The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Are Small, Isolated Wetlands Expendable?
Abstract
What is most evident in the recent debate concerning new wetland regulations drafted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is that small, isolated wetlands will likely continue to be lost. The critical biological question is whether small wetlands are expendable, and the fundamental issue is the lack of biologically relevant data on the value of wetlands, especially so‐called “isolated” wetlands of small size. We used data from a geographic information system for natural‐depression wetlands on the southeastern Atlantic coastal plain (U.S.A.) to examine the frequency distribution of wetland sizes and their nearest‐wetland distances. Our results indicate that the majority of natural wetlands are small and that these small wetlands are rich in amphibian species and serve as an important source of juvenile recruits. Analyses simulating the loss of small wetlands indicate a large increase in the nearest‐wetland distance that could impede “rescue” effects at the metapopulation level. We argue that small wetlands are extremely valuable for maintaining biodiversity, that the loss of small wetlands will cause a direct reduction in the connectance among remaining species populations, and that both existing and recently proposed legislation are inadequate for maintaining the biodiversity of wetland flora and fauna. Small wetlands are not expendable if our goal is to maintain present levels of species biodiversity. At the very least, based on these data, regulations should protect wetlands as small as 0.2 ha until additional data are available to compare diversity directly across a range of wetland sizes. Furthermore, we strongly advocate that wetland legislation focus not only on size but also on local and regional wetland distribution in order to protect ecological connectance and the source‐sink dynamics of species populations. Son los Humedales Pequeños Prescindibles? Algo muy evidente en el reciente debate sobre las nuevas regulaciones de humedales elaboradas por el cuerpo de ingenieros de la armada de los Estados Unidos es que los humedales aislados pequeños seguramente se continuarán perdiendo. La pregunta biológica crítica es si los humedales pequeños son prescindibles y e asunto fundamental es la falta de datos biológicos relevantes sobre el valor de los humedales, especialmente los llamados humedales “aislados” de tamaño pequeño. Utilizamos datos de GIS para humedales de depresiones naturales en la planicie del sureste de la costa Atlántica (U.S.A.) para examinar la distribución de frecuencias de los tamaños de humedales y las distancias a los humedales mas cercanos. Nuestros resultados indican que la mayoría de los humedales naturales son pequeños y que estos humedales pequeños son ricos en especies de anfibios y sirven como una fuente importante de reclutas juveniles. Análisis simulando la pérdida de humedales pequeños indican un gran incremento en la distancia al humedal mas cercano lo cual impediría efectos de “rescate” a nivel de metapoblación. Argumentamos que los humedales pequeños son extremadamente valiosos para el mantenimiento de la biodiversidad, que la pérdida de humedales pequeños causará una reducción directa en la conexión entre poblaciones de especies remanentes y que tanto la legislación propuesta como la existente son inadecuadas para mantener la biodiversidad de la flora y fauna de los humedales. Si nuestra meta es mantener los niveles actuales de biodiversidad de especies, los humedales pequeños no son prescindibles. En base en estos datos, las regulaciones deberían por lo menos proteger humedales tan pequeños como 0.2 ha hasta que se tengan a la mano datos adicionales para comparar directamente la diversidad a lo largo de un rango de humedales de diferentes tamaños. Mas aún, abogamos fuertemente por que la regulación de los pantanos se enfoque no solo en el tamaño, sino también en la distribución local y regional de los humedales para poder proteger la conexión ecológica y las dinámicas fuente y sumidero de poblaciones de especies.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
A resistant-kernel model of connectivity for amphibians that breed in vernal pools
COMPTON, B. W., McGARIGAL, K., CUSHMAN, S. A., & GAMBLE, L. R. (2007) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00674.x · Cited by 283
Enhancing protection for vulnerable waters
Creed, I. F., Lane, C. R., Serran, J. N., Alexander, L. C., Basu, N. B., Calhoun, A. J. K., Christensen, J. R., Cohen, M. J., Craft, C., D'Amico, E., et al. (2017) · Nature Geoscience · doi:10.1038/ngeo3041 · Cited by 223
Predicting Hot Spots of Herpetofauna Road Mortality Along Highway Networks
LANGEN, T. A., OGDEN, K. M., & SCHWARTING, L. L. (2009) · The Journal of Wildlife Management · doi:10.2193/2008-017 · Cited by 117
An Assessment of the Multifunctionality of Integrated Buffer Zones in Northwestern Europe
Zak, D., Stutter, M., Jensen, H. S., Egemose, S., Carstensen, M. V., Audet, J., Strand, J. A., Feuerbach, P., Hoffmann, C. C., Christen, B., et al. (2019) · Journal of Environmental Quality · doi:10.2134/jeq2018.05.0216 · Cited by 48
Zaffaroni, M., Zamberletti, P., Creed, I. F., Accatino, F., De Michele, C., & DeVries, B. (2019) · JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association · doi:10.1111/1752-1688.12751 · Cited by 9
Metadata
- Authors
- Semlitsch, R. D., & Bodie, J. R.
- Venue
- Conservation Biology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1998-10-05
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1129-1133
- ISSN
- 0888-8892 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-1739
- OpenAlex
- W2154441499
- Cited by
- 598
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 16.96
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Are Small, Isolated Wetlands Expendable? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1998.98166.x
- The paper
- Semlitsch, R. D., & Bodie, J. R. (1998). Are Small, Isolated Wetlands Expendable? Conservation Biology. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1998.98166.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.