Veronica A. J. Doerr

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.

Principles underpinning the goals of nature conservation and ecological restoration have traditionally involved preventing ecological change or restoring ecosystems or populations towards preferred historical states. Under global climate change, it is increasingly recognised that this may no longer be achievable, but there has been limited debate regarding new principles that can help guide goal-setting for nature conservation and ecological restoration in dynamic environments. To stimulate such debate, we established a framework of human motivations implicit in historically focussed nature conservation approaches. We drew on this and a literature survey to propose a palette of five principles to guide goal-setting for nature conservation and ecological restoration in a changing climate. Our framework proposes three broad sets of human motivations relevant to nature conservation: (1) basic survival and material needs (akin to provisioning and regulating ecosystem services), (2) psychological and cultural needs such as a sense of place (reflecting cultural ecosystem services), and (3) the need to fulfil moral or ethical obligations (e.g. intergenerational and interspecies equity). Meeting basic needs for current and future generations is supported by a commonly proposed principle to optimise ecological processes and functions (Principle 1); which in turn is dependent on maintaining the ongoing evolutionary potential in the world’s biota (Principle 2). Beyond this, motivations relating to psychological, cultural and moral needs demand not only an emphasis on healthy ecosystem functioning, but on the character and diversity of the ecosystems and species that contribute to these functions. Our subsequent three principles, minimise native species losses (Principle 3), maintain the evolutionary character and biogeographic structuring of the biota (Principle 4), and maintain wild natural ecosystems (Principle 5) contribute to these further goals. Although these principles can sometimes be conflicting, we argue that by connecting directly with underlying motivations, this broader palette will help take us forward towards more effective nature conservation in a rapidly changing world.

Systematic reviews provide a rigorous, repeatable and quantitative method for assessing and synthesizing all available empirical evidence to evaluate a specific research, management, or policy question. They are particularly well suited for evaluating the effectiveness of environmental management actions, and thus for underpinning evidence‐based adaptive natural resource management. However, their current utility may be limited in countries like Australia, where both the amount of research relative to land area and of well‐monitored, active land management for environmental purposes are relatively low. Based on our experience conducting two of the first ecological systematic reviews in Australia, we have developed a number of recommendations for conducting systematic reviews in situations where resources and/or primary research data are limited. We discuss potential modification or augmentation of most aspects of the systematic review process including selection of a review team, question formulation, search strategy, data analysis, and the communication of results, as well as the inherent tradeoffs between systematic thoroughness and available resources that are involved in these changes. We hope that our recommendations will encourage more ecologists to undertake systematic reviews even if primary research and resources to conduct the review appear to be limited, as even a modified systematic review can provide more defensible evidence‐based guidelines for management of natural resources.

Habitat restoration can play an important role in recovering functioning ecosystems and improving biodiversity. Restoration may be particularly important in improving habitat prior to species reintroductions. We reintroduced seven brown treecreeper (Climacteris picumnus) social groups into two nature reserves in the Australian Capital Territory in south-eastern Australia. This study provided a unique opportunity to understand the interactions between restoration ecology, behavioural ecology and habitat ecology. We examined how experimental restoration treatments (addition of coarse woody debris, variations in ground vegetation cover and nest box installation) influenced the behaviour and microhabitat use of radio-tracked individuals to evaluate the success of restoration treatments. The addition of coarse woody debris benefited the brown treecreeper through increasing the probability of foraging on a log or on the ground. This demonstrated the value of using behaviour as a bio-indicator for restoration success. Based on previous research, we predicted that variations in levels of ground vegetation cover would influence behaviour and substrate use, particularly that brown treecreepers would choose sites with sparse ground cover because this allows better access to food and better vigilance for predators. However, there was little effect of this treatment, which was likely influenced by the limited overall use of the ground layer. There was also little effect of nest boxes on behaviour or substrate use. These results somewhat confound our understanding of the species based on research from extant populations. Our results also have a significant impact regarding using existing knowledge on a species to inform how it will respond to reintroduction and habitat restoration. This study also places great emphasis on the value of applying an experimental framework to ecological restoration, particularly when reintroductions produce unexpected outcomes.

Reintroductions are often used to re-establish a self-sustaining population of a species as a conservation method. Despite their prevalence, few reintroductions have followed recent international r...

It is essential to choose suitable habitat when reintroducing a species into its former range. Habitat quality may influence an individual’s dispersal decisions and also ultimately where they choose to settle. We examined whether variation in habitat quality (quantified by the level of ground vegetation cover and the installation of nest boxes) influenced the movement, habitat choice and survival of a reintroduced bird species. We experimentally reintroduced seven social groups (43 individuals) of the brown treecreeper (Climacteris picumnus) into two nature reserves in south-eastern Australia. We radio-tracked 18 brown treecreepers from release in November 2009 until February 2010. We observed extensive movements by individuals irrespective of the release environment or an individual’s gender. This indicated that individuals were capable of dispersing and actively selecting optimum habitat. This may alleviate pressure on wildlife planners to accurately select the most optimum release sites, so long as the species’ requirements are met. There was significant variation in movement between social groups, suggesting that social factors may be a more important influence on movement than habitat characteristics. We found a significant effect of ground vegetation cover on the likelihood of settlement by social groups, with high rates of settlement and survival in dry forests, rather than woodland (where the species typically resides), which has implications for the success of woodland restoration. However, overall the effects of variation in habitat quality were not as strong as we had expected, and resulted in some unpredicted effects such as low survival and settlement in woodland areas with medium levels of ground vegetation cover. The extensive movement by individuals and unforeseen effects of habitat characteristics make it difficult to predict the outcome of reintroductions, the movement behaviour and habitat selection of reintroduced individuals, particularly when based on current knowledge of a species’ ecology.