Restoration Goes Wild: A Reply to Throop and Purdom

Throop and Purdom’s proposal for virtues based restoration is consistent with my concept of focal restoration, but their interpretation conflates focal restoration with participatory restoration. We disagree on the meaning of wilderness and on the appropriate underlying relationship between nature and culture, which affects how each of us regards the role of restoration in so‐called wilderness. I prefer the term “wildness” over wilderness precisely because the former locates the power of meaning in process rather than place. The primary metaphors we used to describe the proper role of restoration differ, too. Throop and Purdom prefer “healing,” whereas my preference is for “design” as a way of acknowledging the moral implications of restoration interventions in natural processes.     

Woodland restoration on agricultural land: long‐term impacts on soil quality

Woodland restoration is underway globally to counter the negative soil quality and ecological impacts of agricultural expansion and woodland fragmentation, and restore or enhance biodiversity, ecosystem functions and services. However, we lack information about the long‐term effects of woodland restoration on agricultural soils, particularly at temporal scales meaningful to woodland and soil development. This study utilized soil and earthworm sampling across a chronosequence of sites transitioning from “agricultural land” to “secondary woodland” (50–110 years) and “ancient woodland” (>400 years), with the goal of quantifying the effects of woodland restoration on agricultural land, on key soil quality parameters (soil bulk density, pH, carbon and nitrogen stocks, and earthworm abundance, biomass, species richness and diversity). Broad‐leaved woodland restoration led to significantly greater soil organic carbon (SOC) stocks compared to arable land, and young (50–60 years) secondary woodland increased earthworm species and functional diversity compared to both arable and pasture agricultural land. SOC stocks in secondary broad‐leaved woodlands (50–110 years) were comparable to those found in long‐term ancient woodlands (>400 years). Our findings show that broad‐leaved woodland restoration of agricultural land can lead to meaningful soil ecological improvement and gains in SOC within 50–110 years, and provide intel on how restoration activities may be best targeted to maximize soil quality and functions.     

Plant phenological research enhances ecological restoration

While phenology data (the timing of recurring biological events) has been used to explain and predict patterns related to global change, and to address applied environmental issues, it has not been clearly identified as pertinent for restoration. This opinion article thus aims to raise awareness of the potential of phenology to enhance the quality of restoration projects and ecological restoration theory. We based our analysis on a systematic literature survey carried out in February 2014, searching the words “phenology” or “phenological” in books dealing with restoration, the term “phenolog*” in the journal Restoration Ecology, and the terms “restoration” and “phenolog*” in the database Web of Science until February 2014. We finally selected 149 studies relevant to our goals, and first classified them according to the context in which phenology was addressed. We then analyzed them within the framework of the five key steps of restoration projects: (1) the reference ecosystem; (2) biotic resources; (3) restoration methods; (4) monitoring; and (5) adaptive management. The literature survey showed that phenological information improved decision‐making in the few restoration projects in which it was incorporated. We thus advocate taking phenological data into account at all stages of restoration when appropriate: from the acquisition of baseline data on the reference ecosystem to treatment design, and from restoration action planning and timing to monitoring. Phenological data should at minimum be collected for sown, keystone, dominant, and/or rare species to improve restoration quality. Phenology studies and monitoring should be promoted in future restoration guidelines.     

An Ecosystem Model for Exploring Lake Restoration Effects on Fish Communities and Fisheries in Florida

Developing quantitative ecosystem–scale expectations of habitat restoration projects and examining trade‐offs associated with alternative approaches has been a challenge for restoration ecology. Many of the largest freshwater lake restoration projects have occurred in Florida to remediate degradation to vegetated littoral habitats resulting from stabilized water levels, but effects across lake food‐webs have not been assessed. We developed an ecosystem model using Ecopath with Ecosim and Ecospace for a generalized large, eutrophic Florida Lake to explore how simulated restoration activities could influence fish communities with emphasis on sport fish abundance. We modeled three habitat restoration scenarios: (1) “no control,” (2) a “10‐year control” that restored littoral habitat every 10 years, and (3) a “combined control” scenario that restored littoral habitat every 10 years with maintenance controls between 10‐year periods. Our “combined control” scenario provided the largest long‐term habitat restoration benefits for sport fish abundance and the fisheries they support. In Ecospace, we simulated a littoral habitat restoration project that reduced lake‐wide tussock coverage from 30 to 15%. Ecospace predicted positive benefits to sport fish and fisheries following the restoration simulation and highlighted the importance of habitat edge effects, spatial design of habitat restoration projects, and sampling designs for evaluating restoration projects.     

