Restoring degraded land to combat environmental degradation requires the collection of vast quantities of germplasm (seed). Sourcing this material raises questions related to provenance selection, seed quality and harvest sustainability. Restoration guidelines strongly recommend using local sources to maximize local adaptation and prevent outbreeding depression, but in highly modified landscapes this restricts collection to small remnants where limited, poor quality seed is available, and where harvesting impacts may be high. We review three principles guiding the sourcing of restoration germplasm: (i) the appropriateness of using ‘local’ seed, (ii) sample sizes and population characteristics required to capture sufficient genetic diversity to establish self-sustaining populations and (iii) the impact of over-harvesting source populations. We review these topics by examining current collection guidelines and the evidence supporting these, then we consider if the guidelines can be improved and the consequences of not doing so. We find that the emphasis on local seed sourcing will, in many cases, lead to poor restoration outcomes, particularly at broad geographic scales. We suggest that seed sourcing should concentrate less on local collection and more on capturing high quality and genetically diverse seed to maximize the adaptive potential of restoration efforts to current and future environmental change.

Changes in Earth's climate are accelerating, prompting increasing calls to ensure that investments in ecological restoration and nature conservation accommodate such changes. To acknowledge this need, we propose the term “ecological renovation” to describe ecological management and nature conservation actions that actively allow for environmental change. To evaluate and progress the development of ecological renovation and related intervention options in a climate change context, we reviewed the literature and established a typology of options that have been proposed. We explored how these options address emerging principles underpinning climate‐adapted conservation goals and whether the balance of approaches reflected in our typology is likely to be sufficient given expected rapid rates of climate change. Our typology recognizes a matrix of 23 intervention option types arranged on the basis of underpinning ecological mechanisms (“ameliorate changing conditions” or “build adaptive capacity”) on one axis, and the nature of the tools used to manipulate them (“low regrets” or “climate targeted”) on the other. Despite a burgeoning literature since 2008, we found that the majority of effort has consistently focused on low‐regrets adaptation approaches that aim to build adaptive capacity. This is in many ways desirable, but a paradigm shift enabling greater attention to climate‐targeted approaches is likely to be needed as climate change accelerates. When assessed against five emerging principles for setting nature conservation goals in a changing climate, only one option type could deliver to all five, and we identified a conflict between climate‐targeted options and “wildness” values that calls for deeper evaluation. Importantly, much of the inference in the 473 reviewed studies was drawn from ecological reasoning and modeling, with only 16% offering new empirical evidence. We also noted significant biases toward North America and Europe, forest ecosystems, trees, and vertebrates. To address these limitations and help shift the paradigm toward humans as “renovators” rather than “restorers” of a prior world, we propose that ecological researchers contribute by (1) informing societal discourse toward adapting nature conservation goals to climate change, (2) adjusting and upscaling conservation planning to accommodate this suite of climate‐adapted goals, and (3) reconceptualizing experimental approaches to increase empirical evidence and expedite innovation of tools to address change.

Like most jurisdictions, Australia is managing a broad range of invasive alien species. Here, we provide the first holistic quantification of how much invasive species impact Australia's economy, and how much Australia spends on their management. In the 01-02 financial year (June to July), the combined estimated cost (economic losses and control) of invasive species was $9.8 billion, rising to $13.6 billion in the 11-12 financial year. Approximately $726 million of grants funded through the Commonwealth of Australia (i.e. federal funding) was spent on invasive species management and research between 1996 to 2013. In 01-02, total national expenditure on invasive species was $2.31 billion, rising to $3.77 billion in 11-12. Agriculture accounted for more than 90% of the total cost. For 01-02 and 11-12, these expenditure figures equate to $123 and $197 per person per year respectively, as well as 0.32 and 0.29% of GDP respectively. All values provided here are most likely to be underestimates of the real values due to the significant constraints of the data obtainable. Invasive species are clearly a significant economic burden in Australia. Given the extent of the issue of invasive species globally, there is a clear need for better quantifications of both economic loss and expenditure in more jurisdictions, as well as in Australia.