Applying an animal‐centric approach to improve ecological restoration

Traditionally, ecological restoration is based on re‐establishing patterns of vegetation communities with the expectation that wildlife will recolonize, restoring the ecological function. However, in many restoration projects, wildlife fails to recolonize, even when vegetation is restored, in many cases because revegetated habitats lack the critical features required by wildlife. We present a new approach to restoration, based on a detailed understanding of ecological process, the mechanisms by which wildlife respond to landscape patterns. Our animal‐centric approach involves measuring the risk‐sensitive decision‐making of individual animals as they balance searching for food, mates, and breeding sites with avoiding being eaten by predators and relates this to fine‐scale habitat and landscape structure. The outcome of these decisions can be measured in occupancy of habitat, the information on which conventional restoration is based. Incorporating landscape genetics allows retrospective assessment of the outcome of dispersal decisions by individual animals on a deeper time frame and at regional scales. Fine‐scale connectivity models can be parameterized with these multiscale spatial and temporal data to direct restoration efforts. We are translating this novel approach to practice in the large Midlands restoration project (4 years, AUD $6 million) in Tasmania, Australia, in partnership with Greening Australia. More than 200 years of intensive agricultural practice in this National Biodiversity Hotspot has resulted in extensive landscape modification, high densities of feral cats, and decline of many native mammals. Our research–practice partnership will alter the way that restoration is done, leading hopefully to successful restoration of wildlife, gene flow, and ecological function.     

On the need of legal frameworks for assessing restoration projects success: new perspectives from São Paulo state (Brazil)

Despite growing worldwide commitment to large‐scale ecosystem restoration, national public policies on restoration are few, and those that exist tend to be vague. Brazil and especially São Paulo state stand out. In a pioneering attempt to improve restoration projects and their outcomes, the Secretariat for the Environment of the State of São Paulo has enacted a legal instrument to drive planning and to assess whether the goals and targets of mandatory ecological restoration are being achieved. Regardless of the restoration techniques applied, the effectiveness of mandatory or public‐funded projects will henceforth be assessed by using three ecological indicators: (1) ground coverage with native vegetation; (2) density of native plants spontaneously regenerating; and (3) number of spontaneously regenerating native plant species. We analyze how this science‐based legal framework is expected to promote greater restoration success, improve cost‐effectiveness, and help bridge the all‐too‐familiar knowledge‐action gap in environmental policies. Notably, scientists, professionals, public agents, and stakeholders from different institutions have collaborated to advance the refinement and rolling out of this legal instrument. By 2037, it is expected that more than 300,000 restoration projects will be carried out in São Paulo state and monitored using this set of indicators. We also suggest that this approach could be usefully applied to the growing number of ecological restoration programs being carried out worldwide, especially in the context of offset policies intended to achieve serious compensation for environmental degradation or loss of biodiversity.     

Ecosystem Restoration is Now a Global Priority: Time to Roll up our Sleeves

Ecosystem restoration is now globally recognized as a key component in conservation programs and essential to the quest for the long‐term sustainability of our human‐dominated planet. Restoration scientists and practitioners are now on the frontline and will be increasingly called upon to get involved in large scale programs addressing immediate environmental crises and challenges. Here, we summarize the advances in mainstreaming ecological restoration in global environmental policy deliberations during the last year, culminating in the recent meeting of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. We also provide key references for those seeking more information, and set out an agenda as to how the restoration community could respond to and act upon these recent developments. However, we underline the need for caution and prudence; we must not promise more than we can deliver. Thirty years after the emergence of ecological restoration as a scientific discipline and practice, there remain many obstacles and misconceptions about what can be achieved at large scales. Yet, clearly the old adage applies here: nothing ventured, nothing gained.     

