Science, Art, or Application—the "Karma" of Restoration Ecology

The present state of restoration ecology is far away from Bradshaw’s “acid test for ecology.” The conclusions drawn from the series of papers in this issue and from the Jena workshop suggest some directions in which the field may progress. More attention must be paid to the degraded state, which should be evaluated by its specific features and carefully analyzed before any restoration plan is laid down. Restoration goals have to be realistic, which includes the appreciation of globally changing conditions, resulting in a paradigm‐shift toward “forward‐restoration.” Basically, the transition from the degraded state conditions to the target state is a kind of succession that is manipulated by the application of goal‐orientated and system‐specific disturbances. Whenever possible, restorationists should step back and make use of naturally occurring succession, which requires a sophisticated restoration strategy, involving flexible management responses, multiple alternative target states, robust measurements for the restoration progress, and careful long‐term monitoring. The unique feature of restoration ecology is the involvement of socioeconomic decisions, and conceptual frameworks for ecological restoration have to implement the specific links to natural succession. To bridge the gap between ecological theory and on the ground restoration, it is essential that restoration practice is translated into the vocabulary and thinking of basic ecology. If all these aspects are integrated, ecological restoration as an application—and restoration ecology as an applied science—may develop into an acid test for our understanding of interactions between people and their environment, rather than for pure ecology.     

The business perspective in ecological restoration: issues and challenges

Much of the practice of restoration is conducted by businesses—contractors, consultants, designers, engineers. Restoration businesses interact with a variety of stakeholders to complete projects on time and on budget, and to achieve ecological and business objectives. Our research explores the business perspective in restoration; it is based on data collected from businesses (contractors, consultants, design engineers), agencies, and nongovernmental organizations involved in a Superfund cleanup project in Montana, one of the largest river restoration efforts ever. Our findings highlight several areas restoration businesses must navigate. First, restoration businesses must juggle potentially competing goals, maintaining ecological integrity while achieving profitability objectives. Second, these businesses must manage the risk that arises from variability in the natural environment as well as individuals' risk tolerances. Third, they must navigate the disconnect between “science” and “practice,” including how to best monitor restoration projects. Fourth, they must make decisions about new techniques and innovations. Fifth, on‐the‐ground implementation must acknowledge that personnels' motives and expertise might conflict with original plans. We discuss these findings in relation to relevant scholarly research, offering implications for theory and practice. For example, the business of ecological restoration requires learning over time to be profitable while achieving the desired ecological and social outcomes; restoration businesses leverage monitoring in pursuit of adaptive management and engage “frontline personnel” as important voices in the restoration process. Understanding the business of restoration adds an important perspective in the complex dynamics of social‐ecological systems.     

区域生态安全格局研究进展

如何构建一个安全的区域生态格局,对土地可持续利用和区域生态安全有重要意义。区域生态安全格局的构建需要多学科的综合、多角度的分析和多种实现手段的结合,一般从景观格局优化、土地资源优化配置和景观恢复等途径入手,构建结构合理、功能高效、关系协调的区域生态安全模式。在分析国内外相关研究进展的基础上,对区域生态安全格局构建在数量优化、空间优化和综合优化等方法进行了总结,在此基础上提出了构建区域生态安全格局的思路：区域生态现状评价、情景预案与目标设定、区域生态安全格局设计、方案实施及其效果评价、方案调整与管理。未来区域生态安全格局研究的趋势表现为：空间优化模型的进一步改进;区域生态安全标准量化的探索;注重公众参与机制和不同组织水平利益相关者的协调。     

