Barriers to ecological restoration in Europe: expert perspectives

Ecological restoration is key to counteracting anthropogenic degradation of biodiversity and to reducing disaster risk. However, there is limited knowledge of barriers hindering the wider implementation of restoration practices, despite high-level political priority to halt the loss of biodiversity. In Europe, progress on ecological restoration has been slow and insufficient to meet international agreements and comply with European Union Nature Directives. We assessed European restoration experts' perceptions on barriers to restoration in Europe, and their relative importance, through a multiple expert consultation using a Delphi process. We found that experts share a common multi-dimensional concept of ecological restoration. Experts identified a large number of barriers (33) to the advancement of ecological restoration in Europe. Major barriers pertained to the socio-economic, not the environmental, domain. The three most important being insufficient funding, conflicting interests among different stakeholders, and low political priority given to restoration. Our results emphasize the need to increase political commitment at all levels, comply with existing nature laws, and optimize the use of financial resources by increasing funds for ecological restoration and eradicate environmentally harmful subsidies. The experts also call for the integration of ecological restoration into land-use planning and facilitating stakeholders' collaboration. Our study identifies key barriers, discusses ways to overcome the main barriers to ER in Europe, and contributes knowledge to support the implementation of the European Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, and the EU 2030 Restoration Plan in particular. © 2021 The Authors. Restoration Ecology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. on behalf of Society for Ecological Restoration.We are particularly thankful to experts participating in the Delphi process for their generosity in sharing their time and knowledge, and the European Chapter of the Society for Ecological Restoration (SERE), Réseau d'Échanges et de Valorisation en Écologie de la Restauration (REVER), Finnish Board on Ecological Restoration (FBER), Working Group on Ecological Restoration of the Spanish Association for Terrestrial Ecology (ER-AEET), Dutch Knowledge Network for Restoration and Management of Nature (OBN), German Restoration Network (GRN), UK Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM), Portuguese Network of Ecological Restoration (RPRE), Iberian Center for River Restoration (CIREF), and European Federation of Soil Bioengineering (EFIB) for suggesting candidates to the consulting process. We appreciate the support given by BiodivERsA (project funded under the EU Horizon 2020 ERA-NET COFUND scheme), and the EKLIPSE project (European Union Horizon 2020 grant agreement 690474), and particularly by Juliette C. Young. JCS research is financially supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science, Education and Universities and European Regional Development Funds (FEDER; project COSTERA, RTI2018-095954-B-I00). PMRG research is funded by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) through FCT Investigator Program grant number IF/00059/2015, and Centro de Estudos Florestais is supported by FCT grants UID/AGR/00239/2019 and UIDB/00239/2020

Barriers to ecological restoration in Europe: expert perspectives

Ecological restoration is key to counteracting anthropogenic degradation of biodiversity and to reducing disaster risk. However, there is limited knowledge of barriers hindering the wider implementation of restoration practices, despite high‐level political priority to halt the loss of biodiversity. In Europe, progress on ecological restoration has been slow and insufficient to meet international agreements and comply with European Union Nature Directives. We assessed European restoration experts' perceptions on barriers to restoration in Europe, and their relative importance, through a multiple expert consultation using a Delphi process. We found that experts share a common multi‐dimensional concept of ecological restoration. Experts identified a large number of barriers (33) to the advancement of ecological restoration in Europe. Major barriers pertained to the socio‐economic, not the environmental, domain. The three most important being insufficient funding, conflicting interests among different stakeholders, and low political priority given to restoration. Our results emphasize the need to increase political commitment at all levels, comply with existing nature laws, and optimize the use of financial resources by increasing funds for ecological restoration and eradicate environmentally harmful subsidies. The experts also call for the integration of ecological restoration into land‐use planning and facilitating stakeholders' collaboration. Our study identifies key barriers, discusses ways to overcome the main barriers to ER in Europe, and contributes knowledge to support the implementation of the European Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, and the EU 2030 Restoration Plan in particular

Overwintering of Monilinia spp. on mummified stone fruit

Mummies were evaluated over the course of four growing seasons to ensure they are source of primary inoculum. The percentage of mummies with presence of conidia and its viability were determined in tree and ground mummies. The number of conidia and its germination were also quantified. Fruit mummies with Monilinia spp. were consistently detected on tree mummies in all studied orchards and growing seasons. However, the percentage of viable mummies over the same sampling periods decreased, and in most cases, it was 0% by October. The percentage of ground mummies with Monilinia spp. was lower and less viable in comparison with tree mummies, tending to decrease faster. The number of overwintering conidia in tree mummies decreased smoothly from 1 × 106 to 1 × 104 conidia/mummy between April and September. On the other hand, the number of conidia in ground mummies rapidly decreased to 0 conidia/mummy at around May-July. The profiles for the percentage of conidia germinated were similar in all cases. The information obtained from this study is a step forward to understanding the epidemiology of Monilinia spp.;a useful tool to manage disease development. © 2014 Blackwell Verlag GmbH

Primary inoculum sources of Monilinia spp. in Spanish peach orchards and their relative importance in brown rot