Using historical woodland creation to construct a long‐term,large‐scale natural experiment: the WrEN project

Natural experiments have been proposed as a way of complementing manipulative experiments to improve ecological understanding and guide management. There is a pressing need for evidence from such studies to inform a shift to landscape‐scale conservation, including the design of ecological networks. Although this shift has been widely embraced by conservation communities worldwide, the empirical evidence is limited and equivocal, and may be limiting effective conservation. We present principles for well‐designed natural experiments to inform landscape‐scale conservation and outline how they are being applied in the WrEN project, which is studying the effects of 160 years of woodland creation on biodiversity in UK landscapes. We describe the study areas and outline the systematic process used to select suitable historical woodland creation sites based on key site‐ and landscape‐scale variables – including size, age, and proximity to other woodland. We present the results of an analysis to explore variation in these variables across sites to test their suitability as a basis for a natural experiment. Our results confirm that this landscape satisfies the principles we have identified and provides an ideal study system for a long‐term, large‐scale natural experiment to explore how woodland biodiversity is affected by different site and landscape attributes. The WrEN sites are now being surveyed for a wide selection of species that are likely to respond differently to site‐ and landscape‐scale attributes and at different spatial and temporal scales. The results from WrEN will help develop detailed recommendations to guide landscape‐scale conservation, including the design of ecological networks. We also believe that the approach presented demonstrates the wider utility of well‐designed natural experiments to improve our understanding of ecological systems and inform policy and practice.     

Natural regeneration as a tool for large‐scale forest restoration in the tropics: prospects and challenges

A major global effort to enable cost‐effective natural regeneration is needed to achieve ambitious forest and landscape restoration goals. Natural forest regeneration can potentially play a major role in large‐scale landscape restoration in tropical regions. Here, we focus on the conditions that favor natural regeneration within tropical forest landscapes. We illustrate cases where large‐scale natural regeneration followed forest clearing and non‐forest land use, and describe the social and ecological factors that drove these local forest transitions. The self‐organizing processes that create naturally regenerating forests and natural regeneration in planted forests promote local genetic adaptation, foster native species with known traditional uses, create spatial and temporal heterogeneity, and sustain local biodiversity and biotic interactions. These features confer greater ecosystem resilience in the face of future shocks and disturbances. We discuss economic, social, and legal issues that challenge natural regeneration in tropical landscapes. We conclude by suggesting ways to enable natural regeneration to become an effective tool for implementing large‐scale forest and landscape restoration. Major research and policy priorities include: identifying and modeling the ecological and economic conditions where natural regeneration is a viable and favorable land‐use option, developing monitoring protocols for natural regeneration that can be carried out by local communities, and developing enabling incentives, governance structures, and regulatory conditions that promote the stewardship of naturally regenerating forests. Aligning restoration goals and practices with natural regeneration can achieve the best possible outcome for achieving multiple social and environmental benefits at minimal cost.     

Four approaches to guide ecological restoration in Latin America

There is strong upswing in conservation and restoration efforts in Latin America (LA), particularly in the recent decades after several countries have committed to international agreements such as the Aichi targets of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Initiative 20×20, and the Bonn Challenge. To fulfill these agreements, the practice of ecological restoration has to be defined based on ecological knowledge, but also on the specific social, economic, and legal aspects of each country in the region. Here, we give some examples about the national understanding of ecological restoration in 10 countries of LA. We identify difficulties and opportunities to define restoration priorities and needs, and discuss some approaches to cope with economic constraints and agreements, including the potential role of restoration networks in this process. On the basis of the socioecological complexity of these countries and the expectations they have in relation to restoration, we proposed four approaches to guide restoration practice and policy in the region: (1) including biodiversity and ecosystem services approach into ecosystem restoration initiatives; (2) promoting restoration in their frequently human‐modified landscapes; (3) accounting for cost–benefit trade‐offs; and (4) assembling “horizontal” communication frameworks. These approaches should be based at national levels, but adapted to local‐regional levels, in a bottom‐up perspective. We consider that national and international restoration networks in the region can help to overcome difficulties, fostering a solid scientific community, helping to develop national approaches that better match the specific conditions of each country and enhancing communication among different groups of stakeholders.     

Ecological Restoration in a Developing Island Nation: How Useful is the Science?

Restoration science is a relatively young branch of ecology that is growing in importance owing to the sheer scale and trend of habitat degradation worldwide and the range of strong benefits that it is seen to potentially carry. Although spearheaded mainly by developed countries, its usefulness at least for the conservation of biodiversity may be greatest in the developing world. Here we examine how Mauritius, a developing island nation that may be regarded as well equipped among developing countries in terms of access to restoration science, is using science to inform the ecological restoration of its degraded native habitats for biodiversity conservation. While Mauritius is known for a number of proactive and at times innovative approaches that may even be setting the pace worldwide, we found that the restoration activities which are impacting the largest areas and an overwhelming proportion of native biodiversity of the country sometimes remain averse to even basic ecological principles. This includes the removal from restoration areas of fast growing native pioneer species with proven nurse‐tree potential to be replaced by a multitude of nursery grown and much slower growing plants that would have naturally grown anyway. Besides representing setbacks to areas undergoing restoration, this elevates restoration costs in the face of scarcity of conservation resources and urgency to restore more than the tiny and isolated areas currently targeted. Research worldwide continues to improve restoration science but blockages to knowledge transfer can seriously undermine its impact where it is most needed.     

