July 2020 Wetland Science & Practice

&

Wetland Science Practice published by the Society of Wetland Scientists

Vol. 37, No. 3 July 2020 ISSN: 1943-6254

SWS - Celebrating Our 40th Anniversary in 2020

FROM THE EDITOR’S DESK

CONTENTS Vol. 37, No. 3 July 2020 ISSN: 1943-6254

Greetings Wetlanders! This is indeed a strange time as I have only left my home in the hills a few times during the past few months due to the coronavirus pandemic. I am very thankful that I live in a rural setting as it has given me time to better appreciate my immediate surroundings.

We have a pair of Baltimore orioles and rose-breasted grosbeaks that visit our feeders along with a pair of phoebes that nest on the front porch. The latter Ralph Tiner fledged four young in the WSP Editor past week and I’m wondering if they’ll refurbish the nest for a second brood as they did a few years back.

This issue was supposed to contain highlights from our annual conference celebrating our 40th Anniversary as a scientific organization and the abstracts of all the presentations from the conference. Since the conference was cancelled due to the pandemic, we will publish no abstracts but will celebrate our anniversary with a few special contributions. Kathy Ewel has graciously prepared an article on the history of our society; congrats to Kathy for a job well done! You’ll also find a thank you to our past and present leaders for moving the Society forward and an acknowledgments of the men and women who have received past SWS awards for their contributions to wetland science and/or the Society. (Note: Reflections from some of our past presidents appeared in the January 2020 and April 2020 issues of Wetland Science & Practice.)

We also are reprinting an article by Doug Wilcox that addressed the role of our journal WETLANDS in developing the field of wetland science (it was previously published in the September 2017 issue of WSP). The Society is the world’s leader in advancing wetland science.

In this issue you’ll also find contributions on current SWS activities including the Climate Change and Wetland Initiative by Max Finlayson and others, the initiation of a second citizen survey From the Editor’s Desk, continued on page 149 Note to Readers: All State-of-the-Science reports are peer reviewed, with anonymity to reviewers.

126 Wetland Science & Practice July 2020

126 / From the Editor’s Desk 127 / President’s Message SWS CELEBRATES 40 YEARS 128 / Forty Years as a Scientific Organization - Special Thanks 129 / Society of Wetland Scientists: The First Forty Years Katherine C. Ewel 150 / Present and Past SWS Award Winners 154 / History and Role of the Journal WETLANDS in Developing the Field of Wetland Science Douglas A. Wilcox SWS NEWS 158 / A Society of Wetland Scientists Climate Change and Wetlands Initiative C. Max Finlayson and others 162 / A Second Citizen Science State of the World’s Wetlands Survey. SWS Members’ Help Needed Again!

Robert J. McInnes and others 163 / Society of Wetland Scientists Professional Certification Program (SWSPCP) Contributed by Kim Ponzio and Matt Simpson 168 / SWS News 169 / Wetland Interviews Initiative - New Wetland Legend Interview publilshed 170 / SWS 2021 Annual Meeting June 1-4 in Spokane 171 / SWS Webinar Series

172 / Wetlands of Distinction, Steffanie Munguia ARTICLES 174 / Vegetation Sampling Concepts for Compensatory Mitigation Sites Douglas A. DeBerry 183 / Farmers in the Marsh: Lessons from History and Case Studies for the Future Susan C. Adamowicz and others 196 / Landscape Effects on Freshwater Turtle Heavy Metal Bioaccumulation in West Virginia Wetlands Darien N. Lozon WETLAND SCIENCE 200 / Florida Gulf Coast University’s Everglades Wetland Research Park in Naples Receives $1 million Grant to Investigate Innovative Approach for Mitigating Harmful Algal Blooms, Bill Mitsch 201 / Wetlands in the News 202 / Weltand Bookshelf 205 / What’s New in the SWS Journal - WETLANDS 207 / From the Bog – the Last HA HA! Doug Wilcox 212 / About WSP Submission Guidelines COVER PHOTO: Salt marsh on Mt. Desert Island, Maine, USA. (Photo by R. Tiner)

PRESIDENT’S ADDRESS Dear SWS colleagues and friends, Months before Max passed the SWS spoon to me, I imagined that my first President’s message in WSP would contain the “business as usual” report, with a few lively anecdotes and fun spinoffs from our 40th anniversary celebrations at the Quebec City meeting peppered in for good measure.

Instead, the last several months brought cancellation of the annual meeting, professional and personal hurdles for many, and much uncertainty. Figuring out “the new norm” and how to navigate within it quickly replaced Loretta Battaglia, Ph.D. “business as usual”. Stories of Southern Illinois Covid woes, loss, and disappointUniversity ment from across our internationSWS President al wetland community supplanted the usual chatter about interesting presentations, fieldtrip adventures, and meeting tales.

We are still reeling and searching for meaningful ways to stay connected, all the while striving to enhance member diversity and expand the global reach of SWS. Despite the setbacks and challenges, I want to assure you that we are forging ahead with the Society’s business, oftentimes in new and creative ways.

I’d like to share just a few highlights of recent activities and future planning. In June, we held our first ever virtual annual business meeting, complete with a plenary presentation by Dr. Kathy Ewel on the history of SWS, reports on the state of our Society (we are in fine shape), presentation of Presidential service awards to several outstanding leaders, and a welcome to new and returning members of the Executive Board. The SWS Student Section successfully put on their inaugural virtual conference with students tuning in and presenting their research from across the globe! Other examples like the SWS Europe virtual conference and the work done by the trailblazing SWS Webinar group provide wonderful models (and valuable lessons learned) for how we can be even more flexible in the delivery of information. You probably recently took a survey geared to help us plan a virtual meeting later this year to share our science, network with friends and colleagues, and properly celebrate the SWS 40th anniversary. Plans for this event were born out of the Education Section, which is leading the charge.

President’s Address, continued on page 163

&

Wetland Science Practice

PRESIDENT / Loretta Battaglia, Ph.D. PRESIDENT-ELECT / Gregory Noe, Ph.D. IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT / Max Finlayson, Ph.D. SECRETARY GENERAL / Leandra Cleveland, PWS TREASURER / Lori Sutter, Ph.D. EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATOR / Suzanna Hogendorn CONSULTING DIRECTOR / Michelle Czosek, CAE WETLAND SCIENCE & PRACTICE EDITOR / Ralph Tiner, PWS Emeritus CHAPTERS ALASKA / Emily Creely ASIA / Wei-Ta Fang, Ph.D. CANADA / Gordon Goldborough, Ph.D. CENTRAL / Katie Astroth CHINA / Xianguo Lyu EUROPE / Matthew Simpson, PWS INTERNATIONAL / Ian Bredlin, Msc; Pr.Sci.Nat and Tatiana Lobato de Magalhães MID-ATLANTIC / Jennifer Slacum NEW ENGLAND / Dwight Dunk NORTH CENTRAL / Christina Hargiss, Ph.D. OCEANIA / Phil Papas PACIFIC NORTHWEST / Josh Wozniak ROCKY MOUNTAIN / Ryan Hammons, PWS SOUTH ATLANTIC / Brian Benscoter, Ph.D. SOUTH CENTRAL / Scott Jecker, PWS WESTERN / Richard Beck, PWS, CPESC, CEP SECTIONS BIOGEOCHEMISTRY / Lisa Chambers, Ph.D. EDUCATION / Derek Faust, Ph.D. GLOBAL CHANGE ECOLOGY / Wei Wu, Ph.D. PEATLANDS / Bin Xu, Ph.D. PUBLIC POLICY AND REGULATION / John Lowenthal, PWS RAMSAR / Nicholas Davidson WETLAND RESTORATION / Andy Herb WILDLIFE / Andy Nyman, Ph.D. WOMEN IN WETLANDS / Carrie Reinhardt Adams, Ph.D. STUDENT / David Riera COMMITTEES AWARDS / Siobhan Fennessy, Ph.D. HUMAN DIVERSITY / Alani Taylor MEETINGS / Yvonne Vallette, PWS PUBLICATIONS / Keith Edwards MEMBERSHIP / Leandra Cleveland, PWS WAYS & MEANS / Lori Sutter, Ph.D. SWS WETLANDS OF DISTINCTION / Roy Messaros, Ph.D. Bill Morgante and Jason Smith, PWS REPRESENTATIVES PCP / Scott Jecker, PWS STUDENT / David Riera WETLANDS / Marinus Otte, Ph.D. WETLAND SCIENCE & PRACTICE / Ralph Tiner, PWS Emeritus ASWM / Tom Harcarik RAMSAR / Nicholas Davidson, Ph.D. AIBS / Dennis Whigham, Ph.D. SOCIETY OF WETLAND SCIENTISTS 1818 Parmenter St., Ste 300, Middleton, WI 53562 (608) 310-7855 www.sws.org Wetland Science & Practice July 2020 127

SWS CELEBRATES 40 YEARS

Congratulations on Forty Years as a Scientific Organization - Special Thanks

I

t has been 40 years since Dick Macomber (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) launched the Society of Wetland Scientists (see Kathy Ewel’s article on the history of SWS in this issue). We owe a debt of thanks to Dick for his insight and to that initial group who joined the Society as well as to the Society’s officers for their leadership over the past forty years.

In tribute here’s a listing of past presidents, secretary-generals, and treasurers. We also thank all of our members past and present for supporting the Society. Thanks to all of you! n PRESIDENTS YEARS SERVED James Parnell 1980-1983 Walter Glooschenko 1983-1984 Paul Knutson 1984-1985 Armando De La Cruz 1985-1986 Courtney Hackney 1986-1987 Curtis Richardson 1987-1988 Gene Silberhorn 1988-1989 Jay Leitch 1989-1990 Mark Brinson 1990-1991 G. Ronnie Best 1991-1992 Carol Johnston 1992-1993 Lee Ischinger 1993-1994 Mary Landin 1994-1995 William Mitsch 1995-1996 Duncan Patten 1996-1997 Donald Cahoon 1997-1998 John Teal 1998-1999 Janet Keough 1999-2000 Virginia Carter 2000-2001 Barry Warner 2001-2002 Frank Day 2002-2003 Mark Felton 2003-2004 Katherine Ewel 2004-2005 Barbara Bedford 2005-2006 Mary Kentula 2006-2007 Patrick Megonigal 2007-2008 Christopher Craft 2008-2009 Andrew Baldwin 2009-2010 Glenn Guntenspergen 2010-2011 Ben LePage 2011-2012 George Lukas 2012-2013 Stephen Faulkner 2013-2014 128 Wetland Science & Practice July 2020

James Perry Kimberli Ponzio Gillian Davies Arnold van der Valk Beth Middleton Max Finlayson Loretta Battaglia SECRETARY-GENERALS William Adams David DuMond Janet Keough Glenn Guntenspergen Matthew Schweisberg Beth Middleton Will Conner Kimberli Ponzio Loretta Battaglia Leandra Cleveland

2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 2020-2021 YEARS SERVED 1980-1983 1984-1992 1992-1998 1998-2002 2002-2005 2005-2007 2007-2011 2012-2014 2014-2017 2017-2021

TREASURERS YEARS SERVED Frank Yelverton 1980-1984 Janet O’Neill 1985-1987 G. Ronnie Best 1987-1991 Virginia Carter 1991-1994 Barbara Kleiss 1994-1997 Mary Kentula 1997-2003 Rebecca Howard 2003-2006 Leslie Felton 2006-2007 Sandy Doyle-Ahearn 2007-2012 Julia Cherry 2012-2018 Lori Sutter 2018-2021

SWS CELEBRATES 40 YEARS

Society of Wetland Scientists: The First Forty Years Katherine C. Ewel1, School of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

BUILDING A SOCIETY The Society of Wetland Scientists (SWS) was the inspiration of Richard Macomber (Figure 1), a biologist with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Board of Rivers and Harbors, based in Ft. Belvoir, Virginia, USA. The Clean Water Act, passed in the United States in 1972, mandated regulation and protection of many kinds of wetlands that heretofore had been regarded as barriers to economic development. The Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency were responsible for overseeing the management and protection of these ecosystems. Dick Macomber, who had been giving short courses on wetlands, mainly for other Corps employees, began talking about forming a professional society to facilitate exchange of ideas about wetlands, based purely on good science. Colleagues who had taken Dick’s course shared his desire to increase the level of professionalism among practitioners, and they helped him bring the concept of a scientific society devoted to wetlands to fruition.

A steering committee of 13 met at Wallops Island Station, Virginia, USA, in August 1979 to formulate a charter.

After a few more meetings to finalize preliminary arrangements, such as determining membership requirements, more than 35 wetland scientists and managers gathered in Tampa, Florida, in March 1980 to define the Society’s objectives, agree on membership requirements, finalize the bylaws and standing rules, elect officers, and begin planning for the next annual meeting.

The March meeting set the pattern for the next 40 years of SWS annual meetings. The new members took a field trip to a mangrove swamp on Tampa Bay and freshwater marshes along Lake Kissimmee. A keynote address on the responsibilities of scientists toward improving wetland management was presented by Gerald J. McLindon, Dean of Future Studies at Louisiana State University. There were also informal presentations of case studies representing conflicts between protecting natural resources and encouraging economic development, including mitigation.

Most of the members that first year were U.S. government employees, primarily with the Corps of Engineers, and

they came from all around the country. Papers presented were submitted for publication in the new journal Wetlands, which the members could purchase separately.

When it came time to elect officers at the first business meeting, Dick Macomber, who had a master’s degree, thought that the president of a professional society should have a PhD. He urged one of his contractors, Jim Parnell of the University of North Carolina at Wilmington, to accept the nomination for the presidency; Dick agreed to serve as vice-president. To fill out the Executive Committee FIGURE 1. Richard Macomber in 1984 in Bellevue, Washington, USA. Dick was the founder of SWS and served as vice-president.

(Photo by Fred Weinmann.)

1. Author contact: kewel@ufl.edu

Wetland Science & Practice July 2020 129

(later called the Executive Board), Bill Adams was elected secretary, and Frank Yelverton was the first treasurer. Dues for active members were set at $20 per year. By the 1982 annual meeting, the Society was incorporated with tax exempt and charitable status, although a vote was later taken to pursue “business league” status instead. Apparent misunderstanding about the Society’s tax status emerged later in the decade.

By 1983, Jim had held the presidency for three years, and the Society had grown to include about 300 members (Figure 2). At this point, 3-year terms for the president and vice-president were changed to 1-year terms. The vicepresident would automatically be nominated for president, and the immediate past president would remain on the Board of Directors, providing continuity of leadership while decreasing the demands on a single individual. Also at this time, Volume 3 of the journal Wetlands was sent to each member as part of their dues. (Sales of the earlier copies were slow.)

FIGURE 2. History of growth in active membership in SWS

FIGURE 3. Curt Richardson at a WETPOL meeting in Denmark that included the Europe Chapter's annual meeting. Curt is a past president and Fellow of SWS and a recipient of the SWS Lifetime Achievement Award.

130 Wetland Science & Practice July 2020

A Two-track Society By 1986, the 700 members were already equally divided among academic scientists, government scientists and regulators, and consultants. Most of the original members had been government employees and consultants, but many of the new members were academic scientists, concerned more with advancing the science of wetland ecology and management and less with evaluating policies, recounting case studies, and helping people comply with wetland-related laws and regulations.

At first, prospective members had to fill out an application form demonstrating that they had some competency in wetlands; they also had to find an existing member to nominate them. I recall being put off by having to prove my worth, not realizing that this requirement represented a credential to consultants wanting to attract prospective clients.

This requirement was put aside in 1986 so that anyone with an interest in wetlands could become a member. Nevertheless, this was an example of the differences in needs and expectations among the various professions represented.

In 1983, Dick Macomber raised the importance of SWS members’ functioning in an ethical manner, and he broached the idea of accreditation of wetland scientists.

Some liked the idea; others felt that it might be appropriate for SWS to provide criteria and guidelines for certification but not to certify the scientists itself. This was yet another example of the rift developing between those who would benefit from certification and those who felt it was an overreach for the Society.

President Curt Richardson (Figure 3) raised the issue again in 1988 of establishing a wetland scientist certification program. President Gene Silberhorn followed up on this immediately thereafter by appointing Charlie Newling as chair of an Ad Hoc Certification Committee, which also included Mary Landin and Harold Jones (Figure 4). A formal proposal for a certification program was presented to the Board of Directors in 1991 at the end of Mark Brinson’s presidency.

Subsequent background work by the Certification Committee with help from President Ronnie Best enabled the group to frame the appropriate motions for presentation at the next year’s business meeting, when a Certification Review Board was ready to accept applications. The motions were passed in 1992 under Ronnie’s presidency.

The SWS Professional Certification Program (PCP) was set up as a separate entity (501c3 corporation) for legal protection of both organizations. A Certification Panel was formed through considerable work and leadership by Mary Landin, Charlie Newling, Harold Jones, Tom Simpson, and others. The first certifications for Professional Wetland Scientist and Wetland Professional in Training were conferred in 1993/94 during Lee Ischinger’s presidency.

At President Ronnie Best’s request, Past President Mark Brinson prepared a Code of Ethics in April 1992, based on codes already in use by the American Fisheries Society, Ecological Society of America, Wildlife Society, and Estuarine Research Federation (ERF). This was not taken up by the entire SWS membership, but instead was adopted by PCP. For several years, the SWS president also served as president of PCP, as roughly 90% of PCP members were also SWS members. This became an onerous task as PCP developed its own unique culture. In 2002, Harold Jones was elected as the first independent PCP president. He and

SWS President Frank Day (Figure 5) signed a Memorandum of Understanding in 2003 binding the two organizations in a cooperative arrangement (Table 1).

Building a Framework for Governance As SWS grew, every member was represented by a card in a shoebox at the SWS Business Office, located in the home of Dave Dumond, one of the founding members, in Wilmington, North Carolina, USA. Dave was the second secretary-general and stayed on as executive secretary for a decade. The growth of the Society continued apace, membership records were eventually moved onto computers, and Dick Macomber’s dream became reality.

FIGURE 4. Harold Jones, receiving the SWSPCP Lifetime Achievement Award. He was also the first president of PCP, and he received the SWS President's Service Award.

FIGURE 5. Frank Day is a past president and Fellow of SWS. He also received the President's Service Award.

FIGURE 6. Past-presidents' breakfast in 2006. L to R: John Teal, Immediate Past President Barbara Bedford, President-Elect Pat Megonigal, Carol Johnston, Barry Warner, Mark Brinson, Mark Felton, Kathy Ewel, Frank Day, Curt Richardson, President Mary Kentula, and Duncan Patten.

Wetland Science & Practice July 2020 131

TABLE 1. Some of the formal partnerships forged between SWS and other organizations (CA= Cooperative Agreement, MOC = Memorandum of Cooperation, MOU = Memorandum of Understanding). Note: Those in italics are no longer in force.

SWS President and Span of Agreement Janet Keough 1999-2003 Kathy Ewel 2004-2010 Ben LePage 2011-2015 Gillian Davies 2017-2023 Frank Day 2003 Mary Kentula 2007 Mary Kentula 2007 Chris Craft 2009 Jim Perry 2015-2020 Kim Ponzio 2015 Gillian Davies 2016-2022 Gillian Davies 2016-2021 Gillian Davies 2016-2022 Gillian Davies 2017

Nature of Partnership and Partner Organization MOC: Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, recognizing the fundamental role played by wetlands in regulating and providing water, supporting maintenance of cultural and biological diversity, ensuring high ecosystem productivity, providing ecosystem services and benefits for people and the planet, and continuing to develop a collaborative program for sustainable wetland and water resource conservation and management.

MOU: Professional Certification Program, now a separate organization from SWS but linked in many ways.

MOU: Estuarine Research Federation, now Coastal & Estuarine Research Federation (CERF).

MOU: Soil Science Society of America, agreeing to mutual access to newsletters, space in publications, links on website; one member can attend the other society's meeting with a registration waiver; complimentary display at meetings.

MOC: Wetland Ecology Committee of the Ecological Society of China, to lay the groundwork for becoming an SWS chapter.

MOU: Taijiang National Park, Taiwan, promoting Taiwan wetland ecosystem scientific study, restoration, education, and outreach via cooperation and action.

MOC: Association of State Wetland Managers, to collaborate on promoting the knowledgeable management, conservation, and research on wetlands.

MOC: Society for Ecological Restoration, for sharing of information between leaders, co-signing of policy-related comment letters advocating for science-based policy, and an upcoming joint Annual Meeting in QuĂŠbec City, QuĂŠbec, Canada, in 2020 (which had to be terminated because of the coronavirus epidemic).

CA: To work with six Taiwanese government agencies involved in wetlands conservation toward the MOU listed below.

MOU: Taiwan Ministry of the Interior, Construction and Planning Agency, to promote the sustainability of Taiwanese wetlands through training, cooperative, international conferences and workshops, and interdisciplinary exchanges of scientists and managers.

MOU: To become members of CASS (Consortium of Aquatic Science Societies), which will promote international aquatic ecosystem scientific study, education, and outreach. CASS also includes CERF, American Fisheries Association, Association for the Societies of Limnology and Oceanography, Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society, Phycological Society of America, and Society for Freshwater Science.

132 Wetland Science & Practice July 2020

SWS business is conducted by the Board of Directors (Table 2), which normally meets three times a year. A new president’s first board meeting is a conference call after the annual science meeting, usually between August and December. The second board meeting is mid-year between two annual science meetings. The Executive Board first meets in person with the SWS management firm’s staff, and the rest of the board participates the next day via conference call. The third board meeting and the annual business meeting are held during the annual science meeting and are the last meetings conducted by a president.

For many years, the mid-year meeting of the Board of Directors was in the home city of the president. A local field trip was usually included, and these meetings are remembered warmly. During my presidency in 2005, I regretfully broke this tradition, as transporting the entire board plus staff from the management firm to Hawai’i was out of the question, and the meeting was in San Francisco instead. Eventually, conference calls replaced onsite meetings. One of the advantages of in-person meetings was the opportunity for research scientists, regulators, and consultants who were serving on the board to get to know each other personally and to become familiar with the different kinds of issues they face. The Chapter Outreach Initiative established under Kim Ponzio’s presidency in 2016 may facilitate bonding among the various professions.

Since the 1988 annual science meeting in Washington, DC, USA, the annual business meeting has been called to order by tapping a glass with a sterling silver spoon TABLE 2. Structure of the SWS Board of Directors in 2020.

Executive Board • President • President-Elect • Immediate Past President • Secretary-General • Treasurer Other Voting Members • Representative from each active chapter and section • Representative to the Professional Certification Program • Chairs of standing committees Non-Voting Members • Editor of Wetlands • Editor of Wetland Science & Practice • Representative to the American Institute of Biological Sciences • Representative to the Association of State Wetland Managers • Representative from the Association of State Wetland Managers

FIGURE 7. Bill Mitsch is a past president FIGURE 8. Gillian Davies is a past and Fellow of SWS and a recipient of president of SWS. the SWS Lifetime Achievement Award.

shamelessly acquired by President Curt Richardson from the restaurant at which the meeting was held. It now graces one of the plaques with the names of the presidents. At the 1990 business meeting under Jay Leitch’s presidency, the membership voted to retain past presidents as members of the Board of Directors as long as they are active; this was amended in 1991 to include only the two most recent past presidents. Past President Courtney Hackney scheduled the first Past President’s Breakfast on the Friday following the 1990 meeting. At some point, the past presidents must have rebelled against being kept as board members, but they have continued to meet happily as a group at breakfast during each subsequent annual meeting (Figure 6).

The treasurer and secretary-general are now elected for 3-year terms. In 1998, they began their terms as secretarygeneral-elect and treasurer-elect, providing a year’s overlap with their out-going counterparts. This was terminated in 2014 due to more extensive involvement by the management firm, as described later. Elections for these two officers are now staggered to facilitate transfer of institutional memory.

In the first “Message from SWS President” in the SWS Bulletin in 1981, Jim Parnell stressed that in order to grow and thrive, the organization needed to attract members from all parts of the wetland profession and to promote interaction among its various segments. Jay Leitch, Theresa Golz, and Lyndon Lee polled the SWS membership in 1986 to construct a profile. Members who belonged to other societies were most likely to belong to the Ecological Society of America; main interests included ecology and biological aspects of science (55%), wetland delineation (14%), and management (12%); 19% of the members were consultants, 31% were academics, and 46% were federal, state, and local government employees. Sentiment was expressed for more representation by lawyers and social scientists. Jim Wetland Science & Practice July 2020 133

TABLE 3a. History, geographic scope, and number of members (in 2019) of the SWS system of chapters: making a place for everyone. The date indicates when the chapter was first organized and active, but all requirements may not have been met. Note: Chapters designated in italics no longer exist.

Eastern Region,1980.

Al Whitehouse was the first chair. It was the first chapter to officially form, in 1983. In 1985, this chapter split into the Northeastern and Southeastern Chapters, which immediately became North Atlantic and South Atlantic.

North Central USA, 1980: States of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. 426 members.

Originally known as the North Central Region “3,” this was the second chapter to officially form, in 1984. The first chair was Mike Freel.

Southern Region, 1980 Jerry Scott was the first chair. It eventually became the South Central chapter.

Canada, 1982: Canada. 77 members.

This chapter was originally known as Canadian Group and then Canadian (Region 5, then 7). Karen Clark-Whistler was the first chair. In 1985, it was “Canada and Foreign” when it included Australia, Brazil, England, Germany, France, and Sweden and had 21 members. Some thought was given to seeking province-level chapters. It was reactivated by Tim Hilditch in 1995. The 2000 combined meeting of SWS with INTECOL and other societies in Québec City provided a major impetus to its formal organization.

Western USA, 1984: States of Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Nevada, as well as the US-affiliated states in the Pacific Ocean. 162 members.

This chapter was originally known as Western Region “5,” Mike Josselyn was the first chair. The name was changed to California & Southwestern Region when the Pacific Northwestern Region formed but soon reverted to Western.

North Atlantic, 1985: States of Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia.

Candy Bartoldus was chair in 1985. This was first designated as Northeastern Region “1,” soon thereafter becoming the North Atlantic Chapter, which later became the Mid-Atlantic after the New England Chapter split off in 1992.

South Central USA, 1985: States of Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas. 340 members Charlie Newling was the first chair.

Alaska USA, 1985: State of Alaska. 61 members.

Originally known as Alaskan Region “6,” this chapter was chaired by Carol Gorbics in 1985 but was inactive by 1987. It was reactivated in 1994 and hosted a successful meeting in 1998.

International, 1986: Foreign countries not included in other chapters. 146 members.

This chapter was originally included (informally) in the Canada Group but began to emerge as a separate entity in 1985, briefly as the Overseas Region and eventually as the International Region (Region 8) Group. It was first chaired

by Armando de la Cruz and Francis Heliotis. Eric Gilman filed the official documents for this chapter in 2000. Since 2018, there have been two co-chairs, one for Africa and the other for Latin America and the Caribbean.

South Atlantic USA, 1985: States of Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia, as well as Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. 595 members.

An offshoot from the division of the Eastern Region, this chapter was first designated as Southeast Region, then as Southern Region 2 but only for a very short time. Robin Lewis was chair in 1985, but there was no activity until Ronnie Best, Frank Day and Rebecca Sharitz organized the chapter at a meeting of the Association of Southeastern Biologists (ASB) in 1988. The tradition of meeting with ASB lasted until 1994. Frank served as the first chair (1988-1990) with Ronnie as co-chair in 1988.

134 Wetland Science & Practice July 2020

attempted to reach out to the American Bar Association in 2005-06. Although collaboration did not materialize, individual lawyers have nevertheless been active in SWS and its meetings over the years. In 1984, for instance, honorary membership was given to the SWS attorney Jim Gillespie.

Now, not yet 50 years after the passage of the Clean Water Act, the SWS includes the entire field of wetland science and wetland professionals from all six inhabited continents.

Below I outline the evolution of structure and philosophy that have fostered collaboration and outreach among a diverse membership.

ACTIVITIES OF THE SOCIETY Meetings Annual science meetings have been an important feature since the SWS first met in Tampa, Florida, and an individual chapter has usually taken responsibility for a meeting.

Field trips have always been included, and workshops and training courses have been offered as well. Starting in 2003, the SWS management firm organized the annual meetings in collaboration with a host chapter.

The first annual meeting to be held with another organization was with the ERF and the American Littoral Society in 1985. The first annual meeting to be held outside the USA was a joint meeting with the American Society of Limnology and Oceanography (ASLO) in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, in 1993. The hooded sweatshirts prepared for the meeting were misprinted to read “SWS and ALSO,” which did not make the ASLO members happy! (Perhaps ASLO was avenged a few years later when a shipment of SWS letterhead arrived reading “Society of Weltand Scientists.” Charlie Newling suggests that maybe they were welltanned in those days…) The first annual meeting to be held outside North America was in 2006 at Cairns, Queensland, Australia. In 2016, a geographic rotation model proposed

by President Jim Perry was adopted to distribute commitments for groups of chapters to be eligible for hosting the annual meeting, allowing 2-3 years for planning ahead.

International meetings are to be held every 4-7 years.

Before SWS began taking shape, the International Peat Congresses provided the main international forum for wetland scientists and are still well attended today. There was also extensive collaboration among Czechoslovakians, Poles, and Romanians as part of the International Biological Programme (IBP) in the early 1970s. In 1978, the International Association for Ecology (INTECOL) Wetlands Working Group, comprising some 40 people, including many previously involved in IBP, formed to organize international meetings that would attract wetland scientists with a broad range of interests for the next four decades.

V. J. Chapman undertook organization of the first INTECOL International Wetlands Conference, held in India in 1980, just 6 months after the first SWS meeting. It was attended by 90 people from 20 countries. Jan Kvĕt from Czechoslovakia and Gene Turner, an SWS member from USA, worked with Chapman and others to initiate the series of meetings that would take place every four years thereafter, the 2nd held in Czechoslovakia and the 11th scheduled to take place in New Zealand three months after the 40th SWS meeting in 2020 (which was cancelled due to the coronavirus pandemic).

No formal connection has ever been made between INTECOL and SWS, but SWS has nonetheless played a major role in many of these meetings, often providing financial support. It partnered with the 4th INTECOL at Ohio State University, USA, in 1992, which SWS member Bill Mitsch (Figure 7) helped organize. It also partnered with the 6th INTECOL meeting in Québec City, Canada, in 2000, and the 9th in Orlando, Florida, USA, in 2012. President Kim Ponzio was on the scientific committee for the 10th INTECOL conference in Changshu, China, where President Gillian Davies (Figure 8) addressed attendees at the opening ceremonies on behalf of SWS. These conferences have been well-attended and a significant activity for all wetland scientists. For example, the Québec meeting was attended by more than 2000 delegates representing 72 countries, the largest wetland meeting to date. In 2020, SWS member Gene Turner, who has been involved in the INTECOL Wetlands Working Group from the beginning, is still co-chair, along with Jos Verhoeven from The Netherlands, and Jenny Davis from Australia, both co-chairs of previous meetings.

Since 2008, Asia Chapter President Wei-Ta Fang has been inviting selected SWS Board of Directors members and other SWS scientists to Taiwan, as guests of the Taiwanese government, to give presentations at universities and conferences and to visit wetlands throughout the country. In 2014, SWS President Jim Perry signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Taijiang National Park in Taiwan (Table 1). At the 2016 International Wetlands Convention, several Taiwanese government agencies signed the Taiwanese Wetlands Conservation Intersectoral Cooperation Agreement of 2016-2021 as well as a renewal of the Memorandum of Understanding (2016–2022) with SWS President Gillian Davies.

Chapters During the first decades of SWS’ existence, many of the Society’s activities were carried out by regional groups, eventually called chapters, which began forming along with the Society itself. Creation of regions and districts was partly an artifact of the Corps of Engineers’ own administrative structure, and SWS used these divisions to divide the world so that every member would belong to a group/ Wetland Science & Practice July 2020 135

TABLE 3b. History, geographic scope, and number of members (in 2019) of the SWS system of chapters: adjusting boundaries. The date indicates when the chapter was first organized and active but all requirements may not have been met.

Rocky Mountain USA, 1988: States of Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. 183 members.

This chapter was carved out of the former Western Region as the Rocky Mountain Chapter (Region 9). David Cooper was the first chair, and a successful meeting was hosted in 1990. There was some discussion of transferring the States of Arizona and New Mexico from the Western Chapter, which would have required a name change, but this was never accomplished.

Pacific Northwest USA, 1989: States of Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. 348 members.

This chapter separated from Western Region 5 and was first designated as Pacific Northwestern Chapter (Region 10). It has been a very active and enthusiastic group throughout its existence. Marc Boulé was the first chair.

New England USA,1992: States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut. 332 members.

This chapter separated from the North Atlantic Chapter under the leadership of Mickey Marcus, Rick Van de Poll, and Douglas Sparrow.

Central USA, 1992: States of Kansas and Missouri. 83 members.

Kathy Mulder was the first president of this chapter, which was formed from Central (Region 12).

Mid-Atlantic USA, 1994: States of Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia. 591 members.

This was the North Atlantic Chapter until the New England states formed their own chapter. Immediately after the split this chapter was designated as Mid-Atlantic (Region 3).

136 Wetland Science & Practice July 2020

TABLE 3c. History, geographic scope, and number of members (in 2019) of the SWS system of chapters: formation of geographically defined international chapters. The date indicates when the chapter was first organized but all requirements may not have been met. Note: Chapters designated in italics no longer exist.

Australia, 2000 Geoff Winning started the Australia Chapter. It became the Australasia Chapter in 2005 when Papua New Guinea, New Zealand, the Solomon Islands, and Samoa were included, and it hosted an SWS annual meeting in 2006. The Australasia Chapter was renamed “Oceania” in 2013 (see below).

Colombia 2003 German Andrade was the first chair. This chapter was dissolved in 2007; its members were represented first by the International Chapter, then by the South American Chapter, and finally by the International Chapter again.

Europe, 2004: European continent and British Isles. 87 members.

Andy Baird chaired the UK chapter as it was forming. Soon, with the collaboration of Jos Verhoeven, it included all of Europe. The first chairs were Christopher Freeman and Jane Bunting.

Asia, 2005: East of the Suez Canal and the Ural Mountains, exclusive of China. Residents of Turkey can affiliate with either the Asia or the Europe Chapter. 76 members.

Isidro Savillo was the first chair. Boundaries were changed in 2017 with the installation of the China Chapter.

South American 2013 Elier Tabilo Valdivieso was the first chair of this chapter, but it could not be sustained and was folded back into the International Chapter in 2015.

Oceania, 2013: All states and territories of Australia as well as the nations of New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, and neighboring nations in the Pacific Ocean. 46 members.

“Australasia” was changed to “Oceania” to avoid confusion with Asia and to reflect better the entire group of countries in the chapter.

China, 2017: People’s Republic of China. 27 members.

A Memorandum of Understanding with the Wetland Ecology Committee of the Ecological Society of China in 2009 laid the foundation for this chapter. Xianguo Lyu was the first chair. A successful joint meeting between the China and Asia Chapters on Wetlands and Ecological Civilization was held in 2018.

chapter based on their geographic location. There were five active chapters by 1985, all within North America (Table 3a). In 1989, under Jay Leitch’s presidency, the designations of regions and districts were abandoned in favor of chapters. These chapters began reshaping as nodes of activity formed (Table 3b). It was not until 2000 that countries and even continents began to coalesce from the catch-all International Chapter (Table 3c).

