Restoration Ecology

Restoration ecology is the scientific study supporting the practice of

ecological restoration, which is the practice of renewing and restoring
degraded, damaged, or destroyed ecosystems and habitats in the
environment by active human interruption and action. Effective restoration
requires an explicit goal or policy, preferably an unambiguous one that is
articulated, accepted, and codified. Restoration goals reflect societal choices
from among competing policy priorities, but extracting such goals is typically
contentious and politically challenging.

Natural ecosystems provide ecosystem services in the form of resources

such as food, fuel, and timber; the purification of air and water; the
detoxification and decomposition of wastes; the regulation of climate; the
regeneration of soil fertility; and the pollination of crops. These ecosystem
processes have been estimated to be worth trillions of dollars annually.[2][3]
There is consensus in the scientific community that the current
environmental degradation and destruction of many of Earth's biota are
taking place on a "catastrophically short timescale".[4] Scientists estimate
that the current species extinction rate, or the rate of the Holocene
extinction, is 1,000 to 10,000 times higher than the normal, background rate.
[5][6][7] Habitat loss is the leading cause of both species extinctions[7] and
ecosystem service decline.[2] Two methods have been identified to slow the
rate of species extinction and ecosystem service decline, they are the
conservation of currently viable habitat and the restoration of degraded
habitat. The commercial applications of ecological restoration have increased
exponentially in recent years.[8] In 2019, the United Nations General
Assembly declared 2021–2030 the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration.[9]

Definition
Restoration ecology is the academic study of the process, whereas ecological
restoration is the actual project or process by restoration practitioners. The
Society for Ecological Restoration defines "ecological restoration" as an
"intentional activity that initiates or accelerates the recovery of an
ecosystem with respect to its health, integrity and sustainability".[10]
Ecological restoration includes a wide scope of projects including erosion
control, reforestation, removal of non-native species and weeds,
revegetation of disturbed areas, daylighting streams, the reintroduction of
native species (preferably native species that have local adaptation), and
habitat and range improvement for targeted species. For many researchers,
the ecological restoration must include the local communities: they call this
process the "social-ecological restoration".[11]

E. O. Wilson, a biologist, stated,[when?] "Here is the means to end the great

extinction spasm. The next century will, I believe, be the era of restoration in
ecology."[12]

History
Indigenous peoples, land managers, stewards, and laypeople have been
practicing ecological restoration or ecological management for thousands of
years.[13] Restoration ecology emerged as a separate field in ecology in the
late twentieth century. The term was coined by John Aber and William Jordan
III when they were at the University of Wisconsin–Madison.[14][when?]

This section may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may
interest only a particular audience. Please help by removing excessive detail
that may be against Wikipedia's inclusion policy. (March 2023) (Learn how
and when to remove this template message)
US
Considered the birthplace of modern ecological restoration, the first tallgrass
prairie restoration was the 1936 Curtis Prairie at the University of Wisconsin–
Madison Arboretum.[15][14] Civilian Conservation Corps workers replanted
nearby prairie species onto a former horse pasture, overseen by university
faculty including renowned ecologist Aldo Leopold, botanist Theodore Sperry,
mycologist Henry C. Greene, and plant ecologist John T. Curtis. Curtis and his
graduate students surveyed the whole of Wisconsin, documenting native
species communities and creating the first species lists for tallgrass
restorations.[16] The UW Arboretum was the center of tallgrass prairie
research through the first half of the 20th century, with the development of
the nearby Greene Prairie, Aldo Leopold Shack and Farm, and pioneering
techniques like prescribed burning.[15]

The latter half of the 20th century saw the growth of ecological restoration
beyond Wisconsin borders. The 285-hectare Green Oaks Biological Field
Station at Knox College began in 1955 under the guidance of zoologist Paul
Shepard. It was followed by the 40-hectare Schulenberg Prairie at the Morton
Arboretum, which started in 1962 by Ray Schulenberg and Robert Betz. Betz
then worked with The Nature Conservancy to establish the 260-hectare
Fermi National Laboratory tallgrass prairie in 1974.[17] These major tallgrass
restoration projects marked the growth of ecological restoration from
isolated studies to widespread practice.

