Volume 7, Issue 12, December – 2022 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology

ISSN No:-2456-2165

Review Paper Restoration Ecology

Akash Kumar Singh PhD Botany (PhD Scholar)
IES University, Bhopal

Corresponding Author
Dr. Vandana Sharma
(Assistant Professor of Botany) IES University

Abstract:- Restoration ecology is a new field of research
that combines ecological theory with concerns about
human impacts on nature. Environmental harm caused by
human activities may be repaired using a restoration
ecology approach. When it comes to academics, restoration
ecology is a relatively young field, but one with a long and
rich history to compare it. Ecological restoration has been
long seen as a suitable testing ground for ecological theory;
restoration was envisioned as the ultimate litmus test for
our ecological understanding. Ten years ago, restorative
science had a firm academic basis, addressing issues faced
by restoration practitioners, bringing fresh attention to
existing ecological theory, and establishing a few new
ecological ideas. Plant community ecology has significantly
impacted ecological restoration in recent years. In both
community ecology and ecological restoration, models of
succession, assembly, and state transition are always
developing and adapting. It is possible to verify ecological
hypotheses in restoration ecology, even though it is a
subfield of ecology research. Economic, social, and
political aspects of the restoration ecological process must
also be considered. This review provides a conceptual map
of the field's history and present practices and possible
future directions of restoration ecology.
Keywords:- active, ecological restoration, historical
continuity, passive, restoration strategies.
I. INTRODUCTION
In human history, societies have learned that they rely on
the natural environment [1]. Despite this, population growth
has only lately compelled society to examine and document
the harm caused by its exploitation of natural systems. Society
has created some technologies and disciplines of study to
alleviate or reduce these disruptions as their influence has
become more apparent. Innovative approaches to forestry,
waste treatment, mining reclamation, and ecotoxicology aim
to either improve nature or remove human-caused harm.
ecosystem, total restoration has not been achieved. In certain
cases, the reintroduction of native species may be necessary
for the restoration process. Reconnecting a floodplain or
marsh to its water supply and cleaning up toxic wastes are
only two examples of the physical, chemical, and biological
processes that may be used to restore an ecosystem to its
original state. The field of restoration ecology serves as a link
between the humanities and the sciences. Research in this field
includes all aspects of ecological theory used to alleviate and
restore natural systems that have been severely disrupted by
human activity. It's a daunting undertaking for restoration
ecologists to integrate a wide range of current environmental
studies into an overall plan to restore and preserve nature's
working system.
II. RESTORATION ECOLOGY
Restoration ecology is a multidisciplinary area that
requires a clear statement of objectives and future directions.
Restoration ecology is a branch of ecology that focuses on
restoring ecosystems. On the other hand, ecological restoration
has been the subject of considerable controversy in the
literature to date. There are three major parts to ecological
restoration - ecology, human social systems, and ecosystem
restoration. It is important to restore ecosystems that can self-
replicate and self-maintain themselves, even if species have
been extinct for long periods, under ecologically driven
notions of restoration. Integrating a recovered patch into the
greater biological landscape is another focus of restoration
with a goal in mind. Restoration ecologists have difficulty
defining terms like "appropriate form and function" and
"integration with the surrounding environment." However,
restoration ecologists will only be able to restore ecological
harm satisfactorily if they define, identify, and accomplish
such strict objectives.

Ecological restoration is the process of restoring a

disturbed ecosystem to its pre-disturbance state. Re-creating
naturalistic, self-maintaining ecosystems without the constant
involvement of resource managers or the dependence on
artificial structures is the goal of this approach to
conservation. If an ecosystem's natural ecological functions
are not restored, or the functions are recreated in an artificial
system that has little physical similarity to a natural

IJISRT22DEC820 www.ijisrt.com 2277

Volume 7, Issue 12, December – 2022 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
Table 1: Scale-appropriate definitions of ecological restoration
Emphasis Example Useful focus Reference
Goal-oriented Restoration of an ecosystem to its Provides information on how to get [2]
pre-disturbance state Focuses on the references for locations that have been
selection of ecological comparison repaired.
factors. It identifies issues that hinder
the process of succession.
Process-oriented Ecosystem restoration is the process of Includes social forces responsible for [3]
restoring indigenous ecosystems to ecological damage in restoration plans.
their pre-human state The importance of community
involvement in the rehabilitation process is
emphasized. Recognizes the boundaries of
repair considering subsequent disruption
and the current social context.