President Courtney Hackney reminded the membership in 1987 that the original intent of the founders of SWS was for the national organization to support publications, whereas the chapters would provide direction. However, several chapters had significant periods of inactivity early in their histories, usually because a relatively small membership was scattered over a large geographic area, but also because it was difficult to raise the funds needed to accomplish anything significant. Each chapter was eligible to receive $2 per member (10% of Active Member dues) from the beginning. (In 2020, chapters are receiving $10 per member.) However, by 1985, the largest chapter had only 126 members, which would not have provided a significant resource. By 1990, Treasurer Ronnie Best reported that most chapters were not even requesting their allocations, a situation immediately corrected by having the Executive Secretary contact them annually to see if they wanted the funds.

Since Carol Johnston’s presidency in 1992/93, the SWS treasurer has transferred 15% of the proceeds from the annual meeting to the host chapter for its use in chapter activities. This percentage increased to 25% in Bill Mitsch’s presidency in 1995/96. These infusions of seed money provided a significant boost, and many chapters have gone on to raise funds from other sources to help advance the Society’s goals, such as providing stipends to help students attend the annual meetings. With time, the advent of electronic communications made it easier to reach a widely distributed membership, and most of the weaker chapters were eventually revitalized.

During the last 10 years, several international chapters have struggled to maintain a minimal membership and requested more help from the Society. Not only do many of these chapters cover a broad geographic region but they may include many languages as well. In 2016, under Kim Ponzio’s presidency, the Chapter Grant Fund was incorporated into the annual budget, from which chapters could solicit funding for special activities that would help with promotion and development. The Europe Chapter received the first award. In 2020, these awards can be as much as $4,000 for a term of 5 years.

Sections In 2005, Lee Swanson alerted the Society to the loss of peatland scientists to other more focused societies. SWS addressed that issue by forming Professional Special Interest Sections (Table 4), beginning in 2008 under Pat Megonigal’s presidency. Like chapters, sections require at least 25 members in order to form, and they receive a $200 startup allocation. Members originally had to pay a $5 annual fee in addition to their regular dues; in 2020, $10 is required. By 2009, there were already five sections. Two more (Education; Public Policy & Regulation) were added in 2017, and the Student Section was added in 2018, the elected chair replacing the appointed student representative as a voting member of the Board of Directors. By 2019, Wetland Restoration and Women in Wetlands were the largest sections and among the fastest growing.

Sections were intended to enhance the SWS annual meeting by organizing topic-based symposia and workshops. For instance, the Biogeochemistry Section hosted the long-standing and popular Wetland Biogeochemistry Symposium as part of the annual SWS meeting for several years. During the rest of the year, some sections hold small meetings and workshops and engage members electronically to promote communication and networking. Special activities to help fund students are often included.

Committees A few standing committees were formed in the Society’s early years, and many more appeared as the Society grew and its interests diversified (Table 5). Early committees were essential to conducting business: establishing bylaws, TABLE 4. Professional Special Interest Sections.

Year Section Founding Members Initiated Chair in 2019 2008 Biogeochemistry Adam Langley 149 2008 Global Change Beth Middleton 178 Ecology 2008 Peatlands Barry Warner 118 2008 Wildlife Mike Anteau 208 2008 Women Karen McKee 266 in Wetlands 2010 SWS Ramsar Rob McInnes 97 2013 Wetland Andy Herb 550 Restoration 2017 Education Derek Faust 57 2017 Public Policy John Lowenthal 77 and Regulation 2018 Student David Riera 18 Wetland Science & Practice July 2020 137

TABLE 5. History of Standing Committees. Note: Those shown in italics no longer exist.

Year Initiated 1980 1980

1980 1980 1981 1981 1982 1987

1990 1992 1992 1993 1994 1994 1995

Standing Committee Membership is chaired by the secretary. Bill Adams, the first chair, and representatives from each of the four original chapters, put together a membership form and a protocol for approving applications.

Ways and Means is chaired by the treasurer with representatives from each of the chapters. Frank Yelverton was the first chair, with a committee of four. There was little activity until 1993, when it selected Allen Press to handle business management. Under Lee Ischinger's leadership, the committee developed a comprehensive liability insurance package and later took on oversight for the SWS insurance account. It also recommended paying student grants from the endowment rather than from operating funds. Under Frank Day's presidency in 2003, duties of the former Sponsors and Endowment Committee were folded into it. In 2007 it had subcommittees for Investments, Endowments, and Contracts. In 2012 it developed an investment policy and selected an investment firm in 2014.

Conference was first chaired by Anna Paine and was responsible for coordination of logistical arrangements for the annual conference.

Program was first chaired by Robert Soots, Jr., who organized and coordinated the annual meeting's technical program.

Bylaws and Standing Rules is chaired by the immediate past president and includes the president and president-elect.

Editorial was formed in 1981 to include one board to serve the Wetlands, soon involving peer reviews, and one to serve the SWS Bulletin, focusing on regional news. Bob Soots, Jr., was the first chair and would be the editor of Wetlands for one more year. It soon became the Publications Committee.

Publications was first chaired by Janie Harris and Paul Knutson, the co-editor(s) of the SWS Bulletin.

When the Editorial Committee, which served Wetlands, was folded into it, this committee was also responsible for publication of the Membership Directory and Handbook.

Sponsors and Endowment was first called Endowment Fund and was chaired by President Curt Richardson.

The first fund was the Hudson Seymour-Allen fund donated in 1987 by the parents of Alice Knutson to be used to support SWS publications. Mary Landin donated an endowment for college scholarships, and at least one other endowment was established for international wetland science and management. Under President Duncan Patten in 1997, the treasurer was instructed to allow endowment funds to accumulate until activity could be adequately supported. This committee was folded into the Ways and Means Committee in 2003.

Student Awards was chaired by Lyndon Lee and Michael Scott. This committee honored the best paper and poster given by a student at the annual meeting. It was expanded into the Scholarship and Grants Committee as more funds became available, and it began offering student research grants.

Wetland Scientist Certification Committee had 7 PWS members and reviewed the requirements for certification.

Wetland Professional Certification Review Panel had 9 members certified as Wetland Professional Scientists who determined whether applicants are eligible.

Nominations has been chaired by the immediate past president since Jim Parnell became past president.

Meetings was one of a series of committees including Program, Conference, and Future Meetings that handled the details of running an annual meeting, in collaboration with the host chapter.

Archives was chaired by the archivist, a position first held by Paul Knutson, then Glenn Guntenspergen.

The management firm now serves as archivist.

Education and Public Outreach was first chaired by Tom Mings. It developed a new brochure for SWS. It was reactivated by Ben LePage when he became chair in 2006. The Wetland Treasures project (later to be a stand-alone committee, Wetlands of Distinction, described below) and the SWS Webinar Series were initiated by this committee.

138 Wetland Science & Practice July 2020

Year Initiated 1995 1998 2003 2003

2005 2012 2016 2017

Standing Committee Awards started as an ad hoc committee chaired by Don Cahoon in 1994, who established several subcommittees for individual awards. The first International Fellow and Lifetime Achievement Awards were granted in 1996. The Student Awards Committee was incorporated into this committee in 2005.

Scholarship and Grants, originally the Student Awards Committee, was renamed in 1998 after it had begun awarding small research grants for students. It was eventually absorbed into the Awards Committee.

Human Diversity was started by President Frank Day to broaden the background and experience of its membership. Jacoby Carter was the first chair. The SWaMMP program is a major activity, and the committee also works with regional chapters and is exploring ways to extend their efforts internationally.

Wetland Concerns Ad Hoc was originally called Environmental Concerns and became a standing committee in 2003, with Sandy Doyle-Ahearn as chair. Although there was initially dispute about what kind of activity was appropriate and even legal, it provided a focus for addressing wetland issues at both regional and national scales. Wetland delineation was the first issue it addressed. It is now a standing ad hoc committee that is reconstituted as individual issues arise.

Future Meetings is the sole survivor of the original suite of committees that oversaw annual meetings.

When Burk & Associates took over management of annual meetings in 2003, this became the primary means of society-wide planning for meetings.

Information Technology Advisory Group was a collaboration between AMPED and SWS members to reconfigure the website to incorporate both financial/membership operations and science contributions. It was terminated in 2014 when the new website came online.

Past Presidents Advisory Council was formed by President Kim Ponzio to draw on SWS past presidents for assistance, particularly with issues being addressed by the Wetlands Concerns Ad Hoc Committee.

SWS Wetlands of Distinction was originally the Wetlands Treasures project initiated by the Education and Outreach Committee.

communicating with members regarding renewals, arranging upcoming meetings, and soliciting nominations for offices. As more funds became available, both Awards and Education Committees were formed to benefit students, and others followed. Some ad hoc committees that were appointed evolved into standing committees; others were highly focused and were terminated when their work was completed (Table 6).

Business Operations As chapters grew in size and number, the treasurer’s job became more and more difficult. President Jim Parnell proposed in 1983 that an annual working budget be established, but several years would pass before this was accomplished. At the urging of Lee Ischinger, who would later play a major role in updating SWS business practices, the first formal budget was drawn up by Treasurer Virginia Carter in 1992. In 1996, under Duncan Patten’s presidency, Treasurer Barbara Kleiss asked that individual chapter accounts be kept in the same bank as the SWS main account to facilitate fund transfers. These and other transitions in

the financial affairs of the organization required considerable effort by Barb and the next treasurer, Mary Kentula.

It was not until 2012 that chapter accounts were finally consolidated in one place.

In 1985, the elected position of secretary became an appointed position: Executive Secretary Dave Dumond’s duties had grown exponentially, and this change provided needed continuity and gave him a small honorarium. His shoebox of membership cards eventually was uploaded to the first of a series of computers. His house was effectively the business office, from which documents, journals, membership directories, etc., were mailed out, eventually requiring three rooms and a garage. In 1990, Dave’s wife Sandra was awarded honorary membership in SWS as thanks for all her support, which had included individually transferring all the membership data from an older computer to a new one. By 1991, Dave was being paid $2/member each year, but keeping up with a growing, changing membership was especially challenging to a two-career household with children.

Wetland Science & Practice July 2020 139

TABLE 6. A partial list of special committees formed to float ideas or address specific issues. These usually completed their tasks in 2 years.

Year Initiated 1981 1988 1991 1991 1992 1994

1994 Before 1995 1996 1996

1995 2005 2007 2015 2016 2016 2017

Special Committee Robin Lewis chaired an ad hoc committee on Education with the task of preparing a catalog of various materials on wetlands.

Charlie Newling chaired a committee to propose a Wetland Certification program.

Lee Ischinger chaired a committee to investigate the potential Liability Coverage needs of the Society.

President Ronnie Best asked Carol Johnston to chair a committee to look into Page Charges for the journal Wetlands.

The Business Management Committee, tasked with developing a recommendation for engaging a company for $35,000/year, was headed by Marc BoulĂŠ. It concluded that an Executive Director could represent SWS more effectively.

Past President Mark Brinson chaired a committee on Delineation, which ended its first term with no consensus. Its task was shifted to the Environmental Concerns Committee, a pre-existing ad hoc committee that later became the Wetlands Concerns Committee. Nevertheless, Delineation became a Standing Committee, perhaps by default, until it was removed in 1998.

Virginia Carter chaired the Education and Outreach Committee, which had subcommittees on student education, professional education, and outreach, with the likelihood that it would become a standing committee (see Table 5).

The Wetland Concerns Committee began as the Environmental Concerns Committee, also called Environmental Affairs, when it was chaired by Lee Ischinger, who was dismayed that the membership showed little interest in developing position papers. It became a standing committee.

The Pantanal Committee was formed by President Bill Mitsch to evaluate a proposed hydrologic development issue involving Paraguay and Brazil. It culminated in a document summarizing the relevance of other major river diversions to the proposed project.

The International Cooperation Committee was formed by President Bill Mitsch and was first chaired by Robert Twilley to develop links with international groups. Bill Streever took over in 1997 and developed it as a mechanism for highlighting international issues. In 1999, the scope expanded with the formation of the Ramsar Support Framework by co-chair Eric Gilman, who oversaw a small-grant program for 5 years that provided $90,000 to wetland professionals in 15 countries.

Paul DuBowy chaired the first Electronic Communication Committee, producing the first SWS Internet Homepage in April 1996.

The Committee to Draft Business Office Requests for Services was charged by President Barbara Bedford and chaired by Past President Mark Felton. It forwarded substantive recommendations to the Ways and Means Committee in 2007.

The IT Working Group was chaired by Pat Megonigal and Richard Chinn to determine how well the membership database and website were working.

President Jim Perry formed the Nicaragua Canal Committee to evaluate possible impacts of the proposed canal on coastal wetlands.

Immediate Past President Jim Perry chaired a committee that established the Chapter Outreach program to increase communication between the Executive Board and SWS chapters.

President Kim Ponzio appointed Arnold van der Valk to chair the Internationalization Committee. He reported to the Board of Directors in 2017.

The Governance Structure Committee was established by President Gillian Davies to consider the Society’s growth patterns, adequacy of representation by the Board of Directors, the need for an Executive Director, and ways to decrease turnover among SWS leaders in order to develop and maintain relationships with other organizations.

140 Wetland Science & Practice July 2020

The increasing pressures on the Dumond household led the Society as early as 1991 to consider hiring an Executive Director. By then, SWS had more than 2000 members, and many felt that because of the time demands of the increased complexity of internal operations, it was not receiving the professional visibility it deserved. Under President-elect Lee Ischinger’s guidance, the Society adopted a business management plan solicited from Allen Press. Dave Dumond, who had been the quintessential volunteer, was finally able to hand over his records and terminate his 10-year term as executive secretary in 1993. Carol Johnston remembers working long hours on the dBase files (on floppy disks!) of the membership database to get them into shape to transfer to Allen Press.

This was an important first step, but it was eventually clear that SWS needed more assistance than Allen Press could provide, and the decision was made to hire a business management firm. In 2002, the Society engaged Burk & Associates to handle most of the day-to-day business tasks formerly performed by members of the Executive Board and other volunteers. In 2005, they assumed responsibility for making logistic arrangements for the annual meetings.

AMPED Association Managers took over SWS management from Burk & Associates in 2011. Because PCP had substantial unique needs, it has engaged Center for Association Resources since 2006 to manage its program.

TOWARD A MORE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY SWS considered itself an international society from its beginning, with the active participation of several Canadians, including the second president, Walter Glooschenko, in 1983/84.

International membership increased gradually through the 1980s and 1990s, along with the number of countries represented, all included in the informally organized International Chapter. The Gratis Membership Program was initiated in 1989 under Gene Silberhorn’s presidency to offer full membership at no cost to wetland professionals from less developed countries: up to 1% of the total membership could be supported on gratis memberships for up to 3 years. By 1998, there were 43 gratis members in 25 countries, and in 2015/16 there were 65 in 24 countries. In 2020, up to 3% of the membership can be gratis for no more than two 2-year terms.

In 1994, under Lee Ischinger’s presidency, Robert Twilley tried to bring a Western Hemisphere focus to the nascent International Chapter, with hopes that European and Asian Chapters would develop in parallel. Thirty-one countries were represented in the membership in 1995. Bill Mitsch urged the Society during his presidency in 1995/96 to direct more attention to international wetlands, taking particular interest in the Pantanal in South America (Table 5). He appointed Robert Twilley to chair the new International Committee to coordinate and promote international activity.

In 1997, Past President Duncan Patten oversaw changes in bylaws and standing rules appropriate to the international scope of the Society. In 1998, Bill Streever, by that time chair of the International Committee, initiated an international column in the SWS Bulletin that was sustained for many years. He also started the tradition of having an international symposium in every annual meeting, and he instigated development of a Memorandum of Cooperation with the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands (Table 1).

The International Chapter was officially recognized in 2000, serving as a portal to the Society for members in countries and even continents that had no other representation. At that time, it had 320 members. In 2001, 223 of the approximately 4600 SWS members belonged to the International Chapter, representing 65 countries. The Colombia Chapter was formed in 2003. As more area-specific international chapters began to form, the International Committee, which operated concurrently with the International Chapter for many years, was gradually phased out. In 2020, SWS has six chapters outside the USA: Asia, Canada, China, Europe, International, and Oceania, with 459 members in 2019 (Table 3c).

In July 2016, President Gillian Davies formed an Internationalization Ad Hoc Committee to study ways that SWS could improve efforts to involve international members, with President-Elect Arnold van der Valk serving as TABLE 7. SWS student associations. Note: Entries listed in italics are inactive.

Year Association Founded 2006 University of Florida USA Wetlands Club 2007 Student Wetland Society at Louisiana State University USA 2008 Michigan Tech USA SWS Student Chapter 2014 Duke University USA Student Association Wetland Scientists (SAWS) 2014 University of Alabama USA 2015 Mid-Atlantic USA Chapter Student Group (SWS-MAC) 2015 Southern California USA 2015 University of Rhode Island USA 2017 Bangor University WetSoc UK 2018 Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey USA 2019 North Central Chapter Student Chapter at the University of Michigan USA (SEAStheWetlands) Wetland Science & Practice July 2020 141

chair and most members of the committee coming from the international chapters. One of the recommendations of the committee, implemented during Arnold’s presidency, was to appoint co-chairs for the International Chapter with one overseeing Africa and the other Latin America and the Caribbean. The International Chapter has also begun a series of Spanish-language webinars.

PCP has remained a USA-based program, primarily because of liability issues. In 2012, Harold Jones chaired a joint SWS/SWSPCP committee to explore international expansion of the certification program that would dovetail into the SWS’ internationalization efforts.

both news of SWS activities and substantive manuscripts, highlighting the more applied work of the members, current wetland-related issues, and contributions pertinent to teaching. Since 2011, Wetland Science & Practice (WSP) has been accepting peer-reviewed manuscripts. When Ralph Tiner took over as editor, WSP became a full-color e-journal with publication of the June 2014 issue (Table 8).

Wetlands The first issue of Wetlands appeared in September 1981, with Janie Harris, Paul Knutson, and Robert Soots, Jr., serving as editors for the first year (Table 8). Bob Soots was editor-in-chief for Volume 2, and a new editor carried the journal forward in each of the next two years. By that time, COMMUNICATIONS papers were being sent out for review, and the journal was SWS Bulletin sent to active members as part of their dues. Members who The first SWS publication was the SWS Bulletin, which presented papers at the meeting were expected to submit was intended to publish information about the Society, such their presentations to Wetlands for publication. as upcoming meetings and workshops, and to provide an Doug Wilcox (Figure 10) became editor-in-chief in open forum for the exchange of ideas among members.

1986 for Volume 8, when 22 papers were submitted. Doug Janie Harris and Paul Knutson were the editors for Volume and the new Editorial Board pledged in 1987 to work 1, which included 6 issues and spanned 3 years (Table 8). towards a first-rate quarterly journal. Dues were increased Eventually, volumes became annual with 3 issues. Andy to $25 for members in order to meet new publication costs.

Cole (Figure 9) took over as editor in 2001, guiding the Perhaps most important, Wetlands was now open for subSWS Bulletin as it became digital, advanced to journal mission of manuscripts that had not been presented at the status, and hence to peer-review. annual meeting, and standards for acceptance were higher.

Wetland Science & Practice This was another source of dissention between academic In 2008, President Pat Megonigal picked up on a suggesscientists and consultants. Many members felt it was imtion in the 2005 Strategic Plan to add an applied journal, portant that their presentations be published but could not and he instigated the SWS Bulletin’s transition to a journal, meet the stiffer standards. By 1989, the journal was regularaccepting papers specifically dealing with management. ly publishing two issues a year. By 1993, when the overall In 2009, the SWS Bulletin was renamed Wetland Science acceptance rate was 50%, four issues per year were com& Practice. It became a quarterly publication, including ing out. Special issues were produced if they had financial support. After Doug’s retirement in 2006 as FIGURE 9. Andy Cole and a shy wood turtle. Andy FIGURE 10. Doug Wilcox. Doug editor after 20 years, new editors took over on was editor of SWS Bulletin and Wetland Science Wilcox was editor of Wetlands and a 5-year rotation, with a larger budget and the & Practice and is a recipient of the SWS Presiis a SWS Fellow and a recipient of dent's Service Award. the SWS President's Service Award. option for staying on for 2 terms (Table 8).

In 2010, Springer was contracted to publish (Photo by Nancy Wilcox.)

Wetlands, and the journal became a net source of income for the Society.

Electronic Communications The SWS homepage was established in 1996 during President Bill Mitsch’s term. Jim Lynch was webmaster at its inception until 2005, and because of the dramatic changes wrought by having an active website he was appointed to the Board of Directors as Electronic Communications Manager in 1997.

Abstracts, the Membership Directory, and meeting announcements could now be posted online. The website would quickly become a nexus for SWS communications.

142 Wetland Science & Practice July 2020

TABLE 8. Editors of SWS publications, webmasters, and producers of other serial communications.

Year(s) Editor(s) Bulletin of the Society of Wetland Scientists, later becoming Wetland Science & Practice: 1980-1983 Janie Harris and Paul Knutson alternated as senior editor during a period when 6 issues were published, all were included in Vol. 1.

1984-1985 Al Whitehouse apparently put out two issues of Vol. 2; Courtney Hackney put out the third, followed by 2 issues of Vol 3, collaborating with Lyndon Lee on the third.

1985-1991 Lyndon Lee became sole editor beginning with Vol 4. The budget was increased to allow 3-4 issues to be published per year.

1991-1992 President-Elect Carol Johnston stepped in to publish two issues until a new editor could be found During Kathy Kunz's editorship, Doug Wilcox's popular cartoon "From the Bog" first appeared. Publication was moved from Precision Press to Allen Press at the end of Kathy's tenure.

1994-2000 Beth Vairin and Mike Scott expanded coverage to include articles of different types, including a regular column on international activities.

2001-2014 Andy Cole prepared the first digital version; the name was changed to Wetland Science & Practice in 2009; and in 2011 the journal began accepting peer-reviewed papers.

2014-present Under Ralph Tiner, Wetland Science & Practice now includes regular columns as well as refereed and non-refereed papers.

Wetlands: Details of the history and impact of Wetlands are available in Wilcox, D.A. 2017. Wetland Science & Practice 34: 74-77.

Janie Harris, Paul Knutson, Robert Soots, Jr. 1981 Robert Soots, Jr. Doug Wilcox 1982 1986-2006 Armando de la Cruz Darold Batzer 1983 2007-2012 Gene Silberhorn Marinus Otte 1984-1986 2012 - present SWS Website: The website relieved the Society of having to mail so much material, such as the annual membership directory and annual meeting announcements and forms, often under short deadlines.

1996-2005 Jim Lynch's contributions as the first webmaster were transformative for SWS. 2006-2008 In addition to his regular duties, Richard Chinn upgraded the web page to be more functional for international members who might have limited bandwidth available.

2009-present Ted Burger received the SWS President's Service Award for his contributions as webmaster.

SWS Research Brief: This was aimed at a non-technical audience.

Karen McKee 2009-2013 SWS Webinar: Kim Ponzio initiated this series during her presidency. It is overseen by a subcommittee of the Education and Outreach Committee.

2015-present Jeff Trulik was the first chair; Kim Ponzio is the current chair.

SWS Wetlands of Distinction: This website was originally called Wetland Treasures and was an initiative of the Education and Outreach Committee.

2015-present Abbey Tyrnahas New Media Initiative: Karen McKee was instrumental in getting this project started.

2017-present Anna Puchkoff Twitter Symposium 2018-present Anna Puchkoff, Rachel Hagar, and, in 2018, Nigel Taylor 1992-1994

Wetland Science & Practice July 2020 143

In 2009, during Chris Craft’s presidency, Karen McKee (Figure 11) initiated a new web-based publication for non-technical audiences: the SWS Research Brief. Fourteen research briefs were published on the SWS website between 2009 and 2013. Each has been downloaded more than 400 times.

President Kim Ponzio (Figure 12) initiated the SWS Webinar Program in 2015 to facilitate the exchange of scientific, management, and policy information concerning wetlands in an electronic format and to enable regular exchange across a wide geographic area in a relatively lowcost, interactive, and multimedia way. This was intended to foster the international scope and visibility of SWS, while providing a forum for professional exchange and collaboration within SWS. Webinars are held every month, they are free to SWS members, and participants can receive Continuing Education Units towards renewal of their Professional Wetland Scientist re-certification or other appropriate professional certification programs.

Also in 2015 under Kim’s presidency, SWS launched its Wetlands of Distinction campaign (originally called Wetland Treasures), an initiative of the Education and Outreach Committee. The aim was for each US chapter to provide information for public use about ways in which particular wetlands in its geographic area are important both locally and globally. The process of identifying such wetlands is intended to add eventually to the current list of 39 Ramsar Wetlands of International Importance in the USA. Plans are to expand the program to international chapters as well.

In 2017, Beth Middleton (Figure 13) encouraged SWS to develop the New Media Initiative, which would feature videos on wetland topics and would be available on the SWS YouTube channel. In the spirit of keeping up with developing technology, Twitter Symposia were held successfully in 2018 and 2019. There were 22 and 20 presenters, respectively, and as many as two orders of magnitude more people may have seen wetlands on their feed. For several years, AMPED has been sending out a monthly newsletter with updates and reminders to the entire membership.

TRANSITION TO A MORE PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION Keeping Up Financially After SWS’s impressive growth during its first decade, reaching 1,000 members in 1988 and 2,000 members in 1990 (Figure 2), its second decade was marked by the need to impose order on a growing number of activities and controversies and to take advantage of technological advances in communications. In 1982, the Board of Directors had considered seeking “charitable status” to reduce mailing costs. However, they felt this was inconsistent 144 Wetland Science & Practice July 2020

with the SWS Articles and remained as a “professional business league,” which allowed them to reduce mailing costs through bulk, presorted mailings. Seven years later, President Jay Leitch was surprised by a letter from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service notifying him that SWS did not have tax-exempt status, and he initiated changes to correct this oversight. However, as described later, he interpreted one of the consequences as forbidding the organization from taking stands on pending legislation and other issues.

Instead, he felt that it should provide organized, objective information, letting readers draw their own conclusions.

Carol Johnston, the first woman (and first soil scientist) to be president of SWS, spent her time as President-elect in 1991/92 revising the bylaws to make the wording genderneutral. Moreover, no one had thought to file income tax forms for a tax-exempt (as was thought) society for many years. Treasurer Virginia Carter did yeoman service by completing this task before the transition to Allen Press.

The Society then moved to calendar year accounting.

With the retirement of Dave Dumond and much of the Executive Secretary’s duties having been taken over by Allen Press, the Board under President Lee Ischinger in 1993 voted in once again the elected position of Secretary-General.

Another important landmark during Lee’s presidency was the purchase of insurance coverage for the board to protect the Society and its officers from legal concerns, an effort he had initiated as a committee chair under Ronnie Best’s presidency in 1991. In 1994, Lee also renewed efforts to obtain 501(c)(3) status, which would grant it reduced federal postage rates in addition to allowing it to accept tax-exempt donations. Lee’s President’s Message in the SWS Bulletin (Vol. 10, No. 3) pointed out presciently that the Society was approaching a crossroads in moving from being largely introspective to more outwardly focused.

Nor did Lee’s contributions stop there. He initiated the SWS Awards program for active (non-student) members, tasking Don Cahoon with producing a scoping document, which was then approved in 1994. Given all the contributions Lee Ischinger made to SWS, it is interesting to note that he was also very active in advocating for and participating in barbershop quartet singing.

Treasurer Janet Keough pointed out in one meeting that the mid-1990s was a time of dramatic changes in the administrative structure of SWS, with increasing financial demands and, as detailed below, internationalization. She noted that membership remained above 4000, but there was considerable turnover, with as many as 600 members not renewing from one year to the next.

The substantial increase in the level of professionalism in the functioning of the Society brought additional costs.

Although the Society’s assets had increased over the years,

a large share was in endowments with specific constraints, intended primarily for student awards and the journal Wetlands. Cost overruns at one year’s meetings precipitated difficult decisions about publications the next year; the Board of Directors decided that the Membership Directory and the Handbook would henceforth be published every other year rather than annually. A decision on how many issues of Wetlands could be published in a year could be based on the profits from the annual science meeting, even though printing costs were increasing regardless of the meetings’ successes, emphasizing the difficulty of keeping up with success and growth. In 1987, President Curt Richardson had already pushed for increasing the endowment by establishing the SWS Presidential Founders Fund. The continuing need for a traveling display for use at professional meetings and conferences, discussed for several years, was finally funded in 1988, with hopes that it would stimulate growth in membership. In 1992, it transpired that dedicated funds, such as those for student awards, were not being kept in specific subaccounts. President Carol Johnston tasked the Ways and Means Committee (chaired by Treasurer Virginia Carter) with recommending a solution.

Dependence on professional business managers, although necessary, resulted in a financial drain. Regular member dues rose gradually from $25 in 1988 to $40 in 1991 and $60 in 2004. Family and lifetime memberships were added under Mark Brinson’s presidency in 1990, and Ronnie Best became the first lifetime member. (In 2018, family memberships would become Additional Household memberships.) Nevertheless, asset growth was overtaken by expenses, leading to a slow but steady increase in annual budget deficits. Under my presidency in 2004/05, in the face of considerable disgruntlement (in part due to a slow economy), the dues were increased dramatically to $100.

Members grudgingly accepted the continued need to reduce the growing burden on volunteers and develop our ability to support increasingly popular professional activities and programs, including the growing international arena.

Nevertheless, membership was 10% lower the following year (Figure 2).

In 2006, under Barbara Bedford’s presidency, Secretary-General Beth Middleton (Figure 12) worked with Burk & Associates to devise an entirely new dues structure that recognized the financial limitations of members living in developing countries as well as of members across a range of incomes in developed countries. This structure is still in use today. It enables USA-based members to select a basic amount according to a sliding salary scale with added charges for paper and/or electronic copies of the two journals. International members would pay dues commensurate with the economic status of their country. This made

it easier for many international scientists to participate as full members. It also provided a more effective mechanism for funding international chapter activities. Gratis memberships were already available for 3% of total members but they were shortened to 2 years instead of 3. With all these changes, both 2006 and 2007 resulted in net proceeds for the first time in several years. Moreover, the move to Springer as publisher of Wetlands resulted in a substantial income stream that decoupled budgetary decisions from the journal’s activity. Nevertheless, the dues increased again in 2014, as the Society still strove to meet the needs of its growing responsibilities and complexities.

With more money coming in from dues and publications, SWS reactivated its Ways and Means Committee in 2013 to recommend a strategy for investing some of its funds. Because of the complexity of the mix of endowments FIGURE 11. Irv Mendelssohn and Karen McKee at a field site.

Both are SWS Fellows.

FIGURE 12. Kim Ponzio was SWS Secretary-General and is an SWS past president and a recipient of the SWS President's Service Award.

FIGURE 13. Beth Middleton was SWS Secretary-General and is an SWS past president and fellow, and a recipient of the SWS Merit Award and the SWS President's Service Award.

Wetland Science & Practice July 2020 145

and obligations, an investment counselor was engaged in 2014 under Jim Perry’s presidency with Julia Cherry as Treasurer and the help of AMPED. The investment strategy proved successful, but increases in new programs such as the Chapter Outreach initiative established under Kim Ponzio’s presidency in 2016/17and the recently declared eligibility of sections for Chapter Development Funds elicited concern by President Arnold van der Valk in 2017/18 that budget deficits would soon appear on the horizon again. Membership and royalties from Springer provide most of SWS’ income in 2020. Besides expenses for meetings, which usually pay for themselves and sometimes provide some profit, management is by far the largest expense.

Strategic Planning The need for a strategic plan for the Society was raised by President Barry Warner in 2001/02 and taken up by President Frank Day, who appointed an ad hoc committee in 2003. President Mark Felton then appointed a follow-up committee chaired by former President Janet Keough, with assistance from Frank, to prepare a 5-year plan, which was adopted by the Society during my presidency in 2005. The plan proved very useful for focusing SWS’ multiplying opportunities and was updated and revised for another 5-year period in 2010 by a committee chaired by Frank. In 2015, Janet and Frank again collaborated on the next update of the strategic plan. Beth Middleton laid the foundation for another strategic plan during her presidency in 20018/19.

She was especially sensitive to the growing importance of sections relative to chapters, the need for more recognition of concerns of indigenous peoples, and the consequences of greater internationalization.

In 1995/96, Secretary-General Janet Keough worked on an SWS Operations Booklet to replace the outdated Handbook. In 2004, Past-President Frank Day began working on a Policies and Procedures Manual to capture all the changes in structure and process that had occurred over the last several years. Mary Kentula and I helped finish it during Barbara Bedford’s presidency in 2006. This was later rewritten by Stephen Faulkner and AMPED’s Michelle Csozek as the Leadership Manual in 2015, which is now regularly updated.

BUILDING OPPORTUNITIES FOR STUDENTS The first awards that SWS gave were to students, based on oral papers and posters presented at the Colorado meeting in 1990. These were soon followed by small, competitive student research grants.

In 2003, President Frank Day started the Human Diversity Committee to broaden the background and cultural scope of the SWS membership. Kelman Wieder obtained

146 Wetland Science & Practice July 2020

a National Science Foundation grant to bring U.S. undergraduates from underrepresented ethnic groups to the annual meetings to acquaint them with the possibility of a career in wetland ecology. This depended on the participation of both host students and host professionals as mentors and has received continuous NSF support through 2020. When Kel went to work for NSF in 2003, Andy Cole took over for the first year of the program. Frank Day then became the grant’s principal investigator (PI) and directed the program, including developing additional activities for the participants, through four more NSF grants on which he was Principal Investigator or Co-PI. In 2010, Frank established a cooperative arrangement with SEEDS, the Ecological Society of America’s student diversity program that guaranteed two slots for SWS students in their annual student leadership workshop; these students were invited back to the SWS meeting as mentors to the new undergraduates. Frank directed the mentoring program through the 2015 annual meeting, when Vanessa Lougheed took over. The entire program was renamed SWaMMP (SWS Multicultural Mentoring Program) in 2015.

From 2004-2019, SWS provided funds for 148 undergraduate minority students to attend SWS annual meetings. These students represented 87 colleges and universities and came from 34 states as well as the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico; some were U.S. citizens based internationally. Since 2015, former SWaMMP students who were then in graduate programs have come back to the annual meeting 16 times to mentor new undergraduate participants.

In 2008, travel grants were first awarded by The Wetland Foundation, a private effort funded by members Karen McKee and Irv Mendelssohn (Figure 13) for undergraduate or graduate students from anywhere in the USA. Grants are awarded for travel either to a conference or for field work.

In 2010, after being named an SWS International Fellow, Nick Davidson initiated the annual SWS Student Research Grant awards for a “Ramsar-relevant” project, now funded as one of the regular student research grants.

Some thought had been given in early years to forming a student chapter. Instead, Secretary-General Beth Middleton, starting in 2006 under Barbara Bedford’s presidency, initiated the formation of student associations at individual institutions; there are currently 10 (Table 6). They give students the opportunity to connect with other wetland enthusiasts at their school or region by organizing local events, networking, and furthering the mission of promoting the understanding, conservation, management, and sustainable use of wetlands. All associations are guided by a faculty advisor (or another appropriate community member) who is a member of SWS.

