“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 quick recap: Why do we need grassland restoration?

Not only are extensively managed grasslands often species-rich and provide a wide range of different ecosystem functions, from which we humans benefit as well, but grasslands have been overlooked and overexploited compared to other habitat types (Kan et al. 2026). They are endangered worldwide due to destruction through land use change as well as degradation; in large parts of Europe they are among the most threatened types of habitat. Alarmingly, 75 % of grasslands protected under EU law are experiencing a decline in biodiversity, with species that are specifically adapted to open ecosystems such as grasslands being lost. To bend the curve of biodiversity loss upwards again and to meet international commitments like the EU Nature Restoration Law, we need to step up our game in scaling up ecological restoration across all dimensions.

Restoration success is social-ecological – not just ecological

Thereby, the social dimension is not just a “nice to have” but an important determinant of the outcomes of the restoration efforts. Wildflower meadows are threatened by conversion to cropland, afforestation as part of a drive to mitigate climate change as well as urban development. We know that the extent to which people consider species-rich natural habitats important or worthy of restoration or conservation often depends on how familiar or connected people are to these habitats. In addition, within the Grassworks project, transdisciplinary research on values people have related to grasslands and their restoration showed an increase in relational values (often linked to motivation) over time, as actors engaged in group discussions and exchanges about different ecological and social facets of the grasslands. After a process of co-creation of live restoration measures in a real-world lab setting (more on that later), intrinsic values related to grasslands were less emphasised and relational ones gained in importance for the actors. Such relational values are often closely connected to how motivated actors or stakeholders are to take action within conservation settings but are usually not considered in research or practice.

The Grassworks research approach

The project was based on the hypothesis that a successful restoration can only be achieved when both ecological complexity and stakeholder engagement are high. To investigate this, the researchers compared already restored areas to positive and negative reference sites in three different regions from Northern to Southern Germany, using a natural landscape experiment approach. Within each region they developed a post hoc assessment to analyse the main factors influencing the restoration success.  In addition, to this, in real world laboratory settings, live restoration with local stakeholders was co-designed and implemented across the three regions.

What was measured?

To understand what truly drives restoration success, the researchers collected a broad range of data: ecological variables, landscape-related, economic as well as social-ecological dimensions. From an ecological perspective, researchers assessed plant diversity, vegetation structure, soil characteristics as well as the occurrence of butterflies and wild bees. As restoration never happens in isolation, how each site was embedded in the surrounding landscape – its diversity, configuration and land-use context – was also assessed. Economic factors such as restoration costs, funding instruments and management were assessed through questionnaires. And last but definitely not least, the Grassworks team explored the stakeholders’ perceptions and values regarding the restoration approaches.  

What role do Real-World Laboratories play in restoration success?

In the Grassworks project, Real-World Laboratories – short RLWs – became the places where the co-creation of restoration efforts was put into action. At the heart of the projects’ social-ecological dimension, RWLs bring scientists, practitioners and local communities together in open spaces to foster shared learning in an experimental way. Each of the three regions had its own RWL aligned with local conditions – ranging from participatory workshops in the north of Germany, to citizen science programs and participatory pilot actions in the centre, to the creation of an online forum in the south. These spaces show that grassland restoration is not just about the ecological dimension, but also about the trust and communication between all stakeholders. RWLs build social connections as well as shared goals and understandings that lead to a higher acceptance of restoration measures.

What happens behind the scenes of Grassworks?

What’s special about this publication of Temperton et al. is that the researchers included reflections about different steps of the process to make the research more transferable. For instance, they reflect on the process of selecting the restored sites, whereby they quickly realized that grasslands differ strongly between regions in Germany. The team aimed for a balanced collection of sites but had to work with what the different areas offered. Surprisingly, finding suitable reference sites was even more challenging than expected. The initial aim was to compare each restored site to a positive and a negative reference, but this proved unattainable as species-rich reference sites seem to have become rather rare in Germany. However, finding degraded sites was even harder as landowners interestingly hesitated to provide the researchers with low diversity grasslands. These realizations remind us why socially accepted large-scale restoration efforts are urgently needed.

Implications for Practice: What’s the take-home message?  

Most importantly: we need larger-scale standardised projects like Grassworks that assess a wide range of factors across many sites, so that we can conclude more confidently about what leads to success in restoration. Additionally, restoration is not just about planting seeds or implementing the changes to biophysical components or biodiversity– it’s about trust, connection, motivation and people working together. To establish that, the most effective way is collaborative, locally adapted and critically reflecting the power dynamics between all actors. Yes, a socio-ecological approach like that of the Grassworks project requires a high level of openness, exchange and time, but in the end it’s all worth it. Acknowledging the social and political dimensions of restoration in a transdisciplinary way is critical for scaling up restoration efforts. The RWLs show us how a co-creation of the process can lead to a more accepted and longer-lasting restoration and exactly that is what we need if we want to maximize restoration success.

