Let us not forget the human dimensions of ecosystem restoration

Stephanie Mansourian

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/s0030605324000991

IF: 2.957

2024-11-06

Oryx

Abstract://static.cambridge.org/content/id/urn%3Acambridge.org%3Aid%3Aarticle%3AS0030605324000991/resource/name/firstPage-pdf-S0030605324000991a.jpg

biodiversity conservation,ecology

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Step back from the forest and step up to the Bonn Challenge: How a broad ecological perspective can promote successful landscape restoration

Vicky M. Temperton,Nina Buchmann,Elise Buisson,Giselda Durigan,Łukasz Kazmierczak,Michael P. Perring,Michele Sá Dechoum,Joseph W. Veldman,Gerhard E. Overbeck,Lukasz Kazmierczak

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12989

2019-05-27

Restoration Ecology

Abstract:We currently face both an extinction and a biome crisis embedded in a changing climate. Many biodiverse ecosystems are being lost at far higher rates than they are being protected or ecologically restored. At the same time, natural climate solutions offer opportunities to restore biodiversity while mitigating climate change. The Bonn Challenge is a UN programme to restore biodiversity and mitigate climate change through restoration of the world's degraded landscapes. It provides an unprecedented chance for ecological restoration to become a linchpin tool for addressing many environmental issues. Unfortunately, the Forest and Landscape Restoration programme that underpins the Bonn Challenge, as its name suggests, remains focused on trees and forests, despite rising evidence that many non‐forest ecosystems also offer strong restoration potential for biodiversity and climate mitigation. We see a need for restoration to step back to be more inclusive of different ecosystem types and to step up to provide integrated scientific knowledge to inform large‐scale restoration. Stepping back and up will require assessments of where to restore what species, with recognition that in many landscapes multiple habitat types should be restored. In the process, tradeoffs in the delivery of different ecosystem services (e.g. carbon, biodiversity, water, albedo, livestock forage) should be clearly addressed. We recommend that biodiversity safeguards be included in policy and implemented in practice, to avoid undermining the biophysical relationships that provide ecosystem resilience to climate change. For ecological restoration to contribute to international policy goals will require integrated large‐scale science that works across biome boundaries.This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

ecology
How Social Considerations Improve the Equity and Effectiveness of Ecosystem Restoration

Sara Löfqvist,Fritz Kleinschroth,Adia Bey,Ariane de Bremond,Ruth DeFries,Jinwei Dong,Forrest Fleischman,Sharachchandra Lele,Dominic A Martin,Peter Messerli,Patrick Meyfroidt,Marion Pfeifer,Sarobidy O Rakotonarivo,Navin Ramankutty,Vijay Ramprasad,Pushpendra Rana,Jeanine M Rhemtulla,Casey M Ryan,Ima Célia Guimarães Vieira,Geoff J Wells,Rachael D Garrett

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biac099

IF: 10.1

2022-12-14

BioScience

Abstract:Abstract Ecosystem restoration is an important means to address global sustainability challenges. However, scientific and policy discourse often overlooks the social processes that influence the equity and effectiveness of restoration interventions. In the present article, we outline how social processes that are critical to restoration equity and effectiveness can be better incorporated in restoration science and policy. Drawing from existing case studies, we show how projects that align with local people's preferences and are implemented through inclusive governance are more likely to lead to improved social, ecological, and environmental outcomes. To underscore the importance of social considerations in restoration, we overlay existing global restoration priority maps, population, and the Human Development Index (HDI) to show that approximately 1.4 billion people, disproportionately belonging to groups with low HDI, live in areas identified by previous studies as being of high restoration priority. We conclude with five action points for science and policy to promote equity-centered restoration.

biology
Restoration Ecology and the Path to Sustainability

James Aronson,Jelte van Andel

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118223130.ch22

2012-04-13

Restoration Ecology

Abstract:This chapter contains sections titled: Introduction Restoration Ecology Revisited Sustainability Science Epilogue Acknowledgements Introduction Restoration Ecology Revisited Sustainability Science Epilogue Acknowledgements

ecology
Using the past to manage the future: the role of palaeoecological and long‐term data in ecological restoration

