Research Geographical Distribution, Strategies, and Environmental and Socioeconomic Factors Influencing the Success of Land-Based Restoration: A Systematic Review

: The effectiveness of restoration programs may differ in terms of environmental and socioeconomic metrics, depending on the strategies employed and ecological settings. Thus, we synthesized different restoration strategies and discussed the environmental and socioeconomic factors influencing restoration success. In the present systematic review, we examined peer-reviewed articles published between 1990 and 2024 that discussed strategies and factors impacting land-based restoration. Only 227 of 55,229 articles from ScienceDirect, PubMed, and Google Scholar databases met the inclusion criteria. China, Brazil, and India are more active in conducting studies about land restoration compared to other regions, particularly in megadiverse countries in Asia with high degradation rates. There is a strong emphasis on practical and adaptive restoration strategies, including soil and water management (e.g., agroforestry), the use of native plant species, and weed and invasive species management. The prevalence of Acacia , Leucaena , and Eucalyptus species in restoration programs can inform decisions about effective species selection. Here, a holistic understanding of the complex ecological processes is crucial for the development of effective restoration strategies. Although policy frameworks have received less attention in restoration research, their incorporation into restoration projects can help address policy implications for land-based restoration. Overall, successful restoration necessitates a thorough understanding of the optimal strategies and environmental and socioeconomic factors impacting restoration success. Future restoration initiatives can leverage such an understanding to ensure successful implementation.


Introduction
Ecosystem degradation, which is now a global concern, is occurring rapidly at an alarming rate due to ongoing global development and economic growth, unsustainable agricultural practices, land use changes, and a rise in population.In the Anthropocene (new geological age), the degradation of the ecosystem is driven by different biotic and abiotic factors [1][2][3][4].Land degradation threatens the structure and function of ecosystems, thus compromising the habitat of other organisms relying on land resources.Moreover, ecosystem degradation can intensify climate change, resulting in plant and animal species extinction [5] through habitat fragmentation and/or habitat loss.Consequently, restoring degraded ecosystems has become critical to minimizing the environmental impact of degradation, intending to improve ecosystem services while also promoting socioeconomic and ecological resilience [6].Restoration efforts ensure the long-term resilience and sustainability of land-based ecosystems through the re-establishment of natural habitats, enhanced ecosystem services, increased carbon storage, and the enhanced livelihood of local communities [7].However, it remains a challenge to implement the ambitious goals and activities of restoration due to resource constraints, political and regulatory challenges, and the complexity of ecosystems.Hence, it is necessary to understand not only the field-validated restoration strategies but also the multifaceted factors influencing restoration outcomes.This understanding is essential for assessing the suitability of restoration programs across various ecological settings and for maximizing the advantages of restoration.
Integrated restoration strategies have been already proposed in support of the United Nation's work on ecological restoration, such as holistic actions, collaboration, advanced science and technology, and training and capacity-building [8].There is also a strong emphasis on a participatory, transdisciplinary, and adaptive management approach to effectively improve restoration interventions and outcomes [9].A country-wide assessment reported a need to apply traditional ecological knowledge and the inclusion of indigenous people and local communities in restoration programs at all stages [9].In terms of soil restoration, site-specific techniques have previously been identified, such as integrated nutrient management, vegetative cover, and sustainable grazing, all aimed at improving soil, water, and nutrient-use efficiency [10].The use of native plant species models for soil restoration in degraded land has also demonstrated the ability to improve soil organic-matter content and cation-exchange capacity [11,12].However, despite decades of restoration research and the availability of international guidelines, none of these global restoration initiatives have yet determined specific strategies for restoring ecosystems [11].This could be due to the inherent complexity of restoration project implementation, which largely depends on the strategies employed [13].However, the identification of fieldvalidated strategies along with the prioritization of targets and areas for restoration are some of the challenges for large-scale restoration programs [14,15].Efforts to standardize restoration techniques, goals, and activities have also been compromised by operational issues such as gathering on-ground data [16].Consequently, restoration strategies can be tailored to specific environmental contexts, policy frameworks, and the needs of various stakeholders to ensure sustainable and inclusive restoration programs.This is because environmental conditions, for example, vary significantly from one area to another depending on the intensity of disturbance [17], necessitating different restoration approaches.Various stakeholders also have diverse and often contradictory opinions about restoration activities [18].As stakeholders hold varying viewpoints, it is important for restoration efforts to also prioritize social elements such as transdisciplinary collaboration, powersharing, and diverse knowledge systems [19].Engaging stakeholders actively in different restoration activities has been shown to increase the likelihood of success [20], promoting long-term engagement [21].Overall, the existing restoration frameworks (e.g., operational, socioeconomic, legislative, and political) determine the success or failure of large-scale restoration goals [22,23].
The assessment of whether a restoration program is a success or failure is dependent upon the understanding of the interplay between various ecological, environmental, and socioeconomic factors [24,25].A study revealed significant effects of soil moisture and available phosphorus on plant community functional traits, which are increasingly used to evaluate the success of different vegetation restoration types [26].Hence, improving tree cover without considering the other components (e.g., functional traits) of ecosystems may mean failing to fully utilize the restoration's numerous socioeconomic and ecological advantages [27] or determine disadvantages.For example, a large-scale vegetation restoration project in China exacerbated groundwater dryness, especially near the critical areas of vegetation restoration [28].From a socioeconomic perspective, previous reports show that restoration can reduce poverty, produce employment and revenue, and provide various environmental goods and services to society [29].Ecosystem restoration in a semi-arid region of Spain also showed significant changes in people's preferences and perceptions for ecosystem services and overall human wellbeing (i.e., human health and access to goods) [30].Thus, knowledge about socioeconomic instruments, tools, and principles can strengthen decision-making processes for restoration actions and help with restoration challenges [31].
The past three decades have produced a large amount of information about restoration science and practice.Several reviews have been published since 1990 (e.g., [32][33][34][35]), providing an overview of the definition, theories, and principles of ecosystem restoration.As our understanding of restoration science improves, techniques and theories continuously evolve based on changing environmental conditions and results from various restoration projects worldwide.Consequently, studies on adaptive and flexible strategies, the role of soil communities in determining plant community re-establishment in restoration sites, various factors influencing restoration success, the assessment and monitoring of ecological restoration projects, and recent advancements (e.g., remote sensing, environmental DNA, and soundscapes) have also been conducted.Because of the complexity and dynamic nature of restoration science and practice, there is a need to continuously review different strategies and factors that help us define and measure successful restoration.
The objective of the present systematic review is to determine the research geographical distribution, strategies and environmental, socioeconomic, and institutional factors influencing ecosystem restoration success.Here, we synthesized different restoration approaches, ranging from passive to active techniques, and discussed their applicability to various ecological situations.These approaches were discussed based on the elements specified in the framework (Figure 1) for attaining land-based restoration success and/or avoiding failure.In the context of this review, restoration success constitutes key factors, including increased biodiversity and habitat diversity, improved ecosystem services, improved soil health, and strong and long-term community engagement.Moreover, the biophysical, socioeconomic, and institutional aspects that influence restoration success or failure, with a focus on interdisciplinary approaches and adaptive management solutions, were also explained.The systematic review was guided by the following research questions: (1) what are the commonly employed ecological restoration strategies for vegetation recovery in degraded lands?and (2) what are the major factors influencing the success or failure of ecological restoration programs?The synthesis seeks to enhance our ability to develop new or enhance existing approaches to restoring ecosystems in the Anthropocene era.
perceptions for ecosystem services and overall human wellbeing (i.e., human health and access to goods) [30].Thus, knowledge about socioeconomic instruments, tools, and principles can strengthen decision-making processes for restoration actions and help with restoration challenges [31].
The past three decades have produced a large amount of information about restoration science and practice.Several reviews have been published since 1990 (e.g., [32][33][34][35]), providing an overview of the definition, theories, and principles of ecosystem restoration.As our understanding of restoration science improves, techniques and theories continuously evolve based on changing environmental conditions and results from various restoration projects worldwide.Consequently, studies on adaptive and flexible strategies, the role of soil communities in determining plant community re-establishment in restoration sites, various factors influencing restoration success, the assessment and monitoring of ecological restoration projects, and recent advancements (e.g., remote sensing, environmental DNA, and soundscapes) have also been conducted.Because of the complexity and dynamic nature of restoration science and practice, there is a need to continuously review different strategies and factors that help us define and measure successful restoration.
The objective of the present systematic review is to determine the research geographical distribution, strategies and environmental, socioeconomic, and institutional factors influencing ecosystem restoration success.Here, we synthesized different restoration approaches, ranging from passive to active techniques, and discussed their applicability to various ecological situations.These approaches were discussed based on the elements specified in the framework (Figure 1) for attaining land-based restoration success and/or avoiding failure.In the context of this review, restoration success constitutes key factors, including increased biodiversity and habitat diversity, improved ecosystem services, improved soil health, and strong and long-term community engagement.Moreover, the biophysical, socioeconomic, and institutional aspects that influence restoration success or failure, with a focus on interdisciplinary approaches and adaptive management solutions, were also explained.The systematic review was guided by the following research questions: (1) what are the commonly employed ecological restoration strategies for vegetation recovery in degraded lands?and (2) what are the major factors influencing the success or failure of ecological restoration programs?The synthesis seeks to enhance our ability to develop new or enhance existing approaches to restoring ecosystems in the Anthropocene era.

