Meta‐Analysis of Lost Ecosystem Attributes in Urban Streams and the Effectiveness of Out‐of‐Channel Management Practices

Urban development is a leading cause of stream impairment that reduces biodiversity and negatively affects ecosystem processes and habitat. Out‐of‐stream restoration practices, such as stormwater ponds, created wetlands, and restored riparian vegetation, are increasingly implemented as management strategies to mitigate impacts. However, uncertainty exists regarding how effectively they improve downstream ecosystems because monitoring is uncommon and results are typically reported on a case‐by‐case basis. We conducted a meta‐analysis of literature and used response ratios to quantify how downstream ecosystems change in response to watershed development and to out‐of‐stream restoration. Biodiversity in unrestored urban streams was 47% less than that in reference streams, and ecological communities, habitat, and rates of nutrient cycling were negatively affected as well. Mean measures of ecosystem attributes in restored streams were significantly greater than, and 156% of, those in unrestored urban streams. Measures of biodiversity in restored streams were 132% of those in unrestored urban streams, and indices of biotic condition, community structure, and nutrient cycling significantly improved. However, ecosystem attributes and biodiversity at restored sites were significantly less than, and only 60% and 45% of, those in reference streams, respectively. Out‐of‐stream management practices improved ecological conditions in urban streams but still failed to restore reference stream conditions. Despite statistically significant improvements, assessing restoration success remains difficult due to few comparisons to reference sites or to clearly defined targets. These findings can inform future monitoring, management, and development strategies and highlight the need for preventative actions in a watershed context.     

Restoration goals: Why are fauna still overlooked in the process of recovering functioning ecosystems and what can be done about it?

Despite the evidence that fauna play complex and critical roles in ecosystems (e.g. pollination and nutrient cycling) and the knowledge that they need to be considered in restoration, fauna often remain poorly represented in restoration goal setting, monitoring and assessments of restoration success. Fauna clearly are integral to the aspirations of achieving full ecosystem recovery. However, over‐reaching assumptions about the unassisted return of fauna to restored sites, low investment in fauna monitoring, and minimal consideration of the requirements for fauna monitoring in regulatory guidance and standards appear to have led to the historically vegetation‐centric approaches to rehabilitation and ecological restoration. We argue that ecological complexities render assumptions of unassisted fauna return inappropriate in many situations and may represent a missed opportunity to enhance ecological outcomes and improve restoration trajectories. We advocate for greater consideration of fauna as facilitators of ecological restoration and, particularly for well‐funded projects, for monitoring to place greater emphasis on examining the behaviour and resilience of restored fauna communities. There is a clear need for both industry and regulators to recognise that fauna can be crucial facilitators of restoration and appreciate that the return and monitoring of functional faunal communities can be costly, challenging and may require detailed study across a wide range of taxonomic groups. Failure to advance from business as usual models may risk leaving a legacy of ostensibly functional, but biodiversity‐depauperate, restored ecosystems.     

关于中国淡水生态系统生物多样性监测与管理的探讨

China is one of the countries in the world with therichest species biodiversityinfreshwater ecosystem.How-ever,duetothe rapid economic growthandthe continuingincrease of human disturbances and destructions of aquatichabitats,the biodiversity of freshwater ecosystemsis dras-tically declining.Waterbodies become more and more“deserted”of sensitive species.Water areas are reduced,fragmentized,and changed in their hydrodynamics(i.e.damming),causing changes in sedimentation and otherchanges.Forinstance,the area o...     

Long-term response of fishes and other fauna to restoration of former salt hay farms: multiple measures of restoration success

This synthesis brings together published and unpublished data in an evaluation of restoration of former salt hay farms to functioning salt marshes. We compared nine years of field measurements between three restored marshes (Dennis, Commercial, and Maurice River Townships) and a reference marsh (Moores Beach) in the mesohaline portion of Delaware Bay. In the process, we compared channel morphology, geomorphology, vegetation, sediment organic matter, fish assemblages, blue crabs, horseshoe crabs, benthic infauna, and diamondback terrapins. For fishes we compared structural (distribution, abundance) and functional (feeding, growth, survival, reproduction, production) aspects to evaluate the restored marshes in an Essential Fish Habitat context. Marsh vegetation and drainage density responded gradually and positively with restored marshes approximating the state of the reference marsh within the nine-year study period. The fauna responded more quickly and dramatically with most measures equal or greater in the restored marshes within the first one or two years after restoration. Differences in response time between the vegetation and the fauna imply that the faunal response was more dependent on access to the shallow intertidal marsh surface and intertidal and subtidal creeks than on characteristics of the vegetated marsh. The fishes in created subtidal creeks in restored marshes responded immediately and maintained fish assemblages similar to the reference marsh over the study period. The intertidal creek fish assemblages tended to become more like the reference marsh in the last years of the comparison. Overall, these results document the success of the restoration and how marshes function for both resident and transient fauna, especially fishes.     