Stay tuned – Grassworks is still in the works

 A number of key Grassworks publications are about to be published in scientific journals over the next weeks, including a key one on the effects of the different restoration methods on vegetation outcomes, or a paper on the values people place on grasslands in landscape, elicited through a photo-voice method.  Stay tuned – and check out the Grassworks website for publication updates. In the meantime, if you want to find out more about the approach and the researchers’ reflections of the process you can read the paper of Temperton et al. (2025) here: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/rec.70109

Literature:
Kan et al. (2026) Overlooked and overexploited: Extensive conversion of grasslands and wetlands driven by global food, feed, and bioenergy demand. PNAS. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2521183123

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.

The research group led by Prof. Dr. Sylvia Haider recently published a study about the diversity of leaf designs in forests, aiming at understanding the importance of the variability within species (and even within single trees). Being involved in TreeDì, a Sino-German graduate school which aims at understanding the causes and consequences of tree-tree interactions in Chinese subtropical forests, the research group conducted their study in BEF-China, the world’s largest experiment investigating the relationship between forest diversity and ecosystem functions.

The many facets of trait-based ecology

The field of trait-based ecology, which examines how plant characteristics (’traits’) explain ecological processes, has focused mostly on differences between species. However, the intraspecific (within species) and even intraindividual (within individual plants) trait variability that occurs in leaves should not be overlooked as it could explain hidden aspects of ecosystem processes. In their study, Castro Sánchez-Bermejo and colleagues showed that the diversity of leaf designs within a tree species itself also contributes significantly to the functional diversity of a forest.

Functional traits of leaves can vary, even within a species

Little is known about this fine-scale variability of traits, yet it may be crucial for forest functioning. That’s why the researchers wanted to find out how intraspecific and intraindividual variability change along a diversity gradient and what that means for tree-tree interactions. To find an answer they examined leaves from eight tree species in forest stands representing a diversity gradient from species-poor monocultures to species-rich mixed forests. Various leaf characteristics related to the use of resources were recorded to analyse differences between individuals of the same species (e.g. the content of leaf nitrogen, which is abundant in photosynthetic molecules, was used as a proxy of photosynthetic activity).

Behind the scenes of measuring leaf diversity

Examining 4,568 leaves from 381 trees including five functional traits in each leaf resulted in a total of 22,840 measurements. If you think that sounds like a lot of work, well, you’re right! That’s why the researchers decided to combine leaf spectroscopy and machine learning pipelines to ‘phenotype’ all leaves. With the help of this method, they could detect the morphological and chemical traits of leaves optically.

A glimpse at the results

To give you an overview of the study’s results, here’s what the researchers found out:

Intraspecific variability decreases with a higher species richness. What does this mean? In species-poor monocultures, trees of the same species try to have different leaves to reduce competition within their species. This reflects a kind of ‘functional trait shyness’, as the trees seem to avoid each other in terms of their functional strategies. In mixtures, i.e. more species-rich forests, that is less necessary since ecological niches are already divided by differences between the species. Therefore, in mixtures the trees have more similar leaves. Regarding intraindividual variability, monocultures, which are characterized by less structured canopies, create an uneven light distribution within individual trees that could explain the high leaf variation within a single tree compared to mixtures.

Info: Functional richness & functional divergence:
Functional richness and functional divergence are two metrics that describe how a ‘trait space’ that represents the range of trait values possible, is being occupied by, for instance, one tree species. A higher functional richness relates to a higher number of functional strategies used. Meanwhile, a high functional divergence means that the dominant functional strategies within a species are very different from each other. Therefore, a low functional divergence indicates that there is one very common strategy while other traits present are rarely represented. The following figure helps envisioning the metrics.

Trees use their resources cleverly

The study’s results show that both sources of trait variation, intraspecific and intraindividual, make tree communities functionally richer. Intraspecific variability increases functional richness while intraindividual variability contributes to functional divergence – leading to a more complex distribution of traits. The patterns found suggest that trees occupy different parts of the ‘trait space’, meaning that the set of strategies used by one trait is different compared to the neighbour tree. As Castro Sánchez-Bermejo explains, each tree seems to develop different strategies to minimise competitions with its neighbours, even with those that are from the same species. Isn’t that something? This leads to an astonishing amount and diversity of trees’ strategies to use the forests’ resources such as water, light or nutrients efficiently.

What can future research learn from this study?

