AbstractForest restoration is one of the most promising and powerful approaches to tackle the grand challenges of climate change and biodiversity loss. However, translating the growing global momentum for forest restoration into concrete biodiversity gains has remained elusive. In this Review, we describe the reforestation approaches and forest restoration methods currently used and how they affect biodiversity; summarize the current evidence, main determinants and knowledge gaps of biodiversity outcomes of forest restoration; and describe the emerging opportunities for planning, financing and monitoring biodiversity-centred forest restoration. We conclude with recommendations on why, where, how and for whom to restore forests while co-producing knowledge to sustain effective, long-lasting positive effects for biodiversity. Biodiversity is usually favoured by ecological restoration, especially through natural regeneration and in less disturbed conditions, yet the predominant focus on trees has held back broader effects across multiple taxa and biodiversity dimensions. Harnessing emerging funding opportunities and realizing the biodiversity benefits of forest restoration will require defining clear restoration goals and objectives pertaining to biodiversity in both policy frameworks and individual projects, using appropriate restoration strategies and approaches, implementing adequate monitoring and disclosure of results and ensuring mechanisms for sustained funding.
Download PDF
IntroductionEfforts to restore forest cover on deforested land have immense potential to contribute to conservation of biodiversity — the diversity within species, among species and of ecosystems — by re-establishing habitats, increasing landscape connectivity and recovering populations of threatened species1,2,3,4. Recognizing this contribution, Target 2 of the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) states that by 2030 at least 30% of the area of degraded ecosystems should be under effective restoration to enhance biodiversity and other environmental outcomes. Biodiversity conservation is currently the most frequently stated outcome of tree-planting organizations worldwide5 and is often used by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), private companies and governments to leverage investments, public support and stakeholder engagement in forest restoration initiatives.However, the gap between stated intentions and realized biodiversity benefits is large. Financial flows have favoured individualistic, utilitarian priorities and not societal, diffuse benefits, such as biodiversity conservation, creating a challenging funding gap for sustaining effective, biodiversity-centred forest restoration. Usually, natural forests are replaced with agriculture in pursuit of financial and livelihood benefits, and the same logic has applied to forest restoration. When deciding to engage in restoration, decision makers weigh the pros and cons of restored forests relative to alternative land uses and choose approaches to increase tree cover that they perceive to be most beneficial to them and their constituents6. Hence, most initiatives to restore forest cover have focused on achieving utilitarian functions over biodiversity gains, resulting in suboptimal and potentially perverse biodiversity outcomes. For example, almost half of Bonn Challenge forest landscape restoration commitments, which are concentrated in high-diversity tropical forest regions, comprise commercial monoculture plantations of exotic tree species7.Most tree-planting organizations use agroforestry systems (a range of management systems that integrate trees and shrubs into croplands and pastures) or plantations of one or few tree species with wood and food production functions, and carbon sequestration is increasingly dominating the agenda of forest restoration initiatives8. In some regions, where forest restoration is largely motivated by soil conservation and water provisioning goals, compositionally simple tree plantations are often viewed as the most affordable and therefore default choice9,10. Even initiatives that truly aim to benefit biodiversity often fail to ameliorate the status of threatened species owing to a narrow focus on one or few components of biodiversity — commonly species richness of a single taxonomic group. The omission of a holistic perspective that includes multiple biodiversity dimensions, metrics and taxonomic groups (Table 1) often leads to inappropriate choices regarding restoration methods11, planting stock and genetic material12,13; to projects conducted at insufficient spatial and temporal scales6 and to weak monitoring frameworks14.Table 1 Dimensions of biodiversity and corresponding forest restoration strategiesFull size tableAlthough biodiversity is not yet the main priority — at least in practice — of initiatives to restore forest cover, invaluable opportunities for change exist15. Over approximately the past four decades, the focus of forest restoration efforts has gradually shifted towards benefiting biodiversity (Supplementary Fig. 1). Initiatives and policy frameworks starting from the late 1970s revolved around maximizing utilitarian functions such as producing fuelwood (for example, India’s Social Forestry Program), halting desertification or soil erosion (China’s Three North Shelterbelt Program and later Grain-for-Green Program; Africa’s Great Green Wall) and safeguarding water provisioning (Costa Rica and Mexico’s payments for environmental services programmes). In the 2000s and to a greater extent in the 2010s, biodiversity entered relevant policy discourse as a partial goal in ‘multifunctional’ restoration efforts16 and, increasingly, as a standalone goal17,18 (Supplementary Fig. 1). High-level policy mechanisms, namely, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) and the CBD19,20, emphasize the need to tackle the dual climate and biodiversity crises together, and biodiversity-focused forest restoration is a key tool in such endeavours7.Furthermore, the emergence of biodiversity credit markets21, the improvement of biodiversity offsetting policies and the growing demand for high-quality carbon credits with biodiversity safeguards are timely opportunities to place biodiversity front and centre in forest restoration22,23,24. Although these approaches remain far from delivering substantial biodiversity benefits, and could result in unintended negative consequences if not well planned and monitored, they indicate an unprecedented move towards prioritizing biodiversity. Initiatives such as The Global Biodiversity Standard25 have promised to push biodiversity monitoring to an enhanced level, and technologies to monitor biodiversity are developing rapidly. In addition, accumulating ecological evidence that biodiversity underlies the functioning, service provision and long-term stability of ecosystems26 has increased recognition of biodiversity’s crucial role in ensuring the desired ecosystem service outcomes of forest restoration at both the local and global scales17,27,28,29.In this Review, we synthesize the existing knowledge on how biodiversity is influenced by forest restoration methods and conditions as a step towards promoting best practices in restoration initiatives and providing guidance to financing and policy frameworks. We describe the reforestation approaches and forest restoration methods currently used and how they affect biodiversity; summarize the current evidence, main determinants and knowledge gaps of biodiversity outcomes of forest restoration; describe the emerging opportunities to planning, financing and monitoring biodiversity-centred forest restoration; and present critical recommendations on why, where, how and for whom to restore forests while co-producing knowledge to sustain effective, long-lasting positive effects for biodiversity. Without clear intentions to enable and assess biodiversity benefits in forest restoration initiatives, biodiversity will remain a vague buzzword rather than an actual outcome.Approaches to restore forest cover and consequences for biodiversityIn scientific and practical discourse, forest restoration has often been referred to interchangeably as ‘tree planting’, ‘reforestation’ and ‘forest landscape restoration’30. Although ‘forest restoration’ is often used as an umbrella term for any action to restore forest cover, the aforementioned terms differ in important ways regarding the restoration contexts to which they are most suited and regarding their effects on biodiversity and other outcomes31 (Fig. 1). Meaningful consideration of biodiversity in forest restoration initiatives first requires distinguishing these terms with respect to their corresponding goals, methods and biodiversity outcomes and recognizing trade-offs in differing approaches. ‘Afforestation’ is not considered here, as it can refer to establishing tree cover where forest does not belong (such as natural grasslands and savannahs) — an action that can lead to deleterious effects on native biodiversity32.Fig. 1: Approaches to restore forest cover and its expected outcomes for native biodiversity, carbon, water, timber and food.The performance of reforestation approaches was qualitatively categorized on the basis of refs. 29,130,153. Agroforests refer to a range of management systems that integrate trees and shrubs into croplands and pastures, the most diverse of which can resemble native forests in species composition and vegetation structure. Mixed plantations here refer to low-diversity plantations, usually used as a forestry approach for more sustainable production of wood products or specific ecosystem functions.Full size imageDefining forest restorationTree planting is commonly used in statements about forest restoration initiatives and media communications and refers to the planting or seeding of trees for various reasons (such as providing food and wood products, carbon sequestration or water supply31) rather than stipulating the goal of restoring forest cover. In addition, this term mostly focuses on reinstating woody species and canopy trees, without considering understory, climbing and epiphyte species, which are essential to forest biodiversity. Reforestation is an intuitive term for re-establishing forest cover where it previously existed, regardless of whether such re-establishment is via active tree planting or natural regeneration (Fig. 1). Forest landscape restoration refers to integrated landscape design for the delivery of multiple functions through increasing tree cover and the coordinated spatial planning of different types of land uses (for example, woodlots, silvopastoral systems, agriculture, agroforestry and human settlements).These terms do not specify the type of resulting forest cover. Rather, the result can be a range of forest types with varying outcomes for biodiversity, including agroforests, monocultures or species-poor plantations targeting certain functions valued by stakeholders (such as timber production or erosion control), and more diverse native forests, such as diverse restoration plantings and naturally regenerating forests31 (Fig. 1). All these land uses serve important functions, including providing forest products and food, which can reduce pressure to clear primary and secondary forest at a larger scale. However, some land uses, particularly monoculture and low-diversity plantations, especially those including invasive species33, result in low contributions or even harm to local biodiversity34.By contrast, the term forest restoration — in the true sense of ecological restoration35 — refers to the process of recovering native forest ecosystems that have been destroyed, degraded or altered35. The end goal is clear: to re-establish forest diversity, structure and function that are as similar as possible to the reference native ecosystem, which is defined by all its biodiversity dimensions (taxonomic, functional, phylogenetic and genetic) across all taxonomic groups. Here, the term forest restoration is reserved for this stricter and more ecologically meaningful interpretation.Biodiversity outcomes differ substantially among current initiatives to restore forest cover29,36,37. Although reforestation and forest landscape restoration initiatives might include forest restoration, the majority of initiatives aim to improve targeted ecosystem functions (that is, rehabilitation35) and use approaches with low biodiversity ambition5,7,8,38. This predominance of utilitarian approaches reflects the prioritization of technical simplicity, availability of seedling species in local nurseries and cost reduction, as well as income generation and rapid investment returns. Landholders understandably often prefer tree species that provide food, timber or other resources rather than maximizing biodiversity8,39. Resolving the financial barriers of restoration for biodiversity is crucial because restoration replaces agricultural land uses that provide livelihoods for people, who often spend considerable money for restoration implementation and maintenance6. For investors in restoration initiatives, which are to date limited to the timber and carbon markets, obtaining attractive financial returns is critical to initiating and expanding businesses focused on biodiversity restoration. Simplistic reforestation approaches have also been promoted by governments and businesses interested in making appealing statements to the general public, customers and the media about their contributions to the environment40, based on the faulty premise that planting trees is always good.Trade-offs in reforestation goalsSynergies and trade-offs exist among biodiversity and other goals of restoring forest cover. Although designing restoration around biodiversity is commonly seen as a burden or added cost, growing evidence supports the positive effects of restoring biodiversity on a range of ecosystem services and their