A world of possibilities: six restoration strategies to support the United Nation's Decade on Ecosystem Restoration

Ecological restoration is practiced worldwide as a direct response to the degradation and destruction of ecosystems. In addition to its ecological impact it has enormous potential to improve population health, socioeconomic well‐being, and the integrity of diverse national and ethnic cultures. In recognition of the critical role of restoration in ecosystem health, the United Nations (UN) declared 2021–2030 as the Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. We propose six practical strategies to strengthen the effectiveness and amplify the work of ecological restoration to meet the aspirations of the Decade: (1) incorporate holistic actions, including working at effective scale; (2) include traditional ecological knowledge (TEK); (3) collaborate with allied movements and organizations; (4) advance and apply soil microbiome science and technology; (5) provide training and capacity‐building opportunities for communities and practitioners; and (6) study and show the relationships between ecosystem health and human health. We offer these in the hope of identifying possible leverage points and pathways for collaborative action among interdisciplinary groups already committed to act and support the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. Collectively, these six strategies work synergistically to improve human health and also the health of the ecosystems on which we all depend, and can be the basis for a global restorative culture.     

Integrated climate sensitive restoration framework for transformative changes to sustainable land restoration

Sustainable land restoration is the key to restore degraded land, halt biodiversity loss, and reinstate ecosystem services for human well‐being. Restoration needs to be planned and conducted with due recognition to growing climate uncertainty with an evolved understanding of the future restoration targets. The present opinion article attempts to provide an overview on an integrated climate sensitive restoration framework that recognizes the local participation in mapping degraded lands, identification of species for supporting species modeling to better understand climate uncertainty. Involvement of citizen science‐based restoration monitoring tools can contribute to big data analytics for ecological monitoring and policy support. The Framework potentially helps in sustainable land restoration by transformative changes for achieving the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration (2021–2030), Sustainable Development Goals 15, and addressing the post‐2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. However, to realize success, climate finance mechanisms to drive restoration should be seriously considered for reducing bias and enhancing opportunities of equitable sharing in the era of corruption, authoritarianism, and regulatory capture.     

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.     

Adjustive ecological restoration through stakeholder involvement: a case of riparian landscape restoration on privately owned land with public access

Ecological restoration involves a dual uncertainty or disagreement, one connected to changes in the environment and in human expertises, and another related to changes in views of acceptability over time and underlying value disagreements. While the former often is attended to under the notion of adaptive management, the latter is less often considered. The aim of this article is to investigate how a continuous involvement process can facilitate adjustments of ecological restoration, taking into account the values of all parties involved. Using a combination of a survey distributed to stakeholders in the involvement process and content analysis of the minutes from the series of meetings of the involvement process, the concerns and views of stakeholders, and the kinds of adjustment, which took place, were identified. Stakeholders were generally positive about being involved but expressed various concerns about the restoration approach itself, especially the open‐endedness, and about specific interventions. Three types of adjustment were identified: (1) project managers adjusted activities based on stakeholders' raised concerns and values; (2) stakeholders modified views in response to project managers as the restoration project proceeded; and (3) shifts in views took place within the stakeholder group based on exchanges with other stakeholders involved in the project. Mutual benefits and a higher level of mutual understanding were reached through the approach we call “adjustive ecological restoration.” This approach depends on the ability to work with stakeholders, willingness to adjust, high levels of trust, and the leveling of expectations at the beginning of the process.     

生态系统修复国内外研究进展与展望

气候变化和人类活动的增加不仅导致生态系统退化、生物多样性丧失、生物圈资源供给能力降低, 而且极大地制约了社会经济的可持续发展。尽管在全世界范围内已实施了大量的保护工作, 但全球生态系统退化仍在继续, 逐渐成为备受关注的全球性问题。文章首先厘清生态系统修复的发展历程、相关概念与理论。其次, 归纳生态系统修复的全球议题, 涉及生态系统服务及其价值评估、生物多样性保护、应对气候变化与碳储存、自然保护地、监测体系与适应性管理、公平性与多主体参与等方面。然后, 总结我国森林、草原、河流与湿地、海洋与海岸带的生态系统退化问题与修复进展, 梳理生态保护红线、自然保护地生态系统修复和国土空间生态保护修复3种措施的进展与不足。最后, 对山水林田湖草沙一体化保护与系统治理、生态系统修复的多元融资政策与渠道、荒野生态保护修复的探索与实践、城镇生态系统修复的研究与应用以及生态系统修复对生物多样性的保护与维持等五个方面进行展望, 以期为我国进一步开展生态系统保护修复的相关研究与实践提供指导。     

