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.

“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.

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

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

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

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

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

How do the scientists get these numbers?

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

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

A question of perspective

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

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

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

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

Grasslands against climate change?

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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