Invasive plant species can hinder the establishment and growth of native plants and impact several ecosystem properties, such as soil cover, nutrient cycling, fire regimes and hydrology. Controlling invasive plants is then a necessary, yet usually expensive, step towards the restoration of an ecosystem. A synthesis of literature is needed to understand variation in invasive plants' impacts and their practical control in restoration contexts, and to identify associated knowledge gaps. We reviewed 372 articles published from 2000 to 2019 covering the control of undesirable plants (both exotic invasive and overabundant native plant species) in ecological restoration to gather information on the main plants being controlled and methods used, and considering the distribution of studies among biomes and countries grouped according to the Human Development Index (HDI). Grasses and forbs were the most‐studied invasive plant species in restoration sites, but invasive trees were well studied in the tropics. Poaceae and Asteraceae were the most studied families of invasive plants. Non‐chemical interventions (mostly mowing and prescribed fire) were used in more than half of the reviewed studies globally, but chemical methods (mainly glyphosate spraying, used in 40% of projects using herbicides) are also common. The reviewed studies were mostly performed in countries with very high HDI. Countries with low and medium HDI used only non‐chemical methods. Synthesis and applications. Decisions about which control method to use depend heavily on the invasive plant species' growth forms, the local economic situation where the restoration sites are located and resources available for control. More developed countries tend to use more chemical control, whereas less developed ones use mainly non‐chemical methods. Since most of the reviewed studies were performed in countries with very high HDI, we lack information from developing countries, which concentrates global hotspots for biodiversity conservation and global commitments of forest and landscape restoration.

International forest landscape restoration commitments have promoted the restoration of millions of hectares of degraded and deforested lands globally, but few forest restoration approaches provide both ecologically‐sound and financially‐viable solutions for achieving the spatial scale proposed. One potential revenue source for restoration is selective harvesting of timber, a product for which there is a clear global market and increasing demand. The use of commercially valuable exotic trees may attract farmers to restoration, but can be a major concern for ecologists. Here, we present results collected over 7 years from experimental studies at three sites across the Brazilian Atlantic Forest to assess the impacts of incorporating exotic eucalypts as a transitional stage in tropical forest restoration on above‐ground biomass accumulation, native woody species regeneration and financial viability. Biomass accumulation was nine times greater in mixed eucalypt‐native species plantations than native only plantings due to fast eucalypt growth. Nonetheless, the growth of native non‐pioneer trees was not affected or only slightly reduced by eucalypts prior to logging. Eucalypts did not negatively affect the natural regeneration of native woody species before or after eucalypt logging. Canopy cover regrew quickly but was slightly lower a year following logging in mixed eucalypt‐native species plantations. Natural regeneration richness and planted non‐pioneer growth were similar across treatments in the post‐logging period. We found higher variation of biomass accumulation and native species regeneration among sites than between plantation types within sites. The income from eucalypt wood production offset 44%–75% of restoration implementation costs. Synthesis and applications. Many of the negative effects attributed to eucalypts on the growth and natural regeneration of native trees depend on features of the production system, landscape structure, soil, and climate in which they are grown, rather than the effects of eucalypts per se. In Brazil's Atlantic Forest region, exotic eucalypts can become important allies of tropical forest restoration, and their use and investment opportunities should be considered within the portfolio of options supported by public and private funding and policies.

Knowing which restoration approach provides the best returns on investment for accumulating carbon is essential to foster restoration planning, financing, and implementation. Here, we explored the cost‐effectiveness and drivers of aboveground and soil carbon accumulation in restored forests across an agricultural landscape of Brazil's Atlantic Forest. The recovery of aboveground and soil carbon stocks, as well as the implementation and land opportunity costs, was assessed across chronosequences (10–60 years) of second‐growth forests and mixed‐species tree plantings and old growth, reference forest remnants. Plantations accumulated approximately 50% more aboveground carbon than second‐growth forests throughout the chronosequence. When controlling for soil clay content, soil carbon stocks were higher in reference than in restored forests, but they were comparable between plantations and second‐growth forests. After 60 years of stand development, recovery of total carbon stocks in both restoration approaches reached only half of the average stocks of reference forests. Total cost‐effectiveness for carbon accumulation, including both implementation and land opportunity costs, was on average 60% higher for second‐growth forests than for plantations (15.1 and 9.4 kgC US$−1, respectively). Although tree plantations initially showed higher rates of carbon storage than second‐growth forests, their higher implementation and land opportunity costs make them less cost‐effective for carbon farming. Our results further suggest that, at current pricing levels, carbon markets alone have a limited potential to up‐scale restoration efforts in Brazil's Atlantic Forest.