Links between community ecology theory and ecological restoration are on the rise

Abstract

Community ecology is frequently invoked as complementary to and useful for guiding ecological restoration. While the conceptual literature is devoted to this unification, first‐hand accounts from practitioners and ecologists suggest that integration may be weak in practice. To date, there have been no analyses of how extensively community ecology theory appears in the empirical restoration literature. We address this knowledge gap with the first quantitative assessment of the extent to which community ecology concepts appear in empirical restoration literature by analysing the use of community ecology theories, concepts and conceptually derived tools in the design and interpretation of 1,000+ experimental ecological restoration studies over time (20 years) across all global regions. We also gauge general trends in author demographics, focal ecosystems and taxa targeted by these studies. We found that the incorporation of community ecology into restoration research has increased significantly in recent years. Community assembly and succession theories were the community ecology concepts integrated most often, while the functional traits framework and evolutionary theory have increased in usage recently. Synthesis and applications. Restoration endeavours are increasingly infused with elements of community ecology. Our results highlight the widespread application of deterministic models of community structure in restoration design and the rise of ecosystem service and function‐focused restoration. With this diagnostic summary of these applications, ecologists and restoration practitioners can move forward while directly exploring underdeveloped synergies between theory and practice.

Trait–environment interactions affect plant establishment success during restoration

“…Our work also illustrates the merits of considering trait-environment interactions in the context of ecological restoration by studying assembly at a large spatial scale, across relevant environmental gradients, while allowing us to make a direct connection between the occurrence of sown species and establishment. Restored ecosystems have been lauded as testing grounds for community assembly concepts (Wainwright et al 2018); we show these merits for the study of trait-based community assembly. Additionally, our results have pragmatic importance for restoration.…”

Functional diversity is more sensitive to biotic filters than phylogenetic diversity during community assembly

“…Restorations provide a useful setting for addressing issues of community assembly theory (Wainwright et al. ). We show here that functional trait‐ and phylogenetic‐based approaches can, when used together, provide useful insights on the effect of biotic filters (population sources of dominant species and species pools) on species coexistence (based on their functional and phylogenetic relatedness) in grassland community assembly.…”

Recovery of species richness lags behind functional recovery in restored grasslands

“…Species‐based measures, however, are not suitable for assessing functional recovery, such as the recovery of trait composition and the completeness of ecosystem functions (Engst et al, ; Zirbel, Bassett, Grman, & Brudvig, ). Although trait‐based approaches have been in the spotlight of vegetation ecology over the past two decades, they have so far received little attention for assessing restoration success in grasslands (but see, e.g., Engst et al, and Wainwright et al, ).…”

“…Species-based measures, however, are not suitable for assessing functional recovery, such as the recovery of trait composition and the completeness of ecosystem functions (Engst et al, 2016;Zirbel, Bassett, Grman, & Brudvig, 2017). Although trait-based approaches have been in the spotlight of vegetation ecology over the past two decades, they have so far received little attention for assessing restoration success in grasslands (but see, e.g., Engst et al, 2016 andWainwright et al, 2017). Some studies suggest that the recovery of species composition and functional trait composition does not necessarily progress with the same rate Purschke et al, 2013) and they have different predictive power on different aspects of restoration success Laughlin et al, 2017).…”