To give you a clearer picture of this project, we’ll need to delve into its background story briefly …

The protagonists: Lower Saxony, forests and climate adaptation

„DIVERSA“… What does that actually mean? The project name derives from “Forest disturbances under climate change in Lower Saxony: Understanding drivers and impacts to enhance forest adaptability”.  

What is being investigated: How is climate change affecting our forests in Lower Saxony? What are the drivers and impacts, and how can the resilience of deciduous forests be improved? As one of five Climate Future Labs run by the Lower Saxony Centre for Climate Research, DIVERSA brings together interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research on climate change and its consequences with partners from the forestry sector and civil society. Since the project was launched in 2025, many dedicated people have been working on sub-projects with different areas of focus. On the one hand, the aim is to understand just how vulnerable Lower Saxony’s forests actually are to climate-driven disturbances. At the same time, the perspectives of forest owners and the public are being taken into account in order to develop participatory decision-making processes for climate-adapted forest management. To complete the overall picture, it is also important to investigate the resistance and resilience of forest ecosystem functions, as well as the role of biodiversity – both in terms of their response to climate change and as the basis for the adaptability of forests. And this is precisely where the researchers from Leuphana’s Institute of Ecology come in!

Infobox: Resistance vs. resilience – what’s the difference?
Not to be confused with one another: In this context, resistance describes how well a forest withstands climatic stresses such as heat and drought – in other words, the extent to which its structure and functions are affected by them. Resilience, on the other hand, goes a step further and describes the forest’s ability to recover after a period of stress and to restore its essential functions. A resistant forest is only slightly affected by heat and drought stress; a resilient forest can recover after a period of stress and maintain its essential functions.

What are our ecologists working on?

How do trees respond to the increasing frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, and what characteristics determine their resilience to drought and heat? The answer to this question is of central importance for predicting changes in forest structure and function, and is therefore also the central theme of sub-project 3, in which our researchers are involved.

The focus is on the functional characteristics of trees, in particular the properties of their water transport system and leaves, which play an important role in drought and heat tolerance. To date, little is known about how forest management and site conditions shape these characteristics and how this results in differences in trees’ sensitivity to climatic stresses. The sub-project therefore investigates how various tree species relevant to forestry respond to heat and drought in managed and unmanaged deciduous forests. The aim is to gain a better understanding of the causes of their varying climate sensitivity and thus to establish a scientific basis for the selection of suitable tree species and for climate-adapted forest management.

How do our ecologists work?

To achieve this aim, the research team is conducting observational studies in various forests in Lower Saxony. In managed and unmanaged deciduous forests, leaves, branches and soil are analysed and climate data are evaluated in order to understand the influence of site conditions and forest management on the climate sensitivity of trees. The researchers measure functional characteristics of leaves and branches in the samples that are important for trees’ response to heat and drought. These include leaf properties – such as their anatomy, chemical composition and heat tolerance – as well as characteristics of the water transport system.

In addition, the structure of the trees is recorded using laser scanners and tree-ring cores are extracted in order to track the trees’ growth over many years. This enables the investigation of relationships between climatic conditions, tree characteristics and growth. On top of all this, greenhouse experiments are being carried out to investigate the effects of drought and heat stress, as well as nitrogen inputs, on the growth and functional characteristics of trees. Under controlled conditions, the individual influencing factors can be specifically varied and their effects examined in isolation from one another. This enables a better understanding of the interactions between nitrogen inputs and climatic stresses.

Infobox: Functional traits of trees
Functional traits are measurable characteristics of trees that influence how a tree grows, reproduces and survives, and thus reflect both its response to environmental changes and its impact on ecosystem processes. These include, for example, specific leaf area, which allows conclusions to be drawn about growth and resource-use strategies, or properties of the water-conducting vessels in the wood, such as their diameter and density. These traits influence how efficiently water can be transported within the tree and how vulnerable the water transport system is to drought stress. Such characteristics help us to understand why tree species react differently to drought and heat.

Not quite sure what this research process looks like? Don’t worry! The following photo gallery should shed some light on the matter.

A view behind the scenes

Off to the woods – and up into the heights!

In order to analyse the variability of the entire sample, professional tree climbers collect leaf and branch samples from different parts of the crowns of mature trees:

But also on the ground there is much work to do

For this, the researchers examine the immediate surroundings of all the target trees sampled in order to characterise the intensity of competition and the neighbourhood structure. Among other things, they record the circumference, species and vitality of all neighbouring trees, as well as standing and fallen deadwood. This enables them to investigate how the structural complexity of the forest influences the response of individual trees to climatic stresses:

Sampling of leaves and branches

Using the samples, the researchers are investigating how the variability of functional traits differs between trees in managed and unmanaged forests.

Back in the lab: photosynthesis and heat – how do they go together?

To find out how heat-tolerant leaves are, they are briefly exposed to different temperatures in water baths. The extent to which photosynthesis has been impaired is then measured. This makes it possible to determine the temperature at which the leaves’ function begins to decline significantly.

Plant stress detection

Under the microscope

The researchers also measure the density and size of the sampled plants’ water uptake, transport and regulation systems.

From belowground

The grand finale: the greenhouse experiments

Now that you know what’s going on behind the scenes…

…all that’s left for us to do is to be patient for a while, until we find out how the forests in Lower Saxony are responding to the drought and what management strategies can be developed as a result. But we’ll hear more about the project next year at the latest, when DIVERSA publishes its first interim findings.

Until then, do pop over to DIVERSA or have a browse through our blog. If you don’t want to miss any new articles, why not sign up for the newsletter to receive an email notification whenever new articles are published? You’ll find the sign-up form at the very bottom of this page. 

“If you want to go fast – go alone. If you want to go far – go together.”

– origin unknown, often attributed to an African proverb

There is something very exciting going on in the realms of ecosystem restoration and you (yes, you!) should know about it! Last year, the research team of A living lab for social-ecological restoration in western Rwanda, part of a larger project dedicated to social-ecological systems informing ecosystem restoration in rural Africa, launched its living lab in Rutsiro.

There’s even an article on this blog about the launch! You’ll find it here along with more info on the background and the previous stages of the project (it might be helpful to read that article first to get the full picture). But now, let’s catch you up on recent happenings and give you a glimpse of what’s in store for the project’s future. So, lean back and enjoy the journey through the process of the living lab in Rutsiro!

A quick recap anyway

If you’ve read the launch article, you’ll know that the living lab is all about bridging science and practice in Rwanda’s efforts for ecosystem restoration and reconnecting local communities with native tree species within an Agroforestry setting. For that, the team is following a process of co-creation to implement social-ecological experiments on farmers’ land in Rutsiro, that essentially involves planting trees as part of an Agroforestry approach to restoration.

Who is behind the team? There are around 50 transdisciplinary stakeholders from across sectors working together in two different roundtables, each of which is based on two governance models, each representing a distinct restoration community of practice. One group is NGO-driven, uniting representative restoration actors from government, NGOs, academia and the private sector. The other one is almost entirely farmer-driven: local farmers, who are also traditional healers, beekeepers, teachers or carpenters, alongside community leaders and local extension officers.

