SeasonalWetlandsandGolf CoursesInnovative research demonstratesincreasing golf course biodiversit~

BY DAVID E. SCOTT,BRIAN S. METTS, andJ. WHITFIELD GIBBONS

Seasonal wetlands generally hold water for only part of the year.In the Southeast, these wetlands usually fill with rains in late autumnand early winter, and often remain filled through early summer.

The golf course landscape mayprovide an ideal opportunity tocombine golf course design

objectives with conservation goals suchas habitat protection and biodiversityenhancement. From a design standpoint,the incorporation of seasonal wetlands(areas that temporarily hold water) intoa course layout has the potential tomake a course more varied, aestheticallypleasing, and challenging. From a con-servation standpoint, numerous isolatedseasonal wetlands scattered across ahabitat mosaic of forested and openareas on a course may create a bio-diversity boon for amphibians andsome reptiles.

Seasonal wetlands represent idealhabitats for many species due to theabsence of predatory fish. In conjunc-

tion with permanent water hazards,seasonal wetlands of varied types createfeatures with a variety of water-holdingperiods across the landscape that will beused by a diverse array of species.

THEVALUE OFSEASONAL WETLANDSSeasonally flooded wetlands have anecological value that is disproportion-ately large relative to the space theyrequire and the time that water ispresent. In some coastal regions, theymaintain water quality by controllingthe seasonal movement and storage ofrainfall. Seasonal wetlands provideessential habitat for a rich diversity ofplant and aquatic invertebrate species.

Additionally, many species of semi-aquatic reptiles and amphibians use

small wetlands and surrounding uplandsas linked habitats, both portions ofwhich are vital to the organisms' sur-vival. These isolated, seasonal wetlands,also known as ephemeral wetlands, arean important refuge for wildlife species,particularly in agricultural landscapeswhere the wetlands are the last remain-ing unexploited habitat. If a goal ofconservation efforts is to maintain orrestore the ecological value of smallwetlands, then greater knowledge. ofseasonal wetlands and their contributionto regional biodiversity is critical.

HISTORIC WETLAND LOSSAND THE POSSIBILITIES FORGOLF COURSESWetland loss in the southeastern U.S.has been of concern for many years.

NOVEMBER-DECEMBER 2002 5

Research at Frostburg State University (Maryland) investigated the viability of constructing seasonal wetlands on the golf course.The work identified amphibian species that inhabited seasonal and permanent wetlands on the golf course.

From the 1950s to the 1970s the loss ofwetlands in the Southeast was greaterthan any other region of the country,with a net annual loss of386,000 acres(6). On the Coastal Plain of NorthCarolina, 51% of all wetland acreagehad been lost by 1980 (11).

In South Carolina, isolated freshwaterwetlands account for more than 22% ofthe total wetland acreage, yet alterationand destruction of these types of wet-lands also have been severe. A recentsurvey of the status of Carolina bays onthe Coastal Plain of South Carolinafound that approximately 97% havebeen altered or severely impacted, andfewer than 200 bays .of the originalthousands remain relativelyunimpacted.

Season~ wetlands are important froman ecological perspective because theyretain surface water for only a portion

6 GREEN SECTION RECORD

of a year. The length of time that a wet-land holds water, the hydroperiod, hasan overriding influence on the range ofspecies that can live and reproduce in ornear the wetland, especially with regardto amphibians and other semi-aquatictaxa.

Permanent lakes and ponds are atone end of a hydroperiod continuumbecause most water hazards on golfcourses can be categorized as permanent.Lakes and ponds are usually inhabitedby a few common non-native fishspecies (e.g., largemouth bass, bluegill),and, as a result, a limited number ofamphibian species except bullfrogs. Ingeneral, most amphibian species arepreyed upon heavily by fish and bull-frogs, and they do not fare well inpermanent waters. Most pond-breedingamphibian species actually requireseasonal wetlands for breeding and for

completing the larval stage of their lifecycles.

The historic availability of seasonalwetlands probably accounts, at leastin part, for the exceptionally highamphibian and reptile biodiversity ofthe southeastern U.S. Throughout theregion, seasonal wetlands are used bylarge numbers of amphibian species: 16species in a OAO-acre Florida pond (3),more than 20 species in each ofnumerous wetlands in South Carolina(14,17),19 species in each of twoTennessee ponds (13), and more than 15species of just frogs and toads in a singleTexas pond (22).

Thus; while increasingly recognizedas the most valuable wetland habitattype for maintaining amphibian diversityin the Southeast, seasonal wetlands con-tinue to disappear rapidly and remainunprotected by most wetlands regula-

tions. A concerted effort by golf coursesto preserve and even create new seasonalwetlands has the potential for greatconservation value.

THE GOALS OF OUR STUDYIn general, the goal of this research wasto examine how amphibians use thevariety of wetlands found on golfcourse landscapes, and compare them toamphibian use of off-course seasonalwetlands. This was accomplishedthrough a combination of sampling onfive courses and in ten off-course wet-lands, surveying the literature, andanalyzing prior data on seasonal wet-lands. Based on the results, recommen-dations were developed for enhancingbiodiversity on golf courses by increas-ing the distribution and abundance ofseasonal wetlands as part of a golfcourse landscape.

