The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.

Free Access

Restoration Ecology: Repairing the Earth's Ecosystems in the New Millennium

R. J. Hobbs

Corresponding Author

 Address correspondence to R. J. Hobbs, School of Environmental Science, Murdoch University, Murdoch WA 6150, Australia
Search for more papers by this author
J. A. Harris

Department of Environmental Sciences , University of East London, Romford Road, London E15 4LZ, United Kingdom

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 21 December 2001
Cited by: 373

Abstract

The extent of human‐induced change and damage to Earth's ecosystems renders ecosystem repair an essential part of our future survival strategy, and this demands that restoration ecology provide effective conceptual and practical tools for this task. We argue that restoration ecology has to be an integral component of land management in today's world, and to be broadly applicable, has to have a clearly articulated conceptual basis. This needs to recognize that most ecosystems are dynamic and hence restoration goals cannot be based on static attributes. Setting clear and achievable goals is essential, and these should focus on the desired characteristics for the system in the future, rather than in relation to what these were in the past. Goal setting requires that there is a clear understanding of the restoration options available (and the relative costs of different options). The concept of restoration thresholds suggests that options are determined by the current state of the system in relation to biotic and abiotic thresholds. A further important task is the development of effective and easily measured success criteria. Many parameters could be considered for inclusion in restoration success criteria, but these are often ambiguous or hard to measure. Success criteria need to relate clearly back to specific restoration goals. If restoration ecology is to be successfully practiced as part of humanity's response to continued ecosystem change and degradation, restoration ecologists need to rise to the challenges of meshing science, practice and policy. Restoration ecology is likely to be one of the most important fields of the coming century.

Introduction

The start of the new millennium is a useful time to reflect and take stock of where we are and where we think we should be going. The latter part of the last millennium saw unprecedented changes in all aspects of human existence on Earth, not the least of which were the increasing numbers of humans on the planet and increasing impacts of humanity on Earth and all its ecosystems. In the twilight of the second millennium we switched to a new relationship with our planet, one in which humanity dominates all other living things, sequesters the majority of the products of photosynthesis and most of the available freshwater, and increasing proportions of Earth's fish stocks for its own use (Vitousek et al. 1997). In addition, humanity is collectively changing the composition of the atmosphere and transforming the Earth's ecosystems at an unprecedented rate, and in the process causing widespread damage to the life‐support systems upon which we, and every other living thing, depend.

The new millennium is thus something of a nexus for humanity, at which we need to decide whether we wish to proceed with this huge transformation of our planet, and in so doing, put our continued existence at increasing risk. Or whether we want to seek alternatives in which we aim to protect the resources, both living and abiotic, that we have left, and set about repairing some of the damage we have inflicted in the past. It is our hope that we have the collective wisdom to choose the latter course, and it is in this context that we consider the rapidly developing field of restoration ecology. If we are to persist on our planet, repair of Earth's ecosystems and the services they provide will be an essential component of our survival strategy. How well placed is the science of restoration ecology to meet this challenge? Does it have a sufficiently well‐developed conceptual or theoretical base to be applied broadly? Does it have a suitable arsenal of strategies and tactics to tackle the often intractable problems it encounters? Moreover, does it have sufficient pathways into policy and practice to enable it to be applied effectively and quickly?

In this paper we examine these questions, and provide what we hope will provide pointers for the way ahead.

Restoration as Part of Land Management

Much of the practice of ecological restoration is carried out after the devastation of land has occurred, which is best summed up by the phrase “I wouldn't start from here, if I were you.” It is useful to identify where restoration ecology fits in with current practices in land use. An apparent dichotomy is often erected between conservation and restoration, indicating that they are considered to be alternative options. Certainly, where funds are short for natural resource management, priorities have to be decided, and choices made (for instance, between land acquisition for nature reserves and restoration of degraded habitat areas). However, the dichotomy is a false one, since restoration activities should ideally be placed within a broader context of sustainable land use and conservation. In terms of nature conservation, there is no substitute for preserving good quality habitat, and the maintenance and management of this is a number one priority. However, in many parts of the world, this is either no longer an option because few areas of unaltered habitat remain, or it is no longer sufficient since the remaining habitat on its own cannot sustain the biota, and hence needs to be improved or expanded. Hence restoration is an integral part of conservation in many areas, and restoration ecology and conservation biology have much to gain from closer interaction with each other (Young 2000).

Similarly, restoration has an integral part to play in the development and maintenance of sustainable production systems. Virtually nowhere in the world can we claim to have truly sustainable production systems, since all production systems inevitably degrade the natural resources on which they depend, or rely heavily on external subsidies of energy, nutrients and/or water. If we are to develop sustainable systems, we have first to repair the damage that has been done by past and current systems.

We thus argue that ecological restoration is an integral component of land management in today's world. Hence, restoration ecology needs to ensure that it develops and maintains links with other disciplines relating to land management.

Conceptual Base

Why should restoration ecology bother about having a conceptual base to work from? It has been pointed out repeatedly that ecological restoration has been, and continues to be, practiced widely without apparent recourse to any background conceptual framework (Allen et al. 1997; Palmer et al. 1997). It has recently been suggested that, while we might need to develop conceptual bases to satisfy our academic need for basic research, we shouldn't let this get in the way of the huge operational restoration tasks which are required (Young 2000).

On the other hand, practitioners have identified the need for a much firmer ecological foundation for developing and implementing restoration projects (Clewell & Rieger 1997). In addition, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the assumptions underlying many restoration projects have their roots in outdated concepts of how ecological systems function. This has led to much angst over questions which are now largely irrelevant or unanswerable (Pickett & Parker 1994; Wyant et al. 1995; Parker & Pickett 1997; Middleton 1999). This is particularly true in relation to assumptions on the stability of ecological systems and their ability to return to particular equilibrium states following disturbance (Hobbs & Morton 1999) If we are to train restoration ecologists effectively for the future and equip them with skills that are transportable from one system to another, we need to have an up‐to‐date and comprehensive conceptual framework to provide a context for their activities.

It seems apparent then, that some attention needs to be paid to the conceptual basis for restoration, but that this be related back to features that are of importance in the practical realm (Fig. 1). As has been discussed more widely concerning the relationship between theoretical and applied ecology (Lawton 1996), there needs to be an ongoing dialog between the conceptual and on‐ground aspects of restoration ecology. The conceptual framework aims to provide general understanding of how ecosystems work and the factors involved in system restoration, while on‐the‐ground application requires methodologies which can be applied in specific situations. Ideally, there should be ongoing interaction between the general and the specific, so that the conceptual basis guides specific actions, while on‐the‐ground experiences feed back to refine the overall conceptual framework (Hobbs & Yates 1997).

image

The relationship between a conceptual framework, which aims to provide general understanding of how systems operate, and on‐the‐ground application, which requires methodologies relating to particular sites and situations. The arrow indicates the need for strong interaction and feedback between the two (adapted from Lawton 1996.

We have both been involved with the development of the conceptual basis of restoration ecology (Harris & Birch 1992; Harris et al. 1996; Hobbs & Norton 1996; Hobbs 1999), as have many others recently (Aronson et al. 1993a, 1993b; Allen et al. 1997; Pfadenhauer & Grootjans 1999; Urbanska et al. 1997; Whisenant 1999), and we will not reiterate much of this material here. Instead, we will highlight a few key points, which seem to be emerging as central components of this conceptual framework. We will not also dwell on the definition of restoration, since this has been aired repeatedly in the recent literature. While some argue that preciseness of definition is essential (Aronson & Le Floc'h 1996a; Higgs 1997), we take the view that goal definition is more important than definition of terms. Whatever a particular activity is called (restoration, rehabilitation, repair or other re‐ words), the clear enunciation of goals is essential for its success, and the ability to assess the progress toward success.

Dynamic Systems and Restoration Goals

Numerous attributes can be considered when we aim to set restoration goals. For instance, Hobbs & Norton (1996) identified ecosystem composition, structure, function, heterogeneity and resilience as attributes which might be considered. Higgs (1997) similarly suggested that restoration goals should focus on “ecological fidelity,” which comprises three elements; namely, structural/compositional replication, functional success and durability. In addition, recent discussions of ecosystem health have put forward system vigor, organization and resilience as properties which can be assessed (Rapport et al. 1998), and hence could be used to develop goals for restoration projects. These are all fine in general terms, but how do we turn these into effective goals for specific projects? Which attributes should we concentrate on? Do we aim for the whole lot, or are some more appropriate than others depending on the circumstances? We suggest that we need a clear rationale for setting goals, which takes into account the nature of the systems being restored, the factors leading to degradation and the types of action required to achieve restoration of different attributes.

Ecosystems are naturally dynamic entities, and hence the setting of restoration goals in terms of static compositional or structural attributes is problematic. Much of restoration ecology is backward looking, seeking to recreate ecosystems with properties which were characteristic of the system at some time in the past. There has been increasing debate as to whether this is either desirable or possible, due to the dynamic nature of ecosystems, and the irreversibility of some system changes (Pickett & Parker 1994; Aronson et al. 1995). Often, past system composition or structure are unknown or partially known, and past data provide only snapshots of system parameters. An alternative is to use nearby existing systems as a model or reference; this certainly can be used to advantage in inferring the likely management interventions needed to restore degraded systems (Yates et al. 1994; Noss 1996). Current undegraded systems at least have the advantage that their structure and dynamics can be studied in detail. These can, therefore, act as potential reference systems against which the success of restoration efforts in degraded systems can be measured. This approach is also not without problems, however, since apparent matching of the restored system with the reference system in terms of composition may mask continued underlying differences in function (Zedler 1995, 1996).