Data Collection
A present systematic review (SR) was conducted from December 2023 to April 2024 through peer-reviewed articles published between 1990 and 2024.The SR generated an initial total of 55,229 articles from ScienceDirect, PubMed, and Google Scholar databases.Some articles were obtained by running a direct search on Google using the downloaded papers' references/bibliography.
The search terms were developed using keywords such as restoration, degraded land, and strategy using Boolean operators, i.e., "AND" and "OR" (Table 1).The AND Boolean operator was used to include both important keywords (e.g., "restoration" AND "degraded land").The OR operator was used to locate articles from each database that contain any of the terms separated by the operator (e.g., "restoration" OR "recovery").Quotation marks ("") were used for locating resources that contain an exact phrase or word (e.g., "restoration strategies").Here, we also used the nesting approach, which uses parentheses () to combine multiple or complex searches into a single search.Each database's advanced search tool was utilized to choose keywords, publication year range, and article type.We did not include more particular phrases, such as the exact name of a country or specific restoration type (e.g., soil restoration), to avoid bias in the search terms.

Selection of Articles
The articles were evaluated using inclusion and exclusion criteria based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (Figure 2, Table S1).The initial screening focused on titles, abstracts, and keywords to eliminate irrelevant material, such as grey literature, non-peer-reviewed works, and work published after the specified date range.Search terms/phrases that did not appear in the title-abstract-keyword search were eliminated.Non-English articles, duplication, and irrelevant content were all removed throughout the subsequent screening process.Articles that met the original inclusion criteria underwent abstract skim reading for content evaluation.Non-open-access papers that lacked full texts were also excluded.Abstracts were scanned to eliminate those with ambiguous findings.Mainly, text skimming concentrated on the results and analysis sections of each article, avoiding publications with confusing findings or insufficient methodological details.Assessment questions assured SLR quality by assessing peer review status, technique appropriateness and clarity, measurement designs, and results presentation.After the article screening process, a total of 227 articles were selected in for present systematic review.A complete list of these articles is presented in the Supplementary Information Section.

