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.     

The SER Standards,cultural ecosystems,and the nature‐culture nexus—a reply to Evans and Davis

Evans and Davis claim the SER Standards use a “pure naturalness” model for restoration baselines and exclude most cultural ecosystems from the ecological restoration paradigm. The SER Standards do neither. The SER Standards consider both “natural” ecosystems (that are unequivocally not cultural) and “similar” cultural ecosystems as suitable reference models. Furthermore, Evans and Davis propose assessing whether a cultural ecosystem exhibits “good, bad, or neutral impacts from humans on ecosystems” as the basis for reference models. We argue that such an approach would overlook the indispensability of native ecosystem benchmarks to measure human impacts and provide a springboard for social‐ecological restoration.     

Cultural Ecosystem Services and Popular Perceptions of the Benefits of an Ecological Restoration Project in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest

It is essential to understand how ecological restoration (ER) improves human well‐being in order to justify more investments and upscaling in this emergent field of action. As part of a 22‐year‐old, 80 ha ER project being carried out around a water reservoir that supplies drinking water to the city of Iracemápolis (population 19,700), in the mega‐diversity Atlantic Forest biome of Brazil, we assessed local community perceptions of the tangible and intangible benefits expected to arise from this project. A detailed questionnaire was completed for 292 members of the local community to gauge perceptions of benefits arising from various cultural and provisioning ecosystem services (ESs; especially safe and clean drinking water) provided by the 80 ha forest restoration project. A striking 94% of those interviewed wanted more ER projects in their community. Participants reported an appreciation for cultural ESs such as esthetic landscape improvement, tourism, recreation, as well as various religious, spiritual, and educational services. In addition, 87% of interviewees believed that the restoration project improved the quality of their drinking water, and 63% said they would agree to an increase in water tariffs if the proceeds were to be invested in more forest restoration. Judging from this study, investigation and subsequent communication of popular perceptions of the various benefits of ER projects could promote consensus‐building and support for projects among stakeholders, and inform governmental and societal investments in restoration .     

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.     

Choosing appropriate temporal and spatial scales for ecological restoration

Classic ecological restoration seems tacitly to have taken the Clementsian “balance of nature” paradigm for granted: plant succession terminates in a climax community which remains at equilibrium until exogenously disturbed after which the process of succession is restarted until the climax is reached. Human disturbance is regarded as unnatural and to have commenced in the Western Hemisphere at the time of European incursion. Classic ecological restoration thus has a clear and unambiguous target and may be conceived as aiming to foreshorten the natural processes that would eventually lead to the climax of a given site, which may be determined by its state at “settlement”. According to the new “flux of nature” paradigm in ecology a given site has notelos and is constantly changing. Human disturbance is ubiquitous and long-standing, and at certain spatial and temporal scales is “incorporated”. Any moment in the past 10,000 years that may be selected as a benchmark for restoration efforts thus appears to be arbitrary. Two prominent conservationists have therefore suggested that the ecological conditions in North America at the Pleistocene—Holocene boundary, prior to the anthropogenic extinction of the Pleistocene megafauna, be the target for ecological restoration. That suggestion explicitly assumes evolutionary temporal scales and continental spatial scales as the appropriate frame of reference for ecological restoration. However, ecological restoration should be framed in ecological spatio-temporal scales, which may be defined temporally in reference to ecological processes such as disturbance regimes and spatially in reference to ecological units such as landscapes, ecosystems, and biological provinces. Ecological spatio-temporal scales are also useful in achieving a scientifically defensible distinction between native and exotic species, which plays so central a role in the practice of ecological restoration and the conservation of biodiversity. Because post-settlement human disturbances have exceeded the limits of such scales, settlement conditions can be justified scientifically as appropriate targets of restoration efforts without recourse to obsolete teleological concepts of equilibria and without ignoring the presence and ecological influence of indigenous peoples.     

Science Driven Restoration: A Candle in a Demon Haunted World—Response to Cabin (2007)

Cabin (2007) asks whether formal science is an effective framework and methodology for designing and implementing ecological restoration programs. He argues that beyond certain ancillary benefits, restoration science has little of practical value to offer the practice of restoration. He goes on to suggest that restoration science most often represents an impediment to restoration practice because an “ivory tower” mentality limits the utility of experiments and diverts research dollars away from answering practical questions. His conclusion is that a nonscientific gardening approach may be more effective at restoring degraded ecosystems. We disagree with this perspective because: (1) restoration science has moved beyond exclusively using “square grids” placed on small patches of land to examine treatment effects on species representation; (2) Cabin’s critique greatly undervalues the contribution of science to restoration practice even where the input of restoration scientists is not directly evident; and (3) the practice of restoration is unlikely to advance beyond small‐scale and truly haphazard successes without well‐designed studies that can provide peer‐reviewed and widely accessible published information on the mechanisms underlying both successes and failures. We conclude that through integration with other disciplines, restoration science increasingly will provide novel approaches and tools needed to restore ecosystem composition, structure, and function at stand to landscape scales. As with the broader role of science in the human enterprise ( Sagan 1996 ), the contribution of restoration science to restoration practice can only grow as the discipline matures.     