沉积硅藻揭示的历史时期水生植被信息以梁子湖为例

水生植被是浅水湖泊生态系统最重要的生态特征之一, 了解其群落历史演化特征, 对生态退化湖泊的修复有着重要指导意义。研究选择长江中下游地区代表性草型湖泊梁子湖, 基于梁子湖沉积岩芯210Pb/137Cs测年、沉积硅藻序列和梁子湖长期水生植被监测记录, 探讨利用沉积硅藻记录来重建该湖历史时期水生植被演替特征的可行性。研究结果表明: 梁子湖沉积硅藻记录对历史时期水生植被的演替有较好的反映; 基于此, 对梁子湖过去近200年的水生植被覆盖度进行了重建; 与湖泊流域历史环境信息的对比分析表明洪水是影响该湖水生植被发育的一个重要因素。研究结果证实了在浅水湖泊中, 沉积硅藻可揭示历史水生植被的信息, 并为该湖的水生植被保护提供科学依据, 同时对该区富营养湖泊的生态修复有重要的指导价值。       

半干旱区生态恢复关键生态系统识别——以内蒙古自治区和林县为例

我国土地退化严重,且大部分发生在干旱半干旱地区.恢复为何种生态系统类型是生态学研究的重要课题.采用生态功能区划,根据各个生态功能区主体生态系统功能,推导发挥此功能的生态系统类型的方法,识别关键生态系统类型.以内蒙古自治区和林县为例,采用文献调研、实地调查、3S技术等方法,在评价该县生态敏感性、生态服务功能重要性的基础上,将该县划分为3个一级生态区,11个二级生态功能区.根据各个生态功能区的主体生态系统服务功能,分析发挥该功能的可能生态系统类型.再根据全国自然植被区划、气候变化趋势模型以及现状植被类型,识别各个生态功能区的关键生态系统类型.     

Monitoring ecological processes for restoration projects

Restoration of ecological processes is key to restoring the capacity of ecosystems to support social, economic, cultural and aesthetic values. The sustainability of the restored system also depends on processes associated with carbon, nutrient and hydrologic cycles, yet most restoration monitoring is limited to plant community composition. Our research has shown that short-term plant composition monitoring is a necessary but insufficient predictor of long-term restoration success. Long-term (up to 75 years) studies in the western United States show that short-term monitoring of plant community composition alone incorrectly predicted the failure of treatments that were ultimately successful, and the success of treatments that ultimately failed. We propose that vegetation composition monitoring be combined with one or more ecological process indicators reflecting changes in three fundamental ecosystem attributes on which restoration success depends: soil and site stability, hydrologic function and biotic integrity. These simple, rapid, plot-level indicators reflect changes in resource redistribution and vegetation structure. We include a case study involving restoration of mixed grass prairie on mineland in the west-central United States.     

Long-Term Monitoring and Evaluation of the Lower Red River Meadow Restoration Project, Idaho, U.S.A.

Although public and financial support for stream restoration projects is increasing, long‐term monitoring and reporting of project successes and failures are limited. We present the initial results of a long‐term monitoring program for the Lower Red River Meadow Restoration Project in north‐central Idaho, U.S.A. We evaluate a natural channel design’s effectiveness in shifting a degraded stream ecosystem onto a path of ecological recovery. Field monitoring and hydrodynamic modeling are used to quantify post‐restoration changes in 17 physical and biological performance indicators. Statistical and ecological significance are evaluated within a framework of clear objectives, expected responses (ecological hypotheses), and performance criteria (reference conditions) to assess post‐restoration changes away from pre‐restoration conditions. Compared to pre‐restoration conditions, we observed ecosystem improvements in channel sinuosity, slope, depth, and water surface elevation; quantity, quality, and diversity of in‐stream habitat and spawning substrate; and bird population numbers and diversity. Modeling documented the potential for enhanced river–floodplain connectivity. Failure to detect either statistically or ecologically significant change in groundwater depth, stream temperature, native riparian cover, and salmonid density is due to a combination of small sample sizes, high interannual variability, external influences, and the early stages of recovery. Unexpected decreases in native riparian cover led to implementation of adaptive management strategies. Challenges included those common to most project‐level monitoring—isolating restoration effects in complex ecosystems, securing long‐term funding, and implementing scientifically rigorous experimental designs. Continued monitoring and adaptive management that support the establishment of mature and dense riparian shrub communities are crucial to overall success of the project.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Measuring Success: Evaluating the Restoration of a Grassy Eucalypt Woodland on the Cumberland Plain, Sydney, Australia

