Regional and Ecotype Traits in Lotus corniculatus L., with Reference to Restoration Ecology

To assess the relative importance of distance (geographical or ecological) as a consideration when collecting seeds for restoration projects, there is a need for more research on regional and ecotypic variation in a range of species. We used Lotus corniculatus L., a legume frequently included in grassland seed mixes, to investigate phenotypic variation between British accessions in a common garden experiment. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of seed origin on plant phenotype and fecundity and to determine whether there was any evidence of correlation with distance (geographical or ecological) in populations grown from seed collected from different locations. Regional differences were detected in plant size, growth habit, pubescence, leaf shape, and fecundity. Geographical distance between sites was shown to be positively correlated with an increased difference in seed yield. Differences in size, growth habit, and leaf shape between paired habitats of origin within region and also between "ecotypes" were evident. However, there was no correlation between ecological distance and any of the measured traits. These findings suggest that:

• (1)  

  Differences in phenotype and fecundity between geographically separated populations of L. corniculatus may be sufficient to lead to differences in survival and fitness when seeds are sown in a restoration environment.
• (2)  

  Although it is important to consider geographical location, the choice of habitat within region is also important because phenotypic variation between ecotypes may have long-term consequences for plant persistence.

     

Integrating Ecology and Economics for Restoration: Using Ecological Indicators in Valuation of Ecosystem Services

Because it can uniquely furnish insights into nonuse values for ecosystem services, survey‐based Stated Preference (SP) valuation is widely used to estimate the benefits of ecological restoration. SP surveys ask respondents to select among restoration options yielding different ecological outcomes. This review examines the representation of ecological outcomes in SP studies seeking to quantify values for restoration of aquatic ecosystems. To promote the validity of ecological indicators used in SP valuation, we identified four standards: indicators should be measurable, interpretable, applicable, and comprehensive. We reviewed recent SP studies estimating the value of aquatic ecosystem services to assess whether ecological indicators in current use had these desirable properties. More than half of the 54 indicators reviewed were measurable, meaning referable to potentially precise quantification. About one‐third were interpretable, that is, presented in a way that facilitates understanding the effects of restoration. About three quarters of the indicators were applicable; SP valuation practitioners typically consult with natural scientists to ensure that indicators represent the effect of stressors on ecological systems and with focus groups to ensure that indicators have a connection with ecosystem services that contribute to public well‐being. While most of the SP studies employed diverse and potentially comprehensive indicators that could capture direct and indirect effects of restoration, and 6 of 20 studies used indicators that met all standards, shortcomings in the indicators were common. These problems can be rectified with attention to how natural scientists measure change and to relationships between restoration outcomes and characteristics of fully restored reference ecosystems.     

Policy Language in Restoration Ecology

Relating restoration ecology to policy is one of the aims of the Society for Ecological Restoration and its journal Restoration Ecology. As an interdisciplinary team of researchers in both ecological science and political science, we have struggled with how policy‐relevant language is and could be deployed in restoration ecology. Using language in scientific publications that resonates with overarching policy questions may facilitate linkages between researcher investigations and decision‐makers' concerns on all levels. Climate change is the most important environmental problem of our time and to provide policymakers with new relevant knowledge on this problem is of outmost importance. To determine whether or not policy‐specific language was being included in restoration ecology science, we surveyed the field of restoration ecology from 2008 to 2010, identifying 1,029 articles, which we further examined for the inclusion of climate change as a key element of the research. We found that of the 58 articles with “climate change” or “global warming” in the abstract, only 3 identified specific policies relevant to the research results. We believe that restoration ecologists are failing to include themselves in policy formation and implementation of issues such as climate change within journals focused on restoration ecology. We suggest that more explicit reference to policies and terminology recognizable to policymakers might enhance the impact of restoration ecology on decision‐making processes.     

Linking Restoration and Landscape Ecology

Landscape ecology focuses on questions typically addressed over broad spatial scales. A landscape approach embraces spatial heterogeneity, consisting of a number of ecosystems and/or landscape structures of different types, as a central theme. Such studies may aid restoration efforts in a variety of ways, including (1) provision of better guidance for selecting reference sites and establishing project goals and (2) suggestions for appropriate spatial configurations of restored elements to facilitate recruitment of flora/fauna. Likewise, restoration efforts may assist landscape–level studies, given that restored habitats, possessing various patch arrangements or being established among landscapes of varying diversity and conditions of human alteration, can provide extraordinary opportunities for experimentation over a large spatial scale. Restoration studies can facilitate the rate of information gathering for expected changes in natural landscapes for which introduction of landscape elements may be relatively slow. Moreover, data collected from restoration studies can assist in validation of dynamic models of current interest in landscape ecology. We suggest that restoration and landscape ecology have an unexplored mutualistic relationship that could enhance research and application of both disciplines.     