Saúl Manzano,Adele C. M. Julier,Cherie J. Dirk,Andriantsilavo H. I. Razafimanantsoa,Igshaan Samuels,Hana Petersen,Peter Gell,M.Timm Hoffman,Lindsey Gillson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13285

2020-11-01

Restoration Ecology

Abstract:Global change in its various expressions has impacted the structure and function of ecosystems worldwide, compromising the provision of fundamental ecosystems services and creating a predicament for the societies that benefit from them. Restoration ecology plays a key role in securing ecological integrity and societal wellbeing, and hence represents a global priority. However, human perception seldom goes back to the beginning of significant ecosystem degradation, making ecosystem assessment and restoration practices difficult. Long‐term data, historical records and palaeoecological information can increase our understanding of ecological responses to natural or anthropogenic impacts, and can directly contribute to the understanding and design of effective restoration practices. Here, examples from different ecosystems (drylands, grasslands, shrublands, savannas, forests, coastal environments and wetlands) brought together from around the world illustrate (i) how to develop appropriate restoration references under the current uncertain global change scenario (ii) how long‐term perspectives on drivers of change can help to identify critical ecological elements, thus contributing to defining restoration goals (iii) how to incorporate information from the past as guidance for present interventions and landscape management. The building of community and the specificity of palaeoecological and historical records of ecological change over time will be key in facilitating the translation of long‐term information into the living process of ecological restoration practice.This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

ecology
Towards a Conceptual Framework for Restoration Ecology

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.1996.tb00112.x@10.1111/(ISSN)1526-100X.2525thAnniversaryVI

2019-10-03

Restoration Ecology

Abstract:Heightening human impacts on the Earth result in widespread losses of production and conservation values and make large‐scale ecosystem restoration increasingly urgent. Tackling this problem requires the development of general guiding principles for restoration so that we can move away from the ad hoc, site‐ and situation‐specific approach that now prevails. A continuum of restoration efforts can be recognized, ranging from restoration of localized highly degraded sites to restoration of entire landscapes for production and/or conservation reasons. We emphasize the importance of developing restoration methodologies that are applicable at the landscape scale. Key processes in restoration include identifying and dealing with the processes leading to degradation in the first place, determining realistic goals and measures of success, developing methods for implementing the goals and incorporating them into land‐management and planning strategies, and monitoring the restoration and assessing its success. Few of these procedures are currently incorporated in many restoration projects. The concept that many ecosystems are likely to exist in alternative stable states, depending on their history, is relevant to the setting of restoration goals. A range of measures, such as those being developed to measure ecosystem health, could be used to develop “scorecards” for restoration efforts. Generalizable guidelines for restoration on individual sites could be based on the concepts of designed disturbance, controlled colonization, and controlled species performance. Fewer explicit guidelines are available at the landscape scale, beyond nonquantitative generalities about size and connectivity. Development of these guidelines is an important priority so that urgent large‐scale restoration can be planned and implemented effectively.

ecology
Harnessing ecological theory to enhance ecosystem restoration

Brian R. Silliman,Marc J.S. Hensel,Jean P. Gibert,Pedro Daleo,Carter S. Smith,Daniel J. Wieczynski,Christine Angelini,Avery B. Paxton,Alyssa M. Adler,Y. Stacy Zhang,Andrew H. Altieri,Todd M. Palmer,Holly P. Jones,Rachel K. Gittman,John N. Griffin,Mary I. O’Connor,Johan van de Koppel,John R. Poulsen,Max Rietkerk,Qiang He,Mark D. Bertness,Tjisse van der Heide,Stephanie R. Valdez

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2024.03.043

IF: 9.2

2024-05-07

Current Biology

Abstract:Silliman and colleagues outline how restoration practitioners can leverage insight from ecological theories to increase the scale, success, and resilience of habitat restorations.

cell biology,biochemistry & molecular biology,biology
Perspectives on Challenges and Opportunities at the Restoration‐Policy Interface in the U.S.A.

