Restoration ecology: tragedy or comedy?

Restoration ecology: tragedy or Restoration ecology: tragedy or comedy?comedy?

James BullockJames BullockJames Bullock

Biodiversity destruction & lossBiodiversity destruction & lossBiodiversity destruction & loss

Biodiversity loss (a UK view) – extinctionsBiodiversity loss (a UK view) Biodiversity loss (a UK view) –– extinctionsextinctions

Lady’s slipper orchid (Cypripedium calceolus)

Critically endangered in the UK

3 sites in the UK

Lady’s slipper orchid (Cypripedium calceolus)

Critically endangered in the UK

3 sites in the UK

Interrupted brome (Bromus interruptus)

Extinct in the wild in the UK

Interrupted brome (Bromus interruptus)

Extinct in the wild in the UK

Habitat loss - UKHabitat loss Habitat loss -- UKUKSemi-natural grasslandSemi-natural grassland

Calcareous grasslandCalcareous grassland

Dorset 1940 Dorset 1940 -- 20072007

Lost/Lost/ExtantExtant

England & WalesEngland & Wales>95% lost 1930 >95% lost 1930 –– 19801980

(Fuller 1987)(Fuller 1987)

Habitat loss – Chilean temperate forestsHabitat loss Habitat loss –– Chilean temperate forestsChilean temperate forests

GB1960-2000

Dorset1930-2007

40 km40 km Native forest. Native forest. 1975: 120,000 ha1975: 120,000 ha2000: 39,000 ha2000: 39,000 ha

Echeverria et al 2006Echeverria et al 2006

Doom & gloom – what can ecologists do?Doom & gloom Doom & gloom –– what can ecologists do?what can ecologists do?

Guardian 2007Guardian 2007

Conserving individual species?Conserving individual species?Conserving individual species?

Habitat restoration - examplesHabitat restoration Habitat restoration -- examplesexamplesPlanting treesPlanting trees Digging out river meandersDigging out river meanders

Amending contaminated soilsAmending contaminated soils Removing alien plantsRemoving alien plants

Restoration Ecology – a difficult historyRestoration Ecology Restoration Ecology –– a difficult historya difficult history- Generally seen as an engineering problem

- Has a poor theoretical basis

- Seen as a series of case studies – experimentation is difficult

- Low scientific impact

- Viewed with suspicion by many conservationists

- Generally seen as an engineering problem

- Has a poor theoretical basis

- Seen as a series of case studies – experimentation is difficult

- Low scientific impact

- Viewed with suspicion by many conservationists

Restoration Ecology – comedy or tragedy?Restoration Ecology Restoration Ecology –– comedy or tragedy?comedy or tragedy?

A happy ending?A happy ending?

Or ‘signifying nothing’?Or ‘signifying nothing’?

1) Experiments to test restoration methods-link to concepts about

assembly rules

1) Experiments to test restoration methods-link to concepts about

assembly rules

Initial Plant Community

(undesirable sp.)

Intermediate Plant Community

(desirable + undesirable sp.)1. Dispersal/presence of seed of target sp.

Seed addition

Seed bank / dispersal

Regional sp. pool

Seed limitation

2. Establishment of target sp.

Nutrients/pH

Resource competition / gap limitation

Hydrology

Soil microbes

Mycorrhizae

Herbivores

Hemiparasites

Managementintervention

Target Plant Community(desirable sp.)

3. Regeneration of target sp.

Pollinators

Seed predators

Dispersal

4. Interspecific competition

5. Mortality of non-target sp.

Interactions

Creating new grassland on arable landCreating new grassland on arable landCreating new grassland on arable land

Experiment at 6 sites across S England Experiment at 6 sites across S England

Seed limitationSeed limitation

High soil nutrientsHigh soil nutrients

Lack of facilitation (Nurse crops)Lack of facilitation (Nurse crops)

Age (Succession)Age (Succession)1

234 5

6Hypothesised limiting factorsHypothesised limiting factors

Pywell et al (2002). J. Appl. EcolPywell et al (2002). J. Appl. EcolPywell et al (2002). J. Appl. Ecol

Over-riding factor = seed limitationOverOver--riding factor = seed limitationriding factor = seed limitationNatural regeneration

Standard seed mix (6-8 species)Standard seed mix (6-8 species) Rich seed mix (25-41 species)Rich seed mix (25-41 species)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

% s

imila

rity

to M

G5

Natural regeneration Standard mix Rich mix

Seed limitation

Pywell et al (2002). J. Appl. EcolPywell et al (2002). J. Appl. EcolPywell et al (2002). J. Appl. Ecol

Diversifying species-poor grasslandDiversifying speciesDiversifying species--poor grasslandpoor grassland