An alternative approach is to explicitly recognize the dynamic nature of ecosystems, and to accept that there is a range of potential short‐ and long‐term outcomes of restoration projects. The aim should be to have a transparent and defensible method of setting goals for restoration which focus on the desired characteristics for the system in the future, rather than in relation to what these were in the past (Pfadenhauer & Grootjans 1999). As Captain Kirk on the USS Enterprise said, “What binds us to the past prevents us from embracing the future.” If we change the focus of restoration from trying to recreate something from the past to trying to repair damage and creating systems which fulfill sensible goals, we will go a long way to solving many of the conundrums facing the science and practice of restoration ecology. Of course, the goals set for a particular area might still include the retention or restoration of particular compositional or structural elements, but this should be only one of a number of potential goals. Where it is impossible or extremely expensive to restore composition and structure, alternative goals are appropriate. These may aim to repair damage to ecological function or ecosystem services (which may be a more appropriate goal in some situations, in any case – see below), or to create a novel system using species not native to the region or suited to particular physico‐chemical constraints (Wheeler et al 1995). These novel systems will be appropriate in some situations and not in others, depending on the pre‐defined goals of the restoration activities.

Goal setting thus becomes an extremely important component of the restoration process. Goals for a particular site, or more broadly for a landscape, will need to be determined iteratively by considering the ecological potential for restoration and matching this against societal desires. Higgs (1997) has suggested that “Good ecological restoration entails negotiating the best possible outcome for a specific site based on ecological knowledge and the diverse perspectives of interested stakeholders: to this end it is as much process as product oriented.” This argues for an adaptive approach to restoration (Fig. 2), which garners ecological knowledge from as many sources as possible (including on‐the‐ground practitioners), and uses this knowledge to develop ecological response models which can indicate the likely outcomes of restoration activities. Which restoration option is taken up is decided on the basis of stakeholder expectations and goals, and the extent to which it is implemented depends on the degree of financial and resource input from various sectors, including individual investment and public subsidy or incentives (Hobbs & Saunders 2001). As Higgs (1997) points out, the success of restoration depends greatly on an open and effective process of arriving at mutually‐agreed upon restoration goals.

A framework for identifying restoration options based on response models developed from a variety of data sources and in relation to the goals of individual managers and society at large. Implementation of particular options will depend on the availability of resources, policy instruments, etc. Monitoring and evaluation is an essential part of the process, which not only assesses the success of a project in relation to the stated goals, but also feeds back to the response model (modified from Hobbs & Saunders 2001.

Restoration Options

Arriving at clear restoration goals requires that there is a clear picture of the restoration options available for a particular site, landscape or region. Often, restoration projects launch full steam ahead into activities which may either be inappropriate to particular goals or which target apparent symptoms without considering underlying causes. For instance, in the Western Australian wheatbelt, fencing out livestock is frequently seen to be a primary activity needed for the restoration of native woodland communities, but this fails to address more fundamental changes caused by soil degradation (Yates et al. 2000). Similarly, projects that aim at system restoration through the removal or control of invasive weed species frequently miss the point that the weed invasion is merely a symptom of more fundamental system change (Hobbs & Humphries 1995). Hence, restoration activities need to be prefaced by a rigorous assessment of the current state of the particular system or landscape, and the underlying factors leading to that state. Once this has been achieved, a clearer picture of the necessary restoration activities is possible, and a range of restoration options can be arrived at.

This is where the requirement for ecological response models becomes apparent. These models can be simple or complex, quantitative or conceptual, but they need to capture the essence of the system and its dynamics. Here again, there needs to be consideration of both general characteristics of ecosystems and more specific elements relating to specific cases. A general feature of many systems seems to be the potential for the system to exist in a number of different states, and the likelihood that restoration thresholds exist, which prevent the system from returning to a less‐degraded state without the input of management effort (Hobbs & Norton 1996). Whisenant (1999) has recently suggested that two main types of such threshold are likely: one that is caused by biotic interactions, and the other caused by abiotic limitations. Figure 3a illustrates these two thresholds and indicates that the type of restoration response needed depends on which, if any, thresholds have been crossed. If the system has degraded mainly due to biotic changes (such as grazing‐induced changes in vegetation composition), restoration efforts need to focus on biotic manipulations which remove the degrading factor (e.g., the grazing animal) and adjust the biotic composition (e.g., replant desired species). If, on the other hand, the system has degraded due to changes in abiotic features (such as through soil erosion or contamination), restoration efforts need to focus first on removing the degrading factor and repairing the physical and/or chemical environment. In the latter case, there is little point in focusing on biotic manipulation without first tackling the abiotic problems.

image

(a) Conceptual model of system transitions between states of varying levels of function, illustrating the presence of two types of restoration threshold, one controlled by biotic interactions and one controlled by abiotic limitations (adapted from Whisenant 1999. (b) A similar model applied to landscapes, indicating transition thresholds controlled by loss of biotic connectivity and loss of physical landscape function.

The above argument is akin to ensuring that system functioning is corrected or maintained before questions of biotic composition and structure are considered. Considering system function provides a useful framework for the initial assessment of the state of the system and the subsequent selection of repair measures (Tongway & Ludwig 1996; Ludwig et al. 1997). Where function is not impaired, restoration can legitimately focus on composition and structure as parameters to be considered when setting goals.

The same scheme can be considered at a landscape scale. Hobbs and Norton (1996) and others have emphasized the need for restoration ecology to develop effective approaches for broad‐scale restoration at landscape and regional scales. At broad scales, however, it becomes even more difficult to decide what should be restored, where and how. Attempts to focus on key landscape attributes have so far provided many possible parameters (Aronson & Le Floc'h 1996b), but not much of a framework in which to set priorities and goals. We suggest that a start can be made on this by considering whether restoration thresholds exist at the landscape scale. It can be hypothesized that similar threshold types might exist at this scale as are apparent in particular ecosystems or sites (Fig. 3b). Thus, one type of threshold relates to the loss of biotic connectivity as habitat becomes increasingly fragmented and modified, while another relates to whether landscape modification has resulted in broad‐scale changes in landscape physical processes, such as hydrology. Here again, this schema can assist in setting restoration priorities. If the landscape has crossed a biotic threshold, restoration needs to aim at restoring connectivity. If, on the other hand, a physical threshold has been crossed, this needs to be treated as a priority. Hence, for instance, in a fragmented forested landscape, the primary goal may be the provision of additional habitat or reestablishing connectivity for particular target species, whereas in a modified river or wetland system, the primary need may be to reestablish water flows (Middleton 1999).

Of course, within these broad categorizations, there may be numerous sub‐categories and thresholds. For instance, McIntyre and Hobbs (1999, 2001) have recently explored how to categorize landscapes in terms of the degree of habitat destruction and modification, and hence how to assign management and restoration priorities. It may also be the case that the restoration activities required to overcome particular physical changes also act to overcome biotic thresholds. An example of this would be if extensive revegetation is required to counteract hydrological imbalances, and at the same time can have a positive impact on biotic connectivity (Hobbs 1993; Hobbs et al. 1993).

Once the options for restoration have been derived from an ecological response model, these then have to be considered in the broader context of individual and societal goals. To succeed, restoration activities need not only to be based on sound ecological principles and information, but also to be economically possible and practically achievable. They also have to take their place amongst other options such as providing more resources to protect existing habitats. There is also always the “do nothing” option, which is often the easiest, but not necessarily the most desirable. Often another primary driver in deciding which options will be pursued is the prevailing political climate, which drives government support and funding for restoration activities. Unfortunately, political opportunism often plays more of a part in setting priorities and deciding on options than any rational process.

Measurements of Success

We will not discuss in detail the implementation of restoration projects here, but will consider the need for adequate measures of progress toward agreed‐upon restoration goals. These are important for many reasons, not the least of which are the statutory requirements often placed on management agencies, mining companies and the like to demonstrate adequate achievement of stated goals. If we have goals relating to composition, structure, function and the like, what measures do we use to quantify the success, or otherwise, of the restoration process?

There have been numerous attempts to provide categories of assessment that will contribute to a picture of the “healthy ecosystem,” which have varying degrees of ease of measurement. Biological potential inventory is probably the earliest form of ecosystem assessment, typified by the species list. This can take the form of a simple list of plant species, extending to complex descriptions of everything from bacteria to avian guild structures, including abundance measurements. Although this can be extremely useful for assessing conservation status, and is greatly improved by measurements over time, it often does not get to the basics of what is causing the degradation, rather simply reflecting the magnitude and direction of its effect. We also need to ask what level of structural/compositional replication we want to set as a goal. We also need to consider how this relates to normal successional processes (Parker 1997). If the goal is to speed up system development beyond what would happen without intervention, how fast is fast enough, and can we compare different trajectories effectively? Can we be sure that a trajectory model for system development is appropriate (Zedler & Callaway 1999)?

More complex measurements of biological integrity can assess food‐web complexity and the development of symbiotic relationships. However, difficulty of assessment increases greatly. Measurements relating to ecosystem function can include measurements of production, standing crop, mass balance and mineral cycling pools, particularly fixation, mineralization, immobilization and “leakiness.” The problem with all these measures lies in determining what the target should be, in relation to the problems discussed above concerning reference systems.

Other more abstract possibilities may be worth pursuing. For instance, the concept of entropy points to a gradual decline in order in all systems over time (Miller 1971). All living entities remain “alive” by pumping out disorder, i.e., maintaining themselves against thermodynamic gradients by taking in energy and locally reducing the production of entropy, by organizing small molecules (mineral ions and gases) into large ones (organic molecules and DNA). Similarly, human activities in maintaining production systems aim to impose order, but frequently succeed in increasing disorder in the surrounding environment. Addiscott (1995) has suggested that an audit of small versus large molecules (a ratio) may be useful as a measurement of sustainability, and hence also as a measure of restoration status. Therefore, in an efficient system, small molecules should persist for only short periods before being reassimilated by the biomass. In addition, any gaseous losses should be balanced by uptake. These parameters are readily amenable to measurement. This may be achieved by careful measurement of the rates of flux of small molecules from a site, combined with an estimation of how much material is bound in the living biomass. This then offers a true “systems condition” parameter with which to gauge success.

A potential index for use in tracking restoration is that of “1/f noise.” 1/f noise is the signal that emerges when the rate of change in a parameter of a system is measured. For example, if the rate of change in the height of the water table in a peat bog is measured, and the reciprocal of this rate plotted, then the 1/f power relationship results. This reciprocal signal of rate fluxes can be found in a range of phenomena as diverse as traffic flow, evolutionary extinction rates and stock market price fluctuations (Bak 1997), and indicates that the system is fluctuating “efficiently.” We can measure rates of change in water levels, fixation rates, nitrogen fluxes and population sizes. In natural systems we should get 1/f noise signals. Therefore, one concrete aim of a restoration would be to “restore” this signal.

