Data: The landscape of plant community metrics and ecosystem services in global grassland restoration studies and future needs

Restoration offers an opportunity to revitalize degraded ecosystems and populations and ensure that species have habitats in which to thrive and essential ecological functions continue. This also results in improving the health, resiliency, and stability of both human societies and our planetary systems at large. Despite the growth of restoration over the last three decades, grasslands remain among the most threatened ecosystems, with 40-49% globally suffering from degradation. We conducted a systematic review to determine how researchers quantified management actions, community metrics, ecosystem functions, and services (including cultural ecosystem services). Our study reviewed 405 articles on grassland restorations published between 1988-2024. Most papers used only one management action for restoration (47%), which was most often propagule addition (12%); however, a quarter combined between three and five management actions (25%). Major taxonomic groups were animals, plants, and microbes such as bacteria and fungi, with two-thirds of studies reporting species richness (64%), followed by composition (60%) and abundance/evenness (53%). Diversity indices were reported in 36% of studies and these outcomes were consistent across the 34 countries we studied. Productivity (29%), biogeochemical cycling (25%), and soil formation/stability (14%) were the most commonly measured ecosystem functions. Only 36 studies (9%) reported metrics of ecosystem services, and of these, only 9 studies reported a cultural ecosystem service metric (2%), including cultural heritage value, educational value, recreational use, aesthetic value, and sense of place. Given research gaps, we recommend further study in soil ecosystems, responses of vertebrates, and the measurement and implementation of cultural ecosystem services, so that ecological restoration can maintain the ecosystem services essential to human lives. We also recommend more opportunities for practitioners and scientists to work together in restoration planning and execution, and to better align techniques and metrics used to study restoration “success,” reimagining for whom restoration is conducted.生态修复为受退化影响的生态系统与物种种群提供了焕新契机，保障物种拥有适宜繁衍的栖息地，并维持核心生态功能的持续运转。此举亦可整体提升人类社会与地球生态系统的健康水平、恢复力与稳定性。尽管近三十年来生态修复工作持续推进，但草原仍是受威胁最严重的生态系统之一，全球范围内有40%至49%的草原正处于退化状态。本研究通过系统综述，旨在厘清研究者如何量化生态修复的管理措施、群落指标、生态系统功能与服务（包括文化生态系统服务）。本次综述共纳入1988年至2024年间发表的405篇草原生态修复相关研究论文。多数研究仅采用单一修复管理措施（占比47%），其中最常见的为繁殖体添加（propagule addition，12%）；另有四分之一的研究同时采用3至5项管理措施（占比25%）。研究涉及的主要生物分类类群涵盖动物、植物与细菌、真菌等微生物；三分之二的研究报告了物种丰富度（64%），其次为群落组成（60%）与多度/均匀度（53%）。36%的研究提及了多样性指数，且该类观测结果在本次研究覆盖的34个国家中表现出一致性。生产力（29%）、生物地球化学循环（25%）与土壤形成/稳定性（14%）是最常被测定的生态系统功能指标。仅有36项研究（占比9%）报告了生态系统服务相关指标，其中仅9项研究（占比2%）提及了文化生态系统服务指标，涵盖文化遗产价值、教育价值、休闲利用、美学价值与场所归属感。鉴于当前研究存在的短板，本研究建议针对土壤生态系统、脊椎动物响应以及文化生态系统服务的测定与落地应用开展进一步研究，以保障生态修复能够维持对人类生存至关重要的生态系统服务。此外，本研究倡议为修复实践者与科研人员搭建更多协作平台，共同参与修复规划与实施环节，并统一用于评估修复"成功"的技术手段与指标体系，同时重新思考生态修复的服务对象究竟为何。