Evaluating Ecological Restoration Success: A Review of the Literature

Assessing the success of ecological restoration projects is critical to justify the use of restoration in natural resource management and to improve best practice. Although there are extensive discussions surrounding the characteristics that define and measure successful restoration, monitoring or evaluation of projects in practice is widely thought to have lagged behind. We conducted a literature review to determine trends in evaluations of restoration projects and identify key knowledge gaps that need to be addressed. We searched the Web of Knowledge plus two additional restoration journals not found in the database for empirical papers that assessed restoration projects post‐implementation. We quantified the extent that key attributes of success, including ecological (vegetation structure, species diversity and abundance, and ecosystem functioning) and socioeconomic, were addressed by these papers along with trends in publication and restoration characteristics. Encouragingly, we found the number of empirical evaluations has grown substantially in recent years. The increased age of restoration projects and number of papers that assessed ecological functions since previous reviews of the literature is also a positive development. Research is still heavily skewed toward United States and Australia, however, and identifying an appropriate reference site needs further investigation. Of particular concern is the dearth of papers identified in the literature search that included any measure of socioeconomic attributes. Focusing future empirical research on quantifying ecosystem services and other socioeconomic outcomes is essential for understanding the full benefits and costs of ecological restoration and to support its use in natural resource management .     

恢复生态学焦点问题

就恢复生态学的概念、近期的发展趋势与前沿命题、传统生态学理论在生态恢复过程中的应用及恢复生态学的社会性等核心问题展开论述。恢复生态学是一门年轻的学科,迄今尚无统一的定义。代表性的有3方面的学术观点。第1种强调受损的生态系统要恢复到理想的状态;第2种强调其应用生态学过程;第3种强调生态整合性恢复。笔者认为,恢复生态学是研究生态系统退化的原因、退化生态系统恢复与重建的技术与方法、过程与机理的科学。从近年的国际恢复生态学大会来看,恢复生态学研究近期主要有3个方面的发展趋势。一是强调自然恢复与社会、人文的耦合。认为恢复生态是全球性的,不只是自然的过程,应有全社会的支持,包括政治、经济和人文的介入。二是强调无论是在地域上还是在理论上都要跨越边界。有效的生态恢复实践在地域上要求多地区甚至是多国家的合作,在理论上要求多学科的交叉与耦合。三是强调以生态系统为基点,在景观尺度表达。随着环境和经济问题的全球化,生态系统和景观尺度的恢复生态学研究引起了越来越多的关注。2004年第15届国际恢复生态学大会的会议主题已定为：恢复、景观与设计。在当前研究趋势的基础上,提出了恢复生态学当前研究的6个前沿命题：恢复生态学的学科理论框架研究、恢复生态系统的功益研究、生物多样性在生态恢复中的作用研究、生态恢复对全球变化的响应研究、生态恢复立法研究和生态恢复与社会、经济的整合性研究。退化生态系统的恢复与重建是一项十分复杂的系统工程,尤其需要生态学理论的指导。多数生态学理论已被应用于恢复生态学的研究与实践。结合实例,着重阐述了生态系统演替理论在生态恢复中的应用。恢复生态与全球变化间的相互作用研究越来越多的引起了人们的关注,但多数研究仍停滞在定性研究阶段。在广东的恢复生态学研究表明,广东省从1986年至1998年,植被覆盖从26％到51％,新造林绿化的植被每年可吸收、固定广东省年排放CO2量的一半。人类社会与自然环境的协调可持续发展,不仅要求实现生态环境的可持续,同时亦要求实现人类社会与经济的可持续发展。这就要求生态系统的恢复与重建必须同时实现生态、经济与社会效率的三重优化。中国科学院华南植物研究所生态中心在中国热带、南亚热带进行的退化生态系统的恢复与重建研究历时30余年,所产生的显著的经济和社会效益,在各个实验站点均已有所反映。     