Data Extraction and Analysis
Data from each article were extracted and recorded in Google Sheets using the five criteria outlined in Table 2. Publication dates were determined from article pages, and the study site (country) was identified from the "Study site description" sections of the articles.Restoration strategies were primarily identified from the abstract and results and discussion sections of each article.These strategies were further categorized into (1) adaptive management, (2) hydroseeding, (3) native species reintroduction/planting, (4) soil and water management, and (5) weeds/invasive species management.The biophysical and anthropogenic factors influencing restoration success were also identified from the abstract and results and discussion sections, and they were categorized into (1) biophysical and ecological characteristics, (2) disturbance type/extent, (3) resource competition, (4) local community participation, (5) monitoring and evaluation, and (6) policy frameworks.The genera of plants most frequently used for the restoration of degraded lands were identified from the abstract and/or results and discussion sections of the articles.The articles that did not meet these extraction criteria were not included in the present review.
The data were analyzed using the PivotTable in Microsoft Excel (version: 2406.17726.20160).The relative count of studies was calculated by dividing the absolute count by the total count for each country/variable/factor multiplied by 100.

Scope and Potential Bias
The present SR combined restoration strategies for the vegetation recovery of degraded terrestrial ecosystems and the factors impacting restoration success.The SR includes studies from 1990 to 2024 specifically investigating these processes in degraded

Data Extraction and Analysis
Data from each article were extracted and recorded in Google Sheets using the five criteria outlined in Table 2. Publication dates were determined from article pages, and the study site (country) was identified from the "Study site description" sections of the articles.Restoration strategies were primarily identified from the abstract and results and discussion sections of each article.These strategies were further categorized into (1) adaptive management, (2) hydroseeding, (3) native species reintroduction/planting, (4) soil and water management, and ( 5) weeds/invasive species management.The biophysical and anthropogenic factors influencing restoration success were also identified from the abstract and results and discussion sections, and they were categorized into (1) biophysical and ecological characteristics, (2) disturbance type/extent, (3) resource competition, (4) local community participation, (5) monitoring and evaluation, and (6) policy frameworks.The genera of plants most frequently used for the restoration of degraded lands were identified from the abstract and/or results and discussion sections of the articles.The articles that did not meet these extraction criteria were not included in the present review.
The data were analyzed using the PivotTable in Microsoft Excel (version: 2406.17726.20160).The relative count of studies was calculated by dividing the absolute count by the total count for each country/variable/factor multiplied by 100.

Scope and Potential Bias
The present SR combined restoration strategies for the vegetation recovery of degraded terrestrial ecosystems and the factors impacting restoration success.The SR includes studies from 1990 to 2024 specifically investigating these processes in degraded lands in tropical, temperate, and subtropical countries.Excluding studies before 1990 may lead to overlook-ing relevant earlier research and valuable freely available studies.The present review was limited to land-based restoration (e.g., tropical rainforests, grasslands, and wetlands).This could lead to overlooking restoration efforts in other ecosystems (e.g., aquatic) and may predominantly cover geographical areas dominated by terrestrial ecosystems.Language bias is possible as only English-language original research and reviews were included, potentially excluding studies published in other languages.Furthermore, limiting inclusion to only original research and reviews may overlook other valuable materials like conference proceedings, short communications, and technical or project reports.

Distribution of Studies about Land-Based Restoration across Regions
The present systematic review included a total 227 research articles that met the inclusion criteria.The distribution of studies on the restoration of degraded lands across regions is presented in Figure 3.China (28.80%) had the highest relative count (RC) of studies, followed by Brazil (12.75%) and India (8.05%).Many of the world's megadiverse countries, particularly countries with high degradation rates in Asia (e.g., Philippines, Indonesia, Vietnam), have little (c.a., 1-3 studies) to no documented research on the topic reviewed.
lands in tropical, temperate, and subtropical countries.Excluding studies before 1990 may lead to overlooking relevant earlier research and valuable freely available studies.The present review was limited to land-based restoration (e.g., tropical rainforests, grasslands, and wetlands).This could lead to overlooking restoration efforts in other ecosystems (e.g., aquatic) and may predominantly cover geographical areas dominated by terrestrial ecosystems.Language bias is possible as only English-language original research and reviews were included, potentially excluding studies published in other languages.Furthermore, limiting inclusion to only original research and reviews may overlook other valuable materials like conference proceedings, short communications, and technical or project reports.

Distribution of Studies about Land-Based Restoration across Regions
The present systematic review included a total 227 research articles that met the inclusion criteria.The distribution of studies on the restoration of degraded lands across regions is presented in Figure 3.China (28.80%) had the highest relative count (RC) of studies, followed by Brazil (12.75%) and India (8.05%).Many of the world's megadiverse countries, particularly countries with high degradation rates in Asia (e.g., Philippines, Indonesia, Vietnam), have little (c.a., 1-3 studies) to no documented research on the topic reviewed.

Frequently Used Land-Based Restoration Strategies
Here, research about soil and water management approaches (e.g., mulching, application of organic matter and nutrients, and reintroduction of soil microbes) to improve soil structure, fertility, and water retention capacity had the highest RC (Figure 4A).This is followed by the reintroduction of native species (flora and fauna) to restore the original biodiversity and ecosystem functionality.Ranked third and fourth are the integrated management of weeds/invasive species and adaptive management approaches, respectively.

Frequently Used Land-Based Restoration Strategies
Here, research about soil and water management approaches (e.g., mulching, application of organic matter and nutrients, and reintroduction of soil microbes) to improve soil structure, fertility, and water retention capacity had the highest RC (Figure 4A).This is followed by the reintroduction of native species (flora and fauna) to restore the original biodiversity and ecosystem functionality.Ranked third and fourth are the integrated management of weeds/invasive species and adaptive management approaches, respectively.

Biophysical and Socioeconomic/Institutional Factors Influencing Restoration Success
The biophysical and ecological variables had the largest RC of research (38.76%), followed by type, duration, and frequency of disturbance (23.59%), and policy frameworks had the lowest (2.24%) (Figure 4B).Local community participation accounted for 10.11% of the total studies reviewed.The findings identified four primary factors impacting the level of local community participation/involvement in restoration programs, with incentives/benefits having the highest RC (i.e., 47.82) (Figure 5).

