Abstract IntroductionVallisneria, a freshwater angiosperm critical to aquatic biodiversity and teal carbon storage in Great Barrier Reef catchments, has declined due to habitat degradation and poor water quality. Scalable restoration approaches are urgently needed to support ecological and climate outcomes.ObjectivesThis study aimed to evaluate two Vallisneria restoration techniques—manual transplanting and anchoring—under controlled conditions to determine their viability for broader application in tropical freshwater systems.MethodsShoots collected from the Johnstone River (Queensland, Australia) were acclimated and deployed across eight experimental tanks. Growth over 6 weeks was measured using the Plastochrone method, alongside water quality monitoring and carbon sequestration estimates derived from shoot length.ResultsBoth methods supported plant survival and rhizome expansion. Transplanting showed higher survivorship (87.5%) than anchoring (66.6%), though shoot growth was comparable: 98.1 cm (SE ± 33.9) for transplanting and 94.2 cm (SE ± 25.8) for anchoring (F = 2.49, p = 0.14). Estimated carbon sequestration ranged from 0.12 ± 0.10 to 0.22 ± 0.20 g C/m2 of shoot growth, with total accumulation of 2.42 g C/m2 over 6 weeks.ConclusionsBoth restoration methods are viable, with anchoring offering a scalable alternative where manual planting is unsafe or impractical.

Climate change is causing significant losses of coastal foundation species globally, heightening the need for their restoration. Despite the urgency, it remains unclear if enhancing genetic diversity by using distant source populations will improve restoration outcomes, or if local sources will perform better regardless of their diversity. We conducted a reciprocal transplant with Giant kelp (Macrocystis pyrifera) between a warm and cool microclimate 7 km apart in Barkley Sound, British Columbia, and tracked survivorship and growth over 6 months. We seeded kelp gametophyte cultures from the warm and cool site onto small rocks (i.e. “green gravel”) in a nursery, then outplanted them into experimental plots nearby the sites where the parents were collected. The number of parents used to make the cultures was also manipulated (two vs. 10) to simulate different levels of genetic diversity (average heterozygosity). Overall, we found inconsistent evidence for local adaptation between microclimates, and possibly signs of maladaptation in kelp from the warm site. Kelp from the more genetically diverse population at the cooler site survived 16% better and grew 8% larger regardless of the outplant site. Kelp grew up to 223% larger at the cool site but had higher mortality due to either urchin grazing or gravel turnover from swell. Surprisingly, kelp produced from two‐parent cultures survived 278% better than kelp from 10‐parent cultures at 6 months, despite higher observed rates of selfing. Our study provides new insights into factors influencing the restoration of these important temperate coastal foundation species.

In August 2024, the Nature Restoration Regulation came into force in the European Union (EU). This landmark legislation on ecosystem restoration may significantly improve the state of European's biodiversity and could profoundly contribute to implementing the Kunming‐Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. To realize this potential, the EU Member States need to underpin the objectives of the Nature Restoration Regulation with effective measures. Here, we highlight five factors for the success of national nature restoration policies: increased acceptance of nature restoration and landscape change; agreed quantitative and qualified national restoration targets; improved coordination of nature restoration with other land uses; supportive organizational and legal framework conditions; and increased attractiveness of nature restoration to land users and land owners. Drawing on recommendations developed for the German context by three national policy advisory bodies, we suggest that these factors also hold relevance for advancing nature restoration policies in other EU Member States.

Abstract IntroductionStakeholder engagement is a principle that underpins ecological restoration. However, how stakeholder engagement processes are conducted in large part determines the success of their outcomes.ObjectivesIn this systematic review, we investigate how stakeholders are identified and subsequently engaged in the marine and coastal restoration peer‐reviewed literature.MethodsTo conduct this systematic review, we selected articles from two electronic databases with broad coverage relevant to the topic of marine restoration: Scopus and Web of Science. Following the PRISMA framework, we analyzed 538 articles, deeming 54 of them relevant for the review.ResultsTwo bodies of literature emerged from our analysis: articles where scholars investigate stakeholders' perceptions of restoration or aspects of restoration (e.g. techniques, governance) and articles where scholars describe stakeholders' participation in restoration projects and planning. Across these two bodies of literature, we found key similarities and differences with respect to stakeholder identification and engagement practice. Importantly, we found that scholars investigating stakeholders' perceptions of restoration are more likely to provide information about stakeholder identification and engagement methods than scholars describing stakeholders' participation in restoration.ConclusionsAs stakeholder engagement is a key principle underpinning restoration, it is important for scholars to be transparent about how stakeholders are identified and engaged. Transparency highlights how inclusive a process is and promotes learning for future restoration projects working to engage stakeholders.