Using structured decision‐making to set restoration objectives when multiple values and preferences exist

Achieving global targets for restoring native vegetation cover requires restoration projects to identify and work toward common management objectives. This is made challenging by the different values held by concerned stakeholders, which are not often accounted for. Additionally, restoration is time‐dependent and yet there is often little explicit acknowledgment of the time frames required to achieve outcomes. Here, we argue that explicitly incorporating value and time considerations into stated objectives would help to achieve restoration goals. We reviewed the peer‐reviewed literature on restoration of terrestrial vegetation and found that while there is guidance on how to identify and account for stakeholder values and time considerations, there is little evidence these are being incorporated into decision‐making processes. In this article, we explore how a combination of stakeholder surveys and workshops can be used within a structured decision‐making framework to facilitate the integration of diverse stakeholder values and time frame considerations to set restoration objectives. We demonstrate this approach with a case of restoration decision‐making at a regional scale (southeast Queensland, Australia) with a view to this experience supporting similar restoration projects elsewhere.     

General attributes and practice of ecological restoration in Arizona and California,U.S.A., revealed by restoration stakeholder surveys

Ecological restoration has become increasingly important in conservation. Yet, synthesized statistics are scarce with respect to essential characteristics of restoration activities. We surveyed restoration stakeholders in the U.S. states of Arizona and California to evaluate key attributes in restoration activities including ecosystems of focus, goals, size, cost, duration, and the prevalence of recommended restoration practices. We also examined how some of the attributes varied with size of restoration, ecosystem type, and state identity. While enhancing biodiversity and increasing plant cover were common goals in the two states, restoration in California also focused more on wildlife habitat re‐establishment and weed control. Restoration in Arizona was implemented more in arid/semiarid systems, larger in size, shorter in duration, used more passive restoration, spent more on equipment, and was less likely to source plants from native plant nurseries. Labor was the most expensive restoration component regardless of state identity and ecosystem type. Per unit area cost of restoration decreased with increasing size of restoration. Yet, the decline in this cost was more strongly explained by moving from mesic to arid/semiarid ecosystems. Duration of restoration projects increased with size of restoration and in more mesic ecosystems. Overall, restoration in mesic ecosystems, compared to arid/semiarid systems, was smaller in size, higher in cost, and longer in duration. These results confirmed that ecological and socio‐political conditions impact restoration goals and practice, with implications of how research can further support practitioners to achieve restoration success under practical constraints revealed by these results.     

国内外主要湾区生态系统特征、修复理论与技术模式

通过总结粤港澳大湾区、东京湾区和旧金山湾区等国内外主要湾区的生态系统特征、生态修复理论和实践研究进展,在辨析生态修复概念内涵的基础上,基于Meta-Analysis及综合分析方法,分析了生态系统退化机制及驱动因子,归纳总结湾区生态修复的主要理论基础、技术模式及案例。结果表明:(1)国内外三大主要湾区的生态系统特征为森林占比最高,其次是农田和草地占比,城镇占比第三。森林一般分布在湾区外围,城镇分布在湾区内核河口三角洲附近。(2)湾区生态修复理论包括以恢复生态学、景观生态学和复合生态系统生态学为基础的三种修复理论,生态修复的类别分为补救修复、改善修复、生态恢复和复垦等。(3)湾区生态修复技术模式包括主动修复、被动修复和重建等三类技术模式。在总结梳理生态修复理论和技术模式的基础上,结合当前国内生态修复存在问题,本文提出我国和广东省开展生态修复实践的建议和展望,以期为粤港澳大湾区生态修复提供一定的理论指导。     

Disrupted montane forest recovery hinders biodiversity conservation in the tropical Andes

Aim

Andean montane forests are biodiversity hotspots and large carbon stores and they provide numerous ecosystem services. Following land abandonment after centuries of forest clearing for agriculture in the Andes, there is an opportunity for forest recovery. Field-based studies show that forests do not always recover. However, large-scale and long-term knowledge of recovery dynamics of Andean forests remains scarce. This paper analyses tropical montane forest recovery trajectories over a 15-year time frame at the landscape and tropical Andean scale to inform restoration planning.