Restoration Ecology: Two-Sex Dynamics and Cost Minimization

We model a spatially detailed, two-sex population dynamics, to study the cost of ecological restoration. We assume that cost is proportional to the number of individuals introduced into a large habitat. We treat dispersal as homogeneous diffusion in a one-dimensional reaction-diffusion system. The local population dynamics depends on sex ratio at birth, and allows mortality rates to differ between sexes. Furthermore, local density dependence induces a strong Allee effect, implying that the initial population must be sufficiently large to avert rapid extinction. We address three different initial spatial distributions for the introduced individuals; for each we minimize the associated cost, constrained by the requirement that the species must be restored throughout the habitat. First, we consider spatially inhomogeneous, unstable stationary solutions of the model’s equations as plausible candidates for small restoration cost. Second, we use numerical simulations to find the smallest rectangular cluster, enclosing a spatially homogeneous population density, that minimizes the cost of assured restoration. Finally, by employing simulated annealing, we minimize restoration cost among all possible initial spatial distributions of females and males. For biased sex ratios, or for a significant between-sex difference in mortality, we find that sex-specific spatial distributions minimize the cost. But as long as the sex ratio maximizes the local equilibrium density for given mortality rates, a common homogeneous distribution for both sexes that spans a critical distance yields a similarly low cost.     

Human Biology and Ecology: Variation in Nature and the Nature of Variation

Human biology seeks to understand human variation and the biological, environmental, social, and historical influences on that variation. Views of the nature of both variation and environment have changed during the past 100 years. Typological approaches to nature and human diversity shifted to an evolutionary perspective during the first half of the 20th century. In the second half, widespread human biological variation was documented and interpreted in terms of adaptation to the environment. Environmental physiology and reproductive ecology continue to document environmental influences on human biological functioning, but with (1) an expanded concept of environment that acknowledges more fully the interactions among its physical, biotic, and social aspects and (2) an expanded theoretical basis, drawing on evolutionary ecology and life history theory, acknowledging tradeoffs and changing constraints and opportunities over the lifetime. Human biology gains from greater interaction with other fields, such as political ecology, but also contributes to them. [Keywords: biological anthropology, human ecology, adaptation, environmental physiology, reproductive ecology]     

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.     

Restoration and the Origins of Ecology

Ernst Haeckel is well known for originating the science of ecology to describe the study of the relationships among organisms and their environment. This short article reflects on some of Ernst Haeckel’s ideas on the role of humans in nature and the relation between art and nature to point out affinities of Haeckel’s ideas to tighten the connection between today’s science and practice of ecological restoration.     

Ecological Theory and Community Restoration Ecology

Community ecological theory may play an important role in the development of a science of restoration ecology. Not only will the practice of restoration benefit from an increased focus on theory, but basic research in community ecology will also benefit. We pose several major thematic questions that are relevant to restoration from the perspective of community ecological theory and, for each, identify specific areas that are in critical need of further research to advance the science of restoration ecology. We ask, what are appropriate restoration endpoints from a community ecology perspective? The problem of measuring restoration at the community level, particularly given the high amount of variability inherent in most natural communities, is not easy, and may require a focus on restoration of community function (e.g., trophic structure) rather than a focus on the restoration of particular species. We ask, what are the benefits and limitations of using species composition or biodiversity measures as endpoints in restoration ecology? Since reestablishing all native species may rarely be possible, research is needed on the relationship between species richness and community stability of restored sites and on functional redundancy among species in regional colonist “pools.” Efforts targeted at restoring system function must take into account the role of individual species, particularly if some species play a disproportionate role in processing material or are strong interactors. We ask, is restoration of habitat a sufficient approach to reestablish species and function? Many untested assumptions concerning the relationship between physical habitat structure and restoration ecology are being made in practical restoration efforts. We need rigorous testing of these assumptions, particularly to determine how generally they apply to different taxa and habitats. We ask, to what extent can empirical and theoretical work on community succession and dispersal contribute to restoration ecology? We distinguish systems in which succession theory may be broadly applicable from those in which it is probably not. If community development is highly predictable, it may be feasible to manipulate natural succession processes to accelerate restoration. We close by stressing that the science of restoration ecology is so intertwined with basic ecological theory that practical restoration efforts should rely heavily on what is known from theoretical and empirical research on how communities develop and are structured over time.     

Methodological Variation in Economic Evaluations Conducted in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Information for Reference Case Development

Information generated from economic evaluation is increasingly being used to inform health resource allocation decisions globally, including in low- and middle- income countries. However, a crucial consideration for users of the information at a policy level, e.g. funding agencies, is whether the studies are comparable, provide sufficient detail to inform policy decision making, and incorporate inputs from data sources that are reliable and relevant to the context. This review was conducted to inform a methodological standardisation workstream at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) and assesses BMGF-funded cost-per-DALY economic evaluations in four programme areas (malaria, tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS and vaccines) in terms of variation in methodology, use of evidence, and quality of reporting. The findings suggest that there is room for improvement in the three areas of assessment, and support the case for the introduction of a standardised methodology or reference case by the BMGF. The findings are also instructive for all institutions that fund economic evaluations in LMICs and who have a desire to improve the ability of economic evaluations to inform resource allocation decisions.