf (accessed on 16 February 2022).
  100. Snyder, C.D.; Young, J.A.; Villella, R.; Lemarié, D.P. Influences of Upland and Riparian Land Use Patterns on Stream Biotic Integrity. Landsc. Ecol 2003, 18, 647–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Leonard, P.M.; Orth, D.J. Application and Testing of an Index of Biotic Integrity in Small, Coolwater Streams. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 1986, 115, 401–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Smith, T.A.; Kraft, C.E. Stream Fish Assemblages in Relation to Landscape Position and Local Habitat Variables. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 2005, 134, 430–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Yamanaka, S.; Ishiyama, N.; Senzaki, M.; Morimoto, J.; Kitazawa, M.; Fuke, N.; Nakamura, F. Role of Flood-Control Basins as Summer Habitat for Wetland Species—A Multiple-Taxon Approach. Ecol. Eng. 2020, 142, 105617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Woodward, A.; Hollar, K. Monitoring Habitat Restoration Projects: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Pacific Region Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program and Coastal Program Protocol (Techniques and Methods 2-A11). U.S. Geological Survey: Reston, VA, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  105. Salafsky, N.; Margoluis, R.; Redford, K.H.; Robinson, J.G. Improving the Practice of Conservation: A Conceptual Framework and Research Agenda for Conservation Science. Conserv. Biol. 2002, 16, 1469–1479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Faulkner, S. Urbanization Impacts on the Structure and Function of Forested Wetlands. Urban Ecosyst. 2004, 7, 89–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Gamble, D.; Mitsch, W. Hydroperiods of Created and Natural Vernal Pools in Central Ohio: A Comparison of Depth and Duration of Inundation. Wetl. Ecol. Manag. 2009, 17, 385–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Christie, J.; Stelk, M.; Zedler, J.; Weber, R.; Lewis, R.R., III; Harcarik, T.; Teal, J. Wetland Restoration: Contemporary Issues and Lessons Learned; White Paper 3.20.15. Association of State Wetland Managers: Portland, ME, USA, 2015. Available online: https://www.nawm.org/state_meeting/2015/wetland_restoration_whitepaper_032015.pdf (accessed on 16 February 2022).
Figure 1. Proposed cover treatment sites along Ruby Run at the JW Ruby Research Farm, Reedsville, West Virginia, USA. Drone imagery was provided by Paul Kinder, West Virginia University Natural Resources Analysis Center. Proposed cover treatments were taken into consideration when surveying birds, anurans, and small mammals and are as follows: (1) control, which is defined as only straw mulch being applied; (2) wood mulch; (3) riparian herbaceous species; (4) riparian woody species; (5) bioenergy species (i.e., switchgrass (Panicum virgatum)); and (6) wet meadow herbaceous species.
Figure 1. Proposed cover treatment sites along Ruby Run at the JW Ruby Research Farm, Reedsville, West Virginia, USA. Drone imagery was provided by Paul Kinder, West Virginia University Natural Resources Analysis Center. Proposed cover treatments were taken into consideration when surveying birds, anurans, and small mammals and are as follows: (1) control, which is defined as only straw mulch being applied; (2) wood mulch; (3) riparian herbaceous species; (4) riparian woody species; (5) bioenergy species (i.e., switchgrass (Panicum virgatum)); and (6) wet meadow herbaceous species.
Diversity 14 00304 g001
Figure 2. Monthly average temperature from 2017 to 2020 for Morgantown, West Virginia, USA, which is 22.5 km from the Ruby Run study site (NOAA 2022).
Figure 2. Monthly average temperature from 2017 to 2020 for Morgantown, West Virginia, USA, which is 22.5 km from the Ruby Run study site (NOAA 2022).
Diversity 14 00304 g002
Figure 3. Monthly average precipitation from 2017 to 2020 for Morgantown, West Virginia, USA, which is 22.5 km from the Ruby Run study site (NOAA 2022).
Figure 3. Monthly average precipitation from 2017 to 2020 for Morgantown, West Virginia, USA, which is 22.5 km from the Ruby Run study site (NOAA 2022).
