Restoration: 'Garden of Eden' unrealistic

Article metrics

We consider the proposed use of a 'pre-degradation' state as a reference baseline for damaged ecosystems to be unrealistic (J. Kotiaho et al. Nature 532, 37; 2016). Instead of this 'Garden of Eden' baseline, we argue that restoration should respond to current drivers of biodiversity loss and decline in ecosystem function and services.

A baseline that prescribes a list of pre-degradation species is a good place to start, but it does not take into account the dynamism of ecological communities, in which species are constantly migrating, evolving and going extinct. Moreover, native species can be difficult to propagate and invasive species may be so prevalent that they are impossibly costly to remove. Present-day climate change may necessitate the use of non-local genotypes and even non-local native species to improve restoration outcomes (see M. F. Breed et al. Conserv. Genet. 14, 1–10; 2013 and R. J. Hobbs Rest. Ecol. 24, 153–158; 2016).

We suggest that restoration efforts should focus on a trajectory towards functional, self-sustaining ecosystems that are resilient to climate change and provide measurable ecosystem-service outcomes — as emphasized by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).

Author information

Correspondence to Martin F. Breed.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Breed, M., Lowe, A. & Mortimer, P. Restoration: 'Garden of Eden' unrealistic. Nature 533, 469 (2016) doi:10.1038/533469d

Download citation

Further reading


By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.