Carbon sequestration strategies highlight tree plantations without considering their full environmental consequences. We combined field research, synthesis of more than 600 observations, and climate and economic modeling to document substantial losses in stream flow, and increased soil salinization and acidification, with afforestation. Plantations decreased stream flow by 227 millimeters per year globally (52%), with 13% of streams drying completely for at least 1 year. Regional modeling of U.S. plantation scenarios suggests that climate feedbacks are unlikely to offset such water losses and could exacerbate them. Plantations can help control groundwater recharge and upwelling but reduce stream flow and salinize and acidify some soils.

No abstract

Aim The biophysical impacts of invasive Australian acacias and their effects on ecosystem services are explored and used to develop a framework for improved restoration practices.Location South Africa, Portugal and Chile.Methods A conceptual model of ecosystem responses to the increasing severity (density and duration) of invasions was developed from the literature and our knowledge of how these impacts affect options for restoration. Case studies are used to identify similarities and differences between three regions severely affected by invasions of Australian acacias: Acacia dealbata in Chile, Acacia longifolia in Portugal and Acacia saligna in South Africa.Results Australian acacias have a wide range of impacts on ecosystems that increase with time and disturbance, transform ecosystems and alter and reduce ecosystem service delivery. A shared trait is the accumulation of massive seed banks, which enables them to become dominant after disturbances. Ecosystem trajectories and recovery potential suggest that there are important thresholds in ecosystem state and resilience. When these are crossed, options for restoration are radically altered; in many cases, autogenic (self-driven and self-sustaining) recovery to a pre-invasion condition is inhibited, necessitating active intervention to restore composition and function.Main conclusions The conceptual model demonstrates the degree, nature and reversibility of ecosystem degradation and identifies key actions needed to restore ecosystems to desired states. Control and restoration operations, particularly active restoration, require substantial short-to medium-term investments, which can reduce losses of biodiversity and ecosystem services, and the costs to society in the long term. Increasing restoration effectiveness will require further research into linkages between impacts and restoration. This research should involve scientists, practitioners and managers engaged in invasive plant control and restoration programmes, together with society as both the investors in, and beneficiaries of, more effective restoration.

No abstract

Many ecosystems have been transformed, or degraded by human use, and restoration offers an opportunity to recover services and benefits, not to mention intrinsic values. We assessed whether restoration scientists and practitioners use their projects to demonstrate the benefits restoration can provide in their peer-reviewed publications. We evaluated a sample of the academic literature to determine whether links are made explicit between ecological restoration, society, and public policy related to natural capital. We analyzed 1,582 peer-reviewed papers dealing with ecological restoration published between 1 January 2000 and 30 September 2008 in 13 leading scientific journals. As selection criterion, we considered papers that contained either "restoration" or "rehabilitation" in their title, abstract, or keywords. Furthermore, as one-third of the papers were published in Restoration Ecology, we used that journal as a reference for comparison with all the other journals. We readily acknowledge that aquatic ecosystems are under-represented, and that the largely inaccessible gray literature was ignored. Within these constraints, we found clear evidence that restoration practitioners are failing to signal links between ecological restoration, society, and policy, and are underselling the evidence of benefits of restoration as a worthwhile investment for society. We discuss this assertion and illustrate it with samples of our findings-with regards to (1) the geographical and institutional affiliations of authors; (2) the choice of ecosystems studied, methods employed, monitoring schemes applied, and the spatial scale of studies; and (3) weak links to payments for ecosystem service setups, agriculture, and ramifications for public policy.