The communities have been involved in regular workshop sessions in which members first started by establishing codes of conduct, strategies on how to communicate, expectations and potential contributions. What’s especially interesting for us now is what happened in the last workshops in February this year.

Setting the scene: The grand selection of tree species

In February, each group had a workshop in which they co-designed the restoration experiments by ranking and prioritizing the native and exotic trees species suitable for the area for the restoration experiments. As a result, both governance models now have a list of prioritized tree species. These species are around 80 % native and 20 % exotic, which is quite radically different compared to the fact, that so far, most trees planted in western Rwanda are not native, which leads to loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services and depauperate landscapes (Nyiramvuyekure et al. 2026).

Interestingly, the two groups did the same workshops in parallel, but came up with a slightly different list of tree species they want to plant. Each governance model is assigned to a specific region with living lab sites having been selected for doing the restoration experiments – including the tree planting.

Let us walk you through the workshop day by day

William Apollinaire, Vicky Temperton and (for one day) Stefan Sieber attended the workshops, as scientists and principle investigators of the Rwanda research project.

The first day of the workshop – held on separate dates for each governance model – took place in a conference room. This was where the magic of selecting and prioritizing the tree species happened based on the values stakeholders assigned to each species. The values ranged from ecological to socioeconomic criteria, survival rates, availability of planting material and compatibility with the most commonly grown crops in western Rwanda. At the end, the ranked list of tree species the groups want to plant saw the light of day.

Enjoy the following impressions of how the first day looked like for both governance models:

The next day, the groups got into action out in the field. They went out to their living lab sites and met with the local landowners of the land where the trees are going to be planted, including meeting up with scientists involved in the research project, some of whom were visiting the living lab to connect to this aspect of the overall research project.

These field meetings were crucial, first for the communities to connect to the scientists but also to agree with landowners on the selected species as well as the proportion of native and exotic species to be used in the living lab experiments. After some comments, suggestions and adjustments, a final agreement was reached. And there it was – the blueprint of the living lab experiments, co-created between local stakeholders and scientists!

Impressions of the second day out in the fields:

What made these workshops special

“I can see the momentum!” – Dr. William Apollinaire

Not only was this trip key in determining the ongoing process of the restoration experiments, but it was also, and maybe even first and foremost, very valuable in terms of interpersonal exchange. When you hear Dr. William Apollinaire, the Postdoc researcher and coordinator of the living lab research in western Rwanda, speaking about his highlights of the workshops in February, it soon becomes clear that the workshops as well as the whole process mean a lot to everyone who is involved in the living lab. The true jewel was seeing how much the stakeholders are engaged. The participatory process, the involvement and empowerment of the people. Moments like spontaneously singing and dancing together, enjoying and exchanging cultural aspects. All of this leads to a successful co-creation. According to Dr. William Apollinaire, the stakeholders are fully engaged and eager to see the outcome of the living lab. “It was interesting to see how, if people are empowered enough, they can engage actively in the collaborative or participatory process.”

But how do you get to this point of engagement?

“Bringing people together with other stakeholders and sharing the same meal, the same treatment.” – Dr. William Apollinaire

It wasn’t difficult to get people on board and sustain their engagement long-term, as the initiators of the living lab selected people for the roundtable who have already been involved in restoration activities. The key, however, is to value everyone who is part of the process. To value everyone’s voice. This way, an empowering environment was created in which every stakeholder could feel respected. Part of this is also organizing the logistics to make sure that everyone is involved, for instance, by facilitating communication. Understanding everyone’s expectations and goals. Every stakeholder being part of the design as well as the planning and implementation process: That is how co-creation works. That is how this momentum of engagement came to life.

What’s in store for the future

Now you know what’s currently going on in the living lab, but we certainly don’t want to withhold the exciting next steps that are coming up our way. Right at this moment, the trees, which the two governance models have decided on, are developing in a nursery of local restoration stakeholders. They are growing and waiting to be planted in October this year, but before the planting happens, the farmers will learn how to prepare the land for the planting in September. The kick-off of the planting campaign in October will be a big event where the trees will go into the ground and we’re going to hear different speeches from people from the government and local communities. Excitingly, the national media is going to be invited to cover the event and who knows, maybe you might even read an article about it on this blog, so stay tuned!

While the trees are growing

In the meantime, the stakeholders will, together with the scientists, define socio-ecological indicators of success to be measured during the experiments and how those are going to be monitored. Examples of these indicators of success might be improving the nutrition of local communities as well as reducing medical costs. Ecosystem restoration is not just about the trees but also about shrubs and other plants that are incorporated alongside them, with nutritional and medicinal value. Species that have these values and are going to be planted include, for instance, Albizia gummifera, Carapa grandiflora, Vernonia amygdalina, Milletia dura, Ricinus communis, passion fruit, local papaya, avocado, lemon, myrianthus, and chayote.

“Everyone is excited about the book” – Dr. William Apollinaire

Attention! The initiators of the living lab are also writing a book about agroforestry trees in Western Rwanda and their many benefits and uses. It will highlight especially native species and their potential but also include non-native species which are still useful for ecosystem restoration. Watch this space in the future for more information on the book. The aim in publishing this book is to contribute to connecting local people and NGOs to the wide array of, especially native trees they have in at their disposal.

What happens after the planting?

Don’t forget that the planting of around 80 % native species in the experiments is very different to the usual non-native tree planting in Western Rwanda. Therefore, it will be very interesting to see the outcome of the experiments. After some time, the two governance models will be compared, and the stakeholders will continue to be engaged by learning how to monitor the sites. The overarching goal is for the communities to have full ownership of the restoration in the end and that they keep monitoring it themselves in the future.

There’s one last thing we want to give you to take with you on your way

Let’s go back to this sentence you already read at the beginning:

“If you want to go fast – go alone. If you want to go far – go together.”

As you probably noticed from this article, the co-creation of ecosystem restoration is, most importantly, a joint learning process. This might take a long time. But it will be most definitely worth it! Only by including everyone involved, designing and walking the path together, will the outcome match what everyone envisioned. Or, to say it in the words of Dr. William Apollinare: “That is how we achieve success in scaling up and upgrading the restoration experiments from research to practice!”.

Thank you for reading and hopefully, you’ll be back for the next update of the living lab in Rutsiro!

If we’ve now caught your interest on ecosystem restoration in general and in Western Rwanda, we highly recommend you this article of the Social-ecological Systems Institute of Leuphana about the five critical frontiers for science and practice of ecosystem restoration in East African landscapes: From Local Knowledge to Restoration Practice: Five Critical Frontiers for East African Landscapes | Ideas for Sustainability. It references a research paper recently published by the living lab’s research team.

