Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34063930›Full record

ReviewPlants (Basel, Switzerland)2021

Wetland Restoration with Hydrophytes: A Review.

Maria A Rodrigo

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Plants (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Maria A RodrigoIntegrative Ecology Group, Cavanilles Institute for Biodiversity and Evolutionary Biology, University of Valencia, Catedrático José Beltrán 2, Paterna, 46980 Valencia, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-4106-0643

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Restoration cases with hydrophytes (those which develop all their vital functions inside the water or very close to the water surface, e.g., flowering) are less abundant compared to those using emergent plants. Here, I synthesize the latest knowledge in wetland restoration based on revegetation with hydrophytes and stress common challenges and potential solutions. The review mainly focusses on natural wetlands but also includes information about naturalized constructed wetlands, which nowadays are being used not only to improve water quality but also to increase biodiversity. Available publications, peer-reviewed and any public domain, from the last 20 years, were reviewed. Several countries developed pilot case-studies and field-scale projects with more or less success, the large-scale ones being less frequent. Using floating species is less generalized than submerged species. Sediment transfer is more adequate for temporary wetlands. Hydrophyte revegetation as a restoration tool could be improved by selecting suitable wetlands, increasing focus on species biology and ecology, choosing the suitable propagation and revegetation techniques (seeding, planting). The clear negative factors which prevent the revegetation success (herbivory, microalgae, filamentous green algae, water and sediment composition) have to be considered. Policy-making and wetland restoration practices must more effectively integrate the information already known, particularly under future climatic scenarios.

Indexed as

aquatic phanerogamscharophytesconstructed wetlandsfloating macrophytesnatural wetlandsplantingrevegetationsediment transferseedingsubmerged macrophytestransplanting

Identifiers

PMID34063930
PMCPMC8223994

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.