A recently published study by Michael Staab, Professor of Animal Ecology and Trophic Interactions at the Institute of Ecology at Leuphana University, and colleagues investigated if restoring grasslands by reducing land use can support insect abundance and diversity.

Exploring biodiversity experiments: The design of the study

Staab et al. investigated the effect of land-use intensity on invertebrates using a newly established extensification experiment that is part of the Biodiversity Exploratories. This framework was used for understanding how the effects of reduced land use depend on local contexts as well as specific management decisions, which are all part of land use.

How did they find out what’s really the case? The study was conducted at 45 grassland sites across three different regions in Germany. At each site, the researchers compared a regularly managed control plot with a nearby treatment plot with experimentally reduced land use, meaning only a single late mowing per year and no fertilization or grazing. In 2021 and 2023, one and three years after the experiment began, invertebrates were collected on both plots. In 2021, the samples were identified using DNA metabarcoding, allowing a thorough species identification. The team then analysed differences in abundance, diversity and species composition, and tested how factors such as mowing frequency, fertilization and mowing technique in the surrounding matrix as well as management decisions on the reduction plot influenced the magnitude of land-use reduction effects. Keep in mind for the results that there was no diversity data for the second sampling in 2023.

The results: Giving grasslands a break is a win for insect numbers

Reducing land use to one late mowing increased the abundance, so the number of individuals of invertebrates by 41 %. But wait, it gets better: After three years, the abundances in the reduced land-use plots were a full 99 % higher. However, the species richness, Shannon diversity and Simpson diversity between the treatment and the control plots were almost identical after one year. Consequently, the treatment effect of reduced land use had a positive, over time increasing effect on abundance of the invertebrates, but not on their diversity.

But that’s not the whole story. In both years, the magnitude of the treatment effects on abundance depended on the type of land use of the surrounding grassland and on how the plot with reduced land use had been mown in the previous year. The effects of land-use reduction were smaller when the surrounding area had previously been mown more frequently. In contrast, on more fertilized sites, the positive effect of extensification increased. The effect was also larger when the reduced land-use plot was mown with a greater cutting height and when the treatment and control plot were not mown on the same day.

We need to discuss some things:

Why an increase in abundance, but not in diversity?
Reducing land-use intensity quickly boosts invertebrate abundance, which, according to the authors, can be interpreted as a positive reaction of already locally existing species whose populations are benefiting from the reduced disturbance. As you can easily imagine, less frequent mowing kills fewer insect individuals. The species diversity, on the other hand, didn’t change after one year, which suggests that biodiversity recovery takes longer. Additionally, the species composition remained unchanged one year after the start of the extensification, which indicates a strong legacy of past intensive land use. Due to the lack of diversity data for the 2023 sampling, we don’t know if three years after the implementation of reduced land use, the diversity would have increased, or the species composition would have changed. That is for follow-up studies to find out.

Local land-use contexts and management details matter
The positive effects on abundance were smaller in frequently mown landscapes, likely because of the depletion of surrounding populations. Therefore, reducing land use in frequently mown grasslands may be less efficient, unless the area is connected to other unmown or larger habitats. The stronger effects observed in highly fertilized grasslands were likely due to productivity initially remaining high after the fertilization stopped, providing more plant resources for the invertebrates. Findings showing that cutting the grassland at a greater height and not mowing the entire area on the same day is less detrimental to insects demonstrate that insects require refuge areas. Therefore, if we want to promote insects in grassland restoration, we need to use spatially and temporally different mowing rhythms.

What are the take-home messages for conservation efforts?

The study highlights the need for long-term, sustained extensification for successful grassland restoration, whereby its effectiveness for invertebrate conservation varies across local contexts. Clearly, restoring grasslands can play a key role in counteracting insect declines, while a higher invertebrate abundance also supports insect-eating birds and key ecosystem functions. Nevertheless, restoration efforts must balance different biodiversity goals: While an intermediate mowing frequency can increase plant diversity, it can be detrimental for invertebrates. Maximizing restoration outcomes for both plants and insects therefore requires a landscape approach with different measures which also increase heterogeneity and habitat connectivity.

You want to learn more about the study and its findings? Then read the full article here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1439179125000738?via%3Dihub

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 subscribtion 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 subscribtion 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

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

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!