典型红壤区自然生态修复的适用性

自然修复主要通过封山育林、禁止农作、禁牧禁伐措施,减少人类对环境的扰动,利用自然生态环境的自我演替能力,恢复生态环境,实现生态平衡。自然修复作为一种成本低、无污染的生态修复手段很早就受到人们重视,但关于自然修复适用范围的研究较少。为了正确认识自然修复的适用性,选择了我国南方红壤地区长期遭受严重土壤侵蚀危害的福建省长汀县为研究对象,通过对长期自然修复样地的监测资料分析,发现在坡度条件为20%—30%下,当植被覆盖度低于20%的退化阈值时,严重的土壤侵蚀引发的土壤肥力损失将导致生态系统自我退化,自然修复不仅无法改善当地的生态系统,反而会引起生态系统的进一步恶化。由此可见,自然修复并不适合所有的生态系统,当生态系统退化到一定程度时,退化生态系统必须通过人工干预来修复。因此,必须探索适合当地的生态修复模式,在生态系统退化突破阈值时,红壤丘陵区应通过恢复土壤肥力、促进自然植被覆盖度增加、综合提高生态系统健康水平。     

On Sustainability, Estuaries, and Ecosystem Restoration: The Art of the Practical

Ecosystem restoration in highly complex, human‐dominated estuaries rests on a strong conceptual foundation of sustainability, ecosystems, and adaptive management of human‐induced environmental impacts. Successful application involves evaluating uncertainty, incorporating place‐based information, and engaging diverse constituencies in the planning process. That means integration of technical knowledge with an understanding of the “cultural milieu” inherent in all estuaries, that is, the intensity of human activity and impacts plus socioeconomic factors relevant to restoration goals. Operational definitions of what constitutes acceptable ecosystem conditions and current baselines are critical yet rest in large measure on cultural values and socioeconomic considerations. Resources for long‐term monitoring and research to assess performance and ecosystem condition are paramount. Unprecedented population growth promises additional stressors on estuarine environments worldwide, making maintenance of present conditions difficult. The art of good, practical ecosystem restoration as a management tool at multiple geographic scales promises to play a crucial role in sustainability goals.     

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.     

A cultural approach to wetlands restoration to assess its public acceptance

Ecological restoration (ER) of coastal wetlands is extremely important because they provide a huge variety of ecosystem services (ES), but they are the most degraded ecosystems in the world. However, coastal wetlands are usually located in largely modified and densely populated landscapes. Hence their restoration may conflict with cultural values. Therefore, considering the cultural dimension of ER is a way of increasing public acceptance of restoration projects. In this study, we assessed the public acceptance of a restoration project in a coastal wetland of Costa Brava (Spain). We combined the ES framework with a cultural approach, which is capable of considering interdisciplinarity, introducing barely assessed services like tranquility and facilitating further integration of the human dimension in the ES framework. We administered an open‐ended questionnaire to 232 visitors and the answers were submitted to a content analysis to get a post hoc classification of services and values. Our results show that visitors undervalue environmental values, while tranquility is the most commonly stated value. Moreover, place attachment is found to be the main driver to influence the perception of the ER. The study concluded that the project enjoys a high public acceptance. However, some disengagement exists between the goals of restoration and visitors’ perceptions, and this needs to be addressed. Sharing the decision‐making power with stakeholders and informing visitors about ES that are not easily perceived could be appropriate steps to take.     

The emergence of the social‐ecological restoration concept

Many ecosystems in the world are the result of a close interaction between local people and their environment, which are currently recognized as social‐ecological systems (SoES). Natural catastrophes or long‐standing social and political turmoil can degrade these SoES to a point where human societies are no longer autonomous and their supporting ecosystems are highly degraded. Here, we focus on the special case of the restoration of SoES that we call social‐ecological restoration (SoER), which is characterized as a restoration process that cannot avoid simultaneously dealing with ecological and social issues. In practice, SoER is analogous in many ways to the general principles of ecological restoration, but it differs in three key aspects: (1) the first actions may be initially intended for human groups that need to recover minimum living standards; (2) the SoER process would often be part of a healing process for local people where cultural values of ecosystems play an essential role; and (3) there is a strong dependency on external economic inputs, as the people belonging to the SoES may be incapable of reorganizing themselves on their own and supporting ecosystems can no longer self‐recover. Although it might not be desirable or necessary to call all restoration projects with a social component an SoER, the use of this concept may help in defining early restoration targets that may prevent conflicts among users in the long term. From the perspective of other disciplines, SoER would be more appropriately perceived as programs of “social‐ecological recovery” in the long term.     