Ella M. Samuel,Rachel M. Mitchell,Daniel E. Winker

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13823

2022-11-03

Restoration Ecology

Abstract:As we advance into the United Nations Decade on Ecosystem Restoration, understanding the relationship between science, management, and policy is increasingly important given the paucity of research evaluating the ability of existing policy to address contemporary environmental challenges. Despite their inherent interdependence, restoration ecology as a scientific discipline, ecological restoration as a practice, and the policies driving restoration efforts do not always represent a unified force. Accenting the policies and practices within the United States, we present our perspective on challenges associated with this disunion, including those linked to social dimensions of restoration and limitations associated with existing policy. We provide a review of existing federal policy in the United States and synthesize suggestions that have emerged in the literature to fortify connections between restoration science and policy. We also describe social challenges to meeting restoration goals, including barriers surrounding power dynamics, trust, and communication, as well as divergent incentives, perspectives, and values. We propose potential solutions that exist in transdisciplinary collaboration and knowledge sharing, and evidence‐based, balanced decision‐making that equally considers varying perspectives. With the understanding that current conservation practices are not enough to mitigate environmental degradation, we focus on streamlining problem‐solving strategies to support restoration and face the widespread ecological issues of today. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

ecology
Introduction: Human-nature interactions through a multispecies lens

Alex Aisher,Vinita Damodaran

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-4923.197612

2016-01-01

Conservation and Society

Abstract:This introduction brings together a group of papers focusing on conservation theory and practice, and argues strongly for a new place-based conservation through a multispecies lens. Honouring the work of Brian Morris, a scholar who has consistently forged a persuasive set of conceptual connections between science and society, and building on his insights into environmental history and human-nature interactions, we outline a vision of conservation that incorporates new narratives – at the intersection between the ecological and the social – to reimagine the world in the Anthropocene. This includes challenging the persistence of fortress, neoprotectionist and other top-down forms of conservation, through a recognition that conservation is deeply rooted in (human, nonhuman and more-than-human) senses of place. The introduction urges scholars to focus on landscapes as units of analysis: 'multispecies assemblages' that are easily overlooked at other spatial and historical scales. It calls for increased attention to the contact zones where the lives of humans and other species biologically, culturally and politically intersect, as a counterpoint to the dominant planetary perspective of earth systems and conservation science. It underlines the importance of deep relational analyses of human interactions with other life forms, through renewed attention to multispecies histories, locality, and forms of knowledge rooted in place. It is at this level, through historically nuanced accounts founded on a more place-based conception of ourselves as a species, that new narratives and answers to our current predicament will emerge.

environmental studies
Biomic river restoration: A new focus for river management

Matthew F. Johnson,Colin R. Thorne,Janine M. Castro,G. Mathias Kondolf,Celeste Searles Mazzacano,Stewart B. Rood,Cherie Westbrook

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.3529

2019-08-27

River Research and Applications

Abstract:River management based solely on physical science has proven to be unsustainable and unsuccessful, evidenced by the fact that the problems this approach intended to solve (e.g., flood hazards, water scarcity, and channel instability) have not been solved and long‐term deterioration in river environments has reduced the capacity of rivers to continue meeting the needs of society. In response, there has been a paradigm shift in management over the past few decades, towards river restoration. But the ecological, morphological, and societal benefits of river restoration have, on the whole, been disappointing. We believe that this stems from the fact that restoration overrelies on the same physical analyses and approaches, with flowing water still regarded as the universally predominant driver of channel form and structural intervention seen as essential to influencing fluvial processes. We argue that if river restoration is to reverse long‐standing declines in river functions, it is necessary to recognize the influence of biology on river forms and processes and re‐envisage what it means to restore a river. This entails shifting the focus of river restoration from designing and constructing stable channels that mimic natural forms to reconnecting streams within balanced and healthy biomes, and so levering the power of biology to influence river processes. We define this new approach as biomic river restoration.

