The SER Standards: a globally relevant and inclusive tool for improving restoration practice—a reply to Higgs et al.

In response to a critique by Higgs et al., this article clarifies the content and intent of the Society for Ecological Restoration's (SER) International Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration. Higgs et al. expressed concern that the SER Standards are not sufficiently underpinned by principles and risk disenfranchising some practitioners by narrowing what qualifies as ecological restoration. To demonstrate that these concerns are unfounded, we discuss the policy context and principles on which the Standards are based, its organizational structure, the innovative and inclusive approach used for development, and highlight significant errata by Higgs et al.     

The SER Standards,cultural ecosystems,and the nature‐culture nexus—a reply to Evans and Davis

Evans and Davis claim the SER Standards use a “pure naturalness” model for restoration baselines and exclude most cultural ecosystems from the ecological restoration paradigm. The SER Standards do neither. The SER Standards consider both “natural” ecosystems (that are unequivocally not cultural) and “similar” cultural ecosystems as suitable reference models. Furthermore, Evans and Davis propose assessing whether a cultural ecosystem exhibits “good, bad, or neutral impacts from humans on ecosystems” as the basis for reference models. We argue that such an approach would overlook the indispensability of native ecosystem benchmarks to measure human impacts and provide a springboard for social‐ecological restoration.     

Theorizing human impacts into ecological restoration is not a slippery slope,but a toehold for reaching social‐ecological resilience: a counter‐response to McDonald et al. (2019)

In their reply, McDonald et al. have misconstrued several crucial points from our article. In this counter‐response, we clarify our concerns with the Standards as a document with global implications. We highlight our concern with framing preindustrial indigenous peoples' impacts as natural and the colonial connotations of such an assumption. We also discuss practical issues that arise from the Standards' conceptualization of natural variation and suggest avenues for developing frameworks that do not rely on a nature‐culture dichotomy or naturalization of indigenous landscapes.     

Yes,correct context is indeed the key: An answer to Haave‐Audet et al. 2019

We published a study recently testing the link between brain size and behavioural plasticity using brain size selected guppy (Poecilia reticulata) lines (2019, Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 32, 218‐226). Only large‐brained fish showed habituation to a new, but actually harmless environment perceived as risky, by increasing movement activity over the 20‐day observation period. We concluded that “Our results suggest that brain size likely explains some of the variation in behavioural plasticity found at the intraspecific level”. In a commentary published in the same journal, Haave‐Audet et al. challenged the main message of our study, stating that (a) relative brain size is not a suitable proxy for cognitive ability and (b) habituation measured by us is likely not adaptive and costly. In our response, we first show that a decade's work has proven repeatedly that relative brain size is indeed positively linked to cognitive performance in our model system. Second, we discuss how switching from stressed to unstressed behaviour in stressful situations without real risk is likely adaptive. Finally, we point out that the main cost of behavioural plasticity in our case is the development and maintenance of the neural system needed for information processing, and not the expression of plasticity. We hope that our discussion with Haave‐Audet et al. helps clarifying some central issues in this emerging research field.     

What about cultural ecosystems? Opportunities for cultural considerations in the “International Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration”

The Society for Ecological Restoration's 2016 (SER) “International Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration” is a living document intended to guide restoration projects “anywhere in the world.” Given its intended global scope and in hopes of informing future editions, this document is critically assessed in light of the role people have played in ecosystems around the world. We argue that the Standards has an underlying nature–culture dichotomization that limits its applicability; in qualifying what it calls “cultural ecosystems” for rehabilitation, rather than restoration, the Standards privileges colonial visions of ecological restoration. We also discuss the Standards' representation of the ecological impacts and practices of indigenous groups. Whereas the Standards claims that preindustrial cultural ecosystems exist in states similar to unmodified areas, many historians, anthropologists, and paleoecologists would point out that preindustrial people sometimes had massive environmental impacts through agriculture, hydrological engineering, over‐hunting, living in dense urban environments, transporting species, burning on a scale capable of changing the climate, and other practices. Furthermore, the Standards does not discuss how the cultural goals of indigenous groups fit into the overall picture of ecological restoration. Future drafts of the Standards should more accurately frame the diverse roles people play in nature, and create global standards that account for the validity of cultural goals for ecological restoration.     

Assisted Colonization of Foundation Species: Lack of Consideration of the Extended Phenotype Concept—Response to Kreyling et al. (2011)

Assisted colonization (AC), or the intentional translocation of populations to compensate for risks related to climate change, is receiving increasing attention. It has been recently suggested by Kreyling et al. (2011) that rather than relocating endangered species, a focus should be placed on local adaptations of foundation or keystone species, and that these local ecotypes should be moved within their own range. Hence, this type of relocation could be applied with minimal risk in many restoration efforts. We think that caution is needed when considering the translocation of these foundation species, even within their range. Many recent studies have shown that foundation species can influence community structure and ecosystem processes through heritable traits, which suggests a genetic basis for ecosystem services. Thus, the translocation of different genotypes of foundation species might lead to unexpected results of colonization and might not be as “predictable” as Kreyling et al. have argued. Here, in our response, we stress how AC of foundation species can have important evolutionary consequences that might be impossible to reverse. We propose, whenever possible, (1) to favor population mixes of the foundation species to minimize the potential negative effects of specific genotypes; and (2) to collect from adjacent populations along ecological clines of the foundation species to mimic natural processes of migration under climate change.     

Response to Comment on “Retinal pulse wave velocity measurement using spectral‐domain optical coherence tomography”

Spahr et al. recently commented on our latest paper “Retinal pulse wave velocity measurement using spectral‐domain optical coherence tomography” with a conclusion that the measured retinal pulse wave velocity (rPWV) in our paper was contradictory to theoretical predictions and previously published results. However, the theoretical predictions by Spahr et al. based on Moens‐Korteweg equation are questionable, since the Moens‐Korteweg equation should not be used for small arteries like retinal arteries. Previously, various measurements of rPWV using different technologies have been reported. The results on human and rats are not consistent. As the rPWV is an unknown value, we argue that the time delay derived between 2 arterial sites should be verified to see if the delay truly represents the pulse wave transit time. In the future, special emphasis should be placed on demonstration of the reproducibility of technologies and data analysis of large samples.     

“Active” and “passive” ecological restoration strategies in meta‐analysis

One of the means of creating a more robust methodology for ecological restoration involves reducing the gap between ecological theory and restoration practices. A common strategy to do so is using meta‐analysis to understand key drivers of restoration outcomes. “Active” and “passive” is a dichotomy often used to separate restoration strategies in such meta‐analyses. We investigate previously raised concerns about selection bias and subjective categorization of strategies. We promote a paired experimental design in future empirical research and propose the use of three categories of restoration strategy in lieu of “passive” and “active” to alleviate inconsistency in definitions and categorization.     

Science and Restoration Under a Big, Demon Haunted Tent: Reply to Giardina et al. (2007)

In a recent editorial, I discussed how the culture of science, heterogeneity of nature, and real‐world human complexities can limit the practical relevance of formal scientific research and argued that less formal approaches might often be more efficient and effective. Giardina et al. criticized this editorial and argued that formal science has and increasingly will play a central role in ecological restoration in particular and human progress in general. Here, I respond to these arguments and expand upon the ideas presented in my previous editorial. I further illustrate how despite superficial appearances the utilitarian value of formal science may often be largely indirect. I also argue that the complexities of ecological and human systems combined with the subjective values and political beliefs underlying restoration make transforming this discipline into a unified “hard science” virtually impossible. Because values and politics also underlie most environmental conflicts, and scientific inquiry is inherently unsuitable for resolving these kinds of disputes, the future success of restoration may depend more on political support than scientific progress. Dogmatic, nonfalsifiable faith in the universal superiority of “rigorous” scientific knowledge and methodologies can foster arrogance and intolerance and blind us to the ephemeral nature of scientific “truths” and the double‐edged sword of scientific “progress.” My hope is that Society for Ecological Restoration International (SERI) will remain a big inclusive tent that embraces a healthy diversity of foci and approaches that emulate the extraordinary diversity we find within the natural ecosystems and human cultures we strive to preserve, restore, and reconnect.     

Awareness and use of the Society for Ecological Restoration's International Principles and Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration in Canada

The Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) published the second edition of its International Principles and Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration in 2019. We conducted a pan-Canadian study using semi-structured interviews with restoration professionals to explore the extent to which restoration practitioners are aware of the document and use it. Overall, we found that direct uptake of the document by practitioners was lower than expected, with approximately 37.7% of all participants that were both aware of and consulting the publication for guidance in their practice of ecological restoration. This is due in part to low awareness of the document itself, with only a small majority (56.5%) of interviewees being aware of it. Other reasons listed by practitioners such as the structure of the publication, its added value, and its suitability for on-the-ground work revealed why some individuals aware of the existence of the document still failed to consult it. Here, we present a more nuanced assessment of these observations and share our findings with the ecological restoration community to address this disconnection. With intensifying pressures to achieve restoration success internationally, SER's guidance is critical. We analyze why it seems guidance from SER is not being taken up as fully as it might, and ways in which future versions may be improved.