Restored Wetlands Rarely Equal Condition of Original Wetlands

[Hobjob]

From

Restored wetlands rarely equal condition of original wetlands

"Once you degrade a wetland, it doesn't recover its normal assemblage of plants or its rich stores of organic soil carbon, which both affect natural cycles of water and nutrients, for many years," said David Moreno-Mateos, a University of California, Berkeley, postdoctoral fellow. "Even after 100 years, the restored wetland is still different from what was there before, and it may never recover."


Interesting and seems logical.

Though the created wetland parts of Lakenheath seem just fine!

[RoyW]

The problem is that we don't know enough about how ecosystems work to be able to always effectively restore or create them. Small details that perhaps seem unimportant can potentially have a major effect on the overall health of an ecosystem, and if they are all correct in a restoration/creation then the habitat may not reach it's theoretical potential.

Creation of new wetlands (and other habitats) is still better than nothing, but it would obviously be better if the original habitats weren't destroyed in the first place.

[Deb London]

Interesting. My first thought (rather depressingly) was that who's to say that in the 100 years or more that it may take for a body of water to get to anything like near its potential (even if it never gets there) that somebody won't have needed that land for development too? Based on the predicted rise in the UK population and number of households, and an organised cull of the human species not being on the cards (), I cannot see how any land anywhere can ever be protected in the long term.

[Brocakat]

Leighton Moss WAS, up to WW11 - an area of reclaimed peatland:- it was
reflooded ( simply by neglect rather than a deliberate act )during the war:- it's now a large waterbody of Rees & open water , attracting Bitterns & Bearded Tits, etc etc.

So it's ' only ' been going for 66-ish years !