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.     

Formalizing the definition of meta‐analysis in Molecular Ecology

Meta‐analysis, the statistical synthesis of pertinent literature to develop evidence‐based conclusions, is relatively new to the field of molecular ecology, with the first meta‐analysis published in the journal Molecular Ecology in 2003 (Slate & Phua 2003). The goal of this article is to formalize the definition of meta‐analysis for the authors, editors, reviewers and readers of Molecular Ecology by completing a review of the meta‐analyses previously published in this journal. We also provide a brief overview of the many components required for meta‐analysis with a more specific discussion of the issues related to the field of molecular ecology, including the use and statistical considerations of Wright's F_ST and its related analogues as effect sizes in meta‐analysis. We performed a literature review to identify articles published as ‘meta‐analyses’ in Molecular Ecology, which were then evaluated by at least two reviewers. We specifically targeted Molecular Ecology publications because as a flagship journal in this field, meta‐analyses published in Molecular Ecology have the potential to set the standard for meta‐analyses in other journals. We found that while many of these reviewed articles were strong meta‐analyses, others failed to follow standard meta‐analytical techniques. One of these unsatisfactory meta‐analyses was in fact a secondary analysis. Other studies attempted meta‐analyses but lacked the fundamental statistics that are considered necessary for an effective and powerful meta‐analysis. By drawing attention to the inconsistency of studies labelled as meta‐analyses, we emphasize the importance of understanding the components of traditional meta‐analyses to fully embrace the strengths of quantitative data synthesis in the field of molecular ecology.     

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.     

Restoring freshwater ecosystems in riverine landscapes: the roles of connectivity and recovery processes

1. This paper introduces key messages from a number of papers emanating from the Second International Symposium on Riverine Landscapes held in August 2004 in Sweden, focusing on river restoration. Together these papers provide an overview of the science of river restoration, and point out future research needs. 2. Restoration tests the feasibility of recreating complex ecosystems from more simple and degraded states, thereby presenting a major challenge to ecological science. Therefore, close cooperation between practitioners and scientists would be beneficial, but most river restoration projects are currently performed with little or no scientific involvement. 3. Key messages emanating from this series of papers are: The scope, i.e. the maximum and minimum spatial extent and temporal duration of habitat use, of species targeted for restoration should be acknowledged, so that all relevant stages in their life cycles are considered. Species that have been lost from a stream cannot be assumed to recolonise spontaneously, calling for strategies to ensure the return of target species to be integrated into projects. Possible effects of invasive exotic species also need to be incorporated into project plans, either to minimise the impact of exotics, or to modify the expected outcome of restoration in cases where extirpation of exotics is impractical. 4. Restoration of important ecological processes often implies improving connectivity of the stream. For example, longitudinal and lateral connectivity can be enhanced by restoring fluvial dynamics on flood‐suppressed rivers and by increasing water availability in rivers subject to water diversion or withdrawal, thereby increasing habitat and species diversity. Restoring links between surface and ground water flow enhances vertical connectivity and communities associated with the hyporheic zone. 5. Future restoration schemes should consider where in the catchment to locate projects to make restoration most effective, consider the cumulative effects of many small projects, and evaluate the potential to restore ecosystem processes under highly constrained conditions such as in urban areas. Moreover, restoration projects should be properly monitored to assess whether restoration has been successful, thus enabling adaptive management and learning for the future from both successful and unsuccessful restorations.     

River Restoration in the Twenty-First Century: Data and Experiential Knowledge to Inform Future Efforts

Despite some highly visible projects that have resulted in environmental benefits, recent efforts to quantify the number and distribution of river restoration projects revealed a paucity of written records documenting restoration outcomes. Improving restoration designs and setting watershed priorities rely on collecting and making accessible this critical information. Information within the unpublished notes of restoration project managers is useful but rarely documents ecological improvements. This special section of Restoration Ecology is devoted to the current state of knowledge on river restoration. We provide an overview of the section’s articles, reflecting on lessons learned, which have implications for the implementation, legal, and financing frameworks for restoration. Our reflections are informed by two databases developed under the auspices of the National River Restoration Science Synthesis project and by extensive interactions with those who fund, implement, and permit restoration. Requiring measurable ecological success criteria, comprehensive watershed plans, and tracking of when and where restoration projects are implemented are critical to improving the health of U.S. waters. Documenting that a project was put in the ground and stayed intact cannot be equated with ecological improvements. However, because significant ecological improvements can come with well‐designed and ‐implemented stream and river restorations, a small investment in documenting the factors contributing to success will lead to very large returns in the health of our nation’s waterways. Even projects that may appear to be failures initially can be turned into success stories by applying the knowledge gained from monitoring the project in an adaptive restoration approach.     