Immediately following the identification of Monilinia fructicola in a Spanish peach orchard in the Ebro Valley in 2006, this orchard and two other orchards in the same valley were intensively sampled for potential tree and ground sources of primary Monilinia inoculum before and during three growing seasons between 2006 and 2008. Overwintered Monilinia spp. produced inoculum from only mycelium, and no apothecia were found in any of the three orchards over the three growing seasons. Mummies on trees were the main source of primary inoculum. More than 90% of Monilinia isolates on all fruit mummies were M. laxa. Positive relationships were found between (i) the number of mummified fruit and the incidence of postharvest brown rot (P = 0.05, r = 0.75, n = 8), and (ii) the number of mummified fruit and nonabscised aborted fruit in the trees and the number of conidia on the fruit surface (P = 0.04, r = 0.71; P = 0.01, r = 0.94, respectively, n = 8) and the incidence of latent infection (P = 0.03, r = 0.75; P = 0.001, r = 0.99; respectively, n = 8). In addition, the numbers of mummified fruit and pruned branches on the orchard floor were correlated with the number of airborne conidia in the orchard. Based on the results of these surveys, the control of brown rot in stone fruit orchards is discussed

Secondary inoculum dynamics of Monilinia spp.;relationship to the incidence of postharvest brown rot in peaches and the weather conditions during the growing season

Eight field surveys over three growing seasons (April to October in 2006, 2007, and 2008) were done in three commercial peach and nectarine orchards in order to determine the secondary inoculum dynamics of Monilinia spp.;relationship to the weather conditions and incidence of postharvest brown rot in the Ebro Valley, which is the main peach fruit growing region in Spain. After regression analysis of the epidemiological data of postharvest brown rot and the climatic variables, a disease outbreak can be predicted from (i) the times of the first appearance of airborne conidia, the first appearance of conidia on the surface of flowers and fruits, and the first latent infection, all of which occur 2 months before harvest (ii) the number of conidia on the fruit surface, 2 weeks and 1 week before harvest, (iii) the preharvest incidence of brown rot, and (iv) the mean environmental temperature from popcorn to harvest. From these results, we confirmed the importance of the secondary inoculum dynamics of Monilinia spp.;the utility of these dynamics to predict an outbreak of brown rot in peaches on the day of their harvest and after their harvesting. © 2012 KNPV

Occurrence of Monilinia laxa and M. fructigena after introduction of M. fructicola in peach orchards in Spain

Seventeen field surveys were done in four commercial orchards during six consecutive fruit-growing seasons from 2006 until 2011 in order to determine the current frequencies of occurrence of M. laxa, M. fructigena, and M. fructicola and their relative contributions to postharvest brown rot in peaches and nectarines in the Ebro Valley. The relative frequencies of occurrence of Monilinia spp. were determined on three sources of primary inoculum and on three sources of secondary inoculum. The major relative frequencies of Monilinia spp. were significantly recorded (P = 0.05) from mummified fruit on the trees (approx. 42 %) and 7-day-old harvested fruit with brown rot (32 %), followed by that recovered from mummified fruit on the orchard bed (14 %), pruned branches on the orchard bed (8 %) and latent infections of immature fruit (3 %). We found that (a) the relative frequency of M. fructicola has increased over the years to coexist on the same level as at the time M. laxa, (b) M. fructigena is no longer a cause of brown rot in harvested peaches, (c), a progressive reduction in the time of the first appearance of Monilinia airborne conidia (r = -0.30, P = 0.003), and the time of the first latent infection (r = -0.44, P = 0.0001) was detected along years after correlation analysis, and (d) these displacements are not associated with an increased incidence of brown rot disease. The M. fructicola increase was due to its significantly increased presence in 7-day-old harvested fruit with brown rot (r = 0.73, P = 0.0009), in latent infections of immature fruit (r = 0.68, P = 0.002), on pruned branches on the orchard bed (r = 0.56, P = 0.018), and on mummified fruit sampled on the trees (r = 0.53, P = 0.03). This progressive increase was accompanied by a progressive reduction in the relative frequency of occurrence of M. laxa in 7-day-old harvested fruit with brown rot (r = -0.55, P = 0.021) and M. fructigena on mummified fruit sampled on the trees (r = -0.51, P = 0.03). © 2013 KNPV

Barriers to ecological restoration in Europe:expert perspectives

Abstract Ecological restoration is key to counteracting anthropogenic degradation of biodiversity and to reducing disaster risk. However, there is limited knowledge of barriers hindering the wider implementation of restoration practices, despite high-level political priority to halt the loss of biodiversity. In Europe, progress on ecological restoration has been slow and insufficient to meet international agreements and comply with European Union Nature Directives. We assessed European restoration experts' perceptions on barriers to restoration in Europe, and their relative importance, through a multiple expert consultation using a Delphi process. We found that experts share a common multi-dimensional concept of ecological restoration. Experts identified a large number of barriers (33) to the advancement of ecological restoration in Europe. Major barriers pertained to the socio-economic, not the environmental, domain. The three most important being insufficient funding, conflicting interests among different stakeholders, and low political priority given to restoration. Our results emphasize the need to increase political commitment at all levels, comply with existing nature laws, and optimize the use of financial resources by increasing funds for ecological restoration and eradicate environmentally harmful subsidies. The experts also call for the integration of ecological restoration into land-use planning and facilitating stakeholders' collaboration. Our study identifies key barriers, discusses ways to overcome the main barriers to ER in Europe, and contributes knowledge to support the implementation of the European Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, and the EU 2030 Restoration Plan in particular