Countering the Broadleaf Invasion: Financial and Carbon Consequences of Removing Hardwoods during Longleaf Pine Savanna Restoration

The once widespread Longleaf pine (Pinus palustris)–dominated ecosystems of the southeastern coastal plain of the United States have been greatly reduced in extent, and many of the remaining stands are being degraded by hardwood invasion due to fire suppression. The first step toward pine savanna restoration is often hardwood removal, a costly process due to their large volumes and low market values. Despite these problems, by marketing a wide range of hard‐ and softwood products, the costs of 13 restoration projects in northern Florida were substantially reduced. Ten different products were sold to 19 different buyers. Fuel chips represented 71–100% of all biomass removed (8.2–81.1 Mg/ha). Although landowners were charged modest amounts for removing biomass harvested as fuel chips, other marketed products yielded revenues. Overall, four projects earned net profits of $29–$383/ha, and four projects generated sufficient revenue to pay 17–99% of the cost of hardwood removal as fuel chips. A carbon accounting of a second set of projects demonstrated that carbon harvested as fuel chips far exceeded that consumed in harvest and transport, yielding net carbon offsets of 451–1,320 Mg C/project (3.3–13.9 Mg C/ha). Using fuel consumption results of this second set of projects, carbon offsets for the 13 restoration projects were estimated as 89–1,524 Mg (3.8–37.9 Mg C/ha). Restorationists should monitor traditional forest product markets as well as developing carbon markets for price fluctuations that could provide significant revenues to restoration projects.     

Carbon stocks in above‐ground biomass of monoculture plantations,mixed species plantations and environmental restoration plantings in north‐east Australia

Summary The emergence of carbon markets has provided a potential source of funding for reforestation projects. However, there is concern amongst ecologists that these markets will promote the establishment of monoculture plantations rather than more diverse restoration plantings, on the assumption that fast‐growing monocultures are likely to store more carbon than restoration plantings. We examined the validity of this assumption for three predominantly rainforest plantation types established in the moist tropical uplands of north‐east Australia: monoculture plantations of native rainforest conifers (n = 5, mean age 13 years); mixed species plantations of rainforest cabinet timber species, rainforest conifers and eucalypts (n = 5, mean age 13 years); and, environmental restoration plantings comprised mostly of a diverse range of rainforest trees (n = 10, mean age 14 years). We found that restoration plantings stored significantly more carbon in above‐ground biomass than monoculture plantations of native conifers (on average, 106 t vs 62 t carbon per ha); and tended to store more carbon than mixed species timber plantations which were intermediate in value (86 t carbon per ha). Carbon stocks were higher in restoration plantings than in monoculture and mixed species plantations for three reasons. First, and most importantly, restoration plantings were more densely stocked than monoculture and mixed species plantations. Second, there were more large diameter trees in restoration plantings than monoculture plantations. Third, the trees used in restoration plantings had a higher average wood density than the conifers used in monoculture plantations. While, on average, wood density was higher in mixed species plantations than restoration plantings, the much higher stocking rate of restoration plantings meant they stored more carbon than mixed species plantations. We conclude that restoration plantings in the moist tropics of north‐east Australia can accumulate relatively high amounts of carbon within two decades of establishment. Comparison with reference rainforest sites suggests that restoration plantings could maintain their high stocking rates (and therefore high biomass) as they develop in future decades. However, because restoration plantings are currently much more expensive to establish than monoculture plantations, restoration plantings are unlikely to be favoured by carbon markets. Novel reforestation techniques and designs are required if restoration plantings are to both provide habitat for rainforest biota and store carbon in biomass at a cost comparable to monoculture plantations.     