Diversity 14 00304 g003
Figure 4. Monthly Shannon diversity of birds within the riparian area of Ruby Run at the JW Ruby Research Farm, Reedsville, West Virginia, USA, from 2018 to 2020. Birds were recorded in five equidistant 50 m radius point counts along the stream as well as along transects between each point count area. Lines are plotted to show trends in diversity from downstream to upstream.
Figure 4. Monthly Shannon diversity of birds within the riparian area of Ruby Run at the JW Ruby Research Farm, Reedsville, West Virginia, USA, from 2018 to 2020. Birds were recorded in five equidistant 50 m radius point counts along the stream as well as along transects between each point count area. Lines are plotted to show trends in diversity from downstream to upstream.
Diversity 14 00304 g004
Figure 5. Seasonal variation in benthic macroinvertebrate Shannon diversity (H’) across five wetlands within the Ruby Run riparian zone at the J.W. Ruby Research Farm in Preston County, West Virginia, USA, during 2018–2020. Error bars indicate standard error for each mean value.
Figure 5. Seasonal variation in benthic macroinvertebrate Shannon diversity (H’) across five wetlands within the Ruby Run riparian zone at the J.W. Ruby Research Farm in Preston County, West Virginia, USA, during 2018–2020. Error bars indicate standard error for each mean value.
Diversity 14 00304 g005
Figure 6. Variation of small mammal catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE; calculated as the number of captures per 100 trap nights) among the 12 traplines surveyed along Ruby Run at the JW Ruby Research Farm, Reedsville, West Virginia, USA, across years (2017–2020). Six unique species were captured across the four years: white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), short-tailed shrew (Blarina brevicauda), eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus), meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus), and meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius).
Figure 6. Variation of small mammal catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE; calculated as the number of captures per 100 trap nights) among the 12 traplines surveyed along Ruby Run at the JW Ruby Research Farm, Reedsville, West Virginia, USA, across years (2017–2020). Six unique species were captured across the four years: white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), short-tailed shrew (Blarina brevicauda), eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus), meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus), and meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius).
Diversity 14 00304 g006
Table 1. Bird species with an average of >0.1 individuals per 50 m radius plot per survey within the Ruby Run riparian area at JW Ruby Research Farm in Preston County, West Virginia, USA, based on monthly point count surveys, 2018–2020.
Table 1. Bird species with an average of >0.1 individuals per 50 m radius plot per survey within the Ruby Run riparian area at JW Ruby Research Farm in Preston County, West Virginia, USA, based on monthly point count surveys, 2018–2020.
Species NameScientific NameIndividuals per 50 m Radius Plot
MeanStandard Error
Song sparrowMelospiza melodia3.260.28
Red-winged blackbirdAgelaius phoeniceus0.730.17
Canada gooseBranta canadensis0.580.27
Barn swallowHirundo rustica0.490.15
American goldfinchSpinus tristis0.290.08
American robinTurdus migratorius0.240.11
American crowCorvus brachyrhynchos0.190.10
BobolinkDolichonyz oryzivorus0.110.05
Table 2. Benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages across five locations within the Ruby Run riparian zone at J.W. Ruby Research Farm in Preston County, West Virginia, USA, from 2018 to 2020. Relative abundance was calculated as number of individuals per square meter. All taxa were larval forms aside from Oligochaeta, which consisted of both adults and juveniles.
Table 2. Benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages across five locations within the Ruby Run riparian zone at J.W. Ruby Research Farm in Preston County, West Virginia, USA, from 2018 to 2020. Relative abundance was calculated as number of individuals per square meter. All taxa were larval forms aside from Oligochaeta, which consisted of both adults and juveniles.
