Global patterns in multi‐realm and multi‐habitat ecological restoration: implications for research, practice, and monitoring
Erin K. Wills, Maria L. Vozzo, Michael Sievers, Caitlin S. Willis, Ben L. GilbyAbstract
Introduction
Ecological restoration projects are rapidly expanding in size, complexity, and frequency globally, driven by international agreements and an increased recognition of the efficacy of actions for biodiversity. Upscaling restoration will increasingly necessitate the restoration of multiple physically or functionally connected habitats concurrently, including across ecological realms (i.e. marine, freshwater, and terrestrial). Despite the potential for synergistic biodiversity benefits, little is known about the prevalence, characteristics, and successes of such multi‐habitat and multi‐realm projects, and there is no consensus about how to monitor and report on them.
Objectives
We quantified the distribution, frequency, habitat types, and focal species of multi‐habitat and multi‐realm restoration initiatives and examined how project outcomes and ecosystem attributes are surveyed within these initiatives.
Methods
We systematically reviewed Scopus and gray literature to identify and characterize multi‐habitat and multi‐realm restoration initiatives globally, applying standardized inclusion criteria and data extraction protocols.
Results
A total of 46 studies met inclusion criteria. Most projects (77%) began after 2012 and were in North America (42%), East Asia, and Oceania (both 19%). Multi‐realm restoration (74%) was more common than multi‐habitat restoration (38%), with terrestrial–marine combinations being the most common realm combination (43%). Shellfish reefs (15 projects), ponds (13), saltmarshes (12), and forests (10) were the most co‐restored habitats with other connected habitat types.
Conclusions
This review provides the first global synthesis of multi‐system restoration, revealing increasing implementation but uneven geographic distribution, variable monitoring frameworks, and context‐dependent outcomes. These findings confirm that significant gaps remain for key regions and realm combinations and highlight the need for standardized terminology, monitoring, and reporting to advance the science and practice of multi‐system restoration.