environmental sciences,water resources
Sustainable restoration: addressing critical challenges through university‐led projects

Mitchell Christensen,Rachel Seeley,J Ungos,Zoe Lyman,Spencer J. Ingley

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.14337

2024-11-10

Restoration Ecology

Abstract:The urgency to restore ecosystems amid climate change and biodiversity loss has led to widespread engagement in habitat restoration projects. However, many projects fall short of their goals, highlighting the need for innovation. We use a case study at our university to explore how the integration of habitat restoration into university curricula might address some of the major challenges to long‐term restoration success. We demonstrate how integration with university activities could help address three key challenges in restoration: insufficient planning and monitoring, limited community engagement, and lack of long‐term funding. Our approach demonstrates how involving students and faculty in restoration projects can enhance adaptive management by including these efforts in science curricula, foster community participation through volunteer engagement, and reduce costs through volunteer efforts and collaboration with campus entities. These findings suggest that universities can play a vital role in advancing ecological restoration, benefiting both society and the environment.

ecology
Landsenses Ecology: A New Idea for Watershed Ecology Restoration

Chang Liu,Jingyi Ouyang,Jinshan Yan,Lina Tang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20043610

IF: 4.614

2023-02-17

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

Abstract:Watershed ecology restoration is the key to solving the ecological and environmental problems of watersheds and achieving sustainable development. As one direction of the frontiers of ecology, landsenses ecology is supported by science and technology and cares for humans. It has a great significance for enhancing the human habitat and achieving sustainable development. Combining landsenses ecology and the technical process of watershed ecology restoration allows the integration of people’s visions into the system of strategies and applied technologies for watershed ecology restoration while ensuring the restoration of the ecological functions of watersheds. It is a complement to the traditional ecosystem restoration model. This study establishes the connection between landsenses ecology and watershed ecology restoration in terms of goals, models and focus of attention. It aims to construct an indicator system of restoration with the application of landsenses ecology, form a complete process of ecological restoration with the integration of landsenses ecology and apply it to the ecological restoration of watershed elements with relatively intensive human activity such as urban green areas, buildings and wetlands (rivers and lakes). Rather than just always emphasizing natural ecology, landsenses ecology treats human beings as part of nature. It tries to establish a more comprehensive, humanized ideal restoration model by taking “human perceptions” into consideration. Through a restoration process based on long-term and continuous coordination, feedback and improvement, it can improve the ecological benefits of the watershed and improve residents’ well-being, so as to ultimately realize the establishment of a “community of life between man and nature”.

public, environmental & occupational health,environmental sciences
A conceptual framework for urban ecological restoration and rehabilitation

Valentin H. Klaus,Kathrin Kiehl

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2021.02.010

IF: 3.735

2021-05-01

Basic and Applied Ecology

Abstract:Urban greenspace has gained considerable attention during the last decades because of its relevance to wildlife conservation, human welfare, and climate change adaptation. Biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation worldwide require the formation of new concepts of ecological restoration and rehabilitation aimed at improving ecosystem functions, services, and biodiversity conservation in cities. Although relict sites of natural and semi-natural ecosystems can be found in urban areas, environmental conditions and species composition of most urban ecosystems are highly modified, inducing the development of novel and hybrid ecosystems. A consequence of this ecological novelty is the lack of (semi-) natural reference systems available for defining restoration targets and assessing restoration success in urban areas. This hampers the implementation of ecological restoration in cities. In consideration of these challenges, we present a new conceptual framework that provides guidance and support for urban ecological restoration and rehabilitation by formulating restoration targets for different levels of ecological novelty (i.e., historic, hybrid, and novel ecosystems). To facilitate the restoration and rehabilitation of novel urban ecosystems, we recommend using established species-rich and well-functioning urban ecosystems as reference. Such urban reference systems are likely to be present in many cities. Highlighting their value in comparison to degraded ecosystems can stimulate and guide restoration initiatives. As urban restoration approaches must consider local history and site conditions, as well as citizens' needs, it may also be advisable to focus the restoration of strongly altered urban ecosystems on select ecosystem functions, services and/or biodiversity values. Ecosystem restoration and rehabilitation in cities can be either relatively inexpensive or costly, but even expensive measures can pay off when they effectively improve ecosystem services such as climate change mitigation or recreation. Successful re‐shaping and re-thinking of urban greenspace by involving citizens and other stakeholders will help to make our cities more sustainable in the future.