underlying ecosystem functions17,28,29,41. Moreover, restoring a diverse ecosystem is essential to recovering species interactions and ensuring the longevity of forests42. At the same time, certain reforestation goals can be achieved with low-diversity forests. For example, high levels of carbon sequestration can be achieved with either high-diversity or low-diversity forests43,44 and timber supply chains are currently tailored to monoculture tree plantations45, resulting in a clear trade-off between biodiversity and timber production29. Thus, for biodiversity to be a central goal of reforestation, it should not be assumed to increase as an inevitable consequence of increasing tree cover. Instead, biodiversity must be considered throughout the restoration process — in setting objectives, selecting methods and monitoring outcomes.Forest restoration methodsForests can be restored using a range of methods (Box 1). These methods differ in their ability to deliver biodiversity and other restoration goals, and maximizing biodiversity can be at odds with feasibility factors (such as scalability, costs and engagement with local stakeholders). For example, natural regeneration has been suggested to be the most cost-effective method to simultaneously restore biodiversity and an array of ecosystem functions and services4. However, biodiversity recovery rates vary more for natural regeneration than for restoration planting46. This variation is a particular concern in the carbon market, in which investors want rapid returns and low risk on investment. Moreover, landowners often view naturally regenerating land as messy or unproductive, which increases the probability of restoration sites being recleared47. In many cases, planting diverse tree species, particularly rare and difficult-to-propagate species, increases both costs and risks of project failure12, which can be a major concern given limited funding and the need to demonstrate success to project funders48. Overall, the most appropriate restoration method to ensure the biodiversity outcomes of forest restoration depends on the pre-existing biodiversity and baseline site conditions, the likelihood of natural regeneration, the time frame expected for recovery, the specific goals and socioecological context of the project and the availability of resources (such as funding, labour, seedlings and machinery)49.Box 1 Forest restoration methods‘Natural regeneration’ is the spontaneous recolonization of the restoration area by native vegetation once degrading factors are removed, without active reintroduction of vegetation or fauna. ‘Assisted natural regeneration’ includes interventions to reduce the barriers slowing the establishment and development of regenerating native plants, mainly through the reduction of competition with invasive plants and sometimes clearing of firebreaks to reduce disturbance; localized plantings in areas with minimal plant regeneration or enrichment plantings can be part of this method72. ‘Spatially patterned revegetation’ involves planting patches, strips or other arrangements to partially occupy a restoration area with native plants194, in the expectation that the plantings will spread over time by enhancing dispersal of other species and improving establishment conditions for a diversity of species. ‘Restoration planting’ involves planting or sowing native plants across the entire area to be restored. For all restoration methods involving planting, an expectation exists that with time, both planted and unplanted species will establish naturally and develop as succession proceeds. Although most forest restoration methods focus on tree species reintroductions and regeneration, faunal reintroductions are used occasionally215 and should be considered more frequently given their potential to facilitate recovery of ecosystem functions and population dynamics of interacting species113, along with supporting the conservation of animal species.The figure shows forest restoration methods immediately after their implementation (1–3 years; top panels) and post-implementation (10–30 years depending on the ecosystem; bottom panels). Note that the post-implementation end point visualized assumes that the method displayed is tailored to the socioecological context of the restoration site (for example, natural regeneration is used in locations with high regeneration potential) and therefore generates successful restoration progress. In reality, recovery might be much slower depending on various factors discussed in the text.Biodiversity outcomes of forest restorationResearch to date has shown that biodiversity outcomes under forest restoration are highly variable, depending on the restoration method, time since restoration implementation, site biophysical conditions and, increasingly, the feedback loops between ecological processes and the recovery trajectory46,50,51,52. This section synthesizes existing knowledge on how biodiversity responds to forest restoration, what factors underlie these responses and which knowledge gaps persist.Effect of the restoration methodThe various forest restoration methods (Box 1) are complementary in their applicability and effectiveness in restoring biodiversity53,54,55,56, but studies that simultaneously assess multiple restoration methods remain rare57,58,59. The few existing comparisons indicate that forests established by different methods show a similarly large range in outcomes for biodiversity improvements they bring54,55,58,60, yet exhibit context-specific advantages relative to each other. Notably, restoration seeding or planting can improve biodiversity outcomes over natural regeneration for certain species groups (such as forest-specialist species and large-seeded trees with limited dispersal54,61,62) and when natural regeneration is suppressed (for example, by invasive exotic grasses63) or otherwise slow64,65,66. Similarly, assisted natural regeneration and spatially patterned revegetation can accelerate recovery in some cases and increase small-scale heterogeneity at a reduced cost compared with full restoration planting67,68. When natural regeneration proceeds quickly, it can facilitate the development of more natural patterns of species composition and abundance than restoration planting53,69 and at lower cost70,71.Extent and time frame of biodiversity recoveryFew consistent broad conclusions exist regarding how biodiversity responds to forest restoration across the spectrum of methods, although the majority of research — particularly of long-term recovery — has focused on natural regeneration59. A smaller literature exists on restoration planting, typically over shorter time periods, and studies on assisted natural regeneration remain scarce72.First, widespread evidence shows biodiversity across a range of taxa increases under forest restoration, often relative to former agricultural or grazing lands50,73. Importantly, such increases can operate beyond the restoration site to benefit biodiversity in the wider landscape, notably by reducing forest fragmentation and improving landscape connectivity74,75,76,77. Second, evidence across taxa strongly supports that compositional similarity to old-growth forests increases with time since restoration78,79,80, but longer-term studies show persistent biodiversity shortfalls relative to old-growth forests46,81,82,83; recovering forests frequently lack later successional, dispersal-limited and rarer species even after multiple decades84,85,86,87,88. By contrast, most restoration interventions last less than 5 years, after which no funding is available to actively restore these species. For example, a review of restoration projects in Brazil found that funding for 80% of projects ended within 30 months70. Third, the pace of biodiversity recovery is often nonlinear89. Natural regeneration might be ‘arrested’ in the beginning and speed up later66,90, whereas recovery under restoration planting might slow down after an initial rapid phase80,91. Finally, although these insights predominantly concern the taxonomic dimension of biodiversity, the functional, phylogenetic and genetic dimensions appear to share similar broad patterns82,83,92.Nonetheless, existing insights, including those from data syntheses29,58,93,94, show considerable variation across systems and biodiversity metrics. For example, within the tropics, complete recovery relative to old-growth forests has been observed after 25 years in a few cases95,96, whereas in many instances limited recovery has been reported after a similar97,98 or much greater amount of time (for example, after more than a century88). A key reason for the apparent variation in biodiversity responses to forest restoration lies in the wide range of metrics used to represent biodiversity, even when the dimensions of biodiversity measured (taxonomic, functional, phylogenetic and genetic diversity) are the same99,100. When multiple metrics have been used to assess biodiversity recovery, faster and/or more pronounced recovery for richness and diversity metrics (including in a functional sense) than for abundance and composition metrics has frequently been reported83,101. This tendency is partly related to the more nuanced information on biodiversity responses provided by species-level abundance and composition metrics, which may not respond as quickly or positively to restoration as richness and diversity metrics, given differences among species responses99. Accordingly, using species-level data enables researchers to be explicit about species identities, in turn enabling them to propose and test interesting ecological predictions, such as patterns of species turnover in relation to functional traits over time102 and in comparison with old-growth forests103,104.Determinants of recoveryExtensive research demonstrates that biodiversity recovery under forest restoration is influenced by multiple factors, particularly features of the surrounding landscape and land-use history, as well as the species selected for restoration plantings. The percentage of forest cover in the surrounding landscape often correlates with both the extent and predictability of biodiversity recovery59,95,105,106,107, owing to enhanced floral and faunal colonization. Remnant forest composition also influences the propagules that colonize nearby restored sites as forest remnants in highly fragmented landscapes often lack later-successional, hardwood species, a result of selective logging and edge effects108, and are depauperate of faunal species as a result of hunting, small patch size and invasive species109. Both defaunation and overabundance of certain faunal populations can impede biodiversity recovery not only directly but also through cascading effects on ecosystem processes, such as lack of seed dispersal110,111 and pollination, as well as changing patterns of seed predation and herbivory112,113,114. In some landscapes, hedgerows, live fences and trees within agroforestry and silvopastoral lands comprise important seed sources and facilitate seed dispersers movement, acting as stepping stones, which in turn accelerates forest recovery in nearby sites115,116. By contrast, surrounding agricultural land uses can impede forest recovery through the spread of agricultural chemicals, invasive species and livestock grazing117,118.The type, intensity and duration of past land use also consistently predict biodiversity recovery rates119,120,121,122. Biodiversity often recovers quickly in lands used for a few years for low-intensity agriculture, but the pace of recovery decreases after multiple cycles of use and fallow123,124. Intensive land uses (such as mechanized agriculture, long-term cattle grazing or mining) typically result in a range of abiotic and biotic changes that substantially slow down forest recovery89,125. Abiotic changes include the compaction, nutrient depletion, decreased organic matter and lower water-holding capacity of the soil, alteration of soil layers during tilling and elevated levels of herbicides and pesticides. Biotic changes can include altered and depauperate soil microbial communities, increased weed seed bank and ruderal vegetation and decreased regeneration from seed bank and resprouting, among other changes. For example, substantially different successional trajectories of forest recovery over 25 years have been reported in the Brazilian Amazon126; rapid recovery of biodiversity was observed in clearcut areas, whereas early successional shrubby species dominated in areas previously used for cattle grazing. This delayed state of recovery is probably linked to the use of fire as part of agricultural management in a system that is not adapted to fire, as well as aggressive pasture grasses introduced for livestock grazing, both of which can impede biodiversity recovery117,126,127.Finally, for restoration involving planting interventions, the planted species composition and management regime can strongly affect the subsequent colonization of flora, fauna and fungi, despite mixed evidence regarding whether restoration planting accelerates biodiversity recovery56,58,128. Overall, current evidence suggests that biodiversity outcomes are enhanced in restoration plantings with increased tree species and functional richness129,130, greater spatial range of seed/seedling sourcing that provides richer genetic compositions131 and more intensive vegetation management (for example, controlling herbivores and competition with undesirable plant species)132.Recovering ecosystem complexityForest recovery is necessarily a process of long-term ecosystem development that involves a host of complex and interrelated ecological processes, ranging from nutrient cycling and energy transfer to myriad species interactions that underlie community assembly and maintenance; this ecosystem complexity further complicates the restoration of biodiversity. These processes are the result of prior recovery and will shape subsequent