ClassOrderFamilyIndividuals per m2
MeanSE
Oligochaeta 3565.07640.85
InsectaColeopteraHydrophilidae169.77169.77
InsectaColeopteraPtilodactylidae339.53224.58
InsectaColeopteraStaphylinidae84.8884.88
InsectaDipteraCeratopogonidae1018.59640.85
InsectaDipteraChironomidae1188.36662.95
InsectaDipteraEmpididae84.8884.88
InsectaDipteraPsychoidae169.77169.77
InsectaDipteraTabanidae339.53224.58
InsectaDipteraTipulidae84.8884.88
CollembolaPoduromorphaNeanuridae84.8884.88
InsectaTrichopteraRhyacophilidae84.8884.88
ArachnidTrombidiformes 84.8884.88
Table 3. Small mammal species assemblage of the riparian zone of Ruby Run at JW Ruby Research Farm in Preston County, West Virginia, USA, from 2017 to 2020. Numbers of unique individuals from each species were combined across years to derive total number of individuals. Average annual number of individuals per 100 trap nights (CPUE) with standard error (SE) were calculated.
Table 3. Small mammal species assemblage of the riparian zone of Ruby Run at JW Ruby Research Farm in Preston County, West Virginia, USA, from 2017 to 2020. Numbers of unique individuals from each species were combined across years to derive total number of individuals. Average annual number of individuals per 100 trap nights (CPUE) with standard error (SE) were calculated.
SpeciesScientific NameNumber of IndividualsCPUE
MeanSE
Meadow voleMicrotus pennsylvanicus4274.671.18
Short-tailed shrewBlarina brevicauda1231.410.46
Deer mousePeromyscus maniculatus330.350.12
White-footed mousePeromyscus leucopus180.210.17
Meadow jumping mouseZapus hudsonius20.040.04
Eastern chipmunkTamias striatus10.010.01
Table 4. Anuran assemblage from nocturnal call surveys conducted within the riparian zone of Ruby Run at JW Ruby Research Farm in Preston County, West Virginia, USA, from 2017 to 2020. Average individuals per year is an estimate according to Wisconsin Index values given to each detection (1 = non-overlapping calls and an exact count of individuals could be made; 2 = overlapping calls with estimates of individuals made; 3 = calling in full chorus and assumed 50 individuals [17]).
Table 4. Anuran assemblage from nocturnal call surveys conducted within the riparian zone of Ruby Run at JW Ruby Research Farm in Preston County, West Virginia, USA, from 2017 to 2020. Average individuals per year is an estimate according to Wisconsin Index values given to each detection (1 = non-overlapping calls and an exact count of individuals could be made; 2 = overlapping calls with estimates of individuals made; 3 = calling in full chorus and assumed 50 individuals [17]).
SpeciesScientific NameWisconsin Index Values
MeanSEMedian
Spring peeperPseudacris crucifer1.630.131
American toadAnaxyrus americanus1.190.101
Cope’s gray treefrogHyla chrysoscelis101
Wood frogLithobates sylvaticus1.670.332
American bullfrogLithobates catesbeianus101
Green frogLithobates clamitans101
Table 5. Mean (±SE) annual variation of Shannon diversity (H’) and Pielou’s evenness (J) of plant species per 1 m2 quadrat in Ruby Run, Preston County, West Virginia, USA. Surveys were conducted in September 2016, June and September 2017 and 2018, and July 2020. The number of plots varied between 63 in 2016 and 82 in 2020 (n = 445 plots across 6 visits in 4 years).
Table 5. Mean (±SE) annual variation of Shannon diversity (H’) and Pielou’s evenness (J) of plant species per 1 m2 quadrat in Ruby Run, Preston County, West Virginia, USA. Surveys were conducted in September 2016, June and September 2017 and 2018, and July 2020. The number of plots varied between 63 in 2016 and 82 in 2020 (n = 445 plots across 6 visits in 4 years).
YearNumber of SpeciesH’J
2016590.235 (0.007)0.709 (0.022)
2017870.258 (0.004)0.748 (0.011)
20181030.244 (0.003)0.782 (0.011)
2020900.216 (0.005)0.721 (0.016)
Table 6. Dominant plant species surveyed within the riparian area of Ruby Run at JW Ruby Research Farm in Preston County, West Virginia, USA, during September 2016, June and September 2017 and 2018, and July 2020. Dominant species were identified as contributing > 10% cover combined across all four years. Total mean plant cover was the combined mean percent cover for each species within quadrats across years, while mean plant cover was the estimated percent cover within quadrats per survey. All values are reported as percentages.