This treatment of how to measure the progress of restoration projects has, like most others in the literature, been superficial and poses more questions than it answers. We suggest that measures of success have to be linked back to clear definitions of goals for restoration. Assessment processes can be complicated and expensive, and if they are too complicated or expensive, they will not be carried out. There is no point in assessing something unless it relates to specific goals. If the restoration goal is to “reestablish a diverse vegetation cover resembling that present before disturbance,” we do not know how diverse is diverse enough, how closely the vegetation needs to resemble the pre‐disturbance vegetation, and in all likelihood do not have a clear picture of what the pre‐disturbance vegetation was anyway. Any assessment process will thus produce equivocal results. If, on the other hand, we have as a goal “to reestablish vegetation with a woodland structure of 20 trees per hectare, comprising local provenance native species which attain a height of at least 2 m within 5 years, and an understory of native shrubs, forbs and herbs achieving a site diversity of 25 +/– 6 species,” we can then start to measure the actual performance of the restoration in these terms. This goal can be set in relation to data on the pre‐existing vegetation, or to the composition of adjacent vegetation, or can be settled on by discussion with stakeholders about what may be possible and desirable on the site.

Putting This into Practice

The start of the new millennium is a good time to take up a challenge. There are plenty of challenges facing humanity in this new era, and here we have focused on the particular challenges facing restoration ecologists. We present the challenge to restoration practitioners and scientists alike to get our act together and devise and deliver effective restoration strategies and practices which can help repair the widespread ecological damage left to us from the last millennium. We need effective interaction between scientific analysis, land‐user innovation and the development of principles. We need effective links between academics, practitioners and policy makers at all levels. We need the translation of research findings into action, and continuous feedback between users and researchers. We need to make sure that our actions are based on the best knowledge available now, and that managers have up‐to‐date paradigms in their heads when they act. At the same time, we need to ensure that researchers ask questions that are relevant to the real world. It has been argued that this could form part of an on‐going professional accreditation program (Harris 1997).

Restoration ecologists cannot find all the answers by themselves. Indeed, it is not our place to answer all the questions relating to what restoration goals should be and how they should be achieved. These discussions need to be held more broadly within society. What we can provide, however, is input to this discussion in relation to the ecological validity, costs and likelihood of success of various restoration options. Restoration ecology provides positive hope for the future, and hence restoration ecologists have a weighty responsibility to ensure that our science and practice live up to expectations.

