Restore, regenerate, revegetate: Restoring ecological processes, ecosystems and landscapes in a changing world

This special issue of Ecological Management and Restoration contains nine papers based on invited presentations at Restore, Regenerate, Revegetate: A Conference on Restoring Ecological Processes, Ecosystems and Landscapes in a Changing World, held at the University of New England from 5–9 February 2017 (Box 1). The issue provides a timely overview of some of the achievements as well as the major challenges facing ecosystem restoration in Australasia. The role of the arts in communicating environmental messages was explored through performance, artworks and a public forum – and field trips were arranged for delegates to visit local restoration projects and meet practitioners. An additional selection of papers based on the plenary and keynote addresses from the conference was published recently in a special issue of The Rangeland Journal (see http://www.publish.csiro.au/RJ/issue/8600/). The audio recordings of most of the conference presentations as well as the conference proceedings containing a further 44 refereed papers can be found at http://www.une.edu.au/about-une/academic-schools/school-of-environmental-and-rural-science/ers-news-and-events/restore-regenerate-revegetate-conference-2017. In his opening comment piece, David Freudenberger discusses the mismatch between the scale of restoration required in Australia and what has been being achieved to date. He notes the potential for farmers to restore the long-term productivity, resilience and economic viability of their farms through revegetation, and the need for a massive increase in expenditure to underpin the required investment in broad-scale restoration. Reviewing funding of land repair over the last three decades, and noting that the Natural Heritage Trust that was created by the part-sale of Telstra in 1997 ceased in 2008, he advocates the creation of a permanent trust, funded perhaps by the royalties generated from mining or a price on carbon pollution, and a partnership with agricultural industries to repair and protect natural capital. Paul Gibson-Roy issues a similar call-to-arms to Australian restoration practitioners, researchers and politicians about the required scale of restoration of grassy ecosystems in southern and eastern Australia. He contrasts the domestic situation with revelations from a recent Churchill Fellowship-funded tour of herbaceous seed production and revegetation infrastructure in the United States. He highlights the degree of regulatory support and government investment in the native wildflower and grass seed restoration industry over several decades and the pivotal role of successive US presidents on both sides of politics from Presidents Roosevelt to Obama in underwriting the expenditure. Australians would do well to demand a similar calibre of leadership here. David Norton and colleagues provide a New Zealand perspective on upscaling ecological restoration for biodiversity conservation in their feature article. They highlight eight important lessons that need to be incorporated in restoration planning to increase the likelihood of success. With new government-led revegetation initiatives announced recently, their feature article is not only timely to assist nurseries, restoration practitioners, community groups, and government and nongovernment organisations for upscaling New Zealand restoration, but relevant to recovering and reconnecting natural ecosystems at scale and improving the prospects for biodiversity everywhere. David Lindenmayer and colleagues outline ten lessons from a 20-year-long research programme on fauna–habitat dynamics in the wheat–sheep belt in south-eastern Australia, and the implications for woodland restoration and habitat management in agricultural landscapes. The authors stress the complementary role of different habitats (plantings, regrowth, old growth, linear remnants, etc.) as habitat for fauna, including species of conservation concern, and the importance of carefully designed, long-term monitoring. They also highlight the human dimension associated with farmland restoration and management, and argue for further research on the important nexus between environmental management, farm profitability and sustainability, and farmer health and well-being. In their commissioned review, Sam Capon and Neil Pettit advocate a functional approach to planning and prioritising riparian restoration based on measurable targets and a broad consideration of spatiotemporal and cultural influences. They summarise the main anthropogenic threats to river functions and recommend practical solutions for robust riparian restoration. As an example, passive regeneration of novel ecosystems may maintain and restore riparian functions and services in agricultural and urban catchments where native riparian vegetation is sparse and the slowing and filtering of runoff important. The authors highlight policy and management directions, including the need for evidence-based decision making by institutions guided by the principles of social justice and adaptive