ecology
The Ecological Benefits of Positive Public Perception on Public Access Ecological Restorations

Larry Weaner

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3368/er.42.2.100

2024-05-24

Ecological Restoration

Abstract:Restoration ecologists focus primarily on formulating and implementing actions that enhance the ecological health of the areas where they work. A project begins by closely analyzing the area's flora, fauna, biota, and physical environment. Then a set of actions is prescribed based on that analysis and the stated goals of the project. As it is not considered relevant to the primary scientific goal of ecological enhancement, how that work is perceived by visitors or passersby is often not prioritized or even considered at all. This can be a missed opportunity.Support and funding for post-planting management of a restoration project are more likely to be sustained where public perception of that project, including ... Read More

ecology
The social–ecological ladder of restoration ambition

Frietsch, Marina,Pacheco-Romero, Manuel,Temperton, Vicky M.,Kaplin, Beth A.,Fischer, Joern

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-024-02021-8

IF: 6.94

2024-04-24

AMBIO

Abstract:Expanding in both scope and scale, ecosystem restoration needs to embrace complex social–ecological dynamics. To help scientists and practitioners navigate ever new demands on restoration, we propose the "social–ecological ladder of restoration ambition" as a conceptual model to approach dynamically shifting social and ecological restoration goals. The model focuses on three dynamic aspects of restoration, namely degrading processes, restoration goals and remedial actions. As these three change through time, new reinforcing and balancing feedback mechanisms characterize the restoration process. We illustrate our model through case studies in which restoration has become increasingly ambitious through time, namely forest landscape restoration in Rwanda and grassland restoration in Germany. The ladder of restoration ambition offers a new way of applying social–ecological systems thinking to ecosystem restoration. Additionally, it raises awareness of social–ecological trade-offs, power imbalances and conflicting goals in restoration projects, thereby laying an important foundation for finding more practicable and fairer solutions.

environmental sciences,engineering, environmental
Urban post‐industrial landscapes have unrealized ecological potential

Laura Merwin,Lauren Umek,Alison E. Anastasio

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13643

2022-03-07

Restoration Ecology

Abstract:Urbanized and post‐industrial sites often host considerable biodiversity but are too frequently dismissed by conservation professionals, in part because current species assemblages differ from the site's natural history. Given the dramatic and often irreversible changes to these sites, we conclude that historic ecosystems do not provide a useful reference for restoration. However, seen through a novel ecosystem lens, these landscapes already have conservation value and thus require nuanced restoration planning that recognizes their current and potential community composition. We highlight slag‐dominated sites in the brownfields of the Calumet region as an example of a post‐industrial landscape that may serve both as a recreational area for humans and a refuge for native biodiversity.