THE MAIN PLAYERS ... FROGS,TOADS, AND SALAMANDERSApproximately 40 species of amphibiansoccur in the Central Savannah RiverArea (CSRA), and many of them useseasonal wetlands for breeding andlarval development. Individual speciesvary in the times of year they breed.

Some species, particularly some sala-manders, breed in the autumn, followedby other species that breed in winter,spring, and summer. We sampled wet-lands on and off golf courses through-out the year to account for speciesdifferences in breeding chronology.Wetlands were sampled approximatelyevery two months. Each sample periodconsisted of four days/three nights oftrapping with small-meshed minnowtraps, supplemented by dip-netting,

hoop-net trapping, hand collecting, andvisual observations.

Sampling in off-course seasonal wet-lands began in April 1999. Golf coursewetland sampling at five courses wasadded in late summer of 1999. Wecompared the diversity and abundanceof amphibians in permanent aquatichabitats to those of seasonal wetlands,

both among courses and betweencourses, and the off-course wetlands.

Sampling confirmed a well-knowntrend in amphibian ecology - wet-lands that harbor fish populations aregenerally not suitable for a diversity ofamphibian species. In the permanentlakes and ponds on CSRA golf courseswe have found three primary amphibianspecies: bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), greenfrog (Rana clamitans), and southern toad(Bufo terrestris).Alllakes and ponds con-tain numerous predatory fish species,including species of sunfish (Lepomisspp.), largemouth bass (Micropterussalmoides), redfin pickerel (Esox ameri-canus), mosquitofish (Gambusia ciffinis),and lake chub (Couesius plumbeus).Additional amphibian species werefound in stream and marsh areas onsome courses, including the lesser siren(Siren intermedia), dwarf waterdog(Necturus punctatus), southern leopardfrog (Rana utricularia), and mud sala-mander (Pseudotriton montanus).

The seasonal wetlands sampled offgolf courses had greater numbers ofamphibian species than permanent golfcourse wetlands. Off-course seasonalwetlands generally had 2-3 additionalsalamander species and 2-5 additionalfrog and toad species. On the twocourses that have seasonal wetlands(Edgefield, S.C., and North Augusta,

S.C.), we found some of this region'spond-breeding species in our samplingof the on-course seasonal wetlands, butwe did not find these species in the on-course permanent lakes. Species at thepermanent golf course wetlands werethe expected species, i.e., those knownto be tolerant of fish and to inhabitlong hydroperiod wetlands, such asbullfrogs and southern toads. At the on-course seasonal wetlands we picked upseveral species generally associated withshorter hydroperiod wetlands and a lackof fish, including marbled salamanders,spotted salamanders, and narrowmouthtoads. At the comparison sites we foundmany species not captured on any golfcourse, including mole salamanders,ornate chorus frogs, spadefoot toads,and gopher frogs.

IMPLICATIONSOF THE RESULTSMost golf course water hazards had alower diversity of amphibians than

comparison seasonal wetlands (i.e.,similarly sized, natural wetlands withvariable hydroperiods). Consequently,we predict that incorporating moreseasonal wetlands into the golf coursedesign will increase the biodiversity ofamphibians and other semi-aquaticanimals. This idea cannot be tested untilseasonal wetland habitats are imple-mented in golf course designs and theamphibian populations are monitored.However, our extensive sampling ofseasonal wetlands indicates that if thewetland itself is intact, and if there issuitable adjacent terrestrial habitat, thenit is likely that amphibians and otherwetland species will thrive. Oneunknown, of course, is whether effectsfrom chemical use on golf courses willbe any different in a variable hydro-

NOVEMBER-DECEMBER 2002 7

Summary Points and Management Recommendations

• Seasonal wetlands enhance amphibian diversity on golf courses.

• Increased landscape diversity of wetlands equals higher diversity of amphibians.

• Education of the golf community on the value of seasonal wetlands is vital.

• Seasonal wetlands should be incorporated into golf courses, either inout-of-play areas or as course hazards.

• Some permanent wetlands can be converted successfully to seasonal wetlands.

• Upland habitats of amphibian species also must be conserved.

period habitat, as compared topermanent waters.

The creation of true seasonalwedands from scratch is largely anunknown art/science. Although there isabundant information on techniquesfor restoring previously degraded wet-lands, if the goal is to create a wedandwith a variable hydroperiod thatmimics a natural seasonal wedand, thenlitde research has been conducted.Given the need for and benefit of suchwedands on a golf course landscape,studies that determine the best methodsfor constructing these habitats areessential.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThis research was supported by the NationalFish and Wildlife Foundation and USGA Wild-life Links program, as well as the United StatesDepartment of Energy to the University ofGeorgia Research Foundation. We are especiallyindebted to the golf course superintendents andpersonnel who made the study possible at:Houndslake Country Club (S.C.), Cedar CreekGolf Club (S.c.), North Augusta River Club(S.c.),Jones Creek Country Club (Ga.), andPine Ridge Country Club (S.c.).