Methods

We first detect “potential recovery” as areas that have experienced a forest transition between 2000 and 2005. Then, we use Landsat time series analysis of the normalized difference water index (NDWI) to classify four “realized recovery” trajectories (“ongoing”, “arrested”, “disrupted” and “no recovery”) based on a sequential pattern of 5-yearly Z-score anomalies for 2005–2020. We compare these results against an analysis of change in tree cover to validate against other datasets.

Results

Across the tropical Andes, we detected a potential recovery area of 274 km² over the period. Despite increases in tree cover, most areas of the Andes remained in early successional states (10–25% tree cover), and NDWI levelled out after 5–10 years. Of all potential forest recovery areas, 22% showed “ongoing recovery”, 61% showed either “disrupted” or “arrested recovery”, and 17% showed “no recovery”. Our method captured forest recovery dynamics in a Peruvian arrested succession context and in landscape-scale tree-planting efforts in Ecuador.

Main conclusions

Forest recovery across the Andes is mostly disrupted, arrested or unsuccessful, with consequences for biodiversity recovery and provision of ecosystem services. Low-recovery areas identified in this study might be good candidates for active restoration interventions in this UN Decade on Restoration. Future studies could determine restoration strategies and priorities and suggest management strategies at a local planning scale across key regions in the biodiversity hotspot.     

生态恢复中生态系统服务的演变:趋势、过程与评估

经过10余年的发展,生态系统服务已经成为生态恢复研究关注的前沿和热点。生态恢复改变了生态系统格局与过程,对生态系统服务的产生和提供具有重要影响。但是目前对于生态系统服务在生态恢复过程中的演化仍缺少系统性研究。对国内外相关研究的最新成果进行综述,总结了生态系统服务评估中框架的构建和方法的选择(参数转移法、系统模型法和定量指标法),介绍了生态恢复对生态系统服务的促进作用、生态系统服务的演变过程以及不同生态系统服务间的协同与权衡关系,分析了社会经济因素对生态恢复和生态系统服务维持的影响。最后结合我国生态恢复实践,提出未来生态恢复和生态系统服务研究可以从深化作用机制研究、推动服务评估创新、增强研究成果应用3方面深化和拓展。     

城市生态系统修复研究进展

城市生态系统是社会-经济-自然复合生态系统。城市生态系统修复的实质是协调好城市复合生态系统的自然过程、经济过程和社会过程之间的关系,促进复合生态系统的各方面协调高效可持续发展。以城市绿地、城市湿地、城市废弃地三类主要的城市生态空间为对象,论述了城市生态系统修复的研究进展,提出当前城市生态系统修复存在以人工修复技术为主、自然修复不足、机理和量化研究缺乏、理论和应用脱节、管理机制不健全、复合生态系统理论体现不足等问题。梳理了当前城市生态系统修复的研究热点,包括城市生态系统修复机理、城市生态资产与生态系统服务、城市生态系统质量和健康、问题导向的生态修复、面向人类福祉的生态修复、生态修复多学科融贯,以及新方法和新技术的应用等几个方面。提出了城市生态修复与管理的相关对策和建议,可为我国城市生态系统修复的研究和实践提供参考。     

区域生态恢复规划及其关键问题

生态恢复是一项长期的根本性生态建设措施,需要有区域性整体规划与长期维持的具体安排。目前,区域生态恢复规划却未受到足够的关注。重点讨论了区域生态恢复规划的内涵、理论基础、规划原则及关键问题,这些问题的探讨对于提升生态恢复效率,增强生态恢复的科学性具有重要意义。区域生态恢复规划从宏观整体性的角度对区域内所实施的生态恢复工程进行统筹规划,对区域内实施的具体恢复规划具有指导意义。区域生态恢复以不同生态功能区的主导生态功能为恢复目标。在退化生态系统诊断的基础上,确定在哪里恢复。通过局地恢复治理与区域调控相结合的恢复策略,实现生态链与产业链的结合,其本质则是实现生态建设与社会经济的协调发展。     