In 2016, President Kim Ponzio initiated the Wetland Ambassadors Fellowship Program, an international student research program administered by the Awards Committee in which graduate students participate in a visiting research fellowship at an institution outside their home country. The fellowship features rigorous wetland research in the student’s area of interest. One of the goals of the program is to provide students living in developing countries with opportunities to conduct novel wetland research and be encouraged by an array of expert wetland scientists. The program should not only provide educational opportunities for future wetland scientists around the globe, but also enhance international networking, wetland science information exchange, and communication among members of the SWS. PARTNERING WITH OTHER PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS The opportunity to partner with other organizations came early (March 12, 1980), when Richard J. Reimold, president of the newly formed ERF (now the Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation (CERF)), suggested that the two societies join forces. The record does not show why this initiative was unsuccessful, but SWS would collaborate with CERF under later agreements (Table 1). Under President Duncan Patten, SWS joined the Council of Aquatic Sciences (CAS) and the Council of Scientific Society Presidents (CSSP) in 1997. President Don Cahoon continued these alliances, particularly with CAS, as CSSP had not yet developed a structure. CAS was intended to knit together nine societies with exchange of information, formulation of policies, and coordination of meetings as much as possible but was disbanded in 2003. It reformed later as the Consortium of Aquatic Science Societies (CASS), and SWS has been an active participant along with eight other aquaticbased societies. SWS also joined the American Institute of Biological Sciences in 1998.

In 1995, Jon Kusler invited SWS under Bill Mitsch’s presidency to join the Association of State Wetland Managers in collaborative efforts, primarily meetings but also including international ventures, such as workshops. Although this effort was not successful, primarily because of the press of other initiatives, official collaboration was finally achieved in 2015 under Kim Ponzio’s presidency (Table 1).

Of particular note has been SWS’ relationship since 1998 with the Ramsar Convention. SWS first signed a Memorandum of Cooperation with the Ramsar Convention Secretariat in 1999, and the current MOC runs until 2023.

An SWS Ramsar Section was established in 2010 as part of this cooperation. Since 1999, SWS has been formally recognized by Ramsar Contracting Parties as an observer organization to the Convention’s Scientific & Technical Review Panel (STRP) and is represented at STRP meetings

by the chair of the SWS Ramsar Section. Many Ramsar Section members have been very active as appointed members of STRP. INFLUENCING WETLAND POLICY The question of how SWS should influence policy decisions arose as the Society was maturing. This was probably not an issue in the early years, when so much needed to be done simply to build our understanding of wetland structure and function in response to the needs created by the Clean Water Act. Nevertheless, an inquiry in 1981 from the Conservation Board in a town on Long Island, New York, USA, concerning the economic value of its tidal wetland elicited a thoughtful and very helpful letter from Secretary Bill Adams.

When George H. W. Bush articulated his goal of “no net loss of wetlands” during his campaign for the USA presidency in 1988, questions of wetland function, values, and mitigation arose. In his role as SWS president in 1990/91, Mark Brinson communicated with a U.S. national task force on the recently declared policy of “no net loss of wetlands.” Concern was raised by Past-President Jay Leitch that Mark was engaging in inappropriate advocacy. These communications were published in the SWS Bulletin, and Mark addressed this concern by pointing out that he did not rely on unsubstantiated assumptions. He also felt that differences between him and Jay were due in part to lack of precision in communication.

Later, in Spring 1991, Mark wrote another letter to a USA national committee regarding reauthorization of the Clean Water Act and the status of degraded and constructed wetlands. He drew on comments from 18 other SWS members, pointing out in a memo to the Board of Directors that he had received several calls from SWS members “asking what the society is ‘going to do’ about the whole issue of [Section] 404, the Federal Manual, and the Clean Water Act in general.” He went on to say “At least I can respond that the Board has done something.” Brinson (1991).

More than a decade later, after the Wetland Concerns Committee had begun the task of applying science to policy matters systematically in 2005, an SWS member wrote a strong letter to the SWS Bulletin explaining that he was cancelling his subscription because he felt that the Executive Board was overstepping legal strictures against lobbying as well as its own standing rules by sending letters to Congress advocating wetland protection. In a rebuttal, President Barbara Bedford, joined by five past-presidents, clarified the facts behind these misperceptions.

Although it has sometimes been difficult to achieve consensus on stands taken by ad hoc committees responding to policy issues, SWS has taken a progressively more active Wetland Science & Practice July 2020 147

role as a strong advocate of using science to shape policy whenever possible, often cooperating in doing so with other scientific societies. This activity increased with the election of Donald Trump to the USA presidency and the ensuing attacks by his administration on the Clean Water Act, including the Clean Water Rule issued by President Barak Obama. Responses to proposed and actual changes by the Trump administration decried elimination of isolated wetlands from federal regulation and decreases in water quality certification standards, as well as the silencing of scientists who work for the Environmental Protection Agency. Most of the documents submitted from 2017 through 2019 denounce the lack of scientific evidence for these changes.

Because of concerns about overreach by the Executive Committee, a survey of SWS members’ opinions was launched during Gillian Davies’ presidency with special attention to a comparison of the Executive Committee’s and the Board of Directors’ views. The survey sought reactions to Trump’s challenge of the Clean Water Rule. Only 9% of the membership supported Trump’s challenge; 88% did not. There was no significant difference between the views of the Executive Committee and the Board of Directors.

Whereas the membership of SWS may be united in our interest in understanding wetlands better, and most but not all of us are united in whether and how they should be protected, a few nevertheless remain opposed to the Society’s challenges to specific issues.

The Wetlands Concerns Committee is now a Standing Ad Hoc Committee, with members appointed to consider each specific concern that arises. Members or advice may also be solicited from the Past Presidents Advisory Council.

LOOKING AHEAD Dick Macomber’s dream has succeeded by any measure.

I assume he would be pleasantly surprised that members without PhDs have not only been president but have played other essential roles throughout the organization over the years. The prediction that the central SWS structure would support publications and the chapters would provide direction was not entirely borne out. Basing chapters on regions was a very good approach, as it meant that managers, consultants, government employees, and professors could get to know each other on field trips and other chapter activities and be exposed to different viewpoints. Unfortunately, chapters still find it difficult to maintain communication across broad geographic regions, and success may be as dependent on both personal leadership qualities as well as mastery of technology to transcend distance. The first 10-12 years of SWS’ existence was largely spent on the logistics of keeping track of a rapidly growing membership with diverse and expanding expectations. Chapters in the USA 148 Wetland Science & Practice July 2020

developed and matured during the next decade, but overall direction still emanated more from the Board of Directors, even as regions split into more coherent chapters.

Internationalization has been a theme of virtually every president of SWS, and this push has seen the establishment of active chapters in Oceania, Europe, and Asia. The unique mix of academic and government scientists, government regulators, and private consultants in the membership of SWS clearly resonates with wetland professionals around the world. We need to know much more about wetland structure and function, but we also must interact and cooperate with policy makers and businesses who may not appreciate the ecosystem services that wetlands provide, and internationalization brings ready access to different ways of viewing problems and accomplishing goals. Nevertheless, Arnold van der Valk pointed out that the US states of Missouri and Kansas (i.e., the Central USA Chapter) have “the same representation on the Board of Directors as all of Europe or China” (van der Valk 2018). The Chapter Outreach Initiative and SWS Webinars should help to keep us working together.

One of the strengths of SWS is its nurturing of students, fostering growth from within the organization. As mentors have continued to introduce their students to the breadth of the SWS network; many of these students have become full participants themselves as they enter their professional lives. Recently, a student has become chair of the Student Professional Interest Section, and students are playing lead roles in the New Media Initiative and the Twitter Symposium (Table 8).

In 2003, President Mark Felton observed that wetland professionals needed to have more reasons for joining SWS than the journal. The growth of international membership and the addition of Professional Special Interest Sections have been compelling reasons. But another reason is the structure that has evolved within SWS to participate in debates on major national and international issues involving wetlands. These started with management-based topics such as mitigation and delineation and moved into the more philosophical topics of isolated wetlands and ecosystem services. Some members still disagree with SWS’ policy of contributing to discussions on policy and management.

With many fits and starts, but an increasingly clear vision, the Society is keeping its members and associated colleagues communicating and working with each other in an effective network that appears poised to operate not only regionally and nationally but internationally as well. The issues we face transcend national boundaries, and an international membership should be able to learn from strategies pursued in other countries.

The diversity of new opportunities that have developed in SWS in the last decade, such as Wetland Ambassadors, SWS Webinars, the International Chapter’s Spanish interviews, and the close relationship with the Asia Chapter suggests that SWS is indeed growing into an international organization. Favorable returns on investments have encouraged development of these activities. As I write these words, however, much of the world’s economic engine has ground to a halt. Careful choices will have to be made to pick and choose among the giant but tentative steps forward in finding the best way to preserve and build on the progress that has been made. International partnerships both within the Society and with other societies should help us collaborate, learn, and increase our impact. n ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This account is based primarily on presidential messages and other observations published over the years in the SWS Bulletin and Wetland Science & Practice as well as those minutes of the Board of Directors meetings and annual business meetings that have been archived. I am grateful to the University of Florida’s Interlibrary Loan Office for their assistance in tracking down copies of the SWS Bulletin and Wetland Science & Practice around the world. I am also grateful to Lyndon Lee and Rebecca Howard, who provided many of the copies that the Interlibrary Loan Office could not acquire. AMPED made its archive of 1980-1992 documents available to me and helped me track down details.

Beth Middleton dug out her reports and Matt Schweisberg’s

minutes and converted them to Word; Leandra Cleveland and Lori Sutter provided more recent ones. Beth also helped solicit pictures and other sources of information. Dennis Whigham reviewed the entire manuscript and made several very useful suggestions. Many others responded to queries and contributed useful anecdotes, suggestions, and corrections during the original publication of the history in 2006/2007 as well as during this revision and expansion. I thank Carrie Reinhardt Adams, David Bailey, Brian Benscoter, Don Cahoon, Richard Chinn, David Cooper, Chris Craft, Paula Daukas, Steve Dougherty, Nick Davidson, Gillian Davies, Frank Day, Derek Faust, Mark Felton, Eric Gilman, Rachel Hager, Christina Hargiss, Andy Herb, Rebecca Howard, Harold Jones, Carol Johnston, Mary Kentula, Mary Landin, Lyndon Lee, Vanessa Lougheed, John Lowenthal, Tatiana Lobato de Magalhães, Xianguo Lyu, Karen McKee, Pat Megonigal, Beth Middleton, Ann Neville, Charlie Newling, Greg Noe, Marinus Otte, Phil Papas, Kim Ponzio, Anna Puchkoff, David Riera, Julia Talbot, Alani Taylor, Doug Wilcox, and Wei Wu for their contributions, and I apologize to anyone whose assistance has been inadvertently omitted.

LITERATURE CITED

Brinson, M. M. 1991. Memo to SWS Board of Directors. SWS Archives. van der Valk, A. 2018. President’s message. Wetland Science & Practice 35: 3.

Wilcox, D.A. 2017. History and role of the journal Wetlands in developing the field of wetland science. Wetland Science & Practice 34: 74-77.

From the Editor’s Desk, continued from page 126 of the state of the world’s wetlands by Robert McInnes and colleagues, and a profile of Glenn Martin National Wildlife Refuge – a SWS Wetland of Distinction by Steffanie Munguia. This issue also contains three scientific papers – Doug DeBerry’s review of vegetation sampling methods for mitigation projects, an article on how past farming has affected salt marsh restoration efforts in New England by Susan Adamowicz and colleagues, and a summary report

by Darien Lozon on her investigation of bioaccumulation of heavy metals in West Virginia turtles (a study partially funded by an SWS student grant). And last but not least, this issue contains what will sadly be Doug Wilcox’s last contribution of “From the Bog.” He is now officially retired and moving to North Carolina and needs a break from his wetland-centric humor; we thank him for his years of contributions and wish him the best in retirement.

Thanks again to all the contributors for making this issue possible. Without contributions we don’t exist. I had the pleasure of participating in our student group’s virtual conference earlier this month (June) and encouraged them to write articles on their wetland research as well as other topics of interest (e.g., natural history articles on wetland types and/or their wildlife). If you were planning to give a presentation at this year’s meeting or another meeting that was cancelled, and would like to get the information out to society members and the rest of the world, please consider writing an article for Wetland Science & Practice. If you have any questions about the suitability of the topic, feel free to contact me.

Meanwhile, stay safe and enjoy the wetlands! n

Wetland Science & Practice July 2020 149

SWS CELEBRATES 40 YEARS

Present and Past SWS Award Winners

2020 AWARDEES This year the Society presented President’s Service awards to four individuals: Gillian Davies, Andy Herb, Scott Jecker, and Lori Sutter.

Gillian Davies BSC Group, Inc. Since leaving the Executive Board Gillian has continued her strong support for wetland activities through the Sections, in particular the Public Policy & Regulation and the Ramsar Section.

This has included: i) working with others to advise the Executive Board in the development of policy positions and the writing of policy letters, ii) supporting climate change activities within SWS that has resulted in 3 statements or proclamation signed by SWS members at the annual meetings, and then published in Wetland Science & Practice, and resulted in a new initiative on climate change and wetlands, iii) actively supported the development of a High Level Plenary Panel on the UN Decade of Restoration and the Implications of Climate Change on Biodiversity/Wetlands for inclusion in the RE3 conference that had been planned for 2020 in Quebec City, and is now planned to be held in June 2021, and iv) leading the development of several papers and symposia on the Rights of Wetlands which represents a holistic and socialecological view on the importance of wetlands in our lives, now and into the future, locally and globally. Thank you Gillian for your support for partnerships, and for helping to bring research and practice together to address key issues for wetlands in the future.

Andy Herb AlpineEco It is undoubted that the Wetland Restoration Section is one of the stalwarts of our Society. Andy has been closely associated with the development and success of the Section. This has included the annual symposia that have been organised and 150 Wetland Science & Practice July 2020

well attended, and had been planned for the RE3 conference in Quebec City and the INTECOL Wetland Conference in Christchurch. As a representative of the Section he has played an influential role in the governance of the Society through the Board of Directors with an ear for the necessary detail and able to make decisive inputs to help all of us. At the same time he has recently led a small team to produce a science-based appraisal of the Ramsar Convention’ guidance for wetland restoration and in so-doing has produced a platform for greater engagement with wetland managers around the globe, something that is very much within the Society’s remit and interests. Thank you Andy for taking on board these roles and activities and for helping to raise the profile of wetland restoration needs and the profile and excellence of our members and hence the Society.

Scott Jecker Whitenton Group Inc. Scott has provided service to the Society over many years through his support for the Chapters and the wider membership.

This in itself represents a major effort and is worth highlighting and appreciating. With this background and level of commitment he then extended his contribution to lead the ad hoc committee charged with drafting our new Strategic Plan. This is an incredibly important task and one that required leadership and an ability to work with a diverse team. It also required insight into our Society and its development over the past 40 years, and foresight about the challenges and opportunities that we face. Through these efforts we have a solid foundation to chart our directions, meet expectations, and tackle the wetland science and practice that comprise our reasons for being members.

Thank you Scott for your efforts in leading this team and for providing your colleagues a basis to move ahead by building on our history and engaging with the future.

Lori Sutter University of Georgia Lori has provided exceptional service to the Society through her efforts as Treasurer. In response to our aim to present a balanced budget she has worked assiduously to provide us the data we need to both make decisions about financial priorities and to ensure the end product is balanced. She has provided the detail and guided us through the balance sheets, not so much because of the proverbial patience of someone who knows more than the average being, but with clarity and reasoning that supports our decisions, including pointing out the financial uncertainties around our ideas and data. In addition she has led the Ways & Means Committee to provide excellent suggestions on other ways in which we could raise funds and support the many new initiatives that we would like to implement. As well as thanking her and recognising her professionalism I look forward to these suggestions being explored and then enacted and our members seeing the benefits. Thank you Lori, treasurer extraordinaire.

PAST AWARDEES In celebrating our 40th Anniversary, it is fitting to recognize all the individuals who have received awards focused on contributions to wetland science or advancing the Society as a professional scientific organization. The Society offers a number of awards: Fellow, Lifetime Achievement, International Fellow, Merit, President’s Service, Doug Wilcox Award, among others (see full list at https://www.sws.org/ Awards-and-Grants/society-awards.html).

SWS Fellows The Fellow Award is the highest recognition of membership bestowed by the Society for their personal accomplishments in academic and professional societies and professional achievements in wetland science. The following individuals have received this recognition from the Society.

1994

Sarah Cooke (Cooke Scientific), Curt Richardson (Duke University), and Doug Wilcox (U.S. Geological Survey)

2007

Mark M. Brinson (East Carolina University), William H. Conner (Clemson University), and R. Kelman Wieder (Villanova University)

2008

Karen L. McKee (U.S. Geological Survey), Rebecca R. Sharitz (University of Georgia), and Arnold G. van der Valk (Iowa State University)

2010

Barbara L. Bedford (Cornell University), Joan G. Ehrenfeld (Rutgers University), Ned H. “Chip” Euliss, Jr. (U.S. Geological Survey), Irving A. Mendelssohn (Louisiana State University), Loren M. Smith (Oklahoma State University), Michael J. Vepraskas (North Carolina State University), and Thomas C. Winter (U.S. Geological Survey)

2011

Donald R. Cahoon (U.S. Geological Survey), Frank P. Day (Old Dominion University), Neil Saintilan (NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change, and Water), Jos T.A. Verhoeven (University of Utrecht), and Dennis Whigham (Smithsonian Environmental Research Center)

2012

Scott D. Bridgham (University of Oregon) and Susan M. Galatowitsch (University of Minnesota)

2013

Katherine Ewel (University of Florida), Chris Freeman (Bangor University), Carol Johnston (South Dakota State University), Beth Middleton (U.S. Geological Survey), James Morris (University of South Carolina), and Joy Zedler (University of Wisconsin – Madison)

2015

Christopher Craft (Indiana University) and Paul Keddy (Independent Scholar)

2016

R. Eugene Turner (Louisiana State University)

2017

Robert Brooks (Pennsylvania State University), Max Finlayson (Charles Sturt University), and Cliff Hupp (U.S. Geological Survey)

2018

Ralph W. Tiner (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – Retired)

2019

Andrew Hamilton Baldwin (University of Maryland) and J. Patrick Megonigal (Smithsonian Environmental Research Center)

SWS Lifetime Achievement Awardees The Lifetime Achievement Award honors individuals who have achieved special distinction in their career through contributions to wetland science and management, specific to research, education or policy. The following individuals and one organization have been recognized for their lifetime contribution to wetland science and management.

1996

Milton Weller (Texas A&M University)

1998

James G. Gosselink (Louisiana State University)

2000

Robert G. Wetzel (University of Alabama)

2002

William H. Patrick, Jr. (Louisiana State University) and Thomas C. Winter (U.S. Geological Survey)

2005

Eville Gorham (University of Minnesota) Wetland Science & Practice July 2020 151

2007

William J. Mitsch (The Ohio State University) and John M. Teal (Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution)

2009

Association of State Wetland Managers, Inc.

2011

Lewis M. Cowardin (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Retired)

2013

Curtis Richardson (Duke University)

2015

Jan Květ (University of South Bohemia)

2016

K. Ramesh Reddy (University of Florida)

2017

Paul Keddy (Independent Scholar)

2019

Nick Davidson (Nick Davidson Environmental and Institute for Land, Water & Society and Charles Sturt University); Mary E. Kentula (Western Ecology Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency); Rebecca R. Sharitz (Savannah River Ecology Laboratory), posthumously awarded

Merit Award Recipients The Merit Award recognizes individuals for specific accomplishments in any field of wetland science and management in order to inspire future efforts. The following individuals received this award.

1998

Mark M. Brinson (East Carolina University)

2000

James B. Grace (U.S. Geological Survey)

2001

Barbara Bedford (Cornell University)

2003

Carl Madsen (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)

2004

Beth Middleton (U.S. Geological Survey)

2006

Paul A. Keddy (Southeastern Louisiana University)

2007

Mary E. Kentula (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency)

2008

Irving A. Mendelssohn (Louisiana State University) and Arnold G. van der Valk (Iowa State University)

2010

Steven Pennings (University of Houston)

2011

Donald R. Cahoon (U.S. Geological Survey)

2012

James T. Morris (University of South Carolina)

2015

Matthew G. Stahman (SWCA Environmental Consultants)

2016

Judith S. Weis (Rutgers University)

2018

Reyam Naji Ajmi (Mustansiryah University)

152 Wetland Science & Practice July 2020

SWS International Fellows The International Fellow Award is presented to an outstanding international wetland scientist for distinguished contributions to the field of wetland science and for fostering the aims of the Society within their own country and abroad. The following individuals have received this award.

1996

Chung-Hsin Chung (Nanjing University, China)

1997

Brij Gopal (Jawaharlal Nehru University, India)

1999

Wolfgang Johannes Junk (Max Planck Institute of Limnology, Germany)

2001

Jan Kvĕt (Academy of Sciences, Czech Republic)

2003

David Searle Mitchell (Charles Sturt University, Australia)

2005

Max Finlayson (International Water Management Institute, Sri Lanka)

2008

Peter Nevill Johnson (Landcare Research, New Zealand)

2010

Nicholas Davidson (The RAMSAR Convention Secretariat, Switzerland)

2012

Edward Maltby (University of Liverpool, United Kingdom)

2014

Jared Bosire (World Wildlife Fund, Kenya)

2016

Dra. Silvia Emilia Ibarra Obando (Centro de Investigación Científica y de Educación Superior de Ensenada, Mexico)

2018

Christopher Freeman (Bangor University, United Kingdom) and Robert McInnes (RM Wetlands & Environment Ltd., United Kingdom)

President’s Service Awardees The President’s Service Award recognizes members who have made significant contributions by serving the Society and its members. The following recipients of this award have promoted the goals of the Society in their efforts that extend above and beyond their duties as teachers, researchers, and administrators.

1996

Frank P. Day (Old Dominion University), Courtney Hackney (University of North Carolina at Wilmington), James Kushlan (U.S. Geological Survey), Mary Leck (Rider University), Beth Middleton (U.S. Geological Survey), Ming-Ko Woo (McMaster University), and Wayne Hudnall (Texas Tech University)

1998

Lee Ischinger (U.S. Geological Survey) and Janet Keough (U.S. Geological Survey)

1999

James Parnell (University of North Carolina at Wilmington)

2000

U.S. Geological Survey’s National Wetlands Research Center

2002

Teresa Doss and the Mid-Atlantic USA Chapter

2003

Glenn Guntenspergen (U.S. Geological Survey) and Mary Kentula (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency)

Doug Wilcox Award Recipients The Doug Wilcox Award for Outstanding Associate Editor of Wetlands is awarded each year based on the recommendation of the Editor-in-Chief of Wetlands. The following individuals have significantly contributed to making Wetlands an outstanding scientific publication.

2007

Rachel A. Budelsky (University of Minnesota)

2008

Katharina A.M. Engelhardt (University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science)

2009

Gary N. Ervin (Mississippi State University)

2010

Aram J. K. Calhoun (University of Maine – Orono)

2011

Joshua D. Stafford (U.S. Geological Survey)

2006

Frank P. Day (Old Dominion University)

2007

Douglas A. Wilcox (U.S. Geological Survey)

2008

James C. Lynch (U.S. Geological Survey)

2012

2009

R. Harold Jones (Sigma Environmental Services, Inc.)

Eric Stein (Southern California Coastal Water Research)

2013

2010

Charles Andrew Cole (Penn State University)

Jan Vymazal (Czech University of Life Sciences Prague)

2011

Wei-Ta Fang (Chung Hua University), Rob McInnes (Bioscan UK, Ltd.) and Isidro Antonio T. Savillo (Iloilo State College of Fisheries)

2014

Diane De Steven (U.S. Forest Service)

2015

Wei-Ta Fang (National Taiwan Normal University)

2016

David Mushet (U.S. Geological Survey)

Sandy Doyle-Ahern (EMH&T), Darold Batzer (University of Georgia), and Steven Pennings (University of Houston)

2017

Debashish Mazumber (Australian Nuclear Science & Technology Organization)

2018

David Cooper (Colorado State University)

2013

William Conner (Clemson University) and Gregory Noe (U.S. Geological Survey)

2019

Sarah Finkelstein (University of Toronto)

2014

Ted Burger (TOB Support Services)

2020

Michael J. Osland (U.S. Geological Survey)

2015

Stephen Faulkner (U.S. Geological Survey) and Yvonne Vallette (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency)

2017

Wei-Ta Fang (National Taiwan Normal University), Jim Perry (College of William & Mary), Kimberli Ponzio (St. Johns River Water Management District) and Jos Verhoeven (Utrecht University)

2019

Jodie Burns (Cattails Environmental, LLC) and John Lowenthal (Cardno)

2020

Gillian Davies (BSC Group, Inc.), Andy Herb (AlpineEco), Scott Jecker (Whitenton Group, Inc.), and Lori Sutter (University of Georgia)

2012

Wetland Science & Practice July 2020 153

HISTORY OF THE JOURNAL WETLANDS

History and Role of the Journal Wetlands in Developing the Field of Wetland Science Douglas A. Wilcox1

To help celebrate the Society’s 40th Anniversary, WSP is republishing its September 2017 article by Doug Wilcox on the history of our journal WETLANDS and its contribution to developing the field of wetland science.

ABSTRACT: evelopment of wetland science as a distinct field required consolidation of wetland-related publications in a recognized wetland journal. Growth of the Society of Wetland Scientists was thus tied to developing its own publication outlet. Wetlands debuted as the proceedings of the SWS meeting held in 1981, became a peer-reviewed proceedings in 1982, and was opened to outside submissions in 1983. Major changes in the journal through the years included gaining coverage in important abstracting services, switching to a larger page format, creating key word and author indices, developing an electronic distribution option, converting to an on-line submission process, increasing exposure, and growing larger. Manuscript submissions increased, more papers were published, and more pages were produced. The journal moved to two issues in 1988, three issues in 1989, four issues in 1993, and six issues in 2010.

Growth of the journal transformed it into the top journal in wetland science, with submissions coming from around the globe. The journal is multi-disciplinary in scope, exposing readers to a variety of ideas, methods, and applications.

Consolidating efforts from many fields of expertise with a focus on wetlands helped to develop a broad, ecosystembased science that is now globally recognized.

D

HISTORY OF THE JOURNAL The advancement of wetland science as a distinct field of endeavor was closely related to founding and growth of the Society of Wetland Scientists. An underlying pinion for the recognition and stature of scientific societies is support of publications with credibility in the greater scientific world.

The Society of Wetland Scientists was founded in 1980 and promptly began the process of developing publications. The SWS Bulletin was initiated as a non-refereed publication containing news about wetlands and updates on SWS activities. It evolved to Wetland Science and Practice in 2009 and made a more recent transition to a refereed publication. SWS Research Briefs was added in 2008 as a non-technical refer1

The College at Brockport, dwilcox@brockport.edu

154 Wetland Science & Practice July 2020

eed outlet for short summaries of wetland research directed toward managers, policy-makers, and the general public.

However, a key piece in the effort of the SWS founders to make wetland science a recognized field of its own was creation of the journal Wetlands – here I report its history.

The first issue of the journal was a non-refereed proceedings from the second SWS annual meeting held in Alexandria, Lousiana in 1981. Janie Harris, Paul Knutson, and Robert Soots, Jr. comprised the Editorial Board responsible for that single issue of Volume 1, which contained 18 articles and 214 pages and was printed by SWS. Volume 2 was a single issue refereed proceedings, with Robert Soots, Jr. serving as Editor and printing done by Fink’s Printing and Graphics, Inc. in Gaithersburg, Maryland. Wetlands evolved to an open-submission refereed journal with the single issue of Volume 3 in 1983; Armando de la Cruz served as Editor, with six supporting Associate Editors and printing by Precision Press in Wilmington, North Carolina. Gene Silberhorn became editor in 1984 and produced single issue Volumes 4-7. I was indoctrinated into the journal business when Gene added me as an Associate Editor in 1984.

In 1986, Gene announced his resignation as Editor to make his successful run for SWS Vice-President (and then President). At a fateful INTECOL meeting in the Carrier Dome at Syracuse University, I had a discussion with fellow Associate Editor and then SWS President Courtney Hackney regarding future editorship. I described my vision for a quarterly journal and my goal of making Wetlands the number one choice for publication of the best papers related to wetlands. I volunteered to take over, and Courtney agreed. He may have taken the decision to the Board, although maybe not, as SWS activities were less controlled in those days.

In my early days as Editor-in-Chief, I sought advice and assistance from others. I increased the number of Associate Editors by adding Sandra Brown, Paul Glaser, James Grace, Curtis Richardson, Milton Weller, and Thomas Winter in a deliberate effort to cover the variety of fields of expertise in wetland science with good people. Robert Wetzel advised me that to attract good manuscripts, the journal must be covered in Current Contents and other abstracting services so that published papers would be seen by others

and cited. Current Contents proved to be a tough battle because they required evidence that a journal is published on a regular schedule. With two on-time issues of Volume 8 in 1988, they were convinced. The journal was soon included in 24 abstracting and referral services (Table 1).

Wetland manuscripts had previously been spread among a myriad of journals, some of which are listed in Table 2. However, Wetlands offered potential authors the advantage that their papers would appear in the mailbox of more wetland scientists than those in any other journal. The journal grew along with the growth in SWS membership, and three issues were published in Volume 9. At the urging of then SWS Past President Mark Brinson, the journal changed to a larger page format with Volume 12 in 1992, and printing was moved to Allen Press in Lawrence, Kansas. A blue-gray cover also replaced the previous goldenrod cover. The goal of quarterly publication was reached with Volume 13 in 1993.

In 1995, I assigned a work-study student to develop a Key Word Index and Author Index for all papers published in Volumes 1-15. Those indices were published in Volume 16, No. 1, and yearly updates were included in each succeeding volume through 2006. The SWS website (http:// www.sws.org) was created in 1996, and the journal page included listing of the Editorial Board, Instructions for Authors, Table of Contents for all past issues, Table of Contents for issues in press, and (through 2006) a searchable Key Word Index and Author Index. As a result of the ties with Allen Press, SWS became a charter member of

BioOne in 1999, which made the journal available electronically in many college and university libraries beginning with Volume 20. Distribution of BioOne library subscription fees based on relative use of individual member journals resulted in fund transfers to SWS often equivalent to the costs for producing one of the four yearly issues. The BioOne process made all new issues of the journal available electronically, but it took the effort of Barry Warner to scan and digitize all manuscripts published in previous Volumes 1-19 and make them available electronically on CD. After 20 years of service, I retired as Editor-in-Chief at the end of 2006. Darold Batzer was selected as the new editor and brought with him new ideas and practices, including invited special feature papers. Bridgham et al. (2006) was the first paper featured, and it has become the most cited Wetlands article. Darold also established an award for outstanding Associate Editor. The journal began on-line submissions in 2007, and a new glossy cover displaying a different wetland photograph on each issue was introduced with Volume 29 in 2009. Volume 30 marked the move from Allen Press to Springer Science and Business Media in New York, New York and conversion from four to six issues per year, available both electronically and in hard copy. The transition to Springer eliminated the need for journal support from SWS memberships and made Wetlands a net source of income for SWS. Darold completed his term as Editor-in-Chief in 2011 and was succeeded by Marinus Otte, who continued to maintain the updates and upgrades, as well as adding the invited Mark Brinson

TABLE 1. List of abstracting and referral services covering Wetlands by 1989.

TABLE 2. Partial listing of journal outlets for wetland-related manuscripts when Wetlands began publication in 1981. Edited books, agency reports, and gray literature were other options.

AESIS Agricola Aquaphyte Aquatic Science and Fisheries Abstracts BIOSIS CAB Abstracts CAB Health Current Contents Energy Science and Technology Environline Environmental Bibliography Geobase

Georef Inside Conferences Life Sciences Collection National Wetlands Newsletter Oceanic Abstracts Pollution Abstracts Restoration and Management Notes Science Citation Index Social SCISEARCH Toxline Uncover Water Resources Abstracts

American Journal of Botany American Midland Naturalist Applied Ecology Aquatic Botany The Auk

Estuarine, Coastal, and Shelf Science Fishery Bulletin

Ibis Journal of Ecology Journal of Soil and Water Conservation Bulletin of Journal of Wildlife the Torrey Botanical Club Management Canadian Journal of Botany Limnology and Oceanography Colonial Waterbirds Rhodora Ecology Soil Science Society of America Journal Estuaries Water Resources Bulletin Wetland Science & Practice July 2020 155

Review Series. Marinus also broadened the international scope of the Editorial Board. The journal cover changed in 2012 to a multi-color set of photographs that remains the same on each issue. The formatting of some of the internal material also changed in 2014.

GROWTH OF THE JOURNAL Data are lacking regarding submissions prior to 1987, but new manuscript submissions increased from 22 in 1987 to 68 by 1992 to 142 in 1998 (Figure 1). They reached 206 in 2002 thanks to a boost from special issue manuscripts and averaged over 180 until on-line submissions were introduced, which raised the average to about 250, and they are now averaging over 350. The change to an on-line process also increased submissions by non-U.S. authors, which had averaged about 15% of the total in recent years but jumped to 50% in 2010. By 2016, submissions by non-U.S. authors had increased to 83%.

More overall submissions meant more papers published each year. Totals increased from the teens in the late 1980s to more than 50 by 1996, more than 80 by 2003, nearly 100 by 2006, more than 110 by 2009, and an average of about 115 in recent years (Figure 1). Total pages increased from 197 in 1988 to 488 in 1991; the journal then switched to a larger page format, and total pages increased from 234 in 1992 to 577 in 1997 to 806 in 2002 to 1167 in 2006 and since have averaged over 1250. The numbers of issues, manuscripts, and pages per year include 13 special issues, FIGURE 1. Changes in numbers of manuscripts submitted and published in Wetlands during the first 36 years, along with the number of Associate Editors handling manuscripts.

450

70

350 300 250

Published

60

Submissions

50

Assoc. Eds.

40

200

30

150

20

100 10

50 0

0 1 9 8 0

1 9 8 5

1 9 9 0

1 9 9 5

2 0 0 0

Year 156 Wetland Science & Practice July 2020

2 0 0 5

2 0 1 0

2 0 1 5

Number of Associate Editors

Number of Manuscripts

400

83 special feature papers, 12 review papers, and 98 book reviews. More submissions meant more work, especially

by Associate Editors that assign manuscripts to referees, review manuscripts, and make the initial judgment on acceptance. To spread the workload, more Associate Editors were added through the years to keep pace with submissions (Figure 1), resulting in an unintentional but strong correlation between submissions and Associate Editors (r = 0.967, p = 0.000). Acceptance rates averaged about 55% through 1997, about 43% through 2006, and about 36% since then. The journal was first assigned an Impact Factor (IF) of 0.644 in 1997, and IF has increased steadily since then to 1.573 for 2016 (the most recent measure).