Literature:
Nyiramvuyekure, V., Fischer, J., Kaplin, B. A., Mukuralinda, A., & Temperton, V. M. (2026). Woody vegetation diversity remains low after extensive forest landscape restoration efforts in a western Rwandan landscape. Biological Conservation, 317, 111812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2026.111812

If you don’t want to miss any new articles of this blog, then scroll all the way to the end of this site, where you’ll find a subscription tool. Subscribe if you’d like to receive email notifications when there’s a new article posted.

A journey through the history of ecology

In the first half, participants were guided through the various research areas by tandem lectures given by the institute’s professors. Former senior professors and long-standing professors appeared alongside the current senior professors in their respective fields. Prof. Dr. Brigitte Urban, Head of the Landscape Change Working Group, and Prof. Dr. Vicky Temperton kicked off the journey through time with a look at what the history of ecology can tell us about the present and the future.

Brigitte Urban presented several research projects on ecological history. In view of the increasing human impact on our environment, it is particularly important to reconstruct former ecosystems in order to understand the current state and enable effective landscape management. While the past teaches us that settlement and human land use can cause long-term problems such as soil erosion in many places, there are also positive examples of natural resilience. The marshlands provide good news in this regard: research on the historical development of upland marshland vegetation reveals that they have a high degree of adaptability to purely climatic changes, even in modern times. However, pressure on upland marshlands is increasing due to human use and climate change, putting this flexibility to the test. If we go even further back in time, to the last interglacial period approximately 125,000 to 115,000 years ago, we encounter very large herbivores, known as megaherbivores. They may have played an important role in shaping the vegetation. What would our landscape look like today if megaherbivores still existed? Brigitte Urban is investigating.

Taking the history of ecology into your own hands

What happens to ecosystems when species are lost? And how does this affect ecosystem functions and services? Vicky Temperton addresses these and other questions in her research. Preserving and restoring biodiversity is not just about species diversity, but also about which plants play a role and what functions and interactions they have. Due to increasing biodiversity loss, it is becoming increasingly important to understand the development of plant communities in order to restore biodiversity. ‘Priority effects’ show that the developmental history of a community, through species that arrived first, influences not only species composition but also ecosystem functions. Vicky Temperton showed the audience that ecologists are not just spectators on a journey through time through the development of plant communities but can and perhaps even should change the history of plants themselves in order to promote biodiversity or certain functions. For instance, positive interactions between certain species groups could be used and the order in which plants arrive in a particular ecosystem could be changed.

Artificial intelligence to the rescue

Looking ahead to future research, each of the tandem presentations included an introduction to new research methods and projects in the respective fields. A glimpse into the future of ecology shows that machine learning with the help of AI can indeed lead to the desired breakthrough in biodiversity experiments. AI is therefore useful both as a measuring tool and for the interdisciplinary integration of ecological knowledge.

A plea for cooperation between science and practice  

At the end of the first tandem presentation, the big question arose as to how all this accumulated ecological knowledge can be integrated into society. Have you ever heard of real-world laboratories? In this format, stakeholders from science and practice work together to develop solutions to problems. The focus is on mutual learning in an experimental environment. For Vicky Temperton, real-world laboratories are important in socio-ecological research on the renaturation of degraded ecosystems. ‘When real-world laboratories are scaled up, they offer great potential for transformation,’ says the professor of ecosystem functions and services. And this transformation, with a balance between ecological and social perspectives, is absolutely necessary for the successful renaturation of ecosystems.

‘Insects are incredibly important for everything we do.’

The journey through time continued with Prof. Dr. Michael Staab, who is Head of the Department of Animal Ecology and Trophic Interactions. Representing Prof. Dr. Thorsten Assmann, Professor of Ecology with a focus on animal ecology, who was unable to attend, he provided insights into the great diversity and importance of insects and their ecosystem functions. The past also plays an important role in animal ecology, as Thorsten Assmann’s research on the significance of ice ages for today’s ecological composition shows. The beetle expert is also the only one who has documented the decline of ground beetles through biodiversity monitoring in the Lüneburg Heathland. The rapidly increasing extinction of species is a constant companion in animal ecology research and the basis for many research projects.

Among other things, Michael Staab is investigating how interactions between species give rise to relevant ecosystem functions. How do biodiversity and interactions change when the environment changes? Studies of trees in south-east China show that more species also mean more interactions. A decline in species can therefore have a significant impact on interactions between the remaining species – and not in a positive way. Another focus of Staab’s research is the influence of land use intensity on insect diversity. His research shows that where land use is particularly intensive, the landscape becomes homogeneous and the microclimate in ecosystems also loses its diversity. In a new project, drone imagery will be used to investigate how microclimatic conditions change as a result of different forms of land use, causing insects to lose their habitats. One consequence of insect loss: if insect diversity declines, the ecological balance is disrupted. To prevent this, less intensive use is required – for example, through extensive grazing and staggered mowing.

‘Species extinction is the loss of our Earth’s natural historical memory.’

‘Can we afford this?’ asked Prof. Dr. Werner Härdtle, Professor of Landscape Ecology and Nature Conservation. He completed the lecture tour together with Prof. Dr. Sylvia Haider, Head of the Vegetation Ecology and Biodiversity Research Working Group. The clear message from both of them was that species loss is not an option – plant diversity ensures ecosystem functions. Using impressive images, Werner Härdtle compared the burning of tropical rainforests with the fire at the Anna Amalia Library in Weimar 20 years ago, in which thousands of globally unique books were destroyed. This comparison illustrated the enormous loss of species caused by the destruction of the rainforests. Härdtle reported on decades of research in the subtropics of China, where 400,000 trees were planted to experimentally investigate the influence of species diversity. With shining eyes and infectious enthusiasm, the professor presented the results: A rich diversity of tree species can increase the productivity of forests by up to 100%. These effects also help when trees are under stress, for example due to climate change. Species that are sensitive to drought are better supported by biodiversity. However, such biodiversity effects take time, and we should give nature that time.

Sylvia Haider focused on the present and future of biodiversity research. She emphasised the role of functional biodiversity, i.e. the diversity of different functional characteristics. This type of biodiversity research also takes into account changing environmental conditions due to climate change, human-induced disturbances and the introduction of invasive species, and their influence on functional characteristics. Haider and her colleagues are part of a globally unique working group that measures the functional characteristics of trees between species, within species and also within individuals. The result: high functional diversity is associated with a high diversity of ecosystem functions. Surprisingly, a substantial proportion of the variability comes from the individuality of the trees.

New habitats at altitude

Finally, let us turn our attention to another level, namely mountains and the research into plant diversity along altitude gradients. How are ecosystems in vulnerable mountain regions changing, and what influence do non-native, introduced species have on this? During the question-and-answer session, the topic of species migration to higher altitudes as a result of climate change was raised. On the one hand, this creates new habitats, which can lead to the protection of species, according to Haider. On the other hand, existing interactions are also disrupted and species that were previously specialised in the mountains are being displaced by migrating species. Research is now needed to determine how this shift will affect biodiversity at altitude in the future.

