Tradeoffs among ecosystem services in restored wetlands

Tradeoffs among ecosystem services in restored wetlands Land management decisions frequently involve choices that reflect tradeoffs among ecosystem services. These tradeoffs are not always apparent, and land managers unknowingly may make decisions that diminish the value of some services while enhancing the value of others. Offset policies, such as wetland mitigation in the United States, rely on the assumption that ecosystems can be restored to provide a full suite of services. Wetlands provide many ecosystem services such as water quality maintenance, carbon storage, flood abatement, and biodiversity support. Our objectives were to describe tradeoffs among ecosystem services in mitigation wetlands and identify abiotic and biotic drivers underlying these tradeoffs. We measured denitrification potential, organic matter decomposition, herbaceous biomass, and soil organic content as indicators of nutrient storage and removal services in 30 mitigation wetlands in Illinois, USA. Additionally, we estimated surface-water storage potential, and, since wetlands provide valuable biodiversity support, we determined the species composition of plant, anuran, and avian communities. We found a positive relationship among biodiversity indicators for different taxa. Denitrification potential and surface-water storage potential were positively correlated. However, there was a tradeoff between biodiversity support and nutrient cycling processes; soil organic matter, biomass, decomposition rates, and potential denitrification were greater at less biodiverse sites. Our findings indicate that optimizing restored wetlands for nutrient storage and removal may come at the expense of biodiversity. It is unrealistic to expect all services to be maximized at a restoration site. Therefore, restoration practitioners should prioritize services based on needs and opportunities given local and watershed contexts. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Biological Conservation Elsevier

Loading next page...
 
/lp/elsevier/tradeoffs-among-ecosystem-services-in-restored-wetlands-kDpEeEtqCd
Publisher
Elsevier
Copyright
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier B.V.
ISSN
0006-3207
D.O.I.
10.1016/j.biocon.2015.07.006
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Land management decisions frequently involve choices that reflect tradeoffs among ecosystem services. These tradeoffs are not always apparent, and land managers unknowingly may make decisions that diminish the value of some services while enhancing the value of others. Offset policies, such as wetland mitigation in the United States, rely on the assumption that ecosystems can be restored to provide a full suite of services. Wetlands provide many ecosystem services such as water quality maintenance, carbon storage, flood abatement, and biodiversity support. Our objectives were to describe tradeoffs among ecosystem services in mitigation wetlands and identify abiotic and biotic drivers underlying these tradeoffs. We measured denitrification potential, organic matter decomposition, herbaceous biomass, and soil organic content as indicators of nutrient storage and removal services in 30 mitigation wetlands in Illinois, USA. Additionally, we estimated surface-water storage potential, and, since wetlands provide valuable biodiversity support, we determined the species composition of plant, anuran, and avian communities. We found a positive relationship among biodiversity indicators for different taxa. Denitrification potential and surface-water storage potential were positively correlated. However, there was a tradeoff between biodiversity support and nutrient cycling processes; soil organic matter, biomass, decomposition rates, and potential denitrification were greater at less biodiverse sites. Our findings indicate that optimizing restored wetlands for nutrient storage and removal may come at the expense of biodiversity. It is unrealistic to expect all services to be maximized at a restoration site. Therefore, restoration practitioners should prioritize services based on needs and opportunities given local and watershed contexts.

Journal

Biological ConservationElsevier

Published: Nov 1, 2015

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 12 million articles from more than
10,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Unlimited reading

Read as many articles as you need. Full articles with original layout, charts and figures. Read online, from anywhere.

Stay up to date

Keep up with your field with Personalized Recommendations and Follow Journals to get automatic updates.

Organize your research

It’s easy to organize your research with our built-in tools.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve Freelancer

DeepDyve Pro

Price
FREE
$49/month

$360/year
Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed
Create lists to
organize your research
Export lists, citations
Read DeepDyve articles
Abstract access only
Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles
Print
20 pages/month
PDF Discount
20% off