Australia
Australia has been the site of historically significant ecological restoration
projects, commencing in the 1930s. These projects were responses to the
extensive environmental damage inflicted by colonising settlers, following
the forced dispossession of the First Nations communities of Australia. The
substantial Traditional Ecological Knowledge of First Nations communities
was not utilised in the historical restoration projects.

Many of the first Australian settler restoration projects were initiated by

volunteers, often in the form of community groups. Many of these volunteers
appreciated and utilised science resources, such as botanical and ecological
knowledge. Local and state government agencies participated, and also
industry. Australian scientists came to play an increasingly important role. A
prominent scientist who took an interest in the reversal of vegetation
degradation was botanist and plant ecologist Professor T G Osborn,
University of Adelaide, who, in the 1920s, conducted pioneering research
into the causes of arid-zone indigenous vegetation degradation. From this
time, Australian botanists, plant ecologists and soil erosion researchers have
increasingly developed interests in the recovery of ecological functioning on
degraded sites.

The earliest known attempt by Australian settlers to restore a degraded

natural ecosystem commenced in 1896, at Nairm (as it is known to people of
the Kulin nation), or Port Phillip Bay, Melbourne.[18] Local government and
community groups replanted degraded areas of the foreshore reserves with
the indigenous plant species, Coastal Teatree (Leptospermum laevigatum).
[18] The projects were motivated by utilitarian considerations: to conserve
recreation sites, and promote tourism. However, some local residents, such
as distinguished Australian journalist, nature writer and amateur
ornithologist, Donald Macdonald, were distressed at the loss of valued
biological qualities, and campaigned to fully restore the Teatree ecosystems
and conserve them and their indigenous fauna.[18]

The degraded arid-zone regions of Australia were the site of historical

ecological restoration projects. Pastoral industry established in the arid-zone
regions of South Australia and New South Wales resulted in the substantial
degredation of these areas by ca.1900 resulting in severe wind erosion
resulted. From approximately 1930, Australian pastoralists implemented
revegetation projects aiming to the substantial to full restoration of
indigenous flora to degraded, wind eroded areas.[19]
At his arid-zone Koonamore research station in South Australia, established
in 1925, Professor T G Osborn studied the loss of indigenous vegetation
caused by overstocking and the resultant wind erosion and degradation,
concluding that restoration of the indigenous saltbushes (Atriplex spp. ),
bluebushes (Maireana spp.) and Mulga (Acacia aneura) vegetation
communities was possible, if a stock exclosure and natural regeneration
revegetation technique was applied to degraded paddocks (or fields).[20]
Most likely influenced by Osborn's research, throughout the 1930s South
Australian pastoralists adopted this revegetation technique. At Wirraminna
station (or property, ranch), for example, following fencing to exclude stock,
severe soil-drifts were fully revegetated and stabilised by means of natural
regeneration of the indigenous vegetation. Also, it was found that furrowing
(or ploughing) of eroded areas resulted in the natural regeneration of
indigenous vegetation. So successful were these programs that the South
Australian government adopted them as approved state soil conservation
policies in 1936. Legislation introduced in 1939 codified these policies.[21]

