Ecological restoration and rewilding: two approaches with complementary goals?

As we enter the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration (2021-2030) and address the urgent need to protect and restore ecosystems and their ecological functions at large scales, rewilding has been brought into the limelight. Interest in this discipline is thus increasing, with a large number of conceptual scientific papers published in recent years. Increasing enthusiasm has led to discussions and debates in the scientific community about the differences between ecological restoration and rewilding. The main goal of this review is to compare and clarify the position of each field. Our results show that despite some differences (e.g. top-down versus bottom-up and functional versus taxonomic approaches) and notably with distinct goals - recovery of a defined historically determined target ecosystem versus recovery of natural processes with often no target endpoint - ecological restoration and rewilding have a common scope: the recovery of ecosystems following anthropogenic degradation. The goals of ecological restoration and rewilding have expanded with the progress of each field. However, it is unclear whether there is a paradigm shift with ecological restoration moving towards rewilding or vice versa. We underline the complementarity in time and in space of ecological restoration and rewilding. To conclude, we argue that reconciliation of these two fields of nature conservation to ensure complementarity could create a synergy to achieve their common scope.

Seeding Dynamics from a Local Seed Mixture on a Bioengineered Riverbank Protection Structure.

Restoration of riverbanks through soil bioengineering techniques allows managers to combine riverbank stability and riparian ecosystem functioning. This restoration often involves the sowing of a seed mixture, which helps develop herbaceous vegetation. This development and sufficient vegetation cover are essential for protection against erosion and for hosting biodiversity, two of the main goals of riverbank bioengineering. Restoration aims at recreating ecosystems closer to an undisturbed state; choosing seed mixtures of local provenance is therefore encouraged. In this study, we investigated the local seed mixture sown on bioengineered riverbanks and the conditions influencing the first steps of plant development, so as to delineate the setting favoring restoration. We focused on the composition of the seed mixture and germination capacity as well as the effect of sowing density and soil quality on vegetation cover and diversity. We tested four sowing densities: 5, 10, 15, and 30 g.m-1. The seed mixture presented considerable diversity and germination rates were heterogeneous. Sowing density had a positive impact on vegetation cover and diversity, and high cover up to 100% was rapidly reached. Soil quality did not affect vegetation diversity but had a significant effect on vegetation cover, with the nutrient content, notably nitrogen, most probably involved.

Endophytic bacteria take the challenge to improve Cu phytoextraction by sunflower.

Endophytic bacteria from roots and crude seed extracts of a Cu-tolerant population of Agrostis capillaris were inoculated to a sunflower metal-tolerant mutant line, and their influence on Cu tolerance and phytoextraction was assessed using a Cu-contaminated soil series. Ten endophytic bacterial strains isolated from surface-sterilized A. capillaris roots were mixed to prepare the root endophyte inoculant (RE). In parallel, surface-sterilized seeds of A. capillaris were crushed in MgSO4 to prepare a crude seed extract containing seed endophytes (SE). An aliquot of this seed extract was filtered at 0.2 µm to obtain a bacterial cell-free seed extract (SEF). After surface sterilization, germinated sunflower seeds were separately treated with one of five modalities: no treatment (C), immersion in MgSO4 (CMg) or SEF solutions and inoculation with RE or SE. All plants were cultivated on a Cu-contaminated soil series (13-1020 mg Cu kg(-1)). Cultivable RE strains were mostly members of the Pseudomonas genera, and one strain was closely related to Labrys sp. The cultivable SE strains belonged mainly to the Bacillus genera and some members of the Rhodococcus genera. The treatment effects depended on the soil Cu concentration. Both SE and SEF plants had a higher Cu tolerance in the 13-517 mg Cu kg(-1) soil range as reflected by increased shoot and root DW yields compared to control plants. This was accompanied by a slight decrease in shoot Cu concentration and increase in root Cu concentration. Shoot and root DW yields were more promoted by SE than SEF in the 13-114 mg Cu kg(-1) soil range, which could reflect the influence of seed-located bacterial endophytes. At intermediate soil Cu (416-818 mg Cu kg(-1) soil), the RE and CMg plants had lower shoot Cu concentrations than the control, SE and SEF plants. At high total soil Cu (617-1020 mg Cu kg(-1)), root DW yield of RE plants slightly increased and their root Cu concentration rose by up to 1.9-fold. In terms of phytoextraction efficiency, shoot Cu removal was increased for sunflower plants inoculated with crude and bacterial cell-free seed extracts by 1.3- to 2.2-fold in the 13-416 mg Cu kg(-1) soil range. Such increase was mainly driven by an enhanced shoot DW yield. The number and distribution of endophytic bacteria in the harvested sunflower tissues must be further examined.