Ecological Indicators 60 (2016) 442–452

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecological Indicators
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolind

Review

A review of methodologies and success indicators for coastal

wetland restoration
Qingqing Zhao a,1 , Junhong Bai a,∗,1 , Laibin Huang b , Binhe Gu b , Qiongqiong Lu a ,
Zhaoqin Gao a
a
State Key Laboratory of Water Environment Simulation, School of Environment, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, PR China
b
Soil and Water Science Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Coastal wetlands are considered to be amongst the most productive ecosystems and can provide invalu-
Received 10 October 2014 able ecological services. However, coastal wetlands are listed amongst the most threatened ecosystems
Received in revised form 9 June 2015 suffering from anthropogenic activities. The loss or degradation of coastal wetlands has drawn a high level
Accepted 2 July 2015
of attention to wetland restoration. Improvement of the structure and function of degraded, damaged
Available online 4 August 2015
and destroyed wetlands may be achieved through ecological restoration. Large numbers of restoration
projects have been conducted worldwide based on different restoration goals and different methods. It is
Keywords:
undoubtedly important to evaluate whether coastal wetland restoration is successful. However, coastal
Coastal wetlands
Ecological restoration
wetland restoration assessment has become challenging because of current disagreement on definitions
Success indicators and concepts of restoration evaluation. We reviewed the methodology of coastal wetland restoration
Success indicator system and criteria for success evaluation, and then summarized the issues for current wetland restoration
and success evaluation based on literature review. Moreover, we used an estuarine wetland affected by
urbanization as a sample to demonstrate how to establish a success indicator system for guiding wetland
restoration and evaluating the success of wetland restoration.
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 443
2. General mechanisms and techniques for coastal wetland restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 443
3. Methodologies of coastal wetland restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 444
3.1. Active restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 444
3.2. Passive restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 444
3.3. Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 444
4. Specific techniques for restoration of different coastal wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 444
5. What to do before starting a restoration project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 445
6. The success indicators of coastal wetland restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 445
7. Issues of coastal wetland restoration and success evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 447
8. How to establish a success indicator system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 447
9. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 449
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 449
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 449

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 010 58802029.

E-mail address: junhongbai@163.com (J. Bai).
1
These authors contributed equally to this work and should be considered co-first authors.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.07.003
1470-160X/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 Q. Zhao et al. / Ecological Indicators 60 (2016) 442–452
1. Introduction
Coastal wetlands are formed adjacent to the margins of con-
tinents by tidal forces, fresh water inputs, sediment transport and
biota (MEA, 2005; Wolanski, 2007; Barbier, 2013). Coastal wetlands
are considered to be amongst the most productive ecosystems and
can provide invaluable services such as storm buffering, protec-
tion from windstorm and shore erosion, fishery production, water
purification and biodiversity maintenance (Alongi, 2008; Costanza
et al., 2008; Newton et al., 2012; Barbier, 2013). However, coastal
wetlands are also severely threatened, and considered to be the
ecosystem most sensitive to global sea-level rise (Morris et al.,
2002; Wingard and Lorenz, 2014). Although the coastal zone only
cover 4% of the earth total land area, this narrow region provides
harbors for nearly one-third of the world’s human population,
and also provides critical habitat for organisms such as migratory
waterbirds (MEA, 2005; Alfaro and Clara, 2007; Fitzsimmons et al.,
2012). However, coastal wetlands have been suffering from serious
degradation, alteration or loss due to intense anthropogenic activi-
ties (i.e., wetland reclamation, pollution and drainage) (Lemly et al.,
2000; Newton et al., 2012; Cvetkovic and Chow-Fraser, 2011), and
thus, coastal wetlands are listed amongst the most heavily dam-
aged of natural ecosystems worldwide (Barbier et al., 2011). It is
estimated that approximately 50% of salt marshes, 35% of man-
groves and 29% of seagrasses have been lost or degraded due to
environmental stresses and human disturbances (Wolanski, 2007;
Valiela et al., 2009; Barbier et al., 2011). In China, 23% of freshwater
swamps, 16% of lakes, 15% of rivers and 51% of coastal wetlands
(in terms of the total area) have disappeared over the past 50
years, due to reclamation and urbanization (An et al., 2007). The
loss or degradation of coastal wetlands could lead to biological
invasions, poor water quality, decreased coastal protection from
hurricanes and storms, fishery losses and threats to the ecologi-
cal safety of coastal areas (Costanza et al., 2008; Koch et al., 2009;
Newton et al., 2012; Barbier, 2013). Moreover, the deterioration
of coastal wetlands causes loss in carbon storage, which could
accelerate regional climate change (DeLaune and White, 2012).
Therefore, there is an urgent need to develop and improve ecologi-
cal restoration methods to rehabilitate or restore degraded coastal
wetlands.
Since the 1960s, much more attention has been paid to nat-
ural ecosystem degradation, and great efforts have been made
to restore and recreate those damaged ecosystems (Daily, 1995;
the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2010).
Currently, the interest in ecological restoration is strengthened
as restoration can mitigate climate change and biodiversity loss
(Nilsson and Aradóttir, 2013). Starting in the 1990s, wetland
restoration and re-creation became a “hotspot” in the ecological
research fields (Thormann and Bayley, 1997; Visser et al., 1999;
Zedler and Kercher, 2005). The US government enforced the regu-
latory policy of ‘no net loss’ of wetlands, combined with a focus
on wetlands banking to ensure minimum impacts on wetlands.
The importance of this issue is exemplified by the fact that coastal
wetlands restoration is regarded as part of British Petroleum’s (BP)
obligation due to the regulations of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990
(Barbier, 2011). Coastal wetland restoration and creation have also
been listed as important themes in recent international wetlands
and ecological conferences (MEA, 2005).
In China, the first wetland restoration projects started in the
early 1990s. More than 200 programs with costs in excess of 20.7
billion dollars (USD) have been aided financially to protect current
natural wetlands, restore damaged wetlands and create wetlands
that have been lost (SFAC, 2000, 2005). The “863” Environmental
Action Plan funded 36 projects during 2000–2005, which aimed at
restoring water quality of natural lakes and rivers, and improving
pollution purification capacity of urban wetlands (SEPAC, 2005).
443
Another 53 large programs with a total funding amount of more
than 100 billion dollars will be conducted to restore and create an
additional 14,000 km2 of wetlands by 2030 (An et al., 2007).
The objectives of this paper are (1) to review methodologies,
techniques and success indicators for coastal wetland restoration
and restoration assessment; (2) to summarize the current issues in
coastal wetland restoration and provide insight for coastal wetland
restoration projects; and (3) to provide an example of establish-
ing a success indicator system which would help guide reasonable
restoration assessment.
2. General mechanisms and techniques for coastal wetland
restoration
Since water, biota and soil are three basic elements of a wet-
land, restoration or creation of wetlands are centered on these
three constituents. Hydrology restoration or re-establishment is
indispensable and considered the fundamental objective of restora-
tion projects. Furthermore, the interaction between three elements
should be highlighted to reveal key processes that lead to degrada-
tion.
A wetland is considered an organic network ecosystem with
multi levels or various interacting components. Once the inter-
action between different components of wetlands is determined,
including the integrity of wetland functions, mechanisms respon-
sible for the degradation of pivotal components can be clarified.
Meanwhile, ecosystem services should be listed as an important
target and constraint for restoration (Zedler and Kercher, 2005).
Spatial–temporal heterogeneity, structural coordination, and func-
tional integrity should be coupled to establish different scenarios
and to identify thresholds to reveal the restoration mechanism of
wetlands.
The changes in the structures and functions of wetland ecosys-
tems can be analyzed by multi-scenario simulations (Turner et al.,
2000), thus identifying the key processes, indicators and threshold
values. The coupling mechanisms between hydrology, vegetation
and habitat in wetland ecosystems have to be clarified to develop
wetland restoration techniques. Soil seed bank restoration tech-
niques for degraded wetlands have been developed based on the
analysis of the interaction between vegetation and the seed bank
(Bossuyt and Honnay, 2008). Habitat replacement and compen-
sation is another important wetland restoration technique which
focused on the development of functional groups (Quigley and
Harper, 2006). Ecological water supplement restoration techniques
include an integrated multi-scale and multi-stage approach devel-
oped by combining different restoration targets and stages with
ecological water demands of wetlands (Zhuo et al., 2013). Scenario
analysis and model simulation under different management and
regulation modes have been applied to evaluate the effectiveness
of regional wetland restoration and alleviate regional potential risk
led by various restoration schemes (McIntire et al., 2007; Cui et al.,
2009a,b).
Perrow and Davy (2002) pointed that ecological restoration
included restoration, rehabilitation, remediation and reclamation.
Wetland restoration refers to the return of wetland from a dis-
turbed or altered status caused by anthropogenic activities to a
pristine status (Mitsch and Gosselink, 2007; Jarzemsky et al., 2013).
Unlike rehabilitation (the partial or full replacement of the original
ecosystem’s structure and function), ecological restoration implies
the return of the degraded ecosystem to its pristine condition
(Ellison, 2000). In addition, the use of creation, restoration and (or)
enhancement to compensate wetland losses is defined as wetland
mitigation (Kentula, 2000). To avoid vague and imprecise language
used in the literature and for simplicity, the distinction between
the above concepts will not be addressed here.
