Tradeoffs and synergies in wetland multifunctionality: A scaling issue.

Wetland area in agricultural landscapes has been heavily reduced to gain land for crop production, but in recent years there is increased societal recognition of the negative consequences from wetland loss on nutrient retention, biodiversity and a range of other benefits to humans. The current trend is therefore to re-establish wetlands, often with an aim to achieve the simultaneous delivery of multiple ecosystem services, i.e., multifunctionality. Here we review the literature on key objectives used to motivate wetland re-establishment in temperate agricultural landscapes (provision of flow regulation, nutrient retention, climate mitigation, biodiversity conservation and cultural ecosystem services), and their relationships to environmental properties, in order to identify potential for tradeoffs and synergies concerning the development of multifunctional wetlands. Through this process, we find that there is a need for a change in scale from a focus on single wetlands to wetlandscapes (multiple neighboring wetlands including their catchments and surrounding landscape features) if multiple societal and environmental goals are to be achieved. Finally, we discuss the key factors to be considered when planning for re-establishment of wetlands that can support achievement of a wide range of objectives at the landscape scale.

Cost effectiveness of nutrient retention in constructed wetlands at a landscape level.

Since 1990, over 13 000 ha of constructed wetlands (CWs) have been implemented to increase biodiversity and reduce nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) loads to Swedish waters. Despite the considerable number of CWs and ambitious investments planned for the coming three years, there is limited follow up of cost-efficiency of catchment- and landscape-scale nutrient retention by existing CWs. Such follow up evaluation could provide clear guidance regarding optimal size and location of future CWs. We present a three-step modelling approach to assess cost-efficiency of 233 CWs in two Swedish regions (East, 4321 km2, and West, 916 km2). Modelled nutrient retention in CWs was predominantly low, especially in the East, due to their suboptimal location in catchments, e.g., with inadequate upstream areas (low hydraulic loads) and/or low share of arable land (low nutrient loads). Suboptimal location of CWs generates both higher than necessary costs and low area-specific nutrient retention, leading to low cost-efficiency. Some high cost-efficiency CWs were identified, especially for N retention in the West. To increase their cost-efficiency, continued investments in CWs require clear guidance and instructions. To achieve optimal placement, both CW site and size in relation to incoming hydraulic and nutrient loads must be considered.