Abstract IntroductionMountain woodland restoration can enhance upland biodiversity and contribute to nature‐based solutions mitigating climate change impacts. However, high‐altitude planting of trees and shrubs requires considerable commitment of time and practical effort and should be evidence‐based to prioritize scarce resources for efficient restoration at scale. Many mountain woodlands have experienced substantial anthropogenic degradation into remnants that may not reflect past complexity and function.ObjectivesWe examine where planting can deliver effective outcomes in mountain woodland restoration outside the constraints of using present‐day distribution to indicate future potential. Following centuries of woodland clearance and overgrazing, Scotland has pioneered montane scrub restoration for over 30 years. This action offers the opportunity to study whether restoration replicating remaining habitat risks bias, or if outcomes can be improved through wider selection of planting locations.MethodsOur research uses a long‐term case study of Salix lapponum restoration planting in the Scottish Highlands to investigate the abiotic and biotic factors affecting treeline shrub health and productivity.ResultsOverall, only a small amount of variation in shrub growth and catkin presence was attributed to local environmental variables related to relict habitat conditions restricted to cliff ledges. There were positive associations with increasing soil fertility, vegetation height, soil depth, and tall herb cover and richness, but negative associations with increasing sedge and rush cover, soil wetness, and (contrary to expectations) soil pH.ConclusionsUsing present‐day relict habitat as the basis for mountain woodland restoration planning constrains planting to only a subset of potential locations.

IntroductionDry grasslands have suffered significant losses due to overgrazing and conversion into croplands in Europe.ObjectivesThis study investigates seed bank diversity and density along a succession gradient of abandoned crop fields in Transylvania, Romania, to assess the contribution of seed banks in spontaneous grassland regeneration.MethodsWe assessed seed bank composition and aboveground vegetation in young, medium‐aged, old‐abandoned arable fields, and old‐growth grasslands at three sites in the Transylvanian Basin.ResultsAnalysis revealed a unimodal relationship between species richness of the seed bank and succession stage. This is attributed to the seed rain of establishing species at the ascending part of the curve, and to seed viability loss, litter accumulation over time, which prevents seed penetration into the soil, and a declining abundance of ruderal species at the descending part. Although seed bank richness was lower than that of the aboveground vegetation at the plot level, half of the species from the entire species pool were represented in the seed bank at the landscape level. Furthermore, our trait‐based analysis revealed that slow‐colonizing grassland specialists with a transient seed bank typically exhibit a lack of alternative dispersal strategies and have insufficient clonal dispersal mechanisms.ConclusionsOur results support relatively high grassland regeneration potential from the seed bank in marginal abandoned fields at the landscape level, while suggesting that slow colonizing grassland species with transient seed banks should represent the main targets for reintroduction.

Public and stakeholder buy‐in is crucial for the success of ecological restoration. Social acceptability (SA) and many other similar concepts are used to understand and evaluate it in the implementation of projects. However, this concept, its terminology, and its application remain nebulous. In response, we set out to deconstruct it and come up with a reflection that would enable us to grasp what is at stake. To this end, we have developed an approach to deciphering the SA concept. Finally, we propose alternative conceptual options based on the different functions and objectives pursued by the uses of SA.

Abstract This study investigates the integration of river restoration with the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), focusing on the differences between European Union (EU) and Portuguese documents regarding river restoration terms. A thematic content analysis highlights that despite the varying document sizes, the proportion of mentions related to river restoration and management is similar, indicating comparable importance. Portuguese legislation prioritizes water management due to geographic and climatic conditions, emphasizing conditionality over proactive measures. The significance of wetlands and peatlands in Portuguese documents is linked to Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC 2) regulations, but active restoration terms are underutilized as opposed to passive restoration, reflecting a maintenance‐oriented approach. EU CAP documents emphasize agricultural impacts on the environment, aligning with the Water Framework Directive and addressing key topics such as wetlands, buffer zones, and agricultural constraints near waterbodies. The Portuguese CAP Strategic Plan restricts agri‐environmental commitments financing to Natura 2000 areas, excluding much farmland from support, with eco‐schemes and agri‐environmental measures being limited and underfunded. This study underscores the need for policy development to increase the adoption of voluntary, incentive‐based measures for more effective river restoration within European cropland.

In Brazil, large‐scale restoration of native forest vegetation will only be achieved by fostering the effective participation of rural landowners. Understanding the social‐ecological factors (e.g. farmer and farm characteristics and government management) influencing farmers' decisions is a prerequisite. To effectively inform policymakers, researchers and farmers must evaluate forest restoration of these agricultural lands and the ecosystem services the forest provides. We determined the underlying reasons for decreasing, maintaining, or increasing native forest cover in farms of different sizes over the past 35 years and the perceived ecosystem services or disservices of forest. We conducted structured interviews with 90 farmers across 13 municipalities with high forest cover turnover between 1985 and 2015 in São Paulo state. The interviews addressed socio‐economic and environmental factors. The main reasons for farmers to decrease forest cover were government incentives and to increase agricultural area. In contrast, water conservation and legislation compliance were the main reasons for conserving and restoring forest cover. Large farmers reported more reasons to decrease native forest than small and medium farmers. The benefits most perceived by farmers are related to water resources, while food production and carbon sequestration were the least‐perceived benefits, indicating that there is a scale gap in these benefits between farmers, government, and organizations. Large farmers' positive engagement in restoring forests is related to their interest in carbon credit markets. These farm‐level results provide necessary input for developing goal‐oriented and targeted forest landscape restoration policies that aim to regain ecological functionality and enhance human wellbeing.