RELATION TO EVOLUTION OF WETLAND SCIENCE How has the journal Wetlands helped shape the field of wetland science? Perhaps foremost, it put a brand name on the work done by legions of plant ecologists, hydrologists, wildlife biologists, biogeochemists, invertebrate ecologists, soil scientists, herpetologists, geologists, remote sensing specialists, and paleoecologists, among others, working across a range of ecosystems from salt marshes to peatlands to freshwater marshes to swamps of many kinds. Those scientists were no longer on the outer fringe of another field, they were center stage in their own science. Every paper published in Wetlands was about wetlands, just as every presentation made at an SWS meeting was about wetlands.

There was an identity, and the journal’s title stated it in a single word.

The broad scope of disciplines within wetland science, and therefore papers published in the journal, exposed individuals to new ideas, methods, and applications for their work. For example, plant ecologists were no longer fixed on botanical journals, and hydrologists were no longer fixed on hydrology journals. The argument could be made that “ecohydrology” had its origins in wetland science. This intellectual cross-fertilization also served to strengthen the new scientific field.

Without participation from scientists in the variety of disciplines described above, advancement of wetland science would not have occurred. A conscious effort was made to invite, cajole, and plead to get many of the leading scientists in each discipline to serve as Associate Editors for Wetlands. Their names in the journal and their expertise and hard work in ensuring the quality of papers published did not go unnoticed. Those scientists also published their own work in the journal and brought in their colleagues and students. Publishing in Wetlands gained prestige.

Zhang et al. (2010) reviewed Science Citation Index to generate a ranking of journals that publish wetland-related papers. Wetlands was at the top of the list with three times

more papers published during their 1991-2008 time TABLE 3. Number of wetland papers published and general subject category of window than any other journal (Table 3). As I rejournals, 1991-2008, from Zhang et al. (2010). viewed every word and punctuation mark in every Journal Name Number of Subject Category citation of 1019 papers published during my 20 years Manuscripts as editor, my greatest joy was in watching the number Wetlands 850* ecology, environ. sciences of citations of papers in Wetlands steadily increase.

Ecological 358 ecology, environ.

Citations identify quality papers, and quality papers Engineering engineering, environ. make for a quality journal. As Wetlands gained statsciences ure as the leading journal in its field, wetland science Hydrobiologia 269 marine/freshwater biology found firm footing. n ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank Darold Batzer and Marinus Otte for reviewing this manuscript and providing input on changes implemented during their terms as Editor-in-Chief, as well as data on recent submissions. I also thank Arnold van der Valk and Gordon Goldsborough for encouragement to piece together this history.

LITERATURE CITED

Bridgham, S.D., J.P. Megonigal, J.K. Keller, N.B. Bliss, and C. Trettin. 2006. The carbon balance of North American wetlands.

Wetlands 26:889-916.

Zhang, L., M.-H. Wang, J. Hu, and Y.-S. Ho. 2010. A review of published wetland research 1991-2008: ecological engineering and ecosystem restoration. Ecological Engineering 36:973-980.

Journal of Environmental Quality Journal of Wildlife Management Aquatic Botany

206

environ. sciences

192

ecology, zoology

189

Environmental Management Water Research

176

plant sciences, marine/ freshwater biology environ. sciences

Biological Conservation Journal of Hydrology

163

Environmental Science and Technology Biogeochemistry

153

Science of the Total Environment Ecological Applications Soil Science Society of America Journal Journal of Geophysical Research Journal of Coastal Research Chemosphere Water Resources Research Water, Air, and Soil Pollution

145

environ. sciences, geosciences environ. sciences

143

ecology, environ. sciences

126

soil science

126

Geosciences

117

Freshwater Biology

100

environ. sciences, physical geography, geosciences environ. sciences environ. sciences, limnology, water resources environ. sciences, atmospheric sciences, water resources marine/freshwater biology

173

156

149

112 102 102

environ. engineering, environ. sciences, water resources biodiversity conservation, ecology, environ. sciences civil engineering, geosciences, water resources environ. engineering, environ. sciences

* Correct number for Wetlands should be 1158.

Wetland Science & Practice July 2020 157

SWS NEWS

A Society of Wetland Scientists Climate Change and Wetlands Initiative C. Max Finlayson1,2, Gillian Davies3,4, William R Moomaw4, and Nick Davidson1,5

INTRODUCTION n response to the interest in the Society of Wetland Scientists (SWS) in the many facets of climate change and wetlands we have developed and discussed with the Society’s Executive Board a proposal to formalise this and establish a Climate Change and Wetlands Initiative (Initiative). The Executive Board accepted the proposal as a forerunner to presenting it at a future meeting of the SWS Board of Directors.

As proposed, it is foremost an initiative with an open invitation extended to all SWS members to contribute in ways that reflect their interests and preferences for sharing and synthesising information on the following general topics: • vulnerability of wetland ecosystems to climate change; • impact of climate change on wetland ecosystems; • adaptation to the impacts of climate change on wetland ecosystems; • mitigation of climate change through wetland management; and • provision of guidance on possible policy and institutional responses to the social-ecological complexities associated with climate change and wetlands.

The purpose of the Initiative is to extend the role of SWS in generating knowledge and sharing evidence-based information for addressing science, policy, and management of wetlands in a changing climate. It will build on recent activities largely undertaken through the Society’s annual meetings and involve a collective of Society members with common interests in global change, including climate change and social-ecological resilience. Given the success of recent past activities, some of which are listed below, it has been proposed to formalise these as an SWS Initiative in order to gain wider recognition within the Society itself, and within the wider wetland science and practice communities. The Initiative will help create a bridge to other relevant communities

I

Institute for Land, Water, and Society, Charles Sturt University, Albury, New South Wales, Australia 2 IHE Delft, Institute for Water Education, Delft, Netherlands 3 BSC Group, Inc., Worcester, Massachusetts, USA 4 Global Development and Environment Institute and Center for International Environment and Resource Policy, The Fletcher School, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts, USA 5 Nick Davidson Environmental, Wigmore, Herefordshire, UK 1

158 Wetland Science & Practice July 2020

such as climate science and biodiversity policy, and governance, of the importance of wetlands and climate change and to encourage further dialogue and activity.

APPROACH The Initiative provides a mechanism for coordinating the activities of SWS members in a consortium arrangement that will enable them to work together in a collaborative manner to develop the science base behind managing wetlands within the context of climate change and the confounding effects of additional drivers of change in wetlands. The emphasis in the Initiative is on collegiality and encouraging members to work together to develop and share science-based information around the many facets of climate change and wetlands. This is seen as opportune given the critical importance of climate, the level of knowledge on these subjects, and the willingness of members to work together to address important wetland issues.

It further represents an extension of the processes fostered by SWS over many years and can be done without incurring additional costs to the SWS by focussing on existing mechanisms and processes. In doing this it can also provide a public platform for other organisations (such as the Secretariats of the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands and the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Global Peatland Initiative, and the working groups of the Intergovernmental Panels for Climate Change and for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services) to further engage with SWS. These activities will be coordinated by a small panel that will report to the Board of Directors on an agreed basis. In addition, this will help foster a greater and more substantive SWS presence at the international level, a priority goal in the SWS Strategic Plan. Greater international visibility and substantive participation would support increased international membership in the society as well as strengthening the relationships with international entities.

RECENT ACTIVITIES In the past few years SWS members have undertaken many activities associated with climate change which provides a firm basis for the Initiative. These activities include those listed below that have specifically addressed climate change with others addressing associated issues of wetland loss

due to global change and institutional responses. A comprehensive catalogue of SWS climate change activities is not available, but could be derived from existing records, in particular those from the annual meetings. The activities given below are not presented in priority order and represent those in which the proponents of the Initiative have been involved; other past activities can be added to this list with the concurrence of those involved.

1. Promoting statements about the importance of climate change for wetlands through the San Juan Statement, the Denver Declaration, and the Baltimore Proclamation (Finlayson et al. 2017a, 2019, 2020) and publishing these in Wetland Science and Practice. These statements have been supported by SWS leadership and then signed by individual society members at Annual Meetings. The statements are presented in Appendix 1 for ready access with a request that readers take every opportunity to share them with their colleagues.

2. Publishing multiple-authored journal papers covering the abovementioned statements and issues associated with climate change and wetlands (Moomaw et al.

2018a), with the latter being accompanied by an article in the research news media (Moomaw et al. 2018b).

The latter have also been supported by articles that address the wider range of drivers of global change in wetlands (Finlayson et al. 2017a, 2018) and alternatives to the current conservation and management approaches for wetlands globally (Darrah et al. 2019; Davidson et al. 2020; McInnes et al. 2020) and shortcomings in institutional responses. In particular this has led to a concerted effort to form a team comprising wetland and climate scientists and attorneys to draft a Universal Declaration of the Rights of Wetlands that will be further developed through ongoing dialogue and publication (Simpson et al. 2020).

3. Organizing the 2015 SWS Annual Meeting with the theme Changing Climate. Changing Wetlands. in Providence, Rhode Island, USA. Most of the symposia during this meeting were tied to the conference theme of wetlands and climate change. Over the four days of the conference the plenary speakers told the story of wetlands in a changing climate, with most becoming co-authors, along with presenters at a conference plenary panel presentation and organizers of the conference, for the Moomaw et al. (2018a) paper referenced above.

4. Organising special symposia at SWS annual meetings as part of a wider effort to focus attention on climate change issues. To date this has included those listed immediately below, and is seen as an ongoing set of activities.

Denver annual meeting 2018: SWS Public Policy & Regulation Section Symposium: Wetlands in a Changing Climate: Science, Policy and Management.

Baltimore annual meeting 2019: 1) SWS Public Policy & Regulation Section Symposium: The Critical Role of Wetlands in International Climate Solutions: Emerging Opportunities; and 2) SWS Ramsar Section Symposium: Overview of Key Global Wetland Issues – Threats, Challenges and Solutions.

The abstracts from these symposia are available in Wetland Science & Practice Volume 35, Number 3 in 2018 and Volume 36, Number 3 in 2019.

5. Presenting in Webinars including the successful series being organized by SWS. February 2016: Moomaw,W.R. and Roulet, N. Wetlands, Climate Change and the Paris Accord, and the Importance of Avoiding Carbon Emission from Northern Wetlands. SWS Webinar.

March 2019: Finlayson, M. & Moomaw, W.R., Wetlands in a Changing Climate: Science, Policy and Management. SWS Webinar.

6. Attendance as an Observer Organization at the meeting of the 13th Conference of Parties of the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands and organization of a side event entitled “Climate management, adaptation and key legal issues for Ramsar wetlands” in which updates were provided on the scientific and legal issues of addressing climate change mitigation and adaptation in wetlands as outlined by Moomaw et al. (2018).

7. Preparation of a comment by SWS Sections on climate change and wetlands (underway, incomplete) based on written comments from individual Sections that will be combined to produce a paper on climate change, as reflected by the interests from the Society’s special interest sections. All Sections have been invited to contribute.

PROPOSED ACTIVITIES In addition to the above listed activities a number of other activities have been proposed and are being considered or planned by those already engaged in the Initiative. These will be developed and complemented by further activities as the Initiative expands and engages with other SWS members. The coordinating members will manage these in a loose-tight arrangement with the former being to encourage small teams to develop their own activities as part of the Initiative, and the latter being to report these to the SWS Board of Directors on a regular basis.

An example of an activity that could be developed is the preparation of a paper on the global carbon storage in Wetland Science & Practice July 2020 159

different wetlands types. If done this would specifically inform discussions and policy development in the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands as well in the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change. Further, there has been initial discussions about preparing a paper on climate change decisions taken by countries at the Ramsar Conference (COP13) in 2018, or a paper on climate change decisions made over time at Ramsar COPs since the first formal consideration of this topic through the Convention in 2002.

This may be revealing for many readers as the Convention has not hitherto agreed to provide specific guidance on responding to climate change as part of its suite of materials that address the wise use of wetlands as outlined in a paper that was derived from a workshop held by SWS–Oceania (Finlayson et al. 2017b).

A high level panel on the “UN Decade of Restoration: Responding to Climate Destabilization and Wetland/Biodiversity Loss” that had been planned for the “RE3 From Reclaiming to Restoring and Rewilding” conference in Quebec City, Canada in June 2020 has been postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic and will be reconsidered for presentation in 2021.

With the above activities in mind there is interest in compiling a comprehensive and annotated catalogue of SWS climate change activities from past annual meetings, but to date a mechanism has not been decided. A catalogue of this nature would provide a wider statement about the expertise and interest within SWS about climate change and wetlands and provide a springboard for developing further activities.

SUMMARY A proposal based on the above information was prepared and submitted to the SWS Executive Board to obtain official endorsement, including feedback and further suggestions for engaging SWS members. SWS members now will be invited to contribute to proposed activities and to develop further activities, being aware that these will largely be undertaken by self-forming groups or by chapters or sections at the annual conferences or through virtual means.

It is not expected that all climate change activities need to be badged as a part of the initiative – rather it provides an opportunity for members to combine and present relevant activities under an SWS-wide umbrella as they determine is useful. The Initiative is seen as a way of initiating further activities and providing opportunities for members to share ideas and seek ways to engage and work with others.

160 Wetland Science & Practice July 2020

It is noted that the Initiative has synergies with parallel activities around global change and the rights of Nature (wetlands), but has not been combined with them as they are likely to attract a different cohort of members, and extend into areas not directly related to climate change. This decision could be revisited as the Initiative develops further impetus and active involvement of more SWS members. n REFERENCES

Darrah S.E., Y. Shennan-Farpón, J. Loh, N.C. Davidson, C.M. Finlayson, R.C. Gardner and M.J. Walpole. 2019. Improvements to the Wetland Extent Trends (WET) index as a tool for monitoring natural and humanmade wetlands. Ecological Indicators 99: 294-298.

Davidson N.C., L. Dinesen, S. Fennessy, C.M. Finlayson, P. Grillas, A. Grobicki, R.J. McInnes and D.A. Stroud. 2020. Trends in the ecological character status of wetlands reported to the Ramsar Convention. Marine and Freshwater Research 71: 127–138.

Finlayson C.M., G.T. Davies, W.R. Moomaw, G.L. Chmura, S.M. Natali, J.E. Perry, N. Roulet and A.E. Sutton-Grier. 2018. The Second Warning to Humanity – providing a context for wetland management and policy.

Wetlands 39: 1-5.

Finlayson C.M., G.T. Davies, N.C. Davidson and W.R. Moomaw. 2019.

The Denver Declaration on the Management and Restoration of Wetlands. Wetland Science & Practice April 2019: 78-82.

Finlayson C.M., G.T. Davies and W.R. Moomaw. 2020. Baltimore Proclamation on the Role of Wetlands in Meeting Global Environmental Challenges. Wetland Science & Practice January 2020: 4-6.

Finlayson C.M., W.R. Moomaw and G.T. Davies. 2017a. The Second Warning to Humanity and Wetlands. Wetland Science & Practice December 2017: 118-121.

Finlayson C.M., S.J. Capon, D. Rissik, J. Pittock, G. Fisk, N.C. Davidson, K.A. Bodmin, P. Papas, H.A. Robertson, M. Schallenberg, N. Saintilan, K. Edyvane and G. Bino. 2017b. Policy considerations for managing wetlands under a changing climate. Marine and Freshwater Research 68: 1803-1815.

McInnes, R.J., N.C. Davidson, C.P. Rostron, M. Simpson and C.M. Finlayson. 2020. A citizen science state of the World’s wetlands survey.

Wetlands (online). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-020-01267-8 Moomaw W.R., G.L. Chmura, G.T. Davies, C.M. Finlayson, B.A. Middleton, J.E. Perry, N. Roulet and A.E. Sutton-Grier. 2018a. Wetlands in a Changing Climate: Science, Policy and Management. Wetlands 38: 183-205.

Moomaw, W.R., G.T. Davies and M. Finlayson. 2018. What the world needs now to fight climate change: more swamps. The Conversation 12 September 2018.

Simpson, M., N. Davidson, G. Davies, M. Finlayson, W.R. Moomaw, D. Pritchard, M.S. Fennessy and J. Whitacre. 2020. A Universal Declaration on the Rights of Wetlands – Shifting the paradigm to restore the humanwetland relationship in support of wetland restoration, conservation and wise use. Wetland Science & Practice (in press).

APPENDIX 1. STATEMENTS ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND WETLAND PREPARED AT SWS ANNUAL MEETINGS 20172019 San Juan Statement on Climate Change and Wetlands (2017) The following participants at the Society of Wetland Scientists 2017 Annual Meeting encourage(s) policy makers in all countries to continue their collaborative efforts to develop and implement international policies, such as the Paris Climate Agreement, to mitigate global climate change and, in so doing: • Ensure the protection of existing carbon banks in wetlands and encourage carbon sequestration; • Maintain or restore wetlands for their biodiversity and ecosystem services, including climate resiliency; • Request all wetland managers and scientists to share this statement and support local to global efforts to combat climate change for the betterment of humankind.”

The Denver Declaration on the Management and Restoration of Wetlands (2018) The following participants at the Society of Wetland Scientists 2018 Annual Meeting affirm their support for the “San Juan Statement on Climate Change and Wetlands” that was signed by more than 200 participants at the Society’s 2017 Annual Meeting.

The San Juan Statement encouraged all countries to continue their collaborative efforts to develop and implement international policies to mitigate global climate change.

In 2018, participants stress the importance of: i) recognizing that all types of wetlands, including those underlain by permafrost and coastal wetlands, are among the most productive ecosystems on the planet; ii) ensuring the protection of existing wetlands that are among the largest and most vulnerable carbon sinks on the planet; iii) increasing the capacity for additional carbon sequestration by wetlands where possible; and iv) maintaining and restoring wetlands for their biodiversity and ecosystem services, including climate resiliency.

The participants also recognize the immense ecological, economic, cultural, and spiritual significance of highaltitude wetlands and the key roles they play in the hydrology and ecology of major rivers.

And request all wetland managers and scientists to share this statement and encourage policy makers to support local to global efforts to combat the loss of all wetlands for the betterment of humankind.

Baltimore Proclamation on the Role of Wetlands in Meeting Global Environmental Challenges (2019) The following participants at the Society of Wetland Scientists 2019 Annual Meeting affirm their support for the San Juan Statement on Climate Change and Wetlands and the Denver Declaration on the Management and Restoration of Wetlands, each of which was signed by more than 200 participants at the 2017 and 2018 Annual Meetings.

The San Juan Statement encouraged all countries to continue their collaborative efforts to develop and implement international policies to mitigate global climate change. The Denver Declaration stressed the importance of protecting existing wetland carbon sinks and future capacity of wetlands to sequester carbon; and maintaining and restoring wetland ecosystem services, particularly for biodiversity and climate resilience.

In 2019, signers of the Baltimore Proclamation urge policymakers and natural resource managers to elevate the role of wetlands when developing sustainable solutions to the rapid and pervasive global changes in climate and land use by: • protecting existing high carbon wetlands such as peatlands (including those underlain by permafrost) and coastal wetlands; • increasing the continuing sequestration of carbon in wetlands; • protecting and restoring the biodiversity and ecological function of wetlands and their essential ecosystem services; • working collaboratively across disciplines to meet global environmental challenges as they work to protect and restore wetlands.

The participants also recognize the essential ecological, economic, cultural and spiritual contributions to human well-being, including climate mitigation and resilience that wetlands contribute to nations around the world.

And request all wetland managers and scientists to share this statement and encourage policy makers in all countries and regions to integrate wetlands into local to global sustainable solutions in order to address the dual challenges of climate and land use change.

Wetland Science & Practice July 2020 161

SWS NEWS

A Second Citizen Science State of the World’s Wetlands Survey.

SWS Members’ Help Needed Again!

Robert J. McInnes, SWS Ramsar Section Past-Chair, Nick Davidson, SWS Ramsar Section Chair, Matthew Simpson, SWS Ramsar Section Vice-Chair, SWS Europe President, Max Finlayson, SWS President 2019-20

BACKGROUND n 2017, members of the Ramsar Section of the Society of Wetland Scientists (SWS), the World Wetland Network (WWN), the Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust (WWT) and the Institute for Land, Water and Society (ILWS) at Charles Sturt University pooled resources to conduct a citizen science survey of the state of the world’s remaining wetlands.

The results of the survey were published in SWS’s journal Wetlands earlier this year (McInnes et al. 2020).

The survey generated 500 useable responses from all corners of the globe. Responses were provided from a variety of respondents including academics, government officials, consultants, students, landowners, local residents, the private sector and people working for non-governmental organisations. The only qualification respondents needed to complete the survey was simply to know about a wetland and to report on their perceptions of its current state, the recent change in that state, and what drivers they consider are leading to the state and change in state they reported.

The survey reported on approximately 0.48 million km2 or some 3.6% of the reported total global area of coastal and inland wetlands (Davidson and Finlayson 2018) and received responses that covered more than 10% of the world’s Ramsar Sites and over 14% of the global area designated as internationally important wetlands at the time of the survey.

Whilst many wetlands were reported as being in fair or good state, many (particularly those already in a poor state) were reported as deteriorating. Although Ramsar Sites were reported as currently having a slightly better state than other wetlands, worryingly, widespread deterioration of Ramsar Sites as well as other wetlands was reported.

Significant differences were reported from different parts of the world. Large wetlands, particularly in Africa but also in Latin America and the Caribbean, were reported to be in a worse, and increasingly deteriorating, state than smaller wetlands in North America, Europe and Oceania.

The survey provided data on the multiple drivers contributing to wetland degradation and loss. However, the survey suggested that positive outcomes can be achieved where local community awareness, implementation of conservation measures, cultural values/traditions, tourism and forestry are proactively integrated in order to achieve the

I

162 Wetland Science & Practice July 2020

wise use of wetlands.

The results of the 2017 survey, along with other recent assessments (such as Davidson et al. 2020), contribute to addressing a knowledge gap for the world’s remaining wetlands and feed into broad reporting obligations for biodiversity conservation and monitoring, particularly by the Ramsar Convention, and to respond to the Global Wetland Outlook’s call to develop citizen science approaches that can contribute to stemming wetland loss and degradation (Ramsar Convention 2018).

A SECOND CITIZEN SCIENCE SURVEY On February 2nd 2021 the Ramsar Convention will celebrate its 50th birthday. Later in 2021, the Contracting Parties to the Convention are due to meet at the 14th Conference of Parties (COP) to be held in Wuhan, China. In preparation for these events, members of the Ramsar Section of SWS are repeating the state of the world’s wetlands citizen science survey.

The ambition is to report on a greater number of wetlands, as well as repeating the assessment on many of the wetlands that were reported on in 2017. Once again this will be achieved through volunteer citizens completing a qualitative assessment of as many of the world’s wetlands as possible. The survey is being done through a simple online questionnaire about the current state, and trends in that state, of wetlands. It has been designed to be filled in (in about 15 minutes) by anyone who knows about a wetland or wetlands (large or small). This questionnaire approach has been endorsed by the SWS Executive Board and was launched in May 2020. The 2020 survey is again a collaborative effort among SWS, WWN, WWT, IUCN, the Open University, ILWS and the Cobra Collective. The questionnaire is available in many different languages, so as to make it accessible and easy to use by as many different people around the world as possible. The survey can be accessed at the following addresses: • https://openuniversity.onlinesurveys.ac.uk/worldwetland-survey-2020-english-2 • https://openuniversity.onlinesurveys.ac.uk/worldwetland-survey-2020-french• https://openuniversity.onlinesurveys.ac.uk/worldwetland-survey-2020-arabic

President’s Address, continued from page 127

• https://openuniversity.onlinesurveys.ac.uk/worldwetland-survey-2020-spanish • https://openuniversity.onlinesurveys.ac.uk/worldwetland-survey-2020-portuguese • https://openuniversity.onlinesurveys.ac.uk/worldwetland-survey-2020-japanese • https://openuniversity.onlinesurveys.ac.uk/worldwetland-survey-2020-chinese Results of this questionnaire survey will be summarised in WSP and circulated to all those who have participated by submitting information on their wetland, and it is also planned to prepare another peer-reviewed publication. The results will also be presented at COP14 of the Ramsar Convention.

HOW CAN SWS MEMBERS HELP? Have you been undertaking research in a wetland? Are you restoring a wetland? Do you live near a wetland and have watched it change over the years? Have you been visiting a wetland over the years just to relax and commune with nature? We are sure that most, or all, SWS members have such knowledge and information about a wetland – otherwise you wouldn’t be an SWS member!

Your knowledge is really vital to the success of this survey. Please contribute to this initiative and share the information in this article with non-SWS colleagues, friends and family. The deadline for completing the survey is 31st October 2020.

Our big thanks to all SWS members in helping to make this important survey a big success! Particular thanks if you have already contributed to the survey – and thanks in advance if you are about to! n

We are revamping the strategic plan to effectively move us forward in ways that align with the overarching SWS vision. It is crafted to be a lean and mean working document, and I don’t think this exciting and ambitious plan will collect dust on the shelf!

We are also working on ways to enhance member experience. To that end, we are working on final selection of a slick, new, integrated member database and website platform that is on track for a full rollout later this year.

Staff are quickly narrowing down the search for an efficient platform that supports meeting logistics and contains builtin flexibility to cover virtual, hybrid, and in-person events.

Necessity really is the mother of invention. What we are discovering from these experiences is that challenge begets adaptation, and with adaptation, comes innovation!

It is not surprising that the theme chosen for the annual meeting in Spokane is “Wetland Sciences 2021: Adaptation Drives Innovation”. By all accounts, this meeting is shaping up to be an outstanding event and I want to thank the Pacific Northwest Chapter in advance for hosting us. Although there is some angst about what 2021 will look like, you can be confident that SWS will be flexible, prepared, and connected.

I hope this note finds you safe and sound. I am very excited to continue working with you all on behalf of our Society and I look forward to seeing you soon. n Best wishes, Loretta Battaglia SWS President (2020-2021)

REFERENCES

Davidson, N.C., L. Dinesen, S. Fennessy, C.M. Finlayson, P. Grillas, A. Grobicki, R.J. McInnes, and D.A. Stroud. 2020. Trends in the ecological character of the world’s wetlands. Marine and Freshwater Research 71(1): 127-138.

Davidson, N.C. and C.M. Finlayson. 2018. Extent, regional distribution and changes in area of different classes of wetlands. Marine and Freshwater Research 69(10): 1525–1533.

McInnes, R.J., N.C. Davidson, C.P. Rostron, M. Simpson, and C.M. Finlayson. 2020. A citizen science State of the World’s Wetlands Survey. Wetlands (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-02001267-8 Ramsar Convention. 2018. Global wetland outlook: state of the World’s wetlands and their services to people. Ramsar Convention Secretariat, Gland, Switzerland.

In the swamp at Barataria Preserve, Jean Lafitte National Historic Park and Preserve, Louisiana, USA.

Wetland Science & Practice July 2020 163

SWS NEWS

Society of Wetland Scientists Professional Certification Program (SWSPCP) Contributed by Kim Ponzio and Matt Simpson.

The Society of Wetland Scientists Professional Certification Program (SWSPCP) was developed in 1994 to certify professionals who have educational training in wetland science, alongside wetland work experience, to meet the needs of professional ecologists, hydrologists, soil scientists, educators, agency professionals, consultants, and others who practice wetland science.

The program is aimed at serving the public and governments’ need to identify qualified individuals to assess and manage wetland resources. It provides a comparable professional certification system to other professions such as engineering, architecture, and landscape architecture and there is no other national, or international standard, of its kind for wetland scientists.

Certification signifies that the academic and work experience of a Professional Wetland Scientist (PWS) meets the standards expected by her or his peers of a practicing wetland professional and provides acknowledgment of adherence to standards of professional ethics with regards to the conduct and practice of wetland science. Certification enhances the recognition of wetland science around the globe and within other disciplines, especially in multi-disciplinary work environments.

“As a wetland manager/practitioner for the State of Florida, I believe that being designated as a PWS ensures stakeholders (from the public, academia, and consultancies) that I have the background and skill-set necessary to deliver professional wetland services, and that I have committed to uphold a standard of ethical behavior while performing those duties” Kim Ponzio, PWS, USA

Those wetland scientists that have been certified and serving the wetland community for 25+ years were recently designated as Senior Professional Wetland Scientists (SPWS).

The Wetland Professional in Training (WPIT) designation is considered a preliminary step for people who meet the basic educational requirements, but do not yet have the experience requirements to become a PWS. Currently, there are over 2,000 wetland scientists certified as PWSs and over 300 certified as WPITs. The SWSPCP Program, originally developed in North America, is expanding its global reach and has international champions in Southeast Asia, Asia, Europe, Latin America & Caribbean, Oceania, South America, and Africa. The Program is being made more accessible by offering reduced fees for wetland scientists from nations with developing economies and by collecting information on coursework that qualifies for wetland specific training from international universities and continuing education programs. We are also working with the SWS Student Section to translate our promotional materials in several languages to reach non-English speaking audiences around the world (refer to English/Spanish flyers, following pages).

“The preservation, conservation, and restoration of wetland ecosystems is vital in Asia, and it is crucial that people are educated about this fantastic work. Insufficient attention has been paid to the environmental and social consequences of the loss of biodiversity. In Asia, researchers based at their unique societies, alongside a team of transnational collaborators, are seeking to draw attention to environmental issues and promote culturally appropriate approaches to sustainability.

PWS helps us achieve this as it raises the profile of wetlands and provides a professional standard for wetland researchers and practitioners” Distinguished Professor Wei-Ta Fang, PWS, Taiwan

164 Wetland Science & Practice July 2020

The SWSPCP Program recently developed two initiatives to respond to the COVID19 global pandemic: 1. SWSPCP Connect Zoom Sessions that are being held every other month in order to “e-connect” wetland scientists and to aid in information sharing on the challenges and solutions of working in wetland science amid the crisis (ranging from safety procedures while conducting fieldwork to funding assistance through national or international programs).

2. COVID-19 Hardship Fund of $25,000 to help existing PWS, SPWS, and WPIT members maintain their certification by granting a full or partial waiver of their annual maintenance fees (request form located here: https://www.wetlandcert.org/ covid_request_form.html.

“I fully support the Professional Certification Program of SWS and have been a long-standing advocate for the recognition of professional competence in wetland science and practice. Whilst the Program is not widely known beyond the USA, irrespective of geography I still feel that by becoming an accredited Professional Wetland Scientist (PWS) gives an individual a level of both professional standing within their chosen wetland-related field as well as a degree of personal pride that their experiences, knowledge and competencies have been formally recognised through a professional accreditation process” Rob McInnes, PWS, United Kingdom

SWSPCP is also working to strengthen our connection with students and has ramped up efforts to communicate the necessary educational requirements for students and young professionals to become WPITs. Furthering that effort, the SWSPCP Board of Directors recently added a non-voting, student representative to the Board to gain feedback and input on the activities and initiatives of the Program, from a student’s perspective.

If you are interested in becoming certified as a PWS or WPIT then please visit: https://www.wetlandcert.org/ n

“Having an international certification program for wetland skills and expertise brings credibility to the SWS and our certification program. It provides a means to demonstrate all PWS meet minimum standards and qualifications globally. These skills and expertise then position SWS and PWS as global ambassadors and informed and responsible wetland scientists on local/ global wetland issues.

Becoming a PWS opened my eyes internationally. I’ve never thought about wetlands as being the cradle of life, but if you look at human history, wetlands played an important role in shaping human diversity and culture. Looking back, we’ve forgotten this and need to remind ourselves of the crucial role wetlands played in our development and their role in the future. As PWS we need to be great advocates preserving and improving our wetland resources” Ben LePage, PWS, USA

Wetland Science & Practice July 2020 165

Society of Wetland Scientists - Professional Certification Program An International Organization with over 2,000 Professional Wetland Scientists certified since 1994

The Society of Wetland Scientists was formed to promote understanding, conservation, protection, restoration, sciencebased management and sustainability of wetlands. The Society developed the Professional Certification Program (PCP) in 1994 for certification of wetland science training and experience, with the aim of serving the public and governments’ need to identify qualified individuals to assess and manage wetland resources.

What is a PWS or WPIT?

What are the requirements?

Professional Wetland Scientist or PWS

Academic Requirements – PWS / WPIT*

✓ Meets stringent academic and work experience standards ✓ Adheres to high level of professional ethical standards ✓ Conducts & practices wetland science in multi-disciplinary work environments ✓ Holds special international designation similar to Professional Engineer or Landscape Architect

WPIT (Wetland Professional in Training) ✓ Meets stringent academic standards ✓ Works on gaining qualifying employment experience and/or some types of volunteer experience in wetlands ✓ Adheres to professional ethical standards Fees (USD)

Developed Countries

Developing Countries

✓ 15 credits in Biological Sciences, such as biology, botany, zoology, ecology, etc. ✓ 15 credits in Physical Sciences, such as chemistry, soils, hydrology, geology, etc. ✓ 6 credits in Quantitative Sciences, such as math, computer science, statistics, etc. ✓ 15 credits in Specialized Wetland Course Work (PWS only), such as wetland plant taxonomy, wetland hydrology, soil morphology, wetland mapping, wetland restoration & wetland delineation, etc. * Before applying, applicants must have earned a Baccalaureate degree or higher.

Qualifying Work Experience – PWS

After earning a Baccalaureate degree or higher, required experience is: ✓ 5 years of full-time professional experience while working in consulting, industry, non-profit, public or academic sectors. ✓ Experience calculated on percentage of time devoted specifically to professional wetland activities which can be pro-rated ✓ Statement of Expertise essay ✓ 5 references attesting to your qualifications

How do you apply? Visit https://www.wetlandcert.org/

SWS SWS SWS SWS NonNonMember Member Member Member

For questions or help with submitting your application, contact: Adrianna Borczyk., Program Coord. ABorczyk@association-resources.com Toll Free: 877.226.9902 | Fax: 847.885.8393

PWS

$300

$400

$100

$140

WPIT

$100

$200

$30

$60

John Lowenthal, Certification Standards Rob Shannon, Certification Review Robbyn Myers, Outreach

166 Wetland Science & Practice July 2020

John.Lowenthal@cardno-gs.com rds13@psu.edu bgerobbyn@comcast.net

La Sociedad de Científicos de Humedales (SWS) Programa de Certificación para Profesionales (PCP)

Una organización internacional que ha certificado más de 2,000 profesionales desde 1994.

La Sociedad de Científicos de Humedales fue formada para promover conocimiento, conservación, protección, restauración, gestión basada en la ciencia, y sostenibilidad de los humedales. La Sociedad creó el Programa de Certificación para Profesionales en 1994 para certificar formación académica y experiencia laboral en el ámbito de humedales, y pretende cumplir las necesidades del público y el gobierno para identificar individuos calificados para evaluar y gestionar los recursos naturales de humedales.

¿Qué es un PWS o WPIT?

¿Cuáles son los requisitos?

Profesional de Ciencias de Humedales (PWS)

Requisitos académicos – PWS / WPIT*

✓ Cumple normas estrictas de experiencia académica y profesional ✓ Sostiene un alto nivel de estándares de conducta ética y profesionalismo ✓ Conduce y practica sus estudios de humedales en entornos laborales multidisciplinarios ✓ Posee una designación especial internacional similar a los títulos de Ingeniero Profesional o Arquitecto Paisajista

✓ ✓

* Antes de aplicar, candidatos deben haber obtenido su licenciatura o posgrado.

Experiencia Profesional Calificada – PWS ✓

✓ Cumple normas académicas estrictas ✓ Procura obtener experiencias laborales o voluntarias relevantes en humedales ✓ Sostiene estándares de conducta ética y profesional Países Desarrollados

✓

15 créditos en Ciencias Biológicas, como biología, botánica, zoología, ecología, etc.