‘Quo vadis ecology?’ – A panel discussion with a view to practical applications and the future

With the setting sun on the guests’ faces and questions about the future of ecological research in their minds, the panel discussion continued after a short break for refreshments. The panel consisted of Prof. Dr. Andreas Fichtner, Professor of Vegetation Ecology and Biodiversity Research, Dr. Heike Brenken, landscape planner at the Lüneburg Heath Nature Reserve Association, Prof. Dr. Vicky Temperton and Prof. Dr. Michael Staab. The first half of the discussion focused on the big question of how to put scientific findings into practice and successfully transform society towards sustainability.

‘We simply cannot continue like this; there are not three Earths!’

– emphasised Vicky Temperton. How can the results of real-world laboratories be widely implemented and practical partners be involved in the process? According to Temperton, it is not only the results that are important for scaling up such projects, but also the process itself. Cooperation between different actors builds trust, without which transformation is not possible. Heike Brenken speaks from her practical experience when she says that basic scientific research is important, but that help is also needed to implement the results on the ground. This is where administration and politics come into play. An article in the local newspaper or a presentation at a farm festival can also be important in increasing citizens’ understanding of nature conservation. In response to the appeal to the administration, a voice from the audience representing the Lower Nature Conservation Authority in Lüneburg spoke up. The participant assured the audience that the administration was also making efforts, but that they often encounter many restrictions. The “adjusting screw” therefore also lies with the people who can change the regulations for nature and species conservation. The students who are being trained at the university as ‘change agents’ could be a glimmer of hope, as they will later form the interface between practice and science with a broad thematic overview.

In the final stages of the journey through time, moderator Agnes Friedel concluded by drawing attention to the pressing ecological issues of the next 15 years against the backdrop of global change. Andreas Fichtner spoke of three important pillars for the future: ecosystem stability, adaptation to global change and a more respectful approach to our environment. However, the core message of research is often not understood in its implementation. Our values play a special role here. What do we find important? What motivates us? The understanding and awareness of the effects of global change on ecosystems, which ecologists experience in their research, must spread throughout society.

But what are the specific steps that can be taken to protect biodiversity?

– asked one participant, and perhaps some readers of this article as well. There is much that can and should be done to preserve biodiversity. Here are a few suggestions from the panel and the audience:

• Spreading awareness in society and politics that we cannot live without nature
• Changing land use, for example by consuming less meat
• Reward ecological services in the economy
• Making sectors such as agriculture and forestry more environmentally oriented and less production-oriented
• Generating motivation for environmental protection at an early age in school

Politicians bear much of the responsibility for this, but grassroots movements within society also have a role to play. The panel and the audience agreed: people must be passionate about protecting biodiversity!

Our journey through different eras and areas of research has shown that communication plays a central role in the protection of biodiversity and ecosystems – because only if we continue to exchange ideas and work together can we achieve this goal. With these closing words, Agnes Friedel bid farewell to the symposium participants as they headed into the evening. And with this thought, this article also bids farewell to its readers as they continue on their journey into a future that could not be more significant for the development of ecology.

Photos: ©Jennifer Fandrich / Leuphana

If you don’t want to miss any new articles of this blog, then scroll all the way to the end of this site, where you fill a subscription tool. Subscribe if you’d like to receive email notifications when there’s a new article posted.

Their message is clear: ecosystem restoration will play only a limited role in mitigating climate change. But that doesn’t make restoration any less important, however, for protecting biodiversity, strengthening ecosystem resilience, and locally adapting to climate change.

A holistic approach to global restoration

Previous studies on carbon sequestration potential from ecosystem restoration focused on forests and total carbon stocks, suggesting restoration could offset up to two-thirds of carbon emissions. But these estimates were built on imprecise, uncertain  and unrealistic assumptions, for example about land availability for restoration or policy feasibility.

Tölgyesi, Temperton and colleagues took a broader view. They:

• modelled restoration potential across four major ecosystems: forests, shrublands, grasslands, and wetlands; by using a broad database compilation with high-resolution satellite data.
• applied machine learning to predict the potential cover percentages of native ecosystem types to terrestrial locations using climatic, soil and topographic predictors
• estimated carbon sequestration using annual rates, not total stocks, over the timeframe from 2030–2100 for in total 12 biome-ecosystem combinations (e.g. temperate forests, tropical grassland).
• filtered the land available for restoration by excluding areas that are naturally intact, built-up, intensively farmed, or low in productivity (e.g., polar or arid regions).
• factored in future climate scenarios and ecosystem state transitions, which may cause losses in existing carbon stocks.

Here’s what the study uncovered

The study estimates that restoring the maximum available area under current climate conditions could sequester 96.9 gigatons of carbon (Gt C) by 2100. Seems like a lot, doesn’t it? The reality check shows: That’s just 17.6% of total anthropogenic emissions to date, or between 3.7% and 12.0% of projected future emissions (so, depending on the four used global emissions scenarios, so-called Shared Socioeconomic Pathways).

But, and this is the kicker, when restoration is matched to future climate conditions and takes into account the expected state transitions of ecosystems (e.g. forest converting to savannah) the carbon benefit drops to nearly zero. That seems pretty sobering at first. But this realistic assessment is extremely important and holds opportunities for climate and nature protection. Why? Read on.

An important comparison: forests vs. open ecosystems

A major strength of this paper is that it goes beyond trees. Grasslands, shrublands, and wetlands (open ecosystems) are often overlooked, yet they store substantial amounts of carbon, particularly underground, have a higher albedo, and are more resilient to fire and drought.

In the most feasible and realistic restoration scenario of this study, about 58% of carbon gains come from forests, while 42% come from open ecosystems. This balanced view helps avoid the mistake of planting trees where they don’t belong – thoughtless actions that happen currently and can harm biodiversity and local nutrient and water cycles.

Policy implications: less carbon, more resilience

So, what should we take from this?

1. Very important point: Ecosystem restoration is still crucial, just not as a silver bullet for climate change.
2. Restoration should be pursued for biodiversity, ecosystem resilience, and local climate change adaptation.
3. Site prioritization matters: the researchers identified specific 100×100 km priority zones where restoration could yield the highest carbon benefit, including temperate areas, such as American prairies and central Asian steppes and not only formerly prioritized tropical rainforest regions.

What we need is a shift in mindset

The authors conclude that restoration should be repositioned: from a tool to offset emissions, to a strategy for climate adaptation, biodiversity protection, and ecosystem service support. This is also integrated in important policies and agendas like the EU Nature Restoration Law from 2024 and the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. But it requires clearer communication about what restoration can and cannot deliver.

Rather than chasing carbon credits, we should restore ecosystems to help humans and nature adapt together – to an uncertain climate future.

This study marks an essential milestone, not only for research at Leuphana but also for the global restoration science community. It sets a new benchmark for how restoration potential should be assessed: with ecological nuance, spatial realism, and climate foresight.