In 1936 mining assayer Albert Morris and his restoration colleagues initiated
the Broken Hill regeneration area project. This project involved the natural
regeneration of indigenous flora on a severely wind eroded site of hundreds
of hectares, located in arid western New South Wales.[22] Morris was
responding to the widespread wind erosion that had arisen from pastoral
industry overstocking practices. It is quite likely that he was influenced by
the South Australian research work of Professor Osborn. Completed in 1958,
the successful project still maintains substantial ecological functioning today
as the Broken Hill Regeneration Area (1700 hectares).[23][24] Morris was a
pioneering and highly skilled arid-zone botanist, and was also familiar with
some basic principles of ecology. Local and state governments, and the
Broken Hill mining industry, supported and funded the project.[24] In fact, as
the regeneration area project was so well adapted to the harsh arid-zone
conditions, the New South Wales state government adopted it as a model for
the proposed restoration of the twenty million hectares of the arid western
portion of the state that had been reduced to a severely eroded condition.
Legislation to this effect was passed in 1949.[25]

Another significant early Australian settler ecological restoration project

occurred on the north coast of New South Wales. From approximately 1840
settlers forcibly occupied the coastal hinterlands, dispossessed First Nations
communities, destroyed extensive areas of biologically diverse rainforest and
converted the land to farms. Only smalll patches of rainforest survived. In
1935 dairy farmer Ambrose Crawford, alarmed by the possible loss of all of
the rainforest, commenced restoring a degraded four acres (1.7 hectares)
patch of local rainforest, or "Big Scrub" (Lowland Tropical Rainforest), as it
was referred to, at Lumley Park reserve, Alstonville.[26] Clearing of the
weeds that were smothering the rainforest plants and planting of suitable
indigenous rainforest species were his two main restoration techniques.
Crawford utilised professional government botanists as advisors, and
received support from his local government council. The restored rainforest
reserve still exists today, a vital home to threatened plant and animal
species.

Traditional ecological knowledge

Traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) from Indigenous Peoples
demonstrates how restoration ecology is a historical field, lived out by
humans for thousands of years.[27] Indigenous people have acquired
ecological knowledge through observation, experience, and management of
the natural resources and the environment around them. In the past, they
used to manage their environment and changed the structure of the
vegetation in a way not only to meet their basic needs (food, water, shelter,
medicines) but also to improve desired characteristics and even increasing
the populations and biodiversity. In that way, they were able to achieve a
close relationship with the environment and learned lessons that indigenous
people keep in their culture.[13]

This means there are many things that could be learned from people locally
indigenous to the ecosystem being restored[28] because of the deep
connection and biocultural and linguistic diversity of place.[29] The dynamic
of the use of natural resources by indigenous people contemplate many
cultural, social, and environmental aspects, since they have always had an
intimate connection with the animals and plants around them over centuries
since they obtained their livelihood from the environment around them.[30]

Restoration ecologists must consider that TEK is place dependent due to

intimate connection[31] and thus when engaging Indigenous Peoples to
include knowledge for restoration purposes, respect and care must be taken
to avoid appropriation of the TEK.[32] Successful ecological restoration which
includes Indigenous Peoples must be led by Indigenous Peoples[32] to
ensure non-indigenous people acknowledge the unequal relationship of
power.[33]

Kat Anderson[34] wrote a descriptive, historically based background book,

Tending the Wild, about the indigenous peoples of the California coast and
their intimate interactions with the environment. California Indians have a
rigid and complex harvesting, management and production practice. The
practices observed leaned heavily into typical horticultural techniques as
well as concentrated forest burning. The applications of preservation and
conservation based on the California Indians' practices, she hopes will assist
in shattering the hunter-gatherer stereotype so long perpetuated in western
literature. In "Tending the Wild", Anderson breaks down the concept that
California was an untouched civilization that was built into a fertile
environment by European explorers. However this is not an accurate
depiction; though to Westerners it may not seem modernized, the native
peoples have since defined what the population ecology was in that land. For
them, Wilderness was land not tended to by humans at all. In "Indigenous
Resource Management" Anderson sheds light on the diverse ways native
peoples of California purposely harvested and managed the wild. The
California Indians had a rich knowledge of ecology and natural techniques to
understand burn patterns, plant material, cultivation, pruning, digging; what
was edible vs. what was not. This did not just extend to plants but also into
wildlife management – how abundant, where the distribution was, and how
diverse the large mammal population was. "Restoration" covers how
contemporary land uses caused degradation, fragmentation and loss of
habitat. The way the United States has counteracted that is through land set
aside from all human influence. As for the future, Anderson highly suggests
looking to indigenous practices for ecosystem restoration and wildlife
management.[35]

Theoretical foundations
Restoration ecology draws on a wide range of ecological concepts.

