Where to from here? Challenges for restoration and revegetation in a fast-changing world
R. J. HobbsSchool of Biological Science, University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia. Email: richard.hobbs@uwa.edu.au
The Rangeland Journal 39(6) 563-566 https://doi.org/10.1071/RJ17053
Submitted: 29 May 2017 Accepted: 26 July 2017 Published: 23 August 2017
Abstract
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.
Additional keywords: restoration goals, restoration outcomes, standards.
References
Briske, D. D., Bestelmeyer, B. T., Brown, J. R., Brunson, M. W., Thurow, T. L., and Tanaka, J. A. (2017). Assessment of USDA-NRCS Rangeland Conservation Programs: recommendation for an evidence-based conservation platform. Ecological Applications 27, 94–104.| Assessment of USDA-NRCS Rangeland Conservation Programs: recommendation for an evidence-based conservation platform.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BC2snoslWltA%3D%3D&md5=088221759ba4b7f08fb7a89aa89253fbCAS |
Campbell, A., Alexandra, J., and Curtis, D. (2017). Reflections on four decades of land restoration in Australia. The Rangeland Journal 38, .
Hallett, L. M., Diver, S., Eitzel, M. V., Olson, J. J., Ramage, B. S., Sardinas, H., Statman-Weil, Z., and Suding, K. N. (2013). Do We Practice What We Preach? Goal Setting for Ecological Restoration. Restoration Ecology 21, 312–319.
| Do We Practice What We Preach? Goal Setting for Ecological Restoration.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Heller, N. E., and Hobbs, R. J. (2014). Development of a natural practice to adapt conservation goals to global change. Conservation Biology 28, 696–704.
| Development of a natural practice to adapt conservation goals to global change.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hobbs, R. J., and Norton, D. A. (1996). Towards a conceptual framework for restoration ecology. Restoration Ecology 4, 93–110.
| Towards a conceptual framework for restoration ecology.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hobbs, R. J., Hallett, L. M., Ehrlich, P. R., and Mooney, H. A. (2011). Intervention ecology: applying ecological science in the 21st century. Bioscience 61, 442–450.
| Intervention ecology: applying ecological science in the 21st century.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hobbs, R. J., Higgs, E. S., Hall, C. M., Bridgewater, P., Chapin, F. S., Ellis, E. C., Ewel, J. J., Hallett, L. M., Harris, J. A., Hulvey, K. B., Jackson, S. T., Kennedy, P. L., Kueffer, C., Lach, L., Lantz, T. C., Lugo, A. E., Mascaro, J., Murphy, S. D., Nelson, C. R., Perring, M. P., Richardson, D. M., Seastedt, T. R., Standish, R. J., Starzomski, B. M., Suding, K. N., Tognetti, P. M., Yakob, L., and Yung, L. (2014). Managing the whole landscape: historical, hybrid, and novel ecosystems. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 12, 557–564.
| Managing the whole landscape: historical, hybrid, and novel ecosystems.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hobbs, R. J., Higgs, E. S., and Hall, C. M. (2017). Expanding the portfolio: conserving nature’s masterpieces in a changing world. Bioscience 67, 568–575.
| Expanding the portfolio: conserving nature’s masterpieces in a changing world.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Legge, S., Murphy, S., Kingswood, R., Maher, B., and Swan, D. (2011). EcoFire: restoring the biodiversity values of the Kimberley region by managing fire. Ecological Management & Restoration 12, 84–92.
| EcoFire: restoring the biodiversity values of the Kimberley region by managing fire.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Letnic, M., Ritchie, E. G., and Dickman, C. R. (2012). Top predators as biodiversity regulators: the dingo Canis lupus dingo as a case study. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 87, 390–413.
| Top predators as biodiversity regulators: the dingo Canis lupus dingo as a case study.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Letnic, M., Baker, L., and Nesbitt, B. (2013). Ecologically functional landscapes and the role of dingoes as trophic regulators in south-eastern Australia and other habitats. Ecological Management & Restoration 14, 101–105.
| Ecologically functional landscapes and the role of dingoes as trophic regulators in south-eastern Australia and other habitats.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Maron, M., Hobbs, R. J., Moilanen, A., Matthews, J. W., Christie, K., Gardner, T. A., Keith, D. A., Lindenmayer, D. B., and McAlpine, C. A. (2012). Faustian bargains? Restoration realities in the context of biodiversity offset policies. Biological Conservation 155, 141–148.
| Faustian bargains? Restoration realities in the context of biodiversity offset policies.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
McDonald, T., Gann, G. D., Jonson, J., and Dixon, K. W. (2016a). ‘International Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration – Including Principles and Key Concepts.’ (Society for Ecological Restoration: Washington, DC.)
McDonald, T., Jonson, J., and Dixon, K. W. (2016b). National standards for the practice of ecological restoration in Australia. Restoration Ecology 24, S4–S32.
| National standards for the practice of ecological restoration in Australia.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Norton, D. A., Young, L. M., Byrom, A. E., Clarkson, B. D., Lyver, P. O. B., McGlone, M. S., and Waipara, N. W. (2016). How do we restore New Zealand’s biological heritage by 2050? Ecological Management & Restoration 17, 170–179.
| How do we restore New Zealand’s biological heritage by 2050?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Pannell, D. J., and Roberts, M. (2010). Australia’s national action for salinity and water quality: a retrospective assessment. The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 54, 437–456.
| Australia’s national action for salinity and water quality: a retrospective assessment.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Skroblin, A., Legge, S., Webb, T., and Hunt, L. P. (2014). EcoFire: regional-scale prescribed burning increases the annual carrying capacity of livestock on pastoral properties by reducing pasture loss from wildfire. The Rangeland Journal 36, 133–142.
| EcoFire: regional-scale prescribed burning increases the annual carrying capacity of livestock on pastoral properties by reducing pasture loss from wildfire.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