LITERATURE CITED1. Bennett, S. H., and J. B. Nelson. 1991.Distri-

bution and Status of Carolina Bays in SouthCarolina. Nongame and Heritage TrustPublications No.1. South Carolina Wildlifeand Marine Resources Department,Columbia, S.C. 88 pp.

2. Burke,V, andJ.W Gibbons. 1995.Terrestrialbuffer zones and wedand conservation: a casestudy of freshwater turdes in a Carolina Bay.Conservation Biology 9:1365-1369.

3. Dodd, C. K., and B. S. Cade. 1998. Move-ment patterns and the conservation of

8 GREEN SECTION RECORD

breeding amphibians in small, temporarywedands. Conservation Biology 12:331-339.

4. Gamradt, S. c., and 1.B. Kats. 1996. Effectof introduced crayfish and mosquito fish onCalifornia newts. Conservation Biology10:1155-1162.

5. Gosselink,J. G., and 1.C. Lee. 1989. Cumu-lative impact assessment in bottomland hard-wood forests. Vlttlands 9 (Special Issue):1-174.

6. Hefuer,J. M., andJ. n Brown. 1985.Wedandtrends in the southeastern United States.Vlttlands 4:1-11.

7. Heyer, W R., M. A. Donnelly, R. WMcDiarmid, 1.C. Hayek, and M. S. Foster(eds.). 1994."Measuring and MonitoringBiological Diversity: Standard Methods forAmphibians." Smithsonian Institution Press,364 pp.

8. Heyer,W R., R.W McDiarmid, and n 1.Weigmann. 1975.Tadpoles, predation andpond habitats in the tropics. Biotropica7:100-111.

9. Kirkman, 1.K., and R. R. Sharitz. 1994.Vegetation disturbance and maintenance ofdiversity in intermittendy flooded CarolinaBays in South Carolina. EcologicalApplications4:177-188.

10. Richardson, c.J. 1983. Pocosins:Vanishingwastelands or valuable wedands? Bioscience33:626-633.

11. Richardson, c.J. 1991.Pocosins:Anecological perspective. Vlttlands 11 (SpecialIssue): 335-354.

12. Schalles,J. F., R. R. Sharitz,J.W Gibbons, G.J. Leversee, andJ. N. Knox. 1989."CarolinaBays of the Savannah River Plant." Publica-tion SRO-NERP-18, Savannah River PlantNational Environmental Research ParkProgram. 70 pp.

13. Scott, A. F., and A. Bufalino. 1997.Dynamicsof the amphibian community at two smallponds in Land Between the Lakes over thepast decade.Page 117.In: Proceedings of theSeventh Symposium on the Natural History

of Lower Tennessee and Cumberland RiverValleys.A. F. Scott, S.W Hamilton, E.WChester, and n S.White (eds.).Austin PeatState University, Clarksville,Tennessee.

14. Semlitsch,R. n, n E. Scott,J.H.K. Pechrnann,andJ.W Gibbons. 1996. Structure anddynamics of an amphibian community:evidence from a 16-year study of a naturalpond. Pages 217-248. In: Long-Term Studiesof Vertebrate Communities. M. 1.CodyandJ. n Smallwood (eds.). Academic Press,New York.

15. Semlitsch, R. n 1988.Allotopic distributionof two salamanders: effects of fish predationand competitive interactions. Copeia1988:290-298.

16. Semlitsch, R. n 1998.Biological delineationof terrestrial buffer zones for pond-breedingsalamanders. Conservation Biology 12:1112-1119.

17. Semlitsch, R. n, andJ. R. Bodie. 1998.Are small, isolated wedands expendable?Conservation Biology 12:1129-1133.

18. Sharitz, R. R., and J.W Gibbons. 1982.The ecology of southeastern shrub bogs(pocosins) and Carolina Bays: a communityprofile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Division of Biological Services,Washington,nc. FWS/OBS-82/04. 93 pp.

19. Taylor, B. E., n 1.Mahoney, and R.A. Estes.1989. Zooplankton production in a CarolinaBay.Pages 425-435. In: Freshwater Wedandsand Wildlife. R. R. Sharitz andJ.W Gibbons(eds.).DOE Symposium Series No. 61.USDOE Office of Scientific and TechnicalInformation, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

20. Wagner,W, n Carr, K. Kellett, andJ. S.Chandler. 1991.A Citizens' Guide toProtecting Wedands in South Carolina.Southern Environmental Law Center,Charlottesville,Virginia. 129 pp.

21. Wellborn, G.A., p. K. Skelly,and E. E.Werner. 1996. Mechanisms creating com-munity structure across a freshwater habitatgradient. Annual Review oj Ecology &Systematics 27:337-363.

22. Wiest,J.A.,Jr. 1982.Anuran succession attemporary ponds in a post oak-savannaregion of Texas. Pages 39-47. In: Herpeto-logical Communities. N.J. Scott, Jr. (ed.).U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington,nc.

DAVID E. SCOTT, education specialist;BRIAN S. METTS, research technician; andJ.WHITFIELD GIBBONS, PH.D., professoroj ecology and head of the Savannah RiverEcology Lab Environmental Outreach forthe University oj Georgia.