The Two-Culture Problem: Ecological Restoration and the Integration of Knowledge

The terms “ecological restoration” and “restoration ecology” are frequently interchanged. Restoration ecology is the suite of scientific practices that constitute an emergent subdiscipline of ecology. Ecological restoration is the ensemble of practices that constitute the entire field of restoration, including restoration ecology as well as the participating human and natural sciences, politics, technologies, economic factors, and cultural dimensions. This paper is motivated by the concern that the broader practice of restoration may become narrowed over the next decade as a result of zealous attention to scientific and technological considerations, and that restoration ecology will trump ecological restoration. Scientific and technological acumen is necessary for successful restoration, but insufficient. Maintaining a broader approach to restoration requires respect for other kinds of knowledge than science, and especially the recognition of a moral center that is beyond the scope of science to address fully. An example of integrated restoration is presented: the ecological and cultural restoration of Discovery Island (near Victoria, British Columbia, Canada) by the Lekwungen people (Songhees First Nation).     

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.     

Policy Language in Restoration Ecology

Relating restoration ecology to policy is one of the aims of the Society for Ecological Restoration and its journal Restoration Ecology. As an interdisciplinary team of researchers in both ecological science and political science, we have struggled with how policy‐relevant language is and could be deployed in restoration ecology. Using language in scientific publications that resonates with overarching policy questions may facilitate linkages between researcher investigations and decision‐makers' concerns on all levels. Climate change is the most important environmental problem of our time and to provide policymakers with new relevant knowledge on this problem is of outmost importance. To determine whether or not policy‐specific language was being included in restoration ecology science, we surveyed the field of restoration ecology from 2008 to 2010, identifying 1,029 articles, which we further examined for the inclusion of climate change as a key element of the research. We found that of the 58 articles with “climate change” or “global warming” in the abstract, only 3 identified specific policies relevant to the research results. We believe that restoration ecologists are failing to include themselves in policy formation and implementation of issues such as climate change within journals focused on restoration ecology. We suggest that more explicit reference to policies and terminology recognizable to policymakers might enhance the impact of restoration ecology on decision‐making processes.     

Fresh perspectives for classic forest restoration challenges

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

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.     

Rays of Hope from the Ecological Restoration Alliance of Botanic Gardens,following its recent meeting in Amman,Jordan

In the spring of 2015, the Ecological Restoration Alliance (ERA) of Botanic Gardens held its fourth international meeting in Amman, Jordan, hosted by the Royal Botanic Garden of Jordan. Three regional working groups were launched, for the Middle East, East Africa, and Latin America, and new partnerships were forged to support ecological restoration initiatives led by botanic gardens in Jordan, Oman, and elsewhere. A one‐day public symposium, attended by over 100 people, was also held—the most significant public meeting on ecological restoration held to date in the Middle East. A communications strategy for regional outreach was agreed upon starting with the translation of several Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) foundation documents into Arabic. A peer‐reviewed translation of the SER International Primer on Ecological Restoration has already been produced by staff of the Royal Botanic Garden of Jordan and posted on the SER website. Further efforts will be made to promote public awareness in Jordan and regionally, in support of existing conservation and restoration programs, and to promote greater integration of ecological restoration programs in national and regional development schemes and government policies. Key action points were agreed upon to promote the practice of ecological restoration and the role of botanic gardens globally vis‐à‐vis policy makers and funders.     

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。     

An Assessment of Introductory Restoration Courses in the United States and Canada

A considerable number of institutions offer courses in restoration ecology and its application, ecological restoration. We quantified the scope and structure of introductory restoration courses at 67 post‐secondary institutions by reviewing institutional course catalogs and course syllabi. Most courses were available at Research‐level institutions. More than half of the courses were offered within departments that focused on natural resource management, and were required or optional in a degree program. Most courses were taught in classroom settings during the academic year and were geared toward advanced students. Course titles suggested an emphasis on the science of restoration ecology over the practice of ecological restoration, and learning objectives focused primarily on concepts and less on skills and attitudes. Assessment was largely via conventional methods, notably exams. Many courses assigned readings from the primary literature; there was little consensus in terms of text selection. We conclude that restoration is being presented to students as an advanced undertaking and in largely theoretical terms. Although we were unable to consider other important elements such as thematic content, class size, or pedagogical method, our study provides a baseline assessment of introductory restoration courses that can be used to evaluate changes in restoration education or opportunities for restoration education in other countries. These results can inform the development of new introductory restoration courses, and raise important considerations in light of the development of a Practitioners' Certification Program by the Society for Ecological Restoration.     