successional trajectories, often shifting these trajectories far beyond the control of restoration interventions. A most telling example is the widely recognized unpredictability of community assembly under natural forest regeneration119, in which even relatively nearby, apparently similar sites can display markedly different recovery rates and distinct regeneration paths56,133. For example, of the 10 naturally regenerating sites in southern Costa Rica, some sites remained dominated by pasture grasses with few woody recruits after 16–18 years, whereas others had large numbers of tree seedlings and saplings that were similar in composition to those recruiting in mixed-species restoration plantations62. These differences are probably due to stochastic factors that determine the initial colonizing species, which in turn drive competition and other ecological interactions that influence the fate of individuals and species119,134,135. In other examples, such ‘secondary processes’ can comprise compositional and functional shifts in soil seed banks as recovery progresses136, as well as herbivory that suppresses certain plant species with complex and potentially unpredictable downstream biodiversity consequences52. Selecting restoration interventions to restore these ecological feedbacks requires a complex systems thinking perspective89.Knowledge gapsDespite forests being comparatively well-studied ecosystems, major gaps remain in our knowledge of the efficacy of different restoration methods to facilitate biodiversity recovery137. Most research to date has been limited with respect to the dimensions, taxonomic groups and metrics of biodiversity measured, range of restoration methods tested and temporal and spatial scales evaluated. Multiple restoration methods are rarely compared side-by-side and against both a degraded pre-restoration baseline and the benchmark of reference ecosystems35,93. Although pre-restoration baselines show the extent of change following restoration commencing, reference ecosystems provide crucial information on how well such change is progressing towards recovery.Most forest restoration efforts focus on planting trees and monitoring tree survival, growth and biomass, rather than on the recovery of a suite of species and ecological processes that drive biodiversity5. When biodiversity is evaluated, the floral and faunal guilds monitored are typically trees and secondarily birds29,138,139,140, despite correlations between richness of different taxonomic groups being highly inconsistent141. Little information exists on the recovery or reintroduction of other plant forms, invertebrates, fungi and soil organisms29,130, including those that strongly affect ecosystem services and disservices such as pollinators, natural enemies including pests and pathogens, and vectors of zoonotic diseases142,143,144,145. Species richness and composition of one or two guilds are often the focus of research, although functional traits are increasingly assessed138,146,147 and typically show that functional composition recovers more quickly than species composition94,148,149. Phylogenetic and genetic diversity in forest restoration are considered less often than other metrics, with a few exceptions150,151.Strong geographical biases and gaps exist regarding where biodiversity outcomes of forest restoration have been measured against degraded and reference ecosystems. These biases severely limit the generalization of our understanding, given demonstrated geographical differences in how biodiversity responds to forest restoration79 and habitat change in general152,153. Multiple major forested regions have received little research attention, and even stronger geographical biases exist in research on specific forest restoration methods29. Notably, research on the biodiversity outcomes of restoration planting and assisted natural regeneration is concentrated in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest biome154 and, to a lesser extent, Australia, whereas natural regeneration studies are heavily biased towards the Neotropics120,155,156.Research and monitoring of the biodiversity outcomes of forest restoration has typically focused on the first 1–5 years of recovery5, a period that is exceedingly short given the decades and often centuries that forest biodiversity takes to recover and short even by the standard of the recommended 25-year monitoring time frame under the current CBD global biodiversity targets157. As a result, limited information exists on advanced stages of restoration. Research on longer time scales is necessarily often based on chronosequences (multiple similar sites after different time periods of recovery), which can confound site conditions (for example, soil type, slope and aspect) with time and are biased towards sites with favourable recovery outcomes158. The little research that compares multiple restoration methods for longer than a decade suggests that species composition changes quickly and that initial differences between restoration methods often converge over longer time periods86,139,140, but further research is required for generalizable insights. Importantly, rapidly changing climatic conditions and other stochastic events add further challenges to predicting forest recovery trajectories over a long time span119,159,160.Millions of hectares globally are targeted for forest restoration, yet most scientific research and monitoring of biodiversity recovery are conducted on plots that are too small for effective monitoring of rarer species, which are often of higher conservation value. Restoration methods are also frequently tested at a single site, despite many restoration studies and projects showing extensive variability in outcomes across nearby sites56,133,161. Moreover, some methods tested (for example, moving small quantities of leaf litter from remnant forests, installing bird perches and hand-weeding undesirable species) are not scalable6. In most cases, restoration sites are embedded in multi-use landscapes with varied levels of protection and disturbance. Hence, restored sites will both be affected by and influence biodiversity conservation in the surrounding landscape59. Removing land from agriculture or wood production can lead to leakage (that is, forest clearing elsewhere for these uses) and overall net biodiversity loss59. By contrast, as noted earlier, restoration can benefit biodiversity in the wider landscape74,76,77, such as by providing pest control to nearby agricultural areas162, minimizing edge effects, increasing diversity in remnant habitats3,163 and expanding overall habitat area for species that require large ranges. Nonetheless, the effects of forest restoration are rarely measured beyond the borders of restoration sites.Improving biodiversity outcomes in forest restorationThe increasing mainstreaming of biodiversity in forest restoration efforts raises the prospect of improving biodiversity benefits. However, a large gap remains between ambition and achievements to date. Key to closing this gap is the wider adoption of scientifically reputable guidelines that prescribe design principles for biodiversity-beneficial restoration activities31,164,165. Principles and specific guidance from across many of these guidelines have been widely endorsed and made accessible to practitioners by numerous initiatives and standards166, including in the form of the world’s first biodiversity certification tool for restoration activities — the Global Biodiversity Standard25. Continued efforts should be made to translate existing guidelines into accessible knowledge, to provide culturally appropriate training and to conduct research that results in actionable recommendations.Focused biodiversity targetsRestoration projects must clearly state specific and measurable biodiversity targets and select appropriate locations and methods (Table 1). This alignment is critical given the multiple dimensions of and assessment metrics for biodiversity and that these different facets might be best delivered by different methods (Table 1). For example, a restoration project aimed at saving the golden lion tamarin (Leontopithecus rosalia) from extinction167 cannot be considered a success unless it improves the local population status of this species, even if it results in an otherwise biodiverse forest. Depending on the biodiversity targets specified, restoration might focus on restoring a high level of biodiversity in a given forest patch or on enhancing landscape connectivity via ecological corridors or a more permeable matrix. Restoration might also focus directly on improving the population trajectory of certain target species or guilds by enhancing key resources, actively reintroducing individuals — including those with certain desirable traits or genotypes — and managing species interactions.Improved monitoringA broad consensus exists among academics and most major restoration initiatives that implementing meaningful monitoring and reporting is key to ensuring that restoration stays on course to deliver biodiversity targets (Supplementary Table 1). Crucially, monitoring, along with data analysis and a feedback loop to management actions, is necessary to adaptively manage restoration projects, which can greatly increase the chances of successful biodiversity recovery168. Yet, as with biodiversity protection targets169, the monitoring often focuses on area-based indicators, or at best relatively easily quantified metrics such as tree survival, growth or biomass accumulation14, typically over short time frames of approximately 3–5 years5 (Supplementary Table 1) that are inconsistent with the long process of forest recovery. Moreover, the monitoring techniques typically used are too small scale to meaningfully assess biodiversity benefits5, particularly for patchily distributed and rare species that are found at low densities, regional (that is, beta) diversity and fauna that require large home ranges.To date, the high costs of and operational challenges to comprehensively monitoring biodiversity have made long-term monitoring of forest restoration at scale difficult. To overcome these limitations, exciting technical advances are being developed that will probably revolutionize the accuracy, precision and frequency of both ground-based and remote-sensing monitoring schemes and ideally reduce the cost of such schemes (Box 2). These innovations will also enable the monitoring of biodiversity parameters previously considered unfeasible, but will need to be integrated with ground-based metrics and training for the diverse suite of people conducting restoration monitoring.Advances in remote sensing and global modelling have inspired efforts to create a framework for a unified ‘biocomplexity’ index170 that combines information across genes, species and ecosystems, but the implementation and utility of such a single comprehensive metric to assess global restoration progress would rely on extensive, repeatedly collected ground-based data, which is expensive and currently lacking for many dimensions of biodiversity (such as genetic diversity). Ideally, biodiversity data collected at locally meaningful spatial and temporal scales would follow standards to allow comparison across sites; calculation of more complex indicators than previously possible; and aggregation to regional and global scales, as previously proposed for broader biodiversity monitoring via Essential Biodiversity Variables171. Moving forward, a key goal to ensure positive outcomes for biodiversity in all forest restoration efforts is finding the sweet spot between perfection and scale: in other words, to achieve an adequate balance between cost-effective methods and sufficiently informative metrics that are at the same time accessible to local communities who must be an integral part of restoration projects.Box 2 Technological advances to monitoring biodiversity in forest restorationGround observationsAlthough traditional biodiversity surveys carried out by human observers are still the norm, technologies capable of generating large amounts of empirically measured, on-the-ground biodiversity data at higher speed are increasingly available and implemented. These technologies include camera trapping (for detecting vertebrate fauna), bioacoustics (for vocalizing organisms such as birds, bats, amphibians and insects), insect sampling combined with meta-barcoding, cyclone sampling (for airborne pollen and spores from plants and fungi) and environmental DNA sampling (for all species, including bacteria and other microorganisms). These methods are now being tested for assessing biodiversity changes over time at more than 100 locations worldwide (through research such as LIFEPLAN). These and other techniques, such as smartphone apps for measuring and recording tree locations and growth216, can provide data-rich, standardized frameworks for comparing the success of different restoration approaches and the basis for developing evidence-based biodiversity credits designed on the principle of additionality.Remote sensingSeveral techniques exist to scan landscape-wide areas in three dimensions, including light detection and ranging, radar, multispectral and hyperspectral imagery217,218,219. Although their use has focused on the quantification of carbon stocks over time, ongoing efforts are assessing the suitability of such data for the identification of Essential Biodiversity Variables220. Increasingly, alternative approaches to quantifying forest biodiversity through remote sensing are being explored, including species composition and community diversity221,222, which could be potentially applied to restored forests223. In addition, some individual tree species of particular ecological value can be distinguished from complex forest cover224, and these methods are improving rapidly. However, remote sensing still has major limitations for some components of biodiversity225.As