444 Q. Zhao et al. / Ecological Indicators 60 (2016) 442–452
When focusing on the technical fields, the restoration of coastal
wetlands can be grouped into hydrological, sedimentary, chemi-
cal and biological remediation (Wilcox and Whillans, 1999). The
degradation of coastal wetlands is often accompanied by direct or
indirect hydrology changes. Hydrology modification is more widely
adopted as the appropriate hydroperiod, a key factor determining
success in wetland restoration (Turner and Lewis III, 1996; Wortley
et al., 2013; Jarzemsky et al., 2013). One of the main reasons for
mangrove degradation and loss is the increases in particle sed-
imentation rate (Elster, 2000). In mangrove restoration projects,
sedimentological restoration is very crucial to achieving the suc-
cess of coastal wetland restoration (Ren and Peng, 2002). Chemical
restoration refers to the removal of pollutants in inflow or the
control of sources of pollutants to restore the quality of coastal
water and sediment (Wilcox and Whillans, 1999), whereas biolog-
ical restoration targets restoring microorganisms, vegetation and
fauna of degraded wetlands.
3. Methodologies of coastal wetland restoration
3.1. Active restoration
From the overview point of methodology, methods for coastal
wetland restoration can be grouped into active restoration, pas-
sive restoration and creation (Pellerin and Lavoie, 2003; Simenstad
et al., 2006; Mitsch and Gosselink, 2007). Active restoration
requires humans to control and intervene at regular basis in order to
restore, recreate or improve the community structure and ecosys-
tem processes in wetlands (Wagner et al., 2008). Reshaping the
topography of wetlands, rechanneling the water flow through
water control facilities (e.g., division dikes), soil transplantation and
artificially planting vegetation are commonly adopted (Zhang et al.,
2009). In mangrove restoration projects, replanting mangroves to
degraded or damaged mangrove wetlands is a common and effec-
tive method (Ren et al., 2011; Day et al., 2013). In a salt marsh
restoration program in the New England region of the United States,
hydroperiod adjustment through tidal flow restoration proved
effective (Burdick et al., 1996). Recently, a large success involv-
ing a coastal interdune wetland restoration in Central Veracruz,
Mexico, was reported. The main techniques involved were flood-
ing level adjustment and changing ecological pattern by inhibiting
Echinochloa (an invasive species) to promote native species recov-
ery (López-Rosas et al., 2013). It is also worth mentioning that a
large restoration project has been conducted in a degraded coastal
Phragmites australis wetland in the Nature Reserve of the Yel-
low River Delta (in China) since 2001. The restoration measures
involved building dams and embankments, freshwater collection
and water diversion from the Yellow River. This project has proved
to be successful with an expanded area of Phragmites australis wet-
land, increased biota species richness and habitat quantity and
desalination of the soil (Tang et al., 2006).
3.2. Passive restoration
Passive restoration methods involve the elimination of influ-
encing factors that lead to degradation or destruction of coastal
wetlands and restoring degraded coastal wetlands to a healthy state
under natural conditions (Wagner et al., 2008). Passive restora-
tion focuses on the enhancement of ecohydrological processes
to rebuild the hydrogeomorphology for wetland self-restoration
(Mitsch and Wang, 2000; Hunter et al., 2008; Jarzemsky et al.,
2013). The degradation of marshes caused by reclamation or chan-
nelization can be mitigated by converting cropland to marshes and
grass (Yu et al., 2008). In the estuarine wetlands of Loushan (China),
wetland pollution was controlled through the reconfiguration of
the sewage conduit network, which strengthened the hydrological
connectivity between wetlands and the neighboring sea (Zhang and
Sun, 2009). Furthermore, the improvement of wetland hydrological
connectivity and the recovery of underground hydrology can also
relieve superabundant nitrogen, phosphorus and bacteria, accrete
sediment retention and lower soil erosion, all of which contribute
to wetland restoration to some degree (Richardson et al., 2011). Cui
et al. (2012) reported that wetland conservation could be strength-
ened through diversifying the ecological networks, especially by
establishing higher hydrological connectivity. Kamali and Hashim
(2011) constructed a breakwater to protect mangroves from wave
action and to slow the sedimentation rate, facilitating the natural
restoration of mangrove forests. Wolters et al. (2005) reported that
the de-embankment (dam removal) of degraded salt marshes led
to a success in salt marsh restoration.
3.3. Creation
Creation refers to the process of turning lands (upland or sub-
tidal habitat) on sites where no wetlands existed previously into
a wetland (Simenstad et al., 2006; Mitsch and Gosselink, 2007;
Broome and Craft, 2009). The establishment of wetlands requires
appropriate local conditions, especially suitable hydrology (NRC,
2001). To mitigate losses of tidal marsh, new marshes are often cre-
ate on sites where no marshes existed previously. The main process
involved conceptual design, establishing hydrology, soil and veg-
etation (Broome and Craft, 2009). A coastal freshwater marsh was
reported to be created through freshwater inflows and outflows
(Fitzsimmons et al., 2012).
Moreover, it is very necessary to enforce corresponding manage-
ment measures and legislation (Lewis III, 2005; Day et al., 2013).
Management measures and socio-economic policies should be
simultaneously enforced to ensure the health of coastal ecosystems
and alleviate coastal syndromes (i.e., over-extraction of coastal
aquifers, eutrophication and invasive species intrusion) (Newton
et al., 2012). Successful coastal management as yet to be achieved,
but the Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) principles
have been applied (Billé, 2009), and there has been a great progress
with ICZM in some European countries (Ballinger et al., 2010;
Cooper, 2011). Programs in coastal planning, marine spatial plan-
ning and Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) have been established to
solve the spatial issues of coastal wetlands and have achieved suc-
cess in some cases (Edgar et al., 2007). Coastal partnerships built
by scientists, stakeholders, government staff and the educated pub-
lic are expected to facilitate successful coastal management (Edgar
et al., 2007; Stojanovic and Barker, 2008; Newton et al., 2012). As
for coastal restoration management, adaptive management (AM)
that combines well-defined goals for a process that recognizes and
incorporates variability in ecosystems and is led by several scien-
tists is beneficial for restoration projects (Teal and Weishar, 2005).
4. Specific techniques for restoration of different coastal
wetlands
The techniques used for restoration or creation of coastal
wetlands depend on the type of wetlands involved. For exam-
ple, mangrove planting is usually adopted as an appropriate
restoration technique (Turner and Lewis III, 1996; Lewis III,
2009; Ren et al., 2011), but hydrological restoration has been
used in mangrove restoration without mangrove planting (Kamali
and Hashim, 2011). Salt marsh restoration can be performed
with several approaches such as hydrology restoration, weed
management, plant intrusion control, avoidance of disturbance
on vertebrates, enforcement of grazing regimes and pollution
control (Broome et al., 1988; Adam, 2009). The replanting
 Q. Zhao et al. / Ecological Indicators 60 (2016) 442–452
of dominant marsh angiosperms can accelerate the recovery of
salt marshes (Weinstein et al., 2001). However, in tidal marsh
creation projects, manipulating topography, hydrology, soils, and
planting vegetation are essential to create similar conditions to nat-
ural tidal marshes in the area through succession. Dredged material
stabilization, tidal wetland mitigation, shoreline erosion control,
accumulation of sediment for sea defense and agricultural land
creation are typically listed as objectives of tidal marsh creation
(Broome and Craft, 2009).
Degradation of seagrass, which is often caused by eutro-
phication or dredge-and-fill activities, is commonly restored by
transplantation (Fonseca et al., 1994; Burkholder et al., 2007). The
appropriate site and suitable donor population for transplanta-
tion should receive greater focus given the considerable expense
(Bastyan and Cambridge, 2008). In addition, mechanical planting
and seeding techniques have also been used to restore seagrass
loss (Paling et al., 2009; Van Katwijk et al., 2009).
To mitigate the degradation of wetlands caused by Spartina
alterniflora invasions in the Yangtze River Delta, especially in
Chongming Dongtan wetland, techniques including cutting and
waterlogging, digging and tillage, breaking of rhizomes, mowing
and biological substitution with Phragmites australis proved effec-
tive (Yuan et al., 2008; Li and Zhang, 2008).
5. What to do before starting a restoration project
After the types (e.g., salt marsh, mangroves, swamp) of degraded
wetlands are identified, key indicators should be determined to
analyze the potential of restoration, replacement and regulation
before starting a restoration project. As for those lost wetlands,
the alternative wetland that has the original area and ecological
service should be provided. Furthermore, key processes of ecolog-
ical restoration ought to be identified to evaluate the feasibility
of restoring the damaged ecohydrological and chemical processes.
Pivotal regions and patterns of ecological restoration should be
determined to predict the ecological rationality and social feasi-
bility.
Before setting out to restore degraded coastal wetlands, a feasi-
bility analysis for restoration of a coastal wetland in concern should
be performed. It is also important to address how humans should
actively facilitate the recovery process. Based on the abovemen-
tioned points, the restoration goal and appropriate approach should
be clarified (Holl and Aide, 2011; Guldemond et al., 2012). More-
over, another important aspect for wetland managers and decision
makers to consider is how to assess whether a coastal wetland
restoration project is successful (Schmitz, 2012). Most researchers
have focused on assessing the success of costal wetland restoration
and dynamic monitoring after wetland restoration is completed.