Objective research into ecological restoration design
may begin with the NRC's goal-oriented definition. On the
other hand, this definition fails to address many of the
underlying problems that call for correction. The emphasis is
on securing a restoration to a naturally occurring ecological
condition rather than trying to recreate a pre-disturbance state.
Jackson et al. [3] characterize restoration as "the process of
repairing the damage inflicted by humans to the diversity and
dynamics of indigenous ecosystems". The four components
that make up their idea of restoration are the evaluation of
restoration's need, an ecological approach; target setting and
assessment; and a knowledge of restoration's constraints.
Rebuilding systems and maintaining ecological integrity may
be accomplished in several different ways. For any restoration
project to succeed, it is essential to consider the social and
legal implications, community opinion, and risk assessment.
There are occasions when a restoration strategy must consider
both scientific principles and social reality.

Fig. 1: Ecological Restoration-Approaches and impact on vegetation, soils, and society

III. HISTORY OF RESTORATION ECOLOGY
The assumption that historical knowledge is a key
principle, restoration ecology and ecological restoration has
grown for many decades [4-6]. The technique has developed
from a concentration on fixed points and composition to a
more contemporary focus on "process- oriented
configurations," such as the natural range of variation and
numerous alternative routes, throughout the years [7-9]. A
new era of restoration ecology is about to dawn. It is
becoming more difficult to understand the relevance of
historical knowledge in a rapidly changing world and evolving
cultural conceptions of nature [10].
Historical benchmarks are less useful when temperature
and other environmental parameters move out of their old
ranges from the early Holocene to the present (i.e. the
Anthropocene). The Society for Ecological Restoration stated
that "classical ecological restoration" aims to "restore an
ecosystem to its historic trajectory". "The process of aiding
ecosystems that have been harmed, degraded, or destroyed" is
a commonly recognized term that supports a broad range of
treatments. But "the historically rich concept of recovery" is
not strayed from this meaning of "restoration" [11].
Traditional thinking holds that the ecosystem in issue had
better integrity before contemporary human interference than
today, which is why researchers look to the past when