Emerging Research Fields Potentially Important for Achieving Restoration Success
The present systematic review identified seven emerging research areas that could potentially help to achieve restoration success (Figure 6).Most of the reviewed articles reported the strong potential of the application of remote-sensing/GIS methods for generating, managing, and analyzing restoration data, with a 27.13% RC.Climate change resilience studies promise to strengthen the resilience of ecological restoration efforts to harsh

Biophysical and Socioeconomic/Institutional Factors Influencing Restoration Success
The biophysical and ecological variables had the largest RC of research (38.76%), followed by type, duration, and frequency of disturbance (23.59%), and policy frameworks had the lowest (2.24%) (Figure 4B).Local community participation accounted for 10.11% of the total studies reviewed.The findings identified four primary factors impacting the level of local community participation/involvement in restoration programs, with incentives/benefits having the highest RC (i.e., 47.82) (Figure 5).

Biophysical and Socioeconomic/Institutional Factors Influencing Restoration Success
The biophysical and ecological variables had the largest RC of research (38.76 lowed by type, duration, and frequency of disturbance (23.59%), and policy fram had the lowest (2.24%) (Figure 4B).Local community participation accounted for of the total studies reviewed.The findings identified four primary factors impac level of local community participation/involvement in restoration programs, wit tives/benefits having the highest RC (i.e., 47.82) (Figure 5).

Emerging Research Fields Potentially Important for Achieving Restoration Success
The present systematic review identified seven emerging research areas tha potentially help to achieve restoration success (Figure 6).Most of the reviewed reported the strong potential of the application of remote-sensing/GIS methods fo ating, managing, and analyzing restoration data, with a 27.13% RC.Climate chan ience studies promise to strengthen the resilience of ecological restoration efforts

Emerging Research Fields Potentially Important for Achieving Restoration Success
The present systematic review identified seven emerging research areas that could potentially help to achieve restoration success (Figure 6).Most of the reviewed articles reported the strong potential of the application of remote-sensing/GIS methods for generating, managing, and analyzing restoration data, with a 27.13% RC.Climate change resilience studies promise to strengthen the resilience of ecological restoration efforts to harsh climatic events, with a 21.71% RC.Studies dealing with landscape-scale approaches and the application of molecular tools in restoration only had an RC of less than 7%.
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 25 climatic events, with a 21.71% RC.Studies dealing with landscape-scale approaches and the application of molecular tools in restoration only had an RC of less than 7%.

Research Trends in Studies Focusing on Land-Based Restoration across Different Regions
Environmental concerns have the potential to impact research activity and priorities in the field of degraded land restoration.This explains the observed regional distribution of studies in the present systematic review.China, Brazil, and India are major countries with large areas of degraded lands and active mining industries; therefore, they have more resources to conduct restoration initiatives than the other countries [36,37].Specifically, China, with the highest RC of studies, may have well-established academic institutions, with enough scientists per unit area, research funding, and governmental support for land restoration research initiatives.For example, the Chinese government has undertaken the Grain-for-Green Program (GGP)-the largest investment and most rigorous policy focused on increasing vegetation cover, controlling water and soil erosion, and restoring degraded forests [38].Brazil also had the Amazon Fund, the world's largest program to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+), which may have driven research about the restoration of degraded lands and mined-out areas [39].The restoration of forests and other ecosystems has increasingly become a strategic priority of Brazil, considerably contributing to minimizing the impact of climate change on a global scale.Moreover, the growing appreciation for land-based restoration as a promising nature-based solution has demonstrated the potential to boost landscape-scale restoration programs [40].
Contrarily, countries with limited research capacity, particularly the deforestation hotspots in Southeast Asia, may struggle to attract research funding and implement restoration efforts [41].This limited research capacity can be ascribed to a lack of local expertise per unit area, insufficient research facilities, funding competition, political instability, and local priorities.For example, the Philippines' National Greening Program (NGP), which had originally aimed to plant 1.5 billion trees on 1.5 million hectares by 2016, encountered budget allocation and administrative/institutional challenges [42].The NGP's ambitious targets were compromised by receiving untimely and insufficient funding from the government, hence delaying activities necessary for successful reforestation (e.g., site preparation, seedling production, planting, and maintenance).In Vietnam, a lack of

Research Trends in Studies Focusing on Land-Based Restoration across Different Regions
Environmental concerns have the potential to impact research activity and priorities in the field of degraded land restoration.This explains the observed regional distribution of studies in the present systematic review.China, Brazil, and India are major countries with large areas of degraded lands and active mining industries; therefore, they have more resources to conduct restoration initiatives than the other countries [36,37].Specifically, China, with the highest RC of studies, may have well-established academic institutions, with enough scientists per unit area, research funding, and governmental support for land restoration research initiatives.For example, the Chinese government has undertaken the Grain-for-Green Program (GGP)-the largest investment and most rigorous policy focused on increasing vegetation cover, controlling water and soil erosion, and restoring degraded forests [38].Brazil also had the Amazon Fund, the world's largest program to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+), which may have driven research about the restoration of degraded lands and mined-out areas [39].The restoration of forests and other ecosystems has increasingly become a strategic priority of Brazil, considerably contributing to minimizing the impact of climate change on a global scale.Moreover, the growing appreciation for land-based restoration as a promising nature-based solution has demonstrated the potential to boost landscape-scale restoration programs [40].
Contrarily, countries with limited research capacity, particularly the deforestation hotspots in Southeast Asia, may struggle to attract research funding and implement restoration efforts [41].This limited research capacity can be ascribed to a lack of local expertise per unit area, insufficient research facilities, funding competition, political instability, and local priorities.For example, the Philippines' National Greening Program (NGP), which had originally aimed to plant 1.5 billion trees on 1.5 million hectares by 2016, encountered budget allocation and administrative/institutional challenges [42].The NGP's ambitious targets were compromised by receiving untimely and insufficient funding from the government, hence delaying activities necessary for successful reforestation (e.g., site preparation, seedling production, planting, and maintenance).In Vietnam, a lack of knowledge on how sustainability aspects influence policymaking may explain the country's low restoration research count, despite significant attempts to enhance forest cover [43].It will be challenging to develop impactful restoration programs with field-validated and research-backed strategies without appreciating the complex interactions between sustainability and policy.This can also result in insufficient monitoring and engagement from both the public and private sectors.Furthermore, governance structures in megadiverse countries may influence the research agenda due to the insufficient or unstructured collection of environmental data, resulting in limited knowledge production.For example, unstructured databases on ecological data may limit information on field-validated restoration strategies and different biophysical and anthropogenic factors.