Some Remarks on the Socio-Cultural Background of Restoration Ecology

Restoration ecology plays an important role in nature conservation policy in Europe today. It establishes the scientific basis for restoring ecosystems altered or destroyed by man to a more “natural” state. The goals of restoration ecology can generally be described in terms of increased biodiversity, enhanced water retention capacity, avoidance of soil erosion, etc. In practice, however, a discrepancy exists between the high ideals of restoration goals and reality, where one often encounters limiting factors. These limiting factors can include the conflict between different restoration goals, the unpredictability of restoration goals owing to long‐term effects and stochastic events, the insufficient social acceptance of landscape changes during restoration processes, and the use of restoration processes themselves (e.g., undisturbed succession, certain management measures like impoverishment of fertilized areas) as restoration goals in place of a certain resource quality (such as species composition, population sizes, water quality). Two examples from southern Germany show that restoration goals in European cultural landscapes can only be implemented successfully when they are integrated into the respective land use systems.     

黄土高原水土流失综合治理技术及示范

黄土高原是我国水土流失严重和生态环境极为脆弱的地区,也是我国"两屏三带"生态安全战略格局的重要组成部分。研发及集成相关技术,建立试验示范样板,为该区生态修复与产业发展提供技术支撑成为亟待解决的重要问题。"黄土高原水土流失综合治理技术及示范"项目(2016YFC0501700)属于国家重点研发计划"典型脆弱生态修复与保护研究"专项。该项目通过6个类型区水土流失治理相关技术的研究及区域尺度上的集成研发,阐明黄土高原脆弱区域生态持续恢复与生态安全中的主要学科发展及相关技术问题。     

Local Community Perceptions of Mine Site Restoration Using Phytoremediation in Abitibi-Temiscamingue (Quebec)

This work explores factors supporting people perception about mine site restoration and phytoremediation. Phytoremediation is one of the most eco-friendly restoration strategy emerged since the last two decades but studies on local people perception on this restoration strategy are scarce. To fill in this gap, data were collected from mining stakeholders using a structured questionnaire administered through snowball sampling method. We used Multiple Correspondence Analysis as implemented in the software XLSTAT to visualize relationship between participants’ characteristics, their view on mine site restoration and phytoremediation. Results clearly show out that people perception on mine site restoration is influenced by mining activities effects on health and region attractiveness. Phytoremediation (65.21%) was rated positively with regard to its environment potential, aesthetic and consideration for future generation followed by fillings and excavating. Restoration strategy costs have no effect on people choice and participants prefer use of shrubs as vegetation component of phytoremediation to reach their restoration objective.     

Primed for Change: Developing Ecological Restoration for the 21st Century

Restoration is a young and swiftly developing field. It has been almost a decade since the inception of one of the field's foundational documents—the Society for Ecological Restoration International Primer on Ecological Restoration (Primer). Through a series of organized discussions, we assessed the Primer for its currency and relevance in the modern field of ecological restoration. We focused our assessment on the section entitled “The Nine Attributes of a Restored Ecosystem” and grouped each of the attributes into one of four categories: species composition, ecosystem function, ecosystem stability, and landscape context. We found that in the decade since the document's inception, the concepts, methods, goals, and thinking of ecological restoration have shifted significantly. We discuss each of the four categories in this light with the aim of offering comments and suggestions on options for updating the Primer. We also include a fifth category that we believe is increasingly acknowledged in ecological restoration: the human element. The Primer is an important document guiding the practice of restoration. We hope that this critical assessment contributes to its ongoing development and relevance and more generally to the development of restoration ecology, particularly in our current era of rapid environmental change.     

