Freshwater Biodiversity Toolbox

Wetland Restoration

Wetlands provide essential functions and services to the significant biodiversity inhabiting them as well as people around the world. Degradation of wetlands can take place in different forms, including, but not limited to, filling of wetland, changes in surface flow, and intake of pollution runoff. Restorative actions are reactionary conservation actions that work to help the wetlands recover from degradation. Conservation actions must work to not only restore the ecosystem, but also tackle the root causes of wetland degradation. Although a wetland may never return to its original state, restoration interventions can be executed in order for the wetland to successfully perform many of its ecosystem functions and processes once more. Physical, chemical, and biological restoration, or any combination of the three methods, can be used in order to recover biodiversity and wetland ecosystems.

Rating:
CEESAT scoring was mixed for this intervention; the majority of syntheses scored poorly across all criteria but 4 provided detailed eligibility criteria. Meli et al. (2014) scored Green across multiple categories for performing a meta-analysis and including the methodology for data extraction and the resulting data. Most syntheses scored well in RASCAT criteria; lower scoring elements for most syntheses included reviewing species not endemic to Canada and not demonstrating consideration of implications, practical advice, or recommendations for decision-makers. Photo credit: Desert LCC

Smith, R.K., & Sutherland, W.J. (2014)

Amphibian conservation: Global evidence for the effects of interventions

Title: Amphibian conservation: Global evidence for the effects of interventions

Authors: Smith, R.K., & Sutherland, W.J.

Journal: NA

Year: 2014

DOI: NA

Species or groups: Wood frog, Boreal chorus frog, Tiger salamander, Spring peeper, Northern leopard frog, Green frog, American toad, Pacific treefrog, Cricket frog, Ornate narrow-mouthed frog, Spot-legged treefrog, Spotted salamander, Upland chorus frog, Western chorus frog

Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/879

Abstract: NA

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Meli, P., Rey Benayas, J.M., Balvanera, P., & Martinez Ramos, M. (2014)

Restoration enhances wetland biodiversity and ecosystem service supply, but results are context-dependent: A meta-analysis

Title: Restoration enhances wetland biodiversity and ecosystem service supply, but results are context-dependent: A meta-analysis

Authors: Meli, P., Rey Benayas, J.M., Balvanera, P., & Martinez Ramos, M.

Journal: PLoS ONE

Year: 2014

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/jourhttps://doi.org/l.pone.0093507

Species or groups: NA

Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/879

Abstract: Wetlands are valuable ecosystems because they harbour a huge biodiveristy and provide key services to societies. When natural or human factors degrade wetlands, ecological restoration is often carried out to recover biodiversity and ecosystem services (ES). Although such restorations are routinely performed, we lack systematic, evidence-based assessments of their effectiveness on the recovery of biodiversity and ES. Here we performed a meta-analysis of 70 experimental studies in order to assess the effectiveness of ecological restoration and identify what factors affect it. We compared selected ecosystem performance variables between degraded and restored wtlands and between restored and natural wetlands using response ratios and random-effects categorical modeling. We assessed how context factors such as ecosystem type, main agent of degradation, restoration action, experimental design, and restoration age influenced post-restoration biodiversity and ES. Biodiversity showed excellent recovery, though the precise recovery depended strongly on the type of organisms involved. Restorated wetlands showed 36% higher levels of provisioning, regulating and supporting ES than did degraded wetlands. In fact, wetlands showed levels of provisioning and cultural ES similar to those of natural wetlands; however, their levels of supporting and regulating ES were, respectively, 16% and 22% lower than in natural wetlands. Recovery of biodiversity and of ES were postively correlated, indicating a win-win restoration outcome. The extent to which restoration increased biodiversity and ES in degraded wetlands depended primarily on the main agent of degradation, restoration action, experimental design, and ecosystem type. In contrast, the choice of specific restoration actions alone explained most differences between restored and natural wetlands. These results highlight the importance of comprehensive, multi-factorial assessment to determine the ecological status of degraded, restored and natural wetlands and thereby evaluate the effectiveness of ecological restorations. Future research on wetland restoration should also seek to identify which restoration actions work best for specific habitats.

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Moreno-Mateos, D., & Comin, F.A. (2010)

Integrating objectives and scales for planning and implementing wetland restoration and creation in agricultural landscapes

Title: Integrating objectives and scales for planning and implementing wetland restoration and creation in agricultural landscapes

Authors: Moreno-Mateos, D., & Comin, F.A.