Biophysical Factors Influencing Restoration Success
The present review also highlights the importance of biophysical and anthropogenic factors in understanding the restoration of degraded ecosystems (Figure 7).The lack of water supply, for example, might impede natural recovery, influencing the success or failure of ecological restoration on degraded land [44].Restoration success is positively correlated with increasing annual precipitation, which influences nutrient cycling, soil moisture availability, and overall land productivity [25].However, previous studies reported a strong and positive correlation between vegetation growth and groundwater drought in large-scale, groundwater-dependent restoration sites [28,45,46].Such a correlation was attributed to increased competition for water and nutrients and a cumulative increase in evapotranspiration [47,48].Water-deficit conditions also interact with other abiotic factors, such as air temperature, nutrients, windstorms, light, and humidity, which all influence vegetation growth and dynamics in a restoration site [49][50][51].For example, water-air temperature interaction can result in heat stress and oxidative stress [52,53], damaging the photosynthetic machinery and cellular structure of seedlings [54].Drought conditions and their interaction with light can simultaneously trigger oxidative damage due to the overproduction of reactive oxygen species in plant cells [55,56], impairing major physiological processes critical for survival in degraded sites.It has been proven that Photosystem II (PSII) produces reactive oxygen species in response to light and temperature stress [57].The activity of PSII, which is particularly vulnerable to abiotic stress, declines rapidly (photoinhibition) under high light intensity, especially when compounded with other unfavorable environmental conditions [58,59].Consequently, successful restoration initiatives rely heavily on integrated water management and adaptive solutions.Degraded ecosystems are generally dominated by weed plant species [68], which have negative impacts on plant productivity due to strong competition for water, light, soil nutrients and space (Figure 8).Such strong competition results in the reduction of habitat for native plants and animals [69].Compared to trees and other plants, weeds can reproduce faster because of their unique plant traits such as deep root systems, high resistance to abiotic stresses (e.g., drought), and high nutrient-use efficiency [70].They are Different ecosystems may respond to disturbances (e.g., windstorms, logging, or land conversion) differently because they have varying levels of resistance to disturbances, depending on the type and extent of damage [60][61][62].Minimal impacts allow ecosystems to recover quickly, whereas severe ones (e.g., altered habitat and disrupted ecosystem functions) can cause major impacts or even irreversible changes [63].Although large-scale disturbances are an important component of ecosystem dynamics, significant changes in habitat structure can have a significant impact on soil and hydrological processes (e.g., evapotranspiration), which in turn affect soil health and nutrient cycling [64].Soil erosion, nitrogen loss, and changes in microbial communities are some of the soil processes that disrupt the interrelated systems of habitat structure, soil processes, and nutrient cycling [37,65].The uninhabitability and loss of the ability of the ecosystem to recover naturally are caused mainly by depletion of the organic matter from the exposed soils and surface exposure to wind and landslides [66,67], depending on the extent of the damage.Hence, future restoration efforts will benefit from understanding different recovery patterns based on the type and severity of disturbance across ecosystems.This understanding will assist us in developing restoration strategies that are tailored to specific ecosystem requirements.
Degraded ecosystems are generally dominated by weed plant species [68], which have negative impacts on plant productivity due to strong competition for water, light, soil nutrients and space (Figure 8).Such strong competition results in the reduction of habitat for native plants and animals [69].Compared to trees and other plants, weeds can reproduce faster because of their unique plant traits such as deep root systems, high resistance to abiotic stresses (e.g., drought), and high nutrient-use efficiency [70].They are highly competitive and resilient in disturbed habitats such as degraded lands.Some weeds also have allelopathic properties that restrict the seed development and growth of other plants in the restoration site, hindering the establishment of native plant communities (Figure 8) [71].Hence, allelopathic interaction among plants can be a significant factor in the success of invasive weeds, although the effects can vary depending on the environmental condition of the area [71].Despite the detrimental impacts of allelopathic interaction, research has shown that allelopathy can also be used as a weed management tool in restoration programs [72,73].Specifically, native plants possessing allelopathic ability can enhance the biotic resistance against invasive weeds or other unwanted plants [74].The intense competition for essential resources might stress native plants, increasing the synthesis of allelochemicals as a form of natural defense against competition from other plants, including weeds (Figure 8).Therefore, effective weed control practices are vital for minimizing resource competition from weeds and other undesired plants and increasing the success of restoration initiatives.Degraded ecosystems are generally dominated by weed plant species [68], which have negative impacts on plant productivity due to strong competition for water, light, soil nutrients and space (Figure 8).Such strong competition results in the reduction of habitat for native plants and animals [69].Compared to trees and other plants, weeds can reproduce faster because of their unique plant traits such as deep root systems, high resistance to abiotic stresses (e.g., drought), and high nutrient-use efficiency [70].They are highly competitive and resilient in disturbed habitats such as degraded lands.Some weeds also have allelopathic properties that restrict the seed development and growth of other plants in the restoration site, hindering the establishment of native plant communities (Figure 8) [71].Hence, allelopathic interaction among plants can be a significant factor in the success of invasive weeds, although the effects can vary depending on the environmental condition of the area [71].Despite the detrimental impacts of allelopathic interaction, research has shown that allelopathy can also be used as a weed management tool in restoration programs [72,73].Specifically, native plants possessing allelopathic ability can enhance the biotic resistance against invasive weeds or other unwanted plants [74].The intense competition for essential resources might stress native plants, increasing the synthesis of allelochemicals as a form of natural defense against competition from other plants, including weeds (Figure 8).Therefore, effective weed control practices are vital for minimizing resource competition from weeds and other undesired plants and increasing the success of restoration initiatives.