Disturbance
Disturbance is a change in environmental conditions that disrupt the
functioning of an ecosystem. Disturbance can occur at a variety of spatial
and temporal scales, and is a natural component of many communities.[36]
For example, many forest and grassland restorations implement fire as a
natural disturbance regime. However the severity and scope of
anthropogenic impact has grown in the last few centuries. Differentiating
between human-caused and naturally occurring disturbances is important if
we are to understand how to restore natural processes and minimize
anthropogenic impacts on the ecosystems.

Succession
Ecological succession is the process by which a community changes over
time, especially following a disturbance. In many instances, an ecosystem
will change from a simple level of organization with a few dominant pioneer
species to an increasingly complex community with many interdependent
species. Restoration often consists of initiating, assisting, or accelerating
ecological successional processes, depending on the severity of the
disturbance.[37] Following mild to moderate natural and anthropogenic
disturbances, restoration in these systems involves hastening natural
successional trajectories through careful management. However, in a system
that has experienced a more severe disturbance (such as in urban
ecosystems), restoration may require intensive efforts to recreate
environmental conditions that favor natural successional processes.[38]

Fragmentation
Habitat fragmentation describes spatial discontinuities in a biological system,
where ecosystems are broken up into smaller parts through land-use
changes (e.g. agriculture) and natural disturbance. This both reduces the
size of the population and increases the degree of isolation. These smaller
and isolated populations are more vulnerable to extinction. Fragmenting
ecosystems decreases the quality of the habitat. The edge of a fragment has
a different range of environmental conditions and therefore supports
different species than the interior. Restorative projects can increase the
effective size of a population by adding suitable habitat and decrease
isolation by creating habitat corridors that link isolated fragments. Reversing
the effects of fragmentation is an important component of restoration
ecology.[39][40][41]

Ecosystem function
Ecosystem function describes the most basic and essential foundational
processes of any natural systems, including nutrient cycles and energy
fluxes. An understanding of the complexity of these ecosystem functions is
necessary to address any ecological processes that may be degraded.
Ecosystem functions are emergent properties of the system as a whole, thus
monitoring and management are crucial for the long-term stability of
ecosystems. A completely self-perpetuating and fully functional ecosystem is
the ultimate goal of restorative efforts. We must understand what ecosystem
properties influence others to restore desired functions and reach this goal.
[42]

Community assembly
Community assembly "is a framework that can unify virtually all of
(community) ecology under a single conceptual umbrella".[43] Community
assembly theory attempts to explain the existence of environmentally similar
sites with differing assemblages of species. It assumes that species have
similar niche requirements, so that community formation is a product of
random fluctuations from a common species pool.[44] Essentially, if all
species are fairly ecologically equivalent, then random variation in
colonization, and migration and extinction rates between species, drive
differences in species composition between sites with comparable
environmental conditions.[45]

Population genetics
Genetic diversity has shown to be as important as species diversity for
restoring ecosystem processes.[46] Hence ecological restorations are
increasingly factoring genetic processes into management practices.
Population genetic processes that are important to consider in restored
populations include founder effects, inbreeding depression, outbreeding
depression, genetic drift, and gene flow. Such processes can predict whether
or not a species successfully establishes at a restoration site.[47][48]

Applications
Leaf litter accumulation
Leaf litter accumulation plays an important role in the restoration process.
Higher quantities of leaf litter hold higher humidity levels, a key factor for the
establishment of plants. The process of accumulation depends on factors like
wind and species composition of the forest. The leaf litter found in primary
forests is more abundant, deeper, and holds more humidity than in
secondary forests. These technical considerations are important to take into
account when planning a restoration project.[49]