Do We Practice What We Preach? Goal Setting for Ecological Restoration

Over the last decade, several research and opinion pieces have challenged the tenets of restoration ecology but a lack of centralized data has impeded assessment of how scientific developments relate to on‐the‐ground restoration. In response, the Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) launched the Global Restoration Network (GRN) to catalog worldwide restoration efforts. We reviewed over 200 GRN projects to identify the goals governing restoration and the frequency with which they are measured. We used the SER Primer on Ecological Restoration to frame our analysis, categorizing goals by SER's attributes of restored ecosystems. We developed additional attributes to characterize goals not encompassed by the SER‐defined attributes. Nearly all projects included goals related to ecosystem form, namely similarity to reference conditions and the presence of indigenous species, and these goals were frequently measured. Most projects included goals related to ecosystem function, and many highlighted interactions between abiotic and biotic factors by either modifying abiotic conditions to support focal species or manipulating species to achieve desired ecosystem functions. Few projects had goals related to ecosystem stability, whereas the majority of projects had goals related to social values. Although less frequently measured, social goals were described as important for long‐term project success. In conclusion, science and practice frequently aligned on goals related to ecosystem composition and function, but scientific guidelines on resilience and self‐sustainability appear insufficient to guide practice. In contrast, the common inclusion of goals for human well‐being indicates that, if intended to advise practice, restoration guidelines should give direction on social goals.     

A modest proposal for restoration ecology

Restoration ecology struggles to mitigate human‐caused ecological damage. Non‐native species are a particular challenge. This article describes two restoration attempts following introduced species in California and then makes a radical culling proposal. Environmental regulations, legal protections, and restoration projects are necessary to preserve ecosystem services, but such policies are often unpopular. Restorers often struggle when public opinion opposes evidence‐based practice, and this occurs particularly when the interventions involve killing mammals. Therefore, restoration efforts may benefit from more attention to how individuals perceive the acceptability of environmental policies and how to communicate policy options effectively for individuals to make informed decisions. Restoration ecology can follow the recent shift of medicine away from imperatives and toward informed patient choice. Restoration projects may benefit from recent advances in psychology and communication that help individuals make policy decisions that align with their personal values.     

The power of data synthesis to shape the future of the restoration community and capacity

Restoration efforts will be taking place over the next decade(s) in the largest scope and capacity ever seen. Immense commitments, goals, and budgets are set, with impactful wide‐reaching potential benefits for people and the environment. These are ambitious aims for a relatively new branch of science and practice. It is time for restoration action to scale up, the legacy of which could impact over 350 million hectares targeted for the U.N. Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. However, restoration still proceeds on a case‐by‐case, trial by error basis and restoration outcomes can be variable even under similar conditions. The ability to put each case into context—what about it worked, what did not, and why—is something that the synthesis of data across studies can facilitate. The link between data synthesis and predictive capacity is strong. There are examples of extremely ambitious and successful efforts to compile data in structured, standardized databases which have led to valuable insights across regional and global scales in other branches of science. There is opportunity and challenge in compiling, standardizing, and synthesizing restoration monitoring data to inform the future of restoration practice and science. Through global collation of restoration data, knowledge gaps can be addressed and data synthesized to advance toward a more predictive science to inform more consistent success. The interdisciplinary potential of restoration ecology sits just over the horizon of this decade. Through truly collaborative synthesis across foci within the restoration community, we have the opportunity to rapidly reach that potential and achieve extraordinary outcomes together.     

