Biodiversity in changing environments: An external-driver internal-topology framework to guide intervention

Accompanying the climate crisis is the more enigmatic biodiversity crisis. Rapid reorganization of biodiversity due to global environmental change has defied prediction and tested the basic tenets of conservation and restoration. Conceptual and practical innovation is needed to support decision making in the face of these unprecedented shifts. Critical questions include: How can we generalize biodiversity change at the community level? When are systems able to reorganize and maintain integrity, and when does abiotic change result in collapse or restructuring? How does this understanding provide a template to guide when and how to intervene in conservation and restoration? To this end, we frame changes in community organization as the modulation of external abiotic drivers on the internal topology of species interactions, using plant-plant interactions in terrestrial communities as a starting point. We then explore how this framing can help translate available data on species abundance and trait distributions to corresponding decisions in management. Given the expectation that community response and reorganization are highly complex, the external-driver internal-topology (EDIT) framework offers a way to capture general patterns of biodiversity that can help guide resilience and adaptation in changing environments.

Ecological restoration and rewilding: two approaches with complementary goals?

As we enter the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration (2021-2030) and address the urgent need to protect and restore ecosystems and their ecological functions at large scales, rewilding has been brought into the limelight. Interest in this discipline is thus increasing, with a large number of conceptual scientific papers published in recent years. Increasing enthusiasm has led to discussions and debates in the scientific community about the differences between ecological restoration and rewilding. The main goal of this review is to compare and clarify the position of each field. Our results show that despite some differences (e.g. top-down versus bottom-up and functional versus taxonomic approaches) and notably with distinct goals - recovery of a defined historically determined target ecosystem versus recovery of natural processes with often no target endpoint - ecological restoration and rewilding have a common scope: the recovery of ecosystems following anthropogenic degradation. The goals of ecological restoration and rewilding have expanded with the progress of each field. However, it is unclear whether there is a paradigm shift with ecological restoration moving towards rewilding or vice versa. We underline the complementarity in time and in space of ecological restoration and rewilding. To conclude, we argue that reconciliation of these two fields of nature conservation to ensure complementarity could create a synergy to achieve their common scope.

Management Foundations for Navigating Ecological Transformation by Resisting, Accepting, or Directing Social–Ecological Change

Despite striking global change, management to ensure healthy landscapes and sustained natural resources has tended to set objectives on the basis of the historical range of variability in stationary ecosystems. Many social–ecological systems are moving into novel conditions that can result in ecological transformation. We present four foundations to enable a transition to future-oriented conservation and management that increases capacity to manage change. The foundations are to identify plausible social–ecological trajectories, to apply upstream and deliberate engagement and decision-making with stakeholders, to formulate management pathways to desired futures, and to consider a portfolio approach to manage risk and account for multiple preferences across space and time. We use the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska as a case study to illustrate how the four foundations address common land management challenges for navigating transformation and deciding when, where, and how to resist, accept, or direct social–ecological change.

The Genetic Component of Seagrass Restoration: What We Know and the Way Forwards

Seagrasses are marine flowering plants providing key ecological services and functions in coasts and estuaries across the globe. Increased environmental changes fueled by human activities are affecting their existence, compromising natural habitats and ecosystems’ biodiversity and functioning. In this context, restoration of disturbed seagrass environments has become a worldwide priority to reverse ecosystem degradation and to recover ecosystem functionality and associated services. Despite the proven importance of genetic research to perform successful restoration projects, this aspect has often been overlooked in seagrass restoration. Here, we aimed to provide a comprehensive perspective of genetic aspects related to seagrass restoration. To this end, we first reviewed the importance of studying the genetic diversity and population structure of target seagrass populations; then, we discussed the pros and cons of different approaches used to restore and/or reinforce degraded populations. In general, the collection of genetic information and the development of connectivity maps are critical steps for any seagrass restoration activity. Traditionally, the selection of donor population preferred the use of local gene pools, thought to be the best adapted to current conditions. However, in the face of rapid ocean changes, alternative approaches such as the use of climate-adjusted or admixture genotypes might provide more sustainable options to secure the survival of restored meadows. Also, we discussed different transplantation strategies applied in seagrasses and emphasized the importance of long-term seagrass monitoring in restoration. The newly developed information on epigenetics as well as the application of assisted evolution strategies were also explored. Finally, a view of legal and ethical issues related to national and international restoration management is included, highlighting improvements and potential new directions to integrate with the genetic assessment. We concluded that a good restoration effort should incorporate: (1) a good understanding of the genetic structure of both donors and populations being restored; (2) the analysis of local environmental conditions and disturbances that affect the site to be restored; (3) the analysis of local adaptation constraints influencing the performances of donor populations and native plants; (4) the integration of distribution/connectivity maps with genetic information and environmental factors relative to the target seagrass populations; (5) the planning of long-term monitoring programs to assess the performance of the restored populations. The inclusion of epigenetic knowledge and the development of assisted evolution programs are strongly hoped for the future.

A triage framework for managing novel, hybrid, and designed marine ecosystems

The novel ecosystem (NE) concept has been discussed in terrestrial restoration ecology over the last 15 years but has not yet found much traction in the marine context. Against a background of unprecedented environmental change, managers of natural marine resources have portfolios full of altered systems for which restoration to a previous historical baseline may be impractical for ecological, social, or financial reasons. In these cases, the NE concept is useful for weighing options and emphasizes the risk of doing nothing by forcing questions regarding the value of novelty and how it can best be managed in the marine realm. Here, we explore how the concept fits marine ecosystems. We propose a scheme regarding how the NE concept could be used as a triage framework for use in marine environments within the context of a decision framework that explicitly considers changed ecosystems and whether restoration is the best or only option. We propose a conceptual diagram to show where marine NEs fit in the continuum of unaltered to shifted marine ecosystems. Overall, we suggest that the NE concept is of interest to marine ecologists and resource managers because it introduces a new vocabulary for considering marine systems that have been changed through human actions but have not shifted to an alternate stable state. Although it remains to be seen whether the concept of marine NEs leads to better conservation and restoration decisions, we posit that the concept may help inform management decisions in an era of unprecedented global marine change.

Where to from here? Challenges for restoration and revegetation in a fast-changing world

Ecological restoration provides hope and the opportunity for positive action in the face of ongoing rapid environmental change. Restoration techniques and approaches are improving, and restoration is seen as an important element of conservation management and policy from local to global scales. Motivations for undertaking restoration are numerous, and resources available for this enterprise vary greatly from case to case. Restoration encompasses everything from multinational companies restoring minesites or offsets to comply with environmental regulations to local bushcare groups doing voluntary work in their local patch of bush. The financial and human resources available largely determine the extent and type of restoration activities that are possible. An important task is increasing the resources available for these activities, but it is also important to recognise that resources will continue to fall well short of what is actually required into the foreseeable future. In addition, the need for restoration will only increase with ongoing development and changing environments. In this scenario, how then, should decisions be made about what types of restoration activities are appropriate and possible? How do we ensure that the good intentions behind restoration management and policy translate into good outcomes? Challenges for restoration include not only improving the techniques and approaches but also tackling hard questions about what restoration goals are appropriate and engaging in open discussion of hidden assumptions and values behind decisions.