Results/Conclusions All three predictor sets together explained 65.8% of the variation in species composition, and the sets of predictors at the three scales had independent and nearly equally strong relationships to species composition. In contrast, when species were aggregated into functional groups the unique contribution of local predictors (24.9%) was greater than the unique contributions of macro-scale or meso-scale landscape predictors (14.9% and 18.6%, respectively), suggesting convergence of functional group composition in sites with similar environmental conditions. Macro-scale and local predictors both explained a significant amount of variation in floristic quality group composition, but a large amount of the variation (23.4%) attributed to local predictors could be explained by large-scale landscape factors, indicating that landscape constraints on local environmental conditions limited the level of floristic integrity achievable in restored wetlands. The appropriate scale at which to focus restoration efforts will vary depending on restoration objectives. Restoration of species composition may require simultaneous consideration of multiple scales of influence, but for other restoration goals, practitioners might more effectively target processes operating at certain spatial scales.