We asked and #<scp>GenerationRestoration</scp> delivered: The joint special feature between the British Ecological Society and the Society for Ecological Restoration

When we set out to launch a first-of-its-kind joint-society special feature highlighting restoration research for the United Nations Decade on Ecosystem Restoration, we were full of the same hope that underpins restoration itself, even if we were in the throes of a global pandemic. We knew academics and managers had the potential to share research and perspectives to set the stage for the UN Decade on Restoration. And the greater than 170 papers that were published in that special feature truly did deliver in helping to set the stage and accomplish the lofty goals for the Decade on Restoration. The studies published spanned all continents save Antarctica, and included diverse topics such as how to ensure restoration is inclusive and equitable, emerging cutting edge technologies, how to ensure restoration is enshrined in international law, and how to prioritize restoration efforts to maximize gains. While we cannot cover each paper, below are some highlights of themes that emerged from this Special Feature. Many studies identified core challenges of restoration, and many more highlighted how to overcome specific challenges and highlighted lessons learned. Cortina-Segarra et al. (2021) used expert opinion surveys to identify the barriers to restoration in Europe while Meli et al. (2023) used a literature review to identify information gaps on barriers, pathways and types of restoration pursued globally that should be filled to truly fulfil the promise of the Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. Barragán et al. (2023) pointed out the imperative that trees planted to meet international reforestation goals be resilient to the climates they are likely to face given global change and Mansourian et al. (2021) and Stanturf (2021) highlighted the lessons learned from the Forest Landscape Restoration initiative that are applicable to the Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. In a world of rising autocracy, growing wealth inequality and attacks on the rights of the most marginalized communities, we were heartened to see the growing groundswell of support for making restoration more inclusive. From providing recommendations for making restoration more friendly to the LGBTQ+ community (Toone et al., 2023) rules to centre people and social dimensions in restoration (Elias et al., 2022), #GenerationRestoration came out in force for this special issue to underscore today's restoration is not the restoration of yesteryear. The importance of increasing gender inclusion (de Siqueira et al., 2021), ensuring stakeholder engagement is inclusive (Gutierrez et al., 2023), incorporating traditional knowledge (Sena et al., 2022) and incorporating equity into restoration (Wells et al., 2021) were emphasized by authors as ways to maximize restoration inclusivity and gains. Restoration has always been a place-based endeavour, so discussions of past land use and historical legacies help ensure that we have the complete picture before proceeding with restoration. Critically, authors pointed out the history of forced removal and genocide of Indigenous peoples from their lands throughout many parts of the world resulted in Indigenous knowledge being ignored or scorned by western science and bringing such knowledge in balance with western science will be critical to advance Indigenous-led restoration and reconciliation on Indigenous land (Dickson-Hoyle et al., 2022). #GenerationRestoration understands that policy makers at every level must be successfully engaged and included in restoration projects if restoration is to reach its global potential. Farrell et al. (2022) highlighted interdisciplinary tools that can be used to meaningfully engage policy makers while Galatowitsch (2023) provided a framework to evaluate organizational capacity to carry out restoration, and Jepson (2022) argued that institutions must be redesigned to truly maximize restoration outcomes. Nsikani et al. (2023) set out an ambitious plan for the continent of Africa to make the most of the Decade on Restoration, highlighting the need for effective governance, to translate goals to the African context, to effectively navigate potential trade-offs between restoration and demand for development, and to grow the capacity and evidence base for restoration on the continent. Mappin et al. (2022) did a cost–benefit analysis that suggested degraded ecosystems across Australia could be restored without impacting urban or agricultural areas if just 0.1% of Australia's GDP went to restoration for the next 20 years. One theme throughout many of the published studies was the importance of focusing on human well-being (e.g. livelihood security [Lengefeld et al., 2022]; poverty alleviation [Nsikani et al., 2023]; dismantling inequity [Sigman, 2021]; job creation [Brancalion et al., 2022]) as a key to meaningfully engaging communities and enlisting support. Many authors highlighted new approaches that could help improve the practice of restoration. Planting natives with weedy life history characteristics was suggested as one way to beat invasive plants at their own game (Young & Hamerlynck, 2023), while others suggested using invasive plant-based biochar could facilitate C sequestration in reclaimed mine soils (Ghosh & Maiti, 2023). Ecological replacement of extinct species was highlighted for its restoration potential on islands in the Galapagos (Tapia et al., 2022) and Mauritius (Moorhouse-Gann et al., 2022). A new framework for optimizing seed mixes to maximize trophic