Journal: Journal of Environmental Management

Year: 2010

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.06.002

Species or groups: European bitterns, Red-crowned cranes, Clapper rail, benthic macroinvertebrates

Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2036

Abstract: Traditionally, wetland management strategies have focused on single familiar objectives, such as improving water quality, strengthening biodiversity, and providing flood control. Despite the relevant amount of studies focused on wetland creation or restoration with these and other objectives, still little is known on how to integrate objectives of wetland creation or restoration at different landscape scales.We have reviewed the literature to this aim, and based on the existing current knowledge, we propose a four step approach to take decisions in wetland creation or restoration planning. First, based on local needs and limitations we should elucidate what the wetland is needed for. Second, the scale at which wetland should be created or restored must be defined. Third, conflicts and compatibilities between creation or restoration objectives must then be carefully studied. Fourth, a creation or restoration strategy must be defined. The strategy can be either creating different unipurpose wetlands or multipurpose wetlands, or combinations of them at different landscape scales. In any case, in unipurpose wetland projects we recommend to pursue additional secondary objectives. Following these guidelines, restored and created wetlands would have more ecological functions, similar to natural wetlands, especially if spatial distribution in the landscape is considered. Restored and created wetlands could then provide an array of integrated environmental services adapted to local ecological and social needs.

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Golden, H.E., Creed, I.F., Ali, G., Basu, N.B., Neff, B.P., Rains, M.C., McLaughlin, D.L., Alexander, L.C., Ameli, A.A., Christensen, J.R., Evenson, G.R., Jones, C.N., Lane, C.R., & Lang, M. (2017)

Integrating geographically isolated wetlands into land management decisions

Title: Integrating geographically isolated wetlands into land management decisions

Authors: Golden, H.E., Creed, I.F., Ali, G., Basu, N.B., Neff, B.P., Rains, M.C., McLaughlin, D.L., Alexander, L.C., Ameli, A.A., Christensen, J.R., Evenson, G.R., Jones, C.N., Lane, C.R., & Lang, M.

Journal: Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment

Year: 2017

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1504

Species or groups: NA

Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/879

Abstract: Wetlands across the globe provide extensive ecosystem services. However, many wetlands – especially those surrounded by uplands, often referred to as geographically isolated wetlands (GIWs) – remain poorly protected. Protection and restoration of wetlands frequently requires information on their hydrologic connectivity to other surface waters, and their cumulative watershed-scale effects. The integration of measurements and models can supply this information. However, the types of measurements and models that should be integrated are dependent on management questions and information compatibility. We summarize the importance of GIWs in watersheds and discuss what wetland connectivity means in both science and management contexts. We then describe the latest tools available to quantify GIW connectivity and explore crucial next steps to enhancing and integrating such tools. These advancements will ensure that appropriate tools are used in GIW decision making and maintaining the important ecosystem services that these wetlands support.

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

De Steven, D., & Lowrance, R. (2011)

Agricultural conservation practices and wetland ecosystem services in the wetland-rich Piedmont-Coastal Plain region

Title: Agricultural conservation practices and wetland ecosystem services in the wetland-rich Piedmont-Coastal Plain region

Authors: De Steven, D., & Lowrance, R.

Journal: Ecological Applications

Year: 2011

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1890/09-0231.1

Species or groups: NA

Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/879

Abstract: In the eastern U.S. Coastal Plain and Piedmont region, diverse inland wetlands (riverine, depressional, wet flats) have been impacted by or converted to agriculture. Farm Bill conservation practices that restore or enhance wetlands can return their ecological functions and services to the agricultural landscape. We review the extent of regional knowledge regarding the effectiveness of these conservation practices. Riparian buffers and wetland habitat management have been the most commonly applied wetland-related practices across the region. Riparian Forest Buffers (RFB) have been most studied as a practice. Water quality functions including pollutant removal, provision of aquatic habitat, and enhanced instream chemical processing have been documented from either installed RFBs or natural riparian forests; forest buffers also serve wildlife habitat functions that depend in part on buffer width and connectivity. Wetland restoration/creation and habitat management practices have been less studied on regional agricultural lands; however, research on mitigation wetlands suggests that functional hydrology, vegetation, and faunal communities can be restored in depressional wetlands, and the wetland habitat management practices represent techniques adapted from those used successfully on wildlife refuges. Other conservation practices can also support wetland services. Drainage management on converted wetland flats restores some water storage functions, and viable wetlands can persist within grazed flats if livestock access and grazing are managed appropriately. Because wetland hydrogeomorphic type influences functions, ecosystem services from conservation wetlands will depend on the specifics of how practices are implemented. In a region of diverse wetlands, evaluation of ecological benefits could be improved with more information on the wetland types restored, created, and managed.

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Flávio, H.M., Ferreira, P., Formigo, N., & Svendsen, J.C. (2017)

Reconciling agriculture and stream restoration in Europe: A review relating to the EU Water Framework Directive

Title: Reconciling agriculture and stream restoration in Europe: A review relating to the EU Water Framework Directive

Authors: Flávio, H.M., Ferreira, P., Formigo, N., & Svendsen, J.C.