DeturfingHarrowing

Heavy grazingHypothesised important factors• Disturbance intensity• Seed limitation• Management – grazing, hay-making• Soil nutrients• Invert herbivory

Hypothesised important factors• Disturbance intensity• Seed limitation• Management – grazing, hay-making• Soil nutrients• Invert herbivory

Pywell et al (2007). J. Appl. EcolPywell et al (2007). J. Appl. EcolPywell et al (2007). J. Appl. Ecol

DeturfingHarrowing

Heavy grazingMain factor = disturbance intensity19 species added10-13 established in de-turfed3-4 in othersDifficult to diversify

Main factor = disturbance intensity19 species added10-13 established in de-turfed3-4 in othersDifficult to diversify

Pywell et al (2007). J. Appl. EcolPywell et al (2007). J. Appl. EcolPywell et al (2007). J. Appl. Ecol

Diversifying species-poor grasslandDiversifying speciesDiversifying species--poor grasslandpoor grassland

New approaches – Keystone speciesYellow rattle

New approaches New approaches –– Keystone speciesKeystone speciesYellow rattleYellow rattle A hemi-parasite

Typical of species-rich grasslands

Decreases grassland productivity

A hemiA hemi--parasiteparasite

Typical of speciesTypical of species--rich grasslandsrich grasslands

Decreases grassland productivityDecreases grassland productivity

r2 = 0.8***

0

40

80

120

0 50 100 150 200No. Rhinanthus stems

Dry

wt(

g) o

f gra

sses

Pywell et al (2005). J. Appl. EcolPywell et al (2005). J. Appl. EcolPywell et al (2005). J. Appl. Ecol

Rhinanthus increases sown species’ establishmentRhinanthus Rhinanthus increases sown speciesincreases sown species’’ establishmentestablishment

ANCOVA r2 = 0.63***

0123456789

10

0 20 40 60 80 100% frequency of Rhinanthus m-2 2001

Sow

n sp

ecie

s pe

r plo

t 200

2 FrequencyCorrelation Rhinanthus

Achillea millefolium 0.59**

Centaurea nigra 0.59**

Hypochoeris radicata 0.20nsd

Leontodon autumnalis 0.48*

Leontodon hispidus 0.37nsd

Leucanthemum vulgare 0.52*

Lotus corniculatus 0.15nsd

Plantago lanceolata 0.83***

Prunella vulgaris 0.49*

Trifolium dubium 0.56**

Pywell et al (2005). J. Appl. EcolPywell et al (2005). J. Appl. EcolPywell et al (2005). J. Appl. Ecol

- Survey of 80 sites in southern England

- Restored grasslands come to resemble ancient grasslands, but not completely

- Survey of 80 sites in southern England

- Restored grasslands come to resemble ancient grasslands, but not completely

-3

0

3

-2 0 2

Axis 1

Axi

s 2

----- = Age 1-5 years= Age 6-10 years= Age 11-20 years= Age 21-60 years= Combined target sites

Fagan et al. (2008) J. Appl. EcolFagan et al. (2008) J. Appl. EcolFagan et al. (2008) J. Appl. Ecol

2) Can restoration perfectly recreate communities?2) Can restoration perfectly recreate communities?2) Can restoration perfectly recreate communities?

89 restorations across the world – tropical/temperate, aquatic/terrestrial89 restorations across the world – tropical/temperate, aquatic/terrestrial

Global meta-analysis of success in restoration projectsGlobal metaGlobal meta--analysis of success in restoration analysis of success in restoration projectsprojects

Rey Benayas et al. (2009) ScienceRey Benayas et al. (2009) ScienceRey Benayas et al. (2009) Science

MangroveMangrove Subtropical forestSubtropical forestPrairiePrairie

SaltmarshSaltmarsh RiverRiver Coral reefCoral reef

Restorations are only partly successfulRestorations are only partly successfulRestorations are only partly successful

Rey Benayas et al. (2009) ScienceRey Benayas et al. (2009) ScienceRey Benayas et al. (2009) Science

Restored systems have lower biodiversity than target (86%) - but have 44% more biodiversity than degraded systems

But, differences among biomes

Restored systems have lower biodiversity than target (86%) - but have 44% more biodiversity than degraded systems

But, differences among biomes

Restored vs Restored vs DegradedDegraded

Restored vs TargetRestored vs Target

What limits restoration success?Analyse characteristics of poor and well performing species in

grassland restorations

What limits restoration success?Analyse characteristics of poor and well performing species in

grassland restorations

Fagan et al. (2008) J. Appl. Ecol, Pywell et al (2003). J. Appl. EcolFagan et al. (2008) J. Appl. Ecol,Fagan et al. (2008) J. Appl. Ecol, Pywell et al (2003). J. Appl. EcolPywell et al (2003). J. Appl. Ecol