Abstract We compared the floristic composition and structure of restoration areas of eucalypt woodland with untreated pasture (control) and remnant vegetation (reference) in western Sydney. The restored areas comprised over 1,000 ha of abandoned pasture, which had been treated to reduce weeds and planted with seedlings of 26 native plant species raised from seed obtained locally from remnant vegetation. Plantings were carried out 0–9 years ago. Floristic composition was measured in quadrats using frequency scores and cover abundance. As far as possible treatments and restoration ages were replicated across sites. Ordination and analyses of similarity failed to distinguish the composition of restored vegetation from that of untreated pasture, which were both significantly different from that of remnant vegetation. There was a weak compositional trend with age of restored vegetation, but this was not in the direction of increasing resemblance to remnant vegetation. There was some evidence for convergence in structural features of restored with remnant vegetation, but this was at least partly attributed to plant growth. Subject to constraints imposed by the sampling design, environmental factors, and spatial variation were discounted as explanations for the results. The results therefore suggest either failure of restoration treatments or a restoration trajectory that is too slow to detect within 10 years of establishment. Our conclusions agree with those of similar studies in other ecosystems and support: (1) the need to monitor restoration projects against ecological criteria with rigorous sampling designs and analytical methods, (2) further development of restoration methods, and (3) regulatory approaches that seek to prevent damage to ecosystems rather than those predicated on replacing losses with reconstructed ecosystems.     

植被生态系统恢复及其在华南的研究进展

介绍了恢复生态学常用的理论,并指出恢复生态学研究大多涉及植被生态系统恢复。植被恢复的目标就是要恢复植被的合理结构、功能和动态过程,从而为人类提供生态系统服务。植被恢复可以把区域的地带性植被生态系统作为参考生态系统,但目前的植被恢复工作绝大部分只是恢复了植被生态系统的部分组成、结构和功能。植被生态系统恢复研究主要从退化的原因与过程、恢复的过程与机理,以及从生境恢复、种群恢复、群落恢复、生态系统和景观恢复等不同尺度上的恢复开展。在介绍华南地区的植被生态系统现存问题的基础上,对华南地区开展的植被生态系统恢复,尤其是华南植物研究所(园)开展的植被生态系统恢复研究进行了介绍。最后,提出了华南地区植被生态系统恢复的方向及发展趋势。     

Contributions of Quaternary palaeoecology to nature conservation

Abstract. Quaternary palaeoecology has traditionally been associated with the reconstruction of past biota and past environments over long time periods such as the Holocene period. Recent methodological developments and conceptual advances have resulted in an ‘applied palaeoecology’ that can address specific ecological and environmental questions over the last 100-200 yr, the time span of primary interest to nature conservationists. The contributions of palaeoecology to the assessment of naturalness of ecosystems, to the assessment of the fragility of ecosystems, to the assessment of the conservation status of rare species, and to the development of a factual basis for attempts at ecosystem enhancement and restoration are discussed, with reference to palaeoecological studies in Scotland, England, southwest Ireland, and Sweden. Palaeoecological results indicate that few, if any, vegetation types in western Europe are natural. Palaeoecology can provide unique insights into the fragility of ecosystems in response to human activity and other biotic factors such as grazing and to acidification. Palaeoecology can contribute basic information required for understanding the causes of recent decline of taxa such as the natterjack toad, aquatic macrophytes, and arcticalpine plants. Palaeoecology is often the only source of baseline data about past ecosystem composition and function that are essential for any realistic attempts at ecosystem restoration or enhancement.     

地下生态系统对生态恢复的影响

生态系统破坏与退化的加剧使生态恢复成为全球性的挑战课题,近年来生态恢复的研究已逐渐由地上向地下部分转移,地下部分对生态系统退化所起的作用、机理和过程已倍受关注。本文通过探讨恢复生态学的关键概念,从土壤、地下水循环、生物系统3个方面探讨了地下生态系统对生态恢复的作用机理和反馈机制。针对目前的研究现状,指出地下生态系统研究中存在的问题,并提出今后需要深入研究的几个方向:1)生态系统退化程度的诊断及其标准;2)基于诊断标准,针对不同退化生态系统类型选定恢复的目标植物群落,如何改善土壤性质,确定土壤性质的改善程度;确定地下水位及土壤含水量的阈值;如何有效选择、引入和接种土壤生物;3)生态系统地上和地下部分整合及恢复过程中监测指标的确定。     

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.     

