Evidence‐based restoration in the Anthropocene—from acting with purpose to acting for impact

The recognition that we are in the distinct new epoch of the Anthropocene suggests the necessity for ecological restoration to play a substantial role in repairing the Earth's damaged ecosystems. Moreover, the precious yet limited resources devoted to restoration need to be used wisely. To do so, we call for the ecological restoration community to embrace the concept of evidence‐based restoration. Evidence‐based restoration involves the use of rigorous, repeatable, and transparent methods (i.e. systematic reviews) to identify and amass relevant knowledge sources, critically evaluate the science, and synthesize the credible science to yield robust policy and/or management advice needed to restore the Earth's ecosystems. There are now several examples of restoration‐relevant systematic reviews that have identified instances where restoration is entirely ineffective. Systematic reviews also serve as a tool to identify the knowledge gaps and the type of science needed (e.g. repeatable, appropriate replication, use of controls) to improve the evidence base. The restoration community, including both scientists and practitioners, needs to make evidence‐based restoration a reality so that we can move from best intentions and acting with so‐called “purpose” to acting for meaningful impact. Doing so has the potential to serve as a rallying point for reframing the Anthropocene as a so‐called “good” epoch.     

Science and Restoration Under a Big, Demon Haunted Tent: Reply to Giardina et al. (2007)

In a recent editorial, I discussed how the culture of science, heterogeneity of nature, and real‐world human complexities can limit the practical relevance of formal scientific research and argued that less formal approaches might often be more efficient and effective. Giardina et al. criticized this editorial and argued that formal science has and increasingly will play a central role in ecological restoration in particular and human progress in general. Here, I respond to these arguments and expand upon the ideas presented in my previous editorial. I further illustrate how despite superficial appearances the utilitarian value of formal science may often be largely indirect. I also argue that the complexities of ecological and human systems combined with the subjective values and political beliefs underlying restoration make transforming this discipline into a unified “hard science” virtually impossible. Because values and politics also underlie most environmental conflicts, and scientific inquiry is inherently unsuitable for resolving these kinds of disputes, the future success of restoration may depend more on political support than scientific progress. Dogmatic, nonfalsifiable faith in the universal superiority of “rigorous” scientific knowledge and methodologies can foster arrogance and intolerance and blind us to the ephemeral nature of scientific “truths” and the double‐edged sword of scientific “progress.” My hope is that Society for Ecological Restoration International (SERI) will remain a big inclusive tent that embraces a healthy diversity of foci and approaches that emulate the extraordinary diversity we find within the natural ecosystems and human cultures we strive to preserve, restore, and reconnect.     

Applied nucleation is a straightforward,cost‐effective forest restoration approach: reply to Ramírez‐Soto et al. (2018)

We agree with Ramírez‐Soto and colleagues that applied nucleation can be an effective approach for tropical forest restoration both in lowland and higher elevation tropical forests. We also contend that it is cheaper than standard plantation‐style plantings and is straightforward to train personnel to implement this approach.     

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.
     

Restoration Goes Wild: A Reply to Throop and Purdom

Throop and Purdom’s proposal for virtues based restoration is consistent with my concept of focal restoration, but their interpretation conflates focal restoration with participatory restoration. We disagree on the meaning of wilderness and on the appropriate underlying relationship between nature and culture, which affects how each of us regards the role of restoration in so‐called wilderness. I prefer the term “wildness” over wilderness precisely because the former locates the power of meaning in process rather than place. The primary metaphors we used to describe the proper role of restoration differ, too. Throop and Purdom prefer “healing,” whereas my preference is for “design” as a way of acknowledging the moral implications of restoration interventions in natural processes.     

The evolution of Society for Ecological Restoration's principles and standards—counter‐response to Gann et al.