Co‐benefits of planting species mixes in carbon projects

The carbon market offers a unique opportunity to achieve large‐scale ecological restoration of degraded agricultural landscapes. Here, we outline some of the benefits of planting mixes of native species rather than monocultures in carbon plantings as a step towards creating biodiverse carbon‐rich forests and woodlands in Australia. We highlight the gaps in our knowledge and emphasise the importance of setting benchmarks for carbon projects to maximise their potential to deliver co‐benefits such as habitat provision for wildlife. On the whole, we are optimistic that ongoing refinement of joined biodiversity conservation and carbon credit initiatives will help to develop a carbon market that can drive ecological restoration of Australian agricultural landscapes.     

Restoring Stream Ecosystems: Lessons from a Midwestern State

Reach‐scale stream restorations are becoming a common approach to repair degraded streams, but the effectiveness of these projects is rarely evaluated or reported. We surveyed governmental, private, and nonprofit organizations in the state of Indiana to determine the frequency and nature of reach‐scale stream restorations in this midwestern U.S. state. For 10 attempted restorations in Indiana, questionnaires and on‐site assessments were used to better evaluate current designs for restoring stream ecosystems. At each restoration site, habitat and water quality were evaluated in restored and unrestored reaches. Our surveys identified commonalities across all restorations, including the type of restoration, project goals, structures installed, and level of monitoring conducted. In general, most restorations were described as stream‐relocation projects that combined riparian and in‐stream enhancements. Fewer than half of the restorations conducted pre‐ or post‐restoration monitoring, and most monitoring involved evaluations of riparian vegetation rather than aquatic variables. On‐site assessments revealed that restored reaches had significantly lower stream widths and greater depths than did upstream unrestored reaches, but riparian canopy cover often was lower in restored than in unrestored reaches. This study provides basic information on midwestern restoration strategies, which is needed to identify strengths and weaknesses in current practices and to better inform future stream restorations.     

Does it matter why we do restoration? Volunteers,offset markets and the need for full disclosure

Volunteers are behind much of the ecological restoration work done in Australia. Private landholders, environmental nongovernment organisations (ENGOs) and community groups all donate time and money to much‐needed restoration and revegetation efforts. Biodiversity offsetting has emerged as a potential source of financial support for such work. We consider the question: should it matter to practitioners of restoration, particularly landholders and volunteers, how it is financed? We argue it should, because when offsets fund restoration work, the net environmental outcome is usually intended to be neutral – not an environmental gain. This is often not clear, because only the localised environmental gain is seen by the restoration practitioner, not the associated loss. For mandated offsets, the restoration work is required to occur regardless of whether the volunteer contributes to it or not, so their contribution only replaces work that would otherwise be done by a commercial provider. We contend that informed involvement in offset provision requires full disclosure, particularly to volunteers and landholders. Unfortunately, however, such transparency does not always occur. We acknowledge that there are valid reasons why well‐informed practitioners might willingly subsidise offset provision, but they might equally choose not to. Furthermore, offsets are intended to cover the full cost of biodiversity damage, creating a disincentive for damage by developers. Yet, subsidies from offset providers work against sending market signals that reflect the true replacement cost of biodiversity. We recommend that all ENGOs, developers, offset funders and brokers commit to transparency, particularly to landholders, donors and volunteers, about the environmental impact that is to be offset and the fact that their involvement generates no additional environmental benefit, as the offset is a condition of approval for a permitted loss, much like the rehabilitation of a mine site. Providing restoration services in partnership with industry may be something that landholders, volunteers and ENGOs are happy to support. But this must be decided consciously, not through unnoticed incremental changes that contradict some volunteers’ values or donors’ understanding of an organisation's mission.     