15 créditos en Ciencias Físicas, como química, edafología, geología, hidrología, etc.

6 créditos en Estudios Cuantitativos, como matemáticas, informática, estadística, etc.

15 créditos en Cursos Especializados en Humedales (solo PWS), como taxonomía de flora de humedales, hidrología de humedales, morfología de suelos, cartografía de humedales, restauración / creación / mitigación de humedales, delineación de humedales, ecología y gestión de humedales, etc.

Después de obtener la licenciatura o posgrado, experiencia requisita incluye:

Profesional de Humedales en Formación (WPIT)

Cuotas (USD)

✓

Países en Desarrollo

No No Miembro Miembro Miembro Miembro de SWS de SWS de SWS de SWS

PWS

$300

$400

$100

$140

WPIT

$100

$200

$30

$60

✓

✓ ✓

5 años de empleo a tiempo completo trabajando en asesoría, industria, organizaciones sin fines de lucro, gobierno, o academia.

Experiencia será calculada basada en el porcentaje de tiempo dedicado específicamente a experiencias profesionales en humedales que podrán ser prorrateados.

Ensayo de Declaración de Experiencia 5 referencias comprobando sus calificaciones

¿Cómo se solicita? Visite https://www.wetlandcert.org/ Si usted tiene preguntas o requiere ayuda para presentar su solicitación, contacte a: Adrianna Borczyk., Coordinadora. ABorczyk@association-resources.com Gratuito: 877.226.9902 | Fax: 847.885.8393 John Lowenthal, Normas de certificación Rob Shannon, Revisión de certificación Robbyn Myers, Extensión

John.Lowenthal@cardno-gs.com rds13@psu.edu bgerobbyn@comcast.net

Wetland Science & Practice July 2020 167

SWS NEWS

Webinar Committee looking to recruit new members

The SWS Webinar Sub-Committee is doing great things and we want YOU to be part of the team! We are recruiting 2-3 new committee members to help us deliver amazing webinars, both in English and Spanish, and to develop our Wetland Interviews program which is a collaborative effort with the International Chapter and the SWS Media Initiative. Your participation would involve only a 1-hour meeting, once a month, as well as, any ONE or more of the following “micro tasks”: 1. moderate live English OR Spanish webinars (general script is provided); 2. track viewership analytics and help interface with interested speakers to get promotional and webinar materials; 3. translate YouTube captions (Spanish to English and vice versa) for our archived YouTube videos; 4. act as interviewer for Wetland Interviews in any language (general interview questions provided); or 5. edit webinars and interviews, with SWS Staff, to convert webinars and interviews into podcasts.

If you are interested in assisting with any of these tasks (and we offer free on-the-job training), we’d be happy to have you join the team! Additionally, you can receive credit towards your Professional Wetland Scientist renewal by serving on the SWS Webinar Committee. Please contact Roy Messaros (roymessaros@aol.com) or Kim Ponzio (kponzio@ sjrwmd.com) to volunteer or to get more information. n

SWS hosts first-ever virtual Annual Business Meeting June 11

Despite the postponement of this year’s originally-planned inperson meeting, SWS still needed to hold our Annual Business Meeting (per our by-laws). A couple hundred attendees joined us to hear updates from the SWS President, Secretary, Treasurer and SWSPCP representatives. We also welcomed incoming 2020-2021 President Loretta Battaglia, Ph.D., and heard what she has planned for the next year. And, Kathy Ewel, Ph.D., presented on the 40-year history of SWS. Feedback was extremely positive, with many expressing an interest in a virtual option for the Annual Business Meeting even when we are able to again meet in person. n

Congratulations and thank you to the SWS Student Section OUR SOCIETY’S FIRST VIRTUAL STUDENT SECTION CONFERENCE HELD JUNE 10-11, 2020 The Student Section did a great job organizing this unique online event - by students, for students! The two-day virtual conference featured student lightning talks, networking opportunities and highlights from SWS leaders on ways to expand your professional development in the Society.

In appreciation, SWS President Loretta Battaglia had this to say, “I personally had the pleasure of tuning in during the lightning talks and hearing about the terrific wetland research that is being conducted by students all over the globe – from Australia, to Peru, to Canada and across the US. The conference was truly an international event.” n

Congratulations to this year’s student award winners!

2019 ORAL PRESENTATION AWARD (for

2019 presentation in Baltimore)

Liza Goldberg, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center through the University of Maryland 2019 POSTER PRESENTATION AWARD (for 2019 presentation in Baltimore) Samantha McCabe, Ohio State University

168 Wetland Science & Practice July 2020

SWS STUDENT RESEARCH GRANTS Nureen Faiza Anisha, Oregon State University Andis Arietta, Yale University Shivona Bhojwani, University of Minnesota Lena Champlin, Drexel University Coryna Hebert, Utah State University Johannes Krause, Drexel University Xiaoyu Li, Université de Montréal Raymond Looney, University of Vermont Alishia Orloff, Yale University Rae Robinson, Utah State University

CHAPTERS & SECTIONS GRANTS Restoration Section: Lena Champlin, Drexel University

NORTH CENTRAL CHAPTER: Reni Truhtcheva - Owkoti, Governors State University Danielle Winter, Purdue University NEW ENGLAND CHAPTER: Anna Puchkoff, University of Connecticut PEATLANDS SECTION: Xiaoyu Li, Université de Montréal WILDLIFE SECTION: Dustin Brewer, Central Michigan University Raymond Looney, University of Vermont

SWS NEWS

Wetland Interviews Initiative - New Wetland Legend Interview publilshed The latest installment in Wetland Legend Interview series is conducted by Anna Puchkoff, interviewing Dr. Nick Davidson: Interviewee: Dr. Nick Davidson Interviewer: Anna Puchkoff Subject: We ask Dr. Davidson about his experiences in wetland conservation, from his childhood interests to his global work on the Ramsar Convention. He describes how Ramsar has fared in implementation since its inception almost 50 years ago, and provides insight and inspiration for improvements and steps moving forward.

We talk about the valuable community science to provide updates on the state of wetlands globally, including soliciting survey input from SWS members and all those who get to enjoy wetlands!

There are now five Wetland Interviews published under this initiative, including two prior Wetland Legends Douglas Wilcox and Antonio Lot Helgueras (in Spanish): Interviewee: Antonio Lot Helgueras Interviewer: Tatiana Lobato de Magalhães Subject: We follow Dr. Lot’s career journey during the past 50 years as a professor at the National Autonomous University of Mexico as he tells stories of his valuable experiences and insights along the way. He also discusses the aquatic plants in the prehispanic period, his book about iconography and aquatic plants in Mexico City, water management, and the evolution of wetland policies in Mexico.

Interviewee: Armando Rivas Interviewer: Tatiana Lobato de Magalhães Subject: We follow Dr. Rivas’ career journey from his experience with wastewater treatment in Japan to his current work as a researcher at the Instituto Mexicano de Tecnología del Agua, IMTA. He tells stories of his valuable experiences and insights along the way. He also discusses his participation as a founder of the Red Panamericana de Sistemas de Humedales.

Interviewee: Doug Wilcox Interviewer: Roy Messaros Subject: We follow Dr. Wilcox’s career journey from childhood interests to his current work as a professor at Stonybrook University in NY as he tells stories of his valuable experiences and insights along the way. He also discusses his new book, Wetland Legends.

Interviewees: Dr. Carolina Rojas Quezada (Institute of Urban Studies, Pontifical Catholic University of Chile), Dr. Juanita Aldana-Domíngue (Universidad del Norte Colombia), Dr. Paola Moschella (Pontifical Catholic University of Peru) Interviewer: Tatiana Lobato de Magalhães Subject: Urban Wetlands in Latin America Three remarkable wetland researchers from Colombia, Peru, and Chile discuss their work on developing a project about urban wetlands in their respective countries. These three researchers won a sustainable research grant for Latin Americans to conduct this research and share their experiences.

ABOUT WETLAND INTERVIEWS The SWS Wetland Interviews playlist offers videos on YouTube that highlight international connections in wetland science and increases knowledge exchange by interviewing wetland researchers and practitioners from around the world.

Through this effort, the ‘Wetland Interviews Initiative’ also incorporates a Wetland Legends Series, by holding interviews with distinguished and prominent wetland scientists.

Please check them out at: http://sws.org/Sample-Content/ wetland-interviews-initiative.html. You can also view them directly on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/ playlist?list=PL8NOIq5cy6-cKa5fld2EjMrXWdz9usTxA. SWS is soliciting further suggestions for interviewees that can speak about intercultural, international, and/or interdisciplinary experiences. The interviewee does not have to be a member of SWS. The Wetland Interviews Initiative is also seeking SWS members interested in conducting these interviews (in English and other languages). If you are interested in nominating an interviewee or conducting an interview yourself, please email swsmediaeditors@gmail.com.

The Wetland Interviews Initiative is hosted by the International Chapter and the SWS Webinar Series in collaboration with New Media Initiative. n Wetland Science & Practice July 2020 169

SWS ANNUAL MEETING

SWS Annual Meeting 2021

Wetland Sciences 2021: Adaptation Drives Innovation

Spokane, Washington, USA | June 1-4

S

WS will be hosting the 2021 Annual Meeting in Spokane, Washington, USA, June 1-4, separate from the postponed RE3 Conference in Quebec City. As a reminder, SWS is no longer a partner in the RE3 Conference.

We’re excited to announce the Call for both Symposia and Workshop proposals is now open. The deadline to submit a symposium or workshop proposal is Wednesday, September 30, 2020.

Symposia and Workshops relevant to the meeting’s theme, Wetland Science 2021: Adaptation Drives Innovation, are particularly encouraged. Proposal organizers are encouraged to be creative and focus on the uniqueness and interdisciplinary nature of attendees at the annual meeting.

Although we cannot predict what June 2021 will look like for the ever-evolving world pandemic, we are planning a compelling program of speakers, research and presentations that will have a voice and platform for discussion.

Proposals will be evaluated primarily on the current inter-

est of their subject and the qualifications of proposed speakers.

All proposals will be evaluated by a local program subcommittee and final decisions will be announced in October 2020.

Abstract submission will open Wednesday, October 28, 2020, and Registration will open in December.

If you previously had an accepted abstract, symposium or workshop proposal for the Quebec RE3 conference and would instead prefer to present your stand-alone abstract or host your symposium / workshop at the SWS 2021 Annual Meeting, you should withdraw your submission from RE3 as soon as possible. Special consideration will be given to proposal submissions that were previously accepted to the RE3 conference.

We hope you can join us and share your research at the SWS 2021 Annual Meeting! More information can be found on the SWS Annual Meeting website: https://www.swsannualmeeting.org. n

Meet Beverly!

About Spokane

Beverly the Beaver is the 2021 Spokane meeting mascot.

The beaver is nature’s busiest hydro-ecological engineer! With its felling of trees and creation of dams, the beaver changes water courses, produces enormous amounts of coarse woody debris in streams, and initiates the life cycles of many wetlands in the landscape.

It has even been put to work recently for “beaverassisted restoration”.

The name “Beverly” is an Old English name used for girls and boys. It means “dweller near the beaver stream”.

Hope to see some beavers in action on our field-trips! n

170 Wetland Science & Practice July 2020

Located in a river gorge in the heart of the United States’ Pacific Northwest region, Spokane provides plenty of opportunity to get out and explore the natural environment.

With its hiking and biking trails, lakes and rivers, there are adventures to suit all outdoor enthusiasts. Throw in a vibrant food scene, including several local wineries, as well as a thriving creative arts culture, and we have ourselves an amazing locale in which to meet - learning together, connecting with each other. We can’t wait to see you there! n

SWS WEBINAR SERIES

SOCIETY WETLAND SCIENTISTS

Monthly webinars are offered by the Society of Wetland Scientists (SWS) as a benefit of membership. Once each quarter, in March, July, September and December (marked with an asterisk below), the monthly SWS webinar is open for non-members to attend, at no cost, as well. Spanish language webinars are always free for both members and non-members.

ENGLISH: sws.org > Events > Upcoming Webinars

SPANISH: sws.org > Events > Spanish Language Webinars

8/20/2020 | 1:00 pm ET

9/24/2020 | 1:00 pm ET

Restoring Native Clam Communities for Improved Water Quality and Economic Resilience in the Indian River Lagoon Presenter: Todd Z. Osborne

Mexican Mangroves * Presenter: Marivel Domínguez Domínguez

9/17/2020 | 1:00 pm ET Urban Wetlands and Water Management * Presenter: Bill Dooley 10/15/2020 | 1:00 pm ET Role of inland saline wetland ecosystems in the face of climate change Presenter: Rajashree Naik

12/2/2020 | 1:00 pm ET Urban Wetlands in Latin America * Presenter: Carolina Rojas Quezada ARCHIVES Did you miss a webinar?

All webinars are recorded and archived for complimentary viewing by members on our Past Webinars web page.

11/19/2020 | 1:00 pm ET Pre-disturbance Planning to Restoration: Wetland Restoration in 3 years Presenter: Mary Louise Polzin 12/17/2020 | 1:00 pm ET SWS History - 40 Years of Globalization * Presenter: Kathy Ewel

Thank you to our 2020 Webinar Series Sponsors For more information on sponsoring the SWS Webinar Series, contact membership@sws.org

WWW.IN-SITU.COM

WWW.FACEBOOK.COM/ WATERRESOURCESHYDROLOGY HYDRAULICSEDUCATION/

#SWSWebinars #SWS

WWW.WHITENTONGROUP.COM/

#WetlandScience

HTTPS://WILDNOTEAPP.COM/

#WetlandResearch

Wetland Science & Practice July 2020 171

WETLANDS OF DISTINCTION

Martin National Wildlife Refuge (Chesapeake Bay, USA) Steffanie Munguia, Florida International University

L

ocated in the heart of the lower Chesapeake Bay between Maryland and Virginia, the Martin National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) is a 1,790 hectare complex of wetland islands including the northern half of Smith Island and Watts Island (Figure 1). The reserve was established in 1954 with the donation of over 1,000 hectares by the late Glenn L. Martin, an avid supporter of wildlife conservation, to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Since then, a series of further land donations as well as purchases have grown the refuge into an expansive mosaic of tidal marshes, coves, creeks, and vegetated ridges.

Much of the reserve is dominated by intertidal salt marsh plant communities. Most of the emergent vegetation is black needlerush (Juncus roemerianus), although smooth

cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora), saltmeadow hay (Spartina patens), and salt grass (Distichlis spicata) are not uncommon. Two species of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), eelgrass (Zostera marina) and widgeongrass (Ruppia maritima) dominate the shallow water surrounding Smith Island and the adjacent Tangier Sound (Figure 2). These two species are extremely important to the overall ecology of the Chesapeake Bay, facilitating primary production, fisheries habitat, nutrient uptake, wave attenuation, and sediment stabilization, among other ecosystem services (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Baltimore District 1997).

As one of the largest units of the Chesapeake Marshlands NWR Complex, the Glenn Martin NWR is critically important

FIGURE 1. Location of Glenn Martin National Wildlife Refuge in Chesapeake Bay, Maryland/Virginia, USA. (Google Map and Google Earth images.)

FIGURE 2. An aerial view of the expansive shallow-water habitats that cover much of the Glenn Martin NWR. (Photo courtesy of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.)

172 Wetland Science & Practice July 2020

for migratory and resident waterfowl. It boasts a largely undisturbed matrix of shallow-water habitats, tidal mudflats, and fringing marshes that provide habitat to a variety of species (Figures 2 and 3). These include frequent nesting habitat for black ducks (Anas rubripes) and foraging grounds for a variety of other migratory waterfowl that frequent the Atlantic flyway, such as Canada geese (Branta canadensis), American wigeon (Anas americana), surf scoter (Aythya americana), and tundra swan (Cygnus columbianus). The vegetated ridges provide hunting perches and nesting grounds for a variety of raptors, such as the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), barn owl (Tyto alba), and peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus).

In addition to feathered visitors and residents, many wetland-dependent mammal and reptile species have been documented in the NWR. Since it is one of the most productive areas for submerged aquatic vegetation in the Chesapeake Bay, it is an important refuge for species like river otters (Lutra canadensis) and diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin). The latter is among the most vulnerable species that call the Martin NWR home, as they depend on ecosystem connectivity from shallow creeks and coves bordering salt marshes as juveniles to deeper brackish waters as adults, as well as exposed sandy areas for laying eggs. Coupled with strong harvesting pressure in the early 20th century, habitat degradation throughout the turtle’s Atlantic and Gulf Coast range has led to a marked decline in their population (Walker and Jones 2018).

Marsh accretionary processes in the Chesapeake Bay have historically been outpaced by relative sea level rise, a process exacerbated by current accelerations (Stevenson et al. 2016). Thousands of years ago, Martin NWR and Smith Island formed part of a larger peninsula. As water level rose, the peninsula separated into the distinct island complex now encompassed in the Chesapeake Islands refuges.

The land itself transformed from dry uplands to wetlands.

Relative sea level rise, based on tide gauges which do not separate absolute sea level from subsidence, is 3.44 + 0.49 mm/yr. for Cambridge, Maryland (Boon et al. 2010).

The rate of sea level rise has increased since the late 19th century and is predicted to further accelerate in the coming decades. This will continue to submerge wetlands that are unable to build elevation at a sufficient rate. Much of Smith Island is expected to convert to open water by 2050 according to the Sea Level Affecting Marshes Model (SLAMM).

However, the most immediate threat to Martin NWR is shoreline erosion. Between 1942 and 2013, the shoreline on Martin NWR eroded between 0.6 and 5.5 meters per year, depending on shoreline position. During this timeframe, approximately 96 hectares of tidal marsh has been lost to erosion.

This is a rate of 1.3 ha per year. This rapid loss has led to the implementation of a living shoreline project at Fog Point in the NWR, utilizing funds from Hurricane Sandy relief to bolster

ecosystem-based coastal protection (Division of Public Affairs 2016). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers recently completed a marsh restoration project in the Martin NWR to combat these threats, and the outcome of this work is being closely monitored by NOAA. In the last decade, the reserve has also seen increases in tourism and recreational activities in the reserve, though impact from these is considered minimal as these are regulated activities (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2006).

Based on the tremendous biodiversity of this Wetland of Distinction, it is no wonder that locals and visitors alike are flocking to see this glimpse into the past of the Chesapeake Bay. n REFERENCES

Boon, J.D., J.M. Brubaker, and D.R. Forrest. 2010. Chesapeake Bay land subsidence and sea level change: An evaluation of past and present trends and future outlook. Special Report No. 425 in Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering, Gloucester Point, VA. Division of Public Affairs. 2016. New Living Shoreline Completed in Maryland’s Eastern Shore. US Fish and Wildlife Service. https://www. fws.gov/news/ShowNews.cfm?ref=new-living-shoreline-completed-inmaryland%E2%80%99s-eastern-shore-&_ID=35717 Stevenson, J.C., M.S. Kearney, and E.C. Pendleton. 1985. Sedimentation and erosion in a Chesapeake Bay brackish marsh system. Marine Geology 67(3-4): 213-235.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1997. Smith Island Environmental Restoration and Protection, Maryland Reconnaissance Report, Baltimore District. https://www.wetlandsofdistinction.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/USACE_1997_report_Smith.pdf U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Chesapeake Marshlands National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan. https:// www.fws.gov/northeast/planning/Chesapeake%20Marshlands%20 NWR%20Complex/PDF/FinalCCP/16_EntireDocument.pdf Walker, R.D., and G.A. Jones. 2018. Consumer‐driven depletion of the northern diamondback terrapin in Chesapeake Bay. Marine and Coastal Fisheries 10(2): 132-143.

FIGURE 3. Vegetated ridges near intertidal salt marshes provide optimal nesting habitat for wading birds such as great egrets (Ardea alba).

(Photo courtesy of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.)

Wetland Science & Practice July 2020 173

SAMPLING FOR WETLAND MITIGATION

Vegetation Sampling Concepts for Compensatory Mitigation Sites Douglas A. DeBerry1, Environmental Science and Policy, College of William & Mary, Williamsburg, VA and VHB, Inc., Williamsburg, VA

and Perry 2018).

INTRODUCTION The purpose of this project was to review the scientific n 2018, the Norfolk District of the U.S. Army Corps of literature on vegetation sampling and provide background Engineers (USACE) and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), in their roles as co-chairs of information on sampling protocols to be incorporated into Virginia’s Interagency Review Team (IRT), proposed modi- the 2018 Template revisions. The information provided here was used, in part, to supplement Exhibit J (Monitoring fications to the Virginia Mitigation Banking Instrument and Reporting Requirements) of the 2018 Template (US(MBI) Template (Template). The Template is a document used to establish compensatory wetland and stream mitiga- ACE and DEQ 2018). tion banks in the state, serving as a planning-level tool with PURPOSE OF SAMPLING minimum standards and design criteria for that purpose.

One of the most importance considerations in vegetation Prospective mitigation banks are approved via IRT ratificasampling is to define what is meant by the term “sample”. tion of an acceptable MBI, which provides the necessary For most scientific measurements of vegetation communidocumentation for the “…establishment, use, operation, ties, a sample is defined as a collection of sample units and management…” of mitigation banks in Virginia (US(SU), the latter of which can be defined as discrete porACE and DEQ 2018). At each stage in this progression, tions of an aggregate (i.e., community) from which rea bank must meet performance standards for the IRT to peatable observations can be made (Pielou 1984, Ludwig approve the release of bank credits, and ultimately for and Reynolds 1988, Krebs 1999). Sampling is therefore those credits to be used as compensatory mitigation under defined as the collection and analysis of data from SUs to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the Virginia Water make informed assumptions about the overall community Protection Permit Program. The 2018 Template revisions (Ludwig and Reynolds 1988). This definition of sampling were adopted by the IRT and are available on the USACE distinguishes it from an ecological census, which is defined Regulatory In-lieu Fee and Bank Information Tracking as the counting of all individuals belonging to a group of System (RIBITS; USACE and DEQ 2018). interest within an area (Henderson and Southwood 2016).

The overall condition of the vegetation community is In complex ecosystems, ecological census would be nearly an important component of performance standards, and impossible and certainly cost-prohibitive; therefore, samduring the 2018 Template review the IRT was considering pling is seen as an optimal approach to data collection in revisions that would clarify vegetation sampling protocols most ecological studies. and encourage the use of specific types of Given the above discussion, it can be vegetation data in demonstrating ecological The purpose of sampling…is to said that the purpose of sampling vegetation performance. The revisions were considdevelop summary data about communities is to develop summary data ered necessary because previous versions of the sample based on statistics about the sample based on statistics calcuthe Template (see USACE and DEQ 2010, calculated from measurements lated from measurements or observations of or observations of SUs (e.g., 2017) included sampling recommendations the SUs (e.g., “central-tendency” statistics plots). If the data are collected that were ambiguous and/or inconsistent like arithmetic mean, etc.). Although these with ecological sampling theory (see discus- in accordance with ecological sampling theory, the summary summary data represent the sample, they sion below). Revisions were also timely statistics for the sample are are assumed to also be representative of because recent research on vegetation deassumed to be representative the overall community as long as certain velopment in compensatory wetland mitiga- of the overall community. assumptions of ecological sampling theory tion revealed alternative sampling strategies are upheld. The most important of these are that are more aligned with measurements of listed below (Krebs 1999): wetland function (e.g., stem area at groundline; see Hudson

I

1

Author contact: dadeberry@wm.edu

174 Wetland Science & Practice July 2020

1. All SUs should have an equal chance of being selected.

2. The sample (collection of SUs) should not cross community boundaries (i.e., the sample should be taken from a relatively homogeneous cover type).

3. Sample adequacy should be demonstrated (see discussion on Sample Adequacy: Species-Area Curve below).

If the above assumptions are met, a sample (and its associated statistical derivations) can be said to represent the underlying community with respect to the measurements or observations collected in the field. Vegetation sampling strategies on compensatory mitigation sites are conformable to the above criteria as long as locations of SUs are randomized (see Sampling Strategy: Random vs.

Systematic below), the site is “stratified” (i.e., divided) by planting zone or community type with respect to sample area (see Stratified Random Sampling below), and sample adequacy is evaluated via the species-area relationship or equivalent technique (see Sample Adequacy: Species-Area Curve below).

is to achieve a minimum of 400 stems per acre (a density measurement that can easily be evaluated using plots).

Let’s assume that an appropriate ecological sampling strategy was employed to measure stem density across a forested planting zone within a mitigation site (i.e., plots were randomized, sample area was homogeneous, and sample size was adequate). If the average overall stem density for the sample was greater than 400 stems per acre (performance standard met), but one of the plots by itself didn’t meet the density requirement, then it is a mistake to pronounce the entire site – or even a portion of it – as failing to meet the performance standard. An individual plot (SU) should not be used or evaluated in this manner.

SAMPLING STRATEGY: RANDOM VS. SYSTEMATIC There are many different vegetation sampling strategies that have been developed over the past century for different purposes (for a comprehensive review, see Mueller-Dombois and Ellenberg 1974, Krebs 1999). Most sampling strategies may be divided along two primary lines: 1) random sampling and 2) systematic sampling. Random sampling is typically carried out by using plot A COMMON MISTAKE: “SAMPLE” VS. Assuming an appropriate ecologilocations determined from a randomiza“PLOT” PERFORMANCE cal sampling strategy was used to tion procedure such as a random numbers In vegetation community analysis, the study plants on a compensatory generator to assign X,Y coordinates or typical sample unit is a plot, which can mitigation site, it is a mistake to be defined as any two-dimensional area of pronounce the entire site – or even random distances along a transect. Sysany size or shape (e.g., quadrats, rectangu- a portion of it – as failing to meet a tematic sampling is based on a layout lar plots, circular plots, belt transects, etc.; performance standard based solely of plots that are evenly spaced along a transect or grid across the site (Henderson on the results of one plot.

Mueller-Dombois and Ellenberg 1974, and Southwood 2016). Random sampling Gage and Cooper 2010). When plots are has the benefit of satisfying the first condition of ecological arrayed on a site in observance of the above assumptions sampling theory above, namely, that all SUs (plots) have an (independent SUs, homogeneous sample area, and sample equal chance of being selected. Also, because randomizaadequacy), then any central-tendency data calculated to tion minimizes sampling bias in plot selection, statistical summarize the sample would be considered an adequate error terms may be assigned to mean values of the sample representation of the overall community. In the case of (Mueller-Dombois and Ellenberg 1974). By contrast, compensatory mitigation, if data such as stem density or systematic sampling may be appropriate in situations where overall cover (for example) are collected and presented organismal distribution across an environmental gradient is in this manner, then the average values for those metrics should be taken as representative of the overall community. of interest, or where mapping the exact locations of community changes across a landscape is important; however, Therefore, if a performance standard has been developed common parametric statistical analyses cannot be completfor these measurements, then it should be evaluated on a ed on systematic sampling data without some form of data mitigation site using the average value calculated from the transformation (Henderson and Southwood 2016). This is SUs rather than on a plot-by-plot basis. This is because a due to the fact that the systematically collected SUs are not plot is a SU, which by definition should only be considered as a discrete portion of an aggregate sample (recall that this independent and are therefore subject to sampling bias.

For most compensatory mitigation sites, a systematic is the purpose of sampling). As long as proper ecological sampling strategy would result in oversampling the vegetasampling techniques are observed, then it is the summary statistics for the sample and not for the individual plots that tive community. This occurs because the number of plots is predetermined based on the sampling grid, and plots are should be analyzed against performance standards. sampled irrespective of the relative distribution of species To illustrate with an example: A common vegetation across the site. In effect, oversampling results in a situaperformance standard for forested wetland mitigation sites Wetland Science & Practice July 2020 175

tion where rare species are mathematically reduced to zero (or nearly so), because plots are indiscriminately added based on their location along the sampling grid rather than the overall relative distribution of species within the community (McCune and Grace 2002). In addition, oversampling often creates the problem of reducing variance to the point that even minuscule differences can generate very small p-values when comparing group means statistically (e.g., Analysis of Variance, ANOVA), which could lead an observer to determine that those differences are statistically significant and mistakenly conclude that they are biologically relevant (Steel et al. 2013). Oversampling may also be undesirable in applied ecology studies because of the additional time, effort, and expense required to collect the data (Henderson and Southwood 2016). For these reasons, oversampling is every bit as problematic as undersampling (or sampling too few SUs), in which case rare species in the sample become mathematically much larger than they should be or are missed altogether, or variances are too large to detect biologically relevant differences. Note that requiring a categorical plot density (such as 3 plots per acre) without sample adequacy analysis could result in either scenario but would most likely result in oversampling of the vegetative community.

STRATIFIED RANDOM SAMPLING A stratified random sampling design is one in which the study area is divided into a number of non-overlapping subdivisions (or strata2) and samples are randomly selected from each subdivision (Gage and Cooper 2010, Manly 2015, Henderson and Southwood 2016). The benefit of this approach is that investigators are able to sample the plant community in a non-biased manner (due to the randomization component) while also ensuring that the sampling effort adequately covers the entire study site (due to the stratification component) “Stratified random sampling is (Mueller-Dombois and Elalmost always more precise than lenberg 1974, Tiner 2017, simple random sampling, and every Henderson and Southwood ecologist should use it whenever 2016). In most circumstancpossible.” (Krebs 1999) es involving ecological sampling, a stratified random approach represents the single most powerful sampling design that ecologists can adopt in the field to represent the overall community and, as Krebs (1999) states: “StratiThe use of the term “strata” in the literature to describe the subdivisions arrived at when using this approach is somewhat unfortunate given the frequency with which that same term is used to refer to vegetation layers (e.g., tree, sapling, shrub, and herbaceous “strata”). For the purposes of clarity, when stratified random sampling is being used or described, it is recommended that investigators adopt the term “layer” when referring strictly to vegetation layers (in lieu of “stratum” or “strata”).

2

176 Wetland Science & Practice July 2020

fied [random] sampling is almost always more precise than simple random sampling, and every ecologist should use it whenever possible.” An example of a stratified random plot layout is provided in Figure 1.

In most applications, community stratification occurs in two steps: 1) stratification by community type; and, 2) stratification within homogeneous cover types. This approach works well on compensatory mitigation sites because most vegetation “zones” correspond to planting zones or proposed habitat types in the mitigation design for the site.

SAMPLE ADEQUACY: SPECIES-AREA CURVE Typically, a stratified random sampling approach is coupled with a sample adequacy determination. Sample adequacy is most frequently evaluated using the species-area relationship (Scheiner 2003), though other methods can be used (e.g., standard error ≤ 10% of the mean, McCune and Grace 2002). In species-area analyses, the cumulative total number of species is tracked as plots are sampled, and researchers develop a graph with cumulative species richness (total number of species) on the Y-axis and cumulative area sampled on the X-axis (which can be approximated by cumulative number of plots). The curve generated by this approach is an example of a “species-area curve,” and it is considered to be stabilized when the curve flattens out toward the top right-hand side (as if to approach an upper asymptote). In practice, the inflection point of the curve is used to approximate a minimum adequate sample size for vegetation research (McCune and Grace 2002). During sampling, scientists create a species-area curve after the initial sampling effort (the initial number of plots can be estimated from the literature; see How Many Plots? below).

By entering cumulative species richness and plot number into a simple graphing program (Excel, etc.), a species-area curve can be generated “on the fly” as a simple scatterplot/ trendline graph and interpreted in the field, and scientists can add plots as necessary until the curve stabilizes. An example of a species-area curve generated for data collected from the above sample site is shown in Figure 2.

10% Effort Line: In general, the species-area curve can be inspected using a simple trendline function available in most graphing programs (e.g., Excel). A rule of thumb is to determine the “10% effort line”, which is a line tangent to the curve and parallel to a line drawn from the origin of the graph to the outermost sample point. This is referred to as the 10% effort line because it is the exact point along the species-area curve where a 10% increase in effort only yields a 10% increase in species richness, and any additional sampling along the curve to the right of this point results in fewer and fewer new species encountered (MuellerDombois and Ellenberg 1974). In practice, the point of the

10% effort line tangent to the curve is projected down to the X-axis and the corresponding plot number is considered to be an adequate minimum number of SUs (or minimum area) for the sample. In the example provided in Figure 2, this would coincide with approximately 9 total SUs (vegetation plots). It is important to note that for the purposes of monitoring vegetation in compensatory mitigation sites, it is not necessary to discard any data from vegetation plots

that have been sampled in excess of the minimum adequate sample size. The goal of the species-area analysis is simply to demonstrate that a minimum adequate sample has been achieved with the sampling effort.

Basic Graph: Although the graph overlay features such as the trendline and 10% effort line provide researchers with a benchmark upon which to judge sample adequacy, for most applications researchers can simply plot

FIGURE 1: Example of a stratified random sampling design on a 3-acre restoration site (VHB, Inc.; used with permission). The study area is delimited by the red boundary line, and a baseline along the northern property boundary was established and subdivided into six equal “strata�, each 140 feet in width. In this example, a single transect was positioned perpendicular to the baseline in each section, originating at a randomly-selected point (determined using a random numbers generator with minimum and maximum values set at 1 and 140, respectively). Plots were then randomly placed on each transect using the same randomization procedure described above but taking the overall transect length as the maximum value for the random numbers generator. In this manner, three plots were established on longer transects and one on the shortest transect. (T = transect; PS = photostation).

FIGURE 2: Species-area curve generated for samples collected on the site shown in Figure 1. See text for explanation of trendline, 10% effort line, and adequate sample size determination.

Wetland Science & Practice July 2020 177

an X-Y scatterplot or line plot with markers in Excel (or equivalent graphing application) and interpret the graph as shown in Figure 3. The species-area relationship is clearly demonstrated without the need for either overlay.

The important aspect of this process is to demonstrate the “flattening out” of the curve to the right (i.e., the sample is adequate as fewer and fewer new species are encountered with additional sampling effort).

If the Curve Doesn’t Stabilize: On sites with high species richness, it is possible that the species-area curve will not flatten out to the right after completing the minimum number of sample plots (see How Many Plots? below). When this occurs, one plot should be added to each stratum (transect) using the stratified random approach describe above. Once these plots have been sampled, speciesarea data from the additional plots should then be added to the curve and inspected to determine if an adequate sample size has been achieved. Using the example in Figure 1, if the initial curve did not produce an adequate sample, six additional plots (one per transect) would be added to the sampling effort, any additional species encountered would be added to the cumulative species richness total and included on the species-area graph, and the curve would be re-evaluated. This iterative process may be repeated until the curve levels off.

“Stairstep” Curves: In other cases, the species-area curve may produce a “stairstep” pattern such as the one show in Figure 4. A stairstep pattern typically means that the species-area phenomenon has been tracked across community boundaries (Scheiner 2003), thereby violating sampling rule #2 above (“The sample should not cross community boundaries”). When this occurs, researchers should re-stratify the site into discrete, homogeneous cover types and re-sample using the stratified random approach described above. In most cases, plots already sampled may be retained in the data sets for the remapped community types.

