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

– origin unknown, often attributed to an African proverb

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

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

A quick recap anyway

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

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

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

Setting the scene: The grand selection of tree species

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

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

Let us walk you through the workshop day by day

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

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

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

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

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

Impressions of the second day out in the fields:

What made these workshops special

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

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

But how do you get to this point of engagement?

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

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

What’s in store for the future

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

While the trees are growing

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

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

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

What happens after the planting?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A journey through the history of ecology

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

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

Taking the history of ecology into your own hands

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

Artificial intelligence to the rescue

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

A plea for cooperation between science and practice  

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

‘Insects are incredibly important for everything we do.’

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

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

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

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

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

New habitats at altitude

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photos: ©Jennifer Fandrich / Leuphana

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

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

A holistic approach to global restoration

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

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

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

Here’s what the study uncovered

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

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

An important comparison: forests vs. open ecosystems

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

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

Policy implications: less carbon, more resilience

So, what should we take from this?

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

What we need is a shift in mindset

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Of forests and knowledge gaps: a holistic view of climate protection

Temperton points out that there are considerable knowledge gaps in the scientific analysis of the climate protection potential of different ecosystems and that these constitute and reinforce silo thinking in both the scientific and political context. For example, there are fewer studies on how carbon storage is influenced by the intensity of land use, on the complexity of storage mechanisms and conditions, and fewer comparative studies on the storage capacity of different ecosystems. In the political sphere, the separation of the ministries of agriculture and nature conservation, for example, means that interactions between land use, habitat and climate protection are not sufficiently taken into account and considered together.

The current focus on afforestation as the best solution for climate protection should therefore also be viewed critically. The so-called “biome bias”, which favours forests in the public perception, can in the worst case even lead to ill-considered afforestation initiatives resulting in a loss of biodiversity at the expense of other ecosystems. However, the preservation of biodiversity is crucial for the effectiveness of climate protection measures, as a high level of biodiversity increases the stability and resilience of ecosystems and habitats.

Of interactions and foresight: thinking strategies together

We need to consider biodiversity loss as much as climate change as well as their interactions. In the search for good natural climate solutions, we would do well to undertake comparative scientific assessments that systematically compare the different multifunctional outcomes of different habitat types. Thus, more integrative measures should also be developed and implemented politically. One such measure is the restoration and preservation of species-rich grassland – a win-win solution for the protection of the climate and biodiversity.

The article calls for a broader consideration of the role of grasslands and other ecosystems such as peatlands, wetlands, heaths, mangroves and seagrass beds in climate science and policy. The complexity of ecological systems and processes must be recognised and the interactions between climate and species protection must be placed at the centre of an effective sustainable strategy.

You can find the article and the entire volume here (only German): https://www.klima-warnsignale.uni-hamburg.de/buchreihe/climate-engineering/

The “Warnsignal Klima” book series so far comprises 20 volumes with around 800 environmental and climate-related articles written by around 1,500 experts from almost 500 research and environmental organisations. The aim of the series is to contribute to the broad public debate at educational institutions, in the media, among interested people as well as in politics and administration about our relation to the environment and climate protection.