You can read and share the paper here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-025-01742-z

The article from Leuphana’s school of sustainability about the study can be found here: https://www.leuphana.de/en/institutions/faculty/sustainability/news/single-view/2025/08/06/new-scientific-evidence-on-ineffective-and-unjust-climate-policies.html

Although no researchers from Leuphana were involved in this study, the findings are highly relevant to ecological research at Leuphana, particularly in the areas of plant diversity, land-use history, and biogeography of grasslands.

An ectonal wonder with record-breaking richness

Peri-Carpathian forest-steppe grasslands occur across foothill regions surrounding the Carpathian Mountains, in Ukraine, Romania, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Austria and Hungary. They host a unique mixture of species typical of dry steppes, mesic meadows, forest fringes and open-canopy temperate forests.

Plot-based vegetation data of the study revealed that vascular plant species richness reaches over 110 species in plots of just 10–16 m², with the current global maximum (119 species in 16 m²) recorded in western Ukraine. Similar values were found in the White Carpathians (Czech Republic) and Transylvania (Romania). These regions are separated by hundreds of kilometres, but ecologically remarkably similar.

What makes these grasslands so special?

The authors of the study use the term “peri-Carpathian forest-steppe grasslands” to describe grasslands previously classified under the Brachypodio pinnati–Molinietum arundinaceae association. This term emphasises both their geographical distribution (around the Carpathians) and their species composition, which blends elements from forest-steppe, mesic grasslands and tall-herb communities.

To precisely delineate this vegetation type, Roleček and colleagues used 60 consensus indicator species, i.e. species repeatedly listed as diagnostic in multiple regional studies. The indicator species threshold (set at a summed indicator value ≥ 50) was used alongside formal definitions to classify vegetation plots. This empirically robust approach allowed the authors to refine previous, sometimes ambiguous classifications.

These grasslands are typically found at lower to middle altitudes on plateaus and gentle slopes (up to 10°), in moderately warm and relatively precipitation-rich climates. The soil is usually deep and well-developed, often over softer sedimentary rocks, such as marls and sandstones. These substrate and slope characteristics help maintain the open, herbaceous structure of the vegetation. Combined with climate and historical continuity, this supports the exceptional species’ richness.

Ancient roots, new meaning

Why do these grasslands harbour such special species richness? One major factor is the long-term persistence of open or semi-open habitats in these regions since the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene (so, the last 20,000 years of the earth’s history). Multiple lines of palaeoecological evidence, including charcoal, pollen, biomarkers and soil erosion proxies, support the hypothesis that species-rich forest-steppe vegetation persisted for millennia, even through climatically forest-favourable periods.

Importantly, this ancient continuity enabled the coexistence of multiple ecological species groups – from steppe specialists to forest-edge plants – within relatively stable, low-competition environments. Without this ancient species pool, these extraordinarily rich grasslands would probably not exist today.

Not just a matter of nature, but of human land use (and protection!)

A striking commonality across most species-rich sites is their long-standing management as hay meadows, often mown once annually. Traditional low-intensity use (e.g. scything, light grazing or periodic burning) seems to have helped maintain structural heterogeneity and prevent woody encroachment. However, many sites are now threatened by land abandonment, changes in mowing regimes, or shrub encroachment, underscoring the urgency of site-specific conservation strategies.

While similarly diverse communities have been documented in parts of the Central Russian Upland, the Carpathian region currently holds the world record for fine-scale plant species richness. Its grasslands thus offer a globally significant model system for studying species coexistence, ecotonal dynamics, and the interplay between natural and cultural drivers of biodiversity. These outstanding characteristics make it even more important to ensure the preservation of this valuable region.

Are you interested in research and the region and want to find out more? Click here for the full research article: https://doi.org/10.1111/jbi.15069

A new study by Lunja Ernst and colleagues, including Vicky Temperton from Leuphana’s Institute of Ecology, takes a close look at these questions. By comparing restored grasslands to nearby old permanent grasslands, the scientists assess which species groups have returned, which are still missing, and what that tells us about the ingredients of successful restoration.
Their findings are quite instructive: restoring species richness is possible, but restoring ecological function and specialist communities requires much more than scattering seeds [of a few dominant species].

Restoring grasslands of a floodplain

The study area is located in the Ise River floodplain in the district of Gifhorn, Lower Saxony. Here, the landscape is a mosaic of forests, arable fields, heathland, and both permanent and restored grasslands. The region is typical of Central Europe, where historicmeadows with low land-use intensity and high biodiversity have been steadily replaced by intensified agriculture.

Between 1991 and 1992, former cropland in this area was aimed to be restored into species-rich grassland, however, actually using a species-poor agricultural seed mix: six grass species and one legume. The idea was pragmatic: sow fast-establishing, productive species and let nature take care of the rest. The hope was that nearby old grasslands would act as a seed source, enabling spontaneous recolonization over time.

The present study compares 14 of these restored sites to 14 nearby old grasslands, which have remained continuously in low-intensity use and were never converted to arable land. Over two years, the researchers surveyed vascular plants and butterflies, focusing on groups that are indicators of restoration success: mesotrophic and wet grassland plants, flowering forbs, red-list species, and grassland specialist butterflies.

Methodology: restoration through different lenses

The research design is as meticulous as the restoration process it evaluates. To capture the complexity of ecological dynamics, Ernst, Temperton and colleagues assess:

• Species richness and cover of plant groups based on field surveys from May to June in 2020 and 2021, on a total of 25 m² divided into five 1 m² and one 20 m² plots per site.
• Butterfly diversity and abundance, by four survey rounds of transect walks across the same sites from May to September 2020.
• Habitat connectivity, via QGIS-based (Geographic Information System) analysis of landscape metrics: the distance to nearest old grassland and the percentage of old grassland cover within a 500 m buffer.
• Land-use intensity (LUI), using a meadow-specific index that combines mowing frequency and nitrogen input.

By applying statistical models and ordination techniques, the research team disentangled the influence of local management (e.g., mowing and fertilization) and landscape context (e.g., spatial isolation) on species distributions and community composition.

What worked, and what didn’t

The good news: total plant species richness was similar in restored and old grasslands. This suggests that recolonization from the surrounding landscape did occur.

However, the story is more nuanced. Wet grassland species had significantly lower richness and cover in restored grasslands. These species thrived on old grasslands, especially those with natural depressions and moist microsites – features missing from former arable fields. Mesotrophic, red-list, and flowering plant species richness and cover were not significantly different between old and restored sites, but all declined sharply under higher land-use intensity (LUI). Restored sites had higher richness of agricultural grassland species, likely due to the initial seed mix and ongoing management. Land-use intensity plays a crucial role: As mowing frequency and nitrogen input increased, species richness and cover of target plant groups dropped drastically by up to 100% for red-list plants.

Another key factor was proximity to old grasslands. Plant species richness (especially of mesotrophic and non-sown species) was higher when restored sites were closer to old grassland patches. This underlines the role of dispersal limitation and source populations for restoration outcomes.