PLOT SIZE AND SHAPE A review of the literature on vegetation sampling methods reveals one seemingly eternal truth: there is no such thing as a “standard” plot size or shape (Mueller-Dombois and Ellenberg 1974, Krebs 1999). Although this topic has been assessed by recent authors (Kenkel and Podani 1991, Chytrý and Otýpková 2003, Lichvar and Gillrich 2014), the seminal and most instructive work on plot size and shape in ecological sampling was completed in the early- to mid-20th Century by authors like Clapham (1932), Oosting (1942, 1948), Bormann (1953), and Greig-Smith (1957). Their work, and that of other ecologists, plant biologists, agricultural scientists, and foresters, was focused on the goal of optimization in plot-based plant community sampling.

FIGURE 3: The same species-area curve plotted in Figure 2 but based on a simple line graph with markers created in Excel. This graph is easily interpreted as leveling off in the upper half, suggesting that a sample size of 9-11 plots represents the minimum adequate number of SUs for this site (corresponding to the inflection point on the graph shown by the red circle).

178 Wetland Science & Practice July 2020

Optimizing Plot Shape: Empirical FIGURE 4: “Stairstep” species-area curve, indicating that the species-area phenomenon has research on plot shape suggests that sampling been tracked across community boundaries. efficiency is maximized by using elongated rectangles as sampling plots (Bormann 1953).

The rationale for this is that elongated rectangles are more likely to be oriented across “within-community” variation due to environmental changes such as microtopographic relief, soil heterogeneity, or moisture variability. By contrast, circular or square plots are less likely to capture within-community variability; therefore, the sample variance for circles or squares is likely to be higher than elongated rectangles (Clapham 1932). The lower sample variance means that rectangles provide more information per unit area than comparably sized circles or squares. However, there are two major drawbacks to using elongated rectangles: 1) rectangles are slower traditional plot-based sampling to adequately represent an and more difficult to lay out; and, 2) there is a higher poten- ecological community. In a review of the minimum area tial for “edge decisions” (i.e., deciding what gets counted in concept, Mueller-Dombois and Ellenberg (1974) sugor excluded from the plot) (McCune and Grace 2002). The gested that sample plots in regenerating forest communilonger and narrower a rectangular plot is, the greater its ties should be in the range of 50-200 m2 (538-2153 ft2). periphery in comparison to a circular or square plot of the In Virginia, recommendations for woody species density same area. This results in a greater possibility for making plots on mitigation sites have typically varied from 30cumulative edge errors with rectangles (Bormann 1953, foot radius circular plots to 20 ft x 20 ft square plots. It is Krebs 1999). interesting to note that although these two In terms of sampling efficiency for plot sizes have been included in previous Recommended Plot Sizes woody species (trees and shrubs/saplings), guidance documents as comparable options and Shapes circular plots are easiest to lay out in the for monitoring purposes (e.g., USACE and Woody – 18.5 ft (5.6 m) radius field (only one reference point is needed circular plot = 100 m2 (1076 ft2) DEQ 2004), they are almost an order of at the center), and circles minimize the magnitude different in size (2827 ft2 vs. 400 Herbaceous – 3.3x3.3 ft (1x1 m) number of edge decisions because they have ft2, respectively). square sampling frame the lowest perimeter-to-area ratio. In an An appropriate plot size can be derived effort to strike a balance between optimizaempirically on a site-by-site basis by sampling nested tion for reduced sample variance and optimization for field plots, evaluating cumulative species richness, and using the efficiency (as well as other considerations such as cost), it species-area relationship to identify minimum effective plot seems prudent to sample woody vegetation on compensatory size (see Mueller-Dombois and Ellenberg 1974). However, mitigation sites with circular plots and to address community it is not efficient, desirable, or cost-effective to conduct a variation with sample adequacy. In other words, provided pilot study on every compensatory mitigation site just to that the sample can be demonstrated as adequate based on define a plot area that will most likely fall within a common the species-area relationship (see discussion above), withinrange of values (e.g., 50-200 m2 as noted above). Therecommunity variability should be adequately addressed using fore, a plot size of 100 m2 (1076 ft2) is recommended circular plots (SU-level variance notwithstanding). for woody species sampling based on the standardization For herbaceous sampling on compensatory mitigation of this plot size in accepted protocols such as the North sites, standard square sampling frames are easy to construct Carolina Vegetation Survey (Peet et al. 1998) and the Naand use, and the square dimension offers a compromise betional Wetland Condition Assessment (USEPA 2016). It is tween the variance and perimeter effects noted above. important to note that this plot size is only recommended Plot Size – Woody Sampling: The “minimum area” for monitoring if used in combination with a multiple plot concept in ecological sampling is based on the assumption sampling design aimed at covering at least a minimum perthat a minimum plot size can be ascertained and used in centage of the sample area (see How Many Plots? below).

Wetland Science & Practice July 2020 179

The radius for a 100 m2 (1076 ft2) circle would be approximately 5.6 m (18.5 ft). This equates to 0.025 or 1/40th of an acre, which provides a convenient multiplier (40x) to express values such as stem counts in per acre units. In addition, a 100 m2 plot size is consistent with recommendations from Hudson and Perry (2018) for stem area at groundline (SAG) measurements.

Plot Size – Herbaceous Sampling: Although the most commonly used plot size in herbaceous community sampling on Virginia compensatory mitigation sites is the 1 m2 (10.8 ft2) square sampling frame (USACE and DEQ 2004, DeBerry and Perry 2004, 2012), a variety of plot sizes and shapes may be used to assess herbaceous vegetation (Mueller-Dombois and Ellenberg 1974, Krebs 1999, Tiner 2017). One concern is that the use of smaller plot sizes on larger sites risks higher sample variances, perhaps to the point that an excessively large number of plots would need to be sampled to capture the overall community variability and minimize sample error (Krebs

1999). However, on most compensatory mitigation sites in Virginia, the emergent (=herbaceous) planting zones are small relative to scrub-shrub and/or forested planting zones (pers. obs.). Therefore, the most commonly used square sampling frame dimension of 1x1 m (3.3x3.3 ft) would be appropriate for most herbaceous community sampling on Virginia mitigation sites.

HOW MANY PLOTS? Once an appropriate plot size and shape have been determined, sampling may proceed using a stratified random sampling approach in combination with a sample adequacy determination (i.e., species-area curve) as described above.

However, the question remains: How many plots should the researcher start with in order to initiate the sample on a site? For woody species sampling, several authors recommend establishing a minimum percentage of the entire study area (stratum, or planting zone) as a baseline for determining initial plot number (Mueller-Dombois and

TABLE 1: Minimum number of 100 m2 woody sampling plots (based on 2% of total sample area).

* Note: In order to ensure a sufficiency of SUs to calculate meaningful averages for observations in smaller planting zones or community types, a minimum of 4 woody sampling plots is recommended for sample areas 1-5ac. in size.

180 Wetland Science & Practice July 2020

Ellenberg 1974, Krebs 1999, Gardener 2017). In North Carolina, the recommended sampling strategy is to have the total cover of vegetation plots make up at least of 2% of the entire sample area, where the sample area usually corresponds to a planting zone such as forested, scrub-shrub, or emergent wetland (USACE and NCIRT 2016). Using this practice for woody sampling plots that are 100 m2 (1076 ft2), minimum plot guidelines were developed as shown in Table 1 below. Readers interested in additional information on minimum sampling area are directed to the review in Tiner (2017).

A minimum percent criterion for sample area is less applicable to herbaceous sampling because the smaller plot size (1 m2, or 10.8 ft2) would necessitate sampling an excessive number of plots (ca. 80 per acre) to achieve 2% coverage, which would result in community oversampling (see Sampling Strategy above). DeBerry (2006) documented herbaceous communities using 1 m2 sampling frames arrayed in a stratified random sampling design on fifteen different wetland mitigation sites of different ages in Virginia.

In this study, 15 herbaceous plots were sampled within a 1-hectare (2.5-acre) section of each site, and in all cases the herbaceous sample was found to be sufficient based on sample adequacy analysis. Given this result, it seems appropriate to recommend a 5 plot per acre minimum sample size for herbaceous monitoring in emergent planting zones on compensatory mitigation sites in Virginia, coupled with species-area sample adequacy analysis to determine if plots need to be added.

SUMMARY The review provided above is intended to be used by the IRT as well as any practitioner who is or will be sampling vegetation to determine compliance with performance standards on compensatory mitigation sites. While the body of scientific research on vegetation sampling points to the approaches described herein, it is important to note that there are other techniques consistent with ecological sampling theory that may be used on compensatory mitigation sites. However, for most sites, a sampling strategy with the following characteristics will be sufficient for measuring vegetation attributes against performance standards: • Stratified random sampling design coupled with sample adequacy determination using the speciesarea relationship.

• Initial woody species plot density based on a sample size covering approximately 2% of the sample area (stratum, or planting zone) for woody sampling.

• Initial herbaceous species plot density of 5 plots per acre. n ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thanks are extended to Dr. Wes Hudson of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), as well as Jennifer Van Houten and Ben Rosner of Wetland Studies and Solutions, Inc. (WSSI), for peer review of an earlier draft. Thanks also to Dr. Jim Perry at VIMS – this research builds on sampling concepts learned from him over a long and colorful history of research collaboration in Virginia’s mitigation sites. I appreciate the energy and time invested by the Interagency Review Team in updating the Virginia Mitigation Banking Instrument Template, particularly in consideration of their willingness to incorporate recent scientific advancements from studies in these systems. Thanks especially to Jeanne Richardson (USACE) and Sarah Woodford (DEQ) for leading the team. On the scientific advancement front, the efforts of Mike Rolband (WSSI) and The Resource Protection Group, Inc. (originally Wetland Research Initiative) to support and fund research over the past decade should be acknowledged by all stakeholders in Virginia’s compensatory mitigation program. Finally, thanks to Ralph Tiner for review and comments on the manuscript. This research was completed pursuant to a grant by The Resource Protection Group, Inc. AUTHOR INFORMATION Douglas A. DeBerry is a Research Assistant Professor of Environmental Science and Policy at the College of William & Mary, where he teaches courses in restoration ecology, applied ecological methods, wetland ecology, and contemporary issues in environmental science. His research focuses on ecosystem dynamics in compensatory mitigation, including biological invasion and ecological integrity.

He also conducts research on floristics and conservation, with a geographic emphasis on the Mid-Atlantic region. In addition to his work in academia, Dr. DeBerry has been an environmental consultant for over 27 years, and currently serves as senior scientist for VHB in their Williamsburg Office. For questions, he may be reached at dadeberry@ wm.edu or (m) 757-903-7310.

• Plot sizes of 100 m2 (1076 ft2) for woody species sampling (circular plot) and 1m2 (10.8 ft2) for herbaceous sampling (square plot).

Wetland Science & Practice July 2020 181

REFERENCES

Bormann, F.H. 1953. The statistical efficiency of sample plot size and shape in forest ecology. Ecology 34:474-487.

McCune, B. and J.B. Grace. 2002. Analysis of Ecological Communities.

MjM Software Design, Gleneden Beach, Oregon.

Chytrý, M. and Z. Otýpková. 2003. Plot sizes used for phytosociological sampling of European vegetation. Journal of Vegetation Science 14:563570.

Mueller-Dombois, D. and H. Ellenberg. 1974. Aims and Methods of Vegetation Ecology. Wiley and Sons, London, UK.

Clapham, A.R. 1932. The form of the observational unit in quantitative ecology. Journal of Ecology 20:192-197.

DeBerry, D.A. 2006. Floristic Quality Index: ecological and management implications in created and natural wetlands. Ph.D. Dissertation, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA. DeBerry, D.A. and J.E. Perry. 2004. Primary succession in a created freshwater wetland. Castanea 69:185-193.

DeBerry, D.A. and J.E. Perry. 2012. Vegetation dynamics across a chronosequence of created wetland sites in Virginia, USA. Wetlands Ecology and Management 20:521-537.

Gage E. and D. Cooper. 2010. Vegetation sampling for wetland delineations. ERDC/CRREL CR-10-2. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory Hanover, NH. Gardener, M. 2017. Statistics for Ecologists Using R and Excel: Data Collection, Exploration, Analysis and Presentation. Pelagic Publishing Ltd., Exeter, UK. Greig-Smith, P. 1957. Quantitative Plant Ecology. Butterworths Scientific Publications, London, UK. Henderson, P.A. and R. Southwood. 2016. Ecological Methods, 4th Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., West Sussex, UK. Hudson III, H.W. and J.E. Perry. 2018. Development of Woody Ecological Performance Standards for Created/Restored Forested Wetlands.

Final Report submitted to Piedmont Wetlands Research Program. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/55c211c8e4b06ea5799e6c03/t/ 5b90bb4003ce64a4fa0e27f9/1536211779600/2018+WSSI3+Addendum+Final+Report.pdf Kenkel, N.C. and J. Podani. 1991. Plot size and estimation efficiency in plant community studies. Journal of Vegetation Science 2:539-544.

Krebs, C.J. 1999. Ecological Methodology. Addison Welsey Educational Publishers. Inc., Menlo Park, California.

Lichvar, R.W. and J.J. Gillrich. 2014. Field testing new plot designs and methods for determining hydrophytic vegetation during wetland delineations in the United States. ERDC/CRREL TN-14-1. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory Hanover, NH. Ludwig, J.A. and J.F. Reynolds. 1988. Statistical Ecology: A Primer on Methods and Computing. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York.

Manly, B.F.J. 2015. Standard sampling methods and analysis. In: B. F. J. Manly and J. A. N. Alberto. Introduction to Ecological Sampling. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. pp. 7-32.

182 Wetland Science & Practice July 2020

Oosting, H.J. 1942. An ecological analysis of the plant communities of Piedmont, North Carolina. American Midland Naturalist 28:1-126.

Oosting, H.J. 1948. The Study of Plant Communities. W.H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco, CA. Peet, R.K., T.R. Wentworth, and P.S. White. 1998. A flexible, multipurpose method for recording vegetation composition and structure.

Castanea 63:262-274.

Pielou, E.C. 1984. The Interpretation of Ecological Data. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY. Scheiner, S.M. 2003. Six types of species‐area curves. Global Ecology and Biogeography 12:441-447.

Steel, E.A., M.C. Kennedy, P.G. Cunningham, and J.S. Stanovick. 2013.

Applied statistics in ecology: common pitfalls and simple solutions.

Ecosphere 4:1-13.

Tiner, R.W. 2017. Wetland Indicators: A Guide to Wetland Formation, Identification, Delineation, Classification, and Mapping, Second Ed. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and North Carolina Interagency Review Team. 2016. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update. http://saw-reg.usace.army.mil/PN/2016/Wilmington-District-MitigationUpdate.pdf U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. 2004. Norfolk District Corps and Virginia Department of Environmental Quality recommendations for wetland compensatory mitigation: including site design, permit conditions, performance and monitoring criteria. Regulatory Guidance document, USACE District Office, Norfolk, Virginia.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. 2010. Mitigation Banking Instrument Template. https://www. deq.virginia.gov/Portals/0/DEQ/Water/WetlandsStreams/FinalMBITemplate5Feb2010.doc U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. 2017. Mitigation Banking Instrument 2017 Draft Template. http://www.nao.usace.army.mil/Media/Public-Notices/Article/1372948/ cenao-wrr/ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. 2017. Mitigation Banking Instrument 2018 Template. https:// ribits.usace.army.mil/ribits_apex/f?p=107:27:1875284018129::NO: :P27_BUTTON_KEY:10 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2016. National Wetland Condition Assessment 2016: Field Operations Manual. EPA-843-R-15-007.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington D.C.

SALT MARSH RESTORATION INSIGHTS

Farmers in the Marsh: Lessons from History and Case Studies for the Future Susan C. Adamowicz1, Geoffrey Wilson2, David M. Burdick3, Wenley Ferguson4, and Russell Hopping5

ABSTRACT alt marshes across coastal New England are undergoing rapid change characterized by increased areas of saturation resulting in shifts in vegetation communities, large areas of vegetation dieback, and increases in shallow standing water. In the early 2000s, gently sloped leading edges of salt marshes (“low marsh” dominated by Spartina alterniflora and flooded daily) began to be lost from Maine to Connecticut. More marsh edges are now “cliff-faced” with steep, vertical edges often characterized by peat calving. In many places, the “high marsh” (the irregularly flooded marsh platform normally dominated by Spartina patens, Distichlis spicata, and Juncus gerardii, as well as forbs) has been overtaken by short- (<0.10 m) to intermediate- (>0.60m – 1.0 m) form S. alterniflora, bare patches, and large areas of shallow standing water. The marsh platform between the ubiquitous ditches has subsided. In extreme cases, the marsh has ‘collapsed’ and now holds shallow water in a mega-pool with the only vegetation occurring along the ditch margins, in a “waffle-maple syrup” pattern. Elsewhere, the mega-pool becomes large and amorphous or interlocking in a jig-saw puzzle fashion suggestive of northern patterned fens with strings and flarks. While a few researchers have documented traits and trajectories of “natural” pools, the relatively sudden appearance and geographic extent of these changes suggests large-scale drivers. At the same time, research into historical salt marsh alterations for farming purposes dating as far back as the 1600s with large corporate works in the 1800s, has led this team to realize that remnant infrastructure from past agriculture coupled with accelerated sea-level rise is driving wide-scale salt marsh degradation. Tidal marsh obligate birds, such as the saltmarsh sparrow, which nest in narrow portions of “high marsh”, are at increasing peril from the loss of marsh elevation due to subsidence trajectories exacerbated by a heretofore largely unrecognized historical agricultural infrastructure. With species extinction modelled at 2050 and a metonic cycle shifting toward

S

1 Correspondence author contact: Susan_Adamowicz@fws.gov. Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge, Wells, ME. 2 Bear Creek Wildlife Sanctuary, Saugus, MA. 3 University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH. 4 Save The Bay/Narragansett Bay, Providence, RI. 5 Trustees of Reservations, Andover, MA.

increasing tide ranges in 2024, it is imperative to halt subsidence trajectories by re-balancing marsh hydrology to optimize vegetation, accretion, and elevation gain. Obligate wildlife species and their habitats can then be supported over the long-term through the development of strategic management plans for each salt marsh system. Following a review of the historical literature, which documents the breadth of standardized farming practices, we identify these features on several sites, then present a four-step process to restore hydrologic function using innovative restoration practices at two case studies located in Rhode Island and Massachusetts, USA. Keywords: salt hay farm, ditch, embankment, megapool, standing water, high marsh.

Salt marshes across coastal New England are undergoing rapid change characterized by increased areas of saturation resulting in shifts in vegetation communities (Warren and Niering 1993; Donnelly and Bertness 2001), large areas of vegetation dieback, and increases in shallow standing water (Smith 2009, 2015; Raposa et al. 2017; Watson et al.

2017). In many places, the “high marsh” (the irregularly flooded marsh platform normally dominated by Spartina patens, Distichlis spicata, and Juncus gerardii, as well as forbs) has been overtaken by short- to intermediate-form S. alterniflora, bare patches, and large areas of shallow standing water. The marsh platform between the ubiquitous ditches has subsided (Vincent et al. 2014; Burdick et al. in press). In extreme cases, the marsh has ‘collapsed’ and now holds shallow water, and the only vegetation occurs along the ditch margins (Watson et al. 2017). While a few researchers have documented traits and trajectories of “natural” pools (Adamowicz and Roman 2005; Wilson et al. 2014), the relatively sudden appearance and geographic extent of shallow pools and other marsh changes suggests a large-scale driver. Research into historical salt marsh alterations for farming purposes dating as far back as the 1600s, with large corporate works in the 1800s (e.g., Massachusetts 1834: An Act to Incorporate the Broad Marsh Diking Company in Ipswich), has led this team to realize that remnant infrastructure from past agriculture coupled with accelerated sea level rise (Boon 2012) is driving wide-scale Wetland Science & Practice July 2020 183

FIGURE 1. Aerial of Great Marsh, MA (April 2016) showing large number of small ditches.

Little Pine Island is below the date bar. (Google Earth image accessed April 1, 2020.)

FIGURE 2. The diagram depicts plans to build a simple tide gate with instructions on how to isolate a salt marsh with agricultural embankments Figure 1st (upper left): A: Tide trunk open end; B: trunk closed end; C, D: a frame attached to the trunk, intended to hold an iron rod (E) perpendicular to the trunk; E: an iron rod that attached on its end to a valve that floats on an incoming tide and closes the trunk aperture; F: an aperture on the top of the trunk. Figure 2nd (lower right): G: Detail of iron rod as it passes through the external frame; H: valve that attaches to iron rod by a hook. The valve may be coated with cork to increase buoyancy; I: trunk aperture. Figure 3rd (upper left) interior view of the trunk: 1: aperture; 2: valve lying at the bottom; 3: two perpendicular rods passing through the trunk and intended to confine the valve in its place instead of the rod described above. Central figure: A-C: embankment along the Potomac River shore sufficient to exclude highest tide; B: tide trunk placed at Chotank Creek’s mouth; D: dam for the purpose of turning the water from above into the marginal ditches; E: a mound used to turn waters of stream R-S into the marginal ditch (dotted line) to the river at A; G-H: embankment to exclude tide: J,K: ridge of hills known as “Black Castle”; M: marshes; O: tide trunk; R,E,S: stream; A,E,G,D,H,C: margin of the marsh; dotted lines G-D, D-H, H-C denote marginal ditches.

Dotted line 2-3-4 represents an embankment that follows the creek with a tide trunk along the lowest portion of that line. (Source: Chotanter 1820).

salt marsh degradation. We present a review of farming practice in marshes along the Eastern Seaboard and then propose a four-step approach to correct tidal hydrology, stimulate marsh revegetation and rebuilding elevation to increase marsh resilience to accelerating sea level rise. One of our goals is to provide enhanced habitat for tidal marsh obligate birds, such as the saltmarsh sparrow, which are at increasing peril from nest flooding and extinction (Gjerdrum et al. 2008).

Since 2017, five fundamental points began to reshape how the authors perceive salt marsh condition, underlying causes, ramifications for wildlife, and even marsh semantics in the 21st Century: 1. Hawes’ (1986) paper detailed the ways in which different generations of farmers altered salt marshes. The mosquito ditching from the Works Progress Administration in the 1930s was not the only ditching pattern to be found.

2. Beginning first in southern New England, salt marshes were showing signs of degradation related to excessive inundation.

3. The farming infrastructure identified by Hawes is still present on salt marshes and is highly correlated with incidences of marsh degradation.

4. Patterns of marsh degradation also indicate loss of saltmarsh sparrow nesting habitat.

5. Shifting patterns in salt marsh vegetation communities make traditional terms such as “high marsh” and “low marsh” confusing at best and misleading or incorrect at worst.

NUMBER 1: FARMERS IN THE MARSH Staddles, circles of wooden posts driven into the high marsh platform, are one of the most iconic images of New England salt marshes. They were used by farmers to stack salt hay harvested from the immediate area; multiple staddles were present and common on most salt marshes. Martin Johnson Heade painted the haystacks atop the staddles during the second half of the 19th Century, decades before Monet painted his famous haystack series. Besides the staddles, the most commonly recognized remnant from salt hay farming are shallow, often closely spaced ditches (Sebold 1998; Figure 1).

184 Wetland Science & Practice July 2020

Edward Hawes, an historian rather than a salt marsh ecologist, described a much more complicated series of alterations and their evolution over 200 years of early American agriculture (Hawes 1986). That this knowledge (see also Smith et al. 1989) was published in journals related to history rather than ecology or estuarine science may be an explanation for why it never caught the attention of coastal scientists until now. Table 1 lists different techniques used by farmers from the 1600s to late 1800s in order to alter site hydrology and salinity. These “improvements”, including ditches and embankments, could increase vegetation yields 3-4 times and allow farmers to move from subsistence farming to marketing their excess. Methods that freshened hay beds close to the upland edge allowed the growth of brackish tolerant or freshwater plants such as timothy (aka “herds grass,” Phleum pratense) and mangelwurzel (a root crop for livestock, Beta vulgaris). Smith et al. (1989) cites a farmer extolling the “black arts” which were merely the addition of manure (aka compost) to his tidally restricted salt meadows. John Adams (1771) recorded a “recipe for making manure” which included directions for using soil obtained from salt marsh ditches to add to dung and other material as a soil amendment. Schematics of salt marsh cross-sections in the

most prestigious articles and texts (Miller and Egler 1950; Redfield 1965, 1972; Niering and Warren 1980; Smith et al. 1989) overlooked these physical alterations (ditches and particularly embankments) and may also be cause for similar neglect by generations of coastal ecologists.

Fortunately, the Farmers Journal (Chotanter 1820) brings to light the layout of ditches and embankments.

While requiring some study, Figure 2 from that article depicts a method for enclosing an area of salt marsh with embankments to control tidal flooding. An internal network of ditches and a water control structure (aka “trunk”) regulated levels of soil saturation. While embankments and unusual ditching patterns can often be found in New England salt marshes, it was this article that made sense of the layout of these remnant features as we see them today. This was an infrastructure system that was promulgated along the U.S. East Coast at least as far south as the Carolinas where trunks are still known from rice farming. And like Japanese rice farming, the salt marsh system of embankments was applied in a terraced fashion with each landward hay bed cultivating progressively fresher and more valuable grasses and crops. Indeed, in many locations, ditches extend through adjacent uplands although they can be obscured by regrown forest. The

TABLE 1. Agricultural and other alterations used on salt marshes (Chotanter 1820; Sheppard 1823; Clift 1862; Hawes 1986; Sebold 1992; Wolfe 1996; Adamowicz and Roman 2002; Mora and Burdick 2013)

Early1900s

MidLate1900s

2000s

X

X

X

Modern road bed X

X X

OMWM

X

X

Wildlife Impoundments

X

Ditching & Maintenance Embankments Reclamation Embankments & Dikes Water Control Structures Perimeter Ditches Roads Ditch Plugs

I 1600s Folk

II 1700s Folk

III Late 1700s Folk

6-8” deep

X

X

For S. patens

Enclosing 6-20 Ac

1790’s1860s Folk/ Improvers

X

Loose clapper gate

Post1860’s Improvers

X

Trunk X “Corduroy” road

X

X

Wetland Science & Practice July 2020 185

FIGURE 3. Remnant embankment at Old Town Hill, Newbury, Massachusetts.

(Photo credit: G. Wilson.)

Stunted S. alterniflora; Soils saturated to near surface.

S. patens, D. spicata, and Taller-form S. alterniflora; Soils are higher and drier on the embankment.

FIGURE 4. Spartina patens thatch with algae: 2010, Wells, Maine, USA. Notice bare ground visible below thatch layer. (Photo credit: S.C. Adamowicz.)

186 Wetland Science & Practice July 2020

advent of Google Earth and other websites with historical aerial imagery, tax maps, deeds and other records have been vital tools in our current efforts to identify this farming infrastructure on salt marshes from Maine to the Carolinas.

An important caveat, however, is that most of the embankments seen in U.S. salt marshes today are not the comparatively massive constructions common to Nova Scotia (Smith et al. 1989) that currently carry roads and highways, but are much more subtle features (Figure 3).

NUMBER 2: PATTERNS OF SALT MARSH DEGRADATION While salt marshes in southern New England were already undergoing loss of S. patens circa 2000 (Donnelly and Bertness 2001), signs of saturation and plant loss were brought to light in the 2012-2014 Rhode Island salt marsh assessment (Ekberg et al. 2017; Raposa et al. 2017). Early signs may have been occurring about the same time in Maine. Figure 4 shows an unidentified dark alga growing on Spartina patens thatch in 2010. When the alga was present, the S. patens thatch bases rotted causing them to be easily torn away (Adamowicz, pers. obs.). Following the appearance of this alga, Spartina alterniflora was observed to increase in density on the marsh platform (Figures 5), while S. patens often decreased (Figure 6). As soil saturation increased, all vegetation died off creating large areas of shallow standing water. Root collapse following plant death (DeLaune et al. 1994; Turner et al. 2004) lowered marsh surface elevation and reinforced the trajectory to shallowly impounded water and vegetation loss.

Mega-pool trajectories. In southern New England and areas with abundant grid ditching, the marsh platform between ditches has lost both elevation and vegetation. The pattern is clear from aerial imagery (e.g. Google Earth). In cases where vegetation is present, mainly on ditch maintenance embankments (“levees”), the pattern is reminiscent of waffles filled with maple syrup, where the “waffle/marsh ridges” support vegetation and the now lower marsh platform is covered in shallow standing water (“maple syrup”) (Figure 7a). Raposa et al. (2017) noted that the occurrence of large areas of standing water were associated with “higher than normal” tides. Water was flooding the marsh surface, as it does during spring and storm tides, but was not able to drain sufficiently, thus beginning the mega-pool trajectory. In areas without intensive ditching, the pattern of vegetation to standing water can be more amorphous (Figure 7b).

A further pattern of mega-pools forms particularly along the upland margins of salt marshes. The standing water is often deeper, more typical of natural salt marsh pools (Adamowicz and Roman 2002). However, the pools occur in groups of tightly fitting clusters, reminiscent of jig-

saw puzzle pieces or patterned fens (Madsen 1987). In patterned fens, saturation from groundwater causes the loss of vegetation and the iconic pattern of strings and flarks. The direction of groundwater flow is reflected in the pattern of strings, which are perpendicular to subsurface flow. Wilson (2010) demonstrated that groundwater flow may be responsible for elongated “necks” on pools in Maine; it is highly suggestive that the same may be true in these jigsaw pools in salt marshes (Figure 7c). Unlike patterned fens, which occupy much/most of the wetland in which they occur, the salt marsh jigsaw pools usually occur in scattered locations against an upland edge.

FIGURE 5. Encroachment of S. alterniflora into “high marsh” showing algae on thatch; 2010, Wells, ME, USA. (Photo credit: S.C. Adamowicz.)

NUMBER 3: FARMING INFRASTRUCTURE AND ASSOCIATION WITH CURRENT DEGRADATION FEATURES Widespread marsh degradation was first noted in southern New England by Smith (2009) who documented dieback of S. patens over large areas in Wellfleet, MA and attributed this to sea-level rise. A different pattern of increased marsh saturation and vegetation conversion to shallow standing water emerged in Rhode Island. In their 20122013 salt marsh assessments, accelerated sea-level rise was highlighted as a potential stressor on Rhode Island marshes (Cole Ekberg et al. 2017). Rhode Island marsh accretion rates were determined to be 1.8mm/yr compared to the 5.2mm/yr of sea-level rise (Raposa et al. 2017).

The micro-tides of Rhode Island and the relatively low position of salt marsh platforms in the tidal range also were seen as contributing factors. However, during a 2017 meeting of Great Marsh (Massachusetts) stakeholders, Hunt Durey FIGURE 6. Decrease in Spartina patens (left axis) and increase in Spartina alterniflora, bare ground and wrack (right axis) indicate increased saturation at permanent plots in Wells, Maine (S. Adamowicz, (MA Division of Ecological Restoraunpublished data). tion, pers. comm.) pointed with alarm to the number of mega-pools converting what was once high quality S. patens “high marsh” into shallow surface water features. It was at that time that Geoffrey Wilson and Susan Adamowicz noted that many of the mega-pools were associated with human-made features such as historic roads. Further examination of historical documents (Shepard 1823; Clift 1862; Hawes 1986) led to the realization that the unusual ditching pattern in northern New England (compared to mosquito grid ditching prominent in marshes to the south) was indeed a part of the agricultural infrastructure. Investigation of current and historic aerial imagery and other online documents slowly Wetland Science & Practice July 2020 187

FIGURE 7. A time series showing development of A) “waffle-maple syrup” mega-pools, B) amorphous mega-pools, and C) “jig-saw puzzle” pools. (All Google Earth images were accessed on April 14, 2020.)

A. MADISON, CT

B. NEWBURY, MA

C. IPSWICH, MA

1949 (HistoricalAerials.com)

1938 (HistoricalAerials.com)

1965 (HistoricalAerials.com)

1990 (Google Earth)

1978 (HistoricalAerials.com)

1978 (HistoricalAerials.com)

2006 (Google Earth)

2007 (Google Earth)

2018 (Google Earth)

revealed the extensiveness of this infrastructure. And while the agricultural features are more subtle in more southern New England states (perhaps due to higher rates of decomposition and subsequent alterations for mosquito control), they are nonetheless still present. Furthermore, zones of supersaturated marsh and mega-pools can be predicted based on the layout of the agricultural embankments and old ditch signatures.

188 Wetland Science & Practice July 2020

Salt marsh and reclamation embankments are mapped for several New England sites in Figure 8. Salt marsh embankments generally were constructed with a single borrow ditch. Within the area enclosed by a salt marsh embankment, interior drainage ditches typically drained into the borrow ditch and thence to a trunk outlet or an open tidal channel (Clift 1862). Reclamation embankments typically were larger to prevent tidal flooding and on occasion were

fortified with upland soil spread over the top. Associated borrow ditches often were on both sides of reclamation embankments, and were double- or triple-wide. Reclamation enclosures usually had an internal drainage ditch system that tipped “backward” towards the upland and into a “marginal ditch.” The marginal ditch (aka “perimeter ditch” in more modern terminology) conducted water out of the reclamation enclosure through the trunk to the main tidal channel. The marginal ditch also drained groundwater from the adjacent upland (Clift 1862).

In the twentieth century, the excavation of mosquito control ditches covered much of the East Coast (Bourne and Cottam 1950). The dug blocks were sometimes placed as “turf dams” along the sides of the ditches (Miller and Egler 1950). Mosquito ditches had to be maintained, however.

Tracked vehicles straddling a ditch would use a V-shaped plow (i.e. scavel plow; Figure 9) to remove debris and sediments from a ditch and slosh them onto the marsh surface. The machine treads then would compact the material in place. This resulted in modest embankments on both sides.

In the second series of images in Figure 7, we identify areas that are saturated or contain shallow standing water not associated with natural pools. While in a sense driven by natural processes of spring tides and storm floods, the underlying structures of embankments and collapsed drainage ditches are what trap water on the marsh surface and lead to mega-pool formation. A visual signature here is the line that one can see as the embankments curtail the expansion of mega-pools on at least one side. Without these impediments to flow, flooding waters would simply drain on ebb tides.

NUMBER 4: PATTERNS OF MARSH DEGRADATION ALSO INDICATE LOSS OF SALTMARSH SPARROW NESTING HABITAT The saltmarsh sparrow (SALS) is an obligate salt marsh species, nesting from Maine to Virginia and overwintering from North Carolina to Florida. Female SALS build their nests just a few centimeters off the marsh surface, preferring S. patens with cowlick growth and thatch. This bird species has been suffering an average 9% decline in population size since 1998 (Correll et al. 2017). The primary cause has been identified as nest flooding, at least in New England (Ruskin et al. 2017). The timing of increased marsh inundation/saturation and loss of traditional “high marsh” habitat observed throughout the Northeast has led the authors to speculate that the sparrows may also be suffering due to marsh drainage issues.

FIGURE 8. Embankment types: A) two farmer’s embankments from ~1700s in Newbury, MA; B) reclamation embankment in Newbury, MA; C) diking company embankment in Wells, ME. (All images are Google Earth, accessed April 14, 2020).

A.

B.

C.

Wetland Science & Practice July 2020 189

NUMBER 5: MARSH VEGETATION COMMUNITY NOMENCLATURE NEEDS TO REFLECT ACTUAL FIELD CONDITIONS Historically, foundational papers by salt marsh ecologists have defined “low marsh” as that area of marsh that floods regularly (daily) and is occupied by tall form Spartina alterniflora (Miller and Egler 1950; Niering and Warren 1980; Nixon 1982; Bertness 1999). This combination of hydrology and vegetation was seen to occur along ditches/ creeks and the main tidal channel or embayment interface.

