Science synthesis for management as a way to advance ecosystem restoration: evaluation of restoration scenarios for the Florida Everglades

Abstract

Restoration of large ecosystems, like the Florida Everglades, is complex because they cover large areas that span many jurisdictional boundaries and encompass a range of stakeholders whose survival and livelihood are intertwined with the ecosystem. The Everglades is well studied, but linking scientific information to restoration action requires that information be coproduced and carefully communicated to make scientific information credible, relevant, and accepted by stakeholders. Guided by decision-maker key questions, the Synthesis of Everglades Restoration and Ecosystem Services (SERES) project used a team of specialists to synthesize scientific information across disciplines and evaluate four restoration scenarios that differed in water storage and removal of barriers to overland flow. Capital and operation costs were calculated for all scenarios and the results were communicated to policymakers and other stakeholders with the help of a graphic artist. Restoration options were evaluated in areas of hydrology, soil accretion, landscape processes, and small fish and wading bird dynamics. All scenarios provided substantial improvements to the biological system compared to the existing conditions. The option that expanded aboveground surface water storage and reduced barriers to water flow by 69% which allowed an estimated 91% of predrainage flows to reach the Gulf provided the best ecologic benefits for the least resources spent. The SERES project provides a practical process for improving knowledge exchange among stakeholders involved in restoring large-scale ecosystems. Implications for Practice• Large-scale ecosystem restorations are complex with many stakeholders. Information that is coproduced by scientists, policymakers, and other stakeholders is more likely to be accepted and useful for restoring large ecosystems. • Restoration scenarios based on key questions of managers were evaluated by a core team of specialists. Restoration scenarios were conceptual in nature and addressed the questions of policymakers. Importantly, capital and operation and maintenance costs were calculated for all scenarios. • The use of restoration scenarios guided by policymaker questions and focused on important ecosystem factors of Everglades restoration synthesized a tremendous amount of information and reduced complexity while increasing decision-making clarity. Project costs were important factors and use of scenarios in future restorations should include ecosystem services.

Barriers and Bridges in Abating Coastal Eutrophication

“…Nutrient source controls, even if effective, would likely not produce results in the estuaries for decades. Increasing the capacity of stormwater treatment areas within the agricultural regions south of the lake faces practical limitations and high costs (Wetzel et al, 2017). Moreover, this would not address the reduction of nutrient losses at their source.…”

Why Do We Need to Document and Conserve Foundation Species in Freshwater Wetlands?

“…The recognition of the roles of all foundation species, including undesirable ones, such as cattail, can ultimately facilitate ecosystem conservation. Given the critical role of foundation species for wetland ecosystem structure and functioning, their recovery from the impacts of eutrophication, drought or saltwater intrusion can lead to positive cascading effects on wetlands undergoing restoration or subject to mitigated environmental impacts [214,215].…”

Nest‐site selection model for endangered Everglade snail kites to inform ecosystem restoration

“…The Everglades wetland ecosystem supports a vast diversity of flora and fauna and provides numerous ecosystem services, including water purification, flood control, water supply (e.g., groundwater recharge), carbon sequestration, natural goods, recreation, and tourism (Borkhataria et al, 2017; Gibble et al, 2020; Wetzel et al, 2017). The watershed of the Everglades was once completely connected and historically spanned approximately 47,000 km 2 in Florida (Gleason & Stone, 1994).…”