Reduction of avian diversity in created versus natural and restored wetlands

Natural wetland ecosystems continue to suffer widespread destruction and degradation. Many recent studies argue that artificial or restored wetlands compensate for wetland loss and are valuable for waterbird conservation. However, detailed comparisons of the value of natural, artificial and restored wetlands are lacking. Our aim was to assess if the restoration or creation of wetlands can fully compensate for the loss of natural wetlands for waterbirds. We compared the waterbird communities in a set of 20 natural, restored and artificial wetlands, all of which are considered important for waterbirds and are located within the same protected area (Doñana Natural Space, south‐west Spain). We used different measures of diversity, including phylogenetic relatedness, and the proportion of threatened species at national, European and international levels. We found that artificial wetlands have consistently lower value than restored and natural wetlands, with little difference between the latter two. Natural wetlands are essential for conserving diversity across the tree of life and for threatened species, but restored wetlands can be of similar value and can assure maintenance of key ecological processes. Thus, when economic costs per unit area are similar, resources for wetland conservation are better invested in restoration projects than in wetland creation, and caution is required when suggesting that artificial wetlands compensate for the loss of natural wetlands.