IJISRT22DEC820 www.ijisrt.com 2278

Volume 7, Issue 12, December – 2022
designing restoration programs. The main source of ideas on
what an ecosystem should look like in the future, post-
restoration, is historical knowledge or reference conditions.
Goals for restoration projects may be determined by varying
degrees of historical accuracy to a pre-existing condition
[12,13]. While ideas like a historical rangeof variability and
recovery of different successional routes may be used for
restoration projects, they should not be restricted to a certain
time framework. The term "historical fidelity" refers to a
restoration design's dedication to the history of an ecosystem.
Even in circumstances when precise historical knowledge is
sparse, it is not normal practice to overlook the past of an
environment [14].
IV. RESTORATION OF ECOLOGICAL
COMMUNITIES
The stability and variety of taxa and interactions
between species on the surface and underground are
influenced by interactions between these two types of
communities [15,16]. For the most part, restoration studies at
the community level have focused on abiotic factors (such as
nutrient status) that directly influence plant communities.
However, the soil biotic conditions have a crucial effect on
plant community features, as a recent study has demonstrated
[17,18]. This has helped us better understand how plant and
soil communities interact to promote plant community
recovery after disturbances. Kardol et al. [19] found that early
successional communities are held back by positive feedback
loops between mycorrhizal fungi and plants, whereas later
stages of grassland are accelerated by negative feedback loops
between mycorrhizal fungi and soil pathogens. These biotic
plant-soil feedbacks will likely affect higher trophic levels
than the soil.
Plant communities are increasingly influenced by soil
communities because of their functional characteristic range.
Co-existing plant species' performance may be affected by
functional variations among soil mycorrhizal communities,
according to a study published very recently [20,21]. Soil
community functional trait spectrum and soil community
treatments that modify this spectrum may considerably help
the restoration of plant communities. Species loss, release
from disturbance, and changes in environmental conditions
all contribute to the gradual colonization of external species
pools by soil organism communities during restoration [22].
Since different plant species help soil communities in
different ways, the new growth also affects the recovery of
soil communities. Viketoft et al. [23] experimented on land
that used to be farmland in northern Sweden. They discovered
that soil nematode populations' taxonomic and functional
composition shifted in areas with varying densities and plant
species. Plant communities and soil resources that plants
return to the soil after agricultural disturbance may help
restore food web structure [24]. It's possible that altering the
way plants function might enhance the quality of the soil food
web.
IJISRT22DEC820 www.ijisrt.com
International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
V. RESTORATION OF NATURAL DISTURBANCE
REGIMES
Most ecosystems have natural disturbance regimes, but
human activities have suppressed these regimes to a
significant degree, resulting in significant environmental
changes [25]. Wildfire, for example, is a crucial component of
many ecosystems across the globe, yet people have always
tried to control it. At the community level, it is well-known
that fire restoration selectively favours plant communities with
a range of useful characteristics, such as soil communities
[26,27]. The functional makeup of the plant community may
evolve because of the restoration of fire regimes, altering
below-ground community features [28]. Even while
suppression of fires may increase or decrease soil nutrients,
organic matter, and carbon storage, the return of fire after
suppression is likely to impact ecosystems. These effects can
happen directly and indirectly in several ways, such as by
changing the functional trait spectrum of plants and the quality
of plant-based resources that go into the soil. Large
herbivores, for example, are no longer able to generate biotic
disturbances because of human activity [29,30]. Wildfires and
herbivore-driven disturbances have been compared in terms of
plant biomass reduction [31], even though these disturbances
may have quite different outcomes below the ground and
above the ground [32].
VI. RESTORATION OF DEGRADED, ABANDONED
LANDS
Biodiversity conservation is sometimes helped by
putting semi-natural ecosystems back to how they were before
humans used the land for things like mining and farming [33].
Some parts of the soil biota take a long time to grow back,
which could have long-term effects on animals that live above
ground [34]. During restoration, the speed at which groups of
organisms that depend on each other recover can vary a lot.
When abandoned sites are cleaned up, it might be hard to
determine how species above and below ground are
connected. Soil organisms that impact plant growth, either
directly or indirectly, may follow the development of
vegetation because they rely on plants [35,36] or may need to
be introduced to repair disrupted plant communities. Direct
inoculation of mycorrhizal fungi, for example, seems to be an
essential step in the effective restoration of target plant
communities [37,38].
VII. REVERSAL OF BIOLOGICAL INVASIONS
Native species may be displaced or even eliminated by
invasive organisms, which disrupts multitrophic or mutualistic
relationships between organisms in above and below-ground
environments [39-41]. Communities where invasive species
have overrun must be actively eradicated, and the native
species must be actively restored in many situations
(especially when certain local species have been eliminated)
[42-44]. When it comes to native plant variety and
composition, for example, reestablishing native soil
2279
Volume 7, Issue 12, December – 2022
ecosystems may be a stumbling block [45,46]. As a result,
certain invasive predator species may profoundly affect
community structure both above and below ground [47,48]. It
may be necessary to reintroduce the prey species after the
predators have been eradicated to restore natural ecosystems
[49].
Evidence suggests that attempts to restore native
arthropods' food web structure may help, although little
research has been done on the effects of invasive plant species
removal on below-ground populations [50,51]. We also know
that invasions of non-native species change ecosystem-level
International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
processes such as nutrient, carbon, and biomass fluxes and
pools [52-54].
VIII. ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION STRATEGIES
Meta-analysis is a standard method for identifying the
most important determinants of restoration success. In such
meta-analyses, "active" and "passive" are commonly
employed to distinguish restorative procedures. Some authors
studied the active and passive types of restoration ecology,
which is mentioned in the table given below:

Table 2: Definitions of "passive" and "active" restoration in past meta-analyses.

