Data from: Wetland restoration: Predicting vegetation trajectories over 25 years
Data files
Jun 30, 2025 version files 194.65 KB
-
DATA_SYNTHESIS.csv
43.72 KB
-
HYDROLOGY_2001.csv
10.78 KB
-
PLANT_SPECIES_LIST.csv
101.07 KB
-
README.md
3.75 KB
-
VEGETATION_2003.csv
11.63 KB
-
VEGETATION_2013.csv
12.83 KB
-
VEGETATION_2023.csv
10.87 KB
Jun 30, 2025 version files 194.74 KB
-
DATA_SYNTHESIS.csv
43.72 KB
-
HYDROLOGY_2001.csv
10.78 KB
-
PLANT_SPECIES_LIST.csv
101.07 KB
-
README.md
3.85 KB
-
VEGETATION_2003.csv
11.63 KB
-
VEGETATION_2013.csv
12.83 KB
-
VEGETATION_2023.csv
10.87 KB
Abstract
Worldwide wetland loss has made the conservation of these ecosystems a policy priority and led to the multiplication of restoration programs. However, the lack of long-term monitoring limits our understanding of the processes influencing the vegetation composition of restored wetlands and our ability to predict outcomes over multiple decades. Here, we assessed the extent to which hydrological regime and planting density of target species, two critical factors driving wetland vegetation and restoration success, can predict restoration outcomes.
Using correlation analyses and generalized models, we assessed the role of target species planting density and analogous hydrological conditions (e.g. level, variation, seasonality) to reference wetlands for achieving and predicting restored vegetation similarity to reference plant communities in 12 sedge and/or willow dominated wetlands in Mountain Village, Colorado over 25 years post-restoration.
We found a significant positive correlation between hydrological similarity and vegetation similarity, peaking at 15 years post-restoration (rho = 0.61). Similarly, planting density was positively correlated with vegetation similarity, peaking 5 years after restoration (rho = 0.75). For both variables, communities with the shallowest water table exhibited the strongest correlations.
The similarity of restored vegetation to the reference community can be predicted using hydrological similarity and planting density. The models that combined these two variables outperformed single-variable models. However, the model accuracy decreased 25 years after restoration, making predictions over two decades inaccurate for most communities.
Synthesis and applications: Hydrological similarity to a reference, combined with appropriate planting densities, reliably predicts restored wetland vegetation convergence towards reference communities over two-decades. Such models could provide managers with tools to assess failure risks across potential restoration sites, allowing them to select the most suitable locations and tailor planting efforts to maximize wetland restoration success.
Wetland restoration: Predicting vegetation trajectories over 25 years
Dataset DOI: 10.5061/dryad.sj3tx96gn
Associated article: JAPPL-2024-01003.R2 (in press)
Description of the data and file structure
This dataset was collected to assess the long-term effects of hydrological restoration on wetland plant community trajectories over a 25-year period. It includes both raw and derived data from a monitoring program conducted near Telluride, Colorado (USA). The dataset supports the analyses presented in the article Wetland restoration: Predicting vegetation trajectories over 25 years.
Content
The dataset includes:
- Vegetation data from permanent plots surveyed in 2003, 2013, and 2023, recording species presence and cover.
- Groundwater table depth measurements taken weekly during the 2000 growing season.
- A synthesis table aggregating derived indicators (e.g. Vegetation similarity, hydrological similarity, ...)
Files and variables
File: DATA_SYNTHESIS.csv
Final synthesis including hydrological and vegetation similarity metrics for selected plots.
Variables:
PLOT: Unique identifier for each restoration plotREFERENCE: Reference plant community used for comparisonTARGET: Target community aimed for restorationX: X coordinate of the plot (WGS84)Y: Y coordinate of the plot (WGS84)VEG_SIM: Vegetation similarity to the selected referenceHYDRO_SIM: Hydrological similarity to the selected referencePLANT_DENS: Average planting density (m²) of target species within the plotMONIT_YEAR: Year of vegetation monitoringMEAN_WATER_TABLE: Mean water table depth (cm), May–August 2000VAR_WATER_TABLE: Mean variation in water table depth (cm), May–August 2000
File: HYDROLOGY_2001.csv
Weekly groundwater level measurements during the 2000 growing season.
Variables:
PLOT_ID: Unique identifier for each restoration or reference plotHOW_ID: Identifier for each monitoring wellTYPE: Plot type — Reference (REF) or Restoration (REST)TARGET: Target community aimed for restorationDate(e.g.30/04/2000): Water table depth (cm) on each date
File: VEGETATION_2003.csv
Raw vegetation survey data from 2003 (restored and reference plots).
File: VEGETATION_2013.csv
Raw vegetation survey data from 2013 (restored and reference plots).
File: VEGETATION_2023.csv
Raw vegetation survey data from 2023 (restored and reference plots).
Variables (shared across all vegetation files):
PLOT_ID: Unique identifier for each plotHOW_ID: Identifier for each monitoring wellTYPE: Plot type — Reference (REF) or Restoration (REST)TARGET: Target community aimed for restoration[Species codes](e.g.Achi_mill): Percentage cover of each species (The file 'PLANT_SPECIES_LIST.csv' provide the translation of each abbreviation)
Date(e.g.30/04/2000): Water table depth (cm) on each date
File: PLANT_SPECIES_LIST.csv
Correspondance between scientific name of the plant species and abbreviations used in the dataset.
Variables :
Abbrevation: Shortened scientific names of species identified within the study areaScientific name: Full scientific names of species identified within the study area
Code/software
All data are provided in .csv format, compatible with standard software such as R, Python, Excel, and LibreOffice.
The R packages and methods used for data analysis and visualization are described in the associated manuscript : https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.70106
The analytical code used to process and analyze the data is proprietary to Biotope and INRAE and is not publicly available.