Ecosystem restoration has become a global priority due to accelerating land degradation, biodiversity loss, and climate change. However, the ecological, social, and interconnected social-ecological impacts of restoration efforts remain insufficiently understood. The DFG research project A social-ecological systems approach to inform ecosystem restoration in rural Africa (2023-2028) aims to develop a comprehensive framework, approaching ecosystem restoration from a social-ecological systems perspective for understanding the mechanisms involved in generating different restoration outcomes.

Focusing on western Rwanda, a global restoration leader, it seeks to generate both place-based insights and transferable knowledge for restoration efforts worldwide. The research team consists of an interdisciplinary team and includes scientists from Leuphana (Institute for Social-Ecological Systems (SESI) and Institute of Ecology (IE)), the Universities of Göttingen and Kassel as well as the FU Berlin. The work is divided into eight interconnected sub-projects, organized into four clusters (see below). The research unit combines post-hoc assessments, participatory experiments, and future scenario planning to provide a holistic understanding of restoration dynamics. The findings shall advance restoration science and social-ecological research, directly benefitting restoration efforts in Rwanda, and offering global insights for improving restoration practices worldwide.

One of the sub-projects (SP7), headed by Vicky Temperton from the Leuphana Institute of Ecology and Stefan Sieber (Leibniz-Zentrum für Agrarlandschaftsforschung (ZALF) e.V.), focuses on establishing a living lab to bridge science and practice in Rwanda’s restoration efforts. While past restoration has largely relied on Eucalyptus monocultures, new initiatives promote native tree species to enhance biodiversity and ecosystem services. Using a transdisciplinary approach, SP7 collaborates with stakeholders to co-design, co-produce, and co-evaluate restoration solutions. Scientific experiments will be conducted in two governance models, allowing comparison of their impacts on biodiversity, resilience, and livelihoods.

The following article was originally written and published by Dr. William Apollinaire on the ecosystem restoration blog.

After the Rwanda Restore project kick-off in Kigali in January 2024 and a restoration stakeholder conference held there from February 19–21, 2025, the SP7 research unit officially launched the Living Lab in Rutsiro District, western Rwanda, on February 25, 2025.

42 participants attended the workshops from academia, various governmental and non-governmental institutions as well as local communities. The workshops aimed to establish a Living Lab Roundtable and define two governance models for the Living Lab, along with its code of conduct and communication strategy. Further, the workshop discussed opportunities and challenges for the current, mid-term and long-term future of restoration in Rutsiro, using a Three Horizons Approach, for restoration strategic planning in Rutsiro.

Organized into small group discussions, participants defined the code of conduct, communication principles and strategy and the three horizons for the restoration in the area. At the end of the workshop, participants visited Living Lab sites in Gihango Sector. During the visit, the research team hiked through the hilly landscape to observe various land uses and assess the potential for restoration interventions. They were accompanied and guided by local field assistants and farmer group members, who provided valuable insights.

A community workshop was organized in two cells of the Gihango District: Teba and Shyembe. The field trip brought together representatives of farmers groups and cooperatives, carpenters, traditional healers, beekeepers, and farm owners of plots where the Living Lab sites sit.

Individual visits were also arranged to meet model farmers who have enhanced their nutrition by integrating food plants such as Chayote, Passion fruit, Avocado, Pineapple and Cucumber into agroforestry systems, particularly within their home gardens, for their consumption or the market. In some cases, farmers combine a variety of fruit plants and legumes within the same plot.

The study selection and the social network analysis have been completed in 2024. The roundtable has now been set up, the ongoing process before the end of this year will cover the co-design of field trials, definition of impact areas, delineation and registration of demonstration sites, including the signing of sustainability agreement with farm owners within the Living Lab sites. Further, the roundtable of stakeholders will soon develop the indicators of success.

You can find out more about the research project and the sub-projects here: https://ecosystemrestoration.net/subprojects/

Info: What Is Restoration?
Restoration is defined as a human-induced process that supports the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, disturbed, or completely destroyed. The goals and success criteria for restoration projects are based on ecological (and social) conditions and site-specific factors. According to the Society for Ecological Restoration (SER), restoration should not only reestablish individual species or landscape features but also create a long-term resilient, self-sustaining ecosystem that is ecologically, economically, and socially sustainable.