Meta-ecosystems: a theoretical framework for a spatial ecosystem ecology

This contribution proposes the meta‐ecosystem concept as a natural extension of the metapopulation and metacommunity concepts. A meta‐ecosystem is defined as a set of ecosystems connected by spatial flows of energy, materials and organisms across ecosystem boundaries. This concept provides a powerful theoretical tool to understand the emergent properties that arise from spatial coupling of local ecosystems, such as global source–sink constraints, diversity–productivity patterns, stabilization of ecosystem processes and indirect interactions at landscape or regional scales. The meta‐ecosystem perspective thereby has the potential to integrate the perspectives of community and landscape ecology, to provide novel fundamental insights into the dynamics and functioning of ecosystems from local to global scales, and to increase our ability to predict the consequences of land‐use changes on biodiversity and the provision of ecosystem services to human societies.     

Insights from a Cross‐Disciplinary Seminar: 10 Pivotal Papers for Ecological Restoration

Restoration ecology is a deepening and diversifying field with current research incorporating multiple disciplines and infusing long‐standing ideas with fresh perspectives. We present a list of 10 recent pivotal papers exemplifying new directions in ecological restoration that were selected by students in a cross‐disciplinary graduate seminar at the University of California, Berkeley. We highlight research that applies ecological theory to improve restoration practice in the context of global change (e.g. climate modeling, evaluation of novel ecosystems) and discuss remaining knowledge gaps. We also discuss papers that recognize the social context of restoration and the coupled nature of social and ecological systems, ranging from the incorporation of cultural values and Traditional Ecological Knowledge into restoration, to the consideration of the broader impacts of markets on restoration practices. In addition, we include perspectives that focus on improving communication between social and natural scientists as well as between scientists and practitioners, developing effective ecological monitoring, and applying more integrated, whole‐landscape approaches to restoration. We conclude with insights on recurrent themes in the papers regarding planning restoration in human‐modified landscapes, application of ecological theory, improvements to restoration practice, and the social contexts of restoration. We share lessons from our cross‐disciplinary endeavor, and invite further discussion on the future directions of restoration ecology through contributions to our seminar blog site http://restecology.blogspot.com .     

Understanding the key characteristics and challenges of pine barrens restoration: insights from a Delphi survey of forest land managers and researchers

Pine barrens are open‐canopy ecological communities once prevalent on sandy soils across the northern Great Lakes Region of the United States and Canada, though fire suppression and plantation forestry have now reduced them to a few isolated areas. Efforts to restore pine barrens are underway on some public lands, but lack of knowledge on the social and ecological issues and challenges that affect these projects impedes fuller progress. As a precursor to designing a public preference survey for pine barrens restoration, we sought input from those with expert knowledge about pine barrens. Using a three‐round modified Delphi survey, forest land managers and researchers identified the key characteristics of pine barrens and important current and future management challenges. Key characteristics were related to fire, landscape structure, plant and animal species, soils, and social themes. Current and future challenges were related to landscape, invasive species, social, economic, climate change, and science themes. Four social issues (education, fire acceptance, fire risk, aesthetics) were rated among the top current challenges but none of them maintained prominence as future challenges. Potential explanations for this shift are that the experts felt these social concerns would be resolved in time or that other issues, such as development pressures and budgets for carrying out restoration, would become greater future challenges. Our approach can be used by managers and researchers to better understand the ecosystems they seek to restore and to communicate with public stakeholders about restoration efforts.     

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。     

Restoring grassy ecosystems – Feasible or fiction? An inquisitive Australian's experience in the USA

Many small‐scale projects in Australia suggest that ground‐layer elements of ecosystems can be restored, but scaling up of grassland and grassy understorey restoration has not occurred to date. Paul Gibson‐Roy recently travelled through the USA, where well‐developed markets for restoration have created a large, financially viable native‐herbaceous seed production and restoration sector. Here, he shares his observations, which show how much about the USA situation can be a model and inspiration for Australian grassy ecosystem restoration.     