Fresh perspectives for classic forest restoration challenges

Restoration ecology is a young scientific discipline whose limitations can compromise the recovery of ecosystem biodiversity and functions. Specifically for limitations on forest restoration, we first recommend considering measures prior to land use changes to deal with the common lack of efforts to anticipate and plan restoration. Second, we suggest using multiple references in restoration planning to avoid simplified reference characterization, and we advise assessing ecosystem recovery with indicators that better incorporate ecosystem complexity in recovery assessments. Finally, we propose initiatives to encourage scientific communication outside academia to diminish the communication gap between scientists and practitioners.     

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.     

不同生态恢复方式下生态系统服务与生物多样性恢复效果的整合分析

全球范围内关键生态系统服务的减少使人类社会面临巨大的威胁,生物多样性是生态系统提供各种产品和服务的基础。生态恢复工程对退化的生态系统服务和生物多样性进行修复,对于缓解人类环境压力具有非常重要的意义。长期的理论和实践工作形成了多种生态恢复措施:(1)单纯基于生态系统自我设计的自然恢复方式,(2)人为设计对环境条件进行干预,反馈影响生态系统的自我设计,(3)人为设计对目标种群和生态系统进行直接干预和重建。这3类恢复方式可以在不同程度上定向的影响生态系统的恢复进程,反映了人类对生态系统的低度、中度和高度介入。哪种恢复方式和介入程度能够实现更好的恢复效果,是生态恢复学中的一个关键问题,但到目前为止,虽广有争议,却无定量的分析和结论。针对这个空白,通过对ISI Web of Knowledge数据库中生态恢复相关文献的整合分析,基于数学统计的方法定量比较在不同条件下低度介入(自然恢复)、中度介入(环境干预)和高度介入(直接干预)3种恢复方式对生态系统服务与生物多样性的恢复效果。论文从4个方面展开研究:(1)低度、中度、高度介入生态恢复方式的划分,(2)比较3大类介入方式对生态系统服务和生物多样性恢复效果的差异,(3)不同气候条件、生态系统类型和恢复时间等背景因素的影响,(4)生物多样性恢复和生态系统服务恢复之间的关系。研究结果揭示了不同生态恢复方式的适用条件,以及对生物多样性和生态系统恢复相互关系的作用,对生态恢复实践中恢复方式的选择有指导作用。对未来的研究也有启示意义,如针对特定生态系统服务或具体研究问题进一步探索低度、中度和高度介入生态恢复方式的作用规律和机制;将地区的社会经济水平、生态系统的受损程度等因素纳入生态恢复方式的考察,以最优化生态恢复成本-效率等。     

Estuary ecosystem restoration: implementing and institutionalizing adaptive management

We implemented and institutionalized an adaptive management (AM) process for the Columbia Estuary Ecosystem Restoration Program, which is a large‐scale restoration program focused on improving ecosystem conditions in the 234‐km lower Columbia River and estuary. For our purpose, “institutionalized” means the AM process and restoration programs are embedded in the work flow of the implementing agencies and affected parties. While plans outlining frameworks, processes, or approaches to AM of ecosystem restoration programs are commonplace, their establishment for the long‐term is not. This article presents the basic AM process and explains how AM was implemented and institutionalized. Starting with a common goal, we pursued a well‐understood governance and decision‐making structure, routine coordination and communication activities, data and information sharing, commitment from partners and upper agency management to the AM process, and meaningful cooperation among program managers and partners. The overall approach and steps to implement and institutionalize AM for ecosystem restoration explained here are applicable to situations in which it has been incomplete or, as in our case, the restoration program is just getting started.     

Could 2021–2030 be the decade to couple new human values with ecological restoration? Valuable insights and actions are emerging from the Colombian Amazon

Looking ahead to the United Nations' 2021–2030 Decade of Ecosystem Restoration, we would like to ponder and discuss two fundamental goals to improve, mainstream, and scale up ecological restoration. The first is to cultivate alternative visions of the human dimension in relation to ecological restoration and other restorative activities. The second is to develop shared protocols for planning, revamping, and monitoring the progress of social goals related to ecological restoration within the social construction theoretical framework, based on three interrelated dimensions: stakeholder‐based problem definition, social representations, and legitimation. We draw on ongoing work in Caquetá (Colombian Amazonia) to consider how these dimensions may be incorporated into tangible restoration practices. Caquetá is facing the highest deforestation rates in the Amazonian region due to a highly volatile sociopolitical context and recent armed conflicts that have claimed thousands of victims to date. We conclude that the work in Caquetá demonstrates a process of social construction that effectively couples new human values with ecological restoration. Our work also provides evidence that the human dimension of restoration is a central issue in the restoration of human, social, and ecosystem health and must be integrated into the framework of the coming Decade of Ecosystem Restoration.     

喀斯特脆弱生态系统复合退化控制与重建模式

以西南喀斯特地区为例,通过总结前人的研究成就和采集中国科学院亚热带农业生态研究所喀斯特生态实验站部分收集整理和试验数据,系统分析了喀斯特脆弱生态系统及其退化的机理,从"人-自然-经济复合生态系统"的观点出发,以干扰程度、群落类型、服务功能、土地退化和贫困状况为指标,创新性地提出了喀斯特脆弱生态系统的复合退化模式(含4个阶段),运用现代生态恢复学原理、方法和现代管理学创新理论,建立了喀斯特脆弱生态系统复合退化的控制模型.以此为基础,在喀斯特石山区、半石山区和土山丘陵区3个区域环境尺度范围内,针对性地建立了生态保护型、外向经济型和双三重螺旋3种生态恢复与重建模式,以促进喀斯特区域生态、经济、社会的全面协调与可持续发展.     

我国废弃矿山生态修复研究

实施废弃矿山生态修复工程,是适应社会主义生态文明建设的必然要求,是遵循自然规律,破解矿区生态环境保护修复难题的重要举措。矿产资源开发后遗留下来的废弃矿山不可避免地影响和破坏区域生态环境和生态系统,基于我国废弃矿山分布及其主要环境问题现状,结合我国区域生态特征,提出了我国废弃矿山生态修复策略。参考我国生态综合区划,同时结合地形地貌、区域生态系统结构与功能等因素,划定我国废弃矿山生态修复区,明确我国废弃矿山生态修复总体思路与基本原则,提出废弃矿山生态修复的主要模式;在综合分析区域生态系统稳定性、自然地理、气候条件以及废弃矿山特征的基础上,识别各区域内存在的主要环境和生态问题,有针对性地提出控制生态系统退化、修复受损生态功能的主要措施,为我国废弃矿山的生态修复工作提供技术支撑和决策依据。     

Deploying microbes as drivers and indicators in ecological restoration

Ecosystem degradation is a major environmental threat. Beyond conservation, restoration of degraded ecosystems is a prerequisite to reinstate their ability to provide essential services and benefits. Most of the restoration efforts focus on aboveground restoration, that is, plants, under the assumption that establishment of plant species will reestablish the faunal and microbial species. While this may be true for some cases, it is not a general rule. Reestablishment of microbial communities by dedicated efforts is also necessary for successful restoration, as cycling of essential nutrients for plant growth and decomposition of organic matter is dependent on them. The role of microbial fertilizers and efficient organisms used in agriculture needs to be explored in restoration. Testing of symbiotic interactions between potential plant growth-promoting Rhizobacteria and plants native to a degraded ecosystem can be conducted and utilized for successful establishment of plant species. However, utmost care must be taken while introducing new microbial species or non-native plant species to an area, as they can adversely affect the resident microbial community. Techniques like phospholipid fatty-acid analysis can be used for taxonomic identification of large microbial groups in non-degraded reference ecosystems before introducing microbial species into a degraded ecosystem. For use of microbes in restoration, more studies on microbe-plant interactions need to be conducted. For use of Soil Microbial Community (SMC) as indicators of restoration, their role and function in the ecology of the area need to be elucidated by employing all the available techniques.