Community‐based native seed production for restoration in Brazil – the role of science and policy

• Large‐scale restoration programmes in the tropics require large volumes of high quality, genetically diverse and locally adapted seeds from a large number of species. However, scarcity of native seeds is a critical restriction to achieve restoration targets.
• In this paper, we analyse three successful community‐based networks that supply native seeds and seedlings for Brazilian Amazon and Cerrado restoration projects. In addition, we propose directions to promote local participation, legal, technical and commercialisation issues for up‐scaling the market of native seeds for restoration with high quality and social justice.
• We argue that effective community‐based restoration arrangements should follow some principles: (i) seed production must be based on real market demand; (ii) non‐governmental and governmental organisations have a key role in supporting local organisation, legal requirements and selling processes; (iii) local ecological knowledge and labour should be valued, enabling local communities to promote large‐scale seed production; (iv) applied research can help develop appropriate techniques and solve technical issues.
• The case studies from Brazil and principles presented here can be useful for the up‐scaling restoration ecology efforts in many other parts of the world and especially in tropical countries where improving rural community income is a strategy for biodiversity conservation and restoration.

     

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

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

Restoring grassy woodland diversity through direct seeding: Insights from six ‘best‐practice’ case studies in southern Australia

Ecological restoration of grassy woodland ecosystems is now a significant landscape‐scale conservation objective throughout southern Australia. Technological improvements in direct seeding are now sufficiently well‐advanced to examine whether cost‐effective restoration of grassy woodlands is feasible. Consideration of six ‘best practice case studies shows substantial evidence of success. Further refinement of direct seeding techniques, in combination with native seed production systems, however, will be required into the future to meet the scale of woodland conservation targets and restore ecological function.     

生态恢复评价研究进展与展望： 第5届国际生态恢复学会大会会议述评

第5届国际生态恢复学会大会于2013年10月6—11日在美国威斯康星州麦迪逊召开.来自50多个国家的约1200位代表参加了本次大会,讨论了生态恢复不同领域的最新进展.会议中关于生态恢复评价的探讨主要从生态恢复评价指标体系的建立、生态恢复的评价方法、生态恢复监测与动态评价三方面展开.会议强调了生态恢复评价在生态恢复过程中的重要地位,关注了生态恢复评价研究中面临的挑战.对我国生态恢复评价研究主要有以下启示： 1)加强构建全面、综合的评价指标体系,注重评价过程的多方参与;2)注重生态恢复评价的尺度效应与尺度转换研究;3)拓展3S技术在生态恢复评价中的应用,促进生态恢复动态监测的发展;4)积极开展国际交流合作,提升我国生态恢复研究的国际影响力.
     

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.     

Factoring restoration practitioner perceptions into future design of mechanical direct seeders for native seeds

The methods used to distribute seeds influence the success of a restoration project. We surveyed 183 restoration practitioners from across the globe with the aim of identifying common limitations to the effective use of mechanical direct seeding in large‐scale restoration practice to highlight avenues for design improvement to mechanized seeding equipment. Results from this survey show that direct seeding methods are commonly used for ecological restoration and agree with other studies that suggest the method can achieve results much quicker and cheaper than the alternative of distributing nursery‐grown tube stock. However, this study indicates that current mechanical direct seeding methods lack adequate control of seed sowing depth and spatial distribution and highlight that the inability to sow seeds of varying morphology over complex topography are common limitations to direct seeding. To improve restoration success, engineering improvements to mechanical direct seeders used in large‐scale restoration should focus in particular on addressing issues of precision of delivery for diverse seed types and landscapes.     