a result, effective assessment of the biodiversity outcomes of forest restoration should combine elements of both ground observations and remote sensing. Key to the implementation of such technical advances is building reliable reference libraries for species identification, such as reference audio recordings and images that can be used by machine-learning algorithms and DNA sequences that can be matched to bulk samples of microorganisms, insects and other organisms whose visual identification remains challenging. This work will involve collaboration between restoration scientists and taxonomists, profiting from the world’s vast natural history collections226.Ground observations and remote sensing techniques can be combined to characterize baseline (that is, pre-restoration), restoration and reference forest plots (see the figure). A standardized combination of data gathering methodologies can be applied across relatively large landscapes to produce data-rich inferences on how biodiversity is affected by restoration projects.Policy and funding driversIncreased policy and market demand for biodiversity gains from forest restoration will ideally promote improved biodiversity outcomes. Public policy frameworks in different regions increasingly require that such efforts benefit biodiversity (for example, China’s Master Plan for Major National Programs to Protect and Restore Important Ecosystems (2021–2035)172), or at least not cause negative effects (the EU Guidelines on biodiversity-friendly afforestation, reforestation and tree planting)173 (Supplementary Fig. 1). A growing number of national biodiversity strategies and action plans exist that set biodiversity restoration targets at the national level. For example, the megadiverse countries of Colombia and Malaysia have set targets to have, respectively, 2 million and 200,000 ha of degraded areas under restoration by 2030 (refs. 174,175). Moreover, demand is increasing for corporations to disclose effects on biodiversity, through both voluntary176 and regulated177 mechanisms.Momentum is also growing to develop high-quality carbon credits that explicitly carry biodiversity co-benefits, biodiversity credits for which credit valuation is based on biodiversity uplifts178,179 and biodiversity and carbon co-credits180. Given the much greater policy attention on climate change than on biodiversity conservation, and growing concerns about the poor quality of many carbon offsets traded in the voluntary carbon market181, high-quality carbon credits offer an invaluable ‘riding-along’ opportunity for biodiversity to benefit182, provided that assurance schemes to verify stated biodiversity benefits are actually realized183. If well regulated and designed to avoid the pitfalls of carbon credit markets, biodiversity credits alone or in combination with other funding mechanisms (carbon credits and payments for ecosystem services) could become a main source of funding to support restoration efforts21. Although funding for biodiversity credits has yet to materialize at scale, pioneering efforts to develop biodiversity credits are ongoing globally179 and are predicted to reach a global demand of $2 billion in 2030 and $69 billion in 2050 (ref. 184).Future directionsThe need and expectation for short-term financial and utilitarian benefits, which have been largely responsible for driving reforestation initiatives away from biodiversity-centred restoration, will hopefully be superseded by holistic, long-term societal commitments to restore nature in all its inherent complexity. Research and implementation agendas are intertwined and, given the urgency for forest restoration at scale6, researcher–practitioner collaborations and knowledge synthesis are essential to guide transformative change in forest restoration185. To improve biodiversity outcomes of forest restoration, four critical decision-making axes should be considered.Why to restoreMost initiatives to restore forest cover claim to benefit biodiversity, carbon storage and human livelihoods simultaneously without acknowledging or quantifying trade-offs among these and other goals5. Realism and transparency about what can and cannot be achieved by forest restoration are essential, and approaches to maximize synergies between biodiversity and other outcomes must be explored. For example, forest restoration using a high-value timber species in Hawaii also benefits an endangered Hawaiian honeycreeper186. In Brazil, a threatened palm with edible fruits has been grown in agroforests and secondary forests to provide income to local people187. Biodiversity will only become a priority of forest restoration if the interests of decision makers, especially local stakeholders and investors, are met. Additionally, developing and implementing regulatory frameworks that ensure true ecological restoration, particularly for biodiversity and high-integrity carbon credits21, is crucial. Social science research is needed to explore stakeholder perceptions of and preferences for restoration methods and outcomes, to better engage stakeholders in facilitating biodiversity-beneficial forest restoration188. Furthermore, economics research should investigate how the multiple ecosystem services and biodiversity gains supplied by restored, biodiverse native forests can be monetized189, in contrast to the single or few utilitarian outcomes currently rewarded by the market. For instance, increasing native forest cover by 20% in strategic areas for enhancing pollinators could double coffee yield in Costa Rican landscapes145.Where to restoreRestoration should be prioritized in areas that have an increased likelihood of sustaining effective, long-lasting positive effects on biodiversity6, such as those with lower agricultural productivity that are less likely to be recleared, as well as in threatened ecosystems, which often are challenging to restore. Additional rules-of-thumb can be helpful (for example, choosing locations near source populations and with less-intensive previous land use), but location choice will often be constrained by land availability. In addition, the biodiversity benefits of forest restoration tend to be maximized when restored sites complement the conservation role of remnant patches by serving as buffer zones or ecological corridors3. Importantly, decisions on land prioritization for restoration should be carried out at the landscape level rather than in isolation, so that the combined benefits of restoring multiple sites and potential displaced impacts are considered59. This landscape-scale planning process can be aided by advances in use of artificial intelligence190. For example, a novel optimization technique enabled balancing cost, accessibility and equitable allocation constraints to prioritize restorable areas for increasing connectivity within a park in New Caledonia191.How to restoreAs forest restoration methods and operational procedures to implement them have different costs, feasibility factors, scalability and effects on biodiversity, restoration methods must be tailored to local socioecological conditions and project goals rather than using a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach. In most cases, a mix of methods will be most effective; for example, using natural regeneration where forest resilience is high, and restoration planting in locations where recovery is slower. In approximately half of the land area in low-income and middle-income countries, local conditions have been shown to determine whether tree plantation or natural regeneration is a more cost-effective approach to sequestering carbon71. Hence, the cost-effectiveness of different forest restoration methods under varied biophysical conditions should be documented to guide decisions on when and how to intervene across regional resilience gradients49.The same species are commonly introduced at multiple sites across the landscape, owing to limited knowledge, lack of germplasm of many native species — particularly rare species — and risk aversion to using untested species192. Thus, expanding propagation knowledge and establishing infrastructure for the seed and seedling supplies of conservation-valued species is a critical research–practice frontier and requires coordination among botanical gardens, nurseries, protected areas and restoration initiatives193. For example, The Ecological Restoration Alliance of Botanic Gardens, coordinated by The Botanic Gardens Conservation International, has contributed to enhancing the supply and quality of planting stocks for restoration activities and to sharing skills to manage plant materials, especially those of threatened species. In addition, progressing beyond simply planting trees and exploring innovative restoration methods to facilitate the spontaneous recovery of unplanted species and other organisms is crucial — for example, spatially patterned revegetation methods194, the use of keystone species195 and faunal and microbiome reintroduction to facilitate the recovery of animal populations and ecological interactions.For whom to restoreMore than ever, decisions about the why, where and how of forest restoration are determined by political and social priorities, providing an opportunity for improved social equity188,196. Historically, both deforestation and reforestation have resulted in short-term financial benefits for a few privileged groups and have been enacted for specific utilitarian functions, reducing species-rich and complex ecosystems to mere sources of timber and carbon stock or ground cover with perceived soil and water conservation functions197. Indigenous peoples and local communities that rely on species-rich and complex forest ecosystems for their livelihoods have experienced a progressive decline in the conditions and functions of these ecosystems, resulting in largely negative welfare consequences17,198. Improving the biodiversity outcomes of forest restoration, therefore, has far-reaching social consequences and could contribute to mitigating power asymmetries and inequalities that have been promoted by deforestation and, in many cases, reinforced by reforestation188. For example, in Madagascar, forest restoration around protected areas is reducing the exploitative pressure on forest remnants, whereas community engagement in restoration is being secured through the creation of jobs, improvements to the local health-care system and capacity strengthening; these joint benefits are fostering an increased sense of ownership and responsibility that is associated with the long-term stewardship of protected areas and surrounding ecosystems199. Likewise, in Brazil, job and income generation through the engagement of local and Indigenous communities in the forest restoration supply chain have enhanced the social conditions that enable restoring ecological corridors for threatened animal species200 and degraded headwaters201.To conclude, fulfilling the promise of forest restoration to tackle the simultaneous challenges of climate change, biodiversity loss and poverty requires that restoration efforts consider biodiversity outcomes upfront in their design, define clear biodiversity targets, select appropriate restoration methods and adequately monitor to ensure that restoration stays on course. Policy frameworks for combating climate change and conserving biodiversity should be better aligned at both regional and global scales to maximize shared objectives, mobilize relevant expertise and coordinate financing19 and to move biodiversity restoration from a buzzword to a reality.
ReferencesGriscom, B. W. et al. Natural climate solutions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 11645–11650 (2017).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Strassburg, B. B. N. et al. Global priority areas for ecosystem restoration. Nature 586, 724–729 (2020).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Newmark, W. D., Jenkins, C. N., Pimm, S. L., McNeally, P. B. & Halley, J. M. Targeted habitat restoration can reduce extinction rates in fragmented forests. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 9635–9640 (2017).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Chazdon, R. L. et al. Fostering natural forest regeneration on former agricultural land through economic and policy interventions. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 043002 (2020).Article
Google Scholar
Schubert, S. C. et al. Advances and shortfalls in applying best practices to global tree-growing efforts. Conserv. Lett. 17, e13002 (2024).Article
Google Scholar
Brancalion, P. H. & Holl, K. D. Upscaling ecological restoration by integrating with agriculture. Front. Ecol. Environ. 22, e2802 (2024).
Google Scholar
Lewis, S. L., Wheeler, C. E., Mitchard, E. T. A. & Koch, A. Restoring natural forests is the best way to remove atmospheric carbon. Nature 568, 25 (2019).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Martin, M. P. et al. People plant trees for utility more often than for biodiversity or carbon. Biol. Conserv. 261, 109224 (2021).Article
Google Scholar
Romijn, E. et al. Land restoration in Latin America and the Caribbean: an overview of recent, ongoing and planned restoration initiatives and their potential for climate change mitigation. Forests 10, 510 (2019).Article
Google Scholar
Wang, G., Innes, J. L., Lei, J., Dai, S. & Wu, S. W. China’s forestry reforms. Science 318, 1556–1557 (2007).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Bolam, F. C. et al. Over half of threatened species require targeted recovery actions to avert human-induced extinction. Front. Ecol. Environ. 21, 64–70 (2023).Article
Google Scholar
Brancalion, P. H. S. et al. Maximizing biodiversity conservation and carbon stocking in restored tropical forests. Conserv. Lett. 11, e12454 (2018).Article
Google Scholar
Pedrini, S. et al. Collection and production of native seeds for ecological restoration. Restor. Ecol. 28, S228–S238 (2020).