Seedling emergence and summer survival after direct seeding for woodland restoration on old fields in south‐western Australia

Restoration opportunities provided by an emerging carbon market have largely focused on large‐scale woodland restoration projects. Gondwana Link is one such project operating in a 1000‐km corridor in south‐western Australia. We identified environmental factors affecting the success of woody‐species restoration at a dry‐woodland Gondwana Link site, Peniup, by relating the emergence and survival of 1522 seedlings to abiotic and biotic variables, including soil conditions and weed cover. We found soil conditions were highly variable across the site and, together with the dry Mediterranean‐climate summer, affected seedling emergence and summer survival. Seedling emergence was higher in sandy soils, but summer survival was higher in clay soils. Most of the seedlings that emerged and survived the summer were in either the Fabales or Myrtaceae family. We concluded that attempts to analyse restoration outcomes that do not consider how the influence of primary abiotic and biotic factors changes over time may mask the mechanisms driving seedling establishment.     

How can ecologists thrive during the global environmental crisis? Lessons from the ancient world

When striving to meet an immense challenge, how can we, as restoration ecologists, flourish? Given the ongoing environmental crisis, it is normal to experience ecological grief and discouragement. This article discusses how insights from the ancient philosophy of Stoicism can help environmental practitioners navigate these troubling times. To overcome ecological grief, ecologists can draw on three tenets from Stoic thought: distinguishing between what we can and cannot control; recognizing our contribution as part of a broader community of environmental managers; and focusing on the intent of our actions. We believe that these ideas can help ecologists shoulder the emotional burden of modern environmental practice and focus on working toward a diverse and resilient biosphere.     

Can carbon credits fund riparian forest restoration?

Ecological restoration is increasingly called on to provide ecosystem services (ES) valuable to humans, as well as to benefit biodiversity and improve wildlife habitat. Where mechanisms to pay for ES exist, they may serve as incentives to embark on habitat restoration projects. We evaluated the potential of newly established carbon markets in the United States to incentivize afforestation along riparian corridors, by comparing the income earnable by carbon offset credits with the costs of planting, maintaining, and registering such a restoration project in California. We used a 20‐year chronosequence of riparian forest sites along the Sacramento River as our model project. We found that carbon credits can repay more than 100% of costs after two decades of regrowth, if sufficient effort is put into sampling intensity in the first post‐restoration decade. However, carbon credits alone are unlikely to entice landowners currently engaged in agricultural activities to switch from farming crops to farming habitat.     

Incorporating natural regeneration in forest landscape restoration in tropical regions: synthesis and key research gaps

Extensive tropical forest loss and degradation have stimulated increasing awareness at the international policy level of the need to undertake large‐scale forest landscape restoration (FLR). Natural regeneration offers a cost‐effective way to achieve large‐scale FLR, but is often overlooked in favor of tree plantations. The studies presented in this special issue show how natural regeneration can become an important part of FLR and highlight the ecological, environmental, and social factors that must be considered to effectively do so. They also identify major knowledge gaps and outline a research agenda to support the use of natural regeneration in FLR. Six central questions emerge from these studies: (1) What are the ecological, economic, and livelihood outcomes of active and passive restoration interventions?; (2) What are the tradeoffs and synergies among ecological, economic, and livelihood outcomes of natural regeneration, restoration and productive land uses, and how do they evolve in the face of market and climate shocks?; (3) What diagnostic tools are needed to identify and map target areas for natural regeneration?; (4) How should spatial prioritization frameworks incorporate natural regeneration into FLR?; (5) What legal frameworks and governance structures are best suited to encourage natural regeneration and how do they change across regions and landscapes?; (6) What financial mechanisms can foster low‐cost natural regeneration? Natural regeneration is not a panacea to solve tensions and conflicts over land use, but it can be advantageous under some circumstances. Identifying under what conditions this is the case is an important avenue for future research.     

