Abstract. Simultaneous environmental changes challenge biodiversity persistence and human wellbeing. The science and practice of restoration ecology, in collaboration with other disciplines, can contribute to overcoming these challenges. This endeavor requires a solid conceptual foundation based in empirical research which confronts, tests and influences theoretical developments. We review conceptual developments in restoration ecology over the last 30 years. We frame our review in the context of changing restoration goals which reflect increased societal awareness of the scale of environmental degradation and the recognition that inter-disciplinary approaches are needed to tackle environmental problems. Restoration ecology now encompasses facilitative interactions and network dynamics, trophic cascades, and above-and belowground linkages. It operates in a non-equilibrium, alternative states framework, at the landscape scale, and in response to changing environmental, economic and social conditions. Progress has been marked by conceptual advances in the fields of trait-environment relationships, community assembly, and understanding the links between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Conceptual and practical advances have been enhanced by applying evolving technologies, including treatments to increase seed germination and overcome recruitment bottlenecks, high throughput DNA sequencing to elucidate soil community structure and function, and advances in satellite technology and GPS tracking to monitor habitat use. The synthesis of these technologies with systematic reviews of context dependencies in restoration success, model based analyses and consideration of complex socioecological systems will allow generalizations to inform evidence based interventions. Ongoing challenges include setting realistic, socially acceptable goals for restoration under changing environmental conditions, and prioritizing actions in an increasingly space-competitive world. Ethical questions also surround the use of genetically modified material, translocations, taxon substitutions, and de-extinction, in restoration ecology. Addressing these issues, as the Ecological Society of America looks to its next century, will require current and future generations of researchers and practitioners, including economists, engineers, philosophers, landscape architects, social scientists and restoration ecologists, to work together with communities and governments to rise to the environmental challenges of the coming decades.

As the rate and extent of environmental change increases, traditional perspectives on ecosystem management and restoration are being juxtaposed with approaches that focus on the altered settings now being encountered or anticipated. We suggest that a combination of traditional and emerging frameworks is necessary to achieve the multiple goals of ecosystem management, including biodiversity conservation and provision of other ecosystem services such as food and fiber production, recreation, and spiritual enrichment.An effective approach entails a move away from partitioning the environment into dichotomous categories (eg natural/unnatural, production/conservation, intact/degraded). Instead, landscapes are increasingly characterized by a complex mosaic of ecosystems or "patches" in varying states of modification, each of which delivers various combinations of services and presents assorted management challenges and opportunities. These patches interact and affect broader-scale processes (such as water flows and animal migrations), necessitating the urgent development of a conservation and restoration strategy that recognizes these rapid spatial changes.Here, we focus on an emerging framework that differentiates patches according to the degree of change from a historical state (resulting from altered abiotic factors and biotic compositions), the likely extent to which such changes are reversible, and the effect of altered patches on other patches within the landscape (WebPanel 1). This framework, derived from recent research on novel ecosystems (Hobbs et al. 2009, helps to identify the relative values of ecosystems in different conditions and the management options available in each case. As seen from a landscape perspective, this framework provides a comprehensive approach to decision making and management, including much-needed prioritization of resource allocations.n Managing the whole landscape Recent analyses have highlighted the need for management and restoration efforts to go beyond site-focused interventions and to consider landscape and regional scales (Mentz et al. 2013). Ecosystem managers increas- REVIEWS REVIEWS REVIEWSManaging the whole landscape: historical, hybrid, and novel ecosystems The reality confronting ecosystem managers today is one of heterogeneous, rapidly transforming landscapes, particularly in the areas more affected by urban and agricultural development. A landscape management framework that incorporates all systems, across the spectrum of degrees of alteration, provides a fuller set of options for how and when to intervene, uses limited resources more effectively, and increases the chances of achieving management goals. That many ecosystems have departed so substantially from their historical trajectory that they defy conventional restoration is not in dispute. Acknowledging novel ecosystems need not constitute a threat to existing policy and management approaches. Rather, the development of an integrated approach to management interventions can provide options that are in tune with ...

Aim Experimental nitrogen (N) addition (fertilization) studies are commonly used to quantify the impacts of increased N inputs on plant biodiversity. However, given that plant community responses can vary considerably among individual studies, there is a clear need to synthesize and generalize findings with meta‐analytical approaches. Our goal was to quantify changes in species richness and abundance in plant communities in response to N addition across different environmental contexts, while controlling for different experimental designs. Location Global. Time period Data range: 1985–2016; Publication years: 1990–2018. Major taxa studied Plants. Methods We performed a meta‐analysis of 115 experiments reported in 85 studies assessing the effects of N addition on terrestrial natural and semi‐natural plant communities. We quantified local‐scale changes in plant biodiversity in relationship to N addition using four metrics: species richness (SR), individual species abundance (IA), mean species abundance (MSA) and geometric mean abundance (GMA). Results For all metrics, greater amounts of annual N addition resulted in larger declines in plant diversity. Additionally, MSA decreased more steeply with N that was applied in reduced (NH4+) rather than oxidized (NO3-) form. Loss of SR with increasing amounts of N was found to be larger in warmer sites. Furthermore, greater losses of SR were found in sites with longer experimental durations, smaller plot sizes and lower soil cation exchange capacity. Finally, reductions in the abundance of individual species were larger for N‐sensitive plant life‐form types (legumes and non‐vascular plants). Main conclusions N enrichment decreases both SR and abundance of plants in N‐addition experiments, but the magnitude of the response differs among biodiversity metrics and with the environmental and experimental context. This underlines the importance of integrating multiple dimensions of biodiversity and relevant modifying factors into assessments of biodiversity responses to global environmental change.