Number of times cited: 373

  • , Rivers to reservoirs: hydrological drivers control reservoir function by affecting the abundance of submerged and floating macrophytes, Hydrobiologia, (2018).
  • , Evidence‐based restoration in the Anthropocene—from acting with purpose to acting for impact, Restoration Ecology, 26, 2, (201-205), (2018).
  • , Legacy issues in post‐pine (Pinus pinaster) restoration environments: Weeds compromise seedling growth and function more than edaphic factors, Land Degradation & Development, 29, 6, (1694-1704), (2018).
  • , Measuring progress in status of land under forest landscape restoration using abiotic and biotic indicators, Restoration Ecology, 26, 1, (5-12), (2018).
  • , Legacies, lags and long‐term trends: Effective flow restoration in a changed and changing world, Freshwater Biology, 63, 8, (986-995), (2017).
  • , Reclamation strategies for mined forest soils and overstorey drive understorey vegetation, Journal of Applied Ecology, 55, 2, (926-936), (2017).
  • , What the ecosystem approach does to conservation practices, Biological Conservation, 10.1016/j.biocon.2018.01.027, 219, (153-160), (2018).
  • , Effects of aeolian processes on soil nutrient loss in the Gonghe Basin, Qinghai–Tibet Plateau: an experimental study, Journal of Soils and Sediments, 18, 1, (229), (2018).
  • , Dangerous life at the edge: Implications of seed predation for roadside revegetation, Applied Vegetation Science, 21, 1, (55-63), (2017).
  • , Knowledge and community resilience in rangelands recovery: the case of Wadi Allaqi Biosphere Reserve, South Eastern Desert, Egypt, Restoration Ecology, 26, S1, (S37-S43), (2018).
  • , Implementing the ISO 50001 System: A Critical Review, ISO 9001, ISO 14001, and New Management Standards, 10.1007/978-3-319-65675-5_9, (145-175), (2017).
  • , Soil nitrogen dynamics as an indicator for longleaf pine restoration, Restoration Ecology, 26, 2, (264-274), (2017).
  • , Interaction mechanism between floristic quality and environmental factors during ecological restoration in a mine area based on structural equation modeling, Ecological Engineering, 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2018.09.021, 124, (23-30), (2018).
  • , Assessing occupancy of freshwater fishes in urban boat slips of Toronto Harbour, Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management, 10.1080/14634988.2018.1507530, 21, 3, (331-341), (2018).
  • , Integrating species traits into species pools, Ecology, 99, 6, (1265-1276), (2018).
  • , Emerging approaches to successful ecological restoration: five imperatives to guide innovation, Restoration Ecology, 25, S2, (S110-S113), (2017).
  • , Can postmining revegetation create habitat for a threatened mammal?, Ecological Management & Restoration, 18, 2, (149-155), (2017).
  • , Comparative Assessment of Goods and Services Provided by Grazing Regulation and Reforestation in Degraded Mediterranean Rangelands, Land Degradation & Development, 28, 4, (1178-1187), (2015).
  • , What motivates ecological restoration?, Restoration Ecology, 25, 5, (832-843), (2017).
  • , Plant functional traits and environmental conditions shape community assembly and ecosystem functioning during restoration, Journal of Applied Ecology, 54, 4, (1070-1079), (2017).
  • , Toward prediction in the restoration of biodiversity, Journal of Applied Ecology, 54, 4, (1013-1017), (2017).
  • , Interpreting variation to advance predictive restoration science, Journal of Applied Ecology, 54, 4, (1018-1027), (2017).
  • , Soil microbial community composition in tallgrass prairie restorations converge with remnants across a 27‐year chronosequence, Environmental Microbiology, 19, 8, (3118-3131), (2017).
  • , Integrated planning framework for successful river restoration projects: Upscaling lessons learnt from European case studies, Environmental Science & Policy, 10.1016/j.envsci.2017.06.005, 76, (12-22), (2017).
  • , Overview of Ecological Restoration Technologies and Evaluation Systems, Journal of Resources and Ecology, 8, 4, (315), (2017).
  • , I Ka Wā Ma Mua: The Value of a Historical Ecology Approach to Ecological Restoration in Hawai‘i, Pacific Science, 71, 4, (437), (2017).
  • , Tropical plant communities modify soil aggregate stability along a successional vegetation gradient on a Ferralsol, Ecological Engineering, 109, (161), (2017).
  • , A ranking system for prescribed burn prioritization in Table Mountain National Park, South Africa, Journal of Environmental Management, 10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.12.070, 190, (283-289), (2017).
  • , Halting and restoring species loss: incorporating the concepts of extinction debt, ecological trap and dark diversity into conservation and restoration law, Griffith Law Review, 10.1080/10383441.2017.1355873, 26, 2, (178-201), (2017).
  • , Identifying suitable multifunctional restoration areas for Forest Landscape Restoration in Central Chile, Ecosphere, 8, 1, (2017).
  • , Exotic weeds and fluctuating microclimate can constrain native plant regeneration in urban forest restoration, Ecological Applications, 27, 4, (1268-1279), (2017).
  • , Acoustic telemetry and fisheries management, Ecological Applications, 27, 4, (1031-1049), (2017).
  • , Phylogenetic diversity is maintained despite richness losses over time in restored tallgrass prairie plant communities, Journal of Applied Ecology, 54, 1, (137-144), (2016).
  • , Native seed for restoration: a discussion of key issues using examples from the flora of southern Australia, The Rangeland Journal, 10.1071/RJ17055, 39, 6, (487), (2017).
  • , Public values and preference certainty for stream restoration in forested watersheds in Finland, Water Resources and Economics, 17, (56), (2017).
  • , A proposal for assessing the success of soil bioengineering work by analysing vegetation: results of two case studies in the Italian Alps, Landscape and Ecological Engineering, 13, 2, (305), (2017).
  • , The need for broader ecological and socioeconomic tools to evaluate the effectiveness of coral restoration programs, Restoration Ecology, 25, 6, (873-883), (2017).
  • , The science, policy and practice of nature-based solutions: An interdisciplinary perspective, Science of The Total Environment, 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.11.106, 579, (1215-1227), (2017).
  • , A new visitation paradigm for protected areas, Tourism Management, 60, (140), (2017).
  • , Impacts of invasive alien trees on threatened lowland vegetation types in the Cape Floristic Region, South Africa, South African Journal of Botany, 10.1016/j.sajb.2016.10.014, 108, (209-222), (2017).
  • , Conceptual Frameworks and References for Landscape-scale Restoration: Reflecting Back and Looking Forward , , Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden, 10.3417/2017003, 102, 2, (188-200), (2017).
  • , Restoring Andean Landscapes to Secure Local Environmental Services and Global Benefits, Mountain Research and Development, 37, 1, (153), (2017).
  • , Exotic black rats increase invertebrate Ordinal richness in urban habitat remnants, Biological Invasions, 19, 4, (1315), (2017).
  • , Amphibian species and functional diversity as indicators of restoration success in tropical montane forest, Biodiversity and Conservation, 10.1007/s10531-017-1372-2, 26, 11, (2569-2589), (2017).
  • , Degradation by coal mining should be priority in restoration planning, Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation, 10.1016/j.pecon.2017.05.006, 15, 3, (202-205), (2017).
  • , Nutritional physiology and ecology of wildlife in a changing world, Conservation Physiology, 5, 1, (2017).
  • , Carbon and nutrient stocks of three Fabaceae trees used for forest restoration and subjected to fertilization in Amazonia, Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências, 89, 3, (1761), (2017).
  • , An expert panel process to evaluate habitat restoration actions in the Columbia River estuary, Journal of Environmental Management, 188, (337), (2017).
  • , Exploitation of Annual and Perennial Herbaceous Species for the Rehabilitation of a Sand Quarry in a Mediterranean Environment, Land Degradation & Development, 27, 2, (346-356), (2013).
  • , Development of soil food web of microbes and nematodes under different agricultural practices during the early stage of pedogenesis of a Mollisol, Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 10.1016/j.soilbio.2016.04.011, 98, (208-216), (2016).
  • , Assessing the geomorphic recovery potential of rivers: forecasting future trajectories of adjustment for use in management, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, 3, 5, (727-748), (2016).
  • , A rewilding agenda for Europe: creating a network of experimental reserves, Ecography, 39, 2, (2015).
  • , National standards for the practice of ecological restoration in Australia, Restoration Ecology, 24, (S4-S32), (2016).
  • , The relative influence of in situ and neighborhood factors on reptile recolonization in post‐mining restoration sites, Restoration Ecology, 24, 4, (517-527), (2016).
  • , A framework for establishing restoration goals for contaminated ecosystems, Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 12, 2, (264-272), (2015).
  • , Transforming ecosystems: When, where, and how to restore contaminated sites, Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 12, 2, (273-283), (2015).
  • , Natural forest regeneration and ecological restoration in human‐modified tropical landscapes, Biotropica, 48, 6, (745-757), (2016).
  • , Interactions between soil physicochemistry and belowground biomass production in a freshwater tidal marsh, Plant and Soil, 401, 1-2, (397), (2016).
  • , Floristic Quality Index for woodland ground flora restoration: Utility and effectiveness in a fire-managed landscape, Ecological Indicators, 67, (58), (2016).
  • , Low-Tech Alternatives for the Rehabilitation of Aquatic and Riparian Environments, Phytoremediation, 10.1007/978-3-319-41811-7_18, (349-364), (2016).
  • , Using palaeoecological and palaeoenvironmental records to guide restoration, conservation and adaptive management of Ramsar freshwater wetlands: lessons from the Everglades, USA, Marine and Freshwater Research, 67, 6, (707), (2016).
  • , Using performance standards to guide vernal pool restoration and adaptive management, Restoration Ecology, 24, 2, (145-152), (2016).
  • , Structural complexity and component type increase intertidal biodiversity independently of area, Ecology, 97, 2, (383-393), (2016).
  • , Restoring Limestone Quarries: Hayseed, Commercial Seed Mixture or Spontaneous Succession?, Land Degradation & Development, 27, 2, (316-324), (2013).
  • , Urban river design and aesthetics: a river restoration case study from the UK, Journal of Urban Design, 21, 4, (512), (2016).
  • , Selection of forest species for the rehabilitation of disturbed soils in oil fields in the Ecuadorian Amazon, Science of The Total Environment, 566-567, (761), (2016).
  • , Intrinsic and extrinsic controls on the geomorphic condition of upland swamps in Eastern NSW, CATENA, 10.1016/j.catena.2015.09.002, 137, (100-112), (2016).
  • , Using silvicultural practices to regulate competition, resource availability, and growing conditions for Pinus palustris seedlings underplanted in Pinus taeda forests, Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 46, 7, (902), (2016).
  • , Quantifying the hazardous impacts of human-induced land degradation on terrestrial ecosystems: a case study of karst areas of south China, Environmental Earth Sciences, 10.1007/s12665-016-5903-z, 75, 15, (2016).
  • , Aeolian processes and their effect on sandy desertification of the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau: A wind tunnel experiment, Soil and Tillage Research, 10.1016/j.still.2015.12.004, 158, (67-75), (2016).