On the other hand, “high marsh” was defined as that portion of the marsh that floods less frequently (or “irregularly flooded”; Federal Geographic Data Committee 2013) and typically is occupied by S. patens, Distichlis spicata, Juncus gerardii, stunted S. alterniflora and several forb species (Chapman 1938; Redfield 1972; Miller and Egler 1950; Niering and Warren 1980; Bertness 1999). High marsh habitat was closely associated with the flat marsh “plain” or platform.

Marsh cross-sectional schematics from classic papers (Miller and Egler 1950; Redfield 1965, 1972; Niering and Warren 1980) were necessarily simplified versions of what existed in the field. In general, elevation was given as a proxy for inundation. Even Smith et al. (1989), despite their focus on significant farming alterations to the marsh surface, did not include embankments or ditches in their cross-sectional diagram. The omission has meant that at least two generations of ecologists have failed to recognize these important features and their potentially catastrophic impacts to normal marsh hydrology.

Additionally, over the last 10 years (at least), salt marsh surface vegetation and morphology has been changing. The sloping “low marsh” habitat along marsh fronts

has been eroding into steep cliff-like banks (Deegan 2012) throughout New England (pers. observation); although, some banks, or scarps are expected, from a theoretical perspective (Fagharazzi et al. 2006). At the same time, S. alterniflora has been advancing upon the marsh platform and increasing in height from <10 cm for short-form, to an intermediate height up to 60 cm. Flooding frequency on the high marsh, however, has not increased to the twice daily regime of the classic “low marsh” definition, but inundation has increased due to standing water (Raposa 2017; Watson et al. 2017). The authors contend that referring to such locations as “low marsh” is both misleading and incorrect.

During this time of shifting vegetation and tidal flooding patterns, the current use of “low” and “high marsh” do not accurately describe conditions in the field. Instead, we urge careful description of place, vegetation, flooding and inundation without short-handed referencing. For example, rather than noting presence of “high marsh” vegetation, we recommend listing vegetation by species (D. spicata, J. gerardii, S. alterniflora, S. patens, etc.), and providing actual height of S. alterniflora rather than short-, intermediate- or tall- modifiers. Similarly for hydrology, recording actual rather than presumed tidal flooding frequency as well as inundation provides a more accurate site description. The old rubric of elevation as an indicator of inundation simply does not hold because subtle barriers to hydrology have formed mega-pools. The aim, here, is to provide a more diagnostic description of actual site conditions.

MOVING FORWARD: THE NEED FOR INNOVATIVE RESTORATION TECHNIQUES AND COLLABORATIVES The authors have piloted innovative salt marsh restoration techniques at Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge (Wells, ME) and Parker River National FIGURE 9. Scavel plow clearing debris from a mosquito control ditch circa 1940-1950s. MechWildlife Refuge (Newburyport, MA). anized ditching patterns are ubiquitous from Massachusetts southward, often overlay previous Save The Bay/Narragansett Bay (Save The agricultural ditching patterns, may not adhere to tideshed boundaries or original marsh slope, Bay, Inc.) developed the use of runnels in and develop highly compacted embankments on both sides of ditches. (Photo credit CT DEEP.) Rhode Island (W. Ferguson, pers. comm.).

While initially designed to address intensely ditched sites (ditch remediation; see Burdick et al. 2020) or areas that are supersaturated or have standing water (ditch plug removal, runneling), awareness of the lingering farming infrastructure has spurred the authors to discard limited remedies and instead propose a comprehensive approach to marsh restoration – one that focuses on immediate, interim, and long-term marsh health and includes creation of saltmarsh sparrow habitat. Two case studies below exemplify these points: 190 Wetland Science & Practice July 2020

and north along the bike path were sprayed with herbicide CASE STUDY 1: OLD TOWN HILL, NEWBURY, MA (~80 AC; in 2010-12. Save The Bay/Narragansett Bay and RI De42.775226, -70.862025”) partment of Environmental Management/ Mosquito AbateOwned and managed by The Trustees of Reservations, this ment installed runnels (i.e. 2012 hand dug and 2015-16 exsalt marsh lies in the upper part of the tidal range and is cavated with low ground pressure excavator) in areas both heavily ditched. After examining a series of historic aerial north and south of the footpath and adjacent to the bike images and with field verification, Geoffrey Wilson deterpath. The runnels were used to remove shallow standing mined there were 219 farmer’s ditches and 51 agricultural water and relieve waterlogging in small tidesheds isolated embankments (Figure 10). A 1907 map of the area shows by embankments. Near the bike path, the standing water, that virtually the entire property and surrounding landscape in turn, had been facilitating expansion of invasive Phragwas cleared (The Trustees of Reservations 2007). The Hill was open with a watch house and a large elm growing on top mites and vegetation die-off toward the marsh interior. In this case, it is believed that much of the standing freshwater that was used for navigation. Currently most of the marsh was stormwater runoff from two upslope developments is on a subsidence trajectory. Large areas of marsh platform are saturated and support stunted (30 cm) S. FIGURE 10. Old Town Hill Reservation, Newbury, MA. A) 219 primary (blue) and secondary alterniflora and Distichlis spicata; S. patens (green) ditches. B) 51 embankments (red) identified. (Google Earth accessed April 2018.) grows best on the many embankments.

A. Wilson’s restoration design relies on identifying tidesheds and primary drainage channels in the field. These will be re-emphasized by using ditch remediation (Burdick et al. 2019) to “heal” auxiliary ditches from the bottom up. Nine blocked ditches will be cleared to reestablish primary channel drainage. Collapsed ditches will be opened as runnels and used to clear shallow impounded surface water (mega-pools) so that vegetation can recolonize. Any peat removed in runnel creation will be placed so as to create slightly higher microtopography suitable for potential saltmarsh sparrow nesting. These methods correspond to Tiers 1 and 2 noted below (under Timeline). Importantly, each Tier creates small- to large-scale SALS nesting habitat.

CASE STUDY 2: JACOBS POINT, WARREN RI (~35 AC; 41.712234, -17.288328) Jacobs Point is managed by the Warren Land Conservation Trust and lies west of the East Bay Bicycle Path (a former railroad line) and just north of the Rhode Island Audubon Claire D. McIntosh Wildlife Refuge (Figure 11). This site is crossed by a 1915 road that is currently used as a footpath. An extensive patch of invasive Phragmites australis was controlled partially in 2010 through the replacement of three collapsed culverts under the footpath by partners including Save The Bay, U.S.D.A. Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the Town of Warren.

Patches of Phragmites south of the footpath

B.

Wetland Science & Practice July 2020 191

where impervious surface increased from ~1% in 1972 to over 20% in 2011 (W. Ferguson, unpublished data).

In 2017 the Saltmarsh Sparrow Research Initiative (SALSri; https://www.salsri.org/ ) began a multi-year field study of saltmarsh sparrow breeding ecology and survivorship at Jacobs Point. Following runnel creation near the bike path noted above, the runnel not only reduced standing water and waterlogging, but also restored connectivity and unimpeded tidal exchange resulting in higher quality salt marsh conditions that saltmarsh sparrows prefer (W. Ferguson, pers. comm.). In 2017-2019, one female located to the area and built a total of 4 nests (Steven Reinert, pers. comm.). Further study is required to provide more details of SALS recruitment to the restored marsh section, but even this initial case shows promise.

Resiliency Teams (“SMARTeams”). Thus, instead of working project by project (or site by site), groups of project advocates (“Field Teams”) can work collectively, achieving economies of scale in restoration design, permitting, project management, monitoring, and outreach.

SMARTeams, as proposed, have three support elements to assist Field Teams: 1) a Design Review Team, 2) a Technical Support Team, and 3) an Education, Outreach and Training Team (Figure 12). In this way, salt marsh restoration project number and acreage can be increased while maintaining high standards across the board. Under the direction of the Design Review Team and in consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, SHARP, and Atlantic Coast Joint Ventures’ “Saltmarsh Sparrow Business Plan,” each restoration project can include measures that enhance saltmarsh sparrow nesting success for current and COLLABORATION: SMARTEAMS APPROACH future generations. With consistent monitoring and adaptive Recognizing the success when avian researchers and wildmanagement frameworks, lessons learned can be quickly life managers organized under Saltmarsh Habitat and Avian propagated across the entire region.

Research Project (“SHARP”; tidalmarshbirds.org) and the The role of the Technical Support Team is to provide need to increase efficiency and effectiveness during the next services too complex or expensive for single projects or 10 years, we propose a similar collaborative approach for small organizations. The SMARTeams approach, using salt marsh researchers, restoration practitioners, managportfolios of Field Teams and multiple projects, makes ers and landowners under the Salt Marsh Adaptation and it highly desirable and possible to track projects through a web-based portal that might FIGURE 11. Jacob’s Point, Warren, RI, with runnels (light green), larger cleared channels (light blue), ditches include a story map, project narra(pink), embankments (red), stonewall embankments (purple), road/footpath (white), possible historic channel tive, and summary results. Stan(dark blue) (Google Earth accessed May 19, 2020). All delineations were based on aerial signatures and dardized monitoring protocols can need to be field verified. be shared and data could be stored in a central location to facilitate access, analyses, and archiving.

Specialty expert input (e.g. from a tidal hydrologist, historian, marine geologist, among others) would provide vital and targeted information to increase project success. Finally, as insights and lessons learned accrue, decision support tools could be developed to increase the ease and accuracy of site diagnosis and restoration design for additional and future restoration Field Teams.

The Education, Outreach and Training Team’s role is to communicate internally with SMARTeams participants and externally with those interested in participating in salt marsh restoration and with the public. In addition to the story map noted above, a web presence 192 Wetland Science & Practice July 2020

should include news updates, class and training session notices, project and people profiles, reference material and research findings among other materials. Training sessions will be offered to project proponents and regulators to increase understanding of current site conditions at local salt marshes as well as the purpose and outcome of innovative restoration techniques. There is also the possibility of offering training to restoration practitioners so that these new techniques can be applied and executed properly.

FIGURE 12. Salt Marsh Adaptation and Resiliency Teams (SMARTeams) draft organization chart.

A 10-YEAR TIMELINE Given the necessity to stabilize saltmarsh sparrow populations and the opportunity of a period of relatively lower astronomical tidal ranges in the Metonic cycle, the next 10 years will be perhaps the last best opportunity to restore northeastern salt marshes. We propose a 4-tiered approach to restoration efforts within the sparrow’s nesting range. The four tiers can be remembered by HOTT: 1) Halt subsidence trajectories, 2) Optimize accretion/ elevation gain, 3) Tune marsh hydrology and vegetation to support obligate wildlife species, and 4) Tend to our coastal marshes over the long-term through the development of strategic management plans for each salt marsh system.

Tier 1’s goal is to restore tidal flow and ebb to sites with ditch plugs or naturally blocked ditches. This would immediately halt the saturation subsidence trajectory and provide plants an opportunity to grow. Sediments removed from plugged ditches or runnels would be repurposed to create saltmarsh sparrow nesting microhabitat by placing the sediments over live plants over 4 by 8 foot ‘islands’ (32 square feet). This step provides safer nesting habitat after 2 to 3 years for new adults. This step provides safer nesting locations for new adults. Runnels can be used at this point to connect areas of shallow standing water through an embankment to a tidal channel/ditch. Ditch remediation used in this phase starts the “healing” process in auxiliary ditches and reinforces flow to primary ditches/creeks.

Tier 2’s purpose is to optimize elevation gain by promoting growth of S. alterniflora belowground biomass on the marsh platform where prior saturation/inundation caused subsidence. This is done by adjusting the root zone saturation depth to optimal levels such as shown by Morris and colleagues (2002, 2013). Runnels are also a primary tool in this phase. Again, material excavated for this tier is to be used for

additional nesting microhabitat. The nesting microhabitats “buy time” for saltmarsh sparrows by creating areas that are less prone to flooding compared to the rest of the marsh while S. alterniflora is building overall elevation.

Tier 3 involves further adjusting hydrologic conditions to favor S. patens growth and to create more expansive areas of successful nesting habitat, while Tier 4’s goal is to create a long-term strategic management and monitoring plans for each salt marsh system. These plans will identify important stakeholders, current and future potential funding sources, management and restoration history and milestones for future managers and biologists. Systematic monitoring of hydrology (water level recorders), vegetation (abundance by species) and elevation change (real-time kinematic survey tools) on an annual basis will ensure a capacity for adaptive management and an ability to analyze data across project sites. Permitting for long-term maintenance enables rapid responses that could waylay more complicated situations. In this way, the legacy of the SMARTeams includes not only restored marshes and increased quality nesting sites for saltmarsh sparrows, but also prepares for their continuation in future decades.

We believe it is possible to restore significant high quality salt marsh acreage across the saltmarsh sparrow breeding range by working with NGOs, state and local agencies, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Wildlife Refuges. While time passes even as this article is written, there are hopeful signs in the organization of Field Teams in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Maine. n Wetland Science & Practice July 2020 193

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors thank the reviewers for their time and insightful contributions. Thank you to Rachel Stearns for assistance with review and line edits. Additional thanks to SALSri and Steven Reinert for a tour of Jacobs Point.

Funding for work at Old Town Hill has been provided by MassBays, Massachusetts Department of Fish and Game – Division of Ecological Restoration, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s NAWCA Small Grants and Partners for Fish and Wildlife. Funding for work at Rachel Carson and Parker River National Wildlife Refuges was provided by NAWCA Small Grants (2010) and federal funding from DOI Hurricane Sandy Coastal Resilience program. Funding for Jacobs Point was provided by NRCS’ Wetland Reserve Easement program and NOAA’s Community-based Restoration Program. The findings and conclusions in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

REFERENCES

Adamowicz, S.C. and C.T. Roman. 2002. Initial ecosystem response of salt marshes to ditch plugging and pool creation: experiments at Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge (Maine). Final Report. U.S.G.S. Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Coastal Research Field Station, Laurel, MD. 1102.

Adamowicz, S.C. and C.T. Roman. 2005. New England salt marsh pools: a quantitative analysis of geomorphic and geographic features. Wetlands 25 (2): 279- 288. https://doi.org/10.1672/4.

Bertness, M.D. 1999. The Ecology of Atlantic Shorelines. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. ISBN-13: 978-0878930562; ISBN10: 0878930566.

Bourne, W.S. and C. Cottam. 1950. Some Biological Effects of Ditching Tidewater Marshes. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 30 pp.

Boon, J.D. 2012. Evidence of sea level acceleration at U.S. and Canadian tide stations, Atlantic coast, North America. Journal of Coastal Research 28: 1437-1445. https://doi.org/10.2112/JCOASTRESD-12-00102.1 .

Correll, M.D., W.A. Wiest, T.P. Hodgman, W.G. Shriver, C.S. Elphick, B.J. McGill, K. O’Brien, and B.J. Olsen. 2017. Predictors of specialist avifaunal decline in coastal marshes. Conservation Biology 31: 172–182.

Deegan, L.A., D.S. Johnson, R.S. Warren, B.J. Peterson, J.W. Fleeger, S. Fagherazzi, and W.M. Wollheim. 2012. Coastal eutrophication as a driver of salt marsh loss. Nature 490(7420): 388-392.

DeLaune, R.D., J.A. Nyman, and W.H. Patrick Jr. 1994. Peat collapse, ponding and wetland loss in a rapidly submerging coastal marsh. Journal of Coastal Research 10(4): 1021-1030.

Donnelly, J.P. and M.D. Bertness. 2001. Rapid shoreward encroachment of salt marsh cordgrass in response to accelerated sea-level rise. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 98(25): 14218-14223.

Ekberg, M.L.C., K.B. Raposa, W.S. Ferguson, K. Ruddock, and E.B. Watson. 2017. Development and application of a method to identify salt marsh vulnerability to sea level rise. Estuaries and Coasts 40(3): 694-710.

Federal Geographic Data Committee. 2013. Classification of wetlands and deep water habitats of the United States. FGDC-STD-004-2013.

Second Edition. Wetlands Subcommittee, Federal Geographic Data Committee and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Gjerdrum, C. K. Sullivan-Wiley, E. King, M.A. Rubega and C.S. Elphick. 2008. Egg and chick fates during tidal flooding of Saltmarsh Sparrow nests. The Condor 110(3): 579-584. https://doi.org/10.1525/ cond.2008.8559 .

Hawes, E.L. 1986. Improvers and Traditional Farmers in the New England Salt Marsh. Paper presented at the Dublin Seminar on New England Studies.

Madsen, B. J. 1987. Interaction of vegetation and physical processes in patterned peatlands: a comparison of two sites in Upper Michigan (Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan).

Massachusetts, 1834. An act to incorporate the Broad Marsh Diking Company in Ipswich. Vol 13. Chapter 179. Sec. 1 Boston: Dutton and Wentworth, Printers to the State. https://books.google.com/books?id=2tc KAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA258&lpg=PA258&dq=massachusetts+diking+co mpany&source=bl&ots=3c6nw5RoMh&sig=ACfU3U27zZixn_EunSUR scMfNNVsZPmW9Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjV58bEvsPpAhW aBs0KHeOMA4MQ6AEwC3oECA0QAQ#v=onepage&q=massachuset ts%20diking%20company&f=false . Accessed May 20, 2020.

Miller, W.R. and F.E. Egler. 1950. Vegetation of the Wequetequock‐ Pawcatuck tidal‐marshes, Connecticut. Ecological Monographs 20(2): 143-172.

Burdick, D.M., G.E. Moore, S.C. Adamowicz, G.M. Wilson, and C.R. Peter. In Press. Mitigating the legacy effects of ditching in a New England salt marsh. Estuaries and Coasts. doi:10.1007/s12237-019-00656-5.

Mora, J.W. and D.M. Burdick. 2013. The impact of man-made earthen barriers on the physical structure of New England tidal marshes (USA). Wetlands ecology and management 21(6): 387-398.

Chapman, V. J. 1938. Coastal movement and the development of some New England salt marshes. Proceedings of the Geologist’s Association 49 (4): 373-384.

Morris, J.T., P.V. Sundareshwar, C.T. Nietch, B. Kjerfve, and D.R. Cahoon. 2002. Responses of coastal wetlands to rising sea level. Ecology 83(10): 2869-2877.

Chotanter, A. 1820. The draining of marshes. In J.S. Skinner (ed.).

American Farmer (Baltimore, MD) Vol 2: 243-245.

Morris, J.T., K. Sundberg, and C.S. Hopkinson. 2013. Salt marsh primary production and its responses to relative sea level and nutrients in estuaries at Plum Island, Massachusetts, and North Inlet, South Carolina, USA. Oceanography 26(3): 78-84.

Clift, W. 1862. Salt Marshes: The mode of reclaiming them and their value. Pp 343-358. IN: 37th Congress 2nd Session. House of Representatives. Ex. Doc. Report of the Commissioner of Patents for the year 1861.

Agriculture. Washington: Government Printing Office. 656pp. https:// books.google.com/books?id=E4JPoEnUpAsC&lpg=PA357&dq=mang el%20wurzel%20grown%20in%20salt%20marsh&pg=PA343#v=twopag e&q&f=true . Accessed April 22, 2020.

Cole Ekberg, M.L., K.B. Raposa, W.S. Ferguson, K. Ruddock and E. Burke Watson 2017. Development and application of a method to identify salt marsh vulnerability to sea level rise. Estuaries and Coasts 40: 694-710.

194 Wetland Science & Practice July 2020

Niering, W.A. and R.S. Warren. 1980. Vegetation pattern and processes in New England salt marshes. BioScience 20: 301-307.

Nixon, S.W. 1982. The ecology of New England high salt marshes: a community profile. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. FWS/OBS-81/55. 70 pp.

Raposa, K. B., R.L. Weber, M.C. Ekberg, and W. Ferguson. 2017.

Vegetation dynamics in Rhode Island salt marshes during a period of accelerating sea level rise and extreme sea level events. Estuaries and Coasts 40(3): 640-650.

Redfield, A.C., 1965. Ontogeny of a salt marsh estuary. Science 147(3653): 50-55.

The Trustees of Reservations. 2007. Old Town Hill Management Plan.

Leominster, MA. pp. 157

Redfield, A.C. 1972. Development of a New England Salt Marsh. Ecological Monographs 42: 201- 237.

Turner, R.E., E.M. Swenson, C.S. Milan, and T.A. Oswald. 2004.

Below-ground biomass in healthy and impaired salt marshes. Ecological Research 19(1): 29-35.

Ruskin, K.J., M.A. Etterson, T.P. Hodgman, A. Borowske, J.B. Cohen, C.S. Elphick, C.R. Field, R.A. Kern, E. King, A.R. Kocek, A.I. Kovach, K.M. O’Brien, N. Pau, W.G. Shriver, J. Walsh, and B.J. Olsen.

2017. Demographic analysis demonstrates contrasting abiotic and biotic stress across species range. The Auk: Ornithological Advances 134(4): 903–916.

Sebold, K.R. 1992. From marsh to farm: the landscape transformation of coastal New Jersey. Historic American Buildings Survey/Historic American Engineering Record, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior.

Sebold, K.R. 1998. The low green prairies of the sea: economic usage and cultural construction of the Gulf of Maine salt marshes. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Maine).

Shepard, T.W. 1823. On embankments, dikes, drains &c. for the purpose of reclaiming lands from the sea, rivers &c. New England Farmer 1(31): 241-243. Digitized by Google. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt ?id=nyp.33433007641180&view=1up&seq=255&size=150 . Accessed April 22, 2020.

Smith, D.C., V. Konrad, H. Koulouris, E. Hawes, H.W. Borns, Jr. 1989.

Salt marshes as a factor in the agriculture of northeastern North America.

Agricultural History 63: 270-294.

Smith, S.M, C.T. Roman, MJ James-Pirri, K. Chapman, J Portnoy, E.G. William. 2009. Responses of plant communities to incremental hydrologic restoration of a tide-restricted salt marsh in southern New England.

Restoration Ecology 17 (5): 606 - 618. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526100X.2008.00426.x .

Smith, S.M. 2015 Vegetation change in salt marshes of Cape Cod National Seashore (Massachusetts, USA) between 1984 and 2013. Wetlands 35: 127-136.

Vincent, R.E., D.M. Burdick, M. Dionne. 2014. Ditching and ditchplugging in New England salt marshes: effects on plant communities and self-maintenance. Estuaries and coasts 37 (2): 354 – 368. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s12237-013-9671-7 .

Warren, R.S. and W.A. Niering. 1993. Vegetation change on a northeast tidal marsh: Interaction of sea-level rise and marsh accretion. Ecology 74 (1): 96-103. https://doi.org/10.2307/1939504 .

Watson, E.B., K.B. Raposa, J.C. Carey, C. Wigand, and R.S. Warren.

Anthropocene survival of southern New England’s salt marshes. Estuaries and coasts: 40 (3): 617- 625. doi: 10.1007/s12237-016-0166-1 .

Watson, E.B., C. Wigand, E.W. Davey, H.M. Andrews, J. Bishop, and K.B. Raposa. 2017. Wetland loss patterns and inundation-productivity relationships prognosticate widespread salt marsh loss for southern New England. Estuaries and Coasts 40(3): 662-681.

Wilson, C.A., Z.J. Hughes, D.M. FitzGerald, C.S. Hopkinson, V. Valentine, A. S. Kolker. 2014. Saltmarsh pool and tidal creek morphodynamics: Dynamic equilibrium of northern latitude saltmarshes? Geomorphology 213: 99-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2014.01.002 Wilson, K.R. 2010. Maine salt pools: Stratigraphic description, ecophysical characterization, and discussion of their role in estuarine landscape change. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maine, Orono, ME. Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 1143. https://digitalcommons.library. umaine.edu/etd/1143 Wolfe, R.J. 1996. Effects of open marsh water management on selected tidal marsh resources: a review. Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association 12(4): 701-712.

Wetland Science & Practice July 2020 195

STUDENT RESEARCH

Landscape Effects on Freshwater Turtle Heavy Metal Bioaccumulation in West Virginia Wetlands Darien N. Lozon1, School of Natural Resources, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA

INTRODUCTION ncreasing anthropogenic change of natural systems due to human population growth has created detrimental effects for wetlands in the United States. Agricultural land use practices introduce contaminants that would not naturally be found in the environment, and deforestation promotes surface runoff carrying contaminated sediment (Lowrance 1998). Road density concurrently increases with development and introduces other heavy metals such as cadmium, lead, and zinc from the natural wear of tire and brake lining during daily vehicle use (Croteau et al. 2008).

Some heavy metals may be found naturally in the environment in trace amounts, but if they exceed a certain threshold, deleterious effects to wildlife may occur. Species that are long-lived and have higher trophic status such as turtles are especially vulnerable to harmful bioaccumulation of these heavy metals (Sparling et al. 2010; Turnquist et al.

2011). High levels of mercury and lead in turtles have been found to reduce fertility and increase embryonic mortality (Burger 1998; Thompson et al. 2018).

The relationship between heavy metal contamination and land use practices has been studied for decades (Cooper 1993; Tong and Chen 2002; Allan 2004; Croteau et al. 2008; Kellner et al. 2015). Yet results vary by the heavy metal in question, while other system variables can affect bioavailability (Driscoll et al. 2007; Turnquist et al. 2011).

One method of monitoring land use effects on wetland health is testing for the presence of heavy metals in freshwater turtles. Using non-destructive methods by collecting external tissues (e.g., blood and toenails) eliminates the negative impacts on individuals or populations (Smith et al. 2016; Benjamin et al. 2018). These external tissues have been found to be positively correlated with concentrations found in internal, more invasive tissues such as liver and muscle (Smith et al. 2016).

I

OBJECTIVES The primary purpose of my research is to collect data on levels of cadmium, chromium, lead, total mercury, selenium, and zinc accumulated in freshwater turtles at a series 1

Author contact: dnl0009@mix.wvu.edu

196 Wetland Science & Practice July 2020

of wetlands and streams within the Upper Deckers Creek watershed in Preston County, WV. With these data, my objectives are to quantify the bioaccumulation of heavy metals among different age-sex classes of snapping turtles (Chelydra serpentina) and painted turtles (Chrysemys picta), two common species found within the Upper Deckers Creek watershed (Figure 1). I will also determine how land use practices influence heavy metal bioaccumulation in turtles. I will test the following hypotheses to achieve these objectives: 1. Increased size of turtles will result in increased heavy metal bioaccumulation.

2. Adult females will have lower concentrations of heavy metals than adult males.

3. Snapping turtles will have significantly greater heavy metal bioaccumulation than painted turtles.

4. Concentrations of heavy metals found in turtles will be significantly different based on the dominant land use type within 1 km of the wetland.

FIGURE 1. The two target species used for this present study were (from left to right) painted (Chrysemys picta) and snapping turtles (Chelydra serpentina) because of their long lifespan, high trophic position, and abundance within the Upper Deckers Creek watershed in Preston County, West Virginia. Both species have been studied in ecotoxicology literature over the past decade in the United States. (Photo by Darien Lozon.)

METHODS In 2019, we set ten aquatic hoop-net traps of various sizes (0.91 and 0.76 m diameter; Gulette et al. 2019; Figure 2) from April 19—May 25 (spring), July 1—31 (summer), and October 8—November 1 (fall) at 29 sites within the Upper Deckers Creek watershed. The watershed covers 7,778 ha in Preston County, West Virginia, and agricultural land use (consists of grassland, cultivated crops, hay and pasture; 23.4%) and roads (3.2%) continue to fragment the deciduous forest (60.7%) that dominates the watershed. Wetlands were either predominantly surrounded by forest (n = 13) or agricultural land (n = 13) within 1 km, while three sites had an even combination of both (Figure 3). Traps were baited with a contained half-can of sardines so bait could be smelled but not consumed, and flotation devices were in each trap to ensure access to air for turtles captured. Bait was replaced after every 24 hours to keep bait freshness consistent over the three days traps were set out at each site per season. Individual turtles were given a unique mark filed in their marginal scutes for future identification (Cagle 1939; Figure 4) and classified once as either adult male, adult female, subadult male, subadult female, or juvenile, regardless of how many times the individual was captured (Bowne et al. 2006).

Additionally, each captured individual had 3-4 hind toenails collected using dog nail clippers, and 1 mL of blood was taken from the dorsal or ventral caudal vein using a nonheparinized syringe (Perpiñán 2015; Figure 5). Samples were

FIGURE 3. Nine of the 29 sites surveyed across the Upper Deckers Creek watershed in Preston County, West Virginia. Wetland sizes range between 0.04 and 8.41 ha. Three of the 29 sites surveyed were different segments of Deckers Creek, while the other 26 sites were public and private ponds and impoundments. Choice of wetlands to survey was limited by landowner permissions. (Photos by Darien Lozon.)

FIGURE 2. A snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina) lingering after being released near the hoop net trap in which he was captured. The flotation device in this case was a pool noodle, and the sardines used for bait were in a storage container with punctured holes so the scent could escape. He learned his lesson and did not get captured a second time. (Photo by Darien Lozon.)

Wetland Science & Practice July 2020 197

collected in the field and stored in a cooler until we could return from the field and store them in a -20°C freezer until analysis. Two samples of wetland soil were collected along the shore of each wetland between 0-10 cm of the surface for environmental heavy metal analysis. We used a PVC corer instead of a conventional steel soil corer to avoid potential sample contamination (Hubbart 2002). Soil samples were refrigerated until analysis. All tissue and soil samples were sent to the National Research Center for Coal and Energy Analytical Lab at West Virginia University and tested for cadmium, chromium, total mercury, lead, selenium, and zinc using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency method 3050B (1996) with a Perkin Elmer NexIon 2000 inductivelycoupled plasma mass spectrometer.

RESULTS We captured 119 snapping turtles and 327 painted turtles over the course of the 2019 season. A subset of tissues from 62 painted turtles and 32 snapping turtles across 22

FIGURE 4. An example of a marked painted turtle (Chrysemys picta) to determine if it is a recapture. This individual is marked as #579. (Photo by Darien Lozon.)

198 Wetland Science & Practice July 2020

sites are being analyzed for cadmium, chromium, total mercury, lead, selenium, and zinc by sex, species, and surrounding land use.

NEXT STEPS For landscape analysis, I will use a national land cover dataset from the West Virginia GIS Technical Center (Strager 2012). Digitization of wetlands will be conducted using ArcGIS (version 10.7, ESRI, Redlands, California), and land use types (focusing on forest, agriculture, and roads for analysis) will be quantified within 250, 500, and 1000 m of each wetland (Marchand and Litvaitis 2004; Attum et al.

2008). Values will be calculated as percent coverage within each buffer size to account for the range of wetland sizes (median = 0.55 ha, range = 0.04â&#x20AC;&#x201D;8.41 ha; Marchand and Litvaitis 2004).

To investigate the relationships between heavy metal bioaccumulation in snapping and painted turtles, I will use generalized linear models with each individual heavy metal

FIGURE 5. Turtle blood samples for heavy metal analysis were taken using a non-heparinized syringe from the dorsal caudal vein in painted turtles (Chrysemys picta) and the ventral caudal vein (pictured) in snapping turtles (Chelydra serpentina). (Photo by Darien Lozon.)

as a response. Candidate models will be determined using forward stepwise model selection (Burnham and Anderson 2002). Model predictors will represent environmental characteristics of each site (e.g., soil contamination and surrounding land use) as well as turtle demographics (e.g., species and sex), morphometrics (straight-line carapace length, hereafter CL), and tissue type. Interactions between land use and soil contamination, tissue type and soil contamination, tissue type and species, CL and species, and CL and sex will also be included a priori based on relationships previously found in the literature.

This research is part of a master’s thesis that will be completed in May 2021. The findings will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication. Preliminary results will be presented virtually at The Wildlife Society annual conference (September 27—October 1, 2020). n REFERENCES

Allan, J.D. 2004. Landscapes and riverscapes: The influence of land use on stream ecosystems. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 35:257–284.

Benjamin, T., R. Brasso, S. Midway, D. Thompson, and L.A. Harden.

2018. Using non-destructive techniques to measure mercury (Hg) concentrations in gravid Blanding’s Turtles (Emydoidea blandingii) in Northeastern Illinois. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 101(3):295–299.

Bowne, D.R., M.A. Bowers, and J.E. Hines. 2006. Connectivity in an agricultural landscape as reflected by interpond movements of a freshwater turtle. Conservation Biology 20(3):780–791.

Burger, J. 1998. Effects of lead on behavior, growth, and survival of hatchling slider turtles. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A 55(7):495–502.

Burnham, K.P. and D.R. Anderson. 2002. Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach. 2nd edition. Springer, New York, NY. Cagle, F.R. 1939. A system of marking turtles for future identification.

Copeia 1939(3):170.

Cooper, C.M. 1993. Biological effects of agriculturally derived surface water pollutants on aquatic systems—A review. Journal of Environmental Quality 22(3):402–408.

Croteau, M.C., N. Hogan, J.C. Gibson, D. Lean, and V.L. Trudeau. 2008.

Toxicological threats to amphibians and reptiles in urban environments.

Herpetological Conservation 3:197–209.

Driscoll, C.T., Y-J Han, C.Y. Chen, D.C. Evers, K.F. Lambert, T.M. Holsen, N.C. Kamman, and R.K. Munson. 2007. Mercury contamination in forest and freshwater ecosystems in the northeastern United States.

BioScience 57(1):17–28.

Gulette, A.L., J. Anderson, and D. Brown. 2019. Influence of hoop-net trap diameter on capture success and size distribution of comparatively large and small freshwater turtles. Northeastern Naturalist 26(1):129-136.

Hubbart, J.A. 2002. Chemical composition of the hair of the California Ground Squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi) as an indicator of heavy metals and environmental stress. [Thesis] California State University, Fresno.

Fresno, California.

Kellner, E., J.A. Hubbart, and A. Ikem. 2015. A comparison of forest and agricultural shallow groundwater chemical status a century after land use change. Science of the Total Environment 529:82–90.

Lowrance, R. 1998. Riparian forest ecosystems as filters for nonpointsource pollution. In: M.L. Pace and P.M. Groffman (editors). Successes, Limitations, and Frontiers in Ecosystem Science. Springer, New York, NY. pp. 113–141.

Marchand, M.N. and J.A. Litvaitis. 2004. Effects of habitat features and landscape composition on the population structure of a common aquatic turtle in a region undergoing rapid development. Conservation Biology 18(3):758–767.

Perpiñán, D. 2015. Blood collection in turtles. Vetcom 52:38–39.

Smith, D.L., M.J. Cooper, J.M. Kosiara, and G.A. Lamberti. 2016. Body burdens of heavy metals in Lake Michigan wetland turtles. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 188(2), 128.

Sparling, D.W., G. Linder, C.A. Bishop, and S.K. Krest. 2010. Ecotoxicology of Amphibians and Reptiles. 2nd edition. CRC Press/Taylor & Francis; Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC), Pensacola, FL. Strager, M. 2012. Landuse/land cover of West Virginia (2011). West Virginia GIS Technical Center.

Thompson, M., B.H. Coe, R.M. Andrews, D.A. Cristol, D.A. Crossley, and W.A. Hopkins. 2018. Agricultural land use creates evolutionary traps for nesting turtles and is exacerbated by mercury pollution. Journal of Experimental Zoology Part A: Ecological and Integrative Physiology 239(4–5):230–243.