A new era in forest restoration monitoring

Monitoring ecological restoration has been historically dependent on traditional inventory methods based on detailed information obtained from field plots. New paradigms are now needed to successfully achieve restoration as a large‐scale, long‐lasting transformative process. Fortunately, advances in technology now allow for unprecedented shifts in the way restoration has been planned, implemented, and monitored. Here, we describe our vision on how the use of new technologies by a new generation of restoration ecologists may revolutionize restoration monitoring in the coming years. The success of the many ambitious restoration programs planned for the coming decade will rely on effective monitoring, which is an essential component of adaptive management and accountability. The development of new remote sensing approaches and their application to a restoration context open new avenues for expanding our capacity to assess restoration performance over unprecedented spatial and temporal scales. A new generation of scientists, which have a background in remote sensing but are getting more and more involved with restoration, will certainly play a key role for making large‐scale restoration monitoring a viable human endeavor in the coming decade—the United Nations' decade on ecosystem restoration.     

Flexible and Adaptable Restoration: An Example from South Korea

Ecological restoration is set to play a key role in mitigating biodiversity loss. While many restorationists worry about what to do about and what to call rapidly changing ecosystems (no‐analog, novel, or other terms), ecologists and managers in some parts of the world have avoided these controversies and proceeded with developing and implementing innovative restoration projects. We discuss examples from South Korea, including the Cheonggyecheon river project in Seoul and the new National Institute of Ecology, which combines scientific research, planted reference systems for future restoration, and an Ecorium for outreach and education. South Korea faces a range of restoration challenges, including managing even‐aged planted forests, major land use changes (especially urbanization) affecting valuable tidal flats, and fragmented landscapes caused by intensive land use and the fenced Demilitarized Zone (DMZ). The examples from South Korea provide insights that might guide future actions more broadly. These include flexible targets for restoration not based on historical precedents, considering ecosystem functions and functional trait diversity as well as species composition, creating model restoration projects, and managing adaptively.     

What Role Should Government Regulation Play in Ecological Restoration? Ongoing Debate in São Paulo State,Brazil

Around the world, there is growing desire and momentum for ecological restoration to happen faster, with better quality, and in more extensive areas. The question we ask is how can laws and governmental regulations best contribute to effective, successful, and broad‐scale restoration? In the state of São Paulo, Brazil, there is a legal instrument (SMA 08‐2008) whose aim is to increase the effectiveness of tropical forest restoration projects in particular. It establishes, among other things, requirements regarding the minimum number of native tree species to be reached within a given period of time in restoration projects and the precise proportion of functional groups or threatened species to be included when reforestation with native species is used as a restoration technique. There are, however, two differing perspectives among Brazilian restoration ecologists on the appropriateness of such detailed legal rules. For some, the rules help increase the chances that mandatory projects of ecological restoration will succeed. For the other group, there is no single way to achieve effective ecosystem restoration, and the existing science and know‐how are far from sufficient to establish standardized technical and methodological norms or to justify that such norms be imposed. Both points of view are discussed here, aiming to help those developing new legislation and improving existing laws about ecological restoration. The precedents established in São Paulo, and at the federal level in Brazil, and the ongoing debate about those laws are worth considering and possibly applying elsewhere.     

Soil amendments promote denitrification in restored wetlands

Wetlands perform important ecosystem functions, including improvement of water quality through the process of denitrification. To offset the negative environmental impact of replacing wetlands with agriculture and development, the United States has a policy requiring that losses in wetland area are compensated for through wetland restoration elsewhere. However, these restored wetlands may require decades to achieve functional equivalency to natural wetlands. We evaluated the efficacy of using carbon amendments during restoration to promote denitrification potential in four restored wetlands in central New York State, United States. The amendments were straw, topsoil, and biochar, chosen to range along a gradient of carbon lability. Soil samples collected 6 years after restoration were analyzed for denitrification potential and associated soil properties, including soil carbon and nitrogen, pH, microbial biomass carbon and nitrogen, carbon lability, and potential net nitrogen mineralization and nitrification. Compared to unamended control plots, denitrification potential was approximately 3 times higher in straw‐amended plots, 8 times higher in topsoil‐amended plots, and 11 times higher in biochar‐amended plots. Denitrification potential positively correlated with both soil organic carbon and microbial biomass nitrogen, suggesting that the use of soil amendments in restorations can help stimulate the development of denitrification potential by facilitating the suite of carbon and nitrogen cycling processes that underlie this function. However, denitrification potential in a nearby natural reference wetland was at least 50 times higher than it was in the restored wetland plots, highlighting the limitations of using wetland restoration to compensate for the loss of natural wetlands.     