Socioeconomic/Institutional Factors Influencing Restoration Success
It is widely noted that community engagement in restoration efforts is still a challenge [75,76].However, challenges persist in aligning restoration outcomes with the community benefits derived from environmental stewardship.In this review, the type/nature of benefits that may be received by participating any restoration initiatives is listed as one of the factors determining the degree of local community engagement.The level of community engagement in restoration activities is determined by the type and amount of support provided, such as wages or the reimbursement of plantation costs, and incentives [76,77].Providing financial incentives, wages, and other tangible benefits can encourage active participation and inspire long-term commitment from community members [78,79].In Sumatra, local involvement in restoration initiatives was primarily motivated by income opportunities and the chance to enhance their well-being, and the extent of engagement tended to depend on their perception of forests [80].A study emphasized that the sudden discontinuation of benefits could result in unsustainable practices in forest resource utilization by the local people [81].Restoration should emphasize the importance of including sustainable livelihood outcomes in restoration efforts, suggesting that it should be seen as part of broader economic development [82,83].Previous attempts have demonstrated how addressing poverty within the community through various economic means can positively impact the success of restoration projects [84].
The implementation of benefit-sharing mechanisms was suggested to ensure that all community members participate in decision-making processes and the distribution of benefits obtained from restoration initiatives [85].However, providing economic benefits to local communities presents challenges and requires improvement [86].Socioeconomic benefits and opportunities for restoration activities can be achieved through effective restoration governance, which is an integrated approach towards sustainably restoring degraded ecosystems [87].In Brazil, a total of 8223 jobs were created through ecosystem restoration programs, with an average of 0.42 jobs per hectare of restoration work [88].However, recent political developments have negatively influenced the country's environmental governance, impeding the implementation of its restoration programs [89].
The current systematic review categorized three essential types of local-people participation that influence effective engagement in restoration efforts (Figure 9).Participation can be nominal or passive depending on the level of awareness and education, empowerment, culture, traditional knowledge, access to resources being restored, and incentives.In the present review, the level of awareness and socio-cultural aspects were also listed as major factors determining the degree of local community participation.In a rubber-plantation ecological restoration program in China, residents' environmental awareness had a significant influence on whether they wished to participate or not [90].The active type of participation involves members directly participating in hands-on restoration operations, expressing ideas with or without complete administrative power, and instilling a sense of ownership in participants.A more inclusive approach is created when active participation is combined with consultative participation.The latter type directly involves members in decision-making processes across three restoration phases: restoration planning, implementation, and monitoring.This approach helps to identify important insights and perspectives that local community members want to discuss among stakeholders, fostering consensus around project goals and priorities.Interactive participation focuses on trust-building and collaboration among stakeholders, promoting adaptive management and long-term engagement in restoration efforts.This type of participation can help to mediate conflicts and foster consensus among participants during the design and monitoring of restoration activities [9].Hence, combining interactive participation with active and consultative approaches creates a more dynamic and holistic process that maximizes community engagement in restoration.This promotes effective communication and interaction with different stakeholders through an interactional framing approach [91].Moreover, restoration areas managed by local communities often coincide with intact ecosystems, underscoring their pivotal role in achieving long-term land restoration [92].
with intact ecosystems, underscoring their pivotal role in achieving long-term land restoration [92].The restoration process is divided into three key phases: planning, implementation, and monitoring, which, if not completed correctly, may result in restoration efforts failing to meet their objectives.Previous studies attributed restoration failures to a lack of monitoring or poor-quality monitoring practices [93].The poor or short-term monitoring of the restoration process may mislead future restoration efforts by allowing ineffective approaches to be used indefinitely, resulting in more restoration failures [94].Correct monitoring across restoration phases can (1) determine generic principles for broader applications than site-specific insights, (2) assess success, and (3) identify general approaches to improve restoration programs [93].Consequently, each of the three phases of restoration must be monitored and evaluated within their respective phases to identify target areas of improvement and promote adaptive decision-making [95].Collaborative and cross-scalar monitoring can generate valuable information for social learning and adaptive management [96], although some projects can take decades before showing reliable results [97].This means that restoration effectiveness can be influenced by both spatial and temporal monitoring scales [98].Moreover, a survey of 75 restoration projects in Mexico found that effective restoration monitoring is achieved by involving indigenous peoples (IPs) and local communities in restoration programs from planning to implementation [10].The IPs and local communities generally have deep-rooted knowledge about local ecosystems, strong cultural connections, and a sense of ownership and stewardship, and they often possess traditional monitoring techniques.These attributes contribute to the sustained success of restoration efforts even after project completion by fostering positive relationships among stakeholders.
Lastly, land-based restoration can also involve conflicts between objectives (e.g., biodiversity conservation vs. ecosystem services provision or forest plantation vs. natural forest restoration) depending on the government priority.Policy frameworks can play a key role in addressing these conflicts in restoration efforts by balancing different interests/perspectives of stakeholders and promoting sustainable strategies [99].The present The restoration process is divided into three key phases: planning, implementation, and monitoring, which, if not completed correctly, may result in restoration efforts failing to meet their objectives.Previous studies attributed restoration failures to a lack of monitoring or poor-quality monitoring practices [93].The poor or short-term monitoring of the restoration process may mislead future restoration efforts by allowing ineffective approaches to be used indefinitely, resulting in more restoration failures [94].Correct monitoring across restoration phases can (1) determine generic principles for broader applications than site-specific insights, (2) assess success, and (3) identify general approaches to improve restoration programs [93].Consequently, each of the three phases of restoration must be monitored and evaluated within their respective phases to identify target areas of improvement and promote adaptive decision-making [95].Collaborative and cross-scalar monitoring can generate valuable information for social learning and adaptive management [96], although some projects can take decades before showing reliable results [97].This means that restoration effectiveness can be influenced by both spatial and temporal monitoring scales [98].Moreover, a survey of 75 restoration projects in Mexico found that effective restoration monitoring is achieved by involving indigenous peoples (IPs) and local communities in restoration programs from planning to implementation [10].The IPs and local communities generally have deep-rooted knowledge about local ecosystems, strong cultural connections, and a sense of ownership and stewardship, and they often possess traditional monitoring techniques.These attributes contribute to the sustained success of restoration efforts even after project completion by fostering positive relationships among stakeholders.
Lastly, land-based restoration can also involve conflicts between objectives (e.g., biodiversity conservation vs. ecosystem services provision or forest plantation vs. natural forest restoration) depending on the government priority.Policy frameworks can play a key role in addressing these conflicts in restoration efforts by balancing different interests/perspectives of stakeholders and promoting sustainable strategies [99].The present systematic review found that policy frameworks can shape the enabling conditions, institutional arrangements, and governance structures required for successful land-based restoration.For example, India incorporated Panchayats, a village-level administrative institution, into its national soil policy to help achieve land degradation neutrality by 2030 [100].Policy frameworks can establish clear legal and regulatory provisions, financial mechanisms, and capacity-building initiatives to support restoration initiatives.Hence, it has long been recognized that the restoration of degraded lands at the national level should start with the development of comprehensive restoration strategies in line with a range of international agreements.Restoration is now broadly incorporated into various international agreements and decisions, including the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), UN-Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD), and the Bonn Challenge.These international agreements can provide an enabling environment for scaling up restoration efforts while ensuring that restoration plans adhere to national environmental standards.In Canada, which was the first country in the world to develop a national policy framework for the restoration of protected areas, over 200 policy instruments have been developed supporting restoration programs [101].In the Philippines, the government launched the National Greening Program (NGP) as a nationwide strategy to combat environmental degradation, particularly in areas with high rates of deforestation, biodiversity significance, and watershed protection.The NGP operates in accordance with existing laws and regulations on forestry, land use, environmental and biodiversity conservation, sustainable development, and community-based forestry, as well as other national climate change adaptation policies.