Application of a Gondwanan perspective to restore ecological integrity in the south‐western Australian global biodiversity hotspot

Bounded by ocean and desert, the isolated, predominately Mediterranean‐climate region of south‐western Australia (SWA) includes nine bioregions (circa 44 million hectares). The ecological integrity of the landscapes in this global biodiversity hotspot has been compromised by deforestation, fragmentation, exploitation, and introduced biota. Nature and degree of transformation varies between four interconnected landscapes (Swan Coastal Plain; South‐west Forests; Wandoo Woodlands; and Great Western Woodlands). A Gondwanan perspective emphasizes a venerable biota and a cultural component to deep time. The particular importance of remnants and protected areas is recognized in restoring ecological integrity to Gondwanan landscapes. The nature and magnitude of the restoration task in these ancient, and neighboring, landscapes require higher levels of investment and more time than do recent landscapes. The protection, conservation, restoration, and rehabilitation of ecological integrity require multiple approaches in each landscape as well as consideration of the whole. Active conservation of biota and minimizing the impact of industrial‐ and agricultural‐use are priorities. Integrating a climate focus and rethinking fire are critical restoration considerations to future trajectories under anthropogenic climate change. A legislative mandate to coordinate industrial‐scale restoration and active conservation to build from protected areas must become a societal priority to restore ecological integrity.     

Large‐scale,long‐term ecosystem monitoring: Interview with David Lindenmayer

David Lindenmayer leads six large‐scale, long‐term research programmes in south‐eastern Australia to help conserve biodiversity in restored areas on farmland as well as conservation in reserves, national parks, wood production forests and plantations. What makes this award‐winning researcher tick and how is the research influencing biodiversity management and policy?     

Paddock trees, parrots and agricultural production: An urgent need for large-scale, long-term restoration in south-eastern Australia

Summary Scattered trees, or ‘paddock trees’, are keystone structures, which provide multiple ecological values. However, they are in decline in many places. This has serious implications for species that use them, such as the vulnerable Superb Parrot (Polytelis swainsonii) of south‐eastern Australia. We outline three key aspects of the ecology, biology and distribution of the species that illustrate the implications of scattered tree decline. These are that (i) it depends on trees; (ii) it lives across agricultural landscapes; and (iii) it uses scattered tree landscapes dynamically in response to climate variation. We outline the dual challenge of maintaining populations of both scattered trees and the Superb Parrot over large scales and over the long term. Without urgent restoration action, a narrow bottleneck (where there are few mature trees) will make the long‐term future of the Superb Parrot precarious in these landscapes. We outline a vision for future landscapes that addresses this challenge, including the development of a form of Australian ‘wood‐pasture’. We suggest some ways that might be implemented at two scales. At the farm scale, we suggest (i) protecting what remnant vegetation we currently have; (ii) recruiting future large, old trees; (iii) sequentially setting aside land to ensure whole‐of‐farm tree regeneration; (iv) use of incentives to encourage restoration actions; and (v) using a revolving land fund to purchase and reorganize farms into economically and ecologically sustainable units. At the landscape scale, we suggest (i) the need for coordination of long‐term landscape restoration plans; (ii) the possible collaborative management of adjacent farms to ensure economic and ecological sustainability. We conclude that addressing the large‐scale and long‐term challenges of restoring scattered trees in landscapes occupied by the Superb Parrot could restore lost or diminished ecological services. This challenge illustrates the need for action at both the farm and the landscape scale that is planned over the short, medium and long term.     

Natural regeneration and biodiversity: a global meta‐analysis and implications for spatial planning

Natural regeneration offers a cheaper alternative to active reforestation and has the potential to become the predominant way of restoring degraded tropical landscapes at large‐scale. We conducted a meta‐analysis for tropical regions and quantified the relationships between both ecological and socioeconomic factors and biodiversity responses in naturally regenerating areas. Biogeographic realms, past disturbance, and the human development index (HDI) were used as explanatory variables for biodiversity responses. In addition, we present a case study of large‐scale natural regeneration in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest and identify areas where different forms of restoration would be most suitable. Using our dataset for tropical regions, we showed that natural regeneration was predominantly reported within: the Neotropical realm; areas that were intensively disturbed; and countries with medium HDI. We also found that biodiversity in regenerating forests was more similar to the values found in old growth forests in: countries with either low, high, or very high HDI; less biodiverse realms; and areas of less intensive past disturbance. Our case study from Brazil showed that the level of forest gain resulting from environmental legislation, in particular the Brazilian Forest Code, has been reduced, but remains substantial. Complementary market incentives and financial mechanisms to promote large‐scale natural regeneration in human‐modified agricultural landscapes are also needed. Our analysis provides insights into the factors that promote or limit the recovery of biodiversity in naturally regenerating areas, and aids to identify areas with higher potential for natural regeneration.     

