Learning from scientific literature: Can indicators for measuring success be standardized in “on the ground” restoration?

The Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) Primer identifies key ecosystem attributes for evaluating restoration outcome. Broad attribute categories could be necessary due to the large variety of restoration projects, but could make overall evaluations and assessments challenging and might hamper the development of sound and successful restoration. In this study we carry out a systematic review of scientific papers addressing evaluation of restoration outcome. We include 104 studies published after 2010 from Europe or North America, representing different types of restoration projects in terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems. We explore the main ecological and socioeconomic attributes used to evaluate restoration outcome, and related indicators and specific methods applied to measure this, in relation to ecosystem and type of restoration project. We identify a wide range of indicators within each attribute, and show that very different methods are employed to measure them. This complexity reduces the opportunity for meaningful comparison and standardization of evaluation of restoration outcome, within and between ecosystems. Socioeconomic indicators are rarely used to evaluate restoration outcome, and studies including both ecological and socioeconomic indicators are nearly absent. Based on our findings we discuss whether standardization and streamlining of indicators is useful to improve the evaluation of “on the ground” restoration, or if this is not appropriate given the diversity of goals and ecosystems involved. Species‐specific traits are used in many projects and should be considered as an addition to the original SER attributes. Furthermore, we discuss the potential for restoration evaluation that encompasses not only assessment of ecological but also socioeconomic indicators.     

Monitoring ecological processes for restoration projects

Restoration of ecological processes is key to restoring the capacity of ecosystems to support social, economic, cultural and aesthetic values. The sustainability of the restored system also depends on processes associated with carbon, nutrient and hydrologic cycles, yet most restoration monitoring is limited to plant community composition. Our research has shown that short-term plant composition monitoring is a necessary but insufficient predictor of long-term restoration success. Long-term (up to 75 years) studies in the western United States show that short-term monitoring of plant community composition alone incorrectly predicted the failure of treatments that were ultimately successful, and the success of treatments that ultimately failed. We propose that vegetation composition monitoring be combined with one or more ecological process indicators reflecting changes in three fundamental ecosystem attributes on which restoration success depends: soil and site stability, hydrologic function and biotic integrity. These simple, rapid, plot-level indicators reflect changes in resource redistribution and vegetation structure. We include a case study involving restoration of mixed grass prairie on mineland in the west-central United States.     

生态系统健康评价的研究进展

生态系统健康评价是环境管理和生态系统监控的基础,生态系统监控可促进生态系统健康评价。首先介绍了生态系统健康概念的产生,发展及其不同的内涵,并着重回顾和讨论了生态系统健康评价指标及其存在的问题,生态系统健康评价指标包括生态指标,物理化学指标,人类健康与社会经济指标3大类,生态指标是反映生态系统特征和状态的生物指标,它分为生态系统,群落和种群与个体等不同层次的指标或指标体系,物理化学指标是检测生态系统的非生物环境的指标。人类健康与社会经济指标着眼于生态系统对人类生存与社会发展的支持作用,采用经济参数和社会发展的环境压力指标等来衡量生态服务的质量与可持续性,根据其敏感程度和功能性,生态系统健康评价指标分为早期预警指标,适宜程度指标和诊断指标3类,一个完整的生态系统评价应包括上述3大类指标或指标体系,但在具体的评价实践中往往因评价目的和对象的不同而有所选择,生态系统健康评价目前有两个亟待解决的问题,如何有效确立评价标准与参照系以及如何正确区分人为压力和自然干扰。     

Restoration Success: How Is It Being Measured?

The criteria of restoration success should be clearly established to evaluate restoration projects. Recently, the Society of Ecological Restoration International (SER) has produced a Primer that includes ecosystem attributes that should be considered when evaluating restoration success. To determine how restoration success has been evaluated in restoration projects, we reviewed articles published in Restoration Ecology (Vols. 1[1]–11[4]). Specifically, we addressed the following questions: (1) what measures of ecosystem attributes are assessed and (2) how are these measures used to determine restoration success. No study has measured all the SER Primer attributes, but most studies did include at least one measure in each of three general categories of the ecosystem attributes: diversity, vegetation structure, and ecological processes. Most of the reviewed studies are using multiple measures to evaluate restoration success, but we would encourage future projects to include: (1) at least two variables within each of the three ecosystem attributes that clearly related to ecosystem functioning and (2) at least two reference sites to capture the variation that exist in ecosystems.     

