Restoration Ecology: Repairing the Earth's Ecosystems in the New Millennium

The extent of human‐induced change and damage to Earth's ecosystems renders ecosystem repair an essential part of our future survival strategy, and this demands that restoration ecology provide effective conceptual and practical tools for this task. We argue that restoration ecology has to be an integral component of land management in today's world, and to be broadly applicable, has to have a clearly articulated conceptual basis. This needs to recognize that most ecosystems are dynamic and hence restoration goals cannot be based on static attributes. Setting clear and achievable goals is essential, and these should focus on the desired characteristics for the system in the future, rather than in relation to what these were in the past. Goal setting requires that there is a clear understanding of the restoration options available (and the relative costs of different options). The concept of restoration thresholds suggests that options are determined by the current state of the system in relation to biotic and abiotic thresholds. A further important task is the development of effective and easily measured success criteria. Many parameters could be considered for inclusion in restoration success criteria, but these are often ambiguous or hard to measure. Success criteria need to relate clearly back to specific restoration goals. If restoration ecology is to be successfully practiced as part of humanity's response to continued ecosystem change and degradation, restoration ecologists need to rise to the challenges of meshing science, practice and policy. Restoration ecology is likely to be one of the most important fields of the coming century.     

People as Ecological Participants in Ecological Restoration

In 1987, Bradshaw proposed that ecological restoration is the ultimate “acid test” of our understanding the functioning of ecosystems ( Bradshaw 1987 ). Although this concept is widely supported academically, how it can be applied by restoration practitioners is still unclear. This is an issue not limited to Bradshaw’s acid test, but moreover, reflects a general difficulty associated with the polarization between conceptual restoration (restoration ecology) and practical restoration (ecological restoration), where each has functioned to certain degree in isolation of the other. Outside of the more obvious pragmatic reasons for the relative independence between ecological restoration and restoration ecology, we propose that a more contentious explanation is that the approach taken toward understanding ecosystem development in restoration ecology is tangential to what actually takes place in ecological restoration. Current paradigms assume that the process of ecosystem development in restoration should follow the developmental trajectories suggested by classical ecological succession models. However, unlike these models, ecosystem development in restoration is, at least initially, largely manipulated by people, rather than by abiotic and biotic forces alone. There has been little research undertaken to explore how restoration activities impact upon or add to the extant ecological processes operating within a restoration site. Consequently, ecological restoration may not be so much an acid test of our understanding the functioning of ecosystems, but rather, an acid test of our understanding mutually beneficial interactions between humans and ecosystems.     

Are all intertidal wetlands naturally created equal? Bottlenecks,thresholds and knowledge gaps to mangrove and saltmarsh ecosystems

Intertidal wetlands such as saltmarshes and mangroves provide numerous important ecological functions, though they are in rapid and global decline. To better conserve and restore these wetland ecosystems, we need an understanding of the fundamental natural bottlenecks and thresholds to their establishment and long‐term ecological maintenance. Despite inhabiting similar intertidal positions, the biological traits of these systems differ markedly in structure, phenology, life history, phylogeny and dispersal, suggesting large differences in biophysical interactions. By providing the first systematic comparison between saltmarshes and mangroves, we unravel how the interplay between species‐specific life‐history traits, biophysical interactions and biogeomorphological feedback processes determine where, when and what wetland can establish, the thresholds to long‐term ecosystem stability, and constraints to genetic connectivity between intertidal wetland populations at the landscape level. To understand these process interactions, research into the constraints to wetland development, and biological adaptations to overcome these critical bottlenecks and thresholds requires a truly interdisciplinary approach.     

On Sustainability, Estuaries, and Ecosystem Restoration: The Art of the Practical

Ecosystem restoration in highly complex, human‐dominated estuaries rests on a strong conceptual foundation of sustainability, ecosystems, and adaptive management of human‐induced environmental impacts. Successful application involves evaluating uncertainty, incorporating place‐based information, and engaging diverse constituencies in the planning process. That means integration of technical knowledge with an understanding of the “cultural milieu” inherent in all estuaries, that is, the intensity of human activity and impacts plus socioeconomic factors relevant to restoration goals. Operational definitions of what constitutes acceptable ecosystem conditions and current baselines are critical yet rest in large measure on cultural values and socioeconomic considerations. Resources for long‐term monitoring and research to assess performance and ecosystem condition are paramount. Unprecedented population growth promises additional stressors on estuarine environments worldwide, making maintenance of present conditions difficult. The art of good, practical ecosystem restoration as a management tool at multiple geographic scales promises to play a crucial role in sustainability goals.     

生态恢复中生态系统服务的演变:趋势、过程与评估

经过10余年的发展,生态系统服务已经成为生态恢复研究关注的前沿和热点。生态恢复改变了生态系统格局与过程,对生态系统服务的产生和提供具有重要影响。但是目前对于生态系统服务在生态恢复过程中的演化仍缺少系统性研究。对国内外相关研究的最新成果进行综述,总结了生态系统服务评估中框架的构建和方法的选择(参数转移法、系统模型法和定量指标法),介绍了生态恢复对生态系统服务的促进作用、生态系统服务的演变过程以及不同生态系统服务间的协同与权衡关系,分析了社会经济因素对生态恢复和生态系统服务维持的影响。最后结合我国生态恢复实践,提出未来生态恢复和生态系统服务研究可以从深化作用机制研究、推动服务评估创新、增强研究成果应用3方面深化和拓展。     

Stretch Goals and Backcasting: Approaches for Overcoming Barriers to Large-Scale Ecological Restoration

The destruction and transformation of ecosystems by humans threatens biodiversity, ecosystem function, and vital ecosystem services. Ecological repair of ecosystems will be a major challenge over the next century and beyond. Restoration efforts to date have frequently been ad hoc, and site or situation specific. Although such small‐scale efforts are vitally important, without large‐scale visions and coordination, it is unlikely that large functioning ecosystems will ever be constructed by chance through the cumulative effects of small‐scale projects. Although the problems of human‐induced environmental degradation and the need for a solution are widely recognized, these issues have rarely been addressed on a sufficiently large‐scale basis. There are numerous barriers that prevent large‐scale ecological restoration projects from being proposed, initiated, or carried through. Common barriers include the “shifting baseline syndrome,” the scale and complexity of restoration, the long‐term and open‐ended nature of restoration, funding challenges, and preemptive constraint of vision. Two potentially useful approaches that could help overcome these barriers are stretch goals and backcasting. Stretch goals are ambitious long‐term goals used to inspire creativity and innovation to achieve outcomes that currently seem impossible. Backcasting is a technique where a desired end point is visualized, and then a pathway to that end point is worked out retrospectively. A case study from the Scottish Highlands is used to illustrate how stretch goals and backcasting could facilitate large‐scale restoration. The combination of these approaches offers ways to evaluate and shape options for the future of ecosystems, rather than accepting that future ecosystems are victims of past and present political realities.     

区域生态恢复规划及其关键问题

生态恢复是一项长期的根本性生态建设措施,需要有区域性整体规划与长期维持的具体安排。目前,区域生态恢复规划却未受到足够的关注。重点讨论了区域生态恢复规划的内涵、理论基础、规划原则及关键问题,这些问题的探讨对于提升生态恢复效率,增强生态恢复的科学性具有重要意义。区域生态恢复规划从宏观整体性的角度对区域内所实施的生态恢复工程进行统筹规划,对区域内实施的具体恢复规划具有指导意义。区域生态恢复以不同生态功能区的主导生态功能为恢复目标。在退化生态系统诊断的基础上,确定在哪里恢复。通过局地恢复治理与区域调控相结合的恢复策略,实现生态链与产业链的结合,其本质则是实现生态建设与社会经济的协调发展。     

景观生态学与退化生态系统恢复

退化生态系统的恢复是一项艰巨任务,它需要考虑到所要恢复的退化生态系统的结构,多样性和其动态的整体性和长期性。现在对于退化生态系统恢复研究已经要使生态学家们关注受损生态系统的理论和实际问题。退化生态系统恢复所面临的挑战是理解和利用生态演替理论来完成并加速恢复进程。恢复的主要目标是建立一个自维持的,由不同的群落或生态系统组成的能够满足不同需要如生物保护和粮食生产需要的景观。景观生态学关注于大的空间尺度的生态学问题。景观生态学研究方法可以为退化生态系统恢复实践提供指导。在解决退化生态系统的恢复问题时,景观生态学的方法在理论和实践上是有效的。景观生态学中的核心概念和其一般原理斑块形状、生态系统间相互作用、镶嵌系列等都同退化生态系统的恢复有着密切的关系。如恢复地点的选择和适当的恢复要素的空间配置。在评价退化生态系统的恢复是否取得成功,利用景观生态学也具有重要的意义。景观生态学理论如景观格局与景观异质性理论,干扰理论和尺度理论都能够指导退化生态系统的恢复实践。同样地,退化生态系统的恢复可以为景观生态学的研究提供非常恰当的实验场。寓景观生态学思想于退化生态系统恢复过程是一种新的有效途径。     

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.