Are Socioeconomic Benefits of Restoration Adequately Quantified? A Meta‐analysis of Recent Papers (2000–2008) in Restoration Ecology and 12 Other Scientific Journals

Many ecosystems have been transformed, or degraded by human use, and restoration offers an opportunity to recover services and benefits, not to mention intrinsic values. We assessed whether restoration scientists and practitioners use their projects to demonstrate the benefits restoration can provide in their peer‐reviewed publications. We evaluated a sample of the academic literature to determine whether links are made explicit between ecological restoration, society, and public policy related to natural capital. We analyzed 1,582 peer‐reviewed papers dealing with ecological restoration published between 1 January 2000 and 30 September 2008 in 13 leading scientific journals. As selection criterion, we considered papers that contained either “restoration” or “rehabilitation” in their title, abstract, or keywords. Furthermore, as one‐third of the papers were published in Restoration Ecology, we used that journal as a reference for comparison with all the other journals. We readily acknowledge that aquatic ecosystems are under‐represented, and that the largely inaccessible gray literature was ignored. Within these constraints, we found clear evidence that restoration practitioners are failing to signal links between ecological restoration, society, and policy, and are underselling the evidence of benefits of restoration as a worthwhile investment for society. We discuss this assertion and illustrate it with samples of our findings—with regards to (1) the geographical and institutional affiliations of authors; (2) the choice of ecosystems studied, methods employed, monitoring schemes applied, and the spatial scale of studies; and (3) weak links to payments for ecosystem service setups, agriculture, and ramifications for public policy.     

Short‐term vegetation recovery after alien plant clearing along the Rondegat River,South Africa

The outcomes of ecosystem restoration projects should be periodically monitored to inform subsequent adaptive management decisions. In 2012, a project was begun to remove both invasive alien plants and fish from the Rondegat River in South Africa. Although the initial post‐intervention dynamics of aquatic fauna have been documented, the results of the simultaneous clearing of dense riparian stands of alien trees and shrubs have not been reported. We examined native riparian vegetation recovery over 3 years after alien plant clearing. We documented increased cover of native riparian shrubs, but a simultaneous increase of alien and native weedy grass cover. Secondary invasions, especially by grasses, can have strong effects on ecosystem dynamics and achieving the goals of restoration may therefore require additional active management. Our findings provide an initial baseline reference for future monitoring and adaptive management decisions.     

Effects of Stream Restoration on Woody Riparian Vegetation of Southern Appalachian Mountain Streams,North Carolina,U.S.A

Riparian revegetation, such as planting woody seedlings or live stakes, is a nearly ubiquitous component of stream restoration projects in the United States. Though evaluations of restoration success usually focus on in‐stream ecosystems, in order to understand the full impacts of restoration the effects on riparian ecosystems themselves must be considered. We examined the effects of stream restoration revegetation measures on riparian ecosystems of headwater mountain streams in forested watersheds by comparing riparian vegetation structure and composition at reference, restored, and degraded sites on nine streams. According to mixed model analysis of variance (ANOVA), there was a significant effect of site treatment on riparian species richness, basal area, and canopy cover, but no effect on stem density. Vegetation characteristics at restored sites differed from those of reference sites according to all metrics (i.e. basal area, canopy cover, and species composition) except species richness and stem density. Restored and degraded sites were structurally similar, with some overlap in species composition. Restored sites were dominated by Salix sericea and Cornus amomum (species commonly planted for revegetation) and a suite of disturbance‐adapted species also dominant at degraded sites. Differences between reference and restored sites might be due to the young age of restored sites (average 4 years since restoration), to reassembly of degraded site species composition at restored sites, or to the creation of a novel anthropogenic ecosystem on these headwater streams. Additional research is needed to determine if this anthropogenic riparian community type persists as a resilient novel ecosystem and provides valued riparian functions.     

The potential of earthworms to restore ecosystem services after opencast mining – A review

Opencast coal mining has several environmental impacts, which require land rehabilitation when mining operations are finished. For that reason, restoration after such extractive industries’ work is common and has been well studied. However, many ecological restoration schemes do not examine to what extent complete and functioning ecosystems have been restored above and below ground. While the aim should be to restore functioning ecosystems, most restoration plans focus only on vegetation and above ground macro-fauna.Among the potential species that are likely to be important early in mine land restoration, earthworms are particularly good candidates. They provide several ecosystem services that are likely to accelerate soil restoration, improve primary production and facilitate the restoration of a functional ecosystem in mining areas. These services include the following: increase in topsoil fertility, food for a wide range of predators and recycling of waste organic materials on rehabilitated areas.Here, we outline some of the challenges specifically facing opencast mining restoration and describe how the ecosystem services provided by earthworms may address some of these challenges.