For butterflies, the findings echoed those for plants. Restored and old grasslands showed no significant difference in butterfly species richness or abundance. What mattered most was the availability of flowering forbs, which provide crucial nectar and larval host plants. Butterfly richness and abundance rose steeply with increasing flower cover. Yet nearly a third of the surveyed transects had no flowers at all, limiting habitat suitability. Land-use intensity again played a role, indirectly reducing flower abundance and butterfly diversity.

Rethinking restoration: seeds, sites, and systems

This study is a powerful reminder that restoration is not just about area, but it’s about structure, function, and process. Sowing low-diversity grass mixtures is ineffective for restoring target plant and butterfly communities, even after decades. However, achieving similar plant species richness to old grasslands is possible.

So, what are the researcher’s recommendations for successful restoration?

• Mowing (not more than) twice a year is essential for developing flower-rich communities, which are crucial for butterfly restoration.

• Proximity to existing old grasslands can enhance the immigration of desired species over time. Effective recovery of wet-grassland species necessitates creating wet microsites and potentially introducing seeds.

• Ongoing monitoring and adaptive management following restoration efforts are key, such as sowing high-diversity seed mixtures with regional genotypes and appropriate host plants, while also creating moist site conditions

As the EU and other regions roll out ambitious targets for ecosystem restoration, studies like this offer critical insights into long-term outcomes. Restoration is not just a one-time intervention; it’s an ongoing, adaptive process that must align ecological knowledge with local realities. Thirty years later, the message of this grassland site is: Restoration requires more than time and space – it requires a contextual strategy.

Are you interested? You can find the whole research article here: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/rec.70029

Info: Functional richness & functional divergence
Functional Richness (FRich) describes the range of different functional traits found in a community. A high FRich means many ecological strategies are present, suggesting greater ecosystem adaptability. Functional Divergence (FDiv) measures how species’ traits are distributed within that range. High FDiv indicates that species are functionally distinct, occupying different niches, which is often linked to resource specialization or strong competition. Together, these metrics help assess biodiversity beyond species counts, focusing on how species function.

What are funtional traits – and why do they matter?

Functional traits are measurable properties of plants, such as leaf thickness, nutrient content, or wood density, that influence how plants interact with their environment. These traits determine important processes like photosynthesis, water use, nutrient cycling, and carbon storage. Understanding how these traits vary helps scientists assess how forests function, how resilient they are to change, and how they may respond to climate stressors like droughts or rising temperatures.

Most Earth System Models hdo neglect the diverse and heterogeneous tropical forest biome by representing it as a largely uniform ecosystem. By this oversimplification, the accuracy of predictions about ecosystem functioning, climate feedbacks, and biodiversity resilience is limited.

Info: Earth System Models
Earth System Models (ESMs) are complex computer simulations that integrate physical, chemical, and biological processes across the atmosphere, biosphere, hydrosphere, and geosphere to understand and predict how the Earth system responds to natural and human-induced changes. They track the flow of energy, water, carbon, and nutrients to predict changes in climate, vegetation, and biogeochemical cycles.

A unique effort to map global canopy traits

In response, the researchers of the study undertook a comprehensive analysis of tropical forest canopy traits. They combined  field-collected data from more than 1,800 vegetation plots and tree traits with Sentinel-2 satellite remote-sensing, terrain, climate and soil data, to predict variation across 13 morphological, chemical and structural traits of trees and to map the functional diversity of forests across the tropical Americas, Africa, and Asia. The forest sites under study span a total of almost 800 hectares, covering diverse climates and landscapes.

Infobox: Sentinel-2 satellite imagery
Sentinel-2 is a pair of Earth observation satellites from the European Space Agency (ESA). They provide high-resolution optical imagery every 5 days, capturing data in 13 spectral bands. This allows scientists to monitor vegetation, land use, water bodies, and more. In ecology, Sentinel-2 is crucial for detecting plant traits, forest structure, and environmental change at fine spatial scales.

Distinct forest identities: Americas, Africa, Asia

The analysis reveals strong biogeographical differences in canopy functional traits:

American tropical forests exhibit the highest functional richness, meaning they span a broader range of trait combinations. This reflects the high species diversity and environmental heterogeneity, found in the tropical Americas.
African forests, by contrast, show the highest functional divergence, indicating a more specialized pattern of resource use. This might be driven by long-term environmental pressures such as historical drought.
Asian tropical forests (including parts of Australia) display high average values for traits like leaf size, water content, and nutrient concentrations, likely linked to the dominance of the Dipterocarpaceae family in Southeast Asia.
These trait distributions suggest that each region has evolved distinct canopy strategies shaped by evolutionary history, soil fertility, rainfall seasonality, and past climate conditions.

Wet vs. dry

Dry forests (e.g., in Brazil’s cerrado or African savannas) have species with high SLA and nutrient-rich, fast-turnover leaves. This indicates acquisitive strategies optimized for rapid growth during short wet periods.
Wet forests (like Amazonia or Borneo) show traits associated with conservative strategies with thicker, denser leaves and higher carbon investment.

Implications for science, conservation, and climate models

This study improves the realism of Earth System Models by providing detailed trait maps. It identifies regions with high uncertainty or data gaps, guiding future field work (especially in parts of Africa and Asia). Furthermore, the study showcases the rising importance of AI and remote sensing technologies in mapping plant traits and biodiversity on a large scale. But while these tools are powerful, they are meant to complement – not replace – classic ecological methods like field sampling and species identification. To really understand how functional diversity changes over time, we still need to keep investing in good old-fashioned fieldwork, which then feeds into more advanced models and predictions. The insights of this fascinating study can serve as a foundation for forecasting changes in functional forest composition under shifting climates and contribute to building a more process-based and accurate ecological modelling framework across different spatial and temporal scales.

You want to learn more about the study and its findings? Then read the full article here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-08663-2#citeas

An experiment bringing the mountain to the valley

To simulate the effects of rising temperatures, the researchers transplanted highland plant communities from the German Alps to warmer, lower-elevation regions. Over four years, the researchers analysed how the transplanted communities changed in terms of species composition, functional identity (characteristics like leaf traits and resource-use strategies) and diversity (a measure of the variety of functional traits within a community). Therefore, they asked questions such as: How do communities change under warmer conditions? Which species are “winners” and which are “losers”? And how does the immigration of warm-adapted species affect the functional identity and diversity of communities as well as ecosystem functions and processes?

What makes this approach unique is that entire plant communities were integrated into natural environments. This allowed the researchers to account for real interactions with local species and environmental influences, providing more realistic results than e.g. artificial warming chambers. Factors like competition with native plant species and the effects of natural soils were thus included.

What are the findings, and what do they mean?

The study measured functional morphological and biochemical leaf traits, enabling the calculation of community-weighted trait means, functional richness, and functional divergence. The focus on functional traits provided insights into how species interactions and resource-use strategies could shift in response to climate warming.