Soil heterogeneity effects on community heterogeneity

Spatial heterogeneity of resources can influence plant community
composition, diversity, and assembly trajectory. Baer et al. (2005)
manipulated soil resource heterogeneity in a tallgrass prairie restoration
project. They found increasing resource heterogeneity, which on its own was
insufficient to ensure species diversity in situations where one species may
dominate across the range of resource levels. Their findings were consistent
with the theory regarding the role of ecological filters on community
assembly. The establishment of a single species, best adapted to the
physical and biological conditions can play an inordinately important role in
determining the community structure.[50]

Invasion and restoration

Restoration is used as a tool for reducing the spread of invasive plant species
many ways. The first method views restoration primarily as a means to
reduce the presence of invasive species and limit their spread. As this
approach emphasizes the control of invaders, the restoration techniques can
differ from typical restoration projects.[51][52] The goal of such projects is
not necessarily to restore an entire ecosystem or habitat.[53] These projects
frequently use lower diversity mixes of aggressive native species seeded at
high density.[54] They are not always actively managed following seeding.
[55] The target areas for this type of restoration are those which are heavily
dominated by invasive species. The goals are to first remove the species and
then in so doing, reduce the number of invasive seeds being spread to
surrounding areas. An example of this is through the use of biological control
agents (such as herbivorous insects) which suppress invasive weed species
while restoration practitioners concurrently seed in native plant species that
take advantage of the freed resources.[56] These approaches have been
shown to be effective in reducing weeds, although it is not always a
sustainable solution long term without additional weed control, such as
mowing, or re-seeding.[52][55][57][58]

Restoration projects are also used as a way to better understand what makes
an ecological community resistant to invasion. As restoration projects have a
broad range of implementation strategies and methods used to control
invasive species, they can be used by ecologists to test theories about
invasion.[55] Restoration projects have been used to understand how the
diversity of the species introduced in the restoration affects invasion. We
know that generally higher diversity prairies have lower levels of invasion.
[59] The incorporation of functional ecology has shown that more
functionally diverse restorations have lower levels of invasion.[60]
Furthermore, studies have shown that using native species functionally
similar to invasive species are better able to compete with invasive species.
[61][62] Restoration ecologists have also used a variety of strategies
employed at different restoration sites to better understand the most
successful management techniques to control invasion.[63] To develop
restoration ecology into a full science and to improve its practice requires
generalizations about the processes governing the development of restored
communities. While new experiments can be designed , one way forward is
to use data from existing restoration studies to relate plant species
performance to their ecological trait.[64]

Successional trajectories
Progress along a desired successional pathway may be difficult if multiple
stable states exist. Looking over 40 years of wetland restoration data, Klötzli
and Gootjans (2001) argue that unexpected and undesired vegetation
assemblies "may indicate that environmental conditions are not suitable for
target communities".[65] Succession may move in unpredicted directions,
but constricting environmental conditions within a narrow range may rein in
the possible successional trajectories and increase the likelihood of the
desired outcome.[66][67]

Sourcing land for restoration

A study quantified climate change mitigation potentials of 'high-income'
nations shifting diets – away from meat-consumption – and restoration of the
spared land. They find that the hypothetical dietary change "could reduce
annual agricultural production emissions of high-income nations' diets by
61% while sequestering as much as 98.3 (55.6–143.7) GtCO2 equivalent,
equal to approximately 14 years of current global agricultural emissions until
natural vegetation matures", outcomes they call 'double climate dividend'.
[68][69]