Table 6. Dominant plant species surveyed within the riparian area of Ruby Run at JW Ruby Research Farm in Preston County, West Virginia, USA, during September 2016, June and September 2017 and 2018, and July 2020. Dominant species were identified as contributing > 10% cover combined across all four years. Total mean plant cover was the combined mean percent cover for each species within quadrats across years, while mean plant cover was the estimated percent cover within quadrats per survey. All values are reported as percentages.
SpeciesTotal Mean CoverPercent Cover per Survey
MeanSE
Juncus effusus54.3549.0592.300
Carex lurida39.3246.5541.590
Impatiens capensis39.0916.5151.977
Solidago rugosa35.5095.9733.659
Dichanthelium clandestinum32.7905.4651.013
Carex alopecoidea32.0525.3422.207
Vernonia noveboracensis30.6155.1021.367
Agrostis gigantea23.3453.8902.937
Symphyotrichum puniceum15.9982.6661.536
Eleocharis tenuis15.0582.5100.530
Rubus hispidus14.1622.3600.790
Lycopus virginicus14.1022.3500.865
Aster novae-angliae12.5582.0922.053
Rubus allegheniensis11.3101.8850.563
Carex scoparia11.1821.8640.641
Poa spp.11.1591.8590.995
Polygonum sagittatum10.9841.8310.503
Table 7. Species assemblage of fishes surveyed by single-pass electroshocking in Ruby Run at JW Ruby Research Farm in Preston County, West Virginia, USA, from 2017 to 2020.
Table 7. Species assemblage of fishes surveyed by single-pass electroshocking in Ruby Run at JW Ruby Research Farm in Preston County, West Virginia, USA, from 2017 to 2020.
SpeciesScientific NameNumber of IndividualsMean per Year (SE)Mean Proportion per Year (SE)
Creek chubSemotilus atromaculatus499125 (45)0.62 (0.13)
Largemouth bassMicropterus salmoides8221 (11)0.12 (0.05)
Green sunfishLepomis cyanellus7719 (8)0.19 (0.12)
Spotted bassMicropterus punctulatus123 (2)0.017 (0.01)
Spottail shinerNotropis hudsonis123 (3)0.015 (0.015)
BluegillLepomis macrochirus112.75 (2.75)0.02 (0.02)
Smallmouth bassMicropterus dolomieu51.25 (1.25)0.006 (0.006)
Yellow bullheadAmeiurus natalis20.5 (0.5)0.001 (0.001)
Central stonerollerCampostoma anomalum20.5 (0.5)0.003 (0.003)
PumpkinseedLepomis gibbosus20.5 (0.5)0.003 (0.003)
Blacknose daceRhinichthys atratulus20.5 (0.5)0.002 (0.002)
Brown bullheadAmeiurus nebulosus10.25 (0.25)0.001 (0.001)
Longnose daceRhinichthys cataractae10.25 (0.25)0.001 (0.001)
Table 8. Temporal variation in species richness and Shannon diversity (H’) of fish species electroshocked during surveys in August 2017, August 2018, September 2019, and November 2020 along a 700 m stretch in Ruby Run, a tributary within the Upper Deckers Creek watershed in Preston County, West Virginia, USA. Creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus) followed by green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus) was the most abundant species across years. Species richness values for each reach were calculated as the number of species present out of the total number of species surveyed for each year (n = 3, 5, 4, and 10 species in 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020, respectively).
Table 8. Temporal variation in species richness and Shannon diversity (H’) of fish species electroshocked during surveys in August 2017, August 2018, September 2019, and November 2020 along a 700 m stretch in Ruby Run, a tributary within the Upper Deckers Creek watershed in Preston County, West Virginia, USA. Creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus) followed by green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus) was the most abundant species across years. Species richness values for each reach were calculated as the number of species present out of the total number of species surveyed for each year (n = 3, 5, 4, and 10 species in 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020, respectively).