  • , River rehabilitation as an opportunity for ecological landscape design, Sustainable Cities and Society, 20, (142), (2016).
  • , Ecofunctional Traits and Biomass Production in Leguminous Tree Species under Fertilization Treatments during Forest Restoration in Amazonia, Forests, 7, 12, (76), (2016).
  • , Food Web Theory and Ecological Restoration, Foundations of Restoration Ecology, 10.5822/978-1-61091-698-1_11, (301-329), (2016).
  • , Macroecology and the Theory of Island Biogeography: Abundant Utility for Applications in Restoration Ecology, Foundations of Restoration Ecology, 10.5822/978-1-61091-698-1_16, (455-483), (2016).
  • , Can transplantation of forest seedlings be a strategy to enrich seedling production in plant nurseries?, Forest Ecology and Management, 375, (96), (2016).
  • , Mapping Changes in Land Cover Composition and Pattern for Comparing Mediterranean Rangeland Restoration Alternatives, Land Degradation & Development, 27, 3, (671-681), (2015).
  • , Diel variability in fish assemblages in coastal wetlands and tributaries of the St. Lawrence River: a cautionary tale for fisheries monitoring, Aquatic Sciences, 10.1007/s00027-015-0422-7, 78, 2, (267-277), (2015).
  • , Factors limiting vegetation recovery processes after cessation of cropping in a semiarid grassland in Mongolia, Journal of Arid Environments, 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2016.03.008, 131, (1-5), (2016).
  • , Seed banks as a source of vegetation regeneration to support the recovery of degraded rivers: A comparison of river reaches of varying condition, Science of The Total Environment, 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.10.118, 542, (591-602), (2016).
  • , Ecological Dynamics and Ecological Restoration, Foundations of Restoration Ecology, 10.5822/978-1-61091-698-1_2, (27-56), (2016).
  • , Assessing the efficacy of community-based natural resource management planning with a multi-watershed approach, Biological Conservation, 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.06.026, 201, (120-128), (2016).
  • , Habitat restoration: Early signs and extent of faunal recovery relative to seagrass recovery, Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 171, (51), (2016).
  • , Prioritizing boreal forest restoration sites based on disturbance regime, Forest Ecology and Management, 10.1016/j.foreco.2015.11.003, 361, (90-98), (2016).
  • , Identifying key sedimentary indicators of geomorphic structure and function of upland swamps in the Blue Mountains for use in condition assessment and monitoring, CATENA, 10.1016/j.catena.2016.08.016, 147, (564-577), (2016).
  • , Environment, Sustainability in the Mineral and Energy Sectors, 10.1201/9781315369853-14, (225-243), (2016).
  • , Restoring for the present or restoring for the future: enhanced performance of two sympatric oaks (Quercus ilex and Quercus pyrenaica) above the current forest limit, Restoration Ecology, 23, 6, (936-946), (2015).
  • , Guidelines for evaluating performance of oyster habitat restoration, Restoration Ecology, 23, 6, (737-745), (2015).
  • , The science and practice of river restoration, Water Resources Research, 51, 8, (5974-5997), (2015).
  • , Developing and using geomorphic condition assessments for river rehabilitation planning, implementation and monitoring, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, 2, 6, (649-667), (2015).
  • , Changing the Course of Rivers in an Asian City: Linking Landscapes to Human Benefits through Iterative Modeling and Design, JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 51, 3, (672-688), (2015).
  • , Grizzly bear diet shifting on reclaimed mines, Global Ecology and Conservation, 10.1016/j.gecco.2015.06.007, 4, (207-220), (2015).
  • , AVALIAÇÃO DE MÉTODOS DE RESTAURAÇÃO FLORESTAL DE MATA DE TABULEIROS-ES, Revista Árvore, 39, 1, (69), (2015).
  • , Optimal Conservation Outcomes Require Both Restoration and Protection, PLOS Biology, 13, 1, (e1002052), (2015).
  • , Management of freshwater fisheries, Freshwater Fisheries Ecology, (557-579), (2015).
  • , Restoring functional riparian ecosystems: concepts and applications, Ecohydrology, 8, 5, (747-752), (2015).
  • , Selecting cost‐effective areas for restoration of ecosystem services, Conservation Biology, 29, 2, (493-502), (2014).
  • , Contribution of genetics to ecological restoration, Molecular Ecology, 24, 1, (22-37), (2014).
  • , Advances in restoration ecology: rising to the challenges of the coming decades, Ecosphere, 6, 8, (1-25), (2015).
  • , The food web of a severely contaminated site following reclamation with warm season grasses, Restoration Ecology, 23, 4, (421-429), (2015).
  • , A comparison of clearfelling and gradual thinning of plantations for the restoration of insect herbivores and woodland plants, Journal of Applied Ecology, 52, 6, (1538-1546), (2015).
  • , Influence of different storage conditions on quality characteristics of seed material from semi‐natural grassland, Grass and Forage Science, 70, 3, (549-556), (2014).
  • , Abundance and Diet of Predatory Fishes in Phragmites, Treated Phragmites, and Natural Spartina Marshes in Delaware Bay, Estuaries and Coasts, 38, 4, (1350), (2015).
  • , Plant–soil interactions in metal contaminated soils, Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 80, (224), (2015).
  • , Application of Science-Based Restoration Planning to a Desert River System, Environmental Management, 10.1007/s00267-015-0481-5, 55, 6, (1246-1261), (2015).
  • , Separation of soil microbial community structure by aggregate size to a large extent under agricultural practices during early pedogenesis of a Mollisol, Applied Soil Ecology, 88, (9), (2015).
  • , Creating complex habitats for restoration and reconciliation, Ecological Engineering, 77, (307), (2015).
  • , Effects of aeolian processes on nutrient loss from surface soils and their significance for sandy desertification in Mu Us Desert, China: a wind tunnel approach, Journal of Arid Land, 10.1007/s40333-015-0043-y, 7, 4, (421-428), (2015).
  • , Identifying Challenges to Building an Evidence Base for Restoration Practice, Sustainability, 7, 12, (15871), (2015).
  • , If we build it, will they colonize? A test of the field of dreams paradigm with soil macroinvertebrate communities, Applied Soil Ecology, 91, (80), (2015).
  • , Does tallgrass prairie restoration enhance the invasion resistance of post-agricultural lands?, Biological Invasions, 17, 12, (3579), (2015).
  • , Rehabilitating Upland Swamps Using Environmental Histories: A Case Study of the Blue Mountains Peat Swamps, Eastern Australia, "Geografiska Annaler: Series A, Physical Geography", 97, 2, (337-353), (2014).
  • , Should biodiversity offsets help finance underfunded Protected Areas?, Biological Conservation, 191, (819), (2015).
  • , Integrating Nonnative Species in Niche Models to Prioritize Native Fish Restoration Activity Locations along a Desert River Corridor, Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 144, 4, (667-681), (2015).
  • , Don’t think local! Scale in conservation, parochialism, dogmatic bureaucracy and the implementing of the European Directives, Journal for Nature Conservation, 24, (24), (2015).
  • , Database Management for Large Scale Reclamation Projects in Wyoming: Developing Better Data Acquisition, Monitoring, and Models for Application to Future Projects, Journal of Environmental Solutions for Oil, Gas, and Mining, 1, 2, (31), (2015).
  • , Conservation Projects in Prison: The Case for Engaging Incarcerated Populations in Conservation and Science, Natural Areas Journal, 35, 1, (90), (2015).
  • , Ecosystem Wetlands Restoration Approach for Sustainable Development Planning, Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology, Third Edition, 10.4018/978-1-4666-5888-2.ch286, (2931-2941), (2015).
  • , Effects of soil water potential on germination of co-dominant Brigalow species: Implications for rehabilitation of water-limited ecosystems in the Brigalow Belt bioregion, Ecological Engineering, 70, (35), (2014).
  • , Species Traits as Practical Tools for Ecological Restoration of Marly Eroded Lands, Restoration Ecology, 22, 5, (633-640), (2014).
  • , Use of multiple criteria in an ecological assessment of a prairie restoration chronosequence, Applied Vegetation Science, 17, 1, (63-73), (2013).
  • , Applying trait‐based models to achieve functional targets for theory‐driven ecological restoration, Ecology Letters, 17, 7, (771-784), (2014).
  • , Where the waters meet: sharing ideas and experiences between inland and marine realms to promote sustainable fisheries management, Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 71, 10, (1593), (2014).
  • , Ecological restoration in the deep sea: Desiderata, Marine Policy, 44, (98), (2014).
  • , Spatial heterogeneous response of land use and landscape functions to ecological restoration: the case of the Chinese loess hilly region, Environmental Earth Sciences, 72, 7, (2683), (2014).
  • , Oyster reef restoration in the northern Gulf of Mexico: Extent, methods and outcomes, Ocean & Coastal Management, 89, (20), (2014).
  • , Comprehensive Evaluation of Scenario Schemes for Multi-objective Decision-making in River Ecological Restoration by Artificially Recharging River, Water Resources Management, 10.1007/s11269-014-0822-9, 28, 15, (5555-5571), (2014).
  • , A framework to optimize the restoration and retention of large mature forest tracts in managed boreal landscapes, Ecological Applications, 24, 7, (1689-1704), (2014).
  • , Habitat‐ and rainfall‐dependent biodiversity responses to cattle removal in an arid woodland–grassland environment, Ecological Applications, 24, 8, (2013-2028), (2014).
  • , Predictive modelling and monitoring of Ellenberg moisture value validates restoration success in floodplain forests, Applied Vegetation Science, 17, 3, (543-555), (2014).
  • , Soil heterogeneity and the distribution of native grasses in California: Can soil properties inform restoration plans?, Ecosphere, 5, 4, (1-14), (2014).
  • , Biodiversity priority areas and religions—a global analysis of spatial overlap, Oryx, 48, 01, (17), (2014).
  • , Contrasting development of soil microbial community structure under no-tilled perennial and tilled cropping during early pedogenesis of a Mollisol, Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 77, (221), (2014).
  • , Integrating Stakeholder Preferences and GIS-Based Multicriteria Analysis to Identify Forest Landscape Restoration Priorities, Sustainability, 6, 12, (935), (2014).
  • , Land-Use History and Contemporary Management Inform an Ecological Reference Model for Longleaf Pine Woodland Understory Plant Communities, PLoS ONE, 9, 1, (e86604), (2014).
  • , Atlantic forest tree species responses to silvicultural practices in a degraded pasture restoration plantation: From leaf physiology to survival and initial growth, Forest Ecology and Management, 313, (233), (2014).
  • , Long-term monitoring of an invasion process: the case of an isolated small wetland on a Mediterranean Island, second stage: toward a complete restoration, Biologia, 69, 8, (2014).
  • , The Peninsula Shale Renosterveld of Devil's Peak, Western Cape: A study into the vegetation and seedbank with a view toward potential restoration, South African Journal of Botany, 10.1016/j.sajb.2014.09.003, 95, (135-145), (2014).
  • , Restoring Forest Landscapes: Important Lessons Learnt, Environmental Management, 53, 2, (241), (2014).
  • , Recovery of inland sand dune grasslands following the removal of alien pine plantation, Biological Conservation, 10.1016/j.biocon.2014.01.021, 171, (52-60), (2014).
  • , Carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus accumulation in novel ecosystems: Shallow lakes in degraded fen areas, Ecological Engineering, 66, (63), (2014).
  • , Effects of volcanic disturbance on the reproductive success of Eurya japonica and its reproductive mutualisms, Plant Ecology, 215, 11, (1361), (2014).
