Incomplete recovery of ecosystem processes after two decades of riparian forest restoration

Carbon stock quantification in a floodplain restoration chronosequence along a Mediterranean-montane riparian corridor

Uncertainty in the global carbon (C) budget has been reduced for most stocks, though it remains incomplete by not considering aquatic and transitional zone carbon stocks. A key issue preventing such complete accounting is a lack of available C data within these aquatic and aquatic-terrestrial transitional ecosystems. Concurrently, quantifiable results produced by restoration practices that explicitly target C stock accumulation and sequestration remain inconsistent or undocumented. To support a more complete carbon budget and identify impacts on C stock accumulation from restoration treatment actions, we investigated C stock values in a Mediterranean-montane riparian floodplain system in California, USA. We quantified the C stock in aboveground biomass, large wood, and litter in addition to the C and total nitrogen in the upper soil profile (5 cm) across 23 unique restoration treatments and remnant old-growth forests. Treatments span 40 years of restoration actions along seven river kilometers of the Cosumnes River, and include process-based (limited intervention), assisted (horticultural planting and other intensive restoration activities), hybrid (a combination of process and assisted actions), and remnant (old-growth forests that were not created with restoration actions) sites. Total C values measured up to 1100 Mg ha-1 and averaged 129 Mg ha-1 with biomass contributing the most to individual plot measurements. From 2012 to 2020, biomass C stock measurements showed an average 32 Mg ha-1 increase across all treatments, though treatment specific values varied. While remnant forest plots held the highest average C values across all stocks (336 Mg ha-1), C values of different stocks varied across treatment type. Process-based restoration treatments held more average biomass C (120 Mg ha-1) than hybrid (23 Mg ha-1) or assisted restoration treatments (50 Mg ha-1), while assisted restoration treatments held more average total C in soil and litter (58 Mg ha-1) than hybrid (35 Mg ha-1) and process-based restoration treatments (37 Mg ha-1). Regardless of treatment type, time was a significant factor for all C stock values. These findings support a more inclusive global carbon budget and provide valuable insight into restoration treatment actions that support C stock accumulation.

Rewilding soil and litter invertebrates and fungi increases decomposition rates and alters detritivore communities

Habitat degradation and associated reductions in ecosystem functions can be reversed by reintroducing or 'rewilding' keystone species. Rewilding projects have historically targeted restoration of processes such as grazing regimes or top-down predation effects. Few projects focus on restoring decomposition efficiency, despite the pivotal role decomposition plays in global carbon sequestration and nutrient cycling. Here, we tested whether rewilding entire communities of detritivorous invertebrates and fungi can improve litter decomposition efficiency and restore detritivore communities during ecological restoration. Rewilding was conducted by transplanting leaf litter and soil, including associated invertebrate and fungal communities from species-rich remnant sites into species-poor, and geographically isolated, revegetated farmland sites in a temperate woodland region of southeastern Australia. We compared communities in sites under the following treatments: remnant (conservation area and source of litter transplant), rewilded revegetation (revegetated farmland site with litter transplant) and control revegetation (revegetated site, no transplant). In one 'before' and three 'after' sampling periods, we measured litter decomposition and the abundance and diversity of detritivorous invertebrates and fungi. We quantified the effect of detritivores on the rate of litter decomposition using piecewise Structural Equation Modelling. Decomposition was significantly faster in rewilding sites than in both control and remnant areas and was largely driven by a greater abundance of invertebrate detritivores. Similarly, the abundance of invertebrate detritivores in rewilding revegetation sites exceeded the level of remnant communities, whereas there was little difference between control and remnant sites. In contrast, rewilding did not increase saprotrophic fungi relative abundance/diversity and there was no strong relationship between decomposition and fungal diversity. Our findings suggest the relatively simple act of transplanting leaf litter and soil can increase functional efficiency during restoration and alter community composition. Our methods may prove important across a range of contexts where other restoration methods have failed to restore ecosystem processes to pre-degradation levels.

Terrestrial ecosystem restoration increases biodiversity and reduces its variability, but not to reference levels: A global meta-analysis

Ecological restoration projects often have variable and unpredictable outcomes, and these can limit the overall impact on biodiversity. Previous syntheses have investigated restoration effectiveness by comparing average restored conditions to average conditions in unrestored or reference systems. Here, we provide the first quantification of the extent to which restoration affects both the mean and variability of biodiversity outcomes, through a global meta-analysis of 83 terrestrial restoration studies. We found that, relative to unrestored (degraded) sites, restoration actions increased biodiversity by an average of 20%, while decreasing the variability of biodiversity (quantified by the coefficient of variation) by an average of 14%. As restorations aged, mean biodiversity increased and variability decreased relative to unrestored sites. However, restoration sites remained, on average, 13% below the biodiversity of reference (target) ecosystems, and were characterised by higher (20%) variability. The lower mean and higher variability in biodiversity at restored sites relative to reference sites remained consistent over time, suggesting that sources of variation (e.g. prior land use, restoration practices) have an enduring influence on restoration outcomes. Our results point to the need for new research confronting the causes of variability in restoration outcomes, and close variability and biodiversity gaps between restored and reference conditions.

Restoration and repair of Earth's damaged ecosystems

Given that few ecosystems on the Earth have been unaffected by humans, restoring them holds great promise for stemming the biodiversity crisis and ensuring ecosystem services are provided to humanity. Nonetheless, few studies have documented the recovery of ecosystems globally or the rates at which ecosystems recover. Even fewer have addressed the added benefit of actively restoring ecosystems versus allowing them to recover without human intervention following the cessation of a disturbance. Our meta-analysis of 400 studies worldwide that document recovery from large-scale disturbances, such as oil spills, agriculture and logging, suggests that though ecosystems are progressing towards recovery following disturbances, they rarely recover completely. This result reinforces conservation of intact ecosystems as a key strategy for protecting biodiversity. Recovery rates slowed down with time since the disturbance ended, suggesting that the final stages of recovery are the most challenging to achieve. Active restoration did not result in faster or more complete recovery than simply ending the disturbances ecosystems face. Our results on the added benefit of restoration must be interpreted cautiously, because few studies directly compared different restoration actions in the same location after the same disturbance. The lack of consistent value added of active restoration following disturbance suggests that passive recovery should be considered as a first option; if recovery is slow, then active restoration actions should be better tailored to overcome specific obstacles to recovery and achieve restoration goals. We call for a more strategic investment of limited restoration resources into innovative collaborative efforts between scientists, local communities and practitioners to develop restoration techniques that are ecologically, economically and socially viable.