Contemplating the future: Acting now on long‐term monitoring to answer 2050's questions

In 2050, which aspects of ecosystem change will we regret not having measured? Long‐term monitoring plays a crucial part in managing Australia's natural environment because time is a key factor underpinning changes in ecosystems. It is critical to start measuring key attributes of ecosystems – and the human and natural process affecting them – now, so that we can track the trajectory of change over time. This will facilitate informed choices about how to manage ecological changes (including interventions where they are required) and promote better understanding by 2050 of how particular ecosystems have been shaped over time. There will be considerable value in building on existing long‐term monitoring programmes because this can add significantly to the temporal depth of information. The economic and social processes driving change in ecosystems are not identical in all ecosystems, so much of what is monitored (and the means by which it is monitored) will most likely target specific ecosystems or groups of ecosystems. To best understand the effects of ecosystem‐specific threats and drivers, monitoring also will need to address the economic and social factors underpinning ecosystem‐specific change. Therefore, robust assessments of the state of Australia's environment will be best achieved by reporting on the ecological performance of a representative sample of ecosystems over time. Political, policy and financial support to implement appropriate ecosystem‐specific monitoring is a perennial problem. We suggest that the value of ecological monitoring will be demonstrable, when plot‐based monitoring data make a unique and crucial contribution to Australia's ability to produce environmental accounts, environmental reports (e.g. the State of the Environment, State of the Forests) and to fulfilling reporting obligations under international agreements, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity. This paper suggests what must be done to meet Australia's ecological information needs by 2050.     

Ecological indicators for assessing ecological success of forest restoration: a world review

Restoration is increasingly being used to reverse degradation and destruction of forest ecosystems. With increasing investment in restoration, there is an urgent need to develop effective programs to assess treatment efficacy and effects. We conducted a global review of forest restoration assessments, in order to identify geographic trends in the locations where assessments have been implemented and the specific ecological attributes (ecosystem composition, structure, and function) and indicators being used to measure effects. We found that the number of forest restoration assessments varied by region and was not related to degree of degradation or restoration need. Some regions, like Africa, which have experienced high rates of forest loss and degradation, had few assessments. The majority (43%) of assessments included indicators for only two of three key ecological attributes (composition‐structure or composition‐function) and assessments on average used fewer than three indicators per attribute. The most commonly employed indicators for composition were richness and abundance of plant species and for structure were height and diameter of trees, variables that are generally relatively easy to measure. The use of functional indicators has been increasing over time and they are now more commonly used than structural indicators. The most common functional indicators were soil functions. Most investigators evaluated treatment effects for 6–10 years after implementation. Our findings related to gaps in analysis of ecological indicators can serve as a guide for developing monitoring and assessment protocols for current global forest restoration initiatives by 2020–2030.     

山水林田湖草生态保护修复的理论支撑体系研究

山水林田湖草生态保护修复关系到我国生态文明建设和美丽中国建设进程,关系到国家生态安全和中华民族永续发展。开展山水林田湖草生态保护修复是生态文明建设的重要内容,是贯彻绿色发展理念的有力举措,也是破解当前生态环境与经济发展之间难题的必然要求。通过总结梳理当前我国山水林田湖草生态保护修复工作的进展与概况,立足于“山水林田湖草是生命共同体”的理论核心,详细阐释了山水林田湖草生态保护修复的内涵及理论体系。山水林田湖草生命共同体的基础理论是以生态系统生态学为支撑,基于流域生态学、恢复生态学和景观生态学的理论诠释山水林田湖草生命共同体的时空区域尺度及流域内部各生态系统之间的耦合机制,通过复合生态系统理论构建山水林田湖草生命共同体的社会、经济、自然生态系统的“架构”体系,明确了流域可持续发展是山水林田湖草生命共同体的最终发展目标。在构建山水林田湖草生态保护修复理论支撑体系的基础上,进一步总结凝练了山水林田湖草生态保护修复的技术体系,包括生态保护、修复与恢复技术、生态建设技术、生态功能提升技术、生态服务优化技术与监督管理技术等,为我国山水林田湖草生态保护修复工作提供坚实的理论和技术支撑体系。     

Ecological indicators for stream restoration success

Exploitation of freshwater resources is essential for sustenance of human existence and alteration of rivers, lakes and wetlands has facilitated economic development for centuries. Consequently, freshwater biodiversity is critically threatened, with stream ecosystems being the most heavily affected. To improve the status of freshwater habitats, e.g. in the context of the European Water Framework Directive and the US Clean Water Act, it is essential to implement the most effective restoration measures and identify the most suitable indicators for restoration success. Herein, several active and passive bioindication approaches are reviewed in light of existing legal frameworks, current targets and applicable implementation of river restoration. Such approaches should move from the use of single biological indicators to more holistic ecological indicators simultaneously addressing communities, multiple life stages and habitat properties such as water quality, substrate composition and stream channel morphology. The proposed Proceeding Chain of Restoration (PCoR) can enable the integration of natural scientific, political and socioeconomic dimensions for restoration of aquatic ecosystems and associated services. Generally, an analysis that combines target species-based active bioindication with community-based passive bioindication and multivariate statistics seems to be most suitable for a holistic evaluation of restoration success, as well as for the monitoring of stream ecosystem health. Since the response of biological communities to changing environmental conditions can differ between taxonomic groups and rivers, assessments at the ecosystem scale should include several levels of biological organisation. A stepwise evaluation of the primary factors inducing disturbance or degradation is needed to integrate increasing levels of complexity from water quality assessments to the evaluation of ecological function. The proposed PCoR can provide a step-by-step guide for restoration ecologists, comprising all planning steps from the determination of the conservation objectives to the use of ecological indicators in post-restoration monitoring.     

Evaluating Ecological Restoration Success: A Review of the Literature

Assessing the success of ecological restoration projects is critical to justify the use of restoration in natural resource management and to improve best practice. Although there are extensive discussions surrounding the characteristics that define and measure successful restoration, monitoring or evaluation of projects in practice is widely thought to have lagged behind. We conducted a literature review to determine trends in evaluations of restoration projects and identify key knowledge gaps that need to be addressed. We searched the Web of Knowledge plus two additional restoration journals not found in the database for empirical papers that assessed restoration projects post‐implementation. We quantified the extent that key attributes of success, including ecological (vegetation structure, species diversity and abundance, and ecosystem functioning) and socioeconomic, were addressed by these papers along with trends in publication and restoration characteristics. Encouragingly, we found the number of empirical evaluations has grown substantially in recent years. The increased age of restoration projects and number of papers that assessed ecological functions since previous reviews of the literature is also a positive development. Research is still heavily skewed toward United States and Australia, however, and identifying an appropriate reference site needs further investigation. Of particular concern is the dearth of papers identified in the literature search that included any measure of socioeconomic attributes. Focusing future empirical research on quantifying ecosystem services and other socioeconomic outcomes is essential for understanding the full benefits and costs of ecological restoration and to support its use in natural resource management .     

面向管理目标的国家公园生态监测指标体系构建与应用

国家公园具有生态系统保护、自然资源可持续利用等管理目标,这些管理目标的实现需要大量监测数据和信息的支持。对国家公园开展生态监测有助于了解国家公园内生态系统的动态变化并揭示管理活动的影响,从而为管理决策的规划和实施提供有用信息。为推动我国国家公园生态监测体系的建立,提出了面向管理目标的国家公园生态监测指标构建方法。该方法由确定国家公园生态监测目标、识别国家公园管理目标、识别国家公园关键生态过程、确定需要监测的生态过程并制定初始监测指标清单、确定最终监测指标清单5个部分组成。该方法在三江源国家公园进行了应用。三江源国家公园的管理目标包括生态系统保育、维持江河径流量持续稳定等13项,在区域、景观、生态系统和种群尺度上共识别出16个关键生态过程。通过匹配三江源国家公园的关键生态过程与管理目标,构建了一个由两级共93个指标组成的三江源国家公园生态监测指标体系,为三江源国家公园生态监测体系的构建奠定了基础。     

Meta‐Analysis of Lost Ecosystem Attributes in Urban Streams and the Effectiveness of Out‐of‐Channel Management Practices

Urban development is a leading cause of stream impairment that reduces biodiversity and negatively affects ecosystem processes and habitat. Out‐of‐stream restoration practices, such as stormwater ponds, created wetlands, and restored riparian vegetation, are increasingly implemented as management strategies to mitigate impacts. However, uncertainty exists regarding how effectively they improve downstream ecosystems because monitoring is uncommon and results are typically reported on a case‐by‐case basis. We conducted a meta‐analysis of literature and used response ratios to quantify how downstream ecosystems change in response to watershed development and to out‐of‐stream restoration. Biodiversity in unrestored urban streams was 47% less than that in reference streams, and ecological communities, habitat, and rates of nutrient cycling were negatively affected as well. Mean measures of ecosystem attributes in restored streams were significantly greater than, and 156% of, those in unrestored urban streams. Measures of biodiversity in restored streams were 132% of those in unrestored urban streams, and indices of biotic condition, community structure, and nutrient cycling significantly improved. However, ecosystem attributes and biodiversity at restored sites were significantly less than, and only 60% and 45% of, those in reference streams, respectively. Out‐of‐stream management practices improved ecological conditions in urban streams but still failed to restore reference stream conditions. Despite statistically significant improvements, assessing restoration success remains difficult due to few comparisons to reference sites or to clearly defined targets. These findings can inform future monitoring, management, and development strategies and highlight the need for preventative actions in a watershed context.     

Monitoring and evaluating large-scale, ‘open-ended’ habitat creation projects: A journey rather than a destination

Ecological restoration frequently involves setting fixed species or habitat targets to be achieved by prescribed restoration activities or through natural processes. Where no reference systems exist for defining outcomes or where restoration is planned on a large spatial scale, a more ‘open-ended’ approach to defining outcomes may be appropriate. Such approaches require changes to the definition of goals and the design of monitoring and evaluation activities. We suggest that in open-ended projects restoration goals should be framed in terms of promoting natural processes, mobile landscape mosaics and improved ecosystem services. Monitoring can then focus on the biophysical processes that underpin the development of habitat mosaics and the provision of ecosystem services, on the way habitat mosaics change through time and on species that can indicate the changing landscape attributes of connectivity and scale. Stakeholder response should be monitored since an open-ended restoration approach is unusual and can encounter institutional and societal constraints. Evaluation should focus on reporting changing restoration impacts and benefits rather than on achieving a pre-defined concept of ecological success.     

On the teaching of ecological restoration in Brazil: an analysis of postgraduate courses

Several ambitious restoration targets have been set for recovering degraded ecosystems in Brazil (21 million hectares with a legal deficit of native vegetation). The development of scientific knowledge and skilled professionals is necessary to meet this demand and is fundamental for achieving success in medium‐ and long‐term restoration. In this study, we describe the availability and profile of postgraduate courses on ecological restoration in Brazil. We surveyed 272 postgraduate programs, comprising six specific areas of concentration (forestry, soil sciences, botany, environmental engineering, ecology, and environmental science). We analyzed all selected courses in terms of location, approach (economic, social, and legal), and restoration techniques. Only 27% of the postgraduate programs analyzed offer ecological restoration courses, and 49% of these are offered in the southeast region of the country. Regions covered by nonforest ecosystems, such as Pampas, Caatinga, and Pantanal, were poorly represented. Legal aspects were considered in 51% of the courses, whereas social and economic approaches were only considered in 2.7 and 11% of the courses, respectively. Seedling planting (85%) and nucleation (68%) were the most frequently cited techniques of active restoration, and passive restoration was mentioned in 63% of the courses. Our findings highlight the need for increasing postgraduate courses in areas with nonforest ecosystems, especially due to a lack of knowledge about restoration of these areas. The incorporation of economic and social approaches is highly recommended, considering the importance of these attributes in achieving success in large‐scale restoration initiatives.     

Evolution of the field of ecological restoration over the last three decades: a bibliometric analysis

Ecological restoration studies have been widely conducted for many years to solve eco‐environmental problems. However, no publications offer a systematic and quantitative analysis of the evolution of the field of ecological restoration. To address this knowledge gap, for the first time, we applied a bibliometric analysis approach to analyze ecological restoration studies. We analyzed 3,929 articles published between 1988 and 2017 catalogued in the Science Citation Index Expanded database and the Social Sciences Citation Index database. The results show that annual article output stably increased after 2004, and the number of annual articles of each country has also increased notably since then. The United States occupies the leading position in ecological restoration studies, with China attaining a close second position in recent years. Four institutions and seven journals are outstanding in the field of ecological restoration. Academic collaborations of authors or institutions exhibit an increasing trend, but international collaboration needs to be strengthened because eco‐environmental problems are a global challenge. Forest, grassland, and wetland ecosystems have received the most attention. Biodiversity, ecosystem services, and climate change are core issues of ecological restoration studies and are predicted to remain the research hotspots in the future. Novel ecosystems are likely to become one of the most important research areas in the near future. More importantly, it is crucial for researchers to places more emphasis on social issues of ecological restoration in the future.     

Do We Practice What We Preach? Goal Setting for Ecological Restoration

Over the last decade, several research and opinion pieces have challenged the tenets of restoration ecology but a lack of centralized data has impeded assessment of how scientific developments relate to on‐the‐ground restoration. In response, the Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) launched the Global Restoration Network (GRN) to catalog worldwide restoration efforts. We reviewed over 200 GRN projects to identify the goals governing restoration and the frequency with which they are measured. We used the SER Primer on Ecological Restoration to frame our analysis, categorizing goals by SER's attributes of restored ecosystems. We developed additional attributes to characterize goals not encompassed by the SER‐defined attributes. Nearly all projects included goals related to ecosystem form, namely similarity to reference conditions and the presence of indigenous species, and these goals were frequently measured. Most projects included goals related to ecosystem function, and many highlighted interactions between abiotic and biotic factors by either modifying abiotic conditions to support focal species or manipulating species to achieve desired ecosystem functions. Few projects had goals related to ecosystem stability, whereas the majority of projects had goals related to social values. Although less frequently measured, social goals were described as important for long‐term project success. In conclusion, science and practice frequently aligned on goals related to ecosystem composition and function, but scientific guidelines on resilience and self‐sustainability appear insufficient to guide practice. In contrast, the common inclusion of goals for human well‐being indicates that, if intended to advise practice, restoration guidelines should give direction on social goals.     

Restoration ecology of riverine wetlands: A 5-year post-operation survey on the Rhône River, France

Bibliographical study of articles published in scientific journals over the last 10 years, and of books published over the last 20 years, reveals a clear increase in the number of publications dealing with ecological engineering, particularly on aquatic ecosystems, which today are becoming a major topic. The concept of ecological restoration must be clearly defined scientifically and include adequate pre- and post-restoration monitoring of various performance indicators, to allow for restoration, evaluation and increase its success. A restoration experiment was carried out in a former channel of the Rhône River according to a scientifically based decision framework. Long-term monitoring of aquatic vegetation (17 years of data) on two former channels (reference and restored ecosystem) clearly demonstrated human impacts on aquatic ecosystems. A channel exhibiting rapid terrestrialization and eutrophication processes after completion of a hydroelectric scheme construction was restored. In keeping with the hypothesis, the increase in groundwater supply led the restored ecosystem to return to a less advanced and self-sustainable successional stage, whereas vegetation monitoring in the reference channel did not show significant changes over this 17-year of period, supporting long-term studies to determine the effects of restoration on the biota.     

Identifying restoration hotspots that deliver multiple ecological benefits

Ecological restoration principally seeks to restore lost or degraded ecosystems. Restoration can, however, also deliver a suite of wider ecological, social, and economic benefits. To optimize performance it is, therefore, important to plan the design and placement of restoration initiatives with a view to maximizing joint effects on ecosystems, animal populations, ecological functions, and ecosystem services. We measured the effects of multiple (13) restored oyster reefs on a suite of restoration benefits (oyster settlement and growth, fish diversity and abundance, the ecological functions of scavenging and predation) in the Noosa River estuary, Australia, and used distribution models to identify potential restoration sites with the greatest overall benefits. Oysters recruited to reefs, and reefs enhanced the diversity and abundance of fishes and had higher rates of ecological functions than control sites. However, the growth of oyster reefs was most correlated with the proximity of restoration sites to urbanized shorelines and the estuary mouth, and the area of mangroves around the site. By contrast, fish diversity and abundance, and the rates of ecological functions, were typically negatively correlated with the proximity of reefs to both mangroves and seagrasses. This complex spatial mosaic resulted in distinct areas predicted to achieve all restoration benefits that were significantly smaller than the total area that could be restored. Applying a systematic and defensible method to identify potential restoration sites that maximize multiple benefits while lowering costs is a sensible social, economic, and ecological strategy.     

An Evaluation of the Short‐Term Progress of Restoration Combining Ecological Assessment and Public Perception

Ecological restoration centers on the reestablishment of ecological processes and the integrity of degraded ecosystems, but its success also depends on public acceptance and support. In this study, we evaluated the short‐term ecological effects of different restoration treatments in Iceland. Furthermore, we tested the public perception of aesthetic and recreational values of these revegetated areas. Predefined soil and vegetation indicators were measured, and a survey, based on a questionnaire and photographs of the different areas, was used for gauging public perception. Our results indicate that different restoration treatments triggered different succession trajectories. The vegetation composition of areas seeded with grasses seemed to be on a trajectory toward relatively undisturbed reference ecosystems, whereas areas seeded with nonnative lupine seemed to be developing a novel ecosystem. Results of the survey demonstrated that people valued the appearance of revegetated areas higher than that of the eroded control areas, with the exception of areas seeded with lupine. The visual perception of each restoration treatment corresponded well with the ecological factors and revealed both a social and an ecological rationale against the use of lupine in land restoration. The results indicate that the design of restoration projects should be based on both an analysis of sociocultural priorities and an understanding of possible trajectories of ecosystem development associated with the available restoration methods to avoid results that are neither socially acceptable nor ecologically feasible.     

The socioecological complexity of ecological restoration in Mexico

Almost half of Mexican territory has been classified as environmentally degraded. The main response for the last 60 years has been reforestation to combat soil erosion and loss of forest cover, mostly carried out on private lands where negotiations with local stakeholders were critical. Despite four legal instruments referring to ecological restoration, no specific instrument that defines basic concepts, criteria and standards, required actions, or regulations to implement and evaluate ecological restoration exists. The Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources is now solely in charge of restoration and only recently have external scientists been invited to be part of the process. Following important national and international events in Latin America and the Caribbean region, the First Mexican Symposium on Ecological Restoration was held in November, 2014. This historic event was the first action undertaken in Mexico to meet Objective 3 of the Global Strategy of Plant Conservation, coordinated in Mexico by the National Council for the Use and Knowledge of Biodiversity. Although mangrove ecosystems are the most endangered ecosystem type in Mexico, they were not well represented at the symposium. In contrast, several other ecosystem types, such as tropical dry forest and islands, have received increased attention. Overall, while the Symposium and above‐cited policy initiatives are important steps, Mexico needs to increase its institutional capacities and social organization of the rural sector with regard to ecological restoration. Better integration of social and natural scientists and increased participation of Mexico internationally is also needed.     

不同生态恢复方式下生态系统服务与生物多样性恢复效果的整合分析

全球范围内关键生态系统服务的减少使人类社会面临巨大的威胁,生物多样性是生态系统提供各种产品和服务的基础。生态恢复工程对退化的生态系统服务和生物多样性进行修复,对于缓解人类环境压力具有非常重要的意义。长期的理论和实践工作形成了多种生态恢复措施:(1)单纯基于生态系统自我设计的自然恢复方式,(2)人为设计对环境条件进行干预,反馈影响生态系统的自我设计,(3)人为设计对目标种群和生态系统进行直接干预和重建。这3类恢复方式可以在不同程度上定向的影响生态系统的恢复进程,反映了人类对生态系统的低度、中度和高度介入。哪种恢复方式和介入程度能够实现更好的恢复效果,是生态恢复学中的一个关键问题,但到目前为止,虽广有争议,却无定量的分析和结论。针对这个空白,通过对ISI Web of Knowledge数据库中生态恢复相关文献的整合分析,基于数学统计的方法定量比较在不同条件下低度介入(自然恢复)、中度介入(环境干预)和高度介入(直接干预)3种恢复方式对生态系统服务与生物多样性的恢复效果。论文从4个方面展开研究:(1)低度、中度、高度介入生态恢复方式的划分,(2)比较3大类介入方式对生态系统服务和生物多样性恢复效果的差异,(3)不同气候条件、生态系统类型和恢复时间等背景因素的影响,(4)生物多样性恢复和生态系统服务恢复之间的关系。研究结果揭示了不同生态恢复方式的适用条件,以及对生物多样性和生态系统恢复相互关系的作用,对生态恢复实践中恢复方式的选择有指导作用。对未来的研究也有启示意义,如针对特定生态系统服务或具体研究问题进一步探索低度、中度和高度介入生态恢复方式的作用规律和机制;将地区的社会经济水平、生态系统的受损程度等因素纳入生态恢复方式的考察,以最优化生态恢复成本-效率等。