  • , Lepidopteran herbivory in restored and successional sites in a tropical dry forest, The Southwestern Naturalist, 59, 1, (66), (2014).
  • , Mitigating against the loss of species by adding artificial intertidal pools to existing seawalls, Marine Ecology Progress Series, 497, (119), (2014).
  • , The threshold between natural recovery and the need for artificial restoration in degraded lands in Fujian Province, China, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 185, 10, (8639), (2013).
  • , Assessing the Potential to Restore Historic Grazing Ecosystems with Tortoise Ecological Replacements, Conservation Biology, 27, 4, (690-700), (2013).
  • , What is conservation physiology? Perspectives on an increasingly integrated and essential science, Conservation Physiology, 10.1093/conphys/cot001, 1, 1, (cot001-cot001), (2013).
  • , Plant Materials for Novel Ecosystems, Novel Ecosystems, (212-227), (2013).
  • , Potential ‘Ecological Traps’ of Restored Landscapes: Koalas Phascolarctos cinereus Re-Occupy a Rehabilitated Mine Site, PLoS ONE, 8, 11, (e80469), (2013).
  • , Using assisted colonisation to conserve biodiversity and restore ecosystem function under climate change, Biological Conservation, 10.1016/j.biocon.2012.08.034, 157, (172-177), (2013).
  • , Concerns about Novel Ecosystems, Novel Ecosystems, (296-309), (2013).
  • , Hierarchical priority setting for restoration in a watershed in NE Spain, based on assessments of soil erosion and ecosystem services, Regional Environmental Change, 13, 4, (911), (2013).
  • , Strong natural selection during plant restoration favors an unexpected suite of plant traits, Evolutionary Applications, 6, 3, (510-523), (2013).
  • , Primed for Change: Developing Ecological Restoration for the 21st Century, Restoration Ecology, 21, 3, (297-304), (2013).
  • , A dynamic reference model: a framework for assessing biodiversity restoration goals in a fire‐dependent ecosystem, Ecological Applications, 23, 7, (1574-1587), (2013).
  • , Expanding Shifting Baseline Syndrome to Accommodate Increasing Abundances, Restoration Ecology, 21, 5, (527-529), (2013).
  • , EDITOR'S CHOICE: Confronting contingency in restoration: management and site history determine outcomes of assembling prairies, but site characteristics and landscape context have little effect, Journal of Applied Ecology, 50, 5, (1234-1243), (2013).
  • , Influence of shrub canopy morphology and rainfall characteristics on stemflow within a revegetated sand dune in the Tengger Desert, NW China, Hydrological Processes, 27, 10, (1501-1509), (2013).
  • , Habitat Selection and Behaviour of a Reintroduced Passerine: Linking Experimental Restoration, Behaviour and Habitat Ecology, PLoS ONE, 8, 1, (e54539), (2013).
  • , Designing effective solutions to conservation planning problems, Key Topics in Conservation Biology 2, (362-383), (2013).
  • , Defining Novel Ecosystems, Novel Ecosystems, (58-60), (2013).
  • , Both complete clearing and thinning of invasive trees lead to short‐term recovery of native riparian vegetation in the Western Cape, South Africa, Applied Vegetation Science, 16, 2, (193-204), (2012).
  • , The effectiveness of active and passive restoration on recovery of indigenous vegetation in riparian zones in the Western Cape, South Africa: A preliminary assessment, South African Journal of Botany, 88, (132), (2013).
  • , What do we know about, and what do we do about, Novel Ecosystems?, Novel Ecosystems, (351-360), (2013).
  • , Can indicator species predict restoration outcomes early in the monitoring process? a case study with peatlands, Ecological Indicators, 32, (232), (2013).
  • , Sandy desertification: Borne on the wind, Chinese Science Bulletin, 58, 20, (2395), (2013).
  • , Invasion Dynamics of Nonnative Amur Honeysuckle Over 18 Years in a Southwestern Ohio Forest, The American Midland Naturalist, 170, 2, (335), (2013).
  • , Linking restoration ecology with coastal dune restoration, Geomorphology, 199, (214), (2013).
  • , Dynamics of fallow secondary succession pathways and prospects of ecosystem recovery in semi-arid agricultural landscapes, Transactions of the Royal Society of South Africa, 68, 2, (133), (2013).
  • , Feedbacks between Vegetation, Surface Structures and Hydrology during Initial Development of the Artificial Catchment ‘Chicken Creek’, Procedia Environmental Sciences, 19, (86), (2013).
  • , Effect of restoration on zooplankton community in a permanent interdunal pond, Annales de Limnologie - International Journal of Limnology, 49, 2, (97), (2013).
  • , Analysis of forest fires in Northeast China from 2003 to 2011, International Journal of Remote Sensing, 10.1080/01431161.2013.837229, 34, 22, (8235-8251), (2013).
  • , Avian community responses to restoration efforts in a complex volcanic landscape, Ecological Engineering, 53, (275), (2013).
  • , Development of restoration trajectory metrics in reforested bottomland hardwood forests applying a rapid assessment approach, Ecological Indicators, 34, (600), (2013).
  • , Ecological restoration in the Convention on Biological Diversity targets, Biodiversity and Conservation, 22, 12, (2977), (2013).
  • , Recruitment and functionality traits as bioindicators of ecological restoration success in the Lurg Hills district, Victoria, Australia, Ecological Processes, 2, 1, (27), (2013).
  • , A simple bistable model for reforestation in semi-arid zones, or how to turn a wasteland into a forest, Ecological Modelling, 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2013.07.004, 266, (58-67), (2013).
  • , Examining the ecological paradox of the ‘mycorrhizal-metal-hyperaccumulators’, Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science, 59, 4, (549), (2013).
  • , Impact of Ecological Restoration on Ecosystem Services, Encyclopedia of Biodiversity, 10.1016/B978-0-12-384719-5.00326-9, (199-208), (2013).
  • , Addition of juvenile oysters fails to enhance oyster reef development in Pamlico Sound, Marine Ecology Progress Series, 480, (119), (2013).
  • , Distorted Communication in the Florida Everglades: A Critical Theory Analysis of ‘Everglades Restoration’, Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 15, 2, (269), (2013).
  • , AEOLIAN TRANSPORT AND SANDY DESERTIFICATION IN SEMIARID CHINA: A WIND TUNNEL APPROACH, Land Degradation & Development, 24, 6, (605-612), (2013).
  • , Overcoming restoration thresholds and increasing revegetation success for a range of canopy species in a degraded urban Mediterranean-type woodland ecosystem, Australian Journal of Botany, 61, 2, (139), (2013).
  • , Assisted Colonization of Foundation Species: Lack of Consideration of the Extended Phenotype Concept—Response to Kreyling et al. (2011), Restoration Ecology, 20, 3, (296-298), (2012).
  • , Modularity and emergence: biology’s challenge in understanding life, Plant Biology, 14, 6, (865-871), (2012).
  • , Identifying unidirectional and dynamic habitat filters to faunal recolonisation in restored mine‐pits, Journal of Applied Ecology, 49, 4, (919-928), (2012).
  • , Riparian Forest Restoration: Conflicting Goals, Trade-Offs, and Measures of Success, Sustainability, 4, 12, (2334), (2012).
  • , More than just trees: Assessing reforestation success in tropical developing countries, Journal of Rural Studies, 28, 1, (5), (2012).
  • , Effect of Sowing Season, Plant Cover, and Climatic Variability on Seedling Emergence and Survival in Burned Austrocedrus chilensis Forests, Restoration Ecology, 20, 1, (131-140), (2010).
  • , Restoration of Ailing Wetlands, PLoS Biology, 10, 1, (e1001248), (2012).
  • , The need for new ocean conservation strategies in a high-carbon dioxide world, Nature Climate Change, 10.1038/nclimate1555, 2, 10, (720-724), (2012).
  • , References, Restoration Ecology, (315-359), (2012).
  • , Spatial dynamics of the knob-tailed gecko Nephrurus stellatus in a fragmented agricultural landscape, Landscape Ecology, 27, 6, (829), (2012).
  • , Faustian bargains? Restoration realities in the context of biodiversity offset policies, Biological Conservation, 155, (141), (2012).
  • , The DPSIR Framework and a Pressure-Oriented Water Quality Monitoring Approach to Ecological River Restoration, Water, 4, 4, (670), (2012).
  • , Ecosystem service trends in basin-scale restoration initiatives: A review, Journal of Environmental Management, 111, (18), (2012).
  • , Identifying Rangeland Restoration Targets: An Appraisal of Challenges and Opportunities, Rangeland Ecology & Management, 65, 6, (599), (2012).
  • , How many mature microhabitats does a slow-recolonising reptile require? Implications for restoration of bauxite minesites in south-western Australia, Australian Journal of Zoology, 59, 1, (9), (2011).
  • , Exploring the Utility of Hyperspectral Imagery and LiDAR Data for Predicting Quercus garryana Ecosystem Distribution and Aiding in Habitat Restoration, Restoration Ecology, 19, 201, (245-256), (2010).
  • , The Role of Botanic Gardens in the Science and Practice of Ecological Restoration, Conservation Biology, 25, 2, (265-275), (2011).
  • , A climate‐change adaptation framework to reduce continental‐scale vulnerability across conservation reserves, Ecosphere, 2, 10, (1-23), (2011).
  • , Engage the hodgepodge: management factors are essential when prioritizing areas for restoration and conservation action, Diversity and Distributions, 17, 6, (1234-1238), (2011).
  • , Soil microbial biomass—Interpretation and consideration for soil monitoring, Soil Research, 49, 4, (287), (2011).
  • , Stability of aquatic ecosystems and their variation under conditions of toxic pollution, Russian Journal of Ecology, 42, 6, (485), (2011).
  • , An assessment of structural attributes and ecosystem function in restored Virginia coalfield streams, Hydrobiologia, 10.1007/s10750-011-0703-7, 671, 1, (51-63), (2011).
  • , Towards a common set of criteria and indicators to identify forest restoration priorities: An expert panel-based approach, Ecological Indicators, 11, 2, (337), (2011).
  • , Response of Fish Assemblage Structure and Function Following Restoration of Two Small Bahamian Tidal Creeks, Restoration Ecology, 19, 2, (205-215), (2011).
  • , Resilience, Restoration, and Riparian Ecosystems: Case Study of a Dryland, Urban River, Restoration Ecology, 19, 1, (101-111), (2011).
  • , The restoration of biodiversity: Where has research been and where does it need to go?, American Journal of Botany, 98, 3, (549-558), (2011).
  • , Exotic Slugs Pose a Previously Unrecognized Threat to the Herbaceous Layer in a Midwestern Woodland, Restoration Ecology, 19, 6, (786-794), (2010).
  • , Natural Regeneration in Plantations of Native Trees in Lowland Brazilian Atlantic Forest: Community Structure, Diversity, and Dispersal Syndromes, Restoration Ecology, 19, 3, (379-389), (2011).
  • , Measure it to better manage it: a biodiversity monitoring framework for the Australian rangelands, The Rangeland Journal, 33, 3, (239), (2011).
  • , Using Rangeland Health Assessment to Inform Successional Management, Invasive Plant Science and Management, 4, 03, (356), (2011).
  • , Oyster Reefs as Natural Breakwaters Mitigate Shoreline Loss and Facilitate Fisheries, PLoS ONE, 6, 8, (e22396), (2011).
  • , Restoring forest landscapes for biodiversity conservation and rural livelihoods: A spatial optimisation model, Environmental Modelling & Software, 26, 12, (1622), (2011).
  • , A survey of entrepreneurial risk in U.S. wetland and stream compensatory mitigation markets, Environmental Science & Policy, 14, 3, (301), (2011).
  • , Altered vegetative assemblage trajectories within an urban brownfield, Environmental Pollution, 159, 5, (1159), (2011).
  • , Optimal contract lengths for voluntary ecosystem service provision with varied dynamic benefit functions, Conservation Letters, 4, 3, (207-218), (2011).