Promoting ecological restoration in France: issues and solutions

Ecological restoration has developed greatly over recent decades. Promoting harmonious relationships between scientists and practitioners, between restoration ecology and ecological restoration, is essential to improving restoration projects. These relationships are difficult to achieve at a global scale, although international action remains essential. Therefore, regional and national networks are attempting to take up the challenge. With several European countries planning to create their own network in the coming years, insights from current practice are helpful. Here, we (1) describe the context in which ecological restoration is developing in France and (2) present the French restoration network, Réseau d'Echanges et de Valorisation en Ecologie de la Restauration (REVER). Most public policies related to restoration in France are derived from European Union (EU) directives, such as those on water, ecological networks, biodiversity, and protected species and natural habitat. Restoration can also be undertaken through Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) or subsequent to damage. Following the model of the International Society for Ecological Restoration, the French network for ecological restoration (REVER) aims at accompanying and promoting restoration by facilitating relationships between the various stakeholders: practitioners, scientists, site managers, etc. To encourage exchange of knowledge and experience, REVER manages a website, organizes workshops, and provides links with SER‐Europe and Society for Ecological Restoration International (SERI). This article provides information that will be of interest to other countries trying to meet the Aichi targets of the convention on biological diversity: the restoration of 15% of degraded ecosystems by 2020.     

What motivates ecological restoration?

Ecological restoration projects are motivated by diverse environmental and social reasons. Motivations likely vary between stakeholders or regions, and influence the approach taken to plan, implement, and monitor restoration projects. We surveyed 307 people involved in the restoration of native vegetation across Australia to identify their underlying motivations. We also elicited information on planning, implementation, and monitoring of restoration projects. We found that biodiversity enhancement is the main motivation for undertaking restoration, with biodiversity offsetting, water quality improvements, and social reasons as important secondary motivations. Motivations varied significantly by stakeholder type and region. Restoration projects primarily motivated by ecosystem service provision (e.g. water quality improvements and social reasons) sought less pristine ecological outcomes than projects motivated by biodiversity enhancement or offsetting. Rigorous monitoring designs (e.g. quantitative, repeatable surveys, and use of performance indicators) were rarely used in restoration projects, except for projects motivated by scientific research. Better alignment of different restoration motivations with the planning and monitoring of restoration projects should deliver greater benefits through setting appropriate objectives and evaluating outcomes against these objectives. These improvements will increase the capacity of the restoration practice to meet international biodiversity commitments and communicate restoration outcomes to stakeholders.     

Ecosystem Restoration is Now a Global Priority: Time to Roll up our Sleeves

Ecosystem restoration is now globally recognized as a key component in conservation programs and essential to the quest for the long‐term sustainability of our human‐dominated planet. Restoration scientists and practitioners are now on the frontline and will be increasingly called upon to get involved in large scale programs addressing immediate environmental crises and challenges. Here, we summarize the advances in mainstreaming ecological restoration in global environmental policy deliberations during the last year, culminating in the recent meeting of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. We also provide key references for those seeking more information, and set out an agenda as to how the restoration community could respond to and act upon these recent developments. However, we underline the need for caution and prudence; we must not promise more than we can deliver. Thirty years after the emergence of ecological restoration as a scientific discipline and practice, there remain many obstacles and misconceptions about what can be achieved at large scales. Yet, clearly the old adage applies here: nothing ventured, nothing gained.     

The ecology of restoration: historical links, emerging issues and unexplored realms

Restoration ecology is a young academic field, but one with enough history to judge it against past and current expectations of the science's potential. The practice of ecological restoration has been identified as providing ideal experimental settings for tests of ecological theory; restoration was to be the 'acid test' of our ecological understanding. Over the past decade, restoration science has gained a strong academic foothold, addressing problems faced by restoration practitioners, bringing new focus to existing ecological theory and fostering a handful of novel ecological ideas. In particular, recent advances in plant community ecology have been strongly linked with issues in ecological restoration. Evolving models of succession, assembly and state-transition are at the heart of both community ecology and ecological restoration. Recent research on seed and recruitment limitation, soil processes, and diversity–function relationships also share strong links to restoration. Further opportunities may lie ahead in the ecology of plant ontogeny, and on the effects of contingency, such as year effects and priority effects. Ecology may inform current restoration practice, but there is considerable room for greater integration between academic scientists and restoration practitioners.