The success of wetland restoration can be ecologically diagnosed
through comparisons of success indicators (biotic and abiotic) in
restored or created wetlands with those in reference wetlands
(Wang, 2008).
Generally, the restoration process of coastal wetlands could be
described by the following chart (Fig. 1).
6. The success indicators of coastal wetland restoration
Indicators are important tools for managers to track wetland
condition changes and are essential to ecological safety (Seilheimer
et al., 2009; Smith-Cartwright and Chow-Fraser, 2011). While suc-
cess indicators of wetland restoration determine the effectiveness
of restoration projects, the term success is, in fact, a vague, subjec-
tive descriptor of restoration outcomes (Zedler, 2007). In addition,
success in coastal wetland restoration is difficult to define, as there
is limited information on monitoring data (Suding, 2011). When
445
the outcome of a restoration project is predicted or judged, both
the terms success and failure should be supplemented with spe-
cific details and explanations about the basis of the judgment made.
Thus, in this study, we propose several success indicators to evalu-
ate the outcome of restoration projects.
The need for clear objectives in a restoration project is stressed
by many researchers so that the indicators of restoration success
can be specified (Stanturf et al., 2001; Adam, 2009). To evaluate
restoration success, evaluation of how much the original objective
is completed is necessary (Jaunatre et al., 2013). Currently, there
is no professional consensus on the choice of ecological metrics
to assess restoration success (Marchetti et al., 2010). The ulti-
mate goal of wetland restoration is to create a self-organizing,
self-maintaining and functioning natural ecosystem that is resilient
to perturbation without further assistance (Marchetti et al., 2010;
Jarzemsky et al., 2013). A success in an evaluation can be clas-
sified as compliance success (compliance with the terms of an
agreement), functional success (whether the ecological functions
are restored), and landscape success (contribution of restoration to
ecological integrity) (Kentula, 2000; Perillo et al., 2009). However,
it is often difficult to assess a wetland restoration to be ecologically
successful or not just through observing the similarities or differ-
ences between restored and reference wetlands (Kentula, 2000;
Ruiz-Jaén and Aide, 2005a). Therefore, some quantitative success
criteria should be established for the restored wetlands based on
reference wetlands, as these criteria are more dependent on the
characteristics and functions of reference wetlands. The Society of
Ecological Restoration International (SER) (2004) has also issued
a primer illustrating nine ecosystem attributes such as diversity,
vegetation structure, ecological functions and ecological processes
(e.g., nutrient cycling and biological interactions) that should be
taken into account and adopted when assessing the success of eco-
logical restoration. The nine attributes can be grouped into the four
categories of species composition, ecosystem function, ecosystem
stability, and landscape context (Shackelford et al., 2013). However,
no studies on ecological restoration measured all metrics proposed
by SER (2004). Ruiz-Jaén and Aide (2005b) reviewed a large number
of published studies regarding restoration ecology and categorized
the success indicators into diversity, vegetation structure, and eco-
logical processes. In addition, the vegetation structure recovery
has been a focus in the success evaluation of many restoration
projects (Young, 2000). However, it is proposed that both diversity
and abundance are most commonly used in restoration assess-
ments (Wortley et al., 2013; Zhang et al., 2015). Recently, some
researchers have noted that the assessment of social and cultural
values of wetland restoration should be considered in the deter-
mination of the success of restoration projects (Shackelford et al.,
2013; Wortley et al., 2013). Generally, the guidelines for assessing
a restoration project can be categorized into ecological, economic
and social attributes (Shackelford et al., 2013).
Some methods, such as the index of biological integrity (IBI),
the habitat evaluation procedure (HEP), the hydrogeomorphic
approach (HGM) and the rapid assessment of wetland functions
are widely applied to assess the success of wetland restoration
(Findlay, 2002; Li and Liu, 2007; Griffith et al., 2005). Griffith et al.
(2005) noted that multiple biological communities can be taken
into account for the IBI method. An assessment of tidal restora-
tion of salt marshes uses hydrology, soil and sediments, vegetation,
nekton and birds as success indicators (Neckles et al., 2002). Both
vegetation (i.e., leaf area index and aboveground biomass) and
soil characteristics (i.e., soil organic matter, total nitrogen and
redox potential) have been adopted as success indicators to assess
restored mangrove wetlands (Salmo III et al., 2013). Alligators
(hole abundance and occupancy rate) were chosen as indicators
for Everglades restoration in 2009 and 2012 (Mazzotti et al., 2009;
Fujisaki et al., 2012). Moreover, the microbial metrics (i.e., enzyme
446 Q. Zhao et al. / Ecological Indicators 60 (2016) 442–452

Fig. 1. Flow chart for coastal wetland restoration.

activities and bioenergetic parameters, fungal abundance) were
used to indicate the progress in the restoration of salt marshes
(Duarte et al., 2012; Salmo III et al., 2013). Individual health metrics
(blood glucose, hematocrit, condition factor, energy density, mod-
ified health assessment index) of an abundant resident fish species
were used to evaluate the success of habitat enhancement in a
coastal wetland setting (Ward, 2014). Cui et al. (2009a,b) screened
some ecological indicators, such as water quality, soil salinity, soil
organic matter, and plant and bird communities, when evaluating
the restoration outcome of the Yellow River Delta of China after
a long-term freshwater restoration. In addition, some researchers
built some indicators to evaluate the outcomes of coastal wetland
restoration. For example, Wolters et al. (2005) proposed the sat-
uration index to assess a salt marsh restoration program. In
addition, Staszak and Armitage (2012) designed an ecosystem
integrity index to evaluate restoration of a salt marsh. More
recently, the community structure integrity index and the higher
abundance index were developed to assess community resilience
and restoration success at the community level (Jaunatre et al.,
2013). Zou et al. (2014) evaluated three restored coastal wetlands
in Chongming Dongtan wetlands (Shanghai, China) with water-
bird community structure, while Roseate spoonbill reproduction
was chosen to evaluated restoration of the Everglades and the
Everglades estuaries (Mazzotti et al., 2009). At the habitat level,
 Q. Zhao et al. / Ecological Indicators 60 (2016) 442–452
killifish habitat suitability was used as a measure of coastal restora-
tion performance in coastal bays of South Florida (USA) (McManus
et al., 2014).
Remote sensing (RS), geographic information system (GIS) and
global position system (GPS) techniques provide new technical sup-
port for wetland restoration assessment (Kevin et al., 2009). Rozas
et al. (2007) investigated the dynamic changes of wetland area and
fish population size based on GIS, aerial images and population
models and found that fish population reproduction was not pos-
itively affected by wetland restoration according to their success
evaluation of restored wetlands. Kauffman-Axelrod and Steinberg
(2010) prioritized 530 potential wetland restoration sites using GIS,
which contributed to the better restoration and management of
wetlands based on dynamic monitoring of wetland area and vege-
tation.
Recently, Petursdottir et al. (2013) highlighted that social fac-
tors such as the attitude toward restoration and land management
practices can be used as important indicators to evaluate the effec-
tiveness of the restoration policies in some rangeland restoration
projects of Iceland. Such social factors can also be adopted in the
evaluation of coastal wetland restoration and management. Coastal
wetlands are easily blamed by the public as providing breeding
ground for mosquitoes that can transmit life-threatening diseases
(WHO, 2000; Dale and Knight, 2006). Social attitudes affect the
implementation of coastal management and policies (Nilsson and
Aradóttir, 2013). For example, worry about health risk brought
by mosquitoes constrained the initiative of salt marsh restoration
projects, since salt marsh restoration would introduce mosquitos
(Adam, 2009). Thus, to improve the success of coastal wetland
restoration projects, social factors should be incorporated into the
evaluation system. In addition, the interactions between different
actors (i.e., scientists, government staff and stakeholders) should
be evaluated in restoration assessments (Hagen and Evju, 2013)
because good interactions can facilitate adaptive management.
7. Issues of coastal wetland restoration and success
evaluation
Although many coastal wetland restoration projects are con-
ducted every year, wetland degradation has not been retarded
worldwide because of the limited success in wetland restoration
(Zedler, 2000). Only 45% of degraded coastal wetlands have been
restored successfully in Florida (Kentula, 2000). This low level of
success can be attributed to the limited understanding of wet-
land functions, as well as some important scientific issues (i.e.,
the indicator system and the diagnosis of wetland degradation, the
dynamic modeling and prediction of wetland degradation, the cat-
egories of wetland degradation, the success criteria and models,
and the effectiveness of wetland restoration methods) (Xiao et al.,
2002; Lv and Liu, 2008). Other factors include poor understanding
of their self-designing capacities, the poorly defined success crite-
ria of wetland restoration and the lagged monitoring of restoration
projects (Nilsson and Aradóttir, 2013). Moreover, different coastal
ecosystems receive disproportional attention. The least attention is
paid to seagrass ecosystems. Salt marshes and mangroves receive
more attention (Kentula, 2000; Duarte et al., 2008). Simultaneously,
the complexity of wetland degradation patterns undermines the
expectations from high-investment wetland restoration (Streever,
1999). Moreover, the inappropriate selection of sites for restora-
tion is another cause of failure. A restoration technique or method
might not always be effective for all types of degraded wetlands
(Ehrenfeld, 2000), which suggests that wetland restoration tech-
nologies and methods need to be further developed. Restoration
is a time-consuming process. Limited time is a flaw in measur-
ing restoration projects (Mitsch and Wilson, 1996). Thus, sufficient
447
time and patience should be given to degraded coastal wetlands in
the restoration process. In many restoration projects, success eval-
uation of restored wetlands mainly depended on the comparison
with reference sites (Baldwin et al., 2009). Thus, inappropriate ref-
erence wetlands selection is another factor leading to failures in
coastal wetland restoration assessment and should be avoided.
