Wetland
Wetlands seen as “kidneys
of the landscape” (Hunt, 2019, p.1) play a crucial role in providing wildlife
habitat, controlling erosion,
protecting shoreline and conserving and purifying
water. It is estimated that more than 30% of the species vulnerable to extinction is closely
intertwined with wetlands. However, the amount of wetlands around the world is shrinking
due to the excessive human activities. With this problem getting worse, some scientists have been
proposing different solutions to protecting wetlands. Randall J. Hunt (2019), for example, suggests that wetland
mitigation is not necessarily an
effective approach to “minimizing the effect of wetland loss,” (p.1) but
Lee et al. (2019) argue augmentation might be a way to compensate for the gap
caused by wetland mitigation. Though Hunt’s criticism against wetland mitigation is plausible, he
seems to ignore that fact that augmentation could bridge the gap in his
argument. Drawing on the suggestions by Lee et al., this essay aims to
problematize a specific idea proposed by Hunt.
In his article, “Do Created Wetlands Replace the Wetlands that are Destroyed?” Hunt (2019)
describes what wetland mitigation is and then lists at least four reasons as to
why wetland mitigation might not be successful. First and foremost, created
wetlands fail to substitute “the lost function
resulting from a wetland’s destruction” (Hunt,
2019, p.1). Second, created wetlands are usually recreated in some places “away from where they are needed and/or in areas that are not
wetland deficient” (ibid.). Third, “mitigation banking projects”
(ibid.) are not as effective as natural wetlands. Last but not least, Hunt argues that “created wetlands do not
provide in-kind compensation” (ibid.).
Despite the problems of mitigation mentioned
above, Lee et al. (2019)
propose a solution to preserving the wetlands in
their article “Comparative Hydrology, Water Quality, and Ecology of Selected
Natural and Augmented Freshwater Wetlands in West-Central Florida.” They
maintain that augmentation could effectively contribute to minimizing the loss
of “kidneys of the landscape” (Hunt, 2019, p.1). If the practice of
augmentation is implemented/carried out, water might
not drain out of the augmented wetlands while flooding is usually more
effective in the presence of augmentation. Moreover, this protective measure is reported to protect wetland plants and lessen the invasion
of upland vegetations.
Both of the two views have their pros and cons, but Hunt’s (2019) arguments are partially fallacious because he
seems to overlook the fact that augmentation could help preserve wetland
plants. Recreated wetlands, Hunt (2019) asserts, “do not provide in-kind
compensation” (p.1); in other words, people adopting mitigation would tend to
substitute “easy-to-create wetland types” (p.1) for “hard-to-create wetland
types” (p.1), thereby leading to
the worse quality of the created wetlands. Nevertheless, with the aid of augmentation, Lee et al. (2019)
suggest “aquatic algae, wetland plants, and freshwater macroinvertebrates”
(p.1) are very likely to survive because they are able to be inundated with “
the soil moisture conditions” (p.1). Also, the mortality of wetland vegetations
like “cypress tree” (p.1) would be greatly reduced to a certain degree. Therefore, the problem
raised by Hunt (2019) might be addressed in the practice of augmentation.
Wetlands are crucial
to the balance of nature and ecology. The devastation of the wetlands would
probably have a permanently detrimental impact on all species. Many efforts
have been made to restore this ecological resource. Hunt (2019) is skeptical about the effectiveness
of mitigation, yet his scruples/concern
might be eased through the augmentation proposed by Lee et al. (2019).