  • , Index of Alien Impact: A Method for Evaluating Potential Ecological Impact of Alien Plant Species, Environmental Management, 45, 4, (759), (2010).
  • , Ecological restoration of cleared agricultural land in Gondwana Link: lifting the bar at ‘Peniup’, Ecological Management & Restoration, 11, 1, (16-26), (2010).
  • , Agricultural legacy, climate, and soil influence the restoration and carbon potential of woody regrowth in Australia, Ecological Applications, 20, 7, (1838-1850), (2010).
  • , Linking optimization and ecological models in a decision support tool for oyster restoration and management, Ecological Applications, 20, 3, (851-866), (2010).
  • , Evaluation of restoration effectiveness: community response to the removal of alien plants, Ecological Applications, 20, 5, (1191-1203), (2010).
  • , Bridging Restoration Science and Practice: Results and Analysis of a Survey from the 2009 Society for Ecological Restoration International Meeting, Restoration Ecology, 18, 6, (783-788), (2010).
  • , The Benefits of Harvesting Wetland Invaders for Cellulosic Biofuel: An Ecosystem Services Perspective, Restoration Ecology, 18, 6, (789-795), (2010).
  • , From Reintroduction to Assisted Colonization: Moving along the Conservation Translocation Spectrum, Restoration Ecology, 18, 6, (796-802), (2010).
  • , Plant Community Recovery following Restoration in Temporally Variable Riparian Wetlands, Restoration Ecology, 18, 1, (52-64), (2008).
  • , Evaluating Restoration Success of Frequently Implemented Compensation Measures: Results and Demands for Control Procedures, Restoration Ecology, 18, 4, (467-480), (2008).
  • , Revegetation of Motorway Slopes Using Different Seed Mixtures, Restoration Ecology, 18, 4, (449-456), (2008).
  • , Assembly rules are rare in SE Australian bird communities, but sometimes apply in fragmented agricultural landscapes, Ecography, 33, 5, (854-865), (2010).
  • , Influence of bed heterogeneity and habitat type on macroinvertebrate uptake in peri-urban streams, International Journal of Sediment Research, 25, 3, (203), (2010).
  • , Public Perceptions of Natural Resource Damages and the Resources that Require Restoration, Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A, 73, 19, (1325), (2010).
  • , Application of Acoustic Telemetry to Assess Residency and Movements of Rockfish and Lingcod at Created and Natural Habitats in Prince William Sound, PLoS ONE, 5, 8, (e12130), (2010).
  • , Striving for Sustainability and Resilience in the Face of Unprecedented Change: The Case of the Mountain Pine Beetle Outbreak in British Columbia, Sustainability, 2, 12, (2403), (2010).
  • , Mathematical problem definition for ecological restoration planning, Ecological Modelling, 221, 19, (2243), (2010).
  • , Oak Conservation and Restoration on Private Forestlands: Negotiating a Social-Ecological Landscape, Environmental Management, 10.1007/s00267-009-9404-7, 45, 1, (155-164), (2009).
  • , The seed banks of English lowland calcareous grasslands along a restoration chronosequence, Plant Ecology, 208, 2, (199), (2010).
  • , What are we monitoring and why? Using geomorphic principles to frame eco-hydrological assessments of river condition, Science of The Total Environment, 408, 9, (2025), (2010).
  • , Identifying priority areas for Forest Landscape Restoration in Chiapas (Mexico): An operational approach combining ecological and socioeconomic criteria, Landscape and Urban Planning, 94, 1, (20), (2010).
  • , California Invasive Plant Research Needs Assessment, Invasive Plant Science and Management, 3, 04, (470), (2010).
  • , Survival and Growth of Tree Species under Two Direct Seedling Planting Systems, Restoration Ecology, 18, 4, (414-417), (2010).
  • , Are Ants Useful Indicators of Restoration Success in Temperate Grasslands?, Restoration Ecology, 18, 3, (373-379), (2008).
  • , Invasion Ecology and Restoration Ecology: Parallel Evolution in Two Fields of Endeavour, Fifty Years of Invasion Ecology, (61-69), (2010).
  • , Does microbial habitat or community structure drive the functional stability of microbes to stresses following re-vegetation of a severely degraded soil?, Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 42, 5, (850), (2010).
  • , Landscape planning in areas of sand extraction in the Silesian Upland, Poland, Landscape and Urban Planning, 95, 3, (91), (2010).
  • , The importance of topography and climate on short-term revegetation of coal wastes in Spain, Ecological Engineering, 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2009.12.005, 36, 4, (579-585), (2010).
  • , Principles for Ecologically Based Invasive Plant Management, Invasive Plant Science and Management, 3, 03, (229), (2010).
  • , Linking Historical Research with Restoration Ecology in the Floodplain Landscape Case Study: Landscape-Ecological Study and Management Plan of the Tovačov Lakes (Czech Republic), Journal of Landscape Ecology, 3, 1, (2010).
  • 2010 2nd Conference on Environmental Science and Information Application Technology (ESIAT) Wuhan, China 2010 The 2nd Conference on Environmental Science and Information Application Technology IEEE , (2010). 978-1-4244-7387-8 Degradation degree assessment on the ecosystem of Yuanmou Dry-hot Valley , (2010). 686 689 5567223 , 10.1109/ESIAT.2010.5567223 http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5567223/
  • , Prospects for fen meadow restoration on severely degraded fens, Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics, 10.1016/j.ppees.2010.02.004, 12, 3, (245-255), (2010).
  • , Exotic Grass Invasions: Applying a Conceptual Framework to the Dynamics of Degradation and Restoration in Australia’s Tropical Savannas, Restoration Ecology, 18, 2, (188-197), (2008).
  • , Normas jurídicas para a restauração ecológica: uma barreira a mais a dificultar o êxito das iniciativas?, Revista Árvore, 34, 3, (471), (2010).
  • , Soil texture affects soil microbial and structural recovery during grassland restoration, Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 42, 12, (2182), (2010).
  • , An Evaluation of Object-Oriented Image Analysis Techniques to Identify Motorized Vehicle Effects in Semi-arid to Arid Ecosystems of the American West, GIScience & Remote Sensing, 47, 1, (53), (2010).
  • , Comparing Direct Abiotic Amelioration and Facilitation as Tools for Restoration of Semiarid Grasslands, Restoration Ecology, 17, 6, (908-916), (2008).
  • , The Financial Costs of Ecologically Nonsustainable Farming Practices in a Semiarid System, Restoration Ecology, 17, 6, (827-836), (2008).
  • , Restoration of Degraded Grazing Lands through Grazing Management: Can It Work?, Restoration Ecology, 17, 4, (441-445), (2009).
  • , New Models for Ecosystem Dynamics and Restoration, Restoration Ecology, 17, 4, (562-562), (2009).
  • , Using Remote Sensing to Evaluate the Influence of Grassland Restoration Activities on Ecosystem Forage Provisioning Services, Restoration Ecology, 17, 4, (526-538), (2008).
  • , Where and when to revegetate: a quantitative method for scheduling landscape reconstruction, Ecological Applications, 19, 4, (817-828), (2009).
  • , The effects of vegetation on restoration of physical stability of a severely degraded soil in China, Ecological Engineering, 35, 5, (723), (2009).
  • , Soil Microbial Communities and Restoration Ecology: Facilitators or Followers?, Science, 325, 5940, (573), (2009).
  • , Multicriteria Decision Analysis of Stream Restoration: Potential and Examples, Group Decision and Negotiation, 18, 4, (387), (2009).
  • , A dynamic analysis of the wetland mitigation process and its effects on no net loss policy, Landscape and Urban Planning, 89, 1-2, (17), (2009).
  • , Rethinking species selection for restoration of arid shrublands, Basic and Applied Ecology, 10, 7, (640), (2009).
  • , Science, economics and the design of agricultural conservation programmes in the US, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 52, 5, (575), (2009).
  • , Restoring landscapes of fear with wolves in the Scottish Highlands, Biological Conservation, 142, 10, (2314), (2009).
  • , Differences in Belowground Heterogeneity Within a Restoration of a Dewatered Reservoir in Southwestern Wisconsin, Restoration Ecology, 16, 4, (678-688), (2008).
  • , Integrating Soil Ecological Knowledge into Restoration Management, Restoration Ecology, 16, 4, (608-617), (2008).
  • , Description of reference conditions for restoration projects of riparian vegetation from the species-rich fynbos biome, South African Journal of Botany, 74, 3, (401), (2008).
  • , Nematode community development early in ecological restoration: The role of organic amendments, Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 40, 9, (2366), (2008).
  • , Spontaneous succession of riparian fynbos: Is unassisted recovery a viable restoration strategy?, South African Journal of Botany, 74, 3, (412), (2008).
  • , Environmental Change in Peri‐Urban Areas and Human and Ecosystem Health, Geography Compass, 2, 4, (1095-1137), (2008).
  • , PHENOLOGY OF MIXED WOODY–HERBACEOUS ECOSYSTEMS FOLLOWING EXTREME EVENTS: NET AND DIFFERENTIAL RESPONSES, Ecology, 89, 2, (342-352), (2008).
  • , TOPOGRAPHIC HETEROGENEITY INFLUENCES FISH USE OF AN EXPERIMENTALLY RESTORED TIDAL MARSH, Ecological Applications, 18, 2, (483-496), (2008).
  • , The effectiveness of active restoration following alien clearance in fynbos riparian zones and resilience of treatments to fire, South African Journal of Botany, 74, 3, (517), (2008).
  • , Ecological Restoration and Physiology: An Overdue Integration, BioScience, 58, 10, (957), (2008).
  • , Return of the wolf: ecological restoration and the deliberate inclusion of the unexpected, Environmental Politics, 17, 1, (115), (2008).
  • , Using return‐on‐investment to guide restoration: a case study from Hawaii, Conservation Letters, 1, 5, (236-243), (2008).
  • , Generalized Complementarity and Mapping of the Concepts of Systematic Conservation Planning, Conservation Biology, 22, 6, (1655-1658), (2008).
  • , The transition from invasive species control to native species promotion and its dependence on seed density thresholds, Applied Vegetation Science, 11, 1, (131-138), (2009).
  • , Roadside revegetation with native plants: Experimental seeding and transplanting of stem cuttings, Applied Vegetation Science, 11, 4, (547-554), (2009).
  • , Restoration Ecology: Interventionist Approaches for Restoring and Maintaining Ecosystem Function in the Face of Rapid Environmental Change, Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 33, 1, (39), (2008).
  • , Long-term response of fishes and other fauna to restoration of former salt hay farms: multiple measures of restoration success, Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 18, 1, (65), (2008).
  • , Guidelines for improved management of riparian zones invaded by alien plants in South Africa, South African Journal of Botany, 74, 3, (538), (2008).
  • , Stand-level management of plantations to improve biodiversity values, Biodiversity and Conservation, 17, 5, (1187), (2008).
  • , Environmental management: Integrating ecological evaluation, remediation, restoration, natural resource damage assessment and long-term stewardship on contaminated lands, Science of The Total Environment, 400, 1-3, (6), (2008).
  • , Management of coral reefs: We have gone wrong when neglecting active reef restoration, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 56, 11, (1821), (2008).
  • , Ecological restoration of farmland: progress and prospects, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 363, 1492, (831), (2008).
  • , Ecosystems, Ecosystem Processes and Global Change: Implications for Landscape Design, Managing and Designing Landscapes for Conservation, (347-364), (2008).
  • , Goals, Targets and Priorities for Landscape‐Scale Restoration, Managing and Designing Landscapes for Conservation, (511-526), (2008).