Google Scholar
Mansourian, S. & Stephenson, P. J. Exploring challenges and lessons for monitoring forest landscape restoration. Curr. Landsc. Ecol. Rep. 8, 159–170 (2023).Article
Google Scholar
Pörtner, H.-O. et al. Overcoming the coupled climate and biodiversity crises and their societal impacts. Science 380, eabl4881 (2023).Article
Google Scholar
Dave, R. et al. Second Bonn Challenge Progress Report: Application of the Barometer in 2018 (IUCN, 2019).IPBES. The IPBES Assessment Report on Land Degradation and Restoration 744 (IPBES, 2018).Navarro, L. M. et al. Restoring degraded land: contributing to Aichi Targets 14, 15, and beyond. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 29, 207–214 (2017).Article
Google Scholar
Boran, I. & Pettorelli, N. The Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and the Paris Agreement need a joint work programme for climate, nature and people. J. Appl. Ecol. 61, 1991–1999 (2024).Article
Google Scholar
Smith, P. et al. How do we best synergize climate mitigation actions to co-benefit biodiversity? Glob. Change Biol. 28, 2555–2577 (2022).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Antonelli, A., Rueda, X., Calcagno, R. & Nantongo Kalunda, P. How biodiversity credits could help to conserve and restore nature. Nature 634, 1045–1049 (2024).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Budiharta, S. et al. Restoration to offset the impacts of developments at a landscape scale reveals opportunities, challenges and tough choices. Glob. Environ. Change 52, 152–161 (2018).Article
Google Scholar
Simmonds, J. S. et al. Moving from biodiversity offsets to a target-based approach for ecological compensation. Conserv. Lett. 13, e12695 (2020).Article
Google Scholar
Vardon, M. J. & Lindenmayer, D. B. Biodiversity market doublespeak. Science 382, 491–491 (2023).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Bartholomew, D. C. et al. The Global Biodiversity Standard: Manual for Assessment and Best Practices (Botanical Gardens International & Society for Ecological Restoration, 2024).Oliver, T. H. et al. Biodiversity and resilience of ecosystem functions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 30, 673–684 (2015).Article
Google Scholar
Hughes, A. R., Grabowski, J. H., Leslie, H. M., Scyphers, S. & Williams, S. L. Inclusion of biodiversity in habitat restoration policy to facilitate ecosystem recovery. Conserv. Lett. 11, e12419 (2018).Article
Google Scholar
Edwards, D. P. & Cerullo, G. R. Biodiversity is central for restoration. Curr. Biol. 34, R371–R379 (2024).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Hua, F. et al. The biodiversity and ecosystem service contributions and trade-offs of forest restoration approaches. Science 376, 839–844 (2022).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Parr, C. L., te Beest, M. & Stevens, N. Conflation of reforestation with restoration is widespread. Science 383, 698–701 (2024).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Brancalion, P. H. S. & Holl, K. D. Guidance for successful tree planting initiatives. J. Appl. Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13725 (2020).Veldman, J. W. et al. Where tree planting and forest expansion are bad for biodiversity and ecosystem services. BioScience 65, 1011–1018 (2015).Article
Google Scholar
Richardson, D. M. Forestry trees as invasive aliens. Conserv. Biol. 12, 18–26 (1998).Article
Google Scholar
Edwards, D. P. et al. Upscaling tropical restoration to deliver environmental benefits and socially equitable outcomes. Curr. Biol. 31, R1326–R1341 (2021).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Gann, G. D. et al. International principles and standards for the practice of ecological restoration. Second edition. Restor. Ecol. 27, S1–S46 (2019).Article
Google Scholar
Li, R. et al. Time and space catch up with restoration programs that ignore ecosystem service trade-offs. Sci. Adv. 7, eabf8650 (2021).Article
Google Scholar
Wang, C., Zhang, W., Li, X. & Wu, J. A global meta-analysis of the impacts of tree plantations on biodiversity. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 31, 576–587 (2022).Article
Google Scholar
Fagan, M. E., Reid, J. L., Holland, M. B., Drew, J. G. & Zahawi, R. A. How feasible are global forest restoration commitments? Conserv. Lett. 13, e12700 (2020).Article
Google Scholar
Chechina, M. & Hamann, A. Choosing species for reforestation in diverse forest communities: social preference versus ecological suitability. Ecosphere 6, art240 (2015).Article
Google Scholar
Lamont, T. A. C. et al. Hold big business to task on ecosystem restoration. Science 381, 1053–1055 (2023).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Tilman, D., Isbell, F. & Cowles, J. M. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 45, 471–493 (2014).Article
Google Scholar
Brancalion, P. H. S. et al. A call to develop carbon credits for second-growth forests. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 8, 179–180 (2024).Article
Google Scholar
Bukoski, J. J. et al. Rates and drivers of aboveground carbon accumulation in global monoculture plantation forests. Nat. Commun. 13, 4206 (2022).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Hulvey, K. B. et al. Benefits of tree mixes in carbon plantings. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 869–874 (2013).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Simões, L. H. P. et al. Green deserts, but not always: a global synthesis of native woody species regeneration under tropical tree monocultures. Glob. Change Biol. 30, e17269 (2024).Article
Google Scholar
Atkinson, J. et al. Terrestrial ecosystem restoration increases biodiversity and reduces its variability, but not to reference levels: a global meta-analysis. Ecol. Lett. 25, 1725–1737 (2022).Article
Google Scholar
Zahawi, R. A., Reid, J. L. & Holl, K. D. Hidden costs of passive restoration. Restor. Ecol. 22, 284–287 (2014).Article
Google Scholar
Lesage, J. C., Howard, E. A. & Holl, K. D. Homogenizing biodiversity in restoration: the ‘perennialization’ of California prairies. Restor. Ecol. 26, 1061–1065 (2018).Article
Google Scholar
Holl, K. D. & Aide, T. M. When and where to actively restore ecosystems? For. Ecol. Manag. 261, 1558–1563 (2011).Article
Google Scholar
Jones, H. P. et al. Restoration and repair of Earth’s damaged ecosystems. Proc. R. Soc. B 285, 20172577 (2018).Article
Google Scholar
Moreno-Mateos, D. et al. Anthropogenic ecosystem disturbance and the recovery debt. Nat. Commun. 8, 14163 (2017).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Zhang, H. et al. Positive interactions in shaping neighborhood diversity during secondary forests recovery: revisiting the classical paradigm. For. Ecol. Manag. 552, 121586 (2024).Article
Google Scholar
Bechara, F. C. et al. Neotropical rainforest restoration: comparing passive, plantation and nucleation approaches. Biodivers. Conserv. 25, 2021–2034 (2016).Article
Google Scholar
Díaz-García, J. M., López-Barrera, F., Pineda, E., Toledo-Aceves, T. & Andresen, E. Comparing the success of active and passive restoration in a tropical cloud forest landscape: a multi-taxa fauna approach. PLoS ONE 15, e0242020 (2020).Article
Google Scholar
Cardoso, F. C. G., Capellesso, E. S., de Britez, R. M., Inague, G. & Marques, M. C. M. Landscape conservation as a strategy for recovering biodiversity: lessons from a long-term program of pasture restoration in the southern Atlantic Forest. J. Appl. Ecol. 59, 2309–2321 (2022).Article
Google Scholar
Banin, L. F. et al. The road to recovery: a synthesis of outcomes from ecosystem restoration in tropical and sub-tropical Asian forests. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 378, 20210090 (2023).Article
Google Scholar
Shoo, L. P. & Catterall, C. P. Stimulating natural regeneration of tropical forest on degraded land: approaches, outcomes, and information gaps. Restor. Ecol. 21, 670–677 (2013).Article
Google Scholar
Meli, P. et al. A global review of past land use, climate, and active vs. passive restoration effects on forest recovery. PLoS ONE 12, e0171368 (2017).Article
Google Scholar
Hua, F., Liu, M. & Wang, Z. Integrating forest restoration into land-use planning at large spatial scales. Curr. Biol. 34, R452–R472 (2024).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Díaz-García, J. M. et al. Functional diversity and redundancy of amphibians, ants, and dung beetles in passive and active cloud forest restoration. Ecol. Eng. 185, 106806 (2022).Article
Google Scholar
Díaz-García, J. M., López-Barrera, F., Toledo-Aceves, T., Andresen, E. & Pineda, E. Does forest restoration assist the recovery of threatened species? A study of cloud forest amphibian communities. Biol. Conserv. 242, 108400 (2020).Article
Google Scholar
Schubert, S., Zahawi, R. A., Oviedo-Brenes, F., Rosales, J. A. & Holl, K. D. Active restoration increases tree species richness and recruitment of large-seeded taxa after 16–18 years. Ecol. Appl. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.3053 (2024).Williams-Linera, G., Bonilla-Moheno, M., López-Barrera, F. & Tolome, J. Litterfall, vegetation structure and tree composition as indicators of functional recovery in passive and active tropical cloud forest restoration. For. Ecol. Manag. 493, 119260 (2021).Article
Google Scholar
Barreto Sansevero, J. B., Prieto, P. V., Sánchez-Tapia, A., Alvarenga Braga, J. M. & Pena Rodrigues, P. J. F. Past land-use and ecological resilience in a lowland Brazilian Atlantic Forest: implications for passive restoration. N. For. 48, 573–586 (2017).
