Setting Effective and Realistic Restoration Goals: Key Directions for Research

Restoration ecology has made significant advances in the past few decades and stands to make significant contributions both to the practical repair of damaged ecosystems and the development of broader ecological ideas. I highlighted four main areas where progress in research can assist with this. First, we need to enhance the translation of recent advances in our understanding of ecosystem and landscape dynamics into the conceptual and practical frameworks for restoration. Second, we need to promote the development of an ability to correctly diagnose ecosystem damage, identify restoration thresholds, and develop corrective methodologies that aim to overcome such thresholds. This involves understanding which system characteristics are important in determining ecosystem recovery in a range of ecosystem types, and to what extent restoration measures need to overcome threshold and hysteresis effects. A third key requirement is to determine what realistic goals for restoration are based on the ecological realities of today and how these will change in the future, given ongoing changes in climate and land use. Finally, there is a need for a synthetic approach which draws together the ecological and social aspects of the issues surrounding restoration and the setting of restoration goals.     

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.     

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.     

Mangrove Restoration: Do We Know Enough?

Mangrove restoration projects have been attempted, with mixed results, throughout the world. In this paper, I first examine goals of existing mangrove restoration projects and determine whether these goals are clear and adequate, and whether or not they account for the full range of biological diversity and ecological processes of mangrove ecosystems. Many restored mangrove forests resemble forest plantations rather than truly integrated ecosystems, but mangrove plantations can be a first step toward mangrove rehabilitation. Mangrove restoration projects that involve associated aquaculture or mariculture operations tend to be more likely to approximate the biological diversity and ecological processes of undisturbed mangrove ecosystems than are projects that focus only on the trees. These integrated restoration projects also provide a higher economic return than do silvicultural projects alone. Second, I briefly assess whether existing ecological data are sufficient to undergird successful restoration of mangal and define criteria for determining whether or not a mangrove ecosystem has been restored successfully. These criteria include characteristics of vegetation (forest) structure, levels of primary production, composition of associated animal communities, and hydrology. Finally, I suggest ways to improve mangrove restoration projects and identify key research needs required to support these efforts. Ecological theories derived from other wetland and upland systems rarely have been applied to either “basic” or “applied” mangrove forest studies, to the detriment of restoration projects, whereas lessons from restoration of the relatively species‐poor mangrove ecosystems could be beneficially applied to restoration projects in other contexts. An international database of mangrove restoration projects would reduce the likelihood that unsuccessful restoration projects would be repeated elsewhere. Clear criteria for evaluating success, greater accessibility of information by managers in the developing world, intensified international cooperation, and application of relevant ecological theories will improve the success rate of mangrove restoration projects.     

生态系统退化程度诊断：生态恢复的基础与前提

 生态系统退化程度诊断是进行生态恢复与重建的基础和前提。然而目前的生态系统化程度诊断大多停留在定性的水平,如何对退化生态系统的退化程度进行定量的诊断就成为恢复生态学与生态恢复实践所面临的一个迫切且十分关键的问题。在综述前人研究的基础上,比较系统地论述了生态系统退化程度诊断的一系列问题：绘制了描述生态系统退化程度的概念模型;认为在实践中退化程度诊断的参照系统可以选择相应的受人类或自然干扰程度比较轻的“自然生态系统”;归纳了生态系统退化程度诊断的生物途径、生境途径、生态过程途径、生态系统功能/服务途径、景观途径;把诊断方法分为单途径单因子诊断法、单途径多因子诊断法、多途径综合诊断法;分析了生态系统退化程度诊断的可能指标（体系）;给出了生态系统退化程度诊断的策略与流程,并对生态系统退化程度诊断及生态恢复过程中应注意的事项进行了讨论。建议我国加强典型生态系统退化程度的综合诊断研究。     

Adaptive management of coastal ecosystem restoration projects

There is a clear need to apply better and more effective management schemes to coastal ecosystem restoration projects. It is very common for aquatic ecosystem restoration projects not to meet their goals. Poor performance has led to a high degree of uncertainty about the potential success of any restoration effort. Under adaptive management, the knowledge gained through monitoring of the project and social policies is translated into restoration policy and program redesign. Planners and managers can utilize the information from the monitoring programs in an effective way to assure that project goals are met or that informed and objective decisions are made to address both ecological and societal needs. The three main ingredients of an effective adaptive management plan in a restoration project are: (1) a clear goal statement; (2) a conceptual model; and (3) a decision framework. The goal ‘drives’ the design of the project and helps guide the development of performance criteria. The goal statement and performance criteria provide the means by which the system can be judged. With the conceptual model, the knowledge base from the field of ecological science plays an active and critical role in designing the project to meet the goal. A system-development matrix provides a simple decision framework to view the alternative states for the system during development, incorporate knowledge gained through the monitoring program, and formulate a decision on actions to take if the system is not meeting its goal.     