Defining ecological restoration of peatlands in Central Kalimantan,Indonesia

Indonesia declared an ambitious plan to restore its degraded and fire‐prone peatlands, which have been a source of significant greenhouse gas and haze. However, the progress has been slow and the plan cannot succeed without sustained social supports and political will. Although many previous studies argued for the need to see ecological restoration in socio‐economic contexts, empirical assessments have been lacking for how restoration is operationalized on the ground. We interviewed 47 key informants involved in four different projects in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia, and assessed their definitions, goals, and practices of peatland restoration. Most of the actors we interviewed defined peatland restoration primarily in an ecological context following the global concept of ecological restoration. However, all four restoration projects were designed without determining reference and trajectory conditions. Their intermediate goals and practices were more focused on engaging local communities and developing sustainable livelihood options than improving the ecological conditions of peatlands. To be internally consistent, peatland restoration needs to recognize a social dimension in its process, as well as in its goal. Setting clear trajectory conditions is also important to clarify achievable goals and measurable intermediate outcomes. We propose the following definition of peatland restoration: a process of assisting the recovery of degraded peatland ecosystems to achieve the appropriate trajectories defined through multi‐stakeholder collaboration within social‐ecological contexts. We hope to generate healthy debates to further refine the definition that encompasses both social and ecological dimensions to generate broader support for sustaining and expanding peatland restoration projects in Indonesia.     

Behavioural ecology at the spatial–social interface

Spatial and social behaviour are fundamental aspects of an animal's biology, and their social and spatial environments are indelibly linked through mutual causes and shared consequences. We define the ‘spatial–social interface’ as intersection of social and spatial aspects of individuals' phenotypes and environments. Behavioural variation at the spatial–social interface has implications for ecological and evolutionary processes including pathogen transmission, population dynamics, and the evolution of social systems. We link spatial and social processes through a foundation of shared theory, vocabulary, and methods. We provide examples and future directions for the integration of spatial and social behaviour and environments. We introduce key concepts and approaches that either implicitly or explicitly integrate social and spatial processes, for example, graph theory, density-dependent habitat selection, and niche specialization. Finally, we discuss how movement ecology helps link the spatial–social interface. Our review integrates social and spatial behavioural ecology and identifies testable hypotheses at the spatial–social interface.     

A Striking Profile: Soil Ecological Knowledge in Restoration Management and Science

Available evidence suggests that research in terrestrial restoration ecology has been dominated by the engineering and botanical sciences. Because restoration science is a relatively young discipline in ecology, the theoretical framework for this discipline is under development and new theoretical offerings appear regularly in the literature. In reviewing this literature, we observed an absence of in‐depth discussion of how soils, and in particular the ecology of soils, can be integrated into the developing theory of restoration science. These observations prompted us to assess the current role of soil ecological knowledge in restoration research and restoration practice. Although soils are universally regarded as critical to restoration success, and much research has included manipulations of soil variables, we found that better integration of soil ecological principles could still contribute much to the practice of ecosystem restoration. Here we offer four potential points of departure for increased dialog between restoration ecologists and soil ecologists. We hope to encourage the view that soil is a complex, heterogeneous, and vital entity and that adoption of this point of view can positively affect restoration efforts worldwide.     

The Recent Double Paradigm Shift in Restoration Ecology

The fields of ecology and ecological restoration possess an enormous potential for cross‐fertilization of ideas and information. Ecology could play a major role in informing practical restoration, whereas restoration projects, often situated in quite extreme environments, provide an excellent opportunity to test ecological theories. Efforts to base restoration on more of a scientific foundation, however, have recently started gathering momentum, following the call for such a link by Tony Bradshaw in 1987. On another level, as we gather more experience and information from restoration projects, it is becoming equally clear that often neglected socioeconomic and political aspects of restoration should not be forgotten in the overall approach to restoration. The two paradigm shifts in ecological restoration, toward more scientific foundation and better inclusion of socioeconomic limits and opportunities, locate restoration firmly in the transdisciplinary arena, with all the concomitant challenges and opportunities. In this sense, ecological restoration could be compared to the medical profession, where both a sound knowledge of science and human nature are a prerequisite for success in healing.     

The importance of long‐term social‐ecological research for the future of restoration ecology

In the face of rapid environmental and cultural change, long‐term ecological research (LTER) and social‐ecological research (LTSER) are more important than ever. LTER contributes disproportionately to ecology and policy, evidenced by the greater proportion of LTER in higher impact journals and the disproportionate representation of LTER in reports informing policymaking. Historical evidence has played a significant role in restoration projects and it will continue to guide restoration into the future, but its use is often hampered by lack of information, leading to considerable uncertainties. By facilitating the storage and retrieval of historical information, LTSER will prove valuable for future restoration.     

The challenges that spatial context present for synthesizing community ecology across scales

Accurately characterizing spatial patterns on landscapes is necessary to understand the processes that generate biodiversity, a problem that has applications in ecological theory, conservation planning, ecosystem restoration, and ecosystem management. However, the measurement of biodiversity patterns and the ecological and evolutionary processes that underlie those patterns is highly dependent on the study unit size, boundary placement, and number of observations. These issues, together known as the modifiable areal unit problem, are well known in geography. These factors limit the degree to which results from different metacommunity and macro‐ecological studies can be compared to draw new inferences, and yet these types of comparisons are widespread in community ecology. Using aquatic community datasets, we demonstrate that spatial context drives analytical results when landscapes are sub‐divided. Next, we present a framework for using resampling and neighborhood smoothing to standardize datasets to allow for inferential comparisons. We then provide examples for how addressing these issues enhances our ability to understand the processes shaping ecological communities at landscape scales and allows for informative meta‐analytical synthesis. We conclude by calling for greater recognition of issues derived from the modifiable areal unit problem in community ecology, discuss implications of the problem for interpreting the existing literature, and identify tools and approaches for future research.     

An overview of the ecology,management and conservation of Australia’s temperate woodlands

Summary Australia’s temperate woodlands are environments of cultural and ecological importance and significant repositories of Australia’s biodiversity. Despite this, they have been heavily cleared, much remaining vegetation is in poor condition and many species of plants and animals are threatened. Here, we provide a brief overview of key issues relating to the ecology, management and policy directions for temperate woodlands, by identifying and discussing ten themes. When addressing issues relating to the conservation and management of temperate woodlands, spatial scale is very important, as are the needs for a temporal perspective and a complementary understanding of pattern and process. The extent of landscape change in many woodland environments means that woodland patches, linear networks and paddock trees are critical elements, and that there can be pervasive effects from ‘problem’ native species such as the Noisy Miner (Manorina melanocephala). These consequences of landscape change highlight the challenge to undertake active management and restoration as well as effective monitoring and long‐term data collection. In developing approaches for conservation and management of temperate woodlands, it is essential to move our thinking beyond reserves to woodland conservation and management on private land, and recognise the criticality of cross‐disciplinary linkages. We conclude by identifying some emerging issues in woodland conservation and management. These include the need to further develop non‐traditional approaches to conservation particularly off‐reserve management; the value of documenting approaches and programmes that demonstrably lead to effective change; new lessons that can be learned from intact examples of temperate woodlands; and the need to recognise how climate change and human population growth will interact with conservation and management of temperate woodlands in future decades.     

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.     

Present State and Future Perspectives of Restoration Ecology—Introduction

Although the aim of and the need for ecological restoration, and restoration ecology as its scientific base, are obvious, the field is still struggling with defining its basics. This situation, reflected by the debate about alternative terms to replace “restoration,” the ambiguous self‐image as a movement, art, application, or science, and the lack of a unifying conceptual framework, results in an uncertainty about the future development of the field. In a 10‐year project, an interdisciplinary Research Training Group in Jena followed the regeneration of one degraded terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem, respectively, and suggested a conceptual model for regeneration and restoration that was derived from the shared features of the two systems. As part of the scientific discussion of this new approach, an international workshop “Present State and Future Perspectives of Restoration Ecology” was organized in Jena in November 2004. The following collection of 12 opinion papers and 1 concluding chapter reflect the discussions at the workshop and contributes to the “self‐finding” process of restoration ecology.     