A Success Story: How it all Began

The initial spark for the network was ignited at the 10th European Conference on Ecological Restoration 2016 in Freising. During a specially organized practitioner’s day, the need and strong interest in better networking between scientists, practitioners, and administrative actors became evident. During the conference, an initial mailing list was created, which has steadily grown and now includes around 300 members.

In 2017, the first network meeting took place in Jänschwalde (Brandenburg), organized by Sabine Tischew and Kathrin Kiehl in collaboration with local stakeholders. This was followed by the strategic plan for the “Netzwerk Renaturierung”  as a “loose working group” leading to regular events at changing locations in Germany, and also Luxembourg. Each meeting focuses on a specific restoration topic and ecosystem. The changing locations allow new participants to join regularly and the network to expand constantly.

The Structure: Openness as a Principle

A key feature of the network is its flexible and non-bureaucratic structure. There are no membership fees or association structures, keeping administrative effort to a minimum. Additionally, network meetings are self-financed, meaning there are no extra conference fees.
As a result, the network remains open to anyone interested in restoration, regardless of whether they come from academia, associations, government agencies, planning offices, or businesses.

The organizers (Simone Schneider – Naturschutzsyndikat SICONA; Annika Schmidt and Sabine Tischew – Anhalt University of Applied Sciences; Kathrin Kiehl – Osnabrück University of Applied Sciences; Vicky Temperton – Leuphana University; Johannes Kollmann – TUM) invest a great deal of voluntary work to keep this unique network alive. They share tasks related to the website, coordination, and (technical) organization. For them, it is clear: the collaborative exchange and the opportunity to advance restoration ecology are worth the effort.

Practice Meets Science: The Importance of the Network Meetings

 A central element of the network’s work is its regular meetings. These typically consist of short keynote presentations followed by site visits to restoration areas and projects. A special focus is placed on open discussions about successes, challenges, and even failures – since the community can gain valuable lessons from mistakes.

Previous meeting topics have included the restoration of raw soil areas, the integration of conservation aspects into spatial planning, and the restoration of grasslands at the last network meeting in Luxembourg in summer 2024. In 2025, there will be three network meetings.

At the European Level

The “Netzwerk Renaturierung”  is also well-connected at the European level. Since 2019, it has been a member of SER Europe (the European chapter of the Society for Ecological Restoration) and maintains close contacts with related organizations, including the Working Group on Conservation and Restoration Ecology within SER Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. This international collaboration helps develop leverage synergies between different restoration initiatives. Adding to that, networks as the “Netzwerk Renaturierung” play a crucial role for promoting the EU Nature Restoration Law – by scaling up restoration efforts and contributing to national implementation aligning with EU-wide objectives. Such networks are essential for translating policy into action, promoting innovative approaches, and maximizing the long-term success of restoration efforts under the new legislation.

Info: The EU Nature Restoration Law
The EU Nature Restoration Law came into force on 18 August 2024. It aims to restore at least 20% of the EU’s land and marine areas by 2030 and to restore all ecosystems in need of restoration to good ecological status by 2050. The EU Member States are obliged to draw up national restoration plans that set out how the defined targets are to be achieved at national level. By promoting restoration initiatives, biodiversity and the climate can be protected, the resilience of ecosystems can be increased and economic benefits secured. This regulation is a central component of the European Green Deal and the EU Biodiversity Strategy 2030.

Conclusion: Working together for a Sustainable Future

The “Netzwerk Renaturierung” is an outstanding example of how flexible, inter- and transdisciplinary collaboration can be successfully implemented. Through open exchange between science and practice, innovative solutions are developed to address the diverse challenges of restoration ecology. In a time when intact ecosystems are invaluable, such a platform is indispensable.

Anyone interested in becoming part of the network can find more information and get in touch via the network’s website. One thing is certain: the restoration of our ecosystems is most successful when we shape it together.

What came to your mind? Was there maybe some kind of picture of a beautiful forest wandering around your head? A lush green canopy of majestic trees, whose miraculous leaves use the sunlight to turn water and CO₂ into carbohydrates through photosynthesis, sequestering carbon, and giving oxygen to the air in return? I can fully relate to that – probably most people can. Trees and forests can be great natural climate solutions and havens of biodiversity, offering a home for many species, so of course, they are very valuable ecosystems. But how does it come that we typically only think of forests here? Only about trees doing photosynthesis, when all plants are capable of doing that? Could it be that we are overlooking something? According to Staude and colleagues, the short answer is: Yes.