Defining the Limits of Restoration: The Need for Realistic Goals

The search for a universal statement of goals for ecological restoration continues to generate discussion and controversy. I discuss the diverse roots of restoration ecology, and show how the complex lineages within the field have led to diverse, and divergent, sets of goals. I then review the three major themes that currently are used to develop statements of goals: restoration of species, restoration of whole ecosystems or landscapes, and the restoration of ecosystem services, and point out both the advantages and the limitations and problems associated with each category. Finally, I suggest that restoration ecology would be better served by recognizing that the diversity of conditions requiring restoration demands much flexibility in goal setting, and that restorationists should seek to develop guidelines for defining the sets of conditions under which different kinds of goals are appropriate. I further suggest that goals would be more easily and more appropriately set if restorationists would set forth at the outset the true scope and limitations of what is possible in a given project. Key words: goal‐setting, wetlands, conservation biology, ecosystem management, ecosystem services, landscape management.     

Back-to-the-future: a fresh policy initiative for fisheries and a restoration ecology for ocean ecosystems

'Back-to-the-future' (BTF) is an integrative approach to a restoration ecology of the oceans that attempts to solve the fisheries crisis. To this end, it harnesses the latest understanding of ecosystem processes developments in whole ecosystem simulation modelling, and insight into the human dimension of fisheries management. BTF includes new methods for describing past ecosystems, designing fisheries that meet criteria for sustainability and responsibility, and evaluating the costs and benefits of fisheries in restored ecosystems. Evaluation of alternative policy choices, involving trade-offs between conservation and economic values, employs a range of economic, social and ecological measures. Automated searches maximize values of objective functions, and the methodology includes analyses of model parameter uncertainty. Participatory workshops attempt to maximize compliance by fostering a sense of ownership among all stakeholders. Some challenges that have still to be met include improving methods for quantitatively describing the past, reducing uncertainty in ecosystem simulation techniques and in making policy choices robust against climate change. Critical issues include whether past ecosystems make viable policy goals, and whether desirable goals may be reached from today's ecosystem. Examples from case studies in British Columbia, Newfoundland and elsewhere are presented.     

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.     

Integrating Soil Ecological Knowledge into Restoration Management

The variability in the type of ecosystem degradation and the specificity of restoration goals can challenge restorationists’ ability to generalize about approaches that lead to restoration success. The discipline of soil ecology, which emphasizes both soil organisms and ecosystem processes, has generated a body of knowledge that can be generally useful in improving the outcomes of restoration despite this variability. Here, we propose that the usefulness of this soil ecological knowledge (SEK) for restoration is best considered in the context of the severity of the original perturbation, the goals of the project, and the resilience of the ecosystem to disturbance. A straightforward manipulation of single physical, chemical, or biological components of the soil system can be useful in the restoration of a site, especially when the restoration goal is loosely defined in terms of the species and processes that management seeks to achieve. These single‐factor manipulations may in fact produce cascading effects on several ecosystem attributes and can result in unintended recovery trajectories. When complex outcomes are desired, intentional and holistic integration of all aspects of the soil knowledge is necessary. We provide a short roster of examples to illustrate that SEK benefits management and restoration of ecosystems and suggest areas for future research.     

Primed for Change: Developing Ecological Restoration for the 21st Century

Restoration is a young and swiftly developing field. It has been almost a decade since the inception of one of the field's foundational documents—the Society for Ecological Restoration International Primer on Ecological Restoration (Primer). Through a series of organized discussions, we assessed the Primer for its currency and relevance in the modern field of ecological restoration. We focused our assessment on the section entitled “The Nine Attributes of a Restored Ecosystem” and grouped each of the attributes into one of four categories: species composition, ecosystem function, ecosystem stability, and landscape context. We found that in the decade since the document's inception, the concepts, methods, goals, and thinking of ecological restoration have shifted significantly. We discuss each of the four categories in this light with the aim of offering comments and suggestions on options for updating the Primer. We also include a fifth category that we believe is increasingly acknowledged in ecological restoration: the human element. The Primer is an important document guiding the practice of restoration. We hope that this critical assessment contributes to its ongoing development and relevance and more generally to the development of restoration ecology, particularly in our current era of rapid environmental change.     

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。     

What's wrong with novel ecosystems,really?

The novel ecosystems concept has gained much traction in the restoration community. It has also drawn the ire of several prominent ecologists and is the focus of an ongoing debate. We consider three key aspects of this debate: irreversible thresholds, non‐native species, and the hybrid state. Irreversible thresholds have been acknowledged in restoration for years, but predicting when a threshold will be crossed and the degree of reversibility is problematic. Oftentimes reversibility is a function of multiple factors, such as cost and public support. In this sense, a novel ecosystem is not an alternate state but a decision. The need for pragmatism regarding control of non‐natives has also long been recognized in restoration circles. Proponents of the novel ecosystem idea adopt this pragmatism by recommending that management decisions be based on impacts conferred by species in altered ecosystems, regardless of their origin. The concept of a hybrid state has proven difficult to operationalize. We suggest that rather than trying to identify the boundary between hybrid and novel states, ecosystems exist on a gradient of alteration. We offer a decision tree for restoration action that integrates aspects of novel ecosystems with other perspectives in modern restoration ecology. We conclude that the idea of novel ecosystems, though not perfect, deserves a place under the “big tent” of restoration that includes efforts to return fully to a reference state, as well as strategies for reinstating lost ecological processes and enhancing ecosystem services in transformed landscapes where such a return is deemed infeasible.     

Perspectives on setting success criteria for wetland restoration

The task of determining the success of wetland restoration has long been challenging and sometimes contentious because success is an imprecise term that means different things in different situations and to different people. Compliance success is determined by evaluating compliance with the terms of an agreement, e.g. a contract or permit, whereas functional success is determined by evaluating whether the ecological functions of the system have been restored. Compliance and functional success have historically focused on the individual project (the site being restored); we are only beginning to consider another important factor, the success of restoration at the landscape scale. Landscape success is a measure of how restoration (or management, in general) has contributed to the ecological integrity of the region or landscape and to achievement of goals such as the maintenance of biodiversity. The utility of all definitions of success is ultimately constrained by the current status of the science of restoration ecology and by our ability to use that information to make sound management decisions and to establish measurable success criteria. Measurements of vegetation are most commonly used in evaluations of restoration projects, with less frequent analysis of soils, fauna, and hydrologic characteristics. Although particular characteristics of projects, such as vegetative cover and production, can resemble those in similar naturally occurring wetlands, overall functional equivalency has not been demonstrated. However, ongoing research is providing information on what can and cannot be accomplished, valuable insights on how to correct mistakes, and new approaches to defining success. The challenge is how to recognize and deal with the uncertainty, given that projects are ecologically young and that our knowledge of the process of restoration is evolving. One way to deal with the uncertainty is to use scientific principles of hypothesis testing and model building in an adaptive management framework. In this way, options can be systematically evaluated and needs for corrective actions identified when a project is not progressing toward goals. By taking such an approach we can improve our ability to reliably restore wetlands while contributing to our understanding of the basic structure and function of ecosystems.     

Swamp rabbits as indicators of wildlife habitat quality in bottomland hardwood forest ecosystems

Reforestation of bottomland hardwood (BLH) forests has occurred within the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley (LMAV), USA, to support a wide range of ecosystem services, but especially wildlife habitat enhancement. As ecosystem restoration efforts proceed in BLH ecosystems, managers and policymakers are seeking criteria to evaluate wildlife habitat enhancement goals. Specialist wildlife that evolved within forest ecosystems can be sensitive to the composition, structure, and function of an ecosystem in relation to the system's natural or historical range of variation and thereby serve as indicators of habitat quality. The swamp rabbit (Sylvilagus aquaticus) is a specialist species of BLH forests throughout the LMAV and therefore may be an appropriate indicator species for this ecosystem. To address this, we reviewed peer-reviewed literature to evaluate the utility of swamp rabbits as an indicator species according to three commonly-used criteria: habitat factors defining swamp rabbit relationships to BLH forests, the importance of swamp rabbit habitat to other wildlife, and the efficiency of swamp rabbit monitoring. We conclude that the swamp rabbit is a suitable indicator of wildlife habitat quality in BLH ecosystems in the LMAV because they evolved and remain endemic to the ecosystem, use habitat that integrates desirable characteristics that positively influence wildlife biodiversity, and are easy to monitor routinely.     

新型生态系统理论及其争议综述

澳大利亚Richard J Hobbs教授等近年提出的新型生态系统(Novel Ecosystems)理论认为,由于人类作用,地球生态系统经历了前所未有的变化,很多生态系统已经越过不可逆转的阈值,不可能恢复到原有状态,形成了新的生态系统,其生物要素、非生物要素和系统功能等都发生了显著改变;人类应该面对现实,必须反思传统生态保护和生态恢复的行为、政策和思维;应该致力新型生态系统的特征、属性和演替规律的研究,在管理、规划、政策、组织和技术等方面的创新。新型生态系统理论引起了很大争议。质疑者认为,由于自然作用力和人类的持续扰动,地球生态系统一直在不断变化,所以一直都是"新"的,根本没必要贴上"新型"标签;该理论基本概念模糊,理论模型不精确,缺乏严密的逻辑推理,还很不成熟;该理论无助于生态保护和生态恢复的实践,会扰乱人们的思想,没有实践价值。不过,支持者和质疑者都承认地球上很多生态系统的确遭到严重破坏,已经发生深刻演替,极有必要对这类系统的非线性机制、系统阈值、恢复力、新范式,以及破坏后的所有特征等开展研究,应该理性选择合适的修复方法,理性分析人工干预的程度及其成功的可能性,科学制定行动方案和优选标准。跟踪国际前沿,开展新型生态系统理论研究有助于丰富我国恢复生态学理论以及创新工程实践。     

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。     

Step back from the forest and step up to the Bonn Challenge: how a broad ecological perspective can promote successful landscape restoration

We currently face both an extinction and a biome crisis embedded in a changing climate. Many biodiverse ecosystems are being lost at far higher rates than they are being protected or ecologically restored. At the same time, natural climate solutions offer opportunities to restore biodiversity while mitigating climate change. The Bonn Challenge is a U.N. programme to restore biodiversity and mitigate climate change through restoration of the world's degraded landscapes. It provides an unprecedented chance for ecological restoration to become a linchpin tool for addressing many environmental issues. Unfortunately, the Forest and Landscape Restoration programme that underpins the Bonn Challenge, as its name suggests, remains focused on trees and forests, despite rising evidence that many non‐forest ecosystems also offer strong restoration potential for biodiversity and climate mitigation. We see a need for restoration to step back to be more inclusive of different ecosystem types and to step up to provide integrated scientific knowledge to inform large‐scale restoration. Stepping back and up will require assessments of where to restore what species, with recognition that in many landscapes multiple habitat types should be restored. In the process, trade‐offs in the delivery of different ecosystem services (e.g. carbon, biodiversity, water, albedo, livestock forage) should be clearly addressed. We recommend that biodiversity safeguards be included in policy and implemented in practice, to avoid undermining the biophysical relationships that provide ecosystem resilience to climate change. For ecological restoration to contribute to international policy goals will require integrated large‐scale science that works across biome boundaries.     

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.     

Restoration Ecology and the Ecosystem Perspective

The ecosystem perspective provides a framework within which most other aspects of the ecology of restoration can be incorporated. By considering the ecosystem functions of a restoration project, the restorationist is forced to consider the placement of the project in the landscape—its boundaries, its connections or lack thereof to adjoining ecosystems, and its receipts and losses of materials and energy from its physical surroundings. These characteristics may set limits on the kind(s) of biotic communities that can be created on the site. The ecosystem perspective also gives restorationists conceptual tools for structuring and evaluating restorations. These include the mass balance approach to nutrient, pollutant, and energy budgets; subsidy/stress effects of inputs; food web architecture; feedback among ecosystem components; efficiency of nutrient transfers, primary productivity and decomposition as system-determining rates; and disturbance regimes. However, there are many uncertainties concerning these concepts, their relation to each other, and their relationships to population- and community-level phenomena. The nature of restoration projects provides a unique opportunity for research on these problems; the large spatial scale of restorations and the freedom to manipulate species, soil, water, and even the landscape could allow ecosystem-level experiments to be conducted that could not be performed otherwise.