Modelling marine community responses to climate‐driven species redistribution to guide monitoring and adaptive ecosystem‐based management

As a consequence of global climate‐driven changes, marine ecosystems are experiencing polewards redistributions of species – or range shifts – across taxa and throughout latitudes worldwide. Research on these range shifts largely focuses on understanding and predicting changes in the distribution of individual species. The ecological effects of marine range shifts on ecosystem structure and functioning, as well as human coastal communities, can be large, yet remain difficult to anticipate and manage. Here, we use qualitative modelling of system feedback to understand the cumulative impacts of multiple species shifts in south‐eastern Australia, a global hotspot for ocean warming. We identify range‐shifting species that can induce trophic cascades and affect ecosystem dynamics and productivity, and evaluate the potential effectiveness of alternative management interventions to mitigate these impacts. Our results suggest that the negative ecological impacts of multiple simultaneous range shifts generally add up. Thus, implementing whole‐of‐ecosystem management strategies and regular monitoring of range‐shifting species of ecological concern are necessary to effectively intervene against undesirable consequences of marine range shifts at the regional scale. Our study illustrates how modelling system feedback with only limited qualitative information about ecosystem structure and range‐shifting species can predict ecological consequences of multiple co‐occurring range shifts, guide ecosystem‐based adaptation to climate change and help prioritise future research and monitoring.     

Promoting ecological restoration in France: issues and solutions

Ecological restoration has developed greatly over recent decades. Promoting harmonious relationships between scientists and practitioners, between restoration ecology and ecological restoration, is essential to improving restoration projects. These relationships are difficult to achieve at a global scale, although international action remains essential. Therefore, regional and national networks are attempting to take up the challenge. With several European countries planning to create their own network in the coming years, insights from current practice are helpful. Here, we (1) describe the context in which ecological restoration is developing in France and (2) present the French restoration network, Réseau d'Echanges et de Valorisation en Ecologie de la Restauration (REVER). Most public policies related to restoration in France are derived from European Union (EU) directives, such as those on water, ecological networks, biodiversity, and protected species and natural habitat. Restoration can also be undertaken through Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) or subsequent to damage. Following the model of the International Society for Ecological Restoration, the French network for ecological restoration (REVER) aims at accompanying and promoting restoration by facilitating relationships between the various stakeholders: practitioners, scientists, site managers, etc. To encourage exchange of knowledge and experience, REVER manages a website, organizes workshops, and provides links with SER‐Europe and Society for Ecological Restoration International (SERI). This article provides information that will be of interest to other countries trying to meet the Aichi targets of the convention on biological diversity: the restoration of 15% of degraded ecosystems by 2020.     

Negotiating multiple motivations in the science and practice of ecological restoration

Summary In a recent piece in EMR, Burbidge et al. discussed some major impediments to linking research and practice in ecological restoration and management. They identified a lack of collaboration between research and practice, poor communication, inappropriate funding and political timelines, change inertia and a lack of capacity as major barriers to improving restoration praxis. They suggest capacity building, communication, collaboration and involving key stakeholders through an iterative cycle of research to management will improve the translation of research into practice (Ecological Management and Restoration 12, 2011, 54). While we agree with the barriers and recommendations identified, they did not consider how the multifaceted motivations embodied in the practice and social context of restoration shape the research–practice nexus. Given the diversity of actors involved in conservation activities, and the focus on conservation on private land and landscape‐scale connectivity in government policy, this is a significant oversight. We suggest it is vital to draw attention to these multifaceted motivations when discussing implementation challenges. This piece draws on our collective insights from three doctoral research projects examining the science, practice and social dimensions of ecological restoration and management in Australia. Our intention is to outline some of the social and contextual influences shaping restoration practice to demonstrate the importance of dialogue between researchers, practitioners and landholders around the goals and expectations of restoration and management interventions. We suggest this is an important aspect of improving the conversation between the actors involved in restoration research, policy and practice.