An Evaluation of the Short‐Term Progress of Restoration Combining Ecological Assessment and Public Perception

Ecological restoration centers on the reestablishment of ecological processes and the integrity of degraded ecosystems, but its success also depends on public acceptance and support. In this study, we evaluated the short‐term ecological effects of different restoration treatments in Iceland. Furthermore, we tested the public perception of aesthetic and recreational values of these revegetated areas. Predefined soil and vegetation indicators were measured, and a survey, based on a questionnaire and photographs of the different areas, was used for gauging public perception. Our results indicate that different restoration treatments triggered different succession trajectories. The vegetation composition of areas seeded with grasses seemed to be on a trajectory toward relatively undisturbed reference ecosystems, whereas areas seeded with nonnative lupine seemed to be developing a novel ecosystem. Results of the survey demonstrated that people valued the appearance of revegetated areas higher than that of the eroded control areas, with the exception of areas seeded with lupine. The visual perception of each restoration treatment corresponded well with the ecological factors and revealed both a social and an ecological rationale against the use of lupine in land restoration. The results indicate that the design of restoration projects should be based on both an analysis of sociocultural priorities and an understanding of possible trajectories of ecosystem development associated with the available restoration methods to avoid results that are neither socially acceptable nor ecologically feasible.     

A new era in forest restoration monitoring

Monitoring ecological restoration has been historically dependent on traditional inventory methods based on detailed information obtained from field plots. New paradigms are now needed to successfully achieve restoration as a large‐scale, long‐lasting transformative process. Fortunately, advances in technology now allow for unprecedented shifts in the way restoration has been planned, implemented, and monitored. Here, we describe our vision on how the use of new technologies by a new generation of restoration ecologists may revolutionize restoration monitoring in the coming years. The success of the many ambitious restoration programs planned for the coming decade will rely on effective monitoring, which is an essential component of adaptive management and accountability. The development of new remote sensing approaches and their application to a restoration context open new avenues for expanding our capacity to assess restoration performance over unprecedented spatial and temporal scales. A new generation of scientists, which have a background in remote sensing but are getting more and more involved with restoration, will certainly play a key role for making large‐scale restoration monitoring a viable human endeavor in the coming decade—the United Nations' decade on ecosystem restoration.     

海草场生态系统及其修复研究进展

海草场能够提供重要的生态系统服务。自20世纪末以来,由于人类活动和自然灾害的影响,全球范围内的海草场出现了急剧衰退,由此也促进了海草场生态系统的研究以及海草场人工修复技术的发展。近年来,针对海草场生境流失的现状,中国也开始开展海草场修复工作。从以下方面进行论述:(1)海草的种类、分布,海草场生态系统功能及其生态系统服务:与陆地系统相比,全球海草物种多样性较低,了解海草的分布特征有助于通过了解海草如何适应当地环境压力,以揭示海草适应环境的能力;海草场提供重要而广泛的自然生态系统服务,特别是在维护近岸生态系统健康和满足人类需求过程中起到重要的作用;(2)海草场的衰退及其原因:认识并缓解人类压力对海草场的危害是促进海草场生态系统可持续发展的重要一环;(3)国内外海草场修复现状:以此阐明海草场修复原理,为海草场修复提供科学的方法;(4)总结与讨论:基于科学研究背景,为中国海草场生态系统保护和修复提出建议。海草场的修复和保护应当相辅相成,并与我国海岸长远规划相结合,以此推动我国海草场生态系统服务的可持续发展。     

Recovery of mammal diversity in tropical forests: a functional approach to measuring restoration

Ecological restoration is increasingly applied in tropical forests to mitigate biodiversity loss and recover ecosystem functions. In restoration ecology, functional richness, rather than species richness, often determines community assembly, and measures of functional diversity provide a mechanistic link between diversity and ecological functioning of restored habitat. Vertebrate animals are important for ecosystem functioning. Here, we examine the functional diversity of small‐to‐medium sized mammals to evaluate the diversity and functional recovery of tropical rainforest. We assess how mammal species diversity and composition and functional diversity and composition, vary along a restoration chronosequence from degraded pasture to “old‐growth” tropical rainforest in the Wet Tropics of Australia. Species richness, diversity, evenness, and abundance did not vary, but total mammal biomass and mean species body mass increased with restoration age. Species composition in restoration forests converged on the composition of old‐growth rainforest and diverged from pasture with increasing restoration age. Functional metrics provided a clearer pattern of recovery than traditional species metrics, with most functional metrics significantly increasing with restoration age when taxonomic‐based metrics did not. Functional evenness and dispersion increased significantly with restoration age, suggesting that niche complementarity enhances species' abundances in restored sites. The change in community composition represented a functional shift from invasive, herbivorous, terrestrial habitat generalists and open environment specialists in pasture and young restoration sites, to predominantly endemic, folivorous, arboreal, and fossorial forest species in older restoration sites. This shift has positive implications for conservation and demonstrates the potential of tropical forest restoration to recover rainforest‐like, diverse faunal communities.