Google Scholar
Osuri, A. M., Kasinathan, S., Siddhartha, M. K., Mudappa, D. & Raman, T. R. S. Effects of restoration on tree communities and carbon storage in rainforest fragments of the Western Ghats, India. Ecosphere https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2860 (2019).Zivec, P., Balcombe, S., McBroom, J., Sheldon, F. & Capon, S. J. Patterns and drivers of natural regeneration on old-fields in semi-arid floodplain ecosystems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 316, 107466 (2021).Article
Google Scholar
Shono, K., Cadaweng, E. A. & Durst, P. B. Application of assisted natural regeneration to restore degraded tropical forestlands. Restor. Ecol. 15, 620–626 (2007).Article
Google Scholar
Holl, K. D. et al. Applied nucleation facilitates tropical forest recovery: lessons learned from a 15-year study. J. Appl. Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13684 (2020).Ssekuubwa, E., Muwanika, V. B., Esaete, J., Tabuti, J. R. S. & Tweheyo, M. Colonization of woody seedlings in the understory of actively and passively restored tropical moist forests. Restor. Ecol. 27, 148–157 (2019).Article
Google Scholar
Brancalion, P. H. S. et al. What makes ecosystem restoration expensive? A systematic cost assessment of projects in Brazil. Biol. Conserv. 240, 108274 (2019).Article
Google Scholar
Busch, J. et al. Cost–effectiveness of natural forest regeneration and plantations for climate mitigation. Nat. Clim. Chang. 14, 996–1002 (2024).Article
Google Scholar
Oluwajuwon, T. V., Chazdon, R. L., Ota, L., Gregorio, N. & Herbohn, J. Bibliometric and literature synthesis on assisted natural regeneration: an evidence base for forest and landscape restoration in the tropics. Front. For. Glob. Change 7, 1412075 (2024).Article
Google Scholar
Crouzeilles, R. et al. A global meta-analysis on the ecological drivers of forest restoration success. Nat. Commun. 7, 11666 (2016).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Rocha, R. et al. Secondary forest regeneration benefits old-growth specialist bats in a fragmented tropical landscape. Sci. Rep. 8, 3819 (2018).Article
Google Scholar
Matos, F. A. R. et al. Secondary forest fragments offer important carbon and biodiversity cobenefits. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 509–522 (2020).Article
Google Scholar
Smith, C. C. et al. Amazonian secondary forests are greatly reducing fragmentation and edge exposure in old-growth forests. Environ. Res. Lett. 18, 124016 (2023).Article
Google Scholar
Rowley, S., López-Baucells, A., Rocha, R., Bobrowiec, P. E. D. & Meyer, C. F. J. Secondary forest buffers the effects of fragmentation on aerial insectivorous bat species following 30 years of passive forest restoration. Restor. Ecol. 32, e14093 (2024).Article
Google Scholar
Taki, H. et al. Evaluation of secondary forests as alternative habitats to primary forests for flower-visiting insects. J. Insect Conserv. 17, 549–556 (2013).Article
Google Scholar
Hughes, E. C., Edwards, D. P., Sayer, C. A., Martin, P. A. & Thomas, G. H. The effects of tropical secondary forest regeneration on avian phylogenetic diversity. J. Appl. Ecol. 57, 1351–1362 (2020).Article
Google Scholar
Korkiatupa, E. et al. Recovery patterns in community composition of fruit-feeding butterflies following 26 years of active forest restoration. Ecosphere 14, e4514 (2023).Article
Google Scholar
Audino, L. D., Louzada, J. & Comita, L. Dung beetles as indicators of tropical forest restoration success: is it possible to recover species and functional diversity? Biol. Conserv. 169, 248–257 (2014).Article
Google Scholar
Farneda, F. Z. et al. Functional recovery of Amazonian bat assemblages following secondary forest succession. Biol. Conserv. 218, 192–199 (2018).Article
Google Scholar
Makelele, I. A. et al. Afrotropical secondary forests exhibit fast diversity and functional recovery, but slow compositional and carbon recovery after shifting cultivation. J. Veg. Sci. 32, e13071 (2021).Article
Google Scholar
Holl, K. D. Long-term vegetation recovery on reclaimed coal surface mines in the eastern USA. J. Appl. Ecol. 39, 960–970 (2002).Article
Google Scholar
Spake, R., Ezard, T. H. G., Martin, P. A., Newton, A. C. & Doncaster, C. P. A meta-analysis of functional group responses to forest recovery outside of the tropics. Conserv. Biol. 29, 1695–1703 (2015).Article
Google Scholar
Pohlman, C. L. Do primary rainforest tree species recruit into passively and actively restored tropical rainforest? For. Ecol. Manag. 496, 11 (2021).Article
Google Scholar
Suganuma, M. S. & Durigan, G. Build it and they will come, but not all of them in fragmented Atlantic Forest landscapes. Restor. Ecol. 30, e13537 (2022).Article
Google Scholar
Elsy, A. D. et al. Incomplete recovery of tree community composition and rare species after 120 years of tropical forest succession in Panama. Biotropica 56, 36–49 (2024).Article
Google Scholar
Maes, S. L. et al. Explore before you restore: incorporating complex systems thinking in ecosystem restoration. J. Appl. Ecol. 61, 922–939 (2024).Article
Google Scholar
Chapman, C. A., Chapman, L. J., Kaufman, L. & Zanne, A. E. Potential causes of arrested succession in Kibale National Park, Uganda: growth and mortality of seedlings. Afr. J. Ecol. 37, 81–92 (1999).Article
Google Scholar
Freeman, A. N. D., Catterall, C. P. & Freebody, K. Use of restored habitat by rainforest birds is limited by spatial context and species’ functional traits but not by their predicted climate sensitivity. Biol. Conserv. 186, 107–114 (2015).Article
Google Scholar
Schwarcz, K. D. et al. Shelter from the storm: restored populations of the neotropical tree Myroxylon peruiferum are as genetically diverse as those from conserved remnants. For. Ecol. Manag. 410, 95–103 (2018).Article
Google Scholar
Benayas, J. M. R., Newton, A. C., Diaz, A. & Bullock, J. M. Enhancement of biodiversity and ecosystem services by ecological restoration: a meta-analysis. Science 325, 1121–1124 (2009).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Rozendaal, D. M. A. et al. Biodiversity recovery of Neotropical secondary forests. Sci. Adv. 5, eaau3114 (2019).Article
Google Scholar
Amani, B. H. K. et al. The potential of secondary forests to restore biodiversity of the lost forests in semi-deciduous West Africa. Biol. Conserv. 259, 109154 (2021).Article
Google Scholar
De Aquino, K. K. S. et al. Forest fragments, primary and secondary forests harbour similar arthropod assemblages after 40 years of landscape regeneration in the Central Amazon. Agric. For. Entomol. 24, 178–188 (2022).Article
Google Scholar
McGee, K. M., Porter, T. M., Wright, M. & Hajibabaei, M. Drivers of tropical soil invertebrate community composition and richness across tropical secondary forests using DNA metasystematics. Sci. Rep. 10, 18429 (2020).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Oberleitner, F. et al. Recovery of aboveground biomass, species richness and composition in tropical secondary forests in SW Costa Rica. For. Ecol. Manag. 479, 118580 (2021).Article
Google Scholar
Liu, M., Miao, X. & Hua, F. The perils of measuring biodiversity responses to habitat change using mixed metrics. Conserv. Lett. 16, e12959 (2023).Article
Google Scholar
de Azevedo, B. P. & Rother, D. C. Assessing phylogenetic diversity metrics in terrestrial ecological restoration: global trends and gaps. Restor. Ecol. 33, e14292 (2024).Article
Google Scholar
Gilroy, J. J. et al. Cheap carbon and biodiversity co-benefits from forest regeneration in a hotspot of endemism. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 503–507 (2014).Article
Google Scholar
Dent, D. H. & Wright, S. J. The future of tropical species in secondary forests: a quantitative review. Biol. Conserv. 142, 2833–2843 (2009).Article
Google Scholar
Latta, S. C., Brouwer, N. L., Olivieri, A., Girard-Woolley, J. & Richardson, J. F. Long-term monitoring reveals an avian species credit in secondary forest patches of Costa Rica. PeerJ 5, e3539 (2017).Article
Google Scholar
Teixeira, H. M. et al. Linking vegetation and soil functions during secondary forest succession in the Atlantic forest. For. Ecol. Manag. 457, 117696 (2020).Article
Google Scholar
de Souza Leite, M., Tambosi, L. R., Romitelli, I. & Metzger, J. P. Landscape ecology perspective in restoration projects for biodiversity conservation: a review. Nat. Conservação 11, 108–118 (2013).Article
Google Scholar
Crouzeilles, R. & Curran, M. Which landscape size best predicts the influence of forest cover on restoration success? A global meta-analysis on the scale of effect. J. Appl. Ecol. 53, 440–448 (2016).Article
Google Scholar
Pedersen, N. K., Schmidt, I. K. & Kepfer-Rojas, S. Drivers of tree colonization, species richness, and structural variation during the initial three decades of natural forest colonization in abandoned agricultural soils. For. Ecol. Manag. 543, 121138 (2023).Article
Google Scholar
Oliveira, M. A., Santos, A. M. M. & Tabarelli, M. Profound impoverishment of the large-tree stand in a hyper-fragmented landscape of the Atlantic forest. For. Ecol. Manag. 256, 1910–1917 (2008).Article
Google Scholar
Pires, M. M. & Galetti, M. Beyond the ‘empty forest‘: the defaunation syndromes of Neotropical forests in the Anthropocene. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 41, e02362 (2023).
Google Scholar
Rogers, H. S., Donoso, I., Traveset, A. & Fricke, E. C. Cascading impacts of seed disperser loss on plant communities and ecosystems. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 52, 641–666 (2021).Article
Google Scholar
Bello, C. et al. Frugivores enhance potential carbon recovery in fragmented landscapes. Nat. Clim. Chang. 14, 636–643 (2024).Article
Google Scholar
Dirzo, R. et al. Defaunation in the anthropocene. Science 345, 401–406 (2014).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Manning, A. D., Gordon, I. J., Massei, G. & Wimpenny, C. Rewilding herbivores: too much or little of a good thing? Trends Ecol. Evol. 39, 787–789 (2024).Article
Google Scholar
Xu, C. et al. Herbivory limits success of vegetation restoration globally. Science 382, 589–594 (2023).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Rey-Benayas, J. M. & Bullock, J. M. in Rewilding European Landscapes (eds Pereira, H. M. & Navarro, L. M.) 127–142 (Springer International, 2015).Zahawi, R. A. et al. Proximity and abundance of mother trees affects recruitment patterns in a long-term tropical forest restoration study. Ecography 44, 1826–1837 (2021).Article
Google Scholar
Culbertson, K. A., Treuer, T. L. H., Mondragon-Botero, A., Ramiadantsoa, T. & Reid, J. L. The eco-evolutionary history of Madagascar presents unique challenges to tropical forest restoration. Biotropica 54, 1081–1102 (2022).Article
Google Scholar
Schweizer, D. et al. Natural forest regrowth under different land use intensities and landscape configurations in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. For. Ecol. Manag. 508, 120012 (2022).Article
Google Scholar
Norden, N. et al. Successional dynamics in Neotropical forests are as uncertain as they are predictable. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 8013–8018 (2015).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Latawiec, A. E. et al. Natural regeneration and biodiversity: a global meta-analysis and implications for spatial planning. Biotropica 48, 844–855 (2016).Article
Google Scholar
Jakovac, C. C. et al. The role of land-use history in driving successional pathways and its implications for the restoration of tropical forests. Biol. Rev. 96, 1114–1134 (2021).Article
Google Scholar
Amani, B. H. et al. Lessons from a regional analysis of forest recovery trajectories in West Africa. Environ. Res. Lett. 17, 115005 (2022).Article