The findings highlight the dynamic yet vulnerable nature of alpine ecosystems. Within just four years, the transplanted communities underwent significant changes. These communities first gained species richness, attributed to the immigration of warm-adapted lowland species and the “lag phase” of highland specialists, meaning their delayed disappearance. Highland specialists initially resisted extinction through strategies like vegetative reproduction (e.g., via rhizomes).

Warm-adapted species, originating from lower regions, exhibited different “strategies”: they grow faster, absorb more nutrients, and compete stronger for light. Over time, this could threaten the survival of cold-adapted specialists, which rely on slow growth and efficient resource use. For instance, Poa alpina (alpine meadow-grass), present in nearly all transplanted plots in the first year, had nearly vanished by the fourth year.

Another striking result is the increasing similarity between the transplanted and lowland communities. The mountain thus loses part of its unique identity, becoming similar to the lowlands with regard to species composition.

A call to action for protecting montane and alpine ecosystems

Overall, the results confirm the stated hypotheses that climate warming leads to significant changes in species richness, composition, and functional traits in mountain meadow communities. Highland plants adapted to cold temperatures and nutrient-poor soils are at risk of disappearing due to climate change. These species are not only ecologically but also culturally important. The study emphasizes that alpine ecosystems worldwide face similar threats, emphazising the strong connection between climate change and biodiversity loss.

To preserve these valuable mountain ecosystems, targeted conservation measures are essential. These include reducing greenhouse gas emissions to mitigate the effects of climate change and developing strategies to protect and support the survival of sensitive highland specialists.

If you are interested in the study in more detail, you can find it here: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jvs.13280

The study presents first results of the long-term field experiments on PriOrity Effect Mechanisms (POEM), initiated in 2020 and designed to test how priority and year effects modulate the structure and functioning of dry acidic grassland plant communities over time, both aboveground and belowground.

Info: Priority effects
“Priority effects occur when species that arrive and establish before others can significantly influence the establishment and success of species that arrive later, thus also sometimes influencing ecosystem functioning. Priority effects can lead to alternative vegetation states and thus may play a key role in conservation.”

The POEM set-up

At a former agricultural field in Niederhaverbeck, Northern Germany, the research team established the POEM field experiment in 2020. It uses a replicated, multi-year design with different plant functional group (PFG) sowing sequences (grasses, forbs, legumes) and compares plots established in different years to capture weather effects. Using transparent tubes called minirhizotrons and a camera system, they tracked root growth over three years – without ever digging up a plant.

Findings that dig deep

The first results of the long-term experiment are already exciting. First, the scientists found that the time since establishment was the strongest driver of plant community composition, more than the plant functional group (PFG) order of arrival or the year of initiation. Species richness and diversity were influenced by PFG order of arrival, evolving over time and interacting with the year of sowing. Plots where grasses were sown first had lower diversity, due to their dominance (e.g. Bromus hordeaceus).

While root productivity (overall root biomass/density) did not differ significantly between treatments, the vertical distribution of roots was strongly affected: Communities where forbs or legumes were sown first rooted deeper than those where grasses were planted first. These findings, if generally found in other grasslands, could be a useful way to help create plant communities with deeper roots that are more adapted to droughts. Further research in POEM’s third experiment (being set up in 2025) will test this question. Here, minirhizotrons are installed in the soil and will allow the researchers to test whether there is a repeatable effect of the order of arrival on root distribution. Similar findings in a controlled experiment (Alonso-Crospo et al. 2022 Oikos) are promising, but the researchers need to do the hard work of setting up the same experiment again in the field to know to what extent this finding is generalizable.

Another finding of this study was that aboveground productivity was primarily influenced by year of initiation, with 2020 plots being more productive than those from 2021 — possibly due to more favorable weather in the first year. Thus, the year of sowing, reflecting different weather conditions, greatly impacted early community dynamics.

Implications that go beyond the plot

As restoration becomes an increasingly vital tool for biodiversity and climate issues, nuanced insights and recommendations are critical. The POEM experiment will continue to unravel how ecological history, priority effects, functional traits, and weather variation interact in shaping restoration outcomes.

For practitioners, the experiment has clear takeaways. Among other things, it shows that weather conditions in the establishment year strongly influence productivity. This suggests that restoration projects should time sowing to favorable environmental windows when possible. Deeper rooting from forbs- or legumes-first sowing may promote soil stabilization, water access, and long-term persistence in degraded soils. In the face of increasing drought frequency, these communities will likely be more stable and persistent. Furthermore, deeper roots can contribute more to long-term soil carbon pools, which are more stable than surface biomass, promoting natural climate solutions (NCS).

Ecological experiments like this, which may appear solely scientific at first glance, have a strong practical relevance – especially in our times of overlapping ecological crises.

Want to know more about the study? You can find the paper here: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jvs.70026

Are you interested in learning more about priority effects? Then read our article on: Breaking Down Barriers: A Call for Cohesion in Priority Effect Studies – Ecologically speaking – Blog on Ecological Research at Leuphana University Lueneburg

How successful is the restoration of species-rich grassland in Germany? Many of the researchers in the Grassworks project have been working on this question for many years and the Grassworks project was finally launched four years ago, funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) via the Research Initiative on the Biodiversity Loss (FEdA).

A successful conclusion and a hopeful day for the restoration of species-rich grassland

The time had finally come at the Grassworks final event, we presented our findings on success factors in the restoration of species-rich meadows and pastures from the perspectives of ecology, economy and social ecology. In the glass hall of the Representation of the State of Lower Saxony in Berlin, we welcomed around 50 participants with the smell of hay, much illustrative material of regional wild plant mixtures and an exciting lecture program. Almost 200 other people also took part in the event online.

Researchers from Grassworks and our invited guests presented and discussed the fascination of grassland, the current state of its restoration and what we can do for species-rich grassland. The well-known journalist Dr. Tanja Busse, who has a great deal of experience in bringing together the topics of agriculture and biodiversity, set the overall framework with her usual sharp mind and charm. The event was opened by Dr. Tanja Busse and Prof. Vicky Temperton, with words on the urgency of bringing biodiversity and agriculture together. Only if we find a way to work together can we find a path to a sustainable future.

Prof. Vicky Temperton, co-project leader with Prof. Anita Kirmer, presented the objectives of the event and the framework of the Grassworks project, followed by an overview of the objectives and projects of the Research Initiative on Biodiversity Loss (FEdA) by Dr. Julian Taffner, head of the central coordination.

Findings from the Grassworks project: diverse perspectives on multifunctional grassland restoration – grassland can do something!

Prof. Anita Kirmer presented the ecological results of a post-hoc analysis of restoration measures on 121 areas throughout Germany. The aim is to record the ecological success of already restored areas in three different regions along a gradient from north to south in Germany. The comparison with species-rich and degraded reference grasslands impressively demonstrated that the restoration projects assessed were generally very successful. Direct harvesting methods (e.g. hay transfer and direct seed collection) and the sowing of regional wild plant mixtures being the best methods for achieving higher biodiversity. Once the plant species are re-established, the bees and butterflies follow.

