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.     

The SER primer and climate change

The SER Primer on Ecological Restoration provides a succinct introduction to, and overview of, the rapidly growing field of ecological restoration. The Primer was issued initially in 2002 by the Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) and reissued verbatim 2 years later in a more attractive format ( http://www.ser.org/resources;resources-detail-view/ser-international-primer-on-ecological-restoration ). A SER committee recently began deliberations to update the Primer, and much discussion is underway. As two of the Primer's principal authors, we were invited to share our views on how the Primer can be advantageously revised in the light of any changes or new insights since 2002. In particular, we were asked how the Primer might be modified to reflect the ways that ecological restoration address conservation issues raised by climate change and other rapid environmental shifts and global changes. We also touch on questions relating to the benefits of ecological restoration to human society, as this is an area where the Primer needs sharper focus. We have structured the following in a ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ format to highlight issues raised in the recent literature and to focus attention on other issues that merit consideration in the Primer revision process.     

Learning from scientific literature: Can indicators for measuring success be standardized in “on the ground” restoration?

The Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) Primer identifies key ecosystem attributes for evaluating restoration outcome. Broad attribute categories could be necessary due to the large variety of restoration projects, but could make overall evaluations and assessments challenging and might hamper the development of sound and successful restoration. In this study we carry out a systematic review of scientific papers addressing evaluation of restoration outcome. We include 104 studies published after 2010 from Europe or North America, representing different types of restoration projects in terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems. We explore the main ecological and socioeconomic attributes used to evaluate restoration outcome, and related indicators and specific methods applied to measure this, in relation to ecosystem and type of restoration project. We identify a wide range of indicators within each attribute, and show that very different methods are employed to measure them. This complexity reduces the opportunity for meaningful comparison and standardization of evaluation of restoration outcome, within and between ecosystems. Socioeconomic indicators are rarely used to evaluate restoration outcome, and studies including both ecological and socioeconomic indicators are nearly absent. Based on our findings we discuss whether standardization and streamlining of indicators is useful to improve the evaluation of “on the ground” restoration, or if this is not appropriate given the diversity of goals and ecosystems involved. Species‐specific traits are used in many projects and should be considered as an addition to the original SER attributes. Furthermore, we discuss the potential for restoration evaluation that encompasses not only assessment of ecological but also socioeconomic indicators.     

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。     

Measuring and monitoring restored ecosystems: can remote sensing be applied to the ecological recovery wheel to inform restoration success?

The commencement of the United Nations Decade on Ecosystem Restoration has highlighted the urgent need to improve restoration science and fast-track ecological outcomes. The application of remote sensing for monitoring purposes has increased over the past two decades providing a variety of image datasets and derived products suitable to map and measure ecosystem properties (e.g. vegetation species, community composition, and structural dimensions such as height and cover). However, the operational use of remote sensing data and derived products for ecosystem restoration monitoring in research, industry, and government has been relatively limited and underutilized. In this paper, we use the Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) ecological recovery wheel (ERW) to assess the current capacity of drone-airborne-satellite remote sensing datasets to measure each of the SER's recommended attributes and sub-attributes for terrestrial restoration projects. Based on our combined expertise in the areas of ecological monitoring and remote sensing, a total of 11 out of 18 sub-attributes received the highest feasibility score and show strong potential for remote sensing assessments; while sub-attributes such as gene flows, all trophic levels and chemical and physical substrates have a reduced capacity for monitoring. We argue that in the coming decade, ecologists can combine remote sensing with the ERW to monitor restoration recovery and reference ecosystems for improved restoration outcomes at the local, regional, and landscape scales. The ERW approach can be adapted as a monitoring framework for projects to utilize the benefits of remote sensing and inform management through scalable, operational, and meaningful outcomes.     

Monitoring attributes for ecological restoration in Latin America and the Caribbean region

Ecological restoration is becoming mainstreamed worldwide but target ecosystems' responses to restorative interventions are not sufficiently monitored, in terms of the wide range of ecological, social, and economic attributes available. In order to highlight and better understand this problem, we conducted a literature review of the ecological, social, and economic attributes cited in the scientific literature used for monitoring the success of ecological restoration projects in Latin America and the Caribbean region, where no regional study of this kind has previously been conducted. In 84 of the 91 articles retained for the study, ecological indicators were evaluated, while only seven articles included measurements of socioeconomic indicators. Regarding the Society for Ecological Restoration Primer attributes of restored ecosystems, we only found indicators measuring attributes 1–6, with attribute 1 (species assemblages) predominating (73%), followed by physical conditions (54%) and ecological functions (51%). Brazil was the country in the region where most monitoring was being carried out (51% of the articles), and tropical rainforest (33%) and tropical dry forest (25%) were the ecosystem types where ecological restoration was most frequently monitored. Highly vulnerable ecosystems such as mangroves and paramos were underrepresented. Attributes related to ecosystem stability or to governance and education of communities were not monitored at all. More real long‐term monitoring, instead of chronosequences, is needed, especially where understanding socioeconomic implications of, and barriers to, effective ecological restoration is a top priority.     

矿山生态恢复研究进展——基于连续三届的世界生态恢复大会报告

最近连续三届世界生态恢复大会都将矿山生态系统列为大会交流的主题之一。为了解矿山生态修复的最新进展,本文采用文献分析方法和统计分析法,全面对比了这三届大会的论文和报告,包括参会国家、主要机构、热点矿区、修复要素、矿山类型、修复技术等。在此基础上,归纳了新开发的生态修复技术,包括植被恢复、土壤修复和景观恢复等新技术;总结了当前的研究热点,主要有复垦的土壤和修复的植物之间相互作用的机理、矿山生态修复的监测新技术、本土物种保持、污染土壤修复新技术、应对全球气候变化的矿山生态修复新思维和矿山生态系统服务价值等;介绍了会议提出的新观点,如自然恢复和人工恢复选择的新标准、矿山生态恢复力新理论、新型矿山生态系统及其设计等。最后对未来研究趋势进行了预测。     

生态技术评价方法及全球生态治理技术研究

全球范围内生态退化形势严峻,生态技术在遏制生态退化进程中发挥着重要作用。长期以来,对生态技术缺乏系统研究和评价,影响了其在脆弱生态区生态治理中的应用与推广。"生态技术评价方法、指标体系及全球生态治理技术评价"项目(2016YFC0503700)获得国家重点研发计划"典型脆弱生态修复与保护研究"专项支持。该项目旨在厘清全球生态退化状况及其对生态技术的需求,建立生态技术评价指标体系与方法模型,评价国内外不同类型生态技术以及重大生态工程区和不同生态退化区域的生态技术实施效果,筛选和推介满足我国及发展中国家生态治理需求的生态技术,建立生态技术评价平台和集成系统,为推动我国生态文明建设和发展中国家生态治理提供科学支撑。     

生态系统服务供需评估方法研究进展

生态系统服务供需评估可为识别地区均衡状况、生态权衡、生态管理、生态补偿提供依据,是生态系统服务研究的热点之一。本文收集与梳理国内外生态系统服务评估方法,将其归纳为生态模型法、价值法、参与法和经验统计模型法四大类,从供需评估角度、适用尺度范围和数据要求等方面,比较了各类方法在生态服务评估中的应用情况及优缺点。四类方法应用以评估服务供给为主,而在需求评估中的应用较少。生态模型法与价值法适用尺度范围广,涵盖从局地尺度到全球尺度,参与法与经验统计模型法则多用于中小尺度。生态模型法所需数据种类多,对数据要求高,评估精度也相对较高,在方法适用尺度、数据获取、推广应用等方面更具优势。未来生态系统服务供需评估方法研究需重点考虑以下三个方面:构建多样、标准供需指标体系,加强生态系统服务评估精确性研究,加强模型集成与开发。     

Restoration for multiple use

Management of restored ecosystems for multiple use is a modern necessity given a growing human population and dwindling supplies of ecosystem goods and services. Multiple use management refers to managing resources simultaneously for sustainable output of many goods and services. Within any restoration, thoughtful planning and early stakeholder engagement can help harmonize seemingly competing multiple uses. Although the field of ecological restoration is young and there are few long‐term lessons to draw from, we can infer from ecological theory that maximization of native biodiversity can impart resilience in the restored ecosystem and can buffer against the stress of multiple use management. Restoration for multiple use should be accompanied with an acknowledgment that humility is required and monitoring is needed to keep the restored ecosystem on an acceptable trajectory. The field of ecological restoration was founded upon the notion that ecosystems would be restored for ethical reasons, but modern realities have necessitated a more utilitarian approach to restoration that requires restoring ecosystems for multiple uses. This reality represents a grand challenge for the next generation of restoration ecologists.     

开展高寒退化生态系统恢复与重建技术研究,助力西藏生态安全屏障保护与建设

西藏是青藏高原的核心,是我国重要的生态安全屏障。由于高、寒、旱的特点,西藏高寒生态系统极为脆弱,在自然和人为因素影响下极易发生退化,治理难度大。草地退化和土地沙化治理一直是西藏生态安全屏障保护与建设的重中之重。为此,国家在"典型脆弱生态修复与保护研究"重点专项里启动了"西藏退化高寒生态系统恢复与重建技术及示范(2016YFC0502000)"项目,旨在研究生态系统演变规律和影响机理的基础上,针对西藏高原不同的退化区域,重点研发高寒退化草地恢复、沙化土地治理、生态产业及生态畜牧业发展等技术与模式,开展县域水平的集成示范,实现高寒生态系统功能的提升与适应性优化管理的目标,为西藏生态安全屏障保护与建设提供技术支撑。     

河南省南太行地区山水林田湖草生态保护与修复

综合景观管理是基于可持续土地管理（SLM）、可持续林业管理（SFM）和水资源综合管理（IWRM）提出的生态保护和修复方法,强调区域整体性、系统性和多功能性。《河南省南太行地区山水林田湖草生态保护与修复工程实施方案》还在规划设计阶段,概括分析了《河南省南太行地区山水林田湖草生态保护与修复工程实施方案》中提出的区域生态环境条件、问题、总体思路和目标、总体布局和生态功能分区、主要任务和工程等,并提出管控、修山、治水、护渠、复绿、整地、扩湿等综合性生态修复策略,实施矿山环境治理、流域水环境生态修复、生态系统保护、土地整治与污染生态修复、重要生态系统保育与生物多样性维护、科技创新工程,体现系统性和整体性。在此基础上,文章提出应加强综合景观管理,主要包括开展基于“生命共同体”的系统规划设计,加强“生命共同体”景观特征和生态过程研究,提升实施项目的多功能性,加强工程技术集成应用和研发,加强公众参与与合作等建议。     

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.     

延安市生态修复双赢模式实证研究

"越穷越垦、越垦越穷"的贫困陷阱是困扰全球可持续发展的学术难题之一,探索摆脱贫困陷阱的有效途径,是生态修复的核心目标。因此,生态修复不仅要依据当地气候与地理条件开展生态治理,同时要改变当地居民的生产生活行为,发展有利于生态修复的绿色产业,使当地居民的生产生活行为既可以提高收入、改善生活,又有利于生态修复。从而摆脱"越穷越垦、越垦越穷"的被动局面,实现生态修复与居民生计改善的双赢目标。为了验证这一模式的可行性,该研究在退耕还林项目实施的基础上,通过补短板的方式,在延安市开展了生态修复双赢模式实证研究。结果表明,新方案实施前,延安市NDVI增长速度是陕西省平均水平的41%;新方案实施后,是陕西省平均水平的195%,新方案的贡献率为74.0%。双赢模式较好解决了环境保护与社会经济发展彼此分离的这一矛盾,提高了生态修复的治理效果,为我国生态脆弱区精准扶贫和生态文明建设提供了理论依据和治理样板。     

北方风沙区生态修复的科学原理、工程实践和恢复效果

北方风沙区位于欧亚草原的东部,是我国生态环境最为脆弱的地区之一,其在北方生态安全屏障和丝绸之路经济带建设中具有十分重要的战略地位。在国家一系列生态保育工程的支持下,该地区的生态环境得到明显改善。但是,由于受人类活动和全球气候变化的影响,该地区仍然面临着严峻的环境压力。在中国科学院科技服务网络计划(STS计划)等项目支持下,开展了北方风沙区土地沙化成因及退化土地空间分布研究,集成了北方风沙区重点脆弱区生态恢复的理论和技术体系,以内蒙古中部的阴山北麓地区、内蒙古浑善达克沙地和蒙辽交界的科尔沁沙地为重点研究区域,进行了高效人工草地建植、天然草地恢复和管理、沙化草地治理等相关工程技术的示范,开展生态恢复模式的效果跟踪监测和生态效益评估,确定生态恢复技术和模式的技术参数和指标,明确不同集成技术与模式在北方风沙区的适用区域和范围,为技术模式的推广应用提供科学依据。通过上述研究,可以为中央和地方政府制定生态系统管理和退化生态系统恢复政策、建立我国北方生态安全屏障提供决策依据,为生态修复产业提供技术指南,为相关研究提供全面系统的基础数据支撑。     

Insights from a Cross‐Disciplinary Seminar: 10 Pivotal Papers for Ecological Restoration

Restoration ecology is a deepening and diversifying field with current research incorporating multiple disciplines and infusing long‐standing ideas with fresh perspectives. We present a list of 10 recent pivotal papers exemplifying new directions in ecological restoration that were selected by students in a cross‐disciplinary graduate seminar at the University of California, Berkeley. We highlight research that applies ecological theory to improve restoration practice in the context of global change (e.g. climate modeling, evaluation of novel ecosystems) and discuss remaining knowledge gaps. We also discuss papers that recognize the social context of restoration and the coupled nature of social and ecological systems, ranging from the incorporation of cultural values and Traditional Ecological Knowledge into restoration, to the consideration of the broader impacts of markets on restoration practices. In addition, we include perspectives that focus on improving communication between social and natural scientists as well as between scientists and practitioners, developing effective ecological monitoring, and applying more integrated, whole‐landscape approaches to restoration. We conclude with insights on recurrent themes in the papers regarding planning restoration in human‐modified landscapes, application of ecological theory, improvements to restoration practice, and the social contexts of restoration. We share lessons from our cross‐disciplinary endeavor, and invite further discussion on the future directions of restoration ecology through contributions to our seminar blog site http://restecology.blogspot.com .     

Rays of Hope from the Ecological Restoration Alliance of Botanic Gardens,following its recent meeting in Amman,Jordan

In the spring of 2015, the Ecological Restoration Alliance (ERA) of Botanic Gardens held its fourth international meeting in Amman, Jordan, hosted by the Royal Botanic Garden of Jordan. Three regional working groups were launched, for the Middle East, East Africa, and Latin America, and new partnerships were forged to support ecological restoration initiatives led by botanic gardens in Jordan, Oman, and elsewhere. A one‐day public symposium, attended by over 100 people, was also held—the most significant public meeting on ecological restoration held to date in the Middle East. A communications strategy for regional outreach was agreed upon starting with the translation of several Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) foundation documents into Arabic. A peer‐reviewed translation of the SER International Primer on Ecological Restoration has already been produced by staff of the Royal Botanic Garden of Jordan and posted on the SER website. Further efforts will be made to promote public awareness in Jordan and regionally, in support of existing conservation and restoration programs, and to promote greater integration of ecological restoration programs in national and regional development schemes and government policies. Key action points were agreed upon to promote the practice of ecological restoration and the role of botanic gardens globally vis‐à‐vis policy makers and funders.     

Biodiversity mitigates trade-offs among species functional traits underpinning multiple ecosystem services

Biodiversity loss and its effects on humanity is of major global concern. While a growing body of literature confirms positive relationships between biodiversity and multiple ecological functions, the links between biodiversity, ecological functions and multiple ecosystem services is yet unclear. Studies of biodiversity–functionality relationships are mainly based on computer simulations or controlled field experiments using only few species. Here, we use a trait-based approach to integrate plant functions into an ecosystem service assessment to address impacts of restoration on species-rich grasslands over time. We found trade-offs among functions and services when analysing contributions from individual species. At the community level, these trade-offs disappeared for almost all services with time since restoration as an effect of increased species diversity and more evenly distributed species. Restoration to enhance biodiversity also in species-rich communities is therefore essential to secure higher functional redundancy towards disturbances and sustainable provision of multiple ecosystem services over time.     

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.