ecology
Linking Restoration and Landscape Ecology

Susan S. Bell,Mark S. Fonseca,Little B. Motten

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1526-100x.1997.00545.x

1997-12-01

Restoration Ecology

Abstract:Landscape ecology focuses on questions typically addressed over broad spatial scales. A landscape approach embraces spatial heterogeneity, consisting of a number of ecosystems and/or landscape structures of different types, as a central theme. Such studies may aid restoration efforts in a variety of ways, including (1) provision of better guidance for selecting reference sites and establishing project goals and (2) suggestions for appropriate spatial configurations of restored elements to facilitate recruitment of flora/fauna. Likewise, restoration efforts may assist landscape–level studies, given that restored habitats, possessing various patch arrangements or being established among landscapes of varying diversity and conditions of human alteration, can provide extraordinary opportunities for experimentation over a large spatial scale. Restoration studies can facilitate the rate of information gathering for expected changes in natural landscapes for which introduction of landscape elements may be relatively slow. Moreover, data collected from restoration studies can assist in validation of dynamic models of current interest in landscape ecology. We suggest that restoration and landscape ecology have an unexplored mutualistic relationship that could enhance research and application of both disciplines.

ecology
The present and future of grassland restoration

Péter Török,Lars A. Brudvig,Johannes Kollmann,Jodi Price,Béla Tóthmérész

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13378

2021-04-01

Restoration Ecology

Abstract:Grasslands contribute greatly to biodiversity and human livelihoods; they support 70% of the world's agricultural area, but are heavily degraded by human land‐use. Grassland restoration research and management receives less attention than forests or freshwater habitats, although grasslands are critical for sustaining ecosystems multifunctionality and capacity to support biodiversity. In this paper, we introduce a Special Issue which considers major trends and prospects in grassland restoration. We identified three key topics: First, restoration must confront widespread seed and site limitations, and new monitoring methods, including remote sensing techniques, are critical for restoration projects. Second, we highlight that restored grasslands typically require ongoing disturbance management and that research is required to determine optimal approaches for implementing this management during restoration. Third, global and regional restoration agendas should be harmonised with site‐level goals, and syntheses of current knowledge and research needs must guide grassland restoration across scales. We also identify research gaps to be filled, and challenges which grasslands face in the future: (i) a need for careful target vegetation selection and climate‐adaptive restoration; (ii) lack of knowledge in dynamics and restoration of several regions and grassland types, including drylands and (sub)tropical regions; (iii) increased importance of species arrival sequence, and high stochasticity of species establishment; and finally (iv) issues of post‐restoration management to guarantee long‐term sustainability of restored sites. A new generation of research and restoration projects to bridge these gaps is necessary to mitigate environmental challenges spanning localities to the globe as we commence the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration.This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

ecology
The erosion of relational values resulting from landscape simplification

Maraja Riechers,Ágnes Balázsi,Lydia Betz,Tolera S. Jiren,Joern Fischer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-020-01012-w

IF: 5.043

2020-04-20

Landscape Ecology

Abstract:Abstract Context The global trend of landscape simplification for industrial agriculture is known to cause losses in biodiversity and ecosystem service diversity. Despite these problems being widely known, status quo trajectories driven by global economic growth and changing diets continue to lead to further landscape simplification. Objectives In this perspective article, we argue that landscape simplification has negative consequences for a range of relational values, affecting the social-ecological relationships between people and nature, as well as the social relationships among people. A focus on relational values has been proposed to overcome the divide between intrinsic and instrumental values that people gain from nature. Results We use a landscape sustainability science framing to examine the interconnections between ecological and social changes taking place in rural landscapes. We propose that increasingly rapid and extreme landscape simplification erodes human-nature connectedness, social relations, and the sense of agency of inhabitants—potentially to the point of severe erosion of relational values in extreme cases. We illustrate these hypothesized changes through four case studies from across the globe. Leaving the links between ecological, social-ecological and social dimensions of landscape change unattended could exacerbate disconnection from nature. Conclusion A relational values perspective can shed new light on managing and restoring landscapes. Landscape sustainability science is ideally placed as an integrative space that can connect relevant insights from landscape ecology and work on relational values. We see local agency as a likely key ingredient to landscape sustainability that should be actively fostered in conservation and restoration projects.

ecology,geography, physical,geosciences, multidisciplinary
Human–River Relationships