Tong, S.T.Y. and W. Chen. 2002. Modeling the relationship between land use and surface water quality. Journal of Environmental Management 66(4):377–393.

Turnquist, M.A., C.T. Driscoll, K.L. Schulz, and M.A. Schlaepfer. 2011.

Mercury concentrations in snapping turtles (Chelydra serpentina) correlate with environmental and landscape characteristics. Ecotoxicology 20(7):1599–1608.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996. Method 3050B: Acid digestion of sediments, sludges, and soils. Revision 2. Washington, DC.

Wetland Science & Practice July 2020 199

WETLAND SCIENCE

Florida Gulf Coast University’s Everglades Wetland Research Park in Naples Receives $1 million Grant to Investigate Innovative Approach for Mitigating Harmful Algal Blooms

A

ccording to Bill Mitsch (Director of the Everglades Wetland Research Park, EWRP), they have just received funding from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection for a pilot-scale project for mitigating algal blooms on a 700-acre lake in south Lee county. This two-year project will test an innovative “buoy ultrasonic technology” (MPC-Buoy) to eliminate the symptoms of eutrophication by toxic cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). This MPC-Buoy system first provides a complete overview of the water quality and algal biomass every 10 minutes thereby making it possible to modify the ultrasonic program to the specific water conditions and type of algae present. This way, it is possible to manage existing algae and prevent the growth of new algae.

The project will be managed and monitored by FGCU’s Everglades Wetland Research Park located on the campus of the Naples Botanical Garden in Naples, Florida, in collaboration with a team that includes LG Sonic US, Scranton, Pennsylvania and scientists from The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of South Florida, Tampa, FL; and Mote Marine Lab, Sarasota, FL. Greg Eiffert, Director of LG Sonic US: “Our parent company in the Netherlands has been installing systems in over 26 countries for the past 10 years. Having just opened the US office in Spring of 2019, we have systems currently active in 16 states including Florida. We are happy to see the State of Florida investing in treatment of algal blooms

200 Wetland Science & Practice July 2020

without chemicals. In addition to being a chemical-free system, it’s solar powered and eco-friendly, with no negative effects to the environment.”

Bill Mitsch suggests that if the MPC-Buoy system is effective in reducing algal blooms in this pilot-scale project in South Florida, “we may be able to scale-up and develop a strategy for mitigating if not eliminating the toxic algae releases from Lake Okeechobee that have been causing harmful algal blooms on our Gulf and Atlantic coastlines.

That could lead to a significant improvement in water quality in south Florida and the Greater Everglades.” n

WETLANDS IN THE NEWS

L

isted below are some links to some random news articles that may be of interest. Links from past issues can be accessed on the SWS website: http://sws.org/Sample-Content/wetlands-in-the-news.html. Members are encouraged to send links to articles about wetlands in their local area. Please send the links to WSP Editor at ralphtiner83@gmail.com and reference “Wetlands in the News” in the subject box. Thanks for your cooperation. n A ‘regime shift’ is happening in the Arctic Ocean, scientists say https://phys.org/news/2020-07-regime-shift-arctic-ocean-scientists.html The Dawn of Hope peat slide: understanding the source area https://blogs.agu.org/landslideblog/2020/07/03/dawn-of-hope-peat-slide-2/ The biodiversity leader who is fighting for nature amid a pandemic https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01947-9 Permafrost - An introduction https://www.awi.de/en/focus/permafrost/permafrost-an-introduction.html Beavers are Gnawing Away at Arctic Permafrost https://weather.com/science/nature/news/2020-07-01-arctic-beaversgnawing-away-at-permafrost-climate-change National parks are being overrun by invasive species https://www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/destinations/north-america/ united-states/national-parks/invasive-species-threaten-native-plants-andanimals-visitors-can-help/

Fuzzy Green ‘Glacier Mice’ Move In Groups And Puzzle Scientists https://www.npr.org/2020/05/22/858800112/herd-like-movement-offuzzy-green-glacier-mice-baffles-scientists Parts of Siberia are hotter than Washington https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2020/05/22/siberia-heat-wave/ Tropical forests and carbon storage https://science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6493/813 Miami’s fight against rising seas https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20170403-miamis-fight-against-sealevel-rise The world’s fastest sinking city https://www.bbc.com/reel/video/p088t8gm/the-world-s-fastest-sinkingcity?ocid=ww.social.link.email Tipping points of Mississippi Delta marshes due to accelerated sea-level rise https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/21/eaaz5512

Arctic records its hottest temperature ever https://www.cbsnews.com/news/arctic-hottest-temperature-ever/

Dinosaurs walked through Antarctic rainforests https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-52125369

Everglades restoration makes progress in Picayune https://www.naplesnews.com/story/news/environment/2020/06/18/ everglades-restoration-makes-progress-picayune/5274397002/

Gautam Shah is harnessing an ‘Internet of Elephants’ to foster conservation https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2020/06/gautam-shah-isharnessing-an-internet-of-elephants-to-foster-conservation/

Repeat offender fined for wetlands violations, ordered by ConComm to restore property https://theberkshireedge.com/repeat-offender-fined-for-wetlands-violations-ordered-by-concomm-to-restore-property/

Conservation in crisis: ecotourism collapse threatens communities and wildlife https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/may/05/conservationin-crisis-covid-19-coronavirus-ecotourism-collapse-threatens-communities-and-wildlife-aoe

Shrub encroachment on grasslands can increase groundwater recharge https://news.ucr.edu/articles/2020/05/15/shrub-encroachment-grasslandscan-increase-groundwater-recharge

Study shows wetter climate is likely to intensify global warming https://phys.org/news/2020-05-wetter-climate-global.html

[Letter from Ireland] Bogland https://harpers.org/archive/2020/07/bogland-bog-of-allen-ireland-peatbog-bord-na-mona/ Bill introduced to protect wetlands https://www.capegazette.com/article/bill-introduced-protect-wetlands/203271 Dog-killing cane toads are back as rains draw them out https://www.news4jax.com/news/florida/2020/06/06/dog-killing-canetoads-are-back-as-rains-draw-them-out/ Peatland drainage in Southeast Asia adds to climate change https://phys.org/news/2020-06-peatland-drainage-southeast-asia-climate.html A tectonic plate may have peeled apart—and that could shrink the Atlantic Ocean https://www.nationalgeographic.com.au/science/a-tectonic-plate-mayhave-peeled-apartand-that-could-shrink-the-atlantic-ocean.aspx DNA metabarcoding reveals metacommunity dynamics in a threatened boreal wetland https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/05/200512134424.htm Migratory Birds Are Failing to Adapt to Climate Change https://earther.gizmodo.com/migratory-birds-are-failing-to-adapt-toclimate-change-1843679357 COVID-19 Is Crushing Conservation Groups https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2020/05/covid-19-is-crushing-conservation-groups/ Why glass frogs have see-through skin becomes clear in study https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/may/25/why-glass-frogshave-see-through-skin-becomes-clear-study-legs-translucent Be still, my beating wings: hunters kill migrating birds on their 10,000km journey to Australia https://theconversation.com/be-still-my-beating-wings-hunters-killmigrating-birds-on-their-10-000km-journey-to-australia-138382

‘People think no one is watching’: Fears of environmental damage amid travel restrictions https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/people-think-no-oneis-watching-fears-of-environmental-damage-amid-travel-restrictions-1.4244635 The Scotch Whisky Brand Helping to Restore Oyster Reefs https://www.outsideonline.com/2411606/scotch-whisky-brand-helpingrestore-oyster-reefs ‘Hydrologists should be happy.’ Big Supreme Court ruling bolsters groundwater science https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/04/scotus-clean-water# Florida Aquarium becomes first in the world to reproduce ridged cactus coral in human care https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/22/us/florida-aquarium-first-reproduceridhed-cactus-coral-trnd/index.html Cranes make comeback in Britain’s wetlands https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-52384853 Latest Bleaching of Great Barrier Reef Underscores Global Coral Crisis https://insideclimatenews.org/news/11042020/great-barrier-reef-coralbleaching-great-ocean-global-warming Park closed during coronavirus? Look to wetlands to get outdoors https://www.sfchronicle.com/travel/article/Park-closed-during-coronavirus-Look-to-wetlands-15199847.php New investments save dynamic coastal wetland habitat https://ecology.wa.gov/Blog/Posts/April-2020/New-investments-savedynamic-coastal-wetland-habit Scientists uncover an ancient underwater forest that could help pioneer new medicines https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/07/us/ancient-underwater-forest-alabamascn-trnd/index.html Wetland Science & Practice July 2020 201

WETLAND BOOKSHELF

P

lease help us add new books and reports to this listing. If your agency, organization, or institution has published new publications on wetlands, please send the information to Editor of Wetland Science & Practice at ralphtiner83@gmail. com. Your cooperation is appreciated.

BOOKS

• An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North America (5th Edition) https://he.kendallhunt.com/product/introduction-aquatic-insects-north-america • Wading Right In: Discovering the Nature of Wetlands https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/W/ bo28183520.html • Sedges of Maine https://umaine.edu/umpress/books-in-print/ • Sedges and Rushes of Minnesota https://www.upress.umn. edu/book-division/books/sedges-and-rushes-of-minnesota • Wetland & Stream Rapid Assessments: Development, Validation, and Application https://www.elsevier.com/ books/wetland-and-stream-rapid-assessments/dorney/978-0-12-805091-0 • Eager: The Surprising Secret Life of Beavers and Why They Matter https://www.chelseagreen.com/product/eager/ • Wetland Indicators – A Guide to Wetland Formation, Identification, Delineation, Classification, and Mapping https://www.crcpress.com/Wetland-Indicators-A-Guide-toWetland-Identification-Delineation-Classification/Tiner/p/ book/9781439853696 • Wetland Soils: Genesis, Hydrology, Landscapes, and Classification https://www.crcpress.com/Wetland-Soils-Genesis-Hydrology-Landscapes-and-Classification/VepraskasRichardson-Vepraskas-Craft/9781566704847 • Creating and Restoring Wetlands: From Theory to Practice http://store.elsevier.com/Creating-and-Restoring-Wetlands/ Christopher-Craft/isbn-9780124072329/ • Salt Marsh Secrets. Who uncovered them and how? http://trnerr.org/SaltMarshSecrets/ • Remote Sensing of Wetlands: Applications and Advances. https://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781482237351 • Wetlands (5th Edition). http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/ WileyTitle/productCd-1118676823.html

202 Wetland Science & Practice July 2020

• Black Swan Lake – Life of a Wetland http://press.uchicago. edu/ucp/books/book/distributed/B/bo15564698.html • Coastal Wetlands of the World: Geology, Ecology, Distribution and Applications http://www.cambridge.org/ us/academic/subjects/earth-and-environmental-science/ environmental-science/coastal-wetlands-world-geologyecology-distribution-and-applications • Florida’s Wetlands https://www.amazon.com/FloridasWetlands-Natural-Ecosystems-Species/dp/1561646873/ ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1518650552&sr=84&keywords=wetland+books • Mid-Atlantic Freshwater Wetlands: Science, Management, Policy, and Practice http://www.springer.com/environment/ aquatic+sciences/book/978-1-4614-5595-0 • The Atchafalaya River Basin: History and Ecology of an American Wetland http://www.tamupress.com/product/ Atchafalaya-River-Basin,7733.aspx • Tidal Wetlands Primer: An Introduction to their Ecology, Natural History, Status and Conservation https://www. umass.edu/umpress/title/tidal-wetlands-primer • Wetland Landscape Characterization: Practical Tools, Methods, and Approaches for Landscape Ecology http:// www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466503762 • Wetland Techniques (3 volumes) http://www.springer.com/ life+sciences/ecology/book/978-94-007-6859-8 • Wildflowers and Other Plants of Iowa Wetlands https://www.uipress.uiowa.edu/books/2015-spring/wildflowers-and-other-plants-iowa-wetlands.htm • Wetland Restoration: A Handbook for New Zealand Freshwater Systems https://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/publications/books/wetlands-handbook • Wetland Ecosystems https://www.wiley.com/en-us/ Wetland+Ecosystems-p-9780470286302 • Constructed Wetlands and Sustainable Development https://www.routledge.com/Constructed-Wetlands-and-Sustainable-Development/Austin-Yu/p/book/9781138908994

ONLINE PUBLICATIONS

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS • Regional Guidebook for the Functional Assessment of Organic Flats, Slopes, and Depressional Wetlands in the Northcentral and Northeast Region http://acwc.sdp.sirsi. net/client/en_US/search/asset/1047786 • Wetland-related publications: -http://acwc.sdp.sirsi.net/client/en_US/default/search/ results?te=&lm=WRP -http://acwc.sdp.sirsi.net/client/en_US/default/search/ results?te=&lm=WRP • National Wetland Plant List publications: http://rsgisias. crrel.usace.army.mil/NWPL/ • National Technical Committee for Wetland Vegetation: http://rsgisias.crrel.usace.army.mil/nwpl_static/ntcwv.html • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency wetland reports and searches: http://water.epa.gov/type/wetlands/wetpubs.cfm • A Regional Guidebook for Applying the Hydrogeomorphic Approach to Assessing Wetland Functions of Forested Wetlands in Alluvial Valleys of the Coastal Plain of the Southeastern United States ERDC/EL TR-13-1 • Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) Approach to Assessing Wetland Functions: Guidelines for Developing Guidebooks (Version 2) ERDC/EL TR-13-11 • Regional Guidebook for Applying the Hydrogeomorphic Approach to Assessing the Functions of Flat and Seasonally Inundated Depression Wetlands on the Highland Rim ERDC/EL TR-13-12 • Wetland Plants and Plant Communities of Minnesota and Wisconsin (online publication) http://www.mvp.usace. army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/?Page=12

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, NATIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY • Wetland Characterization and Landscape-level Functional Assessment for Long Island, New York http://www.fws.gov/ northeast/ecologicalservices/pdf/wetlands/Characterization_Report_February_2015.pdf or http://www.aswm.org/wetlandsonestop/wetland_characterization_long_island_ny_021715.pdf • Also wetland characterization/landscape-level functional assessment reports for over 12 small watersheds in New York at: http://www.aswm.org/wetland-science/134-wetlandsone-stop/5044-nwi-reports • Preliminary Inventory of Potential Wetland Restoration Sites for Long Island, New York http://www.aswm.org/ wetlandsonestop/restoration_inventory_long_island_ ny_021715.pdf

• Dichotomous Keys and Mapping Codes for Wetland Landscape Position, Landform, Water Flow Path, and Waterbody Type Descriptors. Version 3.0. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Northeast Region, Hadley, MA. https://www.fws. gov/northeast/EcologicalServices/pdf/wetlands/Dichotomous_Keys_and_Mapping_Codes_for_Wetland_Landscape_Position_Landform_Water_Flow_Path_and_Waterbody_Type_Version_3.pdf • Connecticut Wetlands Reports: • Changes in Connecticut Wetlands: 1990 to 2010 • Potential Wetland Restoration Sites for Connecticut: Results of a Preliminary Statewide Survey • Wetlands and Waters of Connecticut: Status 2010 • Connecticut Wetlands: Characterization and Landscape-level Functional Assessment • Rhode Island Wetlands: Status, Characterization, and Landscape-level Functional Assessment http://www.aswm. org/wetlandsonestop/rhode_island_wetlands_llww.pdf • Status and Trends of Prairie Wetlands in the United States: 1997 to 2009 http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Documents/ Status-and-Trends-of-Prairie-Wetlands-in-the-UnitedStates-1997-to-2009.pdf • Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Coastal Watersheds of the Conterminous United States 2004 to 2009. http://www. fws.gov/wetlands/Documents/Status-and-Trends-of-Wetlands-In-the-Coastal-Watersheds-of-the-Conterminous-US2004-to-2009.pdf • The NWI+ Web Mapper – Expanded Data for Wetland Conservation http://www.aswm.org/wetlandsonestop/nwiplus_web_mapper_nwn_2013.pdf • Wetlands One-Stop Mapping: Providing Easy Online Access to Geospatial Data on Wetlands and Soils and Related Information http://www.aswm.org/wetlandsonestop/wetlands_ one_stop_mapping_in_wetland_science_and_practice.pdf • Wetlands of Pennsylvania’s Lake Erie Watershed: Status, Characterization, Landscape-level Functional Assessment, and Potential Wetland Restoration Sites http://www.aswm. org/wetlandsonestop/lake_erie_watershed_report_0514.pdf

U.S. FOREST SERVICE • Historical Range of Variation Assessment for Wetland and Riparian Ecosystems, U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region. http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr286.pdf • Inventory of Fens in a Large Landscape of West-Central Colorado http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5363703.pdf

Wetland Science & Practice July 2020 203

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, NATIONAL WETLANDS RESEARCH CENTER • Link to publications: http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/pblctns. htm (recent publications are noted) • A Regional Classification of the Effectiveness of Depressional Wetlands at Mitigating Nitrogen Transport to Surface Waters in the Northern Atlantic Coastal Plain http:// pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2012/5266/pdf/sir2012-5266.pdf • Tidal Wetlands of the Yaquina and Alsea River Estuaries, Oregon: Geographic Information Systems Layer Development and Recommendations for National Wetlands Inventory Revisions http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2012/1038/ pdf/ofr2012-1038.pdf

U.S.D.A. NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE • Link to information on hydric soils:http://www.nrcs.usda. gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/soils/use/hydric/ • Field Indicators of Hydric Soils of the United States, Version 8.1 (online publication) https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/ Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_053171.pdf

PUBLICATIONS BY OTHER ORGANIZATIONS • The Nature Conservancy has posted several reports on wetland and riparian restoration for the Gunnison Basin, Colorado at: http://www.conservationgateway.org/ConservationByGeography/NorthAmerica/UnitedStates/Colorado/science/climate/ gunnison/Pages/Reports.aspx (Note: Other TNC reports are also available via this website by looking under different regions.)

• Book: Ecology and Conservation of Waterfowl in the Northern Hemisphere, Proceedings of the 6th North American Duck Symposium and Workshop (Memphis, TN; January 27-31, 2013). Wildfowl Special Issue No. 4. Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust, Slimbridge, Gloucestershire, UK. • Report on State Definitions, Jurisdiction and Mitigation Requirements in State Programs for Ephemeral, Intermittent and Perennial Streams in the United States (Association of State Wetland Managers) http://aswm.org/stream_ mitigation/streams_in_the_us.pdf • Wetlands and People (International Water Management Institute) http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/Publications/Books/ PDF/wetlands-and-people.pdf • Waubesa Wetlands: New Look at an Old Gem (online publication) http://www.town.dunn.wi.us/land-use/historic-documents/

ARTICLES OF INTEREST FROM VARIED SOURCES • Comparative phylogeography of the wild-rice genus Zizania (Poaceae) in eastern Asia and North America; American Journal of Botany 102:239-247. http://www.amjbot.org/content/102/2/239.abstract

204 Wetland Science & Practice July 2020

LINKS TO WETLAND-RELATED JOURNALS AND NEWSLETTERS JOURNALS • Aquatic Botany http://www.journals.elsevier.com/aquaticbotany/ • Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/%28IS SN%291099-0755 • Aquatic Sciences http://www.springer.com/life+sciences/ ecology/journal/27 • Ecological Engineering http://www.journals.elsevier.com/ ecological-engineering/ • Estuaries and Coasts http://www.springer.com/environment/journal/12237 • Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science http://www.journals. elsevier.com/estuarine-coastal-and-shelf-science/ • Hydrobiologia http://link.springer.com/journal/10750 • Hydrological Sciences Journal http://www.tandfonline. com/toc/thsj20/current • Journal of Hydrology http://www.journals.elsevier.com/ journal-of-hydrology/ • Wetlands http://link.springer.com/journal/13157 • Wetlands Ecology and Management https://link.springer. com/journal/11273

NEWSLETTERS Two of the following newsletters have been terminated yet maintain archives of past issues. The only active newsletter is “Wetland News Digest” from the Association of State Wetland Managers.

• Biological Conservation Newsletter contained some articles that addressed wetland issues; the final newsletter was the January 2017 issue; all issues now accessed through the “Archives”) http://botany.si.edu/pubs/bcn/issue/latest.htm#biblio • For news about conservation research from the Smithsonian Institution, please visit these websites: -Smithsonian Newsdesk http://newsdesk.si.edu/ -Smithsonian Insider http://insider.si.edu/ -The Plant Press http://nmnh.typepad.com/the_plant_press/ -SCBI Conservation News http://nationalzoo.si.edu/conservation -STRI News http://www.stri.si.edu/english/about_stri/headline_news/news • Wetland News Digest (Association of State Wetland Managers) http://aswm.org/news/wetland-breaking-news • National Wetlands Newsletter (Environmental Law Institute) – access to archived issues as the newsletter was suspended in mid-2016 due to the changing climate for printed publications. https://www.wetlandsnewsletter.org/

WETLANDS JOURNAL

What’s New in the SWS Journal - Wetlands?

The following articles appear in Volume 40, Issue 1 of Wetlands, Journal of the Society of Wetland Scientists.

• Silviculture and Forested Wetlands of the Southeast United States: an Introduction to the Special Feature • Coastal Watershed Forested Wetland Change and Opportunities for Enhanced Collaboration with the Forestry Community • Silviculture in Forested Wetlands: Summary of Current Forest Operations, Potential Effects, and Long-Term Experiments • Evolving Silvicultural Practices to Meet Sustainability Objectives in Forested Wetlands of the Southeastern United States • Effects of Drainage for Silviculture on Wetland Hydrology • Long-Term Water Table Dynamics of Forested Wetlands: Drivers and their Effects on Wetland Hydrology in The Southeastern Atlantic Coastal Plain • Growth Rates of Atlantic White Cedar Depend on Hydrologic Regimes at Two Time Scales • Adaptive Restoration Reveals Potential Effect of Tidal Elevation on Oyster Restoration Outcomes • Investigating the Critical Role of a Wetland in Spatial and Temporal Reduction of Environmental Contaminants: a Case Study from Iowa, USA • Trends in Studies of Nonnative Populations: Invasions in the Upper Paraná River Floodplain • The Role of Environmental Variables on Distribution of Potamogetonaceae Species • Do Aquatic Macrophytes Limit the Invasion Potential of Exotic Species in Pantanal Grasslands?

• Do Predators Structure Wetland Macroinvertebrate Assemblages? Different Effects of Mudminnows and Dragonfly Nymphs in Field Experiments • The Effects of Winter Temperature and Land Use on Mangrove Avian Species Richness and Abundance on Leizhou Peninsula, China • Effect of Freezing–Thawing Cycle on Soil Active Organic Carbon Fractions and Enzyme Activities in the Wetland of Sanjiang Plain, Northeast China • Wetland Restoration Prioritization Using Artificial Neural Networks • Evaluating Nutrient Reduction, Grazing and Barley Straw as Measures Against Algal Growth • Correction to: Quantifying Topographic Characteristics of Wetlandscapes

Wetland Science & Practice July 2020 205

WETLANDS JOURNAL

What’s New in the SWS Journal - Wetlands?

The following articles appear in Volume 40, Issue 2 of Wetlands, Journal of the Society of Wetland Scientists.

• Long-Term Effects of Sulfide on Ammonia Oxidation and Nitrite Accumulation in a Seasonally Loaded Vertical Flow Constructed Wetland • Simulating Spatial Variation of Soil Carbon Content in the Yellow River Delta: Comparative Analysis of Two Artificial Neural Network Models • Drivers of Small-Scale Diptera Distribution in Aquatic-Terrestrial Transition Zones of Spring Fens • Inter-Observer Error in Wetland Vegetation Surveys • Arthropod Assemblages in a Montane Wetland Complex: Influences of Adjoining Lotic and Lentic Habitat and Temporal Variability • Improving Habitat Connectivity in a Typha-Dominated Wetland Shows Increased Larval Northern Pike Survival • Environmental Filtering Drives Plant Community Assembly Processes in the Riparian Marsh of Downstream Yellow River, China • Trait-Environment Relationship of Aquatic Vegetation in a Tropical Pond Complex System • Diet of the Mud-Flat Crab Helice tientsinensis in a Korean Salt Marsh • Effects of the Invasion of Honey Locust (Gleditsia triacanthos L.) on Macrophytes and Algae of Pampean Streams (Argentina) • Key Species Superpose the Effect of Species Richness and Species Interaction on Carbon Fluxes in a Restored Minerotrophic Peatland • Recent Gray Birch (Betula populifolia) Encroachment in Temperate Peatlands of Eastern North America • Method to Assess Climate Change Impacts on Hydrologic Boundaries of Individual Wetlands • Soil Organic Carbon Stocks across Hydrologic Schemes in Freshwater Wetlands of the Chi River Basin, Northeast Thailand • Incorporating Geomorphic Knowledge in the Management of Wetlands in Africa’s Drylands: a Rapid Assessment of the Kafue Wetland • Spatio-Temporal Patterns of Waterbird Assemblages in Cuba’s South Coast Wetlands: Conservation Implications • Fruit Set, Seed Viability and Germination of the European Native Spartina maritima in Southwest Iberian Peninsula • Quantifying Topographic Characteristics of Wetlandscapes

206 Wetland Science & Practice July 2020

FROM THE BOG

From the Bog – the Last HA HA! Doug Wilcox, Empire Innovation Professor of Wetland Science1

Doug Wilcox has recently retired from the university and thinks it is time to put away his drawing pencil and comic whit at least for drawing cartoons. Readers of Wetland Science & Practice have looked forward to his From the Bog cartoons for nearly three decades. I asked Doug to provide a perspective on looking back, along with 25 of his favorite cartoons (e.g., one for each year of his contributions) and that follows. I speak for all readers by saying that we have enjoyed your cartoons for many years and want to thank you for spending time to create these cartoons that have generated thousands of chuckles over the years and brightened our day when dealing with the challenges that wetlands face around the world. Thanks again and best wishes to you and yours. (Ralph Tiner, Editor, WSP)

HISTORY OF FROM THE BOG How did this insanity start? First of all, I was a big fan of Gary Larson’s The Far Side comics, which often contained tidbits of scientific insight. Then sometime more than 25 years ago, the idea for MY first comic came during a conversation with good friend Todd Thompson (Indiana Geological and Water Survey). I liked the idea so much that I drafted a comic and sent it to Beth Vairin, who was co-editor of the SWS Bulletin (now Wetland Science and Practice). As I did my Ph.D. research in ombrotrophic Pinhook Bog, I chose From the Bog as the title. “This is your house on the floodplain…” made it into print and is still my favorite of all time. It was followed by “Genetic engineering revolutionizes Carex taxonomy,” inspired while I was checking out groceries, and I kept drawing them.

I recall an SWS mid-year Board of Directors meeting in the early years. I was sitting next to Beth, who had just passed along a draft of the next Bulletin issue for folks to circulate and review. I commented to her that I would be willing to stop submitting From the Bog comics if she thought they were not of value. She said, “Are you kidding? Look at the people as they get the draft; the first thing they do is look for your comic.” So, I was convinced and kept on drawing them. In 2006, I began making posters of all the submissions to go in the silent auction at SWS meetings and updated them each year -- they get a lot of viewers. A couple times, there were bidding wars, and they have gone for as much as $75.

After having 102 submissions published over 25+ years and preparing to take my professional retirement, I decided 1

Contact: dwilcox@brockport.edu

that perhaps it was time to hang it up on comics, as well.

Good ideas don’t come easily. I have a list of more than two dozen potentials that came to mind over the years, but they never came to fruition because they were not good enough.

If I have any brilliant (demented) inspirations in the future, I may make some sporadic submissions. For now, however, Wetland Science and Practice editor Ralph Tiner is letting me go out with a reprint of my 25 favorites. Former editor Andy Cole did something similar in 2004 to allow newer SWS members to see FtB comics from the past. The same rationale holds today, so I picked out my favorites and below made notes on the inspirations that generated them (often like being struck by lightning). n 1. Floodplain – Todd Thompon

2. Carex taxonomy – grocery store checkout

Genetic engineering revolutionizes Carex taxonomy Wetland Science & Practice July 2020 207

3. Vinnie the physics major – thoughts I have whenever I see geese flying

6. Chinese buffet – opening a fortune cookie after lunch

Vinnie the physics major beats Ernie’s flock again.

4. Slip ‘n’thud – playing with my kids

7. Six-pack – doing research at Sleeping Bear Dunes where mute swans were a problem

Six-pack of mute swans

5. Paludification – my fascination with bog terminology

8. Phragmites stand – anyone who has done this understands

Fighting the war against paludification.

The Phragmites stand: sampling “where the sun don’t shine.”

208 Wetland Science & Practice July 2020

9. Radiocarbon dating probe – field work with pictured Steve Jackson and Bob Booth

12. Hip boot Olympics – I was a hurdler in high school and college

The new radiocarbon dating probe.

Hurdling at the Hip-Boot Olympics

10. Methanogenesis – teaching redox

13. Hurricane – stupid politicians during storms

11. USB port – conversation with Barbara Bedford and Kathy Ewel at an SWS meeting

14. Canus latrans – reading about the number one killer of songbirds

Available in “office” and “home” versions.

Canis latrans (coyote): a songbird’s best friend.

Wetland Science & Practice July 2020 209

15. Social issue – repeated observations of herons and egrets at Ottawa NWR

18. Baldcypress – my knee-replacement surgery

Baldcypress knee-replacement surgery

Social issue in wetlands.

16. Orphaned heron – observations of birds at Ottawa NWR

Orphaned heron raised by the tern family.

17. Cattail connoisseur – lots of experience identifying Typha

19. Diversions in Carex stricta – fieldwork with Ultimate Frisbee star Martha Carlson Mazur

Diversions not meant for a Carex stricta wetland

20. Schoenoplectus – frustration with changing taxonomy

A confusing time for Scirpus kids.

210 Wetland Science & Practice July 2020

21. Urtica dioica – too much experience with it

24. 10R 5/8 – shoutout to Mike Vepraskas during delineations in Wetland Ecology lab

Soil science in Autumn.

22. Mentum – what I see whenever Batman emblem is shown

25. Young forefathers – knowledge of history on Presidents Day

Mentum of the new midge genus

Young Forefathers 23. Zero-turn-canoe – riding past my canoe on a zeroturn-mower

Two side-mount trolling motors create the first Zero-Turn Canoe.

Wetland Science & Practice July 2020 211

WSP SUBMISSION GUIDELINES

About Wetland Science & Practice (WSP)

W

etland Science and Practice (WSP) is the SWS quarterly publication aimed at providing information on select SWS activities (technical committee summaries, chapter workshop overview/ abstracts, and SWS-funded student activities), brief summary articles on ongoing or recently completed wetland research, restoration, or management projects or on the general ecology and natural history of wetlands, and highlights of current events.

WSP also includes sections listing new publications and research at various institutions, and links to major wetland research facilities, federal agencies, wetland restoration/monitoring sites and wetland mapping sites. The publication also serves as an outlet for commentaries, perspectives and opinions on important developments in wetland science, theory, management and policy.

Both invited and unsolicited manuscripts are reviewed by the WSP editor for suitability for publication. Student papers are welcomed. Please see publication guidelines at the end of this issue.

Electronic access to Wetland Science and Practice is included in your SWS membership.

All issues published, except the the current issue, are available via the internet to the general public.

At the San Juan meeting, the SWS Board of Directors voted to approve release of past issues of WSP when a new issue is available to SWS members only. This means that a WSP issue will be available to the public four months after it has been read by SWS members (e.g., the June 2017 issue will be an open access issue in September 2017). Such availability will hopefully stimulate more interest in contributing to the journal. And, we are excited about this opportunity to promote the good work done by our members.

HOW YOU CAN HELP If you read something you like in WSP, or that you think someone else would find interesting, be sure to share. Share links to your Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and LinkedIn accounts.

Make sure that all your SWS colleagues are checking out our recent issues, and help spread the word about SWS to non-members!

Questions? Contact editor Ralph Tiner, PWS Emeritus (ralphtiner83@gmail.com). n 212 Wetland Science & Practice July 2020

WSP Manuscript – General Guidelines LENGTH: Approximately 5,000 words; can be longer if necessary.

STYLE: See existing articles from 2014 to more recent years available online at: http://www.sws.org/Publications/wsp-contents.html TEXT: Word document, 12 font, Times New Roman, single-spaced; keep tables and figures separate, although captions can be included in text. For reference citations in text use this format: (Smith 2016; Jones and Whithead 2014; Peterson et al. 2010).

FIGURES: Please include color images and photos of subject wetland(s) as WSP is a full-color e-publication.

Image size should be less than 1MB – 500KB may work best for this e-publication.

REFERENCE CITATION EXAMPLES: • Claus, S., S. Imgraben, K. Brennan, A. Carthey, B. Daly, R. Blakey, E. Turak, and N. Saintilan. 2011. Assessing the extent and condition of wetlands in NSW: Supporting report A – Conceptual framework, Monitoring, evaluation and reporting program, Technical report series, Office of Environment and Heritage, Sydney, Australia. OEH 2011/0727.

• Clements, F.E. 1916. Plant Succession: An Analysis of the Development of Vegetation. Carnegie Institution of Washington. Washington D.C. Publication 242.

• Clewell, A.F., C. Raymond, C.L. Coultas, W.M. Dennis, and J.P. Kelly. 2009. Spatially narrow wet prairies. Castanea 74: 146-159.

• Colburn, E.A. 2004. Vernal Pools: Natural History and Conservation. McDonald & Woodward Publishing Company, Blacksburg, VA. • Cole, C.A. and R.P. Brooks. 2000. Patterns of wetland hydrology in the Ridge and Valley Province, Pennsylvania, USA. Wetlands 20: 438-447.

• Cook, E.R., R. Seager, M.A. Cane, and D.W. Stahle. 2007.

North American drought: reconstructions, causes, and consequences. Earth-Science Reviews 81: 93-134.

• Cooper, D.J. and D.M. Merritt. 2012. Assessing the water needs of riparian and wetland vegetation in the western United States. U.S.D.A., Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ft. Collins, CO. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-282.

WEB TIP

Resources at your fingertips!

For your convenience, SWS has compiled a hefty list of wetland science websites, books, newsletters, government agencies, research centers and more, and saved them to sws.org.

Find them on the Related Links page sws.org.

&

Wetland Science Practice

WSP is the formal voice of the Society of Wetland Scientists. It is a quarterly publication focusing on the news of the SWS and providing important announcements for members and opportunities for wetland scientists, managers, and graduate students to publish brief summaries of their works and conservation initiatives. Topics for articles may include descriptions of threatened wetlands around the globe or the establishment of wetland conservation areas, and summary findings from research or restoration projects. All manuscripts should follow guidelines for authors listed above. All papers published in WSP will be reviewed by the editor for suitability and may be subject to peer review as necessary. Most articles will be published within 3 months of receipt. Letters to the editor are also encouraged, but must be relevant to broad wetland-related topics. All material should be sent electronically to the current editor of WSP. Complaints about SWS policy or personnel should be sent directly to the elected officers of SWS and will not be considered for publication in WSP. n

SOCIETY OF WETLAND SCIENTISTS 1818 Parmenter St., Ste 300, Middleton, WI 53562 (608) 310-7855 www.sws.org

Wetland Science & Practice July 2020 213