Data from 57 wetlands from around the world have been collated to investigate whether wetlands affect the nutrient loading of waters draining through them; the majority of wetlands reduced nutrient loading and there was little difference in the proportion of wetlands that reduced N to those that reduced P loading. However, some wetlands increased nutrient loadings by increasing the loading of soluble N and P species thus potentially driving aquatic eutrophication. Studies conducted over a period of a year or more, or that involved frequent sampling during high flow events, were more likely to indicate that the wetland increased nutrient loadings. Swamps and marshes differed from riparian zones in their nutrient function characteristics by being slightly more effective at nutrient reduction than riparian zones. The attributes that enable wetlands to be effective in reducing N and P loadings need consideration when constructing or managing wetlands to reduce nutrient loadings. Their wise use will be an important strategy for meeting the Water Framework Directive requirements for many water bodies.

It is widely recognised that wetlands play an important role in the hydrological cycle, influencing groundwater recharge, low flows, evaporation and floods. This has led to policies being formulated world-wide to conserve and manage wetlands to deliver these key services, especially flood risk reduction. Generic statements have often been published about wetland hydrological services but the term "wetlands" covers many land types, including wet woodlands, reedbeds, peat bogs, fens, and salt marshes. Each of these wetland types can have a hydrological function that is subtly different, making it difficult to generalise the flood reduction services of wetlands. In this paper we focus on two example wetland types (upland rain-fed wetlands and floodplain wetlands) to demonstrate why there are differences in flood functions both within and between wetland types. Upland wetlands generally tend to be flood generating areas while floodplain wetlands have a greater potential to reduce floods.2 However, landscape location and configuration, soil characteristics, topography, soil moisture status and management all influence whether these wetlands provide flood reduction services.

The term "environmental flows" is now widely used to reflect the hydrological regime required to sustain freshwater and estuarine ecosystems, and the human livelihoods and well-being that depend on them. The definition suggests a central role for ecohydrological science to help determine a required flow regime for a target ecosystem condition. Indeed, many countries have established laws and policies to implement environmental flows with the expectation that science can deliver the answers. This article provides an overview of recent developments and applications of environmental flows on six continents to explore the changing role of ecohydrological sciences, recognizing its limitations and the emerging needs of society, water resource managers and policy makers. Science has responded with new methods to link hydrology to ecosystem status, but these have also raised fundamental questions that go beyond ecohydrology, such as who decides on the target condition of the ecosystem? Some environmental flow methods are based on the natural flow paradigm, which assumes the desired regime is the natural "unmodified" condition. However, this may be unrealistic where flow regimes have been altered for many centuries and are likely to change with future climate change. Ecosystems are dynamic, so the adoption of environmental flows needs to have a similar dynamic basis. Furthermore, methodological developments have been made in two directions: first, broad-scale hydrological analysis of flow regimes (assuming ecological relevance of hydrograph components) and, second, analysis of ecological impacts of more than one stressor (e.g. flow, morphology, water quality). All methods retain a degree of uncertainty, which translates into risks, and raises questions regarding trust between scientists and the public. Communication between scientists, social scientists, practitioners, policy makers and the public is thus becoming as important as the quality of the science. lois et des politiques de mise en oeuvre de débits environnementaux en espérant que la science peut fournir les réponses. Ce document donne un aperçu des développements et des applications récents de débits environnementaux sur les six continents dans le but d'explorer l'évolution du rôle des sciences éco-hydrologiques, en reconnaissant leurs limites et les nouveaux besoins de la société, des gestionnaires des ressources en eau et des décideurs politiques. La science a répondu par de nouvelles méthodes pour relier l'hydrologie à l'état des écosystèmes, mais à cette occasion des questions fondamentales ont été soulevées qui vont au-delà de l'éco-hydrologie, telles que : qui décide de l'état souhaité pour un écosystème ? Certaines méthodes de débits environnementaux sont basées sur le paradigme de l'écoulement naturel, ce qui suppose que le régime souhaité est la condition naturelle « non modifiée ». Cela peut être irréaliste là où les régimes d'écoulement ont été modifiés pendant de nombreux siècles et sont susceptibles d'évoluer avec le changement climatique ...

No abstract

Protected areas are a global cornerstone of biodiversity conservation and restoration. Yet freshwater biodiversity is continuing to decline rapidly. To date there has been no formal review of the effectiveness of protected areas for conserving or restoring biodiversity in rivers, lakes, and wetlands. We present the first assessment using a systematic review of the published scientific evidence of the effectiveness of freshwater protected areas. Systematic searches returned 2,586 separate publications, of which 44 provided quantitative evidence comprising 75 case studies. Of these, 38 reported positive, 25 neutral, and 12 negative outcomes for freshwater biodiversity conservation. Analysis revealed variable relationships between conservation effectiveness and factors such as taxa assessed, protected area size and characteristics, International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) protected area category, and ecoregion. Lack of effectiveness was attributed to many anthropogenic factors, including fishing (often with a lack of law enforcement), water management (abstraction, dams, and flow regulation), habitat degradation, and invasive non‐native species. Drawing on the review and wider literature we distil eight lessons to enhance the effectiveness of protected areas for freshwater biodiversity conservation. We urge policymakers, protected area managers, and those who fund them to invest in well‐designed research and monitoring programs and publication of evidence of protected area effectiveness.