The role of organic amendments in wetland restorations

Freshwater wetland restoration and conservation are long-term natural climate solutions

Freshwater wetlands have a disproportionately large influence on the global carbon cycle, with the potential to serve as long-term carbon sinks. Many of the world's freshwater wetlands have been destroyed or degraded, thereby affecting carbon-sink capacity. Ecological restoration of degraded wetlands is thus becoming an increasingly sought-after natural climate solution. Yet the time required to revert a degraded wetland from a carbon source to sink remains largely unknown. Moreover, increased methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions might complicate the climate benefit that wetland restoration may represent. We conducted a global meta-analysis to evaluate the benefits of wetland restoration in terms of net ecosystem carbon and greenhouse gas balance. Most studies (76 %) investigated the benefits of wetland restoration in peatlands (bogs, fens, and peat swamps) in the northern hemisphere, whereas the effects of restoration in non-peat wetlands (freshwater marshes, non-peat swamps, and riparian wetlands) remain largely unexplored. Despite higher CH4 emissions, most restored (77 %) and all natural peatlands were net carbon sinks, whereas most degraded peatlands (69 %) were carbon sources. Conversely, CH4 emissions from non-peat wetlands were similar across degraded, restored, and natural non-peat wetlands. When considering the radiative forcings and atmospheric lifetimes of the different greenhouse gases, the average time for restored wetlands to have a net cooling effect on the climate after restoration is 525 years for peatlands and 141 years for non-peat wetlands. The radiative benefit of wetland restoration does, therefore, not meet the timeframe set by the Paris Agreement to limit global warming by 2100. The conservation and protection of natural freshwater wetlands should be prioritised over wetland restoration as those ecosystems already play a key role in climate change mitigation.

River Basin Simulations Reveal Wide-Ranging Wetland-Mediated Nitrate Reductions

River basin-scale wetland restoration and creation is a primary management option for mitigating nitrogen-based water quality challenges. However, the magnitude of nitrogen reduction that will result from adding wetlands across large river basins is uncertain, partly because the areal extent, location, and physical and functional characteristics of the wetlands are unknown. We simulated over 3600 wetland restoration scenarios across the ∼450,000 km2 Upper Mississippi River Basin (UMRB) depicting varied assumptions for wetland areal extent, physical and functional characteristics, and placement strategy. These simulations indicated that restoring wetlands will reduce local nitrate yields and nitrate loads at the UMRB outlet. However, the projected magnitude of nitrate reduction varied widely across disparate scenario assumptions─e.g., restoring 4500 km2 of wetlands (i.e., 1% of UMRB area) decreased mean annual nitrate loads at the UMRB outlet between 3 and 42%. Higher magnitude nitrate reductions correlated with best-case assumptions, particularly for characteristics controlling nitrate loading rates to the wetlands. These results show that simplified claims about basin-scale wetland-mediated water quality improvements discount the breadth of possible wetland impacts across disparate wetland physical and functional conditions and highlight a need for greater clarity regarding the likelihood of these conditions at river basin scales.

Wetland Construction, Restoration, and Integration: A Comparative Review

In response to the global loss and degradation of wetland ecosystems, extensive efforts have been made to reestablish wetland habitat and function in landscapes where they once existed. The reintroduction of wetland ecosystem services has largely occurred in two categories: constructed wetlands (CW) for wastewater treatment, and restored wetlands (RW) for the renewal or creation of multiple ecosystem services. This is the first review to compare the objectives, design, performance, and management of CW and RW, and to assess the status of efforts to combine CW and RW as Integrated Constructed Wetlands (ICW). These wetland systems are assessed for their ecological attributes and their relative contribution to ecosystem services. CW are designed to process a wide variety of wastewaters using surface, subsurface, or hybrid treatment systems. Designed and maintained within narrow hydrologic parameters, CW can be highly effective at contaminant transformation, remediation, and sequestration. The ecosystem services provided by CW are limited by their status as high-stress, successionally arrested systems with low landscape connectivity and an effective lifespan. RW are typically situated and designed for a greater degree of connection with regional ecosystems. After construction, revegetation, and early successional management, RW are intended as self-maintaining ecosystems. This affords RW a broader range of ecosystem services than CW, though RW system performance can be highly variable and subject to invasive species and landscape-level stressors. Where the spatial and biogeochemical contexts are favorable, ICW present the opportunity to couple CW and RW functions, thereby enhancing the replacement of wetland services on the landscape.