management. In another commissioned review, Carla Catterall reminds us that the ecological processes that maintain or restore ecosystem health and integrity of forests and woodlands involve animal–plant interactions, yet fauna are often an afterthought in restoration. She comments that animals have often been viewed as passengers, responding passively to plant-focused revegetation. Yet fauna can drive plant recruitment processes in farmland restoration (e.g. through seed dispersal) and determine the floristic diversity and composition of revegetation. Although functionally important animals can accelerate woody vegetation restoration through various ecological mechanisms, research is needed to clarify the roles of animals as passengers vs drivers of restoration to develop a more predictive science. Rhiannon Smith and Andrew Watson demonstrate the economic benefits from the environmental approaches implemented by successive generations of Watsons in managing the family farm, ‘Kilmarnock’, on the banks of the Namoi River at Boggabri, New South Wales. Farm income is dominated by irrigated cotton production, and monitoring of on-farm trials over the past 10–15 years have revealed both positive economic and ecological outcomes from several innovations. The advent of genetically modified cotton has allowed insecticide use to be minimised in favour of habitat provision for natural pest control agents (beneficial invertebrates, microbats and insectivorous birds) through farmland revegetation and habitat restoration. Benefits have also accrued from substituting poultry manure for chemical fertilisers and water-use efficiency improvements. Martine Maron and Winnifred Louis argue for greater transparency around restoration funding when sourced from offsets, because the volunteers who undertake a considerable amount of the restoration work in Australia are often not aware that the net environmental outcome of offset-funded restoration is neutral (at best), not environmental gain. If restoration for a mandated offset is undertaken by volunteers, their contribution simply substitutes for work that would otherwise have been done commercially. In effect, the volunteer subsidy distorts the true replacement cost of biodiversity. All environmental nongovernmental organisations, developers, offset funders and brokers should commit to transparency, particularly to landholders, donors and volunteers who donate land, money and labour to restoration, about the environmental impact that is to be offset and the fact that volunteer involvement generates no additional environmental benefit. In the final feature article, Tein McDonald and Kingsley Dixon discuss two of the key principles in the recently published 2nd edition of the National Restoration Standards. They clarify the concepts of reference ecosystem and the required degree of recovery for ecological restoration. It is not about trying to restore a past state per se but about reinstating what would be the current local native ecosystem had it not been degraded, taking anticipated environmental change into account. However, in the event of irreversible environmental change, restoration of altered or completely different local species assemblages better suited to the new conditions may be appropriate. Ecological restoration is also directed towards full recovery ‘insofar as possible’, acknowledging that at times something less than full recovery of the most appropriate local reference ecosystem may be all that can be achieved. The delegates at the Restore, Regenerate, Revegetate Conference held at the University of New England, Armidale, New South Wales, from 5–9 February 2017, shared an impressive body of practical and scientific knowledge of how we are restoring Australia's natural heritage and environmental capital across the continent. However, the conference also highlighted several key points that must be addressed if we are to truly meet the challenges and opportunities of land repair. We commend the papers in this special issue to a wide audience and trust that they command as much interest and satisfaction as we derived from working with our guest authors in preparing them for publication. Nick Reid is Professor in Ecosystem Management and Head, School of Environmental and Rural Science, University of New England (Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia; Email: nrei3@une.edu.au). Rhiannon Smith is Research Fellow and Lecturer, Ecosystem Management, School of Environmental and Rural Science, UNE (Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia; Email: rsmith66@une.edu.au). Wal Whalley is Adjunct Associate Professor in Botany, School of Environmental and Rural Science, UNE (Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia; Email: rwhalley@une.edu.au). David A. Norton is Professor, School of Forestry, University of Canterbury (Private Bag 4800, Christchurch 8140, New Zealand; Email: david.norton@canterbury.ac.nz). Darren Ryder is Professor and Associate Dean Teaching and Learning, Faculty of Science, Agriculture, Business and Law, UNE (Armidale NSW, 2351, Australia; Email: dryder2@une.edu.au)