Sourcing material for restoration

For most restoration projects it is generally recommended to source material
from local populations, to increase the chance of restoration success and
minimize the effects of maladaptation.[70] However the definition of local
can vary based on species. habitat and region.[71] US Forest Service
recently developed provisional seed zones based on a combination of
minimum winter temperature zones, aridity, and the Level III ecoregions.[72]
Rather than putting strict distance recommendations, other guidelines
recommend sourcing seeds to match similar environmental conditions that
the species is exposed to, either now, or under projected climate change. For
example, sourcing for Castilleja levisecta found that farther source
populations that matched similar environmental variables were better suited
for the restoration project than closer source populations.[73] Similarly, a
suite of new methods are surveying gene-environment interactions in order
to identify the optimum source populations based on genetic adaptation to
environmental conditions.[74][75]

Principles

Ecosystem restoration for the superb parrot on an abandoned railway line in

Australia
Rationale
There are many reasons to restore ecosystems. Some include:

Restoring natural capital such as drinkable water or wildlife populations

Helping human communities and the ecosystems upon which they depend
adapt to the impacts of climate change (through ecosystem-based
adaptation)
Mitigating climate change (e.g. through carbon sequestration)[76]
Helping threatened or endangered species[77]
Aesthetic reasons [78]
Moral reasons: human intervention has unnaturally destroyed many habitats,
and there exists an innate obligation to restore these destroyed habitats
Regulated use/harvest, particularly for subsistence[79]
Cultural relevance of native ecosystems to Native people[79][80]
The environmental health of nearby populations [81]
Buffelsdraai Community Reforestation Project.
Forest restoration in action at the Buffelsdraai Landfill Site Community
Reforestation Project in South Africa
There exist considerable differences of opinion on how to set restoration
goals and how to define their success. Ultimately specifying the restoration
target or desired state of an ecosystem is a societal choice, informed by
scientists and technocrats, but ultimately it is a policy choice. Selecting the
desired goal can be politically contentious.[82] Some urge active restoration
(e.g. eradicating invasive animals to allow the native ones to survive) and
others who believe that protected areas should have the bare minimum of
human interference, such as rewilding. Ecosystem restoration has generated
controversy. Skeptics doubt that the benefits justify the economic
investment or who point to failed restoration projects and question the
feasibility of restoration altogether. It can be difficult to set restoration goals,
in part because, as Anthony Bradshaw claims, "ecosystems are not static,
but in a state of dynamic equilibrium…. [with restoration] we aim [for a]
moving target."

Some[vague] conservationists argue that, though an ecosystem may not be

returned to its original state, the functions of the ecosystem (especially ones
that provide services to us) may be more valuable in its current configuration
(Bradshaw 1987). This is especially true in cases where the ecosystem
services are central to the physical and cultural survival of human
populations, as is the case with many Native groups in the United States and
other communities around the world who subsist using ecological services
and environmental resources.[79] One reason to consider ecosystem
restoration is to mitigate climate change through activities such as
afforestation. Afforestation involves replanting forests, which remove carbon
dioxide from the air. Carbon dioxide is a leading cause of global warming
(Speth, 2005) and capturing it would help alleviate climate change. Another
example of a common driver of restoration projects in the United States is
the legal framework of the Clean Water Act, which often requires mitigation
for damage inflicted on aquatic systems by development or other activities.
[83]

Restored prairie at the West Eugene Wetlands in Eugene, Oregon

Challenges
Some view ecosystem restoration as impractical, partially because
restorations often fall short of their goals. Hilderbrand et al. point out that
many times uncertainty (about ecosystem functions, species relationships,
and such) is not addressed, and that the time-scales set out for 'complete'
restoration are unreasonably short, while other critical markers for full-scale
restoration are either ignored or abridged due to feasibility concerns.[84] In
other instances an ecosystem may be so degraded that abandonment
(allowing a severely degraded ecosystem to recover on its own) may be the
wisest option.[85] Local communities sometimes object to restorations that
include the introduction of large predators or plants that require disturbance
regimes such as regular fires, citing threat to human habitation in the area.
[86] High economic costs can also be perceived as a negative impact of the
restoration process.