Journal: Science of the Total Environment

Year: 2017

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.04.057

Species or groups: Macroinvertebrates, riparian and aquatic plants, birds, amphibians, fish

Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/879

Abstract: Agriculture is widespread across the EU and has caused considerable impacts on freshwater ecosystems. To revert the degradation caused to streams and rivers, research and restoration efforts have been developed to recover ecosystem functions and services, with the European Water Framework Directive (WFD) playing a significant role in strengthening the progress. Analysing recent peer-reviewed European literature (2009–2016), this review explores 1) the conflicts and difficulties faced when restoring agriculturally impacted streams, 2) the aspects relevant to effectively reconcile agricultural land uses and healthy riverine ecosystems and 3) the effects and potential shortcomings of the first WFD management cycle. Our analysis reveals significant progress in restoration efforts, but it also demonstrates an urgent need for a higher number and detail of restoration projects reported in the peer-reviewed literature. The first WFD cycle ended in 2015 without reaching the goal of good ecological status in many European waterbodies. Addressing limitations reported in recent papers, including difficulties in stakeholder integration and importance of small headwater streams, is crucial. Analysing recent developments on stakeholder engagement through structured participatory processes will likely reduce perception discrepancies and increase stakeholder interest during the next WFD planning cycle. Despite an overall dominance of nutrient-related research, studies are spreading across many important topics (e.g. stakeholder management, land use conflicts, climate change effects), which may play an important role in guiding future policy. Our recommendations are important for the second WFD cycle because they 1) help secure the development and dissemination of science-based restoration strategies and 2) provide guidance for future research needs.

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Langton, T., & Burton, J.A. (1997)

Amphibians and reptiles: Conservation management of species and habitats

Title: Amphibians and reptiles: Conservation management of species and habitats

Authors: Langton, T., & Burton, J.A.

Journal: NA

Year: 1997

DOI: NA

Species or groups: Fire-bellied toad, Tree frog

Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/879

Abstract: NA

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Beebee, T.J.C. (1996)

Ecology and conservation of amphibians

Title: Ecology and conservation of amphibians

Authors: Beebee, T.J.C.

Journal: NA

Year: 1996

DOI: NA

Species or groups: Northern crested newt, Common toad, Natterjack toad, European tree frog

Other sources of evidence: https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/879; https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/868; https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/863

Freshwater Biodiversity Toolbox

Wetland Restoration

Smith, R.K., & Sutherland, W.J. (2014)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Meli, P., Rey Benayas, J.M., Balvanera, P., & Martinez Ramos, M. (2014)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Moreno-Mateos, D., & Comin, F.A. (2010)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Golden, H.E., Creed, I.F., Ali, G., Basu, N.B., Neff, B.P., Rains, M.C., McLaughlin, D.L., Alexander, L.C., Ameli, A.A., Christensen, J.R., Evenson, G.R., Jones, C.N., Lane, C.R., & Lang, M. (2017)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

De Steven, D., & Lowrance, R. (2011)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Flávio, H.M., Ferreira, P., Formigo, N., & Svendsen, J.C. (2017)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Langton, T., & Burton, J.A. (1997)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Beebee, T.J.C. (1996)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Other Interventions

Find other Interventions

Fencing of Farm Animals

Agricultural Run-off Control

Bycatch Reduction – Fish

Bycatch Reduction – Turtles

Find other Interventions

Article

Freshwater Biodiversity Toolbox

Wetland Restoration

Smith, R.K., & Sutherland, W.J. (2014)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Meli, P., Rey Benayas, J.M., Balvanera, P., & Martinez Ramos, M. (2014)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Moreno-Mateos, D., & Comin, F.A. (2010)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Golden, H.E., Creed, I.F., Ali, G., Basu, N.B., Neff, B.P., Rains, M.C., McLaughlin, D.L., Alexander, L.C., Ameli, A.A., Christensen, J.R., Evenson, G.R., Jones, C.N., Lane, C.R., & Lang, M. (2017)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

De Steven, D., & Lowrance, R. (2011)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Flávio, H.M., Ferreira, P., Formigo, N., & Svendsen, J.C. (2017)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Langton, T., & Burton, J.A. (1997)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Beebee, T.J.C. (1996)

Assessment of reliability and robustness (CEESAT)

Assessment of relevance to Canada (RASCAT)

Other Interventions

Find other Interventions

Fencing of Farm Animals

Agricultural Run-off Control

Bycatch Reduction – Fish

Bycatch Reduction – Turtles

Find other Interventions