This article was originally posted on the blog of the Social-Ecological Systems Institute of Leuphana by Molly Parker on Gray et al. (2026) Multifaceted landscapes for grassland restoration: exploring individual perceptions on grasslands through photovoice (full citation at the bottom of this post).

Figure 1. Simplified representation of a social-ecological system (dotted arrows) with social-ecological restoration at the center (inspired by Bennett 2016; Kibler et al. 2018; Grenni et al. 2020). Transdisciplinary social-ecological restoration seeks to establish a beneficial feedback loop (lined arrows): on the one hand, drawing on local values and meanings (e.g. sense of place) [a] to foster care and knowledge co-production, thereby increasing engagement and agency [b]. On the other hand, achieving impacts to improve ecological conditions [c] so that the healthy ecosystem can continue to provide benefits [d]. With the photovoice method the researchers aimed to elicit individual perceptions of local actors, hence the focus in this paper is on the social feedback loop represented as [a] and [b].

This research was conducted in a real-world laboratory for social-ecological grassland restoration in central Germany within the biosphere reserve in the Southern Harz region. Using the photovoice method and concurrent semi-structured walking interviews, the authors set up a social-ecological intervention within the real-world lab by engaging with residents of the village and neighboring citizens. The photovoice exercise aimed not to collect ecological data, but instead to elicit individual perceptions of local actors.

The photos captured meaning and significance in an intelligible and creative form, which the researchers then coded and categorized. Through this, the results showed various perceptions and values of participants of the real-world lab towards grassland and biodiversity in their local landscape. The analysis revealed three narratives relevant to social-ecological grassland restoration:

1. Grasslands as meaningful landscape features. Participants valued grasslands as part of a broader cultural landscape mosaic which connects them to local history, identity, and sense of place. The aesthetic beauty of the open landscape was especially important.

Figure 2. Photovoice examples related to grasslands as meaningful landscape features narrative.

2. Social-ecological processes. Grasslands were perceived in relation to trees and shrubs, with widespread uncertainty about how much human intervention benefits biodiversity. Most recognized that management matters, yet perspectives ranged from stewardship to letting nature take its course. Grasslands provided both instrumental value (fodder, livelihoods) and relational value (recreation, well-being).

3. Unknown life in grasslands. Despite believing biodiversity was “sufficient,” most participants couldn’t assess which species were present or missing. Older residents remembered species that had disappeared, but younger participants lacked this baseline knowledge which outlines a gap that could underestimate the scale of loss.

These narratives provide an understanding of local human-nature relationships, encouraging discussion on how these narratives could cultivate local stewardship and build new pathways for social-ecological restoration. They suggest restoration efforts can succeed by building on existing landscape values and sense of place, fostering dialogue about human-nature relationships, and creating active engagement opportunities that strengthen people’s connection to grassland conservation.

Citation:
Konrad Gray, Anita Kirmer, Miguel Á. Cebrián-Piqueras, Vicky M. Temperton, Joern Fischer & Jacqueline Loos (2026) Multifaceted landscapes for grassland restoration: exploring individual perceptions on grasslands through photovoice, Ecosystems and People, 22:1, 2664493, DOI: 10.1080/26395916.2026.2664493

If you’re interested in the research of the Social-Ecological Systems Institute of Leuphana take a look at their blog. If you don’t want to miss any new articles on this blog right here, then scroll all the way to the bottom of the website to find the subscribtion tool.

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.

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.

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

An experiment bringing the mountain to the valley

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

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

What are the findings, and what do they mean?

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

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

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

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

A call to action for protecting montane and alpine ecosystems

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

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

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

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

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

The POEM set-up

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

Findings that dig deep

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

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

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

Implications that go beyond the plot

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Grassworks hypothesis

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

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

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

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

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

The second part with guest lectures on the multifunctionality of grassland

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

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

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

This is how it can work …

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

Conclusion & outlook

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

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.