Public opinion is very important in the feasibility of a restoration; if the public

believes that the costs of restoration outweigh the benefits they will not
support it.[86]

Many failures have occurred in past restoration projects, many times

because clear goals were not set out as the aim of the restoration, or an
incomplete understanding of the underlying ecological framework lead to
insufficient measures. This may be because, as Peter Alpert says, "people
may not [always] know how to manage natural systems effectively".[87]
Furthermore, many assumptions are made about myths of restoration such
as carbon copy, where a restoration plan, which worked in one area, is
applied to another with the same results expected, but not realized.[84]

Science–practice gap
One of the struggles for both fields is a divide between restoration ecology
and ecological restoration in practice. Many restoration practitioners as well
as scientists feel that science is not being adequately incorporated into
ecological restoration projects.[88][89][90][91] In a 2009 survey of
practitioners and scientists, the "science-practice gap" was listed as the
second most commonly cited reason limiting the growth of both science and
practice of restoration.

There are a variety of theories about the cause of this gap. However, it has
been well established that one of the main issues is that the questions
studied by restoration ecologists are frequently not found useful or easily
applicable by land managers.[88][92] For instance, many publications in
restoration ecology characterize the scope of a problem in-depth, without
providing concrete solutions.[92] Additionally many restoration ecology
studies are carried out under controlled conditions and frequently at scales
much smaller than actual restorations.[55] Whether or not these patterns
hold true in an applied context is often unknown. There is evidence that
these small-scale experiments inflate type II error rates and differ from
ecological patterns in actual restorations.[93][94] One approach to
addressing this gap has been the development of International Principles &
Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration by the Society for
Ecological restoration (see below) – however this approach is contended,
with scientists active in the field suggesting that this is restrictive, and
instead principles and guidelines offer flexibility [95]

There is further complication in that restoration ecologists who want to

collect large-scale data on restoration projects can face enormous hurdles in
obtaining the data. Managers vary in how much data they collect, and how
many records they keep. Some agencies keep only a handful of physical
copies of data that make it difficult for the researcher to access.[96] Many
restoration projects are limited by time and money, so data collection and
record-keeping are not always feasible.[89] However, this limits the ability of
scientists to analyze restoration projects and give recommendations based
on empirical data.
Food security and nature degradation
A range of activities in the name of "nature restoration", such as
monoculture tree plantations, "degrade nature—destroying biodiversity,
increasing pollution, and removing land from food production".[97]

Consideration as a substitute for steep emission reductions

Climate benefits from nature restoration are "dwarfed by the scale of
ongoing fossil fuel emissions".[98][97] It risks "over-relying on land for
mitigation at the expense of phasing out fossil fuels". Despite of these
issues, nature restoration is receiving increasing attention, with a study
concluding that "Land restoration is an important option for tackling climate
change but cannot compensate for delays in reducing fossil fuel emissions"
as it's "unlikely to be done quickly enough to notably reduce the global peak
temperatures expected in the next few decades".[97]

For instance, researchers have compared reforestation and prevention of

(mainly tropical) deforestation in specific:

This section is an excerpt from Deforestation § Comparison to forest

protection.[edit]

Timelapse of recent deforestation of the Amazon rainforest

Researchers, including from the European Commission, found that, in terms
of environmental services, it is better to avoid deforestation than to allow for
deforestation to subsequently reforest, as the former leads to i.a. irreversible
effects in terms of biodiversity loss and soil degradation.[99] Furthermore,
the probability that legacy carbon will be released from soil is higher in
younger boreal forest.[100] Global greenhouse gas emissions caused by
damage to tropical rainforests may have been substantially underestimated
until around 2019.[101] Additionally, the effects of af- or reforestation will be
farther in the future than keeping existing forests intact.[102] It takes much
longer − several decades − for the benefits for global warming to manifest
to the same carbon sequestration benefits from mature trees in tropical
forests and hence from limiting deforestation.[103] Mackey and Dooley
consider "the protection and recovery of carbon-rich and long-lived
ecosystems, especially natural forests" "the major climate solution".[104]
Contrasting restoration ecology and conservation biology
Restoration ecology may be viewed as a sub-discipline of conservation
biology, the scientific study of how to protect and restore biodiversity.
Ecological restoration is then a part of the resulting conservation movement.
[citation needed]