Opportunities and Challenges for Ecological Restoration within REDD+

The Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) mechanism has the potential to provide the developing nations with significant funding for forest restoration activities that contribute to climate change mitigation, sustainable management, and carbon‐stock enhancement. In order to stimulate and inform discussion on the role of ecological restoration within REDD+, we outline opportunities for and challenges to using science‐based restoration projects and programs to meet REDD+ goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and storing carbon in forest ecosystems. Now that the REDD+ mechanism, which is not yet operational, has expanded beyond a sole focus on activities that affect carbon budgets to also include those that enhance ecosystem services and deliver other co‐benefits to biodiversity and communities, forest restoration could play an increasingly important role. However, in many nations, there is a lack of practical tools and guidance for implementing effective restoration projects and programs that will sequester carbon and at the same time improve the integrity and resilience of forest ecosystems. Restoration scientists and practitioners should continue to engage with potential REDD+ donors and recipients to ensure that funding is targeted at projects and programs with ecologically sound designs.     

Investing in Natural Capital: Using Economic Incentives to Overcome Barriers to Forest Restoration

A legacy of fire suppression and the impacts of climate change have induced a worsening pattern of large and severe forest fires across the western United States. This has spurred action to jump‐start wildfire risk mitigation initiatives. Despite an increase in resources and attention, the persistence of economic impediments has forestalled the successful expansion of forest restoration to a landscape level. The failure to properly account for the full range of costs and benefits from restoration treatments has contributed to the asymmetry between needed action and actual implementation. The valuation of non‐market ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration, along with the ability of ecological restoration to act as an agent of economic stimulus, should be incorporated into the policymaking process. We demonstrate how institutionalizing the economic benefits from both the process and products of forest restoration can strengthen policies for advancing long‐term forest health.     

Toward a social–ecological approach to ecological restoration: a look back at three decades of maritime clifftop restoration

The sharp increase in the touristic use of the maritime clifftops in western France after WWII resulted in a concentration of activities that generated ecosystem degradation in many sites (e.g. touristic infrastructure, human trampling). Consideration of the ecological value of these sites over the past three decades has led to a shift in maritime clifftop management and consequently to numerous planning and restoration projects. Using inventories of maritime clifftop restoration projects conducted in 2007 and 2016, we identified 76 restoration projects, which allowed us to study the active and passive restoration methods used. In addition, we collected and analyzed 465 vegetation monitoring plots with an average duration of 5.6 years to understand how they were used by both scientists and nonscientists. First, we describe the social–ecological systems of these restoration projects through an analysis of their social contexts, ecological stakes, and restoration goals based on 19 semistructured interviews with restoration stakeholders. Comparing our research with similar studies in the literature reveals that the main strength of maritime clifftop restorations is a strong network between scientist and nonscientist stakeholders combined with high‐level monitoring. Finally, we underline the main challenges for the future of maritime clifftop ecological restoration: (1) the need for further study of this ecological database (e.g. to study the medium‐term effect of active restoration, continue current monitoring); and (2) the need to develop sociological studies of human uses and perceptions to improve the long‐term management of restored ecosystems.     

Plastic pollution challenges in marine and coastal environments: from local to global governance

Plastic pollution in the marine and coastal environment is a challenging restoration and governance issue. Similar to many environmental problems, marine plastic pollution is transboundary and therefore the governance solutions are complex. Although the marine environment is unlikely to return to the condition it was in before the “plastic era,” it is an example of an environmental restoration challenge where successful governance and environmental stewardship would likely result in a healthier global oceanic ecosystem. We argue that a holistic, integrated approach that utilizes scientific expertise, community participation, and market‐based strategies is needed to significantly reduce the global plastic pollution problem.     