Prof. Volker Beckmann added an economic assessment of the profitability of extensive grassland management. Based on the economic data of the managers, his team determined that the average subsidy cannot yet compensate for the additional costs of extensive management.

Konrad Gray then reported on the transdisciplinary work in the real-world laboratories, where the live restoration of species-rich grassland was jointly carried out in direct cooperation between scientists and local stakeholders. In this way, active engagement between stakeholders and with their environment can strengthen diverse and pluralistic values and relationships with each other and with nature. Through strengthened social and socio-ecological ties, not only ecological restoration, but hopefully also long-term sustainable use concepts can be created through close collaboration.

Dr. Michaela Meyer from the German Association for Landscape Conservation (Deutscher Verband für Landschaftspflege, DVL) then presented findings and experiences from a practitioner perspective. She highlighted the recently published practical guide “Creating species-rich meadows and pastures successfully” (that is available free of charge here: https://www.dvl.org/publikationen/dvl-schriftenreihe). It contains information on the legal background, funding opportunities and advice on how to overcome obstacles and challenges.

At the end of the Grassworks session, Prof. Vicky Temperton presented a synthetic view of the results from the whole project, combing ecological, social science and socio-ecological perspectives.

Although the ecological results look very good at first glance, but a nuanced second look shows how important it is to pay attention to the variability in the results and the importance of adequate management practices. The so-called “shifting baseline” syndrome, whereby humans become accustomed to reduced species diversity and are therefore not very concerned about species loss, could play a role here. The species-rich reference grasslands were species-rich, but not as species-rich as fifty or hundred years ago, for example. Thus, the successes on the restored areas may look better than they would with reference from the 1950s. From a social perspective, it is apparent that restoration projects that are managed in a participatory and less top-down manner are more successful (at least in the perception of the participants). Collaboration and co-creation in restoration projects led to an increase in relational values (related to our connections with an object or place) that are important for the strength of connection with the grassland habitat and the motivation to continue. Interestingly, the species-rich grassland is the problem child in the area of biodiversity loss in Europe and, at the same time, the driving force for a transformation towards more diversity.

Biodiversity in meadows and pastures – evidence of our cultural landscape – the result of human-nature relationships

The Grassworks hypothesis

The Grassworks hypothesis seems to have been confirmed: Our findings show that successful grassland restoration is related both to ecological complexity and to beneficial political and social framework conditions.

Our ecologists and the practical know-how of the DVL both recommend the introduction of many native wild plant species, especially wildflowers, and good preparation of the area, i.e. adequate soil disturbance, in order to provide suitable starting conditions for grassland plants species, wild plants that are not competitive under the commonly nutrient rich, fertilized conditions of our farmed landscapes. At the same time, the DVL concluded from collaborative, scientific and practical work that cooperation between farmers and nature conservationists is of great importance. Restoration and conservation of species-rich grassland is much easier and more successful if both groups of stakeholders do not act as antagonists. Rather, if they collaborate as partners in advising and supporting a project and support each other, success is around the corner.

The participants in the concluding panel discussion, Dr. Jürgen Metzner from the DVL, Prof. Sabine Tischew from the Anhalt University of Applied Sciences, Dr. Julian Taffner from the FEdA program and Steffen Pingen from the Farmers Association at Federal Level, also confirmed that cooperation between stakeholders from nature conservation and agriculture works far better than opposition. Both sides agreed that it would be a good idea for the farmers’ association and the land care association to go to Brussels together. Despite differences, there was a consensus that more efforts were needed to protect and promote grassland ecosystems, but also that the existing concepts, particularly those for rewarding and involving farmers, were not sufficient. Tanja Busse expertly navigated the discussion across the different perspectives brought to the table with a sharp intellect and much charm, and intervened whenever any inconsistencies became apparent.

The research in the real-world laboratories also revealed great unanimity among the participants. The participants also discovered that they shared a diverse appreciation of grassland and exchanged views on the importance of meadows and pastures for them in their home region. Through these consolidated and multi-layered relationships with and around grassland, approaches were developed in the project regions that have sustainably improved the condition and social reputation of species-rich grassland, which will hopefully continue for a long time to come.

A greater understanding and appreciation for each other, between agriculture, nature conservation and society, can thus initiate a transformative change in which grassland as a socio-ecological system produces socially supported biodiversity. A more direct integration into local systems can contribute to (non-)monetary remuneration and thus address the recognized gap between value generation and value creation. This is because the support measures that contribute significantly to profitability are not only often inadequate from a business management perspective, but also too complicated or inflexible for managers and nature conservation goals.

The second part with guest lectures on the multifunctionality of grassland

As an introduction, Prof. Josef Settele, known as a pollinator expert in IPBES (Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services), gave an overall overview of species loss, and the particularly important role of open land and grassland in the loss of plant and animal species, especially in agricultural landscapes. He succinctly emphasized the link between this diversity on open land and the provision of ecosystem services. The potential of nature to contribute to people’s quality of life is continuously decreasing, and the restoration of species-rich ecosystems can significantly counteract this development.

Prof. Eckhard Jedicke from Hochschule Geisenheim University followed with a clear plea for a multifunctionality approach as part of a transformation towards more diversity. Only if the true value of species-rich grassland, its contribution to the common good in a rapidly changing world, are more clearly perceived and appreciated by our society, can we manage a real transformation to more biodiversity.

Finally, Simon Keelan from the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (Bundesamt für Naturschutz, BfN) presented the first key considerations for implementing the EU Restoration Law in relation to grasslands. He made it clear that this legal milestone represents both a great opportunity and a challenge. Here, the core results of projects such as Grassworks will be able to play an important role in improving the planning and implementation on the ground.

This is how it can work …

Dr. Simone Schneider from SICONA Nature Conservation Syndicate in Luxembourg presented the impressive national action plan for the conservation and restoration of species-rich grassland in Luxembourg, characterized by the clear prioritization of necessary measures. In the Luxembourgish approach, each nature conservation authority and organization are provided with the necessary human and financial capacities to achieve ambitious goals and, in particular, to enable personal advice and collaboration with local farmers. In addition, a forum has been established at a high political level in which future positions and strategies in the dialog between agriculture and nature conservation are developed for the national level. A positive outlook for grassland!

Conclusion & outlook

All in all, it was clear from the results of the Grassworks project, the guest lectures, audience discussions and the panel discussion: species-rich grassland has huge potential! And this requires nature conservation, agriculture, society and politics to pull together. It is also important to raise awareness of the diverse values and relationships relating to species-rich grassland and to make them tangible. That is why not only Grassworks, but also many other academic, political and social initiatives are working to improve compensation and recognition for managing and recreating species-rich grassland. The Grassworks consortium is now preparing a policy brief (Kernforderungen) based on key findings from the project. The presentations, discussions and talks at the Grassworks closing event showed ways and means of how research and practice can work together successfully to protect and restore species-rich grassland and how current approaches can be developed further. Because grassland has much potential. Let’s use this potential!