relationships and ecosystem function and services was proposed and tested (Ladouceur, Shackelford, et al., 2022). Lastly, authors were looking to build restorations of the future, with some suggesting that seed mixes should include genotypes and species that would be expected to reach any given restoration site given climate change (McKone & Hernández, 2021). If we are to use restoration to help address the twin climate and biodiversity crises, we need to start thinking big. Thus, many authors highlighted new technology or new ways to use existing technology for meeting restoration and/or monitoring goals. There are growing calls for indirect monitoring of species responses to restoration, and the authors in this Special Feature answered the charge with studies that used environmental DNA in soils to characterize plant communities (Duley et al., 2023), passive acoustic monitoring to characterize birds (Choksi et al., 2023) and remote sensing to monitor plants (McKenna et al., 2023). Drone technology continues to advance restoration science; for example, drones are now being used to remotely seed restorations, though Castro et al. (2021) highlight the work necessary to ensure this can be effective at scale. Speaking of seeds, Svejcar et al. (2022) suggest restoration can take a leaf out of the agricultural sciences' book and use advanced seed coating and extruding technology to improve germination. Big data are all the rage in science, and restoration ecology should be no exception, argue Shukla et al. (2023). Such studies illustrate that restoration scientists are excited to embrace new technology to advance our field forward. Certain concepts or topics are argued to be critical to restoration, but currently underappreciated. The importance of mycorrhizal fungi in facilitating the growth and survival of certain plants was emphasized (Aavik et al., 2021; Frewert et al., 2022; Koziol et al., 2022; Rubin & Görres, 2023), but found to be significantly underrepresented in management plants (Markovchick et al., 2023). Other topics getting relatively short shrift in restoration include zoogeochemistry—how stoichiometry of animals varies across landscapes (Abraham et al., 2023), the role of restoration in human health through the prevention of zoonotic disease transmission (Prist et al., 2023; Reaser et al., 2021), and how historical events shape the aspirations and limitations of restoration (Case & Hallett, 2021). The difficulty of scaling up restoration while dismantling social inequity was highlighted, with suggestions to reconcile these often-opposing goals (Sigman, 2021). One private land owner recounted their experience restoring prairie on their land and emphasized how the work they put in resulted in positive health and well-being benefits, a concept they termed ‘restorative recreation’ (Swanson, 2021). Lastly, the failure to appreciate all biomes' significance in restoration policy was given a name—Biome Awareness Disparity (BAD). Authors discussed how BAD is prevalent and bad for the prospects of meeting the goals the Decade on Ecosystem Restoration sets out because many international policy makers see restoration as simply planting trees, with a lack of knowledge on the importance of restoring other ecosystems such as grasslands, savannas and wetlands (Silveira et al., 2022). Looking across these studies, it is clear that the botanical bias of restoration ecology remains strong, with the vast majority of studies on the impacts of restoration on plants, and many fewer on higher trophic levels, species interactions and ecosystem functioning. Major gaps pervading restoration ecology are the theoretical frameworks, methodological frameworks and methods to assess outcomes. As we write this editorial, some new papers across different journals have addressed these but we are struck by the relative lack of attention overall. This probably reflects the case-based nature of restoration projects impeding larger syntheses and a focus of institutions, granting agencies and even journals on novel approaches at the expense of collaboration and replication to enhance proper assessment and using sophisticated frameworks and methods that already exist. Even though authors highlighted the critical role of knowledge and data sharing to ensure syntheses are robust (Ladouceur, McGowan, et al., 2022), proposed frameworks (Galatowitsch, 2023; Ladouceur, Shackelford, et al., 2022) and syntheses (Romanelli et al., 2020), and shared data on large-scale management decisions (Rowland-Schaefer et al., 2022), significant gaps in frameworks and outcome assessments remain. We are not the only ones who have identified this issue, of course. Part of the motivation—and we think success—of having two societies and multiple journals launch a joint effort like this was to avoid competition and redundancy and promote collaboration. We would like to see this continue both in terms of cooperation in publishing and collaboration among researchers. In collating all these studies, we cannot help but reflect on how thankful we are to be a part of the collective of academics and managers that are dedicating their lives to making the promise of the Decade on Ecosystem Restoration a reality. The goals for this international movement are ambitious, but we believe the studies published in this special issue show that #GenerationRestoration is equal to the task. Holly P. Jones and Stephen D. Murphy wrote and edited this editorial. The peer review history for this article is available at https://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway/wos/peer-review/10.1002/2688-8319.12268.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.