Indictors of wetland health improve following small-scale ecological restoration on private land.

Globally wetlands are imperilled and restoring these highly productive and biodiverse ecosystems is key to regaining their lost function and health. Much of the fertile, low-lying land that was historically wetland is now farmed, so privately-owned locations play critical roles in regaining space for wetlands. However, wetland restoration on private property is often small-scale and supported by minimal funding and expertise. Little is known about what these efforts achieve, and what contexts facilitate the greatest gains in wetland health. Using a paired plot design for 18 restored and 18 unrestored wetlands, we aimed to understand changes in wetland health following restoration on private property. We characterised plant and microbial communities and soil characteristics following wetland restoration and explored how environmental settings of restored wetlands related to the clustering of wetland health indicators. We found that all indicators of wetland health significantly increased following restoration except for the ratio of Gram negative to Gram positive bacteria. Restoration enhanced plant alpha and beta diversity, adding ~13 native plant species per plot. Soils in restored wetlands contained 20% more organic matter, and 25% more microbial biomass, which was driven by an increased abundance of fungi. Restoration reduced soil bulk density by 0.19 g-1 cm3 and Olsen Phosphorus by 23%. These effects on soil physical characteristics and microbial communities were strongest in the wettest locations. Restored wetlands clustered into three main groups based on indicators of wetland health. Hydrological flow explained the clustering of wetlands, with riverine wetlands exhibiting greater indicators of recovery than depressional wetlands, suggesting that hydrological flow may influence post-restoration recovery. Overall, this study shows that small-scale wetland restoration on private land improved wetland health, providing evidence that it can be an effective use of marginal agricultural land.

Recent trends of forest cover change and ecosystem services in eastern upland region of Bangladesh.

Forest cover changes have diverse outcomes for the livelihoods of rural people across the developing world. However, these outcomes are poorly characterized across varying landscapes. This study examined forest cover changes, associated drivers, and impacts on ecosystem services supporting livelihoods in three distinct areas (i.e. remote, intermediate and on-road) in the Chittagong Hill Tracts region of Bangladesh. The three zones had features of decreasing distance to major roads, decreasing levels of forest cover, and increasing levels of agricultural change. Data was collected from satellite images for 1989-2014, structured household interviews, and group discussions using Participatory Rural Appraisal approaches with local communities to integrate and contrast local people's perceptions of forest cover and ecosystem service change with commonly used methods for mapping forest dynamics. Satellite image analysis showed a net gain of forest areas from 1989 to 2003 followed by a net loss from 2003 to 2014. The gain was slightly higher in intermediate (1.68%) and on-road (1.33%) zones than in the remote (0.5%) zone. By contrast, almost 90% of households perceived severe forest loss and 75% of respondents observed concomitant declines in the availability of fuel wood, construction materials, wild foods, and fresh water. People also reported traveling further from the household to harvest forest products. The main drivers of forest loss identified included increased harvesting of timber and fuel wood over time in the intermediate and on-road zones, whereas swidden farming persisted as the major driver of change over time in the remote zone. The contrast between remotely-sensed forest gains and household-perceived forest loss shows community experiences may be a critical addition to satellite imagery analysis by revealing the livelihood outcomes linked to patterns of forest loss and gain. Community experiences may also evoke solutions by characterizing local drivers of forest change. Failing to disaggregate the impacts of forest loss and gains on ecosystems services over time may lead to uninformed management and further negative consequences for human well-being.