Summary1. Ecological restoration is a global priority that holds great potential for benefiting natural ecosystems, but restoration outcomes are notoriously unpredictable. Resolving this unpredictability represents a major, but critical challenge to the science of restoration ecology. 2. In an effort to move restoration ecology toward a more predictive science, we consider the key issue of variability. Typically, restoration outcomes vary relative to goals (i.e. reference or desired future conditions) and with respect to the outcomes of other restoration efforts. The field of restoration ecology has largely considered only this first type of variation, often focusing on an oversimplified success vs. failure dichotomy. The causes of variation, particularly among restoration efforts, remain poorly understood for most systems. 3. Variation associated with restoration outcomes is a consequence of how, where and when restoration is conducted; variation is also influenced by how the outcome of restoration is measured. We propose that variation should decrease with the number of factors constraining restoration and increase with the specificity of the goal. When factors (e.g. harsh environmental conditions, limited species reintroductions) preclude most species, little variation will exist among restorations, particularly when goals are associated with metrics such as physical structure, where species may be broadly interchangeable. Conversely, when few constraints to species membership exist, substantial variation may result and this will be most pronounced when restoration is assessed by metrics such as taxonomic composition. 4. Synthesis and applications. The variability we observe during restoration results from both restoration context (how, where and when restoration is conducted) and how we evaluate restoration outcomes. To advance the predictive capacity of restoration, we outline a research agenda that considers metrics of restoration outcomes, the drivers of variation among existing restoration efforts, experiments to quantify and understand variation in restoration outcomes, and the development of models to organise, interpret and forecast restoration outcomes.

Summary Ecological restoration is critical for mitigating habitat loss and providing ecosystem services. However, restorations often have lower diversity than remnant, reference sites. Phylogenetic diversity is an important component of biodiversity and ecosystem function that has only recently been used to evaluate restoration outcomes. To move towards prediction in the restoration of biodiversity, it is necessary to understand how phylogenetic diversity of restorations compares with that of reference sites, and where deficits are found, to evaluate factors constraining phylogenetic diversity. We quantified plant taxonomic and phylogenetic diversity in eastern tallgrass prairie, one of the most endangered ecosystems on earth. We measured diversity at large (site) and small (plot) scales in 19 restored prairies and compared patterns with those from 41 remnant prairies. To evaluate how environmental conditions and management actions influence outcomes, we tested the effects of soil properties and seed mix composition on diversity of restorations. Restored prairies were less phylogenetically diverse than remnants at both spatial scales. On the other hand, the total species richness of remnant and restored prairies did not significantly differ, but remnants had higher native richness. Restored communities were taxonomically and phylogenetically distinct from remnants. Soil properties (moisture and pH) influenced phylogenetic diversity and composition. There were positive relationships between the taxonomic and phylogenetic diversity of seed mixes and resulting diversity of planted assemblages (excluding volunteer species). Species in seed mixes were more closely related than expected by chance, and several clades found in remnant prairies were missing from seed mixes. Synthesis and applications. Restored tallgrass prairies had lower phylogenetic diversity than remnant prairies, which may contribute to the widely observed phenomenon of restorations not being functionally equivalent to reference sites. It is encouraging for restoration efforts that seed mix phylogenetic diversity predicted phylogenetic diversity of planted assemblages. This indicates that designing phylogenetically diverse seed mixes for restoration is beneficial. In addition, clades found in reference sites that are missing from restoration seed mixes could be added to new or existing restorations to reduce gaps in phylogenetic diversity. Further work on the effects of management on phylogenetic diversity is needed to advance restoration of biodiversity.

No abstract

Traits are important for understanding how plant communities assemble and function, providing a common currency for studying ecological processes across species, locations, and habitat types. However, the majority of studies relating species traits to community assembly rely upon vegetative traits of mature plants. Seed traits, which are understudied relative to whole‐plant traits, are key to understanding assembly of plant communities. This is particularly true for restored communities, which are typically started de novo from seed, making seed germination a critical first step in community assembly and an early filter for plant establishment. We experimentally tested the effects of seed traits (mass, shape, and embryo to seed size ratio) and phylogeny on germination response in 32 species commonly used in prairie grassland restoration in the Midwestern USA, analyzing data using time‐to‐event (survival) analysis. As germination is also influenced by seed dormancy, and dormancy break treatments are commonly employed in restoration, we also tested the effects of two pretreatments (cold stratification and gibberellic acid application) on time to germination. Seed traits, phylogeny, and seed pretreatments all affected time to germination. Of all traits tested, variables related to seed shape (height and shape variance) best predicted germination response, with high‐variance (i.e., pointier and narrower) seeds germinating faster. Phylogenetic position (the location of species on the phylogenetic tree relative to other tested species) was also an important predictor of germination response, that is, closely related species showed similar patterns in time to germination. This was true despite the fact that all measured seed traits showed phylogenetic signal, therefore phylogeny provided residual information that was not already captured by measured seed traits. Seed traits, phylogenetic position, and germination pretreatments were important predictors of germination response for a suite of species commonly used in grassland restoration. Shape traits were especially important, while mass, often the only seed trait used in studies of community assembly, was not a strong predictor of germination timing. These findings illustrate the ecological importance of seed traits that are rarely incorporated into functional studies of plant communities. This information can also be used to advance restoration practice by guiding restoration planning and seed mix design.