Forest History as a Basis for Ecosystem Restoration—A Multidisciplinary Case Study in a South Swedish Temperate Landscape

Basic knowledge of the previous forest types or ecosystem present in an area ought to be an essential part of all landscape restoration. Here, we present a detailed study of forest and land use history over the past 2,000 years, from a large estate in southernmost Sweden, which is currently undergoing a restoration program. In particular, the aim was to identify areas with long continuity of important tree species and open woodland conditions. We employed a multidisciplinary approach using paleoecological analyses (regional and local pollen, plant macrofossil, tree ring) and historical sources (taxation documents, land surveys, forest inventories). The estate has been dominated by temperate broad‐leaved trees over most of the studied period. When a forest type of Tilia, Corylus, and Quercus started to decline circa 1,000 years ago, it was largely replaced by Fagus. Even though extensive planting of Picea started in mid‐nineteenth century, Fagus and Quercus have remained rather common on the estate up to present time. Both species show continuity on different parts of the estate from eighteenth century up to present time, but in some stands, for the entire 2,000 years. Our suggestions for restoration do not aim for previous “natural” conditions but to maintain the spatial vegetational pattern created by the historical land use. This study gives an example of the spatial and temporal variation of the vegetation that has historically occurred within one area and emphasizes that information from one methodological technique provides only limited information about an area’s vegetation history.     

Conservation planning and Indigenous governance in Australia's Indigenous Protected Areas

Indigenous Protected Areas (IPAs) recognize that “country” constitutes land and waters that have enduring cultural, social, and economic linkages for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples that extend over millennia, and which are critical to sustainable Indigenous futures. Within Australia's conservation system, IPAs become part of the National Reserve System (NRS) when Indigenous peoples voluntarily announce their intention to manage “country,” in accordance with their law, custom, and culture, and consistently with national and international conservation guidelines. The NRS requirement is that land is managed “in perpetuity” which highlights a potential tension between with the conservation goals and the voluntary character of IPAs. Ecological restoration in IPAs also raises contested ideas about what is “natural,” the relevant “baseline” for restoration, and what are the objectives to be achieved—ecological or cultural sustainability? Experience from Healthy Country Planning in IPAs indicates that restoration of traditional owner decision‐making, as well as respectful use and valuing community knowledge, is central to the sustainability of outcomes. Ecological restoration is most effectively achieved by restoring governance processes that support Indigenous peoples given the inseparability of cultural, social, economic, and ecological objectives.     

Science Driven Restoration: A Candle in a Demon Haunted World—Response to Cabin (2007)

Cabin (2007) asks whether formal science is an effective framework and methodology for designing and implementing ecological restoration programs. He argues that beyond certain ancillary benefits, restoration science has little of practical value to offer the practice of restoration. He goes on to suggest that restoration science most often represents an impediment to restoration practice because an “ivory tower” mentality limits the utility of experiments and diverts research dollars away from answering practical questions. His conclusion is that a nonscientific gardening approach may be more effective at restoring degraded ecosystems. We disagree with this perspective because: (1) restoration science has moved beyond exclusively using “square grids” placed on small patches of land to examine treatment effects on species representation; (2) Cabin’s critique greatly undervalues the contribution of science to restoration practice even where the input of restoration scientists is not directly evident; and (3) the practice of restoration is unlikely to advance beyond small‐scale and truly haphazard successes without well‐designed studies that can provide peer‐reviewed and widely accessible published information on the mechanisms underlying both successes and failures. We conclude that through integration with other disciplines, restoration science increasingly will provide novel approaches and tools needed to restore ecosystem composition, structure, and function at stand to landscape scales. As with the broader role of science in the human enterprise ( Sagan 1996 ), the contribution of restoration science to restoration practice can only grow as the discipline matures.     

Burning Forests,Rising Power: Towards a Constitutionality Process in Mount Carmel Biosphere Reserve

Powerful states and elites frequently manage protected areas with little or no concern for historic land uses, people, or governance practices, justified by ideologies that portray these areas as “pure nature” to be protected from humans. New international participatory platforms, such as the UNESCO Man and Biosphere Program, coupled with strategic active agency, have provided an opportunity for challenging the fortress model of conservation in Israel. We examine the change in Israel’s government ecological policies following its failure in managing the Carmel forests, whereby its bargaining power with the local Druze-Arab minority was significantly reduced, opening a window of opportunity for the Druze to take advantage of new UNESCO rules on local participation to create management institutions for the local forest commons.     

Restoration of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services on Agricultural Land

Cultivation and cropping are major causes of destruction and degradation of natural ecosystems throughout the world. We face the challenge of maintaining provisioning services while conserving or enhancing other ecosystem services and biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. There is a range of possibilities within two types of intervention, namely “land sharing” and “land separation”; the former advocates the enhancement of the farmed environment, but the latter a separation between land designated for farming versus conservation. Land sharing may involve biodiversity-based agricultural practices, learning from traditional farming, changing from conventional to organic agriculture and from “simple” crops and pastures to agro-forestry systems, and restoring or creating specific elements to benefit wildlife and particular services without decreasing agricultural production. Land separation in the farmland context involves restoring or creating non-farmland habitat at the expense of field-level agricultural production—for example, woodland on arable land. Restoration by land sharing has the potential to enhance agricultural production, other ecosystem services and biodiversity at both the field and landscape scale; however, restoration by land separation would provide these benefits only at the landscape scale. Although recent debate has contrasted these approaches, we suggest they should be used in combination to maximize benefits. Furthermore, we suggest “woodland islets”, an intermediate approach between land abandonment and farmland afforestation, for ecological restoration in extensive agricultural landscapes. This approach allows reconciliation of farmland production, conservation of values linked to cultural landscapes, enhancement of biodiversity, and provision of a range of ecosystem services. Beyond academic research, restoration projects within agricultural landscapes are essential if we want to halt environmental degradation and biodiversity loss.     

Addressing the conflict between partner notification and patient confidentiality in serodiscordant relationships: How can Ubuntu help?

This study evaluates the conflict between patient confidentiality and partner notification in sero‐discordant relationships, and argues the thesis that based on a theoretical formulation of Ubuntu, a health provider is obliged to facilitate friendly relationships in which individuals are true subjects and/or objects of communal friendship. In serodiscordant relationships, the health professional can fulfil this obligation by notifying “others” (particularly a partner with whom an HIV positive patient has a “present” and “actual relationship”) of their spouse's HIV seroconversion, since without such relevant information a partner (subject) of an HIV positive patient cannot “appropriately” care for the patient's condition (object). There is a need to move away from the medical traditional emphasis that has for so long put primacy on doctor‐patient confidentiality as is the case with the Health Professions Council of South Africa Guidelines (Booklet 12) which favours patient confidentiality over partner notification. Given empirical evidence to support effectiveness of partner notification amongst sero‐discordant couples, there is thus, a need to focus emphasis on latter. This shift is necessary for achieving the United Nations’ Sustainable Development of Goal of ending HIV/AIDS epidemic by 2030. I proposed in this study that African ethics, specifically Ubuntu, will do a better job than current ethical frameworks at ensuring that partner notification receives more emphasis in the care of serodiscordant couples. If this framework is integrated into ethical guidelines and codes, it would significantly enhance the care of serodiscordant couples, as well as further boost global effort at ending HIV/AIDS epidemic by 2030.     

Wilderness and future conservation priorities in Australia

Aim Most approaches to conservation prioritization are focused on biodiversity features that are already threatened. While this is necessary in the face of accelerating anthropogenic threats, there have been calls to conserve large intact landscapes, often termed ‘wilderness’, to ensure the long‐term persistence of biodiversity. In this study, we examine the consequences of directing conservation expenditure using a threat‐based framework for wilderness conservation. Location The Australian continent. Methods We measured the degree of congruence between the extent of wilderness and the Australian protected area network in 2000 and 2006, which was established using a threat‐based systematic planning framework. We also assessed priority areas for future reserve acquisitions identified by the Australian government under the current framework. Results In 2000, 14% of Australia’s wilderness was under formal protection, while the protected area network covered only 8.5% of the continent, suggesting a historical bias towards wilderness protection. However, the expansion of the reserve system from 2000 to 2006 was biased towards non‐wilderness areas. Moreover, 90% of the wilderness that was protected over this period comprised areas not primarily designated for biodiversity conservation. We found a significant (P < 0.05) negative relationship between bioregions considered to be a priority for future reserve prioritization and the amount of wilderness they contain. Main conclusions While there is an urgent need to overcome past biases in reserve network design so as to better protect poorly represented species and habitats, prioritization approaches should not become so reactive as to ignore the role that large, intact landscapes play in conserving biodiversity, especially in a time of human‐induced climate change. This can be achieved by using current or future threats rather than past threats to prioritize areas, and by incorporating key ecological processes and costs of acquisition and management within the planning framework.     

Protected area stewardship in the Anthropocene: integrating science,law, and ethics to evaluate proposals for ecological restoration in wilderness

Every year, the four federal agencies that manage designated wilderness in the United States receive proposals to implement small‐ and large‐scale ecological restorations within the National Wilderness Preservation System. The combination of climate change with other landscape stressors is driving ecological restoration to be one of the single most important, challenging, and potentially litigious wilderness stewardship issues. In addition, different stakeholders may have strongly divergent views about what the right decision should be, and decisions need to go beyond routine technical and scientific analyses to incorporate a broader range of legal and ethical considerations. We present a framework based on a comprehensive, structured set of scientific, legal, and ethical questions to guide the evaluation of proposals for ecological restoration and other types of ecological intervention in wilderness. This framework of questions is a voluntary tool designed to increase communication and transparency among scientists, managers, and interested publics regarding the trade‐offs and uncertainties of ecological restoration, and promote informed public deliberation in managing the public resource of wilderness.     

The evolution of Society for Ecological Restoration's principles and standards—counter‐response to Gann et al.

In response to our recent article (Higgs et al. 2018) in these pages, George Gann and his coauthors defended the Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) International Standards, clarified several points, and introduced some new perspectives. We offer this counter‐response to address some of these perspectives. More than anything, our aims are in sharpening the field of restoration in a time of rapid scaling‐up of interest and effort, and support further constructive dialogue going forward. Our perspective remains that there is an important distinction needed between “Standards” and “Principles” that is largely unheeded by Gann et al. (2018). We encourage SER to consider in future iterations of its senior policy document to lean on principles first, and then to issue advice on standards that meet the needs of diverse conditions and social, economic, and political realities.     

Aboriginal overkill

Prior to European influence, predation by Native Americans was the major factor limiting the numbers and distribution of ungulates in the Intermountain West. This hypothesis is based on analyses of (1) the efficiency of Native American predation, including cooperative hunting, use of dogs, food storage, use of nonungulate foods, and hunting methods; (2) optimal-foraging studies; (3) tribal territory boundary zones as prey reservoirs; (4) species ratios, and sex and age of aboriginal ungulate kills; (5) impact of European diseases on aboriginal populations; and (6) synergism between aboriginal and carnivore predation. Native Americans had no effective conservation practices, and the manner in which they harvested ungulates was the exact opposite of any predicted conservation strategy. Native Americans acted in ways that maximized their individual fitness regardless of the impact on the environment. For humans, conservation is seldom an evolutionarily stable strategy. By limiting ungulate numbers and purposefully modifying the vegetation with fire, Native Americans structured entire plant and animal communities. Because ecosystems with native peoples are entirely different than those lacking aboriginal populations, a “hands-off” or “natural regulation” approach by today’s land managers will not duplicate the ecological conditions under which those ecosystems developed. The modern concept of wilderness as areas without human influence is a myth. North America was not a “wilderness” waiting to be discovered, instead it was home to tens of millions of aboriginal peoples before European-introduced diseases decimated their numbers.     

Science, Art, or Application—the "Karma" of Restoration Ecology

The present state of restoration ecology is far away from Bradshaw’s “acid test for ecology.” The conclusions drawn from the series of papers in this issue and from the Jena workshop suggest some directions in which the field may progress. More attention must be paid to the degraded state, which should be evaluated by its specific features and carefully analyzed before any restoration plan is laid down. Restoration goals have to be realistic, which includes the appreciation of globally changing conditions, resulting in a paradigm‐shift toward “forward‐restoration.” Basically, the transition from the degraded state conditions to the target state is a kind of succession that is manipulated by the application of goal‐orientated and system‐specific disturbances. Whenever possible, restorationists should step back and make use of naturally occurring succession, which requires a sophisticated restoration strategy, involving flexible management responses, multiple alternative target states, robust measurements for the restoration progress, and careful long‐term monitoring. The unique feature of restoration ecology is the involvement of socioeconomic decisions, and conceptual frameworks for ecological restoration have to implement the specific links to natural succession. To bridge the gap between ecological theory and on the ground restoration, it is essential that restoration practice is translated into the vocabulary and thinking of basic ecology. If all these aspects are integrated, ecological restoration as an application—and restoration ecology as an applied science—may develop into an acid test for our understanding of interactions between people and their environment, rather than for pure ecology.     

Die Eh da‐Initiative

The “Eh da”‐Initiative: more space for Biological Diversity in Cultural Landscapes The “Eh da”‐initiative is based on the principle that definite land in cultural landscapes is “available anyway” (what ?eh da“ means in German) and has the potential for ecological upgrading without relevant limitations of land use. “Eh da” could be the acronym “Ecological habitat development areas.” This land is located in open landscapes: along waysides, on uncropped plots in farmland, it could be communal lawn and other land categories. The initiative uses geodata in order to detect and quantify “Eh da”‐sites. According to an analysis based on geodata in selected landscapes “Eh da”‐land constitutes 2–6 per cent of the total area of Germany. “Eh da“‐sites are mostly narrow, longitudinal and spread like a net all over the landscape. Mainly insects and other invertebrate animals can be supported by upgrading of “Eh da”‐land. Since these sites often form corridors, they may be part of communal biodiversity protection initiatives under the perspective of ecological networks, or they may be used for distinct projects. Communication is a key element of any local initiative in which not only the ecological upgrading options, but also potential trade‐offs (like increase of agricultural pests and weeds, neophyta and pyrrolizidine containing or allergenic plants) should be discussed.     

A spatial multicriteria decision analysis for selecting priority sites for plant species restoration: a case study from the Chilean biodiversity hotspot

Developing conservation strategies to restore populations of threatened species has been signaled as an important task by the Convention on Biological Diversity 2011–2020 targets. Species are being threatened not only by habitat loss and fragmentation but increasingly by climate change. As resources for conservation are often limited, and restoration is among the most expensive conservation strategies, developing approaches that help in the prioritization of areas for restoration efforts is a critical task. In this study, we propose a spatial multicriteria decision analysis (SMCDA) framework for identifying potential areas for plant species restoration initiatives that can explicitly take into account future climatic change. As a way to show how the framework can be applied, we took advantage of freely available niche modeling software and geospatial information to identify regional‐scale priority areas for restoration of two threatened endemic tree species (i.e. Bielschmiedia miersii and Pouteria splendens) of the “Chilean Winter Rainfall‐Valdivian Forest” Hotspot. The SMCDA framework allowed us not only to identify priority areas for species restoration but also to analyze how different environmental conditions and land‐use types may affect the selection of areas for species restoration. Our analysis suggests that the inclusion of climate change is a key factor to assess the potential areas for species restoration because species may respond differentially to future climatic conditions. This framework is conceived to be used as a complementary approach to available landscape‐scale spatial conservation planning tools.     

Testing the Performance of Fourteen Native Tropical Tree Species in Two Abandoned Pastures of the Lacandon Rainforest Region of Chiapas,Mexico

The rainforest of Mexico has been degraded and severely fragmented, and urgently require restoration. However, the practice of restoration has been limited by the lack of species‐specific data on survival and growth responses to local environmental variation. This study explores the differential performance of 14 wet tropical early‐, mid‐ or late‐successional tree species that were grown in two abandoned pastures with contrasting land‐use histories. After 18 months, seedling survival and growth of at least 7 of the 14 tree species studied were significantly higher in the site with a much longer history of land use (site 2). Saplings of the three early‐successional species showed exceptional growth rates. However, differences in performance were noted in relation to the differential soil properties between the experimental sites. Mid‐successional species generally showed slow growth rates but high seedling survival, whereas late‐successional species exhibited poor seedling survival at both the study sites. Stepwise linear regressions revealed that the species integrated response index combining survivorship and growth measurements, was influenced mostly by differences in soil pH between the two abandoned pastures. Our results suggest that local environmental variation among abandoned pastures of contrasting land‐use histories influences sapling survival and growth. Furthermore, the similarity of responses among species with the same successional status allowed us to make some preliminary site and species‐specific silvicultural recommendations. Future field experiments should extend the number of species and the range of environmental conditions to identify site “generalists” or more narrowly adapted species, that we would call “sensitive.”     

Maternal feeding strategies, child eating behaviors, and child BMI in low-income African-American preschoolers

Objective: To test the hypothesis that low‐income African‐American preschool children would have a higher BMI if their mothers reported greater “restriction” and “control” in feeding and if mothers reported that children showed greater “food responsiveness” and “desire to drink.” In addition, to test whether higher maternal “pressure to eat” would be associated with lower child BMI. Research Methods and Procedures: A questionnaire was completed by 296 low‐income African‐American mothers of preschool children. It assessed three constructs on maternal feeding strategies (“restriction,” “pressure to eat,” and “control”) and two on child eating behaviors (“food responsiveness” and “desire to drink”). Children's BMI was measured, and mothers’ BMI was self‐reported. Results: The mean (standard deviation) BMI z‐score of the children was 0.34 (1.5), and 44% of the mothers were obese (BMI ≥30 kg/m²). Only maternal “pressure to eat” had a significant overall association with child BMI z‐score (r = ?0.16, p < 0.01). Both maternal “restriction” and “control” were positively associated with children's BMI z‐score in the case of obese mothers (r = 0.20, p = 0.03 and r = 0.24, p = 0.007, respectively), but this was not so in the case of non‐obese mothers (r = ?0.16, p = 0.05 and r = ?0.07, p = 0.39, respectively). Discussion: Among low‐income African Americans, the positive association between maternal restriction and control in feeding and their preschoolers’ BMI was limited to obese mothers. Relations between parent feeding strategies and child weight status in this population may differ on the basis of maternal weight status.     

Is gardening a useful metaphor for conservation and restoration? History and controversy

As the wilderness metaphor has decreased in utility due to widespread human‐driven environmental change, conservationists and restorationists have struggled to find new ways to inspire nature conservation. Some have suggested gardening as a new metaphor, but many are wary of its implications, particularly for animals viewed as threats or pests. Others, however, point out positive attributes for the metaphor including its focus on stewardship of nature which allows for positive human agency in ecosystems. We argue a gardening metaphor may also allow increased flexibility in approaches to biodiversity conservation, in part by allowing goals to be fit to communities and their specific cultural contexts. Wild gardening would seek to preserve global biodiversity while acknowledging the pivotal role humans now play in that process. Here we review the use of the garden metaphor over the last 25 years and discuss what wild gardening might mean for restoration. Consistent with a long history of environmental thought, we suggest such a metaphor will work best if it is coupled with a civic/stewardship ethic and a good dose of humility on the part of all gardeners.