We could protect more than three-quarters of threatened plant species by shifting restoration priorities

Yes, we are overlooking something. Something which is actually much too big to overlook as the scientists Ingmar Staude and colleagues (2023), including Vicky Temperton and Emanuela Weidlich from the Institute of Ecology at Leuphana, found out: 82 % of all endangered plant species in Germany are found in high-light ecosystems such as grasslands, and only 1 % in shaded ecosystems such as forests (see figure below). And with this number it becomes very clear that there is a problem: While it is common agreement by now, that the restoration of ecosystems is crucial in our current time of increasing species loss and climate change, such restoration efforts are commonly equated with planting trees and restoring forests – not just by us, but also by policymakers. Yet when we look at the data from Germany (but also increasingly for other regions of the world) we find that the most threatened species are often from the open grassy habitats or biomes (Hoekstra et al. 2004, Jandt et al. 2022, Staude et al. 2023). Conservation, including restoration practice and policy, is globally often strongly focused on forests, mostly neglecting and underfunding or underprotecting open grassy ecosystems (grasslands, savannas, shrubland), although carbon-rich peatlands are now also starting to attract the attention they deserve as the habitat that can store by far the largest amount of carbon (peatlands cover around 3 % of the earth but can store more than double the amount of carbon than forests).

How do the scientists get these numbers?

For their analysis, Staude and colleagues combined overall vegetation data derived from the sPLOT database for plant data across Germany over time with Ellenberg indicator values. Ellenberg indicator values characterize species using different habitat parameters such as light availability, temperature, and nutrient content in the soil. This allowed them to then assess to what extent the species whose abundance has declined over the past century are associated with different habitat types (grasslands, forests, shrubland). The aim of this analysis was to examine how the threat status of the endangered plant species is related to their niches (the specific environmental factors that make up the species’ habitat) and how this developed. For this, the Ellenberg light values representing the light demand of plant species were chosen, as grassy ecosystems offer much light for their plants in contrast to forests which generally are shaded habitats. The resulting threat status for light demand was also compared to the threat status for nutrient demand, as high nutrient inputs mainly caused by agricultural intensification are known to be a primary driver of species loss.

This analysis showed the values mentioned in the beginning: 82 % of all red-listed plant species in Germany are light demanding, which is even more than the 61 % that need nutrient-poor habitats – while this nutrient problem is well known. Indeed, every second plant species of all plant species in Germany that require full light or nutrient-poor soils is endangered and the trend is increasing. Staude and colleagues argue that this is not just the case in Germany, but that these results are well transferable to other regions in Europe and beyond, which they underpin with a case study from southern Brazil coming to similar results.

A question of perspective

But why do we and policymakers then typically think of forest restoration when it comes to biodiversity conservation and restoration? Staude and colleagues assume and discuss two main reasons here.

Firstly, the prevailing conception of forests as the natural vegetation of central Europe leads people to favour this state of perceived wilderness over ecosystems like grasslands. Following this, grasslands would be degraded ecosystems. However, this theory is subject to a long-standing debate, with current evidence (Pearce et al. 2023) indicating that the historic landscape may rather had more diverse, mosaic-like vegetation structures with large components very open (somewhat like in wood pastures), as Staude and colleagues explain.

Secondly, biodiversity conservation and climate change mitigation are typically equated with carbon sequestration and as forests sequester large amounts of carbon aboveground they can be a very effective natural climate solution in this regard. Belowground they do not necessarily store more C than other habitats, however. Integrated measurement of belowground carbon stores and sequestration across habitats is rare however, and urgently needs addressing in integrated scientific studies to enable evidence-based recommendations for biodiversity and climate change actions on the ground. There is evidence that grasslands can store as much C belowground as forests, plus through their albedo effects and high resilience to extreme weather events, which will be both examined in more detail in the next section, they form a powerful tool to address the many pressures raining down on us within the climate change and biodiversity polycrises, as Staude et al. point out.

Both of these prevailing perceptions about forests result in much higher focus and investment in restoration efforts for these, according to the authors, while traditionally managed high nature-value grassland (with their vast biodiversity) have almost silently disappeared from our cultural landscapes, and with them an army of pollinators.

Grasslands against climate change?