As the findings reveal, the phenotypic diversity within a species can be of great importance. Therefore, protecting species alone may not be as sufficient to maintain biodiversity as one might think. Understanding the patterns of trait variation could reveal new facets of the mechanisms behind ecosystem functioning of forests. In order to fully grasp processes occurring at local levels, we also need to move from a species-based trait ecology to an individual-based trait ecology.

You want to learn more about the trait variability of trees and the study’s findings or methods? Then read the full article here, at the journal Nature Communications:  https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-67265-8

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.

“Homogenisation of mountain ecosystems through non-native species?” No idea about that…

Then let’s start with the background: While humans expand into natural environments, global transportation networks lead non-native species to not only spread throughout the globe at an increasing rate, but also to expand upwards. As this article already gave away, the spread of non-native species increases the risk of homogenisation for plant communities, which means a reduction of diversity between communities. Potential consequences are decreased landscape variability and ecosystem services. For us, this urgently calls for action to conserve diverse communities. Particularly for mountain regions, the long-term effects of homogenisation are poorly understood and there aren’t a lot of studies comparing multiple scales for higher elevation. Luckily for us, Buhaly and colleagues aimed to kick-start filling this research gap with their study.

The study design and vegetation surveys in numbers

To determine whether the addition of non-native species leads to homogenisation or differentiation, the researchers addressed local, regional, continental and global scales by looking at the dissimilarity, i.e. beta-diversity, between plant communities along mountain gradients. Why did they specifically look at plants at mountain roads? Because roads represent the transition where non-native species can spread from low to high elevations.

Now, are you ready for some interesting numbers?

• 18 mountainous regions from all continents (except Antarctica) were surveyed for vegetation data, along 46 mountain roads.
• 2012 to 2023 was the timeframe in which the datasets were collected.
• 1 to 4 elevation gradients were selected per region, with each elevation gradient divided into 20 equal sampling sites.
• This added up to 687 sampling sites across all regions in total, in which 2627 native and 563 non-native species of vascular plants were identified.

In case you want more details, here is an explanation of the figure:
Local scale: Analysis of sites within same elevational band separately for each elevation gradient within each region. Regional scale: Analysis of sites within same elevational band across elevation gradients within each region. Continental scale: Analysis of sites within same elevation band across elevation gradients in same continent. Global scale: Analysis of all sites in same elevation band for all elevation gradients.

The results we’ve been waiting for: Homogenisation or differentiation, or both?

First of all, across all regions, non-native species richness declined with increasing elevation. At the global scale, the researchers found homogenisation of communities by non-native species. From the local to continental scales, however, they found both homogenisation and differentiation.

Looking at different scales matters

As you can see in the figure above, surprisingly, community homogenisation and differentiation were balanced across continents. The researchers also found striking differences at regional and local levels between the American continents, where homogenisation dominated, and Asia, Africa, and Europe, where non-native species led to community differentiation.

These findings suggest that homogenisation through the addition of non-native species may not be as common as originally thought, especially when looking at smaller scales.

A word on elevations

Most of the regions show homogenisation through species invasions at low elevations, where non-native species are most abundant. But the results suggest that as non-native species continue to move upwards, due to climate warming and road networks, high elevation communities may also become increasingly similar in the future.

No single mechanism explains everything

Clearly, the effects of non-native species vary with region, elevation, and scale. Homogenisation and differentiation are driven by interconnected mechanisms such as invasion history, species frequency, environmental filtering, and human land use.

What do we to take away from this?

Most importantly, the addition of non-native species can contribute to homogenisation of roadside plant communities, especially at a global level. This is partly driven by the number of non-native species, but also by their frequency across multiple sites. The observed homogenisation in the study mainly results from the addition of the same non-native species, across regions, not from immediate loss of native species. Homogenisation through the replacement of native species, though not studied here, can also lead to possible risks to ecosystem functions and community resilience of plants.

Remember the plot twist of the study’s findings: There wasn’t only homogenisation, but also differentiation. We must keep in mind that the exact impact of homogenisation, differentiation and the transition between these two stages is not yet well known. Nonetheless, community differentiation through the addition of non-native species may also be beneficial. With the increasing impacts of climate change, non-native species can potentially increase functional resiliency of plant communities. But beware of the risks of the invasion of non-native species!

Our main take-away: Global homogenisation might be a signal that high-elevation plant communities along roadways may become more similar as non-native species continue to spread upwards.

A look into the future

This study provides us with the first global assessment of how non-native plants affect mountain plant community similarity along elevation gradients. In the future we need studies to investigate what mechanisms might drive homogenisation and differentiation by non-native species and what potential consequences for ecosystem function and resilience they have.

To be continued…

You want to learn more about the impact of non-native species on plant communities in mountain regions and the study’s findings? Then read the full article here: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/geb.70137

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 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 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