C. Allan,C. G. Flint,M. C. Thoms,R. J. Watts

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.4379

2024-11-07

River Research and Applications

Abstract:ABSTRACT Rivers and people are tightly coupled. How people relate to rivers dictates their understanding of rivers and approaches to river management. The numerous ways people interact with rivers create complex patterns of social–ecological relationships and interdependencies. Despite this tight coupling, rivers and humans are often studied and managed as separate entities, to the detriment of river environments. Conceptual pluralism is required to move beyond existing practice to avoid irretrievable loss of ways of framing and working with our river environments. The articles in this special issue approach human–river relationships from three perspectives. First, there is a subset that enters the discussions via the human aspects of relationships with rivers, particularly the human frames, metaphors, definitions, or concepts used to reflect on human activities related to rivers. The second subset approaches relationships via the river dimensions, with particular focus on the impacts of human modifications to river ecosystems. Finally, the third subset more fully emphasizes the relationships between humans and rivers. The wide‐ranging dialogue provided in these articles highlights the need for a wider research agenda for rivers that embraces social–ecological systems and other integrative, inclusive ways of understanding. As a collective, these articles advocate the value of creating new river knowledge embedded within a social–ecological context, action, and advocacy.

environmental sciences,water resources
Towards biogeomorphic river restoration: Vegetation as a critical driver of physical habitat

Rossa O'Briain,Dov Corenblit,Virginia Garófano‐Gómez,Ciara O'Leary

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.4288

2024-05-07

River Research and Applications

Abstract:The current focus of river restoration on flow and sediment transfer without proper consideration of vegetation as a key structuring agent, beyond its stabilising effect, is too simplistic. We contend that vegetation has an essential role in shaping the physical fluvial environment and should be considered equally alongside hydrogeomorphic processes in restoration projects. In support, we introduce engineer plants as important controls, along with flowing water and transported sediments, on the morphodynamics of river systems and associated physical habitat development. The effect of vegetation on channel planform is then summarised, the influence of vegetation on hydrogeomorphic connectivity is outlined, and then the role of vegetation in landform development and habitat provision, as encapsulated in the fluvial biogeomorphic succession model, is described. We then present examples demonstrating how vegetation has contributed to the recovery of degraded rivers through biogeomorphic processes. Finally, we advance the concept of biogeomorphic river restoration by proposing principles to support a closer synthesis of the component sciences and list key areas for practitioners to focus on. Vegetation succession has a significance that goes beyond its physical structure or influence on sediment stability. In many river settings, it is central to channel evolution. The coupled assembly of plant communities and fluvial landforms affect the development of spatially and temporally dynamic habitat through biogeomorphic interactions. Restoration approaches that do not fully consider this dynamic may fail to anticipate river behaviour and recovery trajectories.

environmental sciences,water resources

Let us not forget the human dimensions of ecosystem restoration

Step back from the forest and step up to the Bonn Challenge: How a broad ecological perspective can promote successful landscape restoration

How Social Considerations Improve the Equity and Effectiveness of Ecosystem Restoration

Restoration Ecology and the Path to Sustainability

Using the past to manage the future: the role of palaeoecological and long‐term data in ecological restoration

Towards a Conceptual Framework for Restoration Ecology

Harnessing ecological theory to enhance ecosystem restoration

Perspectives on Challenges and Opportunities at the Restoration‐Policy Interface in the U.S.A.

Introduction: Human-nature interactions through a multispecies lens

Biomic river restoration: A new focus for river management

Sustainable restoration: addressing critical challenges through university‐led projects

Landsenses Ecology: A New Idea for Watershed Ecology Restoration

A conceptual framework for urban ecological restoration and rehabilitation

The Ecological Benefits of Positive Public Perception on Public Access Ecological Restorations

The social–ecological ladder of restoration ambition

Urban post‐industrial landscapes have unrealized ecological potential

Linking Restoration and Landscape Ecology

The present and future of grassland restoration

The erosion of relational values resulting from landscape simplification

Human–River Relationships

Towards biogeomorphic river restoration: Vegetation as a critical driver of physical habitat