IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0093507.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Restoration Enhances Wetland Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service Supply, but Results Are Context-Dependent: A Meta-Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Paula Meli
  • José María Rey Benayas
  • Patricia Balvanera
  • Miguel Martínez Ramos

Abstract

Wetlands are valuable ecosystems because they harbor a huge biodiversity 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 wetlands 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. Restored 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 positively 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 actions, 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.

Suggested Citation

  • Paula Meli & José María Rey Benayas & Patricia Balvanera & Miguel Martínez Ramos, 2014. "Restoration Enhances Wetland Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service Supply, but Results Are Context-Dependent: A Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(4), pages 1-9, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0093507
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0093507
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0093507
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0093507&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0093507?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Moreno-Mateos & Mary E Power & Francisco A Comín & Roxana Yockteng, 2012. "Structural and Functional Loss in Restored Wetland Ecosystems," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(1), pages 1-8, January.
    2. David Moreno Mateos & Mary E Power & Francisco A Comín & Roxana Yockteng, 2012. "Structural and Functional Loss in Restored Wetland Ecosystems," Working Papers id:4755, eSocialSciences.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Affek, Andrzej Norbert & Kowalska, Anna, 2017. "Ecosystem potentials to provide services in the view of direct users," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 183-196.
    2. Kadykalo, Andrew N. & Findlay, C. Scott, 2016. "The flow regulation services of wetlands," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 91-103.
    3. Slaveya Petrova & Iliana Velcheva & Bogdan Nikolov & Nikola Angelov & Gergana Hristozova & Penka Zaprjanova & Ekaterina Valcheva & Irena Golubinova & Plamen Marinov-Serafimov & Petar Petrov & Veneta S, 2022. "Nature-Based Solutions for the Sustainable Management of Urban Soils and Quality of Life Improvements," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-22, April.
    4. Markus Eder & Helmut Habersack & Max Preiml & Francesca Perosa & Sabrina Scheuer & Marion Gelhaus & Bernd Cyffka & Timea Kiss & Boudewijn Leeuwen & Zalán Tobak & György Sipos & Nándor Csikos & Anna Sm, 2025. "Floodplains along the Danube River evaluated with the Floodplain Evaluation Matrix (FEM) determining their importance for flood protection, ecology, and socio-economics," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 121(1), pages 623-660, January.
    5. Douglas J. Spieles, 2022. "Wetland Construction, Restoration, and Integration: A Comparative Review," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-21, April.
    6. Paula Meli & Karen D Holl & José María Rey Benayas & Holly P Jones & Peter C Jones & Daniel Montoya & David Moreno Mateos, 2017. "A global review of past land use, climate, and active vs. passive restoration effects on forest recovery," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(2), pages 1-17, February.
    7. Xiufeng Cao & Zhaoshun Liu & Shujie Li & Zhenjun Gao, 2022. "Integrating the Ecological Security Pattern and the PLUS Model to Assess the Effects of Regional Ecological Restoration: A Case Study of Hefei City, Anhui Province," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-19, May.
    8. Alberto González-García & Ignacio Palomo & Anna Codemo & Mirco Rodeghiero & Titouan Dubo & Améline Vallet & Sandra Lavorel, 2025. "Co-benefits of nature-based solutions exceed the costs of implementation," Post-Print hal-04963043, HAL.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Edward B. Barbier, 2016. "The Protective Value of Estuarine and Coastal Ecosystem Services in a Wealth Accounting Framework," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 64(1), pages 37-58, May.
    2. Scemama, Pierre & Levrel, Harold, 2019. "Influence of the Organization of Actors in the Ecological Outcomes of Investment in Restoration of Biodiversity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 71-79.
    3. Jin Huang & Hao Yang & Wei He & Yu Li, 2022. "Ecological Service Value Tradeoffs: An Ecological Water Replenishment Model for the Jilin Momoge National Nature Reserve, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(6), pages 1-14, March.
    4. Yaxian Zhang & Jiangwen Fan & Suizi Wang, 2020. "Assessment of Ecological Carrying Capacity and Ecological Security in China’s Typical Eco-Engineering Areas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-17, May.
    5. Juan Carlos Carrasco Baquero & Verónica Lucía Caballero Serrano & Fernando Romero Cañizares & Daisy Carolina Carrasco López & David Alejandro León Gualán & Rufino Vieira Lanero & Fernando Cobo-Gradín, 2023. "Water Quality Determination Using Soil and Vegetation Communities in the Wetlands of the Andes of Ecuador," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-18, August.
    6. Paula Meli & Karen D Holl & José María Rey Benayas & Holly P Jones & Peter C Jones & Daniel Montoya & David Moreno Mateos, 2017. "A global review of past land use, climate, and active vs. passive restoration effects on forest recovery," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(2), pages 1-17, February.
    7. Aryal, Kishor & Ojha, Bhuwan Raj & Maraseni, Tek, 2021. "Perceived importance and economic valuation of ecosystem services in Ghodaghodi wetland of Nepal," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    8. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    9. Delanie M. Spangler & Anna Christina Tyler & Carmody K. McCalley, 2021. "Effects of Grazer Exclusion on Carbon Cycling in Created Freshwater Wetlands," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-18, July.
    10. Swades Pal & Satyajit Paul, 2021. "Stability consistency and trend mapping of seasonally inundated wetlands in Moribund deltaic part of India," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(9), pages 12925-12953, September.
    11. Juan Carlos Carrasco Baquero & Daisy Carolina Carrasco López & Jorge Daniel Córdova Lliquín & Adriana Catalina Guzmán Guaraca & David Alejandro León Gualán & Vicente Javier Parra León & Verónica Lucía, 2025. "Multitemporal Analysis Using Remote Sensing and GIS to Monitor Wetlands Changes and Degradation in the Central Andes of Ecuador (Period 1986–2022)," Resources, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-20, April.
    12. Jiaqi Han & Dongyan Wang & Shuwen Zhang, 2022. "Momoge Internationally Important Wetland: Ecosystem Integrity Remote Assessment and Spatial Pattern Optimization Study," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-21, August.
    13. Smrutisikha Mohanty & Prem Chandra Pandey & Manish Pandey & Prashant K. Srivastava & Chandra Shekhar Dwivedi, 2024. "Wetlands contribution and linkage to support SDGs, its indicators and targets‐ A critical review," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(5), pages 5348-5392, October.
    14. Reiss, Kelly Chinners & Hernandez, Erica & Brown, Mark T., 2014. "Application of the landscape development intensity (LDI) index in wetland mitigation banking," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 271(C), pages 83-89.
    15. Alex C Valach & Kuno Kasak & Kyle S Hemes & Tyler L Anthony & Iryna Dronova & Sophie Taddeo & Whendee L Silver & Daphne Szutu & Joseph Verfaillie & Dennis D Baldocchi, 2021. "Productive wetlands restored for carbon sequestration quickly become net CO 2 sinks with site-level factors driving uptake variability," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(3), pages 1-22, March.
    16. Jonas Nordström & Cecilia Hammarlund, 2021. "You Win Some, You Lose Some: Compensating the Loss of Green Space in Cities Considering Heterogeneous Population Characteristics," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-20, October.
    17. Jacob, Céline & Vaissiere, Anne-Charlotte & Bas, Adeline & Calvet, Coralie, 2016. "Investigating the inclusion of ecosystem services in biodiversity offsetting," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PA), pages 92-102.
    18. Van Dover, C.L. & Aronson, J. & Pendleton, L. & Smith, S. & Arnaud-Haond, S. & Moreno-Mateos, D. & Barbier, E. & Billett, D. & Bowers, K. & Danovaro, R. & Edwards, A. & Kellert, S. & Morato, T. & Poll, 2014. "Ecological restoration in the deep sea: Desiderata," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 98-106.
    19. Michael C. Hassett & Alan D. Steinman, 2022. "Wetland Restoration through Excavation: Sediment Removal Results in Dramatic Water Quality Improvement," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-17, September.
    20. Jenneke M. Visser & Scott M. Duke-Sylvester, 2017. "LaVegMod v2: Modeling Coastal Vegetation Dynamics in Response to Proposed Coastal Restoration and Protection Projects in Louisiana, USA," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-20, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0093507. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.