When I initially considered the destruction of salt marshes, I instinctively leaned towards advocating for restoration — returning a degraded habitat to a healthy condition similar to the way it was, prior to being disturbed by human development. The process would involve altering the elevation and hydrology of a marsh, planting desired species, removing invasive species, and, finally, hoping that other marsh organisms lost will begin to reappear on their own. Without further knowledge of restoration tactics, I felt this option would be the quickest way to protect and nurture marshes that had been heavily degraded, allowing for the re-introduction of vital natural systems previously abundant, such as nursery habitats for fish and crustaceans, and protection from coastal flooding and erosions. Yet, little did I know, restoration efforts have had mixed success.
Bill Sheehan’s quote — “Phragmites, it’s green most of the time, and it ain’t condos” — effectively showcases this complexity within choosing whether or not to restore salt marshes. While Phragmites is technically an invasive species — a tall reed that has taken over many low-salinity marshes on the East Coast — destroying the Phragmites by bulldozing, burning, or using a herbicide, to physically re-plant Spartina, may counterintuitively result in the continued loss of marshes. As Sheehan notes, the Phragmites hold a value of its own. Phragmites marshes are functioning, productive systems that provide a safe habitat for numerous species of fish, shrimp, crab, and birds, and contribute to the aquatic food web. Thus, before deciding to eradicate the invasive Phragmites, it is critical that we consider the benefits of having the plant naturally regulate itself in marshland, as well as the possible repercussions of our well-intentioned actions.
Other problems that have arisen are the time-consuming and costly details associated with successful restoration of indigenous vegetation. Specific salinity levels, nitrogen levels, elevation, and tidal flow are just a few key components in need of review before attempts at replanting can be made. Keeping all of this newfound information in mind, I now believe that when it comes to the question of restoring marshlands, the answer lies in research and compromise. WIth each marsh comes its own set of attributes and issues. It is thus vital for scientists to thoroughly research a marsh, outlining the predicted repercussions of all suggested restorative efforts. In certain cases, for example, replanting may not be beneficial to the marsh, and allowing it to flourish naturally without human interference may be the better solution.
I found it quite interesting that statistics have proven that, over time, a natural community returns after restoration. Inter-species relationships and food web connections are re-established, involving multiple dimensions of relations including competition, mutualism, and parasite-host relationships. Accounting for not only the aforementioned characteristics, but also the livelihood of all the marsh’s current organisms, researchers can then begin to assess whether or not certain restorative procedures should be enacted. While such findings do point to the success of restoration, a closer look reveals the success’ dependency on prior research and understanding of the marsh’s conditions, a combination of both restorative efforts and natural processes, time, and most importantly, heightened dialogue on the importance of protecting salt marshes and re-assessing our actions and the impacts they have on our natural environments.