Poor performers• Specialist, stress-tolerating, rare

species with smaller geographic range

Good performers• Generalist, competitive, good-

dispersing species of fertile habitats

Poor performers• Specialist, stress-tolerating, rare

species with smaller geographic range

Good performers• Generalist, competitive, good-

dispersing species of fertile habitats

New work – improving successNew methods to establish “difficult” plantsNew work New work –– improving successimproving successNew methods to establish New methods to establish ““difficultdifficult”” plantsplants

Helianthemum nummulariumHelianthemum nummularium

Campanula glomerataCampanula glomerata

Filipendula vulgarisFilipendula vulgaris

Stachys officinalisStachys officinalis

3) Informing policy about restoration & conservation – agri-environment schemes3) Informing policy about restoration & 3) Informing policy about restoration & conservation conservation –– agriagri--environment schemesenvironment schemes

2,373 ha under HK8 in England 20092,373 ha under HK8 in England 2009

•• Mostly limited engagement with AES Mostly limited engagement with AES objectivesobjectives

•• Or understanding of reasoning behind Or understanding of reasoning behind prescriptionsprescriptions

•• Unintentional breaches & cornerUnintentional breaches & corner--cuttingcutting•• Linked to poor outcomes of AESLinked to poor outcomes of AES•• Problem of scheme based mostly on Problem of scheme based mostly on

monetary incentives?monetary incentives?

Farmer engagement & AESFarmer engagement & AESLinking ecology & social scienceLinking ecology & social science

Improving agri-environment

schemes

Enhancing the success of agri-environment schemes

Farmer Farmer attitude to & attitude to & benefits benefits from AESfrom AES

Biodiversity Biodiversity enhancementenhancement

Landscape contextLandscape contextTraininTrainingg

Application of Application of AES optionsAES options

The FARMCAT project The FARMCAT project Improving agri-environment

schemes

•• Overall, how useful did you find the information presented todayOverall, how useful did you find the information presented today??–– 68% (17 farmers) 68% (17 farmers) –– Very useful (32% useful)Very useful (32% useful)

•• Is the training likely to influence the way you think about Is the training likely to influence the way you think about environmental land management in general?environmental land management in general?–– 93% (26 farmers) 93% (26 farmers) -- YesYes

•• Is the training likely to influence the way you manage your ELS Is the training likely to influence the way you manage your ELS land?land?–– 90% (25 farmers) 90% (25 farmers) -- YesYes

•• Would you recommend this training event to a farming friend?Would you recommend this training event to a farming friend?–– 100% Yes100% Yes

Farmer motivations & trainingFarmer motivations & training

4) Linking restoration with wider societal needs 4) Linking restoration with wider societal needs

The need to consider conservation alongside other objectives The need to consider conservation alongside other objectives

Linking biodiversity & agricultural productionLinking biodiversity & agricultural productionLinking biodiversity & agricultural productionStandard seed mix (6Standard seed mix (6--8 species)8 species) Rich seed mix (25Rich seed mix (25--41 species)41 species)

Higher productivity

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

1 2 3 4 8Year

Prod

uctio

n (t

Dry

Mat

ter h

a -1)

Low diversityHigh diversity

Higher N content

0.8

0.9

1

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1 2 3 4Year

% N

con

tent

Low diversityHigh diversity

Bullock et al (2001) Ecol. Lett., (2007). J. Appl. Ecol.Bullock et al (2001) Ecol. Lett., (2007). J. Appl. Ecol.Bullock et al (2001) Ecol. Lett., (2007). J. Appl. Ecol.

Linking biodiversity & agricultural productionLinking biodiversity & agricultural productionLinking biodiversity & agricultural productionStandard seed mix (6Standard seed mix (6--8 species)8 species) Rich seed mix (25Rich seed mix (25--41 species)41 species)

Higher productivity

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

1 2 3 4 8Year

Prod

uctio

n (t

Dry

Mat

ter h

a -1)

Low diversityHigh diversity

Higher N content

0.8

0.9

1

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1 2 3 4Year

% N

con

tent

Low diversityHigh diversity

Bullock et al (2001) Ecol. Lett., (2007). J. Appl. Ecol.Bullock et al (2001) Ecol. Lett., (2007). J. Appl. Ecol.Bullock et al (2001) Ecol. Lett., (2007). J. Appl. Ecol.

Culmulative income differences

£0

£200

£400

£600

£800

£1,000

£1,200

£1,400

£1,600

£1,800

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Year

Inco

me

ha-1

from

hay

(200

6 pr

ices

)

Low diversityHigh diversity

Restoration and ecosystem servicesThe ecosystem service concept

Restoration and ecosystem servicesThe ecosystem service concept

From Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

From Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

Haines-Young & PotvinHaines-Young & Potvin

Restoration and ecosystem servicesThe ecosystem service concept

Restoration and ecosystem servicesThe ecosystem service concept

Leading to valuation of ecosystem servicesLeading to valuation of ecosystem services

From TEEBFrom TEEBFrom TEEB

Outstanding questions

- How is biodiversity linked to ecosystem services?

- Can restoration be used to enhance biodversity & ecosystem services

Outstanding questionsOutstanding questions

-- How is biodiversity linked to How is biodiversity linked to ecosystem services?ecosystem services?

-- Can restoration be used to Can restoration be used to enhance biodversity & enhance biodversity & ecosystem servicesecosystem services

From Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

From Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

89 restorations across the world – tropical/temperate, aquatic/terrestrial89 restorations across the world – tropical/temperate, aquatic/terrestrial

Global meta-analysis of ecosystem services in restoration projectsGlobal metaGlobal meta--analysis of ecosystem services in analysis of ecosystem services in restoration projectsrestoration projects

Rey Benayas et al. (2009) ScienceRey Benayas et al. (2009) ScienceRey Benayas et al. (2009) Science

MangroveMangrove Subtropical forestSubtropical forestPrairiePrairie

SaltmarshSaltmarsh RiverRiver Coral reefCoral reef

Provisioning Provisioning ServicesServices

Regulating Regulating ServicesServices

Supporting Supporting ServicesServices

Commercial crab Commercial crab production production

Thermal buffer Thermal buffer capacitycapacity

Soil compactionSoil compaction

Fish biomassFish biomass Runoff Runoff coefficientcoefficient

Total CTotal C

Density of Density of commercial treescommercial trees

Water qualityWater quality SalinitySalinity

Eel abundanceEel abundance Total PbTotal Pb Soil respirationSoil respiration

Preference by Preference by livestocklivestock

SedimentationSedimentation Denitrification Denitrification potentialpotential

Relating function measures to services(Biodiversity = all trophic levels)

Relating function measures to servicesRelating function measures to services(Biodiversity = all trophic levels)(Biodiversity = all trophic levels)

Restorations are (partly) successfulRestorations are (partly) successfulRestorations are (partly) successful

Rey Benayas et al. (2009) ScienceRey Benayas et al. (2009) ScienceRey Benayas et al. (2009) Science

- Degraded systems have ~55% biodiversity & services of pristine systems

- Biodiversity increased by restoration (144%)

- Services increased by restoration (125%)

- But pristine systems are better than restored (~80%)

- Degraded systems have ~55% biodiversity & services of pristine systems

- Biodiversity increased by restoration (144%)

- Services increased by restoration (125%)

- But pristine systems are better than restored (~80%)

Increasing biodiversity correlated with increasing servicesIncreasing biodiversity correlated with Increasing biodiversity correlated with increasing servicesincreasing services

Rey Benayas et al. (2009) ScienceRey Benayas et al. (2009) ScienceRey Benayas et al. (2009) Science

- Important evidence for link between biodiversity & services

- Restoration can enhance both simultaneously

- Important evidence for link between biodiversity & services

- Restoration can enhance both simultaneously

New policy:Restoration to enhance biodiversity & ecosystem servicesNew policy:New policy:Restoration to enhance biodiversity & ecosystem servicesRestoration to enhance biodiversity & ecosystem services

New experimentEffects of added plants on:

•Production: amount & quality

•Butterflies, bumblebees•Birds•Nutrient leaching•Soil structure •Carbon dynamics

New experimentEffects of added plants on:

•Production: amount & quality

•Butterflies, bumblebees•Birds•Nutrient leaching•Soil structure •Carbon dynamics

Using Ecosystem Services to calculate value Using Ecosystem Services to calculate value of restorationsof restorations

TEEB preliminary data (not mine!)TEEB preliminary data (not mine!)

Ecological restorationEcological restorationEcological restoration A happy ending?A happy ending?

Restoration methods are improving & have a scientific basis

Restoration is supported by policy (AES, UKBAP, REDD)

Restoration can be used to enhance biodiversity & ecosystem services

Is it cost effective…?

Maintenance of existing habitat remains the best policy

Restoration methods are improving & have a scientific basis

Restoration is supported by policy (AES, UKBAP, REDD)

Restoration can be used to enhance biodiversity & ecosystem services

Is it cost effective…?

Maintenance of existing habitat remains the best policy