Author
Shimamoto et al.(2018) Regeneration, either natural oraided.
Crouzeilles et al.(2017)
Jones et al.(2018)
Passive Active Reference
Enhance facilitation by using individual [55]
trees. Incorporating native plants;
Importing non-native species, such as
pines and eucalyptus; planting
commercially significant species such as
Acacia; or planting native species and
crops are some methods used to restore
the land to its pre-invasionstate.
Human interventions, such as fences Changes in disturbance patterns can be [56]
to keep cattle out of the woods and made by thinning and burning, planting
weed control and fire prevention, help nursery-grown seedlings, direct seeding,
forest regrowth following land or planting tree plantations
abandonment andselective logging.
Recovery after a disturbance using a Efforts to speed the recovery of [57]
combination of actions to stop the ecosystems that have been affected by a
disturbance disturbance

The degree of environmental deterioration at a specific
site significantly impacts the likelihood that active restoration
solutions will be used. Only the most severely damaged
ecosystems may benefit from adopting active restoration
methods since they are prohibitively expensive and would
almost surely fail without them. In their paper, Reid et al.
(2018) [58] explain why it is necessary to shift one's
perspective from "active restoration" to "passive restoration":
a plantation in a degraded pasture has the potential to fail to
establish, but as an included study site, a 10-year-old
secondary forest has already established. Because of the wide
range of pre-restoration circumstances, it is practically hard to
draw meaningful conclusions from research comparing active
and passive restoration [59-61]. It is necessary to conduct
studies that compare the efficacy of various restoration
procedures in environments that have been similarly
disturbed or degraded. Some primary studies have started to
appear utilizing this method, which is encouraging. If this
meta-analysis is correct, future restoration strategy meta-
analyses should omit trials when a passive approach has
already "succeeded" in some way before the study takes place,
for example, the 10-year-old secondary forest.
Nevertheless, meta-analyses employ the "passive" vs
"active" restoration technique dichotomy. The major purpose
of restoration ecology research is to prevent language from
being cast in a manner that fosters misunderstanding and
permits restoration studies to be misinterpreted [62,63].
IX. ECOLOGY RESTORATION: ADVANCED
APPROACH
Ecosystems are defined by the diversity of their species.
As a result, the goal of ecological restoration is often to restore
the original species mix, sometimes known as the "natural"
composition [64]. There are currently no reliable ways for
estimating how long it will take to return to pre-restoration
conditions. The ORBA (ordination regression-based approach)
method allows for both linear and asymptotic (logarithmic)
relationships between compositional changes and time, and it
can be used to predict how long it will take for the system to
recover. A vector in ordination space shows how far apart
restored plots and reference plots are along the successional
gradient, which is used to predict how long it will take for the
area to recover. Because of this, the technique depends on (a)
a broad understanding of the relationship between species
composition and time, (b) a well- represented successional
gradient, and (c) a specific restoration goal. As a test case,
data from a boreal old-growth forest that had not been touched

IJISRT22DEC820 www.ijisrt.com 2280

Volume 7, Issue 12, December – 2022
in 18 years was taken. After a disruption, the first nine years
were used to make models, and the next nine years were used
to test those models. Compositional recovery rates in the
sample followed the typical pattern of going down overtime
after a change.
To put it another way, asymptotic models were more
accurate than linear models in predicting the time to recovery.
International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
The results show that the novel technique opens the door to
reasonable recovery rates and times predictions using data on
species compositional compositions. This helps to see if the
recovery process is heading in the right direction. It allows to
evaluate the success of various management strategies in
terms of speed and efficiency [65].

Table 3: A Continuum of ecological or ecosystem restoration strategies in four ecosystems.