What is the value of wild animal welfare for restoration ecology?

The restoration community continues to discuss what constitutes good environmental stewardship. One area of tension is the extent to which the well‐being of wild animals should inform restoration efforts. We discuss three ways that the perspective of wild animal welfare can augment restoration ecology: strengthening people's relationship with nature, reinforcing biotic integrity, and reducing mechanistic uncertainty. The animal welfare movement elevates sentient animals as stakeholders and explores how environmental context directly impacts the well‐being of individuals. Viewing wild animals through this lens may encourage people to think and act with empathy and altruism. Second, we incorporate animal welfare into the concept of biotic integrity for ecological and ethical reasons. Restoring ecosystem processes may enhance animal welfare, and vice versa. Alternatively, there may be a trade‐off between these factors, requiring local decision‐makers to prioritize between restoring ecosystem function and promoting individuals' well‐being. We conclude by discussing how welfare can impact population recovery, thereby adding insights about mechanisms underpinning restoration objectives. Ultimately, restoration ecologists and proponents of wild animal welfare could enjoy a productive union.     

What motivates ecological restoration?

Ecological restoration projects are motivated by diverse environmental and social reasons. Motivations likely vary between stakeholders or regions, and influence the approach taken to plan, implement, and monitor restoration projects. We surveyed 307 people involved in the restoration of native vegetation across Australia to identify their underlying motivations. We also elicited information on planning, implementation, and monitoring of restoration projects. We found that biodiversity enhancement is the main motivation for undertaking restoration, with biodiversity offsetting, water quality improvements, and social reasons as important secondary motivations. Motivations varied significantly by stakeholder type and region. Restoration projects primarily motivated by ecosystem service provision (e.g. water quality improvements and social reasons) sought less pristine ecological outcomes than projects motivated by biodiversity enhancement or offsetting. Rigorous monitoring designs (e.g. quantitative, repeatable surveys, and use of performance indicators) were rarely used in restoration projects, except for projects motivated by scientific research. Better alignment of different restoration motivations with the planning and monitoring of restoration projects should deliver greater benefits through setting appropriate objectives and evaluating outcomes against these objectives. These improvements will increase the capacity of the restoration practice to meet international biodiversity commitments and communicate restoration outcomes to stakeholders.     

“双碳”目标下山水林田湖草沙一体化保护和修复工程优先区与技术策略研究

巩固与提升生态系统碳汇能力是实现碳达峰、碳中和目标的重要途径之一。生态保护修复对生态系统固碳增汇有着重要影响。2016—2021年,财政部、自然资源部、生态环境部在我国27个省(自治区、直辖市)共支持了三批山水林田湖草生态保护修复工程试点和第一批山水林田湖草沙一体化保护和修复工程,共35个山水工程。通过分析已部署的35个山水工程布局的空间特征和碳汇效益,结合国家重点关注的生态保护修复区域、全国重要生态系统保护和修复重大工程分布、生态系统碳汇重要区域和敏感区域,探索“双碳”目标下山水工程布局优先区及生态保护修复技术策略。研究发现山水工程的碳汇效益具有空间差异性,且山水工程优先区主要依次分布在青藏高原生态屏障区、东北森林带、长江重点生态区(含川滇生态屏障)、南方丘陵山地带、黄河重点生态区(含黄土高原生态屏障)、北方防沙带等的森林、高原草地、荒漠、岩溶地区等区域。基于此,提出未来山水工程在不同区域的技术策略。在森林生态系统为主地区,不仅要提高森林覆盖度、森林质量,还应当加强生物多样性的保护和土壤碳汇能力的提升;在高原草原及冻土地区应加强草地退化和冻土监测,提高草地质量;在西北荒漠化地区加强碳...