Google Scholar
Lawrence, D., Suma, V. & Mogea, J. P. Change in species composition with repeated shifting cultivation: limited role of soil nutrients. Ecol. Appl. 15, 1952–1967 (2005).Article
Google Scholar
Villa, P. M. et al. Intensification of shifting cultivation reduces forest resilience in the northern Amazon. For. Ecol. Manag. 430, 312–320 (2018).Article
Google Scholar
Holl, K. D. in Old Fields (eds Hobbs, R. J. & Cramer, V. A.) 93–117 (Island Press, 2007).Mesquita, R. et al. Amazon rain forest succession: stochasticity or land-use legacy? BioScience 65, 849–861 (2015).Article
Google Scholar
Holl, K. D. Factors limiting tropical rain forest regeneration in abandoned pasture: seed rain, seed germination, microclimate, and soil. Biotropica 31, 229–242 (1999).Article
Google Scholar
Crouzeilles, R. et al. Ecological restoration success is higher for natural regeneration than for active restoration in tropical forests. Sci. Adv. 3, e1701345 (2017).Article
Google Scholar
Hua, F. et al. Opportunities for biodiversity gains under the world’s largest reforestation programme. Nat. Commun. 7, 12717 (2016).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Wang, X., Hua, F., Wang, L., Wilcove, D. S. & Yu, D. W. The biodiversity benefit of native forests and mixed-species plantations over monoculture plantations. Divers. Distrib. 25, 1721–1735 (2019).Article
Google Scholar
Fremout, T. et al. Diversity for Restoration (D4R): guiding the selection of tree species and seed sources for climate-resilient restoration of tropical forest landscapes. J. Appl. Ecol. 59, 664–679 (2022).Article
Google Scholar
Brancalion, P. H. S. et al. Intensive silviculture enhances biomass accumulation and tree diversity recovery in tropical forest restoration. Ecol. Appl. 29, e01847 (2019).Article
Google Scholar
Holl, K. D., Reid, J. L., Chaves‐Fallas, J. M., Oviedo‐Brenes, F. & Zahawi, R. A. Local tropical forest restoration strategies affect tree recruitment more strongly than does landscape forest cover. J. Appl. Ecol. 54, 1091–1099 (2017).Article
Google Scholar
Brudvig, L. A. & Catano, C. P. Prediction and uncertainty in restoration science. Restor. Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13380 (2021).Tucker, N. I. J., Elliott, S., Holl, K. D. & Zahawi, R. A. in Ecological Restoration: Moving Forward Using Lessons Learned (eds Florentine, S. et al.) 63–101 (Springer International, 2023).de Medeiros-Sarmento, P. S., Ferreira, L. V. & Gastauer, M. Natural regeneration triggers compositional and functional shifts in soil seed banks. Sci. Total Environ. 753, 141934 (2021).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Brudvig, L. A. The restoration of biodiversity: where has research been and where does it need to go? Am. J. Bot. 98, 549–558 (2011).Article
Google Scholar
Rurangwa, M. L., Matthews, T. J., Niyigaba, P., Tobias, J. A. & Whittaker, R. J. Assessing tropical forest restoration after fire using birds as indicators: an afrotropical case study. For. Ecol. Manag. 483, 118765 (2021).Article
Google Scholar
Bartholomew, D. C. et al. Bornean tropical forests recovering from logging at risk of regeneration failure. Glob. Change Biol. 30, e17209 (2024).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Joyce, F. H. et al. Active restoration accelerates recovery of tropical forest bird assemblages over two decades. Biol. Conserv. 293, 110593 (2024).Article
Google Scholar
Alroy, J. Effects of habitat disturbance on tropical forest biodiversity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 6056–6061 (2017).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Kaiser-Bunbury, C. N. et al. Ecosystem restoration strengthens pollination network resilience and function. Nature 542, 223–227 (2017).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Reaser, J. K., Witt, A., Tabor, G. M., Hudson, P. J. & Plowright, R. K. Ecological countermeasures for preventing zoonotic disease outbreaks: when ecological restoration is a human health imperative. Restor. Ecol. 29, e13357 (2021).Article
Google Scholar
Genes, L. & Dirzo, R. Restoration of plant–animal interactions in terrestrial ecosystems. Biol. Conserv. 265, 109393 (2022).Article
Google Scholar
López-Cubillos, S., McDonald-Madden, E., Mayfield, M. M. & Runting, R. K. Optimal restoration for pollination services increases forest cover while doubling agricultural profits. PLOS Biol. 21, e3002107 (2023).Article
Google Scholar
Wills, J. et al. Tree leaf trade‐offs are stronger for sub‐canopy trees: leaf traits reveal little about growth rates in canopy trees. Ecol. Appl. 28, 1116–1125 (2018).Article
Google Scholar
Carlucci, M. B., Brancalion, P. H. S., Rodrigues, R. R., Loyola, R. & Cianciaruso, M. V. Functional traits and ecosystem services in ecological restoration. Restor. Ecol. 28, 1372–1383 (2020).Article
Google Scholar
Swenson, N. G. et al. Temporal turnover in the composition of tropical tree communities: functional determinism and phylogenetic stochasticity. Ecology 93, 490–499 (2012).Article
Google Scholar
Dent, D. H., DeWalt, S. J. & Denslow, J. S. Secondary forests of central Panama increase in similarity to old-growth forest over time in shade tolerance but not species composition. J. Veg. Sci. 24, 530–542 (2013).Article
Google Scholar
Wills, J. et al. Seedling diversity in actively and passively restored tropical forest understories. Ecol. Appl. 31, e02286 (2021).Article
Google Scholar
Zeng, X. & Fischer, G. A. Using multiple seedlots in restoration planting enhances genetic diversity compared to natural regeneration in fragmented tropical forests. For. Ecol. Manag. 482, 118819 (2021).Article
Google Scholar
Betts, M. G. et al. Extinction filters mediate the global effects of habitat fragmentation on animals. Science 366, 1236–1239 (2019).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Hua, F. et al. Ecological filtering shapes the impacts of agricultural deforestation on biodiversity. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 8, 251–266 (2024).Article
Google Scholar
Guerra, A. et al. Ecological restoration in Brazilian biomes: identifying advances and gaps. For. Ecol. Manag. 458, 117802 (2020).Article
Google Scholar
Chazdon, R. L. & Guariguata, M. R. Natural regeneration as a tool for large-scale forest restoration in the tropics: prospects and challenges. Biotropica 48, 716–730 (2016).Article
Google Scholar
Holl, K. D. Research directions in tropical forest restoration. Ann. MO Bot. Gard. 102, 237–250 (2017).Article
Google Scholar
Convention on Biological Diversity. Decision 15/4. Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (CBD, 2022).Reid, J. L., Fagan, M. E. & Zahawi, R. A. Positive site selection bias in meta-analyses comparing natural regeneration to active forest restoration. Sci. Adv. 4, eaas9143 (2018).Article
Google Scholar
Arroyo‐Rodríguez, V. et al. Multiple successional pathways in human-modified tropical landscapes: new insights from forest succession, forest fragmentation and landscape ecology research. Biol. Rev. 92, 326–340 (2017).Article
Google Scholar
Bell-James, J. et al. The Global Biodiversity Framework’s ecosystem restoration target requires more clarity and careful legal interpretation. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 8, 840–841 (2024).Article
Google Scholar
Freitas, M. G. et al. Evaluating the success of direct seeding for tropical forest restoration over ten years. For. Ecol. Manag. 438, 224–232 (2019).Article
Google Scholar
Langridge, S. M. Contested Landscapes: Using Scientific Information and Collaborative Processes to Support Ecological Restoration (Univ. California, 2008).Bennett, A. F. et al. Restoration promotes recovery of woodland birds in agricultural environments: a comparison of ‘revegetation’ and ‘remnant’ landscapes. J. Appl. Ecol. 59, 1334–1346 (2022).Article
Google Scholar
Di Sacco, A. et al. Ten golden rules for reforestation to optimize carbon sequestration, biodiversity recovery and livelihood benefits. Glob. Change Biol. 27, 1328–1348 (2021).Article
Google Scholar
Suryaningrum, F., Jarvis, R. M., Buckley, H. L., Hall, D. & Case, B. S. Large-scale tree planting initiatives as an opportunity to derive carbon and biodiversity co-benefits: a case study from Aotearoa New Zealand. N. For. 53, 589–602 (2022).
Google Scholar
The Declaration Drafting Committee. Kew declaration on reforestation for biodiversity, carbon capture and livelihoods. Plants People Planet 4, 108–109 (2022).Article
Google Scholar
Russo, G. Biodiversity’s bright spot. Nature 462, 266–269 (2009).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Nelson, C. R. et al. Standards of Practice to Guide Ecosystem Restoration: A Contribution to the United Nations Decade on Ecosystem Restoration 2021–2030 (FAO, SER & IUCN CEM, 2024).Antonelli, A. Five essentials for area-based biodiversity protection. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 7, 630–631 (2023).Article
Google Scholar
McElderry, R. M. et al. Assessing the multidimensional complexity of biodiversity using a globally standardized approach. Preprint at EcoEvoRxiv https://doi.org/10.32942/X2689N (2023).Pereira, H. M. et al. Essential biodiversity variables. Science 339, 277–278 (2013).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Li, B. V., Wu, S., Hua, F. & Mi, X. The past and future of ecosystem restoration in China. Curr. Biol. 34, R379–R387 (2024).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Directorate-General for Environment (European Commission). Guidelines on Biodiversity-Friendly Afforestation, Reforestation and Tree Planting (Publications Office of the European Union, 2023).Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Sustainability, Malaysia. National Policy on Biological Diversity 2022–2030 (Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Sustainability, 2023).Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible. Plan de Acción de Biodiversidad de Colombia al 2030 (Bogotá, Colombia, 2024).TNFD. Recommendations of the The Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TFND, 2023).EU. Directive (EU) 2022/2464 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2022 Amending Regulation (EU) No. 537/2014, Directive 2004/109/EC, Directive 2006/43/EC and Directive 2013/34/EU, as regards corporate sustainability reporting (text with EEA relevance). O. J. L. 322 15–80 (2022).Rossberg, A. G., O’Sullivan, J. D., Malysheva, S. & Shnerb, N. M. A metric for tradable biodiversity credits quantifying impacts on global extinction risk. J. Ind. Ecol. 28, 1009–1021 (2024).Article
Google Scholar
Wunder, S. et al. Biodiversity credits: learning lessons from other approaches to incentivize conservation. Preprint at OSF Preprints https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/qgwfc (2024).Tedersoo, L. et al. Towards a co-crediting system for carbon and biodiversity. Plants People Planet 6, 18–28 (2024).Article
Google Scholar
Trencher, G., Nick, S., Carlson, J. & Johnson, M. Demand for low-quality offsets by major companies undermines climate integrity of the voluntary carbon market. Nat. Commun. 15, 6863 (2024).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Forest trends’ ecosystem marketplace. State of the Voluntary Carbon Market 2024 (2024).Andres, S. E. et al. Defining biodiverse reforestation: why it matters for climate change mitigation and biodiversity. Plants People Planet. 5, 27–38 (2023).Article
Google Scholar
World Economic Forum. Biodiversity Credits: Demand Analysis and Market Outlook (2023).Metzger, J. P. et al. Guiding transdisciplinary synthesis processes for social-ecological policy decisions. Perspect. Ecol. Conserv. 22, 315–327 (2024).