Symposium report: Inaugural Australian Coastal Restoration Symposium

Summary

Globally, coastal habitat restoration is growing in recognition as a viable management tool to repair and reinstate valuable coastal habitats and species, such as mangrove and macroalgae forests, salt marshes, seagrass meadows, shellfish and coral reefs (Aronson & Alexander ( 2013 ), Restoration Ecology, 293; Anthony et al. ( 2017 ) Nature Ecology and Evolution, 1420; TNC ( 2017 ) Caribbean: A revolution to save coral reefs in the Caribbean and beyond). In Australia, there is increasing interest and investment in coastal restoration and habitat conservation, particularly with respect to growing national concerns around habitat loss, coastal inundation and erosion, loss of fisheries and climate change (Maggini et al. ( 2013 ) Protecting and restoring habitat to help Australia's threatened species adapt to climate change; GBRMPA ( 2017 ) Reef summit sets new course of action for the Great Barrier Reef). This has led to new community of practices being formed for shellfish reef restoration (Shellfish Reef Restoration Network shellfishrestoration.org.au), seagrass restoration (Seagrass Restoration Network seagrassrestoration.net), and saltmarsh and mangrove (Saltmarsh and Mangrove Network, amsn.net.au) conservation. However, despite this interest, there has been no national coordination, network or society with coastal restoration as a primary focus. The inaugural Australian Coastal Restoration Symposium brought together 60 Australian restoration practitioners, researchers and managers at James Cook University, Townsville for three days from the 31st of August 2017. The symposium goals were to enhance collaboration and national coordination amongst coastal restoration projects and practitioners, as well as to connect researchers and practitioners working in the restoration space with one another. Three international keynote speakers shared their experiences and advice. Delegates were enthusiastic about continuing to meet at future symposiu, meetings and workshops, and noted the value of being able to connect, share project experiences and learnings, and collaborate. The Australian Coastal Restoration Network has been formed with the goal of meeting annually to continue to share knowledge and improve collaboration. View a video about the symposium by following this link – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lukSpo3mM-4     

Plant phenological research enhances ecological restoration

While phenology data (the timing of recurring biological events) has been used to explain and predict patterns related to global change, and to address applied environmental issues, it has not been clearly identified as pertinent for restoration. This opinion article thus aims to raise awareness of the potential of phenology to enhance the quality of restoration projects and ecological restoration theory. We based our analysis on a systematic literature survey carried out in February 2014, searching the words “phenology” or “phenological” in books dealing with restoration, the term “phenolog*” in the journal Restoration Ecology, and the terms “restoration” and “phenolog*” in the database Web of Science until February 2014. We finally selected 149 studies relevant to our goals, and first classified them according to the context in which phenology was addressed. We then analyzed them within the framework of the five key steps of restoration projects: (1) the reference ecosystem; (2) biotic resources; (3) restoration methods; (4) monitoring; and (5) adaptive management. The literature survey showed that phenological information improved decision‐making in the few restoration projects in which it was incorporated. We thus advocate taking phenological data into account at all stages of restoration when appropriate: from the acquisition of baseline data on the reference ecosystem to treatment design, and from restoration action planning and timing to monitoring. Phenological data should at minimum be collected for sown, keystone, dominant, and/or rare species to improve restoration quality. Phenology studies and monitoring should be promoted in future restoration guidelines.     

Who does all the research in conservation biology?

Much of the worlds biodiversity is located within countries with developing economies. We therefore examine how well developing nations and their scientists are represented in three international conservation biology journals (Conservation Biology, Biological Conservation, Biodiversity and Conservation). We found: (1) that 28% of studies were from lower income countries and only 15% of all papers had primary authors from these nations. Of papers from lower income countries, although 80% had at least one local author, only 47% had primary authors from the country where the study was conducted. (2) Lower income countries had more research with a strong applied focus compared to research from high-income countries. (3) In lower income countries research was often funded by international sources but the primary authors of these studies were from affluent nations. (4) The three journals differed in how well they represented lower income nations and their scientists, reflecting their editorial policies for including research from lower income nations. The main reason for the large discrepancy in a countrys output of conservation research is due to the difference in a nations ability to invest in science. However, a brief survey of authors suggests that there is a large amount of information available in lower income and non-English speaking countries that is not easily accessible to the international conservation community. Journals may therefore need to consider altering their policies if we are to improve the representation of research by scientists in lower income nations.     

Contingent Conclusions: Year of Initiation Influences Ecological Field Experiments,but Temporal Replication is Rare

Interannual variation in experimental field conditions produce variability in the results of experiments monitored over multiple years, termed here “year effects.” When experimental treatments are replicated in separate years, interannual variation may influence treatment effects and produce significant treatment by initiation‐year interactions. Understanding the frequency and strength of these effects requires initiating identical experiments across years. We conducted a review of literature covering more than 500 experimental articles published in 7 journals between 1966 and 2008. Only 5% of the 276 general ecological field studies initiated experiments in multiple years. This rarity was even more evident in the journal Restoration Ecology, in which none of the 173 surveyed experimental studies initiated experiments in multiple years. In contrast, 48% of the 58 field experiments published in an agronomy journal were replicated across years. We found only 17 studies that tested treatment by initiation‐year interactions. Despite their rarity, 76% of these studies found significant interactions between treatment and initiation year. We conclude that the results of many ecological field experiments are likely to be contingent on the year in which they are implemented. We discuss the importance of treatment by initiation‐year interactions in ecology and restoration, factors that have hindered the inclusion of temporal replication in the past, and some suggestions for the appropriate design and analysis of temporally replicated experiments. We argue for more deliberate investigation of temporal contingency in ecological experimentation, especially in the field of restoration ecology, which may be particularly sensitive to treatment by initiation‐year interactions.     

What's History Got to Do with It? A Response to Seddon's Definition of Reintroduction

A recent article in Restoration Ecology by Philip Seddon aims at unraveling the definitions of various types of species translocations—from reintroductions to assisted colonization—and points out the slippery slope of misused words. I argue here that defining reintroduction is not as straightforward as Seddon presents it. Commonly used definitions of what constitutes a reintroduction all include some reference to “historical” conditions, but what exactly that encompasses is left open. I examine two parts of the reintroduction confusion: first, how the guidance documents and laws define reintroduction and second, how these definitions might be interpreted when reintroductions are presented in public forums. Rather than moving away from reintroductions toward interventions of other names, I encourage scientists to use a broad definition of reintroduction presented by the IUCN to open up reintroduction as a viable label for bringing a species back to an area regardless of when it was previously there or why it became extinct.     

Variation in Growth Rates under Saline Conditions of Pascopyrum smithii (Western Wheatgrass) and Distichlis spicata (Inland Saltgrass) from Different Source Populations in Kansas and Nebraska: Implications for the Restoration of Salt-Affected Plant Communities

Soil salinization resulting from agricultural and oil‐ and gas‐production activities can impact habitats of native flora and fauna and reduce production on agricultural lands. Restoration of saline areas with salt‐tolerant vegetation may alleviate impacts. However, differences in how the growth rate under saline conditions varies between species and source populations must first be evaluated before recommending species for restoration. Plant material of Western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii) and Inland saltgrass (Distichlis spicata) collected from Cheyenne Bottoms Preserve, Kansas and Little Salt Fork Marsh, Nebraska was propagated to evaluate variation in growth rates between these species under saline conditions and determine if differences exist between populations within these species. Ten transplants of each species from each location were grown in sand culture in a greenhouse for 51 days and watered with one of five different saltwater solutions (0.86 dS/m, 9.85 dS/m, 17.85 dS/m, 32.5 dS/m, and 57.7 dS/m). Results indicate that P. smithii grew faster than D. spicata at all comparable salinity levels. Only D. spicata exhibited significant differences in growth rate under saline conditions between populations. Results suggest that P. smithii is equivalent to D. spicata in salt tolerance and should be regarded as an appropriate halophyte for restoration of salt‐affected plant environments. Results for D. spicata suggest that differences between source populations should be considered when evaluating plant material for plant community restoration.     

How Fast Can Carbon Be Sequestered When Restoring Degraded Subtropical Thicket?

Is the maximum rate of carbon sequestration reported for the CAM‐C₃ plant Portulacaria afra (spekboom), viz. 15.4 t CO₂ ha^?1 yr^?1, unusual in comparison with other plants with similar physioliogies, or could such rates be expected routinely in restoration with P. afra? Private sector investors in thicket restoration need an answer to this question in order to assess the feasibility of using carbon finance as the main income stream from their investments. A literature review showed that 15.4 t CO₂ ha^?1 yr^?1 is not an unusual rate of carbon sequestration for CAM plants in arid and semi‐arid environments, which suggests that investors in thicket restoration should not consider this an outlier value. The results also suggest that carbon finance could be used to fund restoration using other CAM plants in degraded xeric thickets in countries such as Argentina, Chile, Mexico, and Madagascar.     

Mini-review: effect sizes and meta-analysis for antifouling research

Abstract

It is widely recognised that findings from experimental studies should be replicated before their conclusions are accepted as definitive. In many research areas, synthesis of results from multiple studies is carried out via systematic review and meta-analysis. Some fields are also moving away from null hypothesis significance testing, which uses p values to identify ‘significant’ effects, towards an estimation approach concerned with effect sizes and confidence intervals. This review argues that these techniques are underused in biofouling and antifouling (AF) research and discusses potential benefits of their adoption. They enable comparison of test surfaces even when these are not tested simultaneously, and allow results from repeated tests on the same surfaces to be combined. They also enable the use of published data to explore effects of different variables on the functioning of AF surfaces. AF researchers should consider using these approaches and reporting results in ways that facilitate future research syntheses.     

Recovering Riparian Plant Communities with Wolves in Northern Yellowstone,U.S.A.

Gray wolves (Canis lupus) were extirpated from Yellowstone National Park in the 1920s. The ensuing seven decades marked a period when wild ungulates, principally Elk (Cervus elaphus), extensively used woody browse species in the upper Gallatin and northern winter ranges, thus limiting the capability of establishing plants to grow more than 100 cm in height. Following the reintroduction of wolves in the mid‐1990s, we evaluated patterns of woody browse species recovery within riparian areas of these winter ranges. Measurements indicated that cottonwood (Populus spp.) recruitment (growth of seedlings/sprouts into tall saplings and trees) was occurring for the first time in several decades. A spatially patchy increase in the heights of young willow (Salix sp.) and cottonwood in the upper Gallatin and northern winter ranges, respectively, was also found within riparian transects comprising nearly 20 km in total length. Within some transects, heights of woody species have begun to exceed 200 cm (the approximate upper browse level of Elk). Results are consistent with the reestablishment of a tri‐level trophic cascade involving wolves, ungulates, and riparian vegetation. We additionally present conceptual models of vegetation recovery, illustrating differences in plant height responses to behaviorally and density‐mediated trophic cascades. Northern Yellowstone’s “experiment in time,” whereby wolves were removed and then reintroduced, provides new insights regarding how top predators can influence the structure and biodiversity of terrestrial ecosystems. Restoration ecologists and policymakers should consider the potential benefits of large predators as an option for helping restore degraded ecosystems.     

When gender matters: new insights into the relationships between social systems and the genetic structure of human populations

Due to its important effects on the ecological dynamics and the genetic structure of species, biologists have long been interested in gender‐biased dispersal, a condition where one gender is more prone to move from the natal site. More recently, this topic has attracted a great attention from human evolutionary geneticists. Considering the close relations between residential rules and social structure, gender‐biased dispersal is, in fact, regarded as an important case study concerning the effects of socio‐cultural factors on human genetic variation. It all started with the seminal paper by Mark Seielstad, Erich Minch and Luigi Luca Cavalli Sforza from Stanford University (Seielstad et al. 1998). They observed a larger differentiation for Y‐chromosome than mitochondrial DNA between extant human populations, purportedly a consequence of the prevalence of long‐term patrilocality in human societies. Subsequent studies, however, have highlighted the need to consider geographically close and culturally homogeneous groups, disentangle signals due to different peopling events and obtain unbiased estimates of genetic diversity. In this issue of Molecular Ecology, not only do Marks et al. (2012) adopt an experimental design which addresses these concerns, but they also take a further and important step forward by integrating the genetic analysis of two distant populations, the Basotho and Spanish, with data regarding migration rates and matrimonial distances. Using both empirical evidence and simulations, the authors show that female‐biased migration due to patrilocality might shape the genetic structure of human populations only at short ranges and under substantial differences in migration rates between genders. Providing a quantitative framework for future studies of the effects of residential rules on the human genome, this study paves the way for further developments in the field. On a wider perspective, Marks et al.'s work demonstrates the power of approaches which integrate biological, cultural and demographic lines of evidence in the study of relations between social and genetic structures of human populations.     

Effect of a Dummy Audience on Male–Male Interactions in Siamese Fighting Fish, Betta splendens

Recent research on Siamese fighting fish, Betta splendens, and other taxa has demonstrated that an audience can cause males to alter their behavior in aggressive interactions. One factor not taken into account in these studies is how exactly the audience influences these interactions. It is possible that a live audience may interact with the subjects, creating an active communication network rather than a signaler–receiver dyad with a passive audience. Here, we used a dummy audience to control for information exchange between the audience and the interactants that might cause them to modify their behavior. Audience treatments included dummies of male and female B. splendens, a dummy cichlid, and a control condition with no audience present. The presence of a dummy audience did not influence male–male interactions. However, males spent the most time near the audience tank when the audience was a dummy of a B. splendens. This suggests that some factor other than the physical presence of the audience is responsible for the modification of behavior found in previous audience effect studies in Siamese fighting fish. However, we cannot rule out definitively that our dummy audience is viewed as unimportant by the opponents and, thus, ignored. Further research is necessary to determine which component of the audience is important for producing audience effects.     

植被恢复对干热河谷退化土壤改良的影响

土地退化和土壤恶化是我国干热河谷主要环境问题。树种筛选及树种与土壤关键限制因子间的相互作用是生态恢复的基础和前提。对比研究了干热河谷地区植被恢复22年间不同时期(1991、1997、2005和2013年)5种人工林(新银合欢Leucaena leucocephala,苏门答腊金合欢Albizia kalkora,大叶相思Acacia auriculiformis,印楝Azadirachta indica和赤桉Eucalyptus camaldulensis)和1种自然恢复样地中土壤主要物理、化学和微生物性质。结果表明植被恢复处理和取样时间对土壤性质有显著影响。在22a的植被恢复期内,土壤物理性质提高幅度为3.0%—20.2%,远不及土壤微生物和化学性质。通过自然恢复机制改良的退化土壤,其改良率(63.6%)高于印楝(54.9%)、苏门答腊金合欢(54.3%)和赤桉(53.2%)人工林,但改良率不及新银合欢(68.2%)和大叶相思(67.3%)人工林。研究得出造林树种类型决定干热河谷土壤改良进程。与自然恢复相比,人工植被恢复(如造林)并不一定能加速退化土壤改良。新银合欢和大叶相思适合作为改良干热河谷退化土壤的先锋树种,而生态系统自然恢复也可作为改良干热河谷退化土壤的一种适宜方式。     

Restoration of lowland streams: an introduction*

• 1 This paper introduces the Lowland Streams Restoration Workshop that was held in Lund, Sweden in August 1991.
• 2 Attenders at the Workshop participated in working groups which discussed and reported on the state of knowledge of stream restoration and identified critical areas of information need. Currently, most restoration efforts are emission-orientated (i.e. waste-water management), while the imitation of the geomorphology or of the riparian vegetation of a quasi-natural or natural reference channel receives less attention.
• 3 Successful stream restoration requires a multidisciplinary approach within a holistic system framework. Monitoring the outcome of past, existing and future steam-restoration projects is required for information on the feasibility of alternative techniques and approaches.
• 4 It was recommended that systems in pristine condition serve as a point of reference and not as a goal for most stream restoration projects. Restoration goals must be carefully defined so that everyone at every level understands the aim of the project. At the very least, all restoration programmes should consider geomorphic, hydrological, biological, aesthetic, and water quality aspects of the system.
• 5 Restoration programmes should aim to create a system with a stable channel, or a channel in dynamic equilibrium that supports a self-sustaining and functionally diverse community assemblage; it should not concentrate on one species or group, except at the local level. Preserving the terrestrial -aquatic interface by setting aside riparian land corridors is critical to all stages of restoration. Additional information on the temporal and regional variability in important system processes and functions is needed.

     

Soil inoculation of lodgepole pine seedlings alters root-associated fungal communities but does not improve seedling performance in beetle-killed pine stands

Extensive tree mortality in forests can change the community composition of soil fungi altering seedling establishment, a process critical to forest restoration. Disturbances that result in the loss of ectomycorrhizal fungi, in particular, may impede the establishment of tree species reliant on these symbionts for their survival. Inoculation of seedlings with soil from intact forests may improve the establishment of seedlings in such disturbances but the method has rarely been tested in the field. Here, we assess whether soil inoculation improves lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta var. latifolia) seedling performance in conspecific stands with high levels of tree mortality caused by a mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) outbreak and whether underlying soil type modifies inoculation effects. We first inoculated seedlings in a growth chamber with small amounts of soils (5% volume) originating from either intact (<10%) or “beetle-killed” (>70% pine basal area killed) conspecific stands or added no soil inoculum and, after 4 months, transplanted them into 15 beetle-killed stands. After two growing seasons, root-associated fungal communities of seedlings receiving inoculum from intact stands differed in composition from those receiving inoculum from beetle-killed stands or no inoculum. However, inoculation had no effect on seedling survival, height, or biomass. Site properties, including soil texture and the resident fungal community composition, overwhelmed the effect of soil inoculation on seedling performance. Seedling survival and shoot mass was higher in sandy than loamy soils. Restoration to improve seedling performance in beetle-killed stands should consider stand-level treatments as soil inoculation at the level evaluated was ineffective.