Frequently Used Restoration Strategies Reported in Literature
Intensive agriculture, land use change, landfilling, and mining activities have resulted in major soil damage, such as the removal of nutrients, alteration of soil texture, and death of microbial communities [102].Land degradation can reduce soil aggregate stability and soil compaction by 47% and 42%, respectively [103].This soil damage explains the higher number of studies on soil and water management approaches in the restoration of degraded lands because of their important role in maintaining high plant growth and survival, and consequently ecosystem health.The application of biochar has long been recognized as one of the strategies to improve soil health in abandoned mine sites and degraded lands [104,105].Nutrient-rich biochars (e.g., those derived from animal manure) can provide immediate and long-term fertility for plants, serving as an efficient soil conditioner for facilitating vegetation establishment at abandoned and active mine sites [105].A review reported that biochar increased plant-available water in 21 of the 29 soil types of different origins [106].Compost, mulch, cover crops, green manure, agroforestry, and soil amendments (e.g., gypsum) are some options for improving soil health and promoting ecosystem restoration in degraded soils.In Sudan, an agroforestry framework has been developed as a landscape restoration tool to solve forest cover loss and food security [107].In Brazil, the agroforestry systems have shown positive results in improving ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes through Spatial Indicator of Priority Areas to Agroforestry Systems (SIPA-AFS) model [108].Moreover, a review reported many existing agrosuccessional model applications as a strategy to facilitate forest recovery in the tropics [109].The agrosuccessional restoration model and agroforestry are related concepts but are not the same in terms of practice and benefits.The extensive coverage (about 45 million hectares) of major agroforestry systems in China also demonstrates the use of agroforestry for ecosystem restoration, which has had a substantial impact on soil conservation and biodiversity [110].In China, soil bioengineering was also used for slope stabilization and the site restoration of riverbanks using living plant materials, leveraging the effects of root systems on soil structure [111].This can also be seen in a variety of benefits, including a considerable increase in vegetation cover in regions covered by the country's Grain for Green Project, which aims to prevent soil erosion, enhance water quality, and restore ecosystems [81].
Microbiology is critical for soil formation, given that most degraded lands are topsoildeficient, and sufficient topsoil is required for effective restoration implementation [112].Hence, the strategy is to enhance the activity and species diversity of soil biota in restoration sites.This indicates that successful degraded land restoration requires microbe-targeted restorative approaches [113].Soil microorganisms in degraded ecosystems respond to soil disturbance by changing their composition, habitat structure, and feeding behavior [114,115].In general, increased microbial diversity improves the moisture content and other physical properties of soil, as well as soil ecosystem functioning [116,117].This explains why harnessing microbial processes or deploying microorganisms in degraded lands is one of the reported approaches to driving ecological restoration and facilitating the establishment of plant species [118].A group argues that microbes should be incorporated into restoration projects to improve biodiversity as they are easily manipulated through habitat transplants [119].Another suggestion is to recondition degraded site soils with exogenous soil microbes with native microbiomes to increase restoration success in mine sites [120].Lastly, emerging microbiome tools (e.g., Plant Growth-Promoting Microorganisms or PGPMs) have shown great potential for improving the efficacy and consistency of restoration outcomes [121].Throughout India, several agroforestry systems have been used to restore degraded ecosystems, with positive results in increasing soil physicochemical qualities, particularly soil microbial diversity, which helps prevent soil loss and runoff [98].
The framework species method (FSM) refers to the restoration of a degraded ecosystem by planting indigenous species with a high potential to accelerate ecological succession like the reference ecosystem [122].Mojave Seed Menus, a spatial decision-support framework, was also developed to assist land managers in determining suitable seed mixes for native plant restoration in the Mojave Desert [123].Moreover, the recruitment niche framework was developed for improving seed-based restoration in drylands; it uses a quantitative representation of species' recruitment niches to match them to targeted goals (e.g., resistance to abiotic stresses) [124].These frameworks can explain why a higher proportion of studies reported a higher success rate of restoration if a diverse mixture of native tree species (30-100 species) are used/planted vis-à-vis the popular use of exotic ones [125][126][127].The use of native/indigenous species in restoration programs can be attributed to their unique morphological, physiological, and ecological traits (Table 3).For example, dipterocarps are among the highly important native tree species that have been widely accepted in Indonesia as a form of ex situ conservation under nurse trees [128].The high resilience and adaptability to different environmental conditions make dipterocarps suitable for restoration programs in Indonesia.Similarly, two long-lived, shade-tolerant Taxaceae species have been recommended for restoration efforts in China because of their ability to create shaded environments in which seedlings can escape competition, increasing forest structural complexity [129].Here, we found that Acacia and Leucaena species are among the most preferred genera of plants for restoration programs across different regions (Table S2).Species under these genera are known for their fast growth rates, nitrogen-fixing ability, and high adaptability to changing and harsh environmental conditions [130,131].In a subtropical climate, A. mangium has been proposed as an option for restoring degraded lands to enhance soil quality, since it demonstrated an ability to improve soil nutrient conditions within just 33 years of planting [132].However, previous studies reported the strong invasive potential of some Acacia and Leucaena species [133].L. leucocephala produces allelochemicals, root exudates, litter, decomposing residues, and rhizosphere soil that can increase mortality and suppress the germination and growth of other plant species [134].Moreover, comparing native and non-native species, the former also has a higher inhibitory effect on the germination of different species [135].Native species may have more effective mechanisms (e.g., allelopathy) for competing for resources, as well as genetic adaptations that increase competitiveness in their natural environment (Table 3).Some native species also co-evolve with specific soil microbial communities that can influence seed germination and plant health [136].