YearSpecies RichnessH’
MeanSEMeanSE
20170.860.070.760.07
20180.600.120.630.21
20190.610.110.630.21
20200.340.050.490.18
Table 9. Macroinvertebrate assemblages within stream riffles surveyed in Ruby Run at JW Ruby Research Farm in Preston County, West Virginia, USA, from 2018 to 2019. Relative abundance was determined as number of individuals per square meter. All taxa were larval forms aside from Oligochaeta, which consisted of both adults and juveniles.
Table 9. Macroinvertebrate assemblages within stream riffles surveyed in Ruby Run at JW Ruby Research Farm in Preston County, West Virginia, USA, from 2018 to 2019. Relative abundance was determined as number of individuals per square meter. All taxa were larval forms aside from Oligochaeta, which consisted of both adults and juveniles.
ClassOrderFamilyIndividuals per m2
MeanSE
InsectaAnisopteraGomphidae0.030.03
Oligochaeta 0.160.16
MelacostracaDecapodaAstacidae0.090.09
InsectaDipteraSimuliidae0.160.16
InsectaEphemeropteraHeptageniidae0.020.02
InsectaPlecopteraCapniidae0.030.03
InsectaTrichopteraHydropsychidae0.130.13
InsectaDipteraCeratopogonidae0.250.19
InsectaDipteraChironomidae0.020.02
MelacostracaIsopodaAsellidae0.080.08
InsectaPlecopteraChloroperlidae0.030.03
InsectaPlecopteraPerlodidae0.160.16
MelacostracaDecapodaCambaridae0.060.06
InsectaDipteraTipulidae0.030.03
InsectaTrichopteraPhilopotamidae0.060.06
InsectaPlecopteraPerlidae0.020.02
Table 10. Number of species by taxa within West Virginia, number of species by taxa that are wetland/aquatic dependent, number of species documented in Ruby Run (this study), and the percent of species we documented compared to the total number in West Virginia and the percent of species we documented compared to the total number that are wetland-dependent [16,69,70,71,72].
Table 10. Number of species by taxa within West Virginia, number of species by taxa that are wetland/aquatic dependent, number of species documented in Ruby Run (this study), and the percent of species we documented compared to the total number in West Virginia and the percent of species we documented compared to the total number that are wetland-dependent [16,69,70,71,72].
TaxonWest VirginiaWetlandsRuby Run
No. SpeciesNo. SpeciesNo. Species% of West Virginia Species % Wetland Species
Plants234415001546.57%4.20%
Fish181181137.18%7.18%
Anurans 1515640.00%40.00%
Birds2661035821.80%7.77%
Small mammals369616.67%22.22%
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Becker, D.N.; Hubbart, J.A.; Anderson, J.T. Biodiversity Monitoring of a Riparian Wetland in a Mixed-Use Watershed in the Central Appalachians, USA, before Restoration. Diversity 2022, 14, 304. https://doi.org/10.3390/d14040304

AMA Style

Becker DN, Hubbart JA, Anderson JT. Biodiversity Monitoring of a Riparian Wetland in a Mixed-Use Watershed in the Central Appalachians, USA, before Restoration. Diversity. 2022; 14(4):304. https://doi.org/10.3390/d14040304

Chicago/Turabian Style

Becker, Darien N., Jason A. Hubbart, and James T. Anderson. 2022. "Biodiversity Monitoring of a Riparian Wetland in a Mixed-Use Watershed in the Central Appalachians, USA, before Restoration" Diversity 14, no. 4: 304. https://doi.org/10.3390/d14040304

APA Style

Becker, D. N., Hubbart, J. A., & Anderson, J. T. (2022). Biodiversity Monitoring of a Riparian Wetland in a Mixed-Use Watershed in the Central Appalachians, USA, before Restoration. Diversity, 14(4), 304. https://doi.org/10.3390/d14040304

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop