Hidden Costs of Passive Restoration

The first few years of tropical forest restoration can be expensive, especially when applied to expansive areas. In light of this, passive restoration has been recommended as a considerably cheaper or even free alternative. There are, however, both direct and indirect costs associated with passive restoration. First, the longer recovery time that is typically required in passive restoration can be perceived as project failure, especially when compared with nearby active restoration efforts. In the worst‐case scenario, this can lead to the premature termination of a project by a landowner who would like to see more rapid or visible results. Second, passive restoration may be viewed as land abandonment, and in developing nations where land tenure is not always strictly enforced this may invite unanticipated uses, such as ranchers who may unintentionally or intentionally allow livestock to take advantage of the “unused” forage grass, thus setting back recovery efforts. Lastly, passive restoration does have direct financial costs, including material costs for establishing fences and repairing them, and labor costs for site vigilance. These upfront investments may need to be made repeatedly in passive restoration efforts, and for a longer time period than for an active restoration project. Both the direct and indirect costs should be considered prior to choosing passive restoration as a strategy in a particular restoration project.     

Balancing economic costs and ecological outcomes of passive and active restoration in agricultural landscapes: the case of Brazil

Forest restoration requires strategies such as passive restoration to balance financial investments and ecological outcomes. However, the ecological outcomes of passive restoration are traditionally regarded as uncertain. We evaluated technical and legal strategies for balancing economic costs and ecological outcomes of passive versus active restoration in agricultural landscapes. We focused in the case of Brazil, where we assessed the factors driving the proportion of land allocated to passive and active restoration in 42 programs covering 698,398 hectares of farms in the Atlantic Forest, Atlantic Forest/cerrado ecotone and Amazon; the ecological outcomes of passive and active restoration in 2955 monitoring plots placed in six restoration programs; and the legal framework developed by some Brazilian states to balance the different restoration approaches and comply with legal commitments. Active restoration had the highest proportion of land allocated to it (78.4%), followed by passive (14.2%) and mixed restoration (7.4%). Passive restoration was higher in the Amazon, in silviculture, and when remaining forest cover was over 50 percent. Overall, both restoration approaches showed high levels of variation in the ecological outcomes; nevertheless, passively restored areas had a smaller percentage canopy cover, lower species density, and less shrubs and trees (dbh > 5 cm). The studied legal frameworks considered land abandonment for up to 4 years before deciding on a restoration approach, to favor the use of passive restoration. A better understanding of the biophysical and socioeconomic features of areas targeted for restoration is needed to take a better advantage of their natural regeneration potential.     

Passive restoration is often quite effective: response to Zahawi et al. (2014)

Although we share many of the ideas expressed by Zahawi et al., we believe that they are more skeptical in some aspects of the value of passive restoration than we are. Their comment is based primarily on experience within tropical habitats with idiosyncratic legal and social circumstances that limit extrapolations to other habitats. Passive restoration is not always slower than active restoration, and restoration goals should not always focus on rapid development of mature vegetation structure and function. Even less mature vegetation may provide important benefits. A meta‐analysis to compare passive and active restoration in a variety of habitats and geographical regions is needed.     

A GIS‐based decision‐making approach for prioritizing seabird management following predator eradication

Given that 29% of seabird species are threatened with extinction, protecting seabird colonies on offshore islands is a global conservation priority. Seabirds are vulnerable to non‐native predator invasions, which reduce or eliminate colonies. Accordingly, conservation efforts have focused on predator eradication. However, affected populations are often left to passively recover following eradications. Although seabirds are highly mobile, their life history traits such as philopatry can limit passive recolonization of newly predator‐free habitat. In such cases, seabird colonies can potentially be re‐instated with active restoration via chick translocations or social attraction methods, which can be risky and expensive. We used biogeographic and species‐specific behavioral data in the Hauraki Gulf, New Zealand, a global hotspot of seabird diversity and predator eradications, to illustrate the use of geographic information systems multi‐criteria decision analysis to prioritize islands for active seabird restoration. We identified nine islands with low observed passive recovery of seabirds posteradication over a 50‐year timeframe, and classified these as sites where active seabird management could be prioritized. Such spatially explicit tools are flexible, allowing for managers to choose case‐specific criteria such as time, funding, and goals constrained for their conservation needs. Furthermore, this flexibility can also be applied to threatened species management by customizing the decision criteria for individual species' capacity to passively recolonize islands. On islands with complex restoration challenges, decision tools that help island restoration practitioners decide whether active seabird management should be paired with eradication can optimize restoration outcomes and ecosystem recovery.     

Recovery potential of microwetlands from agricultural land uses

Many ecosystems located within agricultural landscapes are in decline, particularly woodlands, grasslands and wetlands. Surviving remnants are generally fragmented and unrepresentative of pre‐disturbance states. Here, we investigate the potential for recovery of ecosystem function in a grassy woodland–wetland mosaic in south‐eastern Australia. We focus on the Plains Woodland/Herb‐rich Gilgai Wetland Mosaics which have declined in extent by 85%. The gilgai soils form a distinctive microrelief of mounds and depressions which become seasonally waterlogged, providing important habitat for a large range of aquatic and dryland species. We surveyed 10 remnants subject to agricultural intensification and seven remnants subject to passive restoration (four with cessation of cultivation and three with livestock removal). Gilgai microrelief was homogenized by cultivation, showed some recovery after release from cultivation, and was insensitive to grazing pressure. Floristic diversity, assessed through indicator species, was vulnerable to grazing. Indicator species were more prevalent in previously grazed sites, but further study is required to determine whether this reflects recovery or differing overall management history. We conclude that passive restoration is possible for recovery of wetland function and some biodiversity values. These conservation actions should be encouraged given the important role these microwetlands play in landscape connectivity and as drought refugia.     

Is applied nucleation a straightforward,cost‐effective forest restoration approach? Counter‐response to Holl and Zahawi (2018)

Holl and Zahawi (2018) agree on a number of approaches that we describe in a local case study of tropical montane cloud forest restoration in Mexico. However, they contend our argument that most applied nucleation projects have taken place in tropical lowlands as a mistake. They also provide data on the per‐hectare cost of restoration projects in Costa Rica and compare it to a higher cost figure of plantation‐style reforestation, a view contrary to ours. Last, Holl and Zahawi recognize that applied nucleation requires specialized personnel, but imply that the amount of training needed for this endeavor is not very different than what is required to implement other forest recovery projects. In this counter‐response, we provide some refinements to our original opinion and offer further information in support to our perspective.     

Passive Recovery of Vegetation after Herbivore Eradication on Santa Cruz Island,California

Understanding how insular ecosystems recover or are restructured after the eradication of an invasive species is crucial in evaluating conservation success and prioritizing island conservation efforts. Globally, herbivores have been removed from 762 islands, most with limited active restoration actions following eradication. Few studies have documented the effects of invasive herbivore removal after multiple decades of passive recovery. Here we evaluate recovery of vegetation on Santa Cruz Island, California, after the removal of feral sheep (Ovis aries) in 1984. We repeat a study conducted in 1980, and examine vegetation changes 28 years after the eradication. Before eradication, grazed areas were characterized by reduced plant cover, high exposure of bare ground, and erosion. After 28 years of passive recovery, transect data showed a 23% increase in woody overstory, whereas analysis of photographs from landscapes photographed pre‐ and post‐eradication showed a 26% increase in woody vegetation. Whole island vegetation maps similarly showed a transition from grass/bare ground (74.3% of cover) to woody plants (77.2% of cover), indicating the transition away from predominantly exotic annual grassland toward a community similar to the overstory of coastal scrubland but with an understory dominated by non‐native annual grasses. We estimate that replacement of grasses/bare ground by native woody vegetation has led to 70 and 17% increases in the stored carbon and nitrogen pools on the island, respectively. Our results demonstrate that these island ecosystems can experience significant recovery of native floral communities without intensive post‐eradication restoration, and results of recovery may take decades to be realized.     

Vegetation and soil recovery following Eucalyptus grandis removal in Limpopo Province,South Africa

South African terrestrial ecosystems are invaded by hundreds of alien plant species, and large‐scale clearing based on the passive restoration assumption that cleared areas will recover unaided is underway. This study assessed the recovery of vegetation and soil properties, three years following Eucalyptus grandis clearing using fell‐and‐removal and fell‐and‐stackburn methods at Zvakanaka Farm in Limpopo Province, South Africa. The main aim was to ascertain the extent of vegetation and soil recovery, as well as determining which clearing methods facilitate passive vegetation and soil restoration. Results indicate significantly (p < 0.001) lower native species diversity, cover and composition in cleared than in uninvaded sites. However, the recorded low species diversity and composition in cleared sites were more pronounced in the fell‐and‐stackburn than in the fell‐and‐removal sites. Measured soil physical properties varied, with compaction being higher in fell‐and‐removal, whereas soils were more repellent in fell‐and‐stackburn sites. The study concludes that vegetation and soil recovery, following E. grandis clearing, is complex and involves several interacting factors, which are linked to invasion history and intensity. Therefore, for vegetation and soil properties to recover, following E. grandis removal, the clearing programme should consider active restoration techniques, for example soil manipulation and native plant seeding.     

Increase in nonnative understorey vegetation cover after nonnative conifer removal and passive restoration

Nonnative conifers are widespread in the southern hemisphere, where their use as plantation species has led to adverse ecosystem impacts sometimes intensified by invasion. Mechanical removal is a common strategy used to reduce or eliminate the negative impacts of nonnative conifers, and encourage native regeneration. However, a variety of factors may preclude active ecological restoration following removal. As a result, passive restoration – unassisted natural vegetation regeneration – is common following conifer removal. We asked, ‘what is the response of understorey cover to removal of nonnative conifer stands followed by passive restoration?' We sampled understorey cover in three site types: two‐ to ten‐year‐old clearcuts, native forest and current plantations. We then grouped understorey species by origin (native/nonnative) and growth form, and compared proportion and per cent cover of these groups as well as of bare ground and litter between the three site types. For clearcuts, we also analysed the effect of time since clearcut on the studied variables. We found that clearcuts had a significantly higher average proportion of nonnative understorey vegetation cover than native forest sites, where nonnative vegetation was nearly absent. The understorey of clearcut sites also averaged more overall vegetation cover and more nonnative vegetation cover (in particular nonnative shrubs and herbaceous species) than either plantation or native forest sites. Notably, 99% of nonnative shrub cover in clearcuts was the invasive nonnative species Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius). After ten years of passive recovery since clearcutting, the proportion of understorey vegetation cover that is native has not increased and remains far below the proportion observed in native forest sites. Reduced natural regeneration capacity of the native ecosystem, presence of invasive species in the surrounding landscape and land‐use legacies from plantation forestry may inhibit native vegetation recovery and benefit opportunistic invasives, limiting the effectiveness of passive restoration in this context. Abstract in Spanish is available with online material.     

The emergence of the social‐ecological restoration concept

Many ecosystems in the world are the result of a close interaction between local people and their environment, which are currently recognized as social‐ecological systems (SoES). Natural catastrophes or long‐standing social and political turmoil can degrade these SoES to a point where human societies are no longer autonomous and their supporting ecosystems are highly degraded. Here, we focus on the special case of the restoration of SoES that we call social‐ecological restoration (SoER), which is characterized as a restoration process that cannot avoid simultaneously dealing with ecological and social issues. In practice, SoER is analogous in many ways to the general principles of ecological restoration, but it differs in three key aspects: (1) the first actions may be initially intended for human groups that need to recover minimum living standards; (2) the SoER process would often be part of a healing process for local people where cultural values of ecosystems play an essential role; and (3) there is a strong dependency on external economic inputs, as the people belonging to the SoES may be incapable of reorganizing themselves on their own and supporting ecosystems can no longer self‐recover. Although it might not be desirable or necessary to call all restoration projects with a social component an SoER, the use of this concept may help in defining early restoration targets that may prevent conflicts among users in the long term. From the perspective of other disciplines, SoER would be more appropriately perceived as programs of “social‐ecological recovery” in the long term.     

Comparing seed removal rates in actively and passively restored tropical moist forests

High rates of seed removal can impede forest recovery, but tropical seed removal studies are few and mainly from the neotropics. Little is known about the comparative influences of active restoration (i.e. planting) and passive restoration (i.e. protection of natural regrowth) on seed removal. We conducted an evaluation of seed removal in grasslands, natural forests (tropical moist semideciduous forest), and actively (21‐, 17‐, 16‐, 11‐, 8‐, and 6‐year‐old) and passively (21‐year‐old) restored forests in Kibale National Park, Uganda. We wanted to compare the effect of vegetation type, time since restoration and restoration actions (i.e. active vs. passive) on removal of seeds of five animal‐dispersed tree species during wet and dry seasons. Seeds were either fully exposed or placed in closed mesh cages or under a mesh roof. We used differential removal rates between these treatments to attribute seed removal to different animal taxa. Seed removal rate (percentage of seed removed over a 4‐day period) was highest in passively restored forests, compared with actively restored forests, grasslands, and natural forests. We detected no significant relationship between time since restoration and seed removal rates within actively restored sites. Seed removal rate from roofed treatments was not significantly different from removal from open treatments but was significantly higher than removal from closed treatments, which we interpret as reflecting the greater effect of small mammals versus insects. Smaller seeds tended to be removed at a greater rate than larger seeds. We discuss the implications of these findings for forest regeneration.     

Softening the agricultural matrix: a novel agri‐environment scheme that balances habitat restoration and livestock grazing

The loss and degradation of woody vegetation in the agricultural matrix represents a key threat to biodiversity. Strategies for habitat restoration in these landscapes should maximize the biodiversity benefit for each dollar spent in order to achieve the greatest conservation outcomes with scarce funding. To be effective at scale, such strategies also need to account for the opportunity cost of restoration to the farmer. Here, we critique the Whole‐of‐Paddock Rehabilitation program, a novel agri‐environment scheme which seeks to provide a cost‐effective strategy for balancing habitat restoration and livestock grazing. The scheme involves the revegetation of large (minimum 10 ha) fields, designed to maximize biodiversity benefits and minimize costs while allowing for continued agricultural production. The objectives and design of the scheme are outlined, biodiversity and production benefits are discussed, and we contrast its cost‐effectiveness with alternative habitat restoration strategies. Our analysis indicates that this scheme achieves greater restoration outcomes at approximately half the cost of windbreak‐style plantings, the prevailing planting configuration in southeastern Australia, largely due to a focus on larger fields, and the avoidance of fencing costs through the use of existing farm configuration and infrastructure. This emphasis on cost‐effectiveness, the offsetting of opportunity costs through incentive payments, and the use of a planting design that seeks to maximize biodiversity benefits while achieving production benefits to the farmer, has the potential to achieve conservation in productive parts of the agricultural landscape that have traditionally been “off limits” to conservation.     

Procedure for Predicting the Trajectory of Species Recovery Based on the Nested Species Pool Information: Dragonflies in a Wetland Restoration Site as a Case Study

Restoration of seminatural habitats in the rural agricultural landscape has become an urgent matter in environmental conservation. We propose here a procedure for predicting the trajectory of species recovery and for specifying the priority of habitat types for restoration of a rural agricultural landscape. We then apply it as a case study to the recovery of dragonfly species in the Azame restoration project that began in 2003 in northern Kyushu, Japan. We examined the nestedness of the regional distribution of dragonflies using a national database on wildlife distribution and listed the recorded species in order of their prevalence in the region. We also conducted a census of adult dragonflies currently found at the restoration site to assess species richness. By comparing these data, we identified species potentially capable of inhabiting the restoration site and, based on their habitat requirements, suggest what type of habitat (e.g., bogs and marshes, ponds, and bodies of slow‐moving water) should be restored preferentially. We observed significant nestedness in the presence–absence matrix for dragonfly species and thus predict that species recovery at the restoration site will follow the regional order of prevalence of the species. The required habitat types did not differ significantly between the currently observed species and the potential species, which indicates that all these habitat types should be restored in the project.     

Ecological Restoration of Headwaters in a Rural Landscape (Normandy,France): A Passive Approach Taking Hedge Networks into Account for Riparian Tree Recruitment

The safeguard of riparian ecosystems is a major field of study in the understanding and maintenance of the ecological health of rivers. Vegetation communities found on these ecotones ensure essential functions such as limitation of river bank erosion and protection of rivers from pollutants. The aim of our study is to investigate the potential for natural regeneration of trees on river banks after passive restoration. We have also studied the influence of landscape on recolonization through the analysis of the influence of hedge networks. Our study takes place on headwaters in Normandy (France) on Vallée‐Aux‐Berges, a stream, which has been passively restored for the last 6 years. As passive restoration removes stresses (heavy trampling and grazing) caused by cattle on river banks, we expect it to help the growth of natural plant communities. The condition of this stream—from the start of restoration work to the present—is compared to another one in the same catchment considered to be ecologically healthy. Our results suggest that passive restoration leads to an increase in tree cover on river banks and contributes to the improvement of the banks' physical integrity. Landscape structure seems to be a major factor for this recolonization: the more the stream is surrounded by hedge networks, the more the recolonization by trees on banks is effective. These results indicate that the influence of landscape structure should be considered in future restoration management in similar headwaters.     

“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.     

Restoration and Science: A Practitioner/Scientist's View from Rare Habitat Restoration at a Southern California Preserve

Researchers reexamining the relationship between restoration science and practice report a continuing scientist‐practitioner gap. As a land manager with scientific training, I offer my perspective of the chasm and describe a restoration practice infused with as much science as the realities of limited budget and time allow. The coastal sage scrub (CSS) restoration project at Starr Ranch, a 1,585 ha Audubon preserve in southern California, combines non‐chemical invasive species control, restoration, and applied research. Our practices evolve from modified scientific approaches and the scientific literature. Results from experiments with non‐optimum replication (on effects of seed rates, soil tamping, and timing of planting) nonetheless had value for management decisions. A critical practice came from academic research that encouraged cost‐effective passive restoration. Our passive restoration monitoring data showed 28–100% total native cover after 3–5 years. Another published study found that restoration success in semiarid regions is dependent on rainfall, a finding vital for understanding active restoration monitoring results that showed a range of 0–88% total native cover at the end of the first season. Work progresses through a combination of applied research, a watchful eye on the scientific literature, and “ecological intuition” informed by the scientific literature and our own findings. I suggest that it is less critical for academic scientists to address the basic questions on technique that are helpful to land managers but rather advocate practitioner training in methods to test alternative strategies and long‐term monitoring.     

Wind Power Compensation is not for the Birds: An Opinion from an Environmental Economist

This article advocates for better implementation of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) framework as applied to wind power development, with a particular focus on improving compensatory restoration scaling. If properly enforced, the environmental impacts hierarchy “avoid‐minimize‐compensate” provides the regulated community with incentives to prevent wildlife and habitat impacts in sensitive areas and, if necessary, compensate for residual impacts through restoration or conservation projects. Given the increase in legislation requiring resource‐based environmental compensation, methods for scaling an appropriate quantity and quality of resources are of increasing relevance. I argue that Equivalency Analysis (EA) represents a transparent and quantitative approach for scaling compensation in the case of wind power development. Herein, I identify the economic underpinnings of environmental compensation legislation and identify weaknesses in current scaling approaches within wind power development. I demonstrate how the recently completed REMEDE toolkit, which provides guidance on EA, can inform an improved scaling approach and summarize a case study involving raptor collisions with turbines that illustrates the EA approach. Finally, I stress the need for further contributions from the field of restoration ecology. The success of ex ante compensation in internalizing the environmental costs of wind development depends on the effective implementation of the environmental impacts hierarchy, which must effectively encourage avoidance and minimization over environmental restoration and repair.     

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.