Ecosystem Unaided(Natural)Recovery
Types
Grasslands Colonization
(dispersal monitoring
limitation)
Forests Aside from monitoring the
progress of rehabilitation and
avoiding additional site
deterioration, there will be no reintroducing a prescribed fire
further intervention
Peatlands Natural regrowth in mildly
deteriorated (undrained)
environments with nearby
seed supplies. To avoid
additional deterioration and
carbon losses, especially
runoff and peat layer erosion,
it is necessary to accept a
permanent alternative plant
cover state without rewetting.
Rivers Prevent additional
deterioration of the site by
removing the cause of the
degradation and monitoring
the recovery trajectory
Lightly AssistedRecovery
Prevent additionaldeterioration
of the site by removing the
cause of the degradation and
monitoring the recovery
trajectory
Good land management
includespreventing unnatural
fires and disturbances,
regimeto get rid of weeds,
keeping out exotic grazers,
keeping people from
harvesting or hunting in the
area, helping seeds spread,
pruning trees that have grown
back after a fire, planting more
trees, and doing some
moderate erosion control after
a fire.
Fire suppression, reduction of
evaporative water lossdue to
brush clearing and reduced
grazing pressure, and the
release of seedlings are all
important considerations (e.g.
fern removal
Natural flood risk management
and restoration of a more
naturally occurring flow
pattern may be achieved using
riparian buffer stripsand
herbicides, tree-selective
thinning
buffer strips, livestock-proof
fencing, soil conservation
approaches, and riparian buffer
strips.
Moderately Assisted Recovery
Recovery Intensive
Planting plugs in the Turf or soil
ground with brush- translocation
harvested seeds or hay
Planting trees and Topsoil
amending the topsoil; replacement,
selective thinning and significant
controlled burning;site hydrological
preparation anddirect change, and
sowing; and partial or total facilitated
tree planting. migration are all
examples of large
landform
modifications.
For example, restricting Surface reshaping
drains to enable natural or bundling, as
recovery may be one wellas extensive
method of rewetting, as site preparation,
may removing non-native are required before
plants andrestoring native any construction
tree species by plug activity.
planting and sowing
Planting trees and Floodplain
preparing the site forsoft sculpting or
engineering; removing or channel
modifying hard remeandering;
engineering to start channel formation
geomorphic processes or remeshing;
gravel additions;
and channel
remeasuring

IJISRT22DEC820 www.ijisrt.com 2281

Volume 7, Issue 12, December – 2022
X. CONCLUSION
Ecological restoration and intervention are necessary to
counteract the human-induced alteration and degradation of
natural ecosystems; also, it is a multifaceted endeavour.
Different kinds of ecosystems may be restored in various ways
rather than being categorized into distinct passive or active
methods. Understanding the inherent healing capacity of
nature and overcoming impediments that restrict this ability is
essential for effective restoration efforts. The first stage in
restoring ecosystems is to focus on reducing or eliminating the
causes of human-caused deterioration. As a result of
supporting self-recovery, the cost of implementation is
significantly reduced, the potential to reach greater
geographical scales may be achieved, the colonization of
native locally adapted genotypes is favoured, and natural
processes are allowed to work without human interference. It's
possible to connect developing ecological concepts with
restoration efforts in several ways.
REFERENCES
[1.] Boyden S, Dovers S.1992 Natural-resource
consumption and its environmental impacts in the
Western World. Impacts of increasing per capita
consumption. Ambio. 63-9.
[2.] National Research Council.1992 Restoration of aquatic
ecosystems: science, technology, and public policy.
NAP.
[3.] Jackson LL, Lopoukhine N, Hillyard D.1995
Ecological restoration: a definition and comments.
Restor. Ecol. (2):71-5.
[4.] Swetnam TW, Allen CD, Betancourt JL. 1999 Applied
historical ecology: using the past to manage for the
future. Ecol Appl. (4):1189-206.
[5.] Egan D, Howell E. Handbook of Historical Ecology.
[6.] Hall M, editor.2010 Restoration and history: the search
for a usable environmental past. Routledge; Landres PB,
Morgan P, Swanson FJ. 1999 Overview of the use of
natural variability concepts in managing ecological
systems. Ecol Appl. (4):1179-88.
[7.] Palmer MA, Zedler JB, Falk DA, editors.2006
Foundations of restoration ecology. Washington, DC:
Island Press; Choi YD. 2007 Restoration ecology to the
future: a call for new paradigm. Restor. Ecol. (2):351-3.
[8.] Millar CI, Stephenson NL, Stephens SL. 2007 Climate
change and forests of the future: managing in the face
of uncertainty. Ecol Appl. (8):2145-51.
[9.] Clewell A, Aronson J, Winterhalder K. 2004 Society
for Ecological Restoration International Science &
Policy Working Group. 2004. The SER international
primer on ecological restoration.
[10.] Clewell AF. 2000 Restoring for natural authenticity.
Restor. Ecol.;18(4):216-7.
IJISRT22DEC820 www.ijisrt.com
International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
[11.] Higgs E. 2003 Nature by design: people, natural
process, and ecological restoration. MIT Press; Suding
KN, Gross KL, Houseman GR. 2004 Alternative states
and positive feedbacks in restoration ecology. Trends
Ecol. Evol. 19(1):46-53.
[12.] Bardgett RD, Wardle DA. 2003 Herbivore‐mediated
linkages between aboveground and below-ground
communities. Ecology. (9):2258-68.
[13.] Bakker JP, Berendse F. 1999 Constraints in the
restoration of ecological diversity in grassland and
heathland communities. Trends Ecol. Evol. 14(2):63-8.
[14.] Wolfe BE, Klironomos JN. 2005 Breaking new ground:
soil communities and exotic plant invasion.
Bioscience.;55(6):477-87.
[15.] De Deyn GB, Raaijmakers CE, Zoomer HR, Berg MP,
de Ruiter PC, Verhoef HA, Bezemer TM, van der
Putten WH. 2003 Soil invertebrate fauna enhances
grassland succession and diversity. Nature.
22(6933):711-3.
[16.] Kardol P, Martijn Bezemer T, Van Der Putten WH.
2006 Temporal variation in plant–soil feedback
controls succession. Ecol. (9):1080-8.
[17.] de Bello F, Lavorel S, Díaz S, Harrington R,
Cornelissen JH, Bardgett RD, Berg MP, Cipriotti P,
Feld CK, Hering D, Martins da Silva P. 2010 Towards
an assessment of multiple ecosystem processes and
services via functional traits. Biodivers. Conserv.
(10):2873-93.
[18.] Ji B, Bentivenga SP, Casper BB. 2010 Evidence for
ecological matching of whole AM fungal communities
to the local plant–soil environment. Ecology.
(10):3037-46.
[19.] Kardol P, Newton JS, Bezemer TM, Maraun M, van der
Putten WH. 2009 Contrasting diversity patterns of soil
mites and nematodes in secondary succession. Acta
Oecol. 35(5):603-9.
[20.] Viketoft M, Bengtsson J, Sohlenius B, Berg MP,
Petchey O, Palmborg C, Huss-Danell K.2009 Long‐
term effects of plant diversity and composition on soil
nematode communities in model grasslands. Ecology.
(1):90-9.
[21.] Holtkamp R, Kardol P, van der Wal A, Dekker SC, van
der Putten WH, de Ruiter PC.2008 Soil food web
structure during ecosystem development after land
abandonment. applied soil ecology. 39(1):23-34.
[22.] Bardgett RD, Wardle DA. 2010 Aboveground-
belowground linkages: biotic interactions, ecosystem
processes, and global change. OUP;
[23.] Granström A. 2001 Fire management for biodiversity in
the European boreal forest. Scand. J. For. Res.
16(S3):62-9.
[24.] Pausas JG, Bradstock RA, Keith DA, Keeley JE. 2004
Plant functional traits in relation to fire in crown‐fire
ecosystems. Ecology. (4):1085-100.
2282
Volume 7, Issue 12, December – 2022
[25.] Nilsson MC, Wardle DA. 2005 Understory vegetation
as a forest ecosystem driver: evidence from the northern
Swedish boreal forest. Front. Ecol. Environ. (8):421-8.
[26.] Certini G. 2005 Effects of fire on properties of forest
soils: a review. Oecologia. 143(1):1-0.
[27.] Laughlin DC, Hart SC, Kaye JP, Moore MM. 2010
Evidence for indirect effects of plant diversity and
composition on net nitrification. Plant and soil.
330(1):435-45.
[28.] Bond WJ, Keeley JE. 2005 Fire as a global 'herbivore':
the ecology and evolution of flammable ecosystems.
Trends Ecol. Evol.;20(7):387-94.
[29.] Wardle DA, Bardgett RD. 2004 Human‐induced
changes in large herbivorous mammal density: the
consequences for decomposers. Front. Ecol. Environ.
2(3):145-53.
[30.] Cramer VA, Hobbs RJ, Standish RJ. 2008 What's new
about old fields? Land abandonment and ecosystem
assembly. Trends Ecol. ;23(2):104-12.
[31.] Wassenaar TD, Van Aarde RJ, Pimm SL, Ferreira SM.
2005 Community convergence in disturbed subtropical
dune forests. Ecology. 86(3):655-66.
[32.] Watts CH, Clarkson BR, Didham RK. 2008 Rapid
beetle community convergence following experimental
habitat restoration in a mined peat bog. Biological
Conservation.;141(2):568-79.
[33.] Kardol P, Bezemer TM, Van Der Putten WH. 2009 Soil
organism and plant introductions in restoration of
species‐rich grassland communities. Restor. Ecol.
17(2):258-69.
[34.] Richter BS, Stutz JC. 2002 Mycorrhizal inoculation of
big sacaton: implications for grassland restoration of
abandoned agricultural fields. Restor. Ecol. 10(4):607-
16.
[35.] Eschen R, Müller-Schärer H, Schaffner U. 2009
Aboveground environment type, soil nutrient content
and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi explain establishment
success of Centaurea jacea on ex-arable land and in
late-successional grasslands. Plant and soil. 22(1):115-
23.
[36.] Bardgett RD, Wardle DA. 2010 Aboveground-
belowground linkages: biotic interactions, ecosystem
processes, and global change. OUP;
[37.] Biederman LA, Boutton TW, Whisenant SG. 2008
Nematode community development early in ecological
restoration: The role of organic amendments. Soil
Biology and Biochemistry. 40(9):2366-74.
[38.] Van der Putten WH. 2010 Impacts of soil microbial
communities on exotic plant invasions. Trends Ecol.
Evol. 1;25(9):512-9.
[39.] Stinson KA, Campbell SA, Powell JR, Wolfe BE,
Callaway RM, Thelen GC, Hallett SG, Prati D,
Klironomos JN. 2006 Invasive plant suppresses the
growth of native tree seedlings by disrupting below-
ground mutualisms. PLoS biology. (5):e140.
IJISRT22DEC820 www.ijisrt.com
International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
[40.] Tylianakis JM, Didham RK, Bascompte J, Wardle DA.
Global change and species interactions in terrestrial
ecosystems. Ecology letters. 2008 Dec;11(12):1351-63.
[41.] Wolfe BE, Rodgers VL, Stinson KA, Pringle A. 2008
The invasive plant Alliaria petiolata (garlic mustard)
inhibits ectomycorrhizal fungi in its introduced range. J.
Ecol. 96(4):777-83.
[42.] Stinson KA, Campbell SA, Powell JR, Wolfe BE,
Callaway RM, Thelen GC, Hallett SG, Prati D,
Klironomos JN. 2006 Invasive plant suppresses the
growth of native tree seedlings by disrupting below-
ground mutualisms. PLoS biology. 4(5):e140.
[43.] Thrall PH, Millsom DA, Jeavons AC, Waayers M,
Harvey GR, Bagnall DJ, Brockwell J. 2005 Seed
inoculation with effective root‐nodule bacteria enhances
revegetation success. J. Appl. Ecol. 42(4):740-51.
[44.] Fukami T, Wardle DA, Bellingham PJ, Mulder CP,
Towns DR, Yeates GW, Bonner KI, Durrett MS, Grant‐
Hoffman MN, Williamson WM. 2006 Above‐and
below‐ground impacts of introduced predators in
seabird‐dominated island ecosystems. Ecol.
9(12):1299-307.
[45.] Croll DA, Maron JL, Estes JA, Danner EM, Byrd
GV.2005 Introduced predators transform subarctic
islands from grassland to tundra.
Science.;307(5717):1959-61.
[46.] Mulder CP, Grant-Hoffman MN, Towns DR,
Bellingham PJ, Wardle DA, Durrett MS, Fukami T,
Bonner KI. 2009 Direct and indirect effects of rats:
does rat eradication restore ecosystem functioning of
New Zealand seabird islands?. Biological Invasions.
(7):1671-88.
[47.] Gratton C, Denno RF. 2006Arthropod food web
restoration following removal of an invasive wetland
plant. ECOL APPL 16(2):622-31.
[48.] Peltzer DA, Bellingham PJ, Kurokawa H, Walker LR,
Wardle DA, Yeates GW. 2009 Punching above their
weight: low‐biomass non‐native plant species alter soil
properties during primary succession. Oikos.
118(7):1001-14.
[49.] Holly DC, Ervin GN, Jackson CR, Diehl SV, Kirker
GT. 2009 Effect of an invasive grass on ambient rates
of decomposition and microbial community structure: a
search for causality. Biological Invasions. 11(8):1855-
68.
[50.] Peltzer DA, Allen RB, Lovett GM, Whitehead D,
Wardle DA. 2010 Effects of biological invasions on
forest carbon sequestration. Global Change Biology.
16(2):732-46.
[51.] Wardle DA, Karl BJ, Beggs JR, Yeates GW,
Williamson WM, Bonner KI. 2010 Determining the
impact of scale insect honeydew, and invasive wasps
and rodents, on the decomposer subsystem in a New
Zealand beech forest. Biological invasions. 12(8):2619-
38.
2283
Volume 7, Issue 12, December – 2022 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
[52.] Shimamoto CY, Padial AA, da Rosa CM, Marques MC.
2018 Restoration of ecosystem services in tropical
forests: A global meta-analysis. PloS
one.;13(12):e0208523.
[53.] Crouzeilles R, Ferreira MS, Chazdon RL, Lindenmayer
DB, Sansevero JB, Monteiro L, Iribarrem A, Latawiec
AE, Strassburg BB. 2017 Ecological restoration success
is higher for natural regeneration than for active
restoration in tropical forests. Science
advances.;3(11):e1701345.
[54.] Jones HP, Jones PC, Barbier EB, Blackburn RC, Rey
Benayas JM, Holl KD, McCrackin M, Meli P, Montoya
D, Mateos DM. 2018 Restoration and repair of Earth's
damaged ecosystems. Proceedings of the Royal Society
B: Biological Sciences.;285(1873):20172577.
[55.] Reid JL, Fagan ME, Zahawi RA. 2018 Positive site
selection bias in meta-analyses comparing natural
regeneration to active forest restoration. Science
advances.;4(5):eaas9143.
[56.] Prach K, Šebelíková L, Řehounková K, del Moral R.
2019 Possibilities and limitations of passive restoration
of heavily disturbed sites. Landscape Research.
[57.] Trujillo-Miranda AL, Toledo-Aceves T, López-Barrera
F, Gerez-Fernández P. 2018 Active versus passive
restoration: Recovery of cloud forest structure, diversity
and soil condition in abandoned pastures. Ecol.
Eng.;117:50-61.
[58.] Staples TL, Mayfield MM, England JR, Dwyer JM.
2020 Comparing the recovery of richness, structure,
and biomass in naturally regrowing and planted
reforestation. Restor. Ecol. (2):347-57.
[59.] Shimamoto CY, Padial AA, da Rosa CM, Marques MC.
2018 Restoration of ecosystem services in tropical
forests: A global meta-analysis. PloS one.
13(12):e0208523.
[60.] Huang C, Zhou Z, Peng C, Teng M, Wang P. 2019
How is biodiversity changing in response to ecological
restoration in terrestrial ecosystems? A meta-analysis in
China. Sci. Total Environ;650:1-9.
[61.] Harris JA, Hobbs RJ, Higgs E, Aronson J. 2006
Ecological restoration and global climate change.
Restor. Ecol. (2):170-6.
[62.] Rydgren K, Halvorsen R, Töpper JP, Auestad I, Hamre
LN, Jongejans E, Sulavik J. 2019Advancing restoration
ecology: A new approach to predict time to recovery.
Journal of Applied Ecology.;56(1):225-34.

IJISRT22DEC820 www.ijisrt.com 2284