In addition to this, Staude and colleagues argue that there are also good reasons to pay more attention to grasslands for climate mitigation and adaptation reasons, as indicated above. While grasslands cannot sequester as much carbon as forest aboveground, they also can store large amounts of carbon belowground. These carbon stocks are overall more resilient to extreme weather events, like fires and droughts, which are predicted to increase due to climate change. Hence, the sequestered carbon would be stored longer in such grassy ecosystems. Following Staude and colleagues, this is due to their long history and coevolution with high disturbance regimes such as frequent and regular fire, drought, and grazing. Forests, on the other hand, in some regions already face the risk of turning into carbon sources soon due to the extreme heat and drought stress trees are facing, leading to increased tree mortality. At the same time, the capability of grasslands to store carbon could be even increased by applying (and researching) the optimum grassland management to foster biodiversity as well as C sequestration and storage.

Nevertheless, more carbon sequestration is not immediately equal to more cooling. Therefore, Staude and colleagues also draw attention to other factors affecting global warming, such as the albedo of grasslands and forests. The albedo describes the capacity of a surface to reflect the sunrays shining on it. A bright surface reflects a lot of sunrays and stays cool, while a dark surface absorbs more sunrays and heats up (you can feel the difference when walking barefoot on a meadow and on a street on a sunny summer day, see diagram below). Consequently, a forest with its rather dark tree canopy absorbs more solar radiation than a grassland which is lighter, thus a forest area warms the local climate more than a grassland. Therefore, Staude and colleagues argue that grasslands could be powerful complementary players next to forests as natural climate solutions and deserve a lot more attention. At the same time, the paper makes abundantly clear that if we want to bend the biodiversity curve then we should focus strongly on restoring species-rich grasslands across Germany and many other temperate regions (maybe also outside of the temperate biomes).

All at once – Grassland restoration for biodiversity conservation, climate change mitigation and adaptation

Working towards biodiversity protection and climate change mitigation and adaptation at the same time, Staude and colleagues conclude that grasslands ought to be considered much more in restoration policies and have the potential to become linchpin solutions to both the biodiversity and the climate crises. Additionally, afforestation should not happen at the expense of valuable grasslands that harbour much biodiversity but also may be our best bet for keeping the C in the ground as the climate warms further. Also, they stress that they do not want to dismiss the value of forests when it comes to restoration: forests should be restored where they and their species are declining, however, they should not be in the focus of restoration efforts, when they are not. Additionally, a recent study by Mo et al. (2023) emphasises that we will be able to store more C by preserving existing forests (and allowing them to grow to maturity) than by planting a trillion trees in areas where forests are currently not found.

With all this in mind, perhaps the next time hearing the term restoration we may also think of a beautiful grassland with humming bees and butterflies visiting the great variety of its flowers.

If you want to dive deeper into this topic, you can find the paper of Staude and colleagues here: Staude, I. R., Segar, J., Temperton, V. M., Andrade, B. O., de Sá Dechoum, M., Weidlich, E. W., & Overbeck, G. E. (2023). Prioritize grassland restoration to bend the curve of biodiversity loss. Restoration Ecology, e13931. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13931

References

Hoekstra, J. M., Boucher, T. M., Ricketts, T. H., & Roberts, C. (2004). Confronting a biome crisis: global disparities of habitat loss and protection. Ecology letters, 8(1), 23-29. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00686.x

Jandt, U., Bruelheide, H., Jansen, F., Bonn, A., Grescho, V., Klenke, R. A., … & Wulf, M. (2022). More losses than gains during one century of plant biodiversity change in Germany. Nature, 611(7936), 512-518. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05320-w

Mo, L., Zohner, C. M., Reich, P. B., Liang, J., De Miguel, S., Nabuurs, G. J., … & Ortiz-Malavasi, E. (2023). Integrated global assessment of the natural forest carbon potential. Nature, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06723-z

Pearce, E. A., Mazier, F., Normand, S., Fyfe, R., Andrieu, V., Bakels, C., … & Svenning, J. C. (2023). Substantial light woodland and open vegetation characterized the temperate forest biome before Homo sapiens. Science advances, 9(45), eadi9135. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adi9135

Staude, I. R., Segar, J., Temperton, V. M., Andrade, B. O., de Sá Dechoum, M., Weidlich, E. W., & Overbeck, G. E. (2023). Prioritize grassland restoration to bend the curve of biodiversity loss. Restoration Ecology, e13931. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13931