Although governments have put much effort into coastal wet-
land protection practices, most wetland restoration projects are
focused on the restoration and regulation of vegetation, and there is
a lack of systematic studies on the mechanisms of coastal wetland
degradation and ecohydrological processes, especially hydrologi-
cal and biological connectivity at a large scale (Cui and Yang, 2006;
Harttera and Ryan, 2010). Therefore, ecohydrological environment
indicators need to be further integrated for the success evalua-
tion of coastal wetland restoration based on the holistic restoration
of wetlands (Ellison, 2000; Allen, 2003). To improve the success
rate of coastal wetland restoration projects, several factors, such
as sufficient time for self-design and restoration, proper restora-
tion scale and predictive modeling development, should be taken
into consideration (Mitsch and Wilson, 1996). The lack of integrated
regulation and management on ecohydrological processes between
inland river basins and coastal wetlands has further impaired the
compensation functions of most restored or recreated wetlands.
Therefore, the regulation of ecological processes at large scale,
especially hydrological regulation and design at the watershed
scale (Zedler, 2001) might be a more important measure in coastal
wetland restoration projects compared to regulation on local and
regional scale.
Monitoring the performance of restored wetlands should be
paid much attention, because restoration of an impaired wetland
from human disturbances is often confined by time, funds and prac-
tical experience (Ruiz-Jaén and Aide, 2005; Kauffman-Axelrod and
Steinberg, 2010). With the exception of a 25-year study on the
marsh soils of the restored coastal wetland in North Carolina (Craft
et al., 1999), few studies have been conducted on long-term contin-
uous investigations of any restored wetlands (Kauffman-Axelrod
and Steinberg, 2010; Hobbs and Norton, 1996). As a result of the
short-term monitoring, the last 10 years of seagrass restoration
projects in Europe have been reported, in a biased manner, to be
unsuccessful (Cunha et al., 2012). Moreover, it is fairly difficult to
assess the success of coastal wetland restoration and learn lessons
without adequate funding dedicated to quantitative monitoring
and reporting over a reasonable time period (minimum 5 years)
(Perillo et al., 2009). And as Carrier et al. (2012) pointed out, a lack
of funding has become a major challenge. Furthermore, additional
reference wetlands are needed to better evaluate the success of
restored wetlands because of the variability of coastal ecosystem
habitats within which restoration is conducted (SER, 2004; Zedler,
2007). In addition, Kentula (2000) indicated that the success of wet-
land restoration should be tested at a larger scale (e.g., landscape
unit or landscape). Thus, it is very necessary to develop long-term
wetland monitoring and assessment methods at multi-scales (Bao
et al., 2001) to monitor restored coastal wetlands dynamically and
continuously.
8. How to establish a success indicator system
Currently, a uniform and reasonable assessment indicator sys-
tem for the evaluation of coastal wetland restoration has not been
developed. The system used in most research mainly relies on
some methods of ecosystem health assessment, ecosystem safety
assessment and the assessment of water quality (Marchetti et al.,
2010). Sometimes, the indicator system and methods for ecosys-
tem health assessment and ecosystem safety assessment are not
completely suitable for evaluating the success of coastal wetland
 448
Table 1
A proposed success indicator system of restoration assessment for coastal estuarine wetland.

Goal System Feature Class Indicators Measuring methods Criteria for success evaluation References
Dominance and diversity Land scape metrics Similar to reference wetlands Sowińska-Świerkosz and
Landscape
Soszyński (2014)
Structure structure
Hydrological connectivity The network index Similar to reference wetlands Lane et al. (2009)
Biological connectivity Community assemblage Similar to reference wetlands Gil-Tena et al. (2013)
Food webs Trophic levels Ecological network analysis; Similar to reference wetlands Saint-Béat et al. (2015) and
trophic state indices Azevêdo et al. (2015)
Hydrological regulation Water quantity and level Risk assessment framework; Meeting ecological water Gain and Giupponi (2015)
Water purification Metabolic periods Ecological water demands demands and Cui et al. (2009a,b)
Function
Biogeochemical Carbon sequestration SOC storage = SOCD × A Similar to reference wetlands Wingard and Lorenz (2014) and
cycles SOCD = Bi × SOCi × Ti a Bai et al. (2013)
Denitrification Denitrification rate Similar to reference wetlands Brito et al. (2012)
Wetland system Water quality Water quality index (WQI) Local water quality standard; Cvetkovic and Chow-Fraser
Hydrology and
Water similar to or better than (2011) and Koçer and Sevgili
vegetation
reference wetlands (2014)
restoration
Duration period Field observations 0–12 h for tidal marsh; Similar to Mitsch and Gosselink (2007)
reference wetlands
Tidal regime Field observations Same as before degradation
Microbial assemblages Community structure and Microbial biomass, diversity and Similar to reference wetlands Jackson and Vallaire (2009)

Q. Zhao et al. / Ecological Indicators 60 (2016) 442–452

Component richness enzyme activity
Benthic invertebrate Density, species rich ness Invertebrate community Similar to reference wetlands Guilpart et al. (2012), Von
and community structure analysis; the abundance-based Bertrab et al. (2013) and Ilmonen
Bray–Curtis dissimilarity metric et al. (2013)
Birds Density, species Bird community indices; Rare Similar to reference wetlands Young et al. (2013), Kosicki and
composition, richness and species occurrence, the Jackknife Chylarecki (2014) and
community integrity estimator of species richness; Smith-Cartwright and
index of community integrity Chow-Fraser (2011)
Zooplankton Density, species composition The species presence absence Similar to reference wetlands Azevêdo et al. (2015) and
and rich ness matrix; wetland zooplankton Seilheimer et al. (2009)
index; Shannon–Wiener-Index
Soil/sediment Local soil quality standard Similar to reference wetlands Criterion from local
physico-chemical properties; administration
Soil/sediment
enzyme activity
Nutrients cycling SOM, soil nitrogen and phosphors 13–22% SOM, 0.9–1.6%,
Craft (2007)
0.9–1.6 mg/g P, 0.1–0.3 g/cm bulk
density for US freshwater
marshes; Similar to reference
wetlands
Soil texture Bulk density
Soil salinity 0.5 ppt, 0.5–15 ppt, 15–>35ppt Mitsch and Gosselink (2007)
for tidal freshwater, brackish and
salt marsh and mangrove,
respectively
Vegetation Soil seed bank Seedling emergence method Similar to or better than Bai et al. (2014) and Neff et al.
(composition, density and reference wetlands (2009)
richness)
Ecological characteristics Height, cover degree and leaf Similar to reference wetlands Luo et al. (2015)
area index
Species composition Perennial species, annual species Similar to reference wetlands; Baldwin et al. (2009)
and nonnative species abundance annual species should comprise
20–50% of species
Plant carbon fixation Carbon in plants; biomass Similar to reference wetlands Couto et al. (2013)
Social and Pollution risk Pollution index of Heavy metals, POPs, etc. <TEL or between TEL and PEL Macdonald et al. (1996);
Stress
natural reclamation Criterion from local
system administration
Erosion stress Tidal or runoff erosion and Sediment concentration in melt Similar to reference wetlands Collins (1979)
seawater intrusion waters
Disturbance Human disturbance Wetland reclamation and Loss of wetland Corresponding to local wetlands Historical data from
urbanization level protection plan administration
a
SOCD is the SOC density, that is, SOC concentration per unit area (kg C/m2 ), A is the area of a land-use type (m2 ), Bi is the soil bulk density (g/cm3 ), Ti is the thickness of soil layer i (cm), and SOCi is the SOC content at soil
layer i (i = 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5).
 Q. Zhao et al. / Ecological Indicators 60 (2016) 442–452
restoration because of complicated influencing factors. For exam-
ple, after restoration, some functions may be enhanced while others
may either be unaffected or declined (Simenstad et al., 2006; Ren
and Peng, 2002).
Reasonable restoration goals and optimized methods could aid
in maintaining effective coastal wetland restoration. However, it
is definitely important to develop a better success indicator sys-
tem to efficiently evaluate and thus improve restoration success
(Chen, 2008). Moreover, continuous monitoring and evaluation of
restored coastal wetlands using the developed success indicators
could provide more valuable information for wetland managers
and decision makers to diagnose the state of restored wetlands
(Wang, 2008; LeoPold, 1997). According to Wortley et al. (2013), the
restoration success can be revealed by ecological (vegetation struc-
ture, species diversity and abundance, and ecosystem functioning)
and socioeconomic attributes. Since coastal wetland restoration
involves three basic wetland attributes (water, soil and organisms)
and three scale levels (ecosystem, landscape unit and whole land-
scape), success indicator systems for coastal wetland restoration
should take the above-mentioned attributes into consideration. For
example, Staszak and Armitage (2012) developed an ecosystem
integrity indicator system including the variable index, the cate-
gory index and the ecosystem index for a salt marsh restoration
project.
To develop a success indicator system for coastal wetlands, the
following steps should be used. First, wetland restoration goals
should be identified to ensure that the selected success indicators
are more reasonable (Wang, 2006). Then, restoration practition-
ers should investigate coastal wetland structure (e.g., landscape
or community composition, distribution, and evolution), function
(i.e., productivity and ecological service functions) and disturbance
(e.g., reclamation, drainage and intensity, range and frequency of
disturbance) (Cui and Yang, 2002). After that, much more atten-
tion should be paid to dynamic changes at different space and
time scales, as these selected success indicators are more sen-
sitive to spatial and temporal changes. Moreover, the developed
success indicator system should represent the hierarchy of the wet-
land ecosystem at multiple scales (Wu, 1991). In addition, some
important social attributes should be included in the indicator sys-
tem, as the success evaluation of restored coastal wetlands might
be based on subjective human evaluation of the attributes and
characteristics of restored wetlands under some condition (Meyer,
1997).
A success indicator system can be established based on different
levels of restoration. To make the indicator system more feasible, a
multi-level indicator system from high level to low level should be
taken into account. Here we provide a proposed multi-level suc-
cess indicator system (including goal, system, feature, class and
indicator levels) for the restoration assessment of coastal estua-
rine wetlands affected by human disturbances (Table 1) based on
the indicator system of ecosystem health assessment for rivers (Lin
et al., 2006; Yan et al., 2012; Jin et al., 2011). Moreover, we incor-
porated the integrated functions and the multiple goals, multiple
stages and multiple scales of wetland restoration into the indicator
system. This success indicator system could guide a potential suc-
cess in coastal wetland restoration using these dynamic indicators.
9. Conclusions
Restoration techniques aimed at different types of coastal wet-
lands have been adopted in restoration projects with variable
results. Success indicators and methods have been established
and applied to evaluate the success of coastal wetland restora-
tion projects. However, it is difficult to diagnose whether the
coastal wetland restoration is successful because of the lack of uni-
form success indicators, long-term monitoring data and financial
449
support. Therefore, it is necessary to develop a unified and appro-
priate indicator system through integrating aquatic environmental
and eco-hydrological indicators to evaluate the success of coastal
wetland restoration. Moreover, the participation of stakeholders in
coastal management may help solve funding problems in order to
improve the methodology and applications of success evaluation of
wetland restoration. The focus on a partnership built between gov-
ernment managers, scientists, stakeholders, the educated public
and NGOs will facilitate the healthy management of coastal zones.
Moreover, the actual goals, scales and stages of different restored
coastal wetlands should be taken into account in the final indica-
tor system to reasonably evaluate the restoration success. More
importantly, these is an urgent need to determine how to achieve
cost effective restoration projects. Thus, the building of an interna-
tional database of coastal wetland restoration projects is necessary
to promote information exchange and avoid repeated failures. In
the future, a conceptual framework of coastal wetland restoration
should be developed.
Acknowledgements
This work was financially supported by the project of National
Basic Research Program (2013CB430406), the National Natural Sci-
ence Foundation of China (51179006, 51179094, 51379012), and
the Young Top-Notch Talent Support Program of China.
References
Adam, P., 2009. Salt Marsh Restoration. Coastal Wetlands: An Integrated Ecosystems
Approach. Elsevier, pp. 737–756.
Alfaro, M., Clara, M., 2007. Assemblage of shorebirds and seabirds on Rocha Lagoon
sandbar, Uruguay. Ornitol. Neotrop. 18, 421–432.
Allen, E.B., 2003. New directions and growth of restoration ecology. Restor. Ecol. 11,
1–2.
Alongi, D.M., 2008. Mangrove forests: resilience, protection from tsunamis, and
responses to global climate change. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 76, 1–13.
An, S.Q., Li, H.B., Guan, B.H., Zhou, C.F., Wang, Z.S., Deng, Z.F., Zhi, Y.B., Liu, Y.H., Xu,
C., Fang, S.B., Jiang, J.H., Li, H.L., 2007. China’s natural wetlands: past problems,
current status, and future challenges. BioOne 36, 335–342.
Azevêdo, D.J.S., Barbosa, J.E.L., Gomes, W.I.A., Porto, D.E., Marques, J.C., Molozzi, J.,
2015. Diversity measures in macroinvertebrate and zooplankton communities
related to the trophic status of subtropical reservoirs: contradictory or comple-
mentary responses? Ecol. Indic. 50, 135–149.
Bai, J.H., Xiao, R., Zhang, K.J., Gao, H., Cui, B.S., Liu, X.H., 2013. Soil organic carbon
as affected by land use in young and old reclaimed regions of a coastal estuary
wetland, China. Soil Use Manag. 29, 57–64.
Bai, J.H., Huang, L.B., Gao, Z.Q., Lu, Q.Q., Wang, J.J., Zhao, Q.Q., 2014. Soil seed banks
and their germination responses to cadmium and salinity stresses in coastal
wetlands affected by reclamation and urbanization based on indoor and outdoor
experiments. J. Hazard. Mater. 280, 295–303.
Baldwin, A.H., Hammerschlag, R.S., Cahoon, D.R., 2009. Evaluation of Restored Tidal
Freshwater Wetlands Coastal Wetlands: An Integrated Ecosystems Approach.
Elsevier, pp. 801–828.
Ballinger, R., Pickaver, A., Lymbery, G., Ferreria, M., 2010. An evaluation of the imple-
mentation of the European ICZM principles. Ocean Coast. Manag. 53, 738–749.
Bao, W.K., Liu, Z.G., Liu, Q., 2001. Ecological restoration and rehabilitation: devel-
opment, researching features and existing major problems. World Sci. Technol.
Res. Dev. 23, 44–48.
Barbier, E.B., 2011. Coastal wetland restoration and the deepwater Horizon oil spill.
Vanderbilt Law Rev., 64.
Barbier, E.B., 2013. Valuing ecosystem services for coastal wetland protection and
restoration: progress and challenges. Resources 2, 213–230.
Barbier, E.B., Hacker, S.D., Kennedy, C., Koch, E.W., Stier, A.C., Silliman, B.R., 2011. The
value of estuarine and coastal ecosystem services. Ecol. Monogr. 81, 169–193.
Bastyan, G.R., Cambridge, M.L., 2008. Transplantation as a method for restoring the
seagrass Posidonia australis. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 79, 289–299.
Billé, R., 2009. Integrated Coastal Zone Management: Four Entrenched Illu-
sions. SAPIENS Surveys and Perspectives Integrating Environment and Society
(1.2).
Bossuyt, B., Honnay, O., 2008. Can the seed bank be used for ecological restoration?
An overview of seed bank characteristics in European communities. J. Veg. Sci.
19, 875–884.
Brito, A.C., Newton, A., Tett, P., Fernandes, T.F., 2012. Changes in the yield of micro-
phytobenthic chlorophyll from nutrients: considering denitrification. Ecol.
Indic. 19, 226–230.
Broome, S.W., Craft, C.B., 2009. Tidal Marsh Creation. Coastal Wetlands: An Inte-
grated Ecosystems Approach. Elsevier, pp. 715–733.
450 Q. Zhao et al. / Ecological Indicators 60 (2016) 442–452
Broome, S.W., Seneca, E.D., Woodhouse Jr., W.W., 1988. Tidal salt marsh restoration.
Aquat. Bot. 32, 1–22.
Burdick, D.M., Dionne, M., Boumans, R.M., Short, F.T., 1996. Ecological responses to
tidal restorations of two northern New England salt marshes. Wetl. Ecol. Manag.
4, 129–144.
Burkholder, J.M., Tomasko, D.A., Touchette, B.W., 2007. Seagrasses and eutrophica-
tion. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 350, 46–72.
Carrier, S.D., Bruland, G.L., Cox, L.J., Lepczyk, C.A., 2012. The perceptions of coastal
resource managers in Hawai’i: the current situation and outlook for the future.
Ocean Coast. Manag. 69, 291–298.
Chen, B., 2008. Restoration and assessment methods of degraded wetland ecosys-
tem. Guangdong Landsc. Archit. 31, 25–28 (in Chinese).
Collins, D.N., 1979. Sediment concentration in melt waters as an indicator of erosion
processes beneath an Alpine glacier. J. Glaciol. 23, 247–257.
Cooper, J., 2011. Progress in integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) in Northern
Ireland. Mar. Policy 35, 794–799.
Costanza, R.O., Pérez-Maqueo, O., Martinez, M.L., Sutton, P., Anderson, S.J., Mulder,
K., 2008. The value of coastal wetlands for hurricane protection. AMBIO: J. Hum.
Environ. 37, 241–248.
Couto, T., Duarte, B., Caçador, I., Baeta, A., Marques, J.C., 2013. Salt marsh plants
carbon storage in a temperate Atlantic estuary illustrated by a stable isotopic
analysis based approach. Ecol. Indic. 32, 305–311.
Craft, C., 2007. Freshwater input structures soil properties, vertical accretion, and
nutrient accumulation of Georgia and US tidal marshes. Limnol. Oceanogr. 52,
1220–1230.
Craft, C.B., Reader, J., Sacco, J.N., Broome, S.W., 1999. Twenty-five years of ecosystem
development of constructed Spartina alterniflora (Loisel) marshes. Ecol. Appl. 9,
1405–1419.
Cui, B.S., Yang, Z.F., 2002. Establishing an indicator system for ecosystem health
evaluation on wetlands I. A theoretical framework. Acta Ecol. Sin. 22, 1005–1011.
Cui, B.S., Yang, Z.F., 2006. Wetlands. Beijing Normal University Press, Beijing, pp.
248–250.
Cui, B.S., Tang, N., Zhao, X.S., Bai, J.H., 2009a. A management-oriented valuation
method to determine ecological water requirement for wetlands in the Yellow
River Delta of China. J. Nat. Conserv. 17, 129–141.
Cui, B.S., Yang, Q.C., Yang, Z.F., Zhang, K.J., 2009b. Evaluating the ecological perfor-
mance of wetland restoration in the Yellow River Delta, China. Ecol. Eng. 35,
1090–1103.
Cui, B.S., Zhang, Z.M., Lei, X.X., 2012. Implementation of diversified ecologi-
cal networks to strengthen wetland conservation. Clean Soil Air Water 40,
1015–1026.
Cunha, A.H., Marbá, N.N., van Katwijk, M.M., Pickerell, C., Henriques, M., Bernard, G.,
Ferreira, A., Garcia, S., Garmendia, J.M., Manent, P., 2012. Changing paradigms in
seagrass restoration. Restor. Ecol. 20, 427–430.
Cvetkovic, M., Chow-Fraser, P., 2011. Use of ecological indicators to assess the quality
of Great Lakes coastal wetlands. Ecol. Indic. 11, 1609–1622.
Daily, G.C., 1995. Restoring value to the world’s degraded lands. Science 269,
350–354, New York Washington.
Dale, P.E.R., Knight, J.M., 2006. Managing salt marshes for mosquito control: impacts
of runnelling, open marsh water management and grid ditching in sub-tropical
Australia. Wetl. Ecol. Manag. 14, 211–220.
Day, J.W., Lane, R.R., Robert, R., 2013. Wetland restoration using mangroves in south-
ern Louisiana. In: SPE Americas E&P Health Safety Security and Environmental
Conference. Society of Petroleum Engineers, http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/163789-
MS
DeLaune, R.D., White, J.R., 2012. Will coastal wetlands continue to sequester car-
bon in response to an increase in global sea level?: A case study of the rapidly
subsiding Mississippi river deltaic plain. Clim. Change 110, 297–314.
Duarte, C.M., Dennison, W.C., Orth, R.J.W., Carruthers, T.J.B., 2008. The charisma of
coastal ecosystems: addressing the imbalance. Estuar. Coasts 31, 233–238.
Duarte, B., Freitas, J., Caçador, I., 2012. Sediment microbial activities and physic-
chemistry as progress indicators of salt marsh restoration processes. Ecol. Indic.
19, 231–239.
Edgar, G.J., Russ, G.R., Babcock, R.C., 2007. Marine protected areas. Mar. Ecol.,
533–555.
Ehrenfeld, J.G., 2000. Defining the limits of restoration: the need for realistic goals.
Restor. Ecol. 8, 2–9.
Ellison, A.M., 2000. Mangrove restoration: do we know enough? Restor. Ecol. 8,
219–229.
Elster, C., 2000. Reasons for reforestation success and failure with three mangrove
species in Colombia. For. Ecol. Manag. 131, 201–214.
Findlay, S.G.E., 2002. Functional assessment of a reference wetland set as a tool for
science, management and restoration. Aquat. Sci. 64, 107–117.
Fitzsimmons, O.N., Ballard, B.M., Merendino, M.T., Baldassarre, G.A., Hartke, K.M.,
2012. Implications of coastal wetland management to nonbreeding waterbirds
in Texas. Wetlands 32, 1057–1066.
Fonseca, M.S., Kenworthy, W.J., Courtney, F.X., Hall, M.O., 1994. Seagrass planting in
the southeastern United States: methods for accelerating habitat development.
Restor. Ecol. 2, 198–212.
Fujisaki, I., Mazzotti, F.J., Hart, K.M., Rice, K.G., Ogurcak, D., Rochford, M., Jefferya,
B.M., Brandt, L.A., Cherkiss, M.S., 2012. Use of alligator hole abundance and occu-
pancy rate as indicators for restoration of a human-altered wetland. Ecol. Indic.
23, 627–633.
Gain, A.K., Giupponi, C., 2015. A dynamic assessment of water scarcity risk in
the Lower Brahmaputra River Basin: an integrated approach. Ecol. Indic. 48,
120–131.
Gil-Tena, A., Lecerf, R., Ernoult, A., 2013. Disentangling community assemblages to
depict an indicator of biological connectivity: a regional study of fragmented
semi-natural grasslands. Ecol. Indic. 24, 48–55.
Griffith, M.B., Hill, B.H., McCormick, F.H., Kaufmannd, P.R., Herlihye, A.T., Selle, A.R.,
2005. Comparative application of indices of biotic integrity based on periphyton,
macroinvertebrates, and fish to southern Rocky Mountain streams. Ecol. Indic.
5, 117–136.
Guilpart, A., Roussel, J.M., Aubin, J., Caquet, T., Marle, M., Le Bris, H., 2012.
The use of benthic invertebrate community and water quality analyses to
assess ecological consequences of fish farm effluents in rivers. Ecol. Indic. 23,
356–365.
Guldemond, R.A., Grainger, M.J., Trimble, M.J., 2012. Where is the evidence for
assessing evidence-based restoration? Comments on Ntshotsho et al. (2010).
Restor. Ecol. 20, 7–9.
Hagen, D., Evju, M., 2013. Using short-term monitoring data to achieve goals in a
large-scale restoration. Ecol. Soc. 18, 29.
Harttera, J., Ryan, S.J., 2010. Top-down or bottom-up? Decentralization, natural
resource management, and usufruct rights in the forests and wetlands of west-
ern Uganda. Land Use Policy 27, 815–826.
Hobbs, R.J., Norton, D.A., 1996. Towards a conceptual framework for restoration
ecology. Restor. Ecol. 4, 93–110.
Holl, K.D., Aide, T.M., 2011. When and where to actively restore ecosystems? For.
Ecol. Manag. 261, 1558–1563.
Hunter, R.G., Faulkner, S.P., Gibson, K.A., 2008. The importance of hydrology
in restoration of bottomland hardwood wetland functions. Wetlands 28,
605–615.
Ilmonen, J., Virtanen, R., Paasivirta, L., Muotka, T., 2013. Detecting restoration
impacts in inter-connected habitats: spring invertebrate communities in a
restored wetland. Ecol. Indic. 30, 165–169.
Jackson, C., Vallaire, S., 2009. Effects of salinity and nutrients on microbial assem-
blages in Louisiana wetland sediments. Wetlands 29, 277–287.
Jarzemsky, R.D., Burchell II, M.R., Evans, R.O., 2013. The impact of manipulating sur-
face topography on the hydrologic restoration of a forested coastal wetland.
Ecol. Eng. 58, 35–43.
Jaunatre, R., Buisson, E., Muller, I., Morlon, H., Mesléard, F., Dutoit, T., 2013. New syn-
thetic indicators to assess community resilience and restoration success. Ecol.
Indic. 29, 468–477.
Jin, X., Yan, D.H., Wang, H., Zhang, C., Tang, Y., Yang, G.Y., Wang, L.H., 2011. Study on
integrated calculation of ecological water demand for basin system. Sci. China
Technol. Sci., http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11431-011-4535-5
Kamali, B., Hashim, R., 2011. Mangrove restoration without planting. Ecol. Eng. 37,
387–391.
Kauffman-Axelrod, J.L., Steinberg, S.J., 2010. Development and application of an
automated GIS based evaluation to prioritize wetland restoration opportunities.
Wetlands 30, 437–448.
Kentula, M.E., 2000. Perspectives on setting success criteria for wetland restoration.
Ecol. Eng. 15, 199–209.
Kevin, J., Yannick, L., Paul, V., Eric, V., Doug, T., Diego, F.P., 2009. Monitoring and
assessment of wetlands using Earth Observation: The Globe Wetland project. J.
Environ. Manag. 90, 2154–2169.
Koçer, M.A.T., Sevgili, H., 2014. Parameters selection for water quality index in the
assessment of the environmental impacts of land-based trout farms. Ecol. Indic.
36, 672–681.
Koch, E.W., Barbier, E.B., Silliman, B.R., et al., 2009. Non-linearity in ecosystem ser-
vices: temporal and spatial variability in coastal protection. Front. Ecol. Environ.
7, 29–37.
Kosicki, J.Z., Chylarecki, P., 2014. The Hooded Crow Corvus cornix density as a pre-
dictor of wetland bird species richness on a large geographical scale in Poland.
Ecol. Indic. 38, 50–60.
Lane, S.N., Reaney, S.M., Heathwaite, A.L., 2009. Representation of landscape hydro-
logical connectivity using a topographically driven surface flow index. Water
Resour. Res. 45, http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2008WR007336
Lemly, A.D., Kingsford, R.T., Thompson, J.R., 2000. Irrigated agriculture and
wildlife conservation: conflict on a global scale. Environ. Manag. 25,
485–512.
LeoPold, J.C., 1997. Getting a handle on ecosystem health. Science 276, 876.
Lewis III, R.R., 2005. Ecological engineering for successful management and restora-
tion of mangrove forests. Ecol. Eng. 24, 403–418.
Lewis III, R.R., 2009. Methods and Criteria for Successful Mangrove Forest Restora-
tion. Coastal Wetlands: An Integrated Ecosystems Approach. Elsevier, pp.
787–798.
Li, Y.F., Liu, H.Y., 2007. Comprehensive study on biological integrity index method
and hydro-geomorphology evaluation method in wetland ecosystem assess-
ment. J. Anhui Agric. Sci. 35, 11188–11191.
Li, H.P., Zhang, L.Q., 2008. An experimental study on physical controls of an exotic
Plant Spartina alterniflora in Shanghai, China. Ecol. Eng. 32, 11–21.
Lin, M.L., Li, X.Y., Li, M.H., 2006. Probe into the index system for evaluating the health
of the rivers in the Pearl River basin. Pearl River 4, 1–4.
López-Rosas, H., Moreno-Casasola, P., López-Barrera, F., Sánchez-Higueredo,
L.E., Espejel-González, V.E., Vázquez, J., 2013. Interdune Wetland Restora-
tion in Central Veracruz, Mexico: Plant Diversity Recovery Mediated by
the Hydroperiod, Restoration of Coastal Dunes. Springer, New York, USA,
pp. 255–269.
Luo, S.Z., Wang, C., Pan, F.F., Li, G.C., Nie, S., Xia, S.B., 2015. Estimation of wetland
vegetation height and leaf area index using airborne laser scanning data. Ecol.
Indic. 48, 550–559.
 Q. Zhao et al. / Ecological Indicators 60 (2016) 442–452
Lv, X.G., Liu, X.H., 2008. Wetland research progresses in China – dedicated to the
50th anniversary of Northeast Institute of Geography and Agroecology, CAS. Sci.
Geogr. Sin. 28, 301–308.
Macdonald, D.D., Carr, R.S., Calder, F.D., Long, E.R., Ingersoll, C.G., 1996. Develop-
ment and evaluation of sediment quality guidelines for Florida coastal waters.
Ecotoxicology 5, 253–278.
Marchetti, M.P., Garr, M., Smith, A.N., 2010. Evaluating wetland restoration suc-
cess using aquatic macroinvertebrate assemblages in the Sacramento Valley,
California. Restor. Ecol. 18, 457–466.
Mazzotti, F.J., Best, G.R., Brandt, L.A., Cherkiss, M.S., Jeffery, B.M., Rice, K.G., 2009.
Alligators and crocodiles as indicators for restoration of Everglades ecosystems.
Ecol. Indic. 9, S137–S149.
McIntire, E.J.B., Schultz, C.B., Crone, E.E., 2007. Designing a network for butterfly
habitat restoration: where individuals, populations and landscapes interact. J.
Appl. Ecol. 44, 725–736.
McManus, L.C., Yurek, S., Teare, P.B., Dolan, T.E., Serafy, J.E., 2014. Killifish habitat
suitability as a measure of coastal restoration performance: integrating field
data, behavioral trials and simulation. Ecol. Indic. 44, 173–181.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-
Being: Current State and Trends.
Meyer, J.L., 1997. Stream health: incorporating the human dimension to advance
stream ecology. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 16, 439–447.
Mitsch, W.J., Gosselink, J.G., 2007. Wetlands. John Wiley \& Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ,
pp. 270–382.
Mitsch, W.J., Wang, N., 2000. Large-scale coastal wetland restoration on the Lau-
rentian Great Lakes: determining the potential for water quality improvement.
Ecol. Eng. 15, 267–282.
Mitsch, W.J., Wilson, R.F., 1996. Improving the success of wetland creation
and restoration with know-how, time, and self-design. Ecol. Appl. 6,
77–83.
Morris, J.T., Sundareshwar, P.V., Nietch, C.T., Kjerfve, B., Cahoon, D.R., 2002.
Responses of coastal wetlands to rising sea level. Ecology 83, 2869–2877.
Neckles, H.A., Dionne, M., Burdick, D.M., Roman, C.T., Buchsbaum, R., Hutchins, E.,
2002. A monitoring protocol to assess tidal restoration of salt marshes on local
and regional scales. Restor. Ecol. 10, 556–563.
Neff, K.P., Rusello, K., Baldwin, A.H., 2009. Rapid seed bank development in restored
tidal freshwater wetlands. Restor. Ecol. 17, 539–548.
Newton, A., Carruthers, T.J., Icely, J., 2012. The coastal syndromes and hotspots on
the coast. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 96, 39–47.
Nilsson, C., Aradóttir, Á.L., 2013. Ecological and social aspects of ecological restora-
tion: new challenges and opportunities for northernregions. Ecol. Soc. 18, 35.
National Research Council (NRC), 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the
Clean Water Act. Committee on Mitigating Wetland Losses, Board on Environ-
mental Studies and Toxicology, Water Science and Technology Board. National
Research Council.
Paling, E.I., Fonseca, M., van Katwijk, M.M., van Keulen, M., 2009. Seagrass Restora-
tion. Coastal Wetlands: An Integrated Ecosystems Approach. Elsevier, pp.
687–713.
Pellerin, S., Lavoie, C., 2003. Reconstructing the recent dynamics of mires using a
multitechnique approach. J. Ecol. 91, 1008–1021.
Perrow, M.R., Davy, A.J., 2002. Hand Book of Ecological Restoration: Restoration in
Practice. Cambridge University Press, New York, USA, pp. 5–6.
Petursdottir, T., Arnalds, O., Baker, S., Montanarella, L., Aradóttir, Á.L., 2013. A social-
ecological system approach to analyze stakeholders’ interactions within a large-
scale rangeland restoration program. Ecol. Soc. 18, 29.
Perillo, G.M., Wolanski, E., Cahoon, D.R., Brinson, M.M., 2009. Coastal Wetlands: An
Integrated Ecosystem Approach. Elsevier, pp. 1–56.
Quigley, J.T., Harper, D.J., 2006. Effectiveness of fish habitat compensation in Canada
in achieving no net loss. Environ. Manag. 37, 351–366.
Ren, H., Peng, S.L., 2002. An Introduction to Restoration Ecology. Science Press, Bei-
jing.
Ren, H., Wu, X.M., Ning, T.Z., Huang, G., Wang, J., Jian, S.G., Lu, H.F., 2011. Wetland
changes and mangrove restoration planning in Shenzhen Bay, Southern China.
Landsc. Ecol. Eng. 7, 241–250.
Richardson, C.J., Flanagan, N.E., Ho, M., Pahl, J.W., 2011. Integrated stream and
wetland restoration: a watershed approach to improved water quality on the
landscape. Ecol. Eng. 37, 25–39.
Rozas, L.P., Minello, T.J., Zimmerman, R.J., Caldwell, P., 2007. Nekton populations,
long-term wetland loss, and the effect of recent habitat restoration in Galveston
Bay, Texas, USA. Mar. Ecol. Prog. 344, 119–130.
Ruiz-Jaén, M.C., Aide, T.M., 2005a. Restoration success: how is it being measured?
Restor. Ecol. 13, 569–577.
Ruiz-Jaén, M.C., Aide, T.M., 2005b. Vegetation structure, species diversity, and
ecosystem processes as measures of restoration success. For. Ecol. Manag. 218,
159–173.
Salmo III, S.G., Lovelock, C., Duke, N.E., 2013. Vegetation and soil characteristics as
indicators of restoration trajectories in restored mangroves. Hydrobiologia 720,
1–18.
Saint-Béat, B., Baird, D., Asmus, H., Asmus, R., Bacher, C., Pacella, S.R., Johnson, G.A.,
David, V., Vézina, A.F., Niquil, N., 2015. Trophic networks: How do theories link
ecosystem structure and functioning to stability properties? A review. Ecol.
Indic. 52, 458–471.
Schmitz, O.J., 2012. Restoration of ailing wetlands. PLOS Biol. 10ss, e1001248.
Seilheimer, T.S., Mahoney, T.P., Chow-Fraser, P., 2009. Comparative study of ecolog-
ical indices for assessing human-induced disturbance in coastal wetlands of the
Laurentian Great Lakes. Ecol. Indic. 9, 81–91.
451
State Environmental Protection Administration of China (SEPAC), 2005. Environ-
mental Report, http://www.zhb.gov.cn/
SER (Society for Ecological Restoration International Science & Policy Working
Group), 2004. The SER International Primer on Ecological Restoration. Society
for Ecological Restoration International, Tucson, Arizona, Available from http://
www.ser.org (accessed in July 2005).
State Forestry Administration of China (SFAC), 2000. China’s National Wetland Con-
servation: Action Plan. China Forestry Publishing House, Beijing (in Chinese).
State Forestry Administration of China (SFAC), 2005. Wildlife and Wetland Reserves
Information, http://www.cnwm.org.cn/wildlife/index.asp
Shackelford, N., Hobbs, R.J., Burgar, J.M., 2013. Primed for change: developing eco-
logical restoration for the 21st century. Restor. Ecol. 21, 297–304.
Simenstad, C., Reed, D., Ford, M., 2006. When is restoration not?: Incorporating
landscape-scale processes to restore self-sustaining ecosystems in coastal wet-
land restoration. Ecol. Eng. 26, 27–39.
Smith-Cartwright, L.A., Chow-Fraser, P., 2011. Application of the index of marsh
bird community integrity to coastal wetlands of Georgian Bay and Lake Ontario,
Canada. Ecol. Indic. 11, 1482–1486.
Sowińska-Świerkosz, B.N., Soszyński, D., 2014. Landscape structure versus the effec-
tiveness of nature conservation: Roztocze region case study (Poland). Ecol. Indic.
43, 143–153.
Stanturf, J.A., Schoenholtz, S.H., Schweitzer, C.J., Shepard, J.P., 2001. Achieving
restoration success: myths in bottomland hardwood forests. Restor. Ecol. 9,
189–200.
Staszak, L.A., Armitage, A.R., 2012. Evaluating salt marsh restoration success with an
Index of Ecosystem Integrity. J. Coast. Res. 29, 410–418.
Stojanovic, T., Barker, N., 2008. Improving governance through local coastal part-
nerships in the UK. Geogr. J. 174, 344–360.
Streever, W.J., 1999. Performance standards for wetland creation and restoration
under Section 404. Natl. Wetl. Newsl. (May–June), 10–13.
Suding, K.N., 2011. Toward an era of restoration in ecology: successes, failures, and
opportunities ahead. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 42, 465.
Tang, N., Cui, B.S., Zhao, X.S., 2006. The restoration of reed (Phragmites australi)
wetland in the Yellow River Delta. Acta Ecol. Sin. 26, 2616–2624.
Teal, J.M., Weishar, L., 2005. Ecological engineering, adaptive management, and
restoration management in Delaware Bay salt marsh restoration. Ecol. Eng. 25,
304–314.
Thormann, M.N., Bayley, S.E., 1997. Aboveground plant production and nutrient
content of the vegetation in six peatlands in Alberta, Canada. Plant Ecol. 131,
1–16.
The Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2010. Strategic Plan for
Biodiversity 2011–2020. COP 10 Decision X/2, Nagoya, Japan.
Turner, R.E., Lewis III, R.R., 1996. Hydrologic restoration of coastal wetlands. Wetl.
Ecol. Manag. 4, 65–72.
Turner, R.K., Van Den Bergh, J.C., Söderqvist, T., et al., 2000. Ecological–economic
analysis of wetlands: scientific integration for management and policy. Ecol.
Econ. 35, 7–23.
Valiela, I., Kinney, E., Culbertson, J., Peacock, E., Smith, S., 2009. Global Losses of
Mangroves and Salt Marshes.
Van Katwijk, M.M., Bos, A.R., de Jong, V.N., Hanssen, L.S.A.M., Hermus, D.C.R., de Jong,
D.J., 2009. Guidelines for seagrass restoration: importance of habitat selection
and donor population, spreading of risks, and ecosystem engineering effects.
Mar. Pollu. Bull. 58, 179–188.
Visser, J.M., Sasser, C.E., Chabreck, R.H., Linscombe, R.G., 1999. Long-term vegetation
change in Louisiana tidal marshes, 1968–1992. Wetlands 19, 168–175.
Von Bertrab, M.G., Krein, A., Stendera, S., Thielen, F., Hering, D., 2013. Is fine sedi-
ment deposition a main driver for the composition of benthic macroinvertebrate
assemblages? Ecol. Indic. 24, 589–598.
Wagner, K.I., Gallagher, S.K., Hayes, M., Lawrence, B.A., Zedler, J.B., 2008. Wetland
restoration in the new millennium: do research efforts match opportunities?
Restor. Ecol. 16, 367–372.
Wang, H., (Dissertation) 2006. Study on the Method and Index System of River
Ecosystem Restoration Assessment – Huangpu River and Suzhou River. East
China Normal University.
Wang, L., 2008. A review on wetland ecosystem restoration. Environ. Sci. Manag. 33,
152–156.
Ward, T., 2014. Evaluating individual health metrics of pumpkinseed as a proxy
for restoration success in coastal wetlands of the St. Lawrence River. In: 144th
Annual Meeting of the American Fisheries Society.
Weinstein, M.P., Teal, J.M., Balletto, J.H., Strait, K.A., 2001. Restoration principles
emerging from one of the world’s largest tidal marsh restoration projects. Wetl.
Ecol. Manag. 9, 387–407.
WHO (World Health Organization), 2000. Climate Change and Health: Impact
and Adaptation, http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2000/who-SDE-OEH-00.4.pdf
(accessed 16.10.08).
Wilcox, D.A., Whillans, T.H., 1999. Techniques for restoration of disturbed coastal
wetlands of the Great Lakes. Wetlands 19, 835–857.
Wingard, G.L., Lorenz, J.J., 2014. Integrated conceptual ecological model and habitat
indices for the southwest Florida coastal wetlands. Ecol. Indic. 44, 92–107.
Wolanski, E., 2007. Estuarine Ecohydrology. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands,
pp. 1–8.
Wolters, M., Garbutt, A., Bakker, J.P., 2005. Salt-marsh restoration: evaluating
the success of de-embankments in north-west Europe. Biol. Conserv. 123,
249–268.
Wortley, L., Hero, J.M., Howes, M., 2013. Evaluating ecological restoration success:
a review of the literature. Restor. Ecol. 21, 537–543.
452 Q. Zhao et al. / Ecological Indicators 60 (2016) 442–452
Wu, J.G., 1991. Dissipative structure, hierarchy theory and ecosystem. Chin. J. Appl.
Ecol. 2, 181–186.
Xiao, D.N., Chen, W.B., Guo, F.L., 2002. On the basic concepts and contents of ecolog-
ical security. Chin. J. Appl. Ecol. 13, 354–358.
Yan, D.H., Wang, G., Wang, H., Qin, T.L., 2012. Assessing ecological land use and water
demand of river systems: a case study in Luanhe River, North China. Hydrol.
Earth Syst. Sci. 16, 2469–2483.
Young, T.P., 2000. Restoration ecology and conservation biology. Biol. Conserv. 92,
73–83.
Young, J.S., Ammon, E.M., Weisberg, P.J., Dilts, T.E., Newton, W.E., Wong-Kone, D.C.,
Heki, L.G., 2013. Comparison of bird community indices for riparian restoration
planning and monitoring. Ecol. Indic. 34, 159–167.
Yu, J., Wang, X.L., Wu, Y.J., Yin, N.F., 2008. Changes of Shennongjia Dajiuhu landscape
pattern and the strategies of wetland ecological restoration. J. Huazhong Agric.
Univ. 27, 122–126.
Yuan, L., Zhang, L.Q., Xiao, D.R., Zhang, J., Wang, R.Z., Yuan, L.Q., Gu, Z.Q., Chen, X.,
Ping, Y., Zhu, Z.C., 2008. A demonstration study using the integrated technique
of cutting plus waterlogging for the control of Spartina alterniflora. Acta Ecol.
Sin. 28, 5723–5730.
Zedler, J.B., 2001. Handbook for Restoring Tidal Wetlands. CRC Press, Washington,
DC.
Zedler, J.B., 2000. Progress in wetland restoration ecology. Trends. Ecol. Evol. 15,
402–407.
Zedler, J.B., 2007. Success: an unclear, subjective descriptor of restoration outcomes.
Ecol. Restor. 25, 162–168.
Zedler, J.B., Kercher, S., 2005. Wetland resources: status, trends, ecosystem services,
and restorability. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 30, 39–74.
Zhang, J., Sun, Y.L., 2009. Eco-environmental quality and ecological restoration: a
case study in wetland of the Loushan River Estuary, Jiaozhou Bay, Qingdao.
In: International Workshop on Education Technology and Training and 2008
International Workshop on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 1, pp. 186–189.
Zhang, M.X., Liu, G.Q., Tang, X.P., 2009. Techniques and methods for wetland restora-
tion. Wetl. Sci. Manag. 5, 12–15.
Zhang, Y.R., Wang, R.Q., Kaplan, D., Liu, J., 2015. Which components of plant diver-
sity are most correlated with ecosystem properties? A case study in a restored
wetland in northern China. Ecol. Indic. 49, 228–236.
Zhuo, J.L., Ge, L., Shi, X.T., 2013. Study on eco-water supplement for freshwater
wetlands in the Yellow River Estuary. J. Hydroecol. 34, 14–20.
Zou, Y.A., Liu, J., Yang, X.T., Zhang, M.T., Chen, D., Wang, T.H., 2014. Impact of coastal
wetland restoration strategies in the Chongming Dongtan wetlands, China:
waterbird community composition as an indicator. Acta Zool. Acad. Sci. 60,
185–198.