Google Scholar
Pejchar, L., Holl, K. D. & Lockwood, J. L. Hawaiian honeycreeper home range size varies with habitat: implications for native Acacia koa forestry. Ecol. Appl. 15, 1053–1061 (2005).Article
Google Scholar
de Souza, S. E. X. F. et al. Ecological outcomes and livelihood benefits of community-managed agroforests and second growth forests in Southeast Brazil. Biotropica 48, 868–881 (2016).Article
Google Scholar
Löfqvist, S. et al. How social considerations improve the equity and effectiveness of ecosystem restoration. BioScience 73, 134–148 (2023).Article
Google Scholar
White, T. B. et al. The ‘nature-positive’ journey for business: a conceptual research agenda to guide contributions to societal biodiversity goals. One Earth 7, 1373–1386 (2024).Article
Google Scholar
Silvestro, D., Goria, S., Sterner, T. & Antonelli, A. Improving biodiversity protection through artificial intelligence. Nat. Sustain. 5, 415–424 (2022).Article
Google Scholar
Justeau-Allaire, D. et al. Constrained optimization of landscape indices in conservation planning to support ecological restoration in New Caledonia. J. Appl. Ecol. 58, 744–754 (2021).Article
Google Scholar
Holl, K. D., Luong, J. C. & Brancalion, P. H. S. Overcoming biotic homogenization in ecological restoration. Trends Ecol. Evol. 37, 777–788 (2022).Article
Google Scholar
Bartholomew, D. C. et al. Overcoming the challenges of incorporating rare and threatened flora into ecosystem restoration. Restor. Ecol. 31, e13849 (2023).Article
Google Scholar
Shaw, J. A., Roche, L. M. & Gornish, E. S. The use of spatially patterned methods for vegetation restoration and management across systems. Restor. Ecol. 28, 766–775 (2020).Article
Google Scholar
Hale, S. L. & Koprowski, J. L. Ecosystem-level effects of keystone species reintroduction: a literature review. Restor. Ecol. 26, 439–445 (2018).Article
Google Scholar
Gopalakrishna, T. et al. Optimizing restoration: a holistic spatial approach to deliver Nature’s Contributions to People with minimal tradeoffs and maximal equity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 121, e2402970121 (2024).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Chazdon, R. L. et al. When is a forest a forest? Forest concepts and definitions in the era of forest and landscape restoration. Ambio 45, 538–550 (2016).Article
Google Scholar
Levers, C. et al. Agricultural expansion and the ecological marginalization of forest-dependent people. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2100436118 (2021).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Ralimanana, H. et al. Madagascar’s extraordinary biodiversity: threats and opportunities. Science 378, eadf1466 (2022).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Chazdon, C. L., Padua, S. M. & Padua, C. V. People, primates and predators in the Pontal: from endangered species conservation to forest and landscape restoration in Brazil’s Atlantic Forest. R. Soc. Open Sci. 7, 200939 (2020).Article
Google Scholar
Durigan, G., Guerin, N. & da Costa, J. N. M. N. Ecological restoration of Xingu Basin headwaters: motivations, engagement, challenges and perspectives. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 368, 20120165 (2013).Article
Google Scholar
Nicholson, E. et al. Roles of the red list of ecosystems in the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 8, 614–621 (2024).Article
Google Scholar
Venegas-Li, R. et al. An operational methodology to identify Critical Ecosystem Areas to help nations achieve the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. Conserv. Lett. 17, e13037 (2024).Article
Google Scholar
de Lima, R. A. F. et al. Comprehensive conservation assessments reveal high extinction risks across Atlantic Forest trees. Science 383, 219–225 (2024).Article
Google Scholar
Rappaport, D. I., Tambosi, L. R. & Metzger, J. P. A landscape triage approach: combining spatial and temporal dynamics to prioritize restoration and conservation. J. Appl. Ecol. 52, 590–601 (2015).Article
Google Scholar
Hulshof, C. M. & Spasojevic, M. J. The edaphic control of plant diversity. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 29, 1634–1650 (2020).Article
Google Scholar
Bhatia, U., Dubey, S., Gouhier, T. C. & Ganguly, A. R. Network-based restoration strategies maximize ecosystem recovery. Commun. Biol. 6, 1–10 (2023).Article
Google Scholar
Azevedo, J. A. R. et al. Museums and cradles of diversity are geographically coincident for narrowly distributed Neotropical snakes. Ecography 43, 328–339 (2020).Article
Google Scholar
Schweizer, D. & Brancalion, P. H. S. Rescue tree monocultures! A phylogenetic ecology approach to guide the choice of seedlings for enrichment planting in tropical monoculture plantations. Restor. Ecol. 28, 166–172 (2020).Article
Google Scholar
Steffens, K. J. E. Lemur food plants as options for forest restoration in Madagascar. Restor. Ecol. 28, 1517–1527 (2020).Article
Google Scholar
Mastretta-Yanes, A. et al. Multinational evaluation of genetic diversity indicators for the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. Ecol. Lett. 27, e14461 (2024).Article
Google Scholar
Proft, K. M., Jones, M. E., Johnson, C. N. & Burridge, C. P. Making the connection: expanding the role of restoration genetics in restoring and evaluating connectivity. Restor. Ecol. 26, 411–418 (2018).Article
Google Scholar
Fernandes, A. K. C. et al. Can forest restoration affect the genetic diversity of plants? Ecol. Restor. 41, 152–157 (2023).Article
Google Scholar
Prober, S. M. et al. Climate-adjusted provenancing: a strategy for climate-resilient ecological restoration. Front. Ecol. Evol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2015.00065 (2015).Corlett, R. T. Restoration, reintroduction, and rewilding in a changing world. Trends Ecol. Evol. 31, 453–462 (2016).Article
Google Scholar
Schweizer, D. et al. Review and assessment of smartphone apps for forest restoration monitoring. Restor. Ecol. 32, e14136 (2024).Article
Google Scholar
de Almeida, D. R. A. et al. A new era in forest restoration monitoring. Restor. Ecol. 28, 8–11 (2020).Article
Google Scholar
Robinson, J. M., Harrison, P. A., Mavoa, S. & Breed, M. F. Existing and emerging uses of drones in restoration ecology. Methods Ecol. Evol. 13, 1899–1911 (2022).Article
Google Scholar
Scheeres, J. et al. Distinguishing forest types in restored tropical landscapes with UAV-borne LIDAR. Remote. Sens. Environ. 290, 113533 (2023).Article
Google Scholar
Reddy, C. S. et al. Remote sensing enabled essential biodiversity variables for biodiversity assessment and monitoring: technological advancement and potentials. Biodivers. Conserv. 30, 1–14 (2021).Article
Google Scholar
Laliberté, E., Schweiger, A. K. & Legendre, P. Partitioning plant spectral diversity into alpha and beta components. Ecol. Lett. 23, 370–380 (2020).Article
Google Scholar
Veras, H. F. P. et al. Fusing multi-season UAS images with convolutional neural networks to map tree species in Amazonian forests. Ecol. Inform. 71, 101815 (2022).Article
Google Scholar
de Almeida, D. R. A. et al. Monitoring restored tropical forest diversity and structure through UAV-borne hyperspectral and lidar fusion. Remote Sens. Environ. 264, 112582 (2021).Article
Google Scholar
Baena, S., Moat, J., Whaley, O. & Boyd, D. S. Identifying species from the air: UAVs and the very high resolution challenge for plant conservation. PLoS ONE 12, e0188714 (2017).Article
Google Scholar
McKenna, P. B., Lechner, A. M., Hernandez Santin, L., Phinn, S. & Erskine, P. D. Measuring and monitoring restored ecosystems: can remote sensing be applied to the ecological recovery wheel to inform restoration success? Restor. Ecol. 31, e13724 (2023).Article
Google Scholar
Johnson, K. R., Owens, I. F. P. & The Global Collection Group. A global approach for natural history museum collections. Science 379, 1192–1194 (2023).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Download referencesAcknowledgementsThe authors thank S. Budiharta and D. Bartholomew for their reviews of an earlier draft of this manuscript and the reviewers for their valuable comments. P.H.S.B. acknowledges The São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP, grant nos 2018/18416-2; 2021/10573-4; 2014/50279-4; 2020/15230-5), The Dutch Research Council (grant no. 5160957745) and Shell Brazil (grant no. 22047-5) for financial support. F.H. acknowledges the support of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant no. 3212057) and the Food and Land Use Coalition. A.A. acknowledges financial support from the Swedish Research Council (2019-05191), the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research MISTRA (Project BioPath) and the Kew Development. K.D.H. was supported by the MacArthur Foundation University of California Chair.Author informationAuthors and AffiliationsDepartment of Forest Sciences, ‘Luiz de Queiroz’ College of Agriculture, University of São Paulo, Piracicaba, BrazilPedro H. S. BrancalionCenter for Carbon Research in Tropical Agriculture, University of São Paulo, Piracicaba, BrazilPedro H. S. Brancalionre.green, Rio de Janeiro, BrazilPedro H. S. BrancalionInstitute of Ecology and Key Laboratory for Earth Surface Processes of the Ministry of Education, College of Urban and Environmental Sciences, Peking University, Beijing, ChinaFangyuan HuaDepartment of Environmental Studies, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA, USAFrancis H. Joyce & Karen D. HollRoyal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, UKAlexandre AntonelliGothenburg Global Biodiversity Centre, Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Gothenburg, Göteborg, SwedenAlexandre AntonelliDepartment of Biology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UKAlexandre AntonelliAuthorsPedro H. S. BrancalionView author publicationsYou can also search for this author inPubMed Google ScholarFangyuan HuaView author publicationsYou can also search for this author inPubMed Google ScholarFrancis H. JoyceView author publicationsYou can also search for this author inPubMed Google ScholarAlexandre AntonelliView author publicationsYou can also search for this author inPubMed Google ScholarKaren D. HollView author publicationsYou can also search for this author inPubMed Google ScholarContributionsAll authors made a substantial contribution to discussion of content, wrote the manuscript and reviewed and/or edited the manuscript before submission.Corresponding authorCorrespondence to
Pedro H. S. Brancalion.Ethics declarations
Competing interests
P.H.S.B. is a partner at re.green, a restoration company. The remaining authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review
Peer review information
Nature Reviews Biodiversity thanks David Edwards and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Additional informationPublisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.Related linksEDGE: www.edgeofexistence.orgLIFEPLAN: https://www.helsinki.fi/en/projects/lifeplanSupplementary informationSupplementary InformationRights and permissionsSpringer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.Reprints and permissionsAbout this articleCite this articleBrancalion, P.H.S., Hua, F., Joyce, F.H. et al. Moving biodiversity from an afterthought to a key outcome of forest restoration.
Nat. Rev. Biodivers. (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44358-025-00032-1Download citationAccepted: 17 February 2025Published: 20 March 2025DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44358-025-00032-1Share this articleAnyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:Get shareable linkSorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.Copy to clipboard
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative