Search

The wolf (Canis lupus) is arguably the most successful species at recolonizing its now human‐dominated former ranges in Europe and North America. Over the centuries while the wolf was absent, humans have transformed ecosystems to a large extent. In this paper, we highlight key aspects of these human‐modified ecosystems that include changes to (meso)carnivore communities, wolves themselves (genetics, behaviour), woody plant communities and the playing field for predator–prey interactions (landscape structure).We argue that the recognition of the novelty of human‐modified ecosystems logically leads to novel pathways of how wolves can influence ecosystem functioning. Thus far, the ecological impacts of wolves in human‐dominated systems have largely been predicted based on the documented effects they have on prey species or lower trophic levels in well‐preserved systems with low human impact. However, wolves in human‐modified ecosystems will engage in an array of novel interactions and potential novel trophic cascades that do not occur in more natural ecosystems with lower human impact.This should encourage us to re‐assess the questions we ask about wolf impacts in novel systems. A promising direction for future studies is exploring what novel interactions establish and under what conditions wolves can exert their ecosystem impacts (context dependence) in the human‐modified ecosystems wolves are recolonizing.Policy implications. Understanding these novel interactions and the context dependence of ecosystem impacts could guide us to act to improve conditions to enable wolves to exert their ecosystem impacts again. These novel interactions may be the true ecological and societal value of having wolves returning to human‐modified landscapes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bats frequently inhabit caves and other subterranean habitats and play a critical role in subterranean food webs. With escalating threats to subterranean ecosystems, identifying the most effective measures to protect subterranean‐roosting bats is critical. We conducted a meta‐analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of conservation and management interventions for subterranean‐roosting bats. We used network analyses to determine to what extent interventions for bats overlap those used for other subterranean taxa. We conducted our analyses with data extracted from 345 papers recommending a total of 910 conservation interventions. Gating of roost entrances was applied to preserve bat populations in 21 studies, but its effectiveness was unclear. Habitat restoration and disturbance reduction positively affected bat populations and bat behavior, respectively, in ≤4 studies. Decontamination was assessed in 2 studies and positively affected bat populations, particularly in studies focused on reducing fungal spores associated with white‐nose syndrome in North America. Monitoring of bat populations as an effective conservation strategy was unclear and infrequently tested. Only 4% of bat studies simultaneously considered other subterranean organisms. However, effective interventions for bat conservation had similarities with all other organisms. If other subterranean organisms are considered when applying interventions to conserve bats, they might also benefit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The strategy of the United Nations Decade on Ecosystem Restoration identifies three pathways for action for overcoming six global barriers thought to hamper upscaling. We evaluated 6,023 peer‐reviewed and gray literature papers published over the last two decades to map the information landscape underlying the barriers and associated pathways for action across world regions, terrestrial ecosystem types, restorative interventions and their outcomes. Overall, the literature addressed more the financial and legislative barriers than the technical and research‐related ones, supporting the view that social, economic and political factors hamper scaling up ecosystem restoration. Latin America, Africa, and North America were the most prominent regions in the literature, yet differed in the number of publications addressing each barrier. An overwhelming number of publications focused on forests (78%), while grasslands (6%), drylands (3%), and mangroves (2%) received less attention. Across the three pathways for action, the action lines on (1) promoting long‐term ecosystem restoration actions and monitoring and (2) education on restoration were the most underrepresented in the literature. In general, restorative interventions assessed rendered positive outcomes except those of a political, legislative or financial nature which reported negative or inconclusive outcomes. Our indicative assessment reveals critical information gaps on barriers, pathways, and types of restorative interventions across world regions, particularly related to specific social issues such as education for ecosystem restoration. Finally, we call for refining "strength of evidence" assessment frameworks that can systematically appraise, synthesize and integrate information on traditional and practitioner knowledge as two essential components for improving decision‐making in ecosystem restoration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]