Seed delivery to site is a critical step in seed‐based restoration programs. Months or years of seed collection, conditioning, storage, and cultivation can be wasted if seeding operations are not carefully planned, well executed, and draw upon best available knowledge and experience. Although diverse restoration scenarios present different challenges and require different approaches, there are common elements that apply to most ecosystems and regions. A seeding plan sets the timeline and details all operations from site treatments through seed delivery and subsequent monitoring. The plan draws on site evaluation data (e.g. topography, hydrology, climate, soil types, weed pressure, reference site characteristics), the ecology and biology of the seed mix components (e.g. germination requirements, seed morphology) and seed quality information (e.g. seed purity, viability, and dormancy). Plan elements include: (1) Site treatments and seedbed preparation to remove undesirable vegetation, including sources in the soil seed bank; change hydrology and soil properties (e.g. stability, water holding capacity, nutrient status); and create favorable conditions for seed germination and establishment. (2) Seeding requirements to prepare seeds for sowing and determine appropriate seeding dates and rates. (3) Seed delivery techniques and equipment for precision seed delivery, including placement of seeds in germination‐promotive microsites at the optimal season for germination and establishment. (4) A monitoring program and adaptive management to document initial emergence, seedling establishment, and plant community development and conduct additional sowing or adaptive management interventions, if warranted. (5) Communication of results to inform future seeding decisions and share knowledge for seed‐based ecological restoration.

No abstract

Efforts to increase inclusion in science face multiple barriers, including cultural and social behaviors in settings such as academic conferences. Conferences are beneficial, but the culture can promote inequities and power differentials that harm historically underrepresented groups. Science suffers when conference culture propagates exclusion and discrimination that leads to attrition of scientists. Codes of conduct represent a tool to shift conference culture to better support diverse scientists and clearly detail unacceptable behaviors. We examined the prevalence and content of codes of conduct at biology conferences in the United States and Canada. We highlight how codes of conduct address issues of sexual misconduct and identity-based discrimination. Surprisingly, only 24% of the 195 surveyed conferences had codes. Of the conferences with codes, 43% did not mention sexual misconduct and 17% did not mention identity-based discrimination. Further, 26% of these conferences failed to include a way to report violations of the code and 35% lacked consequences for misconduct. We found that larger and national conferences are more likely to have codes than smaller (P = 0.04) and international or regional (P = 0.03) conferences. Conferences that lack codes risk creating and perpetuating negative environments that make underrepresented groups feel unwelcome, or worse, actively cause harm. We recommend that conferences have codes that are easily accessible, explicitly address identity-based discrimination and sexual misconduct, provide channels for anonymous impartial reporting, and contain clear consequences. These efforts will improve inclusivity and reduce the loss of scientists who have been historically marginalized.

Decision‐making is central to restoration practice, from the framing of objectives to the employment of tools and strategies. Yet, it remains largely unclear how decisions are made during restoration and this limits understanding of how restoration managers design and implement restoration projects and what restoration approaches may be most effective. This is true for tallgrass prairies in the Midwestern United States, which are commonly restored through seed sowing. To understand how managers make decisions during prairie restoration, we used a mixed‐methods approach including interviews, a focus group, and an online survey, to ask managers about: restoration objectives, factors influencing seed mix design, tools and resources used in seed mix design, seeding methods, and monitoring. Respondents considered biodiversity the most important restoration objective, and the most important biodiversity measures were species richness and functional group diversity. Seed mix design was influenced by seed availability. We identified 141 taxa that managers would like to use in restoration, but cannot due to factors like cost, availability, or problems with germination or establishment. Managers most frequently used their own experience and consultation with other practitioners to guide seed mix design; and commonly used tools developed within their organization. Most managers agreed that monitoring was important for assessing restoration outcomes, but were unable to devote enough time to monitoring. These findings illustrate opportunities for partnerships, among restoration managers, and among managers, seed producers, and researchers.