Novel and designed ecosystems

Growing attention to novel and designed ecosystems, and the confusion that follows from the overlap of these distinct ecosystem approaches, risks a loss of focus on ecological values at the core of restoration ecology. Novel ecosystems originate in ecosystems that are transformed beyond which the practical efforts of conventional restoration are feasible. They are also self‐sustaining in the sense that they take time to form, and do not typically receive regular management. In this respect, they arise differently than designed ecosystems, which are assembled with specific goals in mind and are often heavily managed. Designed (or engineered) ecosystems comprise a variety of ecological approaches including reclamation (return a degraded ecosystem to productive capacity), green infrastructure, and agroecological systems. There are three elements that distinguish novel and designed ecosystems. Designed ecosystems typically require intensive intervention to create them, and ongoing management to sustain them; novel ecosystems do not. Second, the human intentions behind designed and novel ecosystems are usually different. Designed ecosystems exist in the service of human interests, including specific services (e.g. filtration, cooling, nature appreciation), aesthetics, and shifting value commitments toward green infrastructure; novel ecosystems arise typically through inadvertent human activity. Third, designed and novel ecosystems have different developmental pathways. Historical ecosystems are the starting point for restored, hybrid, and novel ecosystems; designed ecosystems are intentionally created. Designed ecosystems stand apart as providing a new origin for ecosystems of the future, including those that become novel ecosystems.  

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.  

Restoring Remote Ecosystems

Indirect effects from climate‐driven changes in ecosystems that are remote from direct human activity pose challenges for ecological restoration. Significant and often indirect impacts on alpine ecosystems, the primary ecosystem under consideration in this article, threaten historical‐reference conditions and the viability of some species. The impetus for restoration is similar to projects involving more direct and proximate impacts, but the issues are more complicated in remote ecosystems. Restoration efforts in remote ecosystems might do more harm than good, and the effort required for effective restoration might be greater than easily justified given the shortfall of resources for restoring more heavily impacted ecosystems. The long duration and integration of impacts on remote landscapes pose a distinct set of challenges to restorationists. Intervening in remote ecosystems makes them less remote by definition (they are now affected by human agency). In this article, we examine scientific, technical, and moral issues and offer an initial model for assessing the appropriateness of restoring remote landscapes.