The rise of restoration ecology: a relatively new science, a major global role

Katharine SudingUniversity of Colorado USA

Bonn Challenge: restore 150 million hectares worldwide by 2020

New York Declaration: 350m hectares under restoration by 2030

The 20 x 20 initiative: to bring 20 million hectares of degraded land into restoration by 2020.

“This is a challenge that we face with determination and effort, and we are certain that our efforts will bring effective results in order for us to achieve our international goals”

-- Minister Sarney Filho, Brazil

“With more countries building synergies between global restoration commitments and initiatives,

we can capture these win-win opportunities: wins for biodiversity, wins for carbon, wins for

people, wins for the economy, wins for women, and wins for our planet.”

--Inger Andersen, Director General IUCN

This is exciting… …and scary

0

20

0

40

0

60

0

80

0

100

0

120

0

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

Publications/year

Year

1987 Bradshaw: “an acid test” of ecological understanding

Ecology, keyword “restoration” ISI, Web of Knowledge

Where are we in the science of restoration? Can we deliver?

Eco

syst

em F

un

ctio

n

Ecosystem Structure

0

20

0

40

0

60

0

80

0

100

0

120

0

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

Publications/year

Year

2009 Special issue, SCIENCE:The rise of restoration ecology

Where are we in the science of restoration? Can we deliver?

Ecology, keyword “restoration” ISI, Web of Knowledge

1987 Bradshaw: “an acid test” of ecological understanding

“Our planet’s future may depend on the

maturation of the young discipline of

ecological restoration”

--SCIENCE editors, 2009

0

20

0

40

0

60

0

80

0

100

0

120

0

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

Publications/year

Year

Where are we in the science of restoration? Can we deliver?

Ecology, keyword “restoration” ISI, Web of Knowledge

2017 SER meeting, Brazil

2009 Special issue, SCIENCE:The rise of restoration ecology

1987 Bradshaw: “an acid test” of ecological understanding

A systematic evaluation of restoration:

• 89 Studies• Range of

ecosystem types• Global coverage• Cited over 1,000

times

Restoration increased biodiversity by 44%, but values remained lower than reference conditions

-14%

vs. degraded

vs. reference

+44%

Rey Benayas et al 2009

Restoration increased biodiversity by 44%, but values remained lower than reference conditions

-14%

vs. degraded

vs. reference

+44%

What do we mean by restoring biodiversity?

How risky is our enterprise?

How do we benchmark our success?

How does science guidepolicy and expectations?

1

2

3

4

What do we mean by restoring biodiversity?

1

Time since disturbance Spec

ies

div

ersi

ty

+44% -14%How should restoration affect diversity?

degraded restored reference

We often assume a increasing trajectory

Time since disturbance Spec

ies

div

ersi

ty

Biodiversity could change in many ways in a “successful” restoration

+44% -14%

Classic successional

work.

restoreddegraded reference

+44%

degraded restored reference

-14%

When we say diversity, do we really mean diversity?

Plant growth and survivalTotal abundance Behavior (% vigilance)Microbial biomass …

OTHER MEASURES INCLUDED IN BIODIVERSITY RESPONSE

Species richnessEvennessShannon-Weiner

BIODIVERSITY INDICES

49%

N=8

9 s

tud

ies

Rey Benayas et al 2009

51%

One suggestion: Compositional similarity

Laughlin et al 2017

• Multivariate technique• Based on the same

datasets as diversity calculations

One suggestion: Compositional similarity

Laughlin et al 2017

degraded

restoration

reference

• Rey Benayas et al (2009): 0/89 studies

• More recent metanalysis(Crouzeilleset al 2016): 13/221

• Multivariate technique• Based on the same

datasets as diversity calculations

How risky is our enterprise?

2

Restoration increased biodiversity by 44% but values remained lower than reference conditions

-14%

vs. degraded

vs. reference

+44%

Rey Benayas et al 2009

Restoration is a bit of a gamble

-14%

vs. degraded

vs. reference

+44%

Rey Benayas et al 2009

-70% +1000%

-77% +27%

Why such high variable outcomes?A. Our Metrics: Outcomes would be less variable if we would

standardized metrics.

B. Our techniques: We are failing too often, need to improve technological aspects of our practice [might indicate success in innovation too]

C. Our context: There are some places where restoration is far more challenging than others [we should focus on where it is easiest]

D. Our ecology: Ecological recovery is expected to be stochastic, with transient dynamics and priority effects [don’t expect otherwise]

Laughlin et al 2017

Ecological processes with more complex controls should show greater variability

Mo

re p

red

icta

ble

More variable

BIOMASS

RICHNESS

COMPOSITION

SiteYear

Despite identical:site preparationseed species mixesplanting techniques planting timing

Stuble et al 2017Species composition

Ecological dynamics are expected to be stochastic in disturbed systems as they assemble

How do we benchmark our success?

3

Degraded

Restoration

Reference

89ST

UD

IES

(Rey

Ben

ayas

et a

l 20

09

)

Degraded

Restoration

Reference

89ST

UD

IES

(Rey

Ben

ayas

et a

l 20

09

)Degraded

Restoration

Reference

269STU

DIES

(Cro

uzeilles

et al 2016

, on

ly Forest)

7%

70%

23%N=62

Why so few studies?Degraded

Restoration

Reference

A. We are doing it this way, but not publishing our work.

B. We should do it this way, and are not listening to advice.

C. There are many ways to benchmark success

D. All of the above.

The crisis of shifting baselines

Changing Climate

The crisis of shifting baselines

Changing Climate + Invasion of non-native species

The crisis of shifting baselines

Changing Climate + Invasion of non-native species+ Changing land use+ Changing disturbance regimes…

Nitrogen inputs

Stip

aR

esto

rati

on

Inva

ded

N

ativ

e

Reference benchmarks at low levels of nitrogen pollution, but we losing these at high N

Nitrogen inputs St

ipa

Res

tora

tio

nIn

vad

ed

Nat

ive

Larios et al 2017

As rates of environmental change increase, different types of benchmarks are needed

Nitrogen inputs

Let recover

Change benchmark

Actively restore

Stip

aR

esto

rati

on

Inva

ded

N

ativ

e

Different functional mix of natives

Different genotypes

Different set of species

One suggestion: triggers and trajectories

Areas with rapid change might be the places to set goals re: process and

innovate

How does our science guide policy and expectations?

4

How do our goals, principles, best practices, standards, reflect our science?

“Since it arose from political negotiations, the precise scientific definition is lacking”

-- L. Montanarella, EU Commission

How do our goals, principles, best practices, standards, reflect our science?

International Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration, SER 2016Suding et al, 2015, Science

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

Res

po

nse

Rat

ioP

lan

t d

iver

sity

in r

esto

red

/ref

eren

ceFive Star Standard

> 80% diversity of reference

Crouzeilles et al 2016

As a science, are we ready to set such expectations?

Study comparisons, ordered by response ratio

What do we mean by restoring biodiversity?

How do we benchmark our success?

How risky is our enterprise?

How does science guidepolicy and expectations?

1

2

3

4

What do we mean by restoring biodiversity?

How do we benchmark our success?

How risky is our enterprise?

How does science guidepolicy and expectations?

1

2

3

4

Thank you!