山水林田湖草生态保护修复的理论支撑体系研究

山水林田湖草生态保护修复关系到我国生态文明建设和美丽中国建设进程,关系到国家生态安全和中华民族永续发展。开展山水林田湖草生态保护修复是生态文明建设的重要内容,是贯彻绿色发展理念的有力举措,也是破解当前生态环境与经济发展之间难题的必然要求。通过总结梳理当前我国山水林田湖草生态保护修复工作的进展与概况,立足于“山水林田湖草是生命共同体”的理论核心,详细阐释了山水林田湖草生态保护修复的内涵及理论体系。山水林田湖草生命共同体的基础理论是以生态系统生态学为支撑,基于流域生态学、恢复生态学和景观生态学的理论诠释山水林田湖草生命共同体的时空区域尺度及流域内部各生态系统之间的耦合机制,通过复合生态系统理论构建山水林田湖草生命共同体的社会、经济、自然生态系统的“架构”体系,明确了流域可持续发展是山水林田湖草生命共同体的最终发展目标。在构建山水林田湖草生态保护修复理论支撑体系的基础上,进一步总结凝练了山水林田湖草生态保护修复的技术体系,包括生态保护、修复与恢复技术、生态建设技术、生态功能提升技术、生态服务优化技术与监督管理技术等,为我国山水林田湖草生态保护修复工作提供坚实的理论和技术支撑体系。     

区域尺度生态修复空间辨识研究进展

区域尺度辨识生态修复空间是进行生态恢复与重建的重要前提,对区域生态文明建设和可持续发展具有重要作用。如何构建科学合理、面向政策和民众需求的生态修复空间辨识指标体系,目前已成为生态学研究的热点问题之一。系统梳理生态空间评价理论,综合构建生态修复空间辨识框架,包括评价对象的选择、评价指标筛选的原则、指标体系构建的主要方法和评价指标权重设定等方面,在区域生态评价的基础上,强调政策目标、民众需求,构建了生态质量、生态系统服务、生态系统健康3个方面18个指标,能够较全面反映区域生态空间主要特征,以期为构建区域尺度生态修复空间辨识指标体系提供参考,为生态恢复和重建提供科学依据。研究还展望了区域尺度下生态修复空间辨识的重点发展方向,即加强复合生态系统理论的应用,统筹社会、经济、自然因子开展综合评价,并推动多尺度评价结果的融合与应用。     

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.

     

基于恢复生态学的泰山地区“山水林田湖草”生态修复研究

目前大多地方生态修复工作往往是对各类生态系统分割式治理,不利于生态系统的整体修复。“山水林田湖草是生命共同体”理念要求各生态要素和生态系统之间的协同特征和有机联系,恢复生态学理论则关注受损生态系统的驱动因素、生态恢复的路径和干预措施,两者的结合能够为生态保护和修复提供坚实的理论和技术基础。基于恢复生态学理论,以泰山地区为研究对象,运用物能循环和转化的生态学原则对受损生态系统生态关键问题进行诊断,明确了“山水林田湖草”生命共同体中的各要素（子系统）在生态过程中的相互影响及相互制约关系,厘清了泰山地区矿山开采（地质受损）-植被破坏-水土流失-景观失调的生态受损与退化机制,在此基础上提出了“地貌重塑、植被重建、水体重构、景观重现”的生态恢复思路。并尝试构建包含生态风险、生态状况和生态恢复能力三重准则共13项指标的评价体系,以期通过生态恢复效果的评价与监测引导生态恢复目标的有效实现。     

The Shifting of Ecological Restoration Benchmarks and Their Social Impacts: Digging Deeper into Pleistocene Re‐wilding

Current and projected rates of species loss prompt us to look for innovative conservation efforts. One such proposal is that large areas of North America be re‐wilded with old world species that descended from Pleistocene mega‐fauna. We argue that this approach overlooks many important ecological, evolutionary, cultural, and economic issues and detracts from conservation efforts by adding another arbitrary restoration benchmark. Our objectives are to specifically address the shifting benchmark for ecological restoration, explore the social dimensions of Pleistocene re‐wilding, which have been largely overlooked, and discuss why we think Pleistocene re‐wilding is not a proactive approach for conservation. This is not intended as a critique of innovative approaches. Instead it is an argument that human and ecological factors need to be considered in depth before any restoration initiative can be practically implemented. Proactive approaches should consider historical conditions while managing based on the present, should plan for the future, and should allow adaptation to changing conditions. We support the strategy to restore ecological interactions using species that coevolved with these interactions, bearing in mind the complexities of the socio‐ecological dimensions of any management action.