In response to our recent article (Higgs et al. 2018) in these pages, George Gann and his coauthors defended the Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) International Standards, clarified several points, and introduced some new perspectives. We offer this counter‐response to address some of these perspectives. More than anything, our aims are in sharpening the field of restoration in a time of rapid scaling‐up of interest and effort, and support further constructive dialogue going forward. Our perspective remains that there is an important distinction needed between “Standards” and “Principles” that is largely unheeded by Gann et al. (2018). We encourage SER to consider in future iterations of its senior policy document to lean on principles first, and then to issue advice on standards that meet the needs of diverse conditions and social, economic, and political realities.     

Planning for Implementation: Landscape‐Level Restoration Planning in an Agricultural Setting

The conservation of biodiversity in highly fragmented landscapes often requires large‐scale habitat restoration in addition to traditional biological conservation techniques. The selection of priority restoration sites to support long‐term persistence of biodiversity within landscape‐scale projects however remains a challenge for many restoration practitioners. Techniques developed under the paradigm of systematic conservation planning may provide a template for resolving these challenges. Systematic conservation planning requires the identification of conservation objectives, the establishment of quantitative targets for each objective, and the identification of areas which, if conserved, would contribute to meeting those targets. A metric developed by systematic conservation planners termed “irreplaceability” allows for analysis and prioritization of such conservation options, and allows for the display of analysis results in a way that can engage private landowners and other decision makers. The process of systematic conservation planning was modified to address landscape‐level restoration prioritization in southern Ontario. A series of recent and locally relevant landscape ecology studies allowed the identification of restoration objectives and quantitative targets, and a simple algorithm was developed to identify and prioritize potential restoration projects. The application of an irreplaceability analysis to landscape‐level restoration planning allowed the identification of varying needs throughout the planning region, resulting from underlying differences in topography and settlement patterns, and allowed the effective prioritization of potential restoration projects. Engagement with rural landowners and agricultural commodity groups, as well as the irreplaceability maps developed, ultimately resulted in a substantial increase in the number and total area of habitat restoration projects in the planning region.     

How prevalent are pH‐specialist diatoms? A reply to Telford et al. (2006)

Telford, Vandvik and Birks (2006) (henceforth TVB) refute our conclusion (Pither & Aarssen 2005) that only a minority of fossil diatom taxa within a diverse regional assemblage are pH specialists. They argue that the null model we used exhibited high Type II error rates for both geographically rare taxa (i.e. few lakes occupied) and for acid-optima taxa, and assert that many more taxa would have been designated specialist had we adequate statistical power, and had more acidic lakes been sampled. However, TVB base their conclusions upon the results of additional analyses, which assume a priori that all taxa are pH specialists. Experimental and observational evidence do not support this assumption. As such, we contend that TVBs criticisms are unjustified.     

The SER Standards: a globally relevant and inclusive tool for improving restoration practice—a reply to Higgs et al.

In response to a critique by Higgs et al., this article clarifies the content and intent of the Society for Ecological Restoration's (SER) International Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration. Higgs et al. expressed concern that the SER Standards are not sufficiently underpinned by principles and risk disenfranchising some practitioners by narrowing what qualifies as ecological restoration. To demonstrate that these concerns are unfounded, we discuss the policy context and principles on which the Standards are based, its organizational structure, the innovative and inclusive approach used for development, and highlight significant errata by Higgs et al.     

Trade‐offs and utility of alternative RADseq methods: Reply to Puritz et al.

Puritz et al. provide a review of several RADseq methodological approaches in response to our ‘Population Genomic Data Analysis’ workshop (Sept 2013) review (Andrews & Luikart 2014). We agree with Puritz et al. on the importance for researchers to thoroughly understand RADseq library preparation and data analysis when choosing an approach for answering their research questions. Some of us are currently using multiple RADseq protocols, and we agree that the different methods may offer advantages in different cases. Our workshop review did not intend to provide a thorough review of RADseq because the workshop covered a broad range of topics within the field of population genomics. Similarly, neither the response of Puritz et al. nor our comments here provide sufficient space to thoroughly review RADseq. Nonetheless, here we address some key points that we find unclear or potentially misleading in their evaluation of techniques.