  • , The Power of Regeneration: Lessons from a Degraded Grassland, Restoration Ecology, 15, 2, (307-311), (2007).
  • , Setting Attainable Goals of Stream Habitat Restoration from a Macroinvertebrate View, Restoration Ecology, 15, 2, (317-320), (2007).
  • , Setting Effective and Realistic Restoration Goals: Key Directions for Research, Restoration Ecology, 15, 2, (354-357), (2007).
  • , The Recent Double Paradigm Shift in Restoration Ecology, Restoration Ecology, 15, 2, (344-347), (2007).
  • , Experimental Manipulation of Restoration Barriers in Abandoned Eucalypt Plantations, Restoration Ecology, 15, 1, (156-167), (2007).
  • , THE ROLE OF STOCHASTICITY AND PRIORITY EFFECTS IN FLOODPLAIN RESTORATION, Ecological Applications, 17, 5, (1312-1324), (2007).
  • , Habitat Restoration—Do We Know What We’re Doing?, Restoration Ecology, 15, 3, (382-390), (2007).
  • , Establishment of native perennial shrubs in an agricultural landscape, Austral Ecology, 32, 6, (617-625), (2007).
  • , Ecological services to and from rangelands of the United States, Ecological Economics, 64, 2, (261), (2007).
  • , Linking restoration ecology and ecological restoration in estuarine landscapes, Estuaries and Coasts, 30, 2, (365), (2007).
  • , Bottomland hardwood forest species responses to flooding regimes along an urbanization gradient, Ecological Engineering, 29, 3, (223), (2007).
  • , Restoring a Jarrah Forest Understorey Vegetation after Bauxite Mining in Western Australia, Restoration Ecology, 15, (S26-S39), (2007).
  • , Jarrah Forest Ecosystem Restoration: A Foreword, Restoration Ecology, 15, (S1-S2), (2007).
  • , Riparian vegetation: degradation, alien plant invasions, and restoration prospects, Diversity and Distributions, 13, 1, (126-139), (2007).
  • , Defining an ecological baseline for restoration and natural resource damage assessment of contaminated sites: The case of the Department of Energy, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 50, 4, (553), (2007).
  • , Improving revegetation of gypsum slopes is not a simple matter of adding native species: Insights from a multispecies experiment, Ecological Engineering, 30, 1, (67), (2007).
  • , Short‐Term Temporal Effects on Community Structure of Lepidoptera in Restored and Remnant Tallgrass Prairies, Restoration Ecology, 15, 2, (179-188), (2007).
  • , Grassland responses to multiple disturbances on the New England Tablelands in NSW, Australia, Plant Ecology, 193, 1, (39), (2007).
  • , Restoring degraded landscapes in lowland Namaqualand: Lessons from the mining experience and from regional ecological dynamics, Journal of Arid Environments, 70, 4, (767), (2007).
  • , Systematic landscape restoration in the rural–urban fringe: meeting conservation planning and policy goals, Biodiversity and Conservation, 16, 13, (3781), (2007).
  • , Effectiveness of braided, gravel‐bed river restoration in the Upper Waitaki Basin, New Zealand, River Research and Applications, 22, 8, (905-922), (2006).
  • , Threshold Concepts and Their Use in Rangeland Management and Restoration: The Good, the Bad, and the Insidious, Restoration Ecology, 14, 3, (325-329), (2006).
  • , Vegetation Succession After Bauxite Mining in Western Australia, Restoration Ecology, 14, 2, (278-288), (2006).
  • , Are Ecosystem Composition, Structure, and Functional Status Related to Restoration Success? A Test from Semiarid Mediterranean Steppes, Restoration Ecology, 14, 2, (258-266), (2006).
  • , Ecological Restoration and Global Climate Change, Restoration Ecology, 14, 2, (170-176), (2006).
  • , State‐and‐Transition Successional Model for Bauxite Mining Rehabilitation in the Jarrah Forest of Western Australia, Restoration Ecology, 14, 1, (28-37), (2006).
  • , Stretch Goals and Backcasting: Approaches for Overcoming Barriers to Large‐Scale Ecological Restoration, Restoration Ecology, 14, 4, (487-492), (2006).
  • , Systematic landscape restoration using integer programming, Biological Conservation, 128, 3, (369), (2006).
  • , Novel ecosystems: theoretical and management aspects of the new ecological world order, Global Ecology and Biogeography, 15, 1, (1-7), (2006).
  • , An Operational Model for Implementing Conservation Action, Conservation Biology, 20, 2, (408-419), (2006).
  • , Spatially modelling native vegetation condition, Ecological Management & Restoration, 7, s1, (S37-S44), (2006).
  • , Evolutionary characteristics of the artificially revegetated shrub ecosystem in the Tengger Desert, northern China, Ecological Research, 21, 3, (415), (2006).
  • , Beyond expertise: Ecological science and the making of socially robust restoration strategies, Journal for Nature Conservation, 14, 3-4, (172), (2006).
  • , Forest vegetation change in southeast Ohio: Do older forests serve as useful models for predicting the successional trajectory of future forests?, Forest Ecology and Management, 223, 1-3, (200), (2006).
  • , New wilderness in the Netherlands: An investigation of visual preferences for nature development landscapes, Landscape and Urban Planning, 78, 4, (362), (2006).
  • , Landscape scenario modelling of vegetation condition, Ecological Management & Restoration, 7, s1, (S45-S52), (2006).
  • , Identifying Linkages among Conceptual Models of Ecosystem Degradation and Restoration: Towards an Integrative Framework, Restoration Ecology, 14, 3, (369), (2006).
  • , Ecosystem structure, function, and restoration success: Are they related?, Journal for Nature Conservation, 14, 3-4, (152), (2006).
  • , HKSAR's nature conservation policy – a new formulation for an old problem?, Property Management, 24, 3, (322), (2006).
  • , OVERVIEW AND PROSPECTS, Rivers of North America, 10.1016/B978-012088253-3/50027-4, (1086-1103), (2005).
  • , Post‐fire vegetation dynamics in nutrient‐enriched and non‐enriched sclerophyll woodland, Austral Ecology, 30, 3, (250-260), (2009).
  • , Standards for ecologically successful river restoration, Journal of Applied Ecology, 42, 2, (208-217), (2005).
  • , Adaptive restoration of sand‐mined areas for biological conservation, Journal of Applied Ecology, 42, 1, (160-170), (2005).
  • , Restoration Success: How Is It Being Measured?, Restoration Ecology, 13, 3, (569-577), (2005).
  • , Assessing the ecological risk from secondary salinity: A framework addressing questions of scale and threshold responses, Austral Ecology, 30, 5, (537-545), (2005).
  • , Vegetation structure, species diversity, and ecosystem processes as measures of restoration success, Forest Ecology and Management, 218, 1-3, (159), (2005).
  • , Landscapes, ecology and wildlife management in highly modified environments – an Australian perspective, Wildlife Research, 32, 5, (389), (2005).
  • , Categorizing Australian landscapes as an aid to assessing the generality of landscape management guidelines, Global Ecology and Biogeography, 14, 1, (1-15), (2004).
  • , Perturbation, Restoration and Seeking Ecological Sustainability in Australian Flowing Waters, Hydrobiologia, 552, 1, (109), (2005).
  • , HOW HABITAT SETTING INFLUENCES RESTORED OYSTER REEF COMMUNITIES, Ecology, 86, 7, (1926-1935), (2005).
  • , Restoring Lepidopteran Communities to Oak Savannas: Contrasting Influences of Habitat Quantity and Quality, Restoration Ecology, 13, 1, (120), (2005).
  • , Setting Goals and Measuring Success: Linking Patterns and Processes in Stream Restoration, Hydrobiologia, 552, 1, (147), (2005).
  • , Seasonal variation in productivity in semi-natural grasslands, Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section B - Soil & Plant Science, 10.1080/09064710510008630, 55, 1, (36-43), (2005).
  • , Rivers of dreams: on the gulf between theoretical and practical aspects of an upland river restoration, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 29, 3, (257-281), (2004).
  • , Restoration ecology: the challenge of social values and expectations, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 2, 1, (43-48), (2004).
  • , The Science and Values of Restoration Ecology, Restoration Ecology, 12, 1, (1-3), (2004).
  • , Implementing ecological restoration in national parks, Ecological Management & Restoration, 5, 1, (71-73), (2005).
  • , Shoreline Development Drives Invasion of Phragmites australis and the Loss of Plant Diversity on New England Salt Marshes, Conservation Biology, 18, 5, (1424-1434), (2004).
  • , Ecological restoration:Our hope for the future?, Chinese Geographical Science, 14, 4, (361), (2004).
  • , Alternative states and positive feedbacks in restoration ecology, Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 19, 1, (46), (2004).
  • , ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION, Environmental Monitoring and Characterization, 10.1016/B978-012064477-3/50021-7, (357-375), (2004).
  • , WETLAND RESTORATION THRESHOLDS: CAN A DEGRADATION TRANSITION BE REVERSED WITH INCREASED EFFORT?, Ecological Applications, 13, 1, (193-205), (2003).
  • , Restoration in applied ecology: editor's introduction, Journal of Applied Ecology, 40, 1, (44-50), (2003).
  • , Measurements of the soil microbial community for estimating the success of restoration, European Journal of Soil Science, 54, 4, (801-808), (2003).
  • , Plant colonization windows in a mesic old field succession, Applied Vegetation Science, 6, 2, (205-212), (2009).
  • , Options for the conservation of large and medium-sized mammals in the Cape Floristic Region hotspot, South Africa, Biological Conservation, 112, 1-2, (169), (2003).
  • , Plant colonization windows in a mesic old field succession, Applied Vegetation Science, 6, 2, (205), (2003).
  • , An assessment of restoration of biodiversity in degraded high mountain grazing lands in northern Ethiopia, Land Degradation & Development, 14, 1, (25-38), (2002).
  • , Short Note, Ecological Management & Restoration, 4, s1, (S79-S82), (2003).
  • , Restoration of Riparian Ecosystems, Riparian Areas of the Southwestern United States, 10.1201/9780203497753.ch16, (2009).
  • , Ecological consequences of altered hydrological regimes in fragmented ecosystems in southern Australia: Impacts and possible management responses, Austral Ecology, 27, 5, (546-564), (2002).
  • , Korapuki Island as a case study for restoration of insular ecosystems in New Zealand, Journal of Biogeography, 29, 5‐6, (593-607), (2002).
  • , Clinical Practice for Ecosystem Health: The Role of Ecological Restoration, Ecosystem Health, 7, 4, (195-202), (2002).
  • , Degrading Landscapes: Lessons from Palliative Care, Ecosystem Health, 7, 4, (203), (2001).
  • , Ecological Restoration: State of the Art or State of the Science?, Restoration Ecology, 9, 2, (115-118), (2001).
  • , Incomplete recovery of plant diversity in restored prairie wetlands on agricultural landscapes, Restoration Ecology, , (2018).
  • , Status of and Perspectives on River Restoration in Europe: 310,000 Euros per Hectare of Restored River, Sustainability, 10.3390/su10010129, 10, 2, (129), (2018).
  • , Soil inoculation steers restoration of terrestrial ecosystems, Nature Plants, 10.1038/nplants.2016.107, 2, (16107), (2016).
  • , Is manure an alternative to topsoil in road embankment restoration?, PLOS ONE, 10.1371/journal.pone.0174622, 12, 3, (e0174622), (2017).
  • , Toward a social–ecological approach to ecological restoration: a look back at three decades of maritime clifftop restoration, Restoration Ecology, , (2018).
  • , Conservation-oriented restoration – how to make it a success?, Israel Journal of Plant Sciences, 10.1080/07929978.2016.1255020, (1-21), (2016).
  • , Urban Re-Greening: A Case Study in Multi-Trophic Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning in a Post-Industrial Landscape, Diversity, 10.3390/d10040119, 10, 4, (119), (2018).
  • , Potential for synergy in soil inoculation for nature restoration by mixing inocula from different successional stages, Plant and Soil, 10.1007/s11104-018-3825-0, (2018).