Both restoration ecologists and conservation biologists agree that protecting

and restoring habitat is important for protecting biodiversity. However,
conservation biology is primarily rooted in population biology. Because of
that, it is generally organized at the population genetic level and assesses
specific species populations (i.e. endangered species). Restoration ecology is
organized at the community level, which focuses on broader groups within
ecosystems.[105]

In addition, conservation biology often concentrates on vertebrate and

invertebrate animals because of their salience and popularity, whereas
restoration ecology concentrates on plants. Restoration ecology focuses on
plants because restoration projects typically begin by establishing plant
communities. Ecological restoration, despite being focused on plants, may
also have "umbrella species" for individual ecosystems and restoration
projects.[105] For example, the Monarch butterfly is an umbrella species for
conserving and restoring milkweed plant habitat, because Monarch
butterflies require milkweed plants to reproduce. Finally, restoration ecology
has a stronger focus on soils, soil structure, fungi, and microorganisms
because soils provide the foundation of functional terrestrial ecosystems.
[106][107]

Natural Capital Committee's recommendation for a 25-year plan

The UK Natural Capital Committee (NCC) made a recommendation in its
second State of Natural Capital report published in March 2014 that in order
to meet the Government's goal of being the first generation to leave the
environment in a better state than it was inherited, a long-term 25-year plan
was needed to maintain and improve England's natural capital. The UK
Government has not yet responded to this recommendation.

The Secretary of State for the UK's Department for Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs, Owen Paterson, described his ambition for the natural
environment and how the work of the Committee fits into this at an NCC
event in November 2012: "I do not, however, just want to maintain our
natural assets; I want to improve them. I want us to derive the greatest
possible benefit from them, while ensuring that they are available for
generations to come. This is what the NCC's innovative work is geared
towards".[108]

International Principles & Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration

The Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) released the second edition of
the International Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration on
September 27, 2019, in Cape Town, South Africa, at SER's 8th World
Conference on Ecological Restoration.[109] The publication provides
updated and expanded guidance on the practice of ecological restoration,
clarifies the breadth of ecological restoration and allied environmental repair
activities, and includes ideas and input from a diverse international group of
restoration scientists and practitioners.
The second edition builds on the first edition of the Standards, which was
released December 12, 2016, at the Convention on Biological Diversity's
13th Conference of the Parties in Cancun, Mexico. The development of these
Standards has been broadly consultative. The first edition was circulated to
dozens of practitioners and experts for feedback and review. After release of
the first edition, SER held workshops and listening sessions, sought feedback
from key international partners and stakeholders, opened a survey to
members, affiliates and supporters, and considered and responded to
published critiques.

The International Principles and Standards for the Practice of Ecological

Restoration:

Present a robust framework to guide restoration projects toward achieving

intended goals
Address restoration challenges including: effective design and
implementation, accounting for complex ecosystem dynamics (especially in
the context of climate change), and navigating trade-offs associated with
land management priorities and decisions
Highlight the role of ecological restoration in connecting social, community,
productivity, and sustainability goals
Recommend performance measures for restorative activities for industries,
communities, and governments to consider
Enhance the list of practices and actions that guide practitioners in planning,
implementation, and monitoring activities, including: appropriate approaches
to site assessment and identification of reference ecosystems, different
restoration approaches including natural regeneration, and the role of
ecological restoration in global restoration initiatives
Include an expanded glossary of restoration terminology
Provide a technical appendix on sourcing of seeds and other propagules for
restoration.