Conclusions and Way Forward
Overall, restoration science has a well-developed database, with strong practical and theoretical foundations.A high volume of information on practical and adaptive restoration strategies (e.g., soil and water management) proves that different restoration approaches can now be effectively tailored to specific ecosystem type, climate, and socioeconomic contexts.Site-specific approaches to degraded land restoration are more feasible at the present time due to the existence of such information.Moreover, the effective management of the biophysical and anthropogenic factors that influence restoration success might enhance the likelihood of success, depending on the type and intensity of disturbance.Hence, increasing studies on abiotic stress-recovery rate interactions, particularly in areas with high rates of degradation, and offering long-term financial incentives and tangible advantages to local members, may create a more holistic process and support long-term restoration goals.The present systematic review advances our understanding of the factors influencing restoration success and strategies for restoring ecosystems, which are required for developing and implementing more effective restoration plans.Hence, our review plays a key role in informing restoration practices across regions.
The inadequate research capacity and high degradation rates in some countries can be addressed by increasing local and international collaboration, creating a research-enabling environment (e.g., robust, and supportive policies), and applying the identified emerging research areas in restoration science.This will help to fill data gaps and thus standardize global restoration efforts.Specifically, a strong potential of the application of more sophisticated remote-sensing/GIS methods for restoration can help us determine the most feasible and sustainable strategies.Such an application can improve knowledge-sharing platforms and monitoring systems because of comprehensive spatial data collection and analysis.Because of the more effective visualization of restoration data, stakeholders of all socioeconomic backgrounds can have a better understanding of the processes of restoration programs from planning to implementation.The advanced spatial analysis can also lead to more efficient resource allocation/optimization by identifying the most critical areas that require restoration, making the effort more cost-effective.For example, hyperspectral imaging techniques can be used to digitally restore things of great importance to local communities [137], particularly in the cultural heritage field [138].A study also demonstrated the potential of recent advances in multispectral (MS) and hyperspectral (HS) imaging sensors for detecting tree species more easily and accurately, which can be useful data in land-based restoration [139].Hyperspectral imaging has been used to identify physicochemical root zone features for the automatic segmentation of soil-grown plant roots, making it a novel method for plant root phenotyping [140].The identification of physicochemical root zone traits is important for improving plant resource-use efficiency and responses to resource deficient conditions and other abiotic stresses [141].Another advanced remote-sensing approach that can potentially help in restoration planning and monitoring is the use of LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging).A study evaluated the results of a mixed-species restoration plantation experiment in a species-richness gradient in southeastern Brazil using a combination of LiDAR and a hyperspectral system [142].
Hence, advanced remote-sensing techniques can play an important role in efficiently and effectively collecting ecological data, as well as managing and monitoring restoration activities, particularly in the context of anthropogenic climate change.
Moreover, future efforts may benefit from tailoring restoration objectives and activities to local ecological conditions and increasing the number of studies on abiotic stress-recovery rate interactions.Addressing these research areas may be accompanied by various policy frameworks for the restoration of degraded ecosystems at local, national, and international levels, such as sustainable land management and landscape restoration frameworks.Policymakers can prioritize more restoration projects as a key component of sustainable development.This can be done through various mechanisms, such as the incorporation of ecosystem restoration goals into national environmental policies.This approach ensures the long-term recovery of degraded ecosystems.Domestic top-down policies in India have recently encouraged natural approaches to prevent soil degradation, in accordance with the Sustainable Development Goals [100].

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.The literature review framework that represents a sequence of processes for attaining successful restoration.

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.The literature review framework that represents a sequence of processes for attaining successful restoration.

Figure 2 .
Figure 2. A flow chart showing the inclusion and exclusion of peer-reviewed publications for the systematic review.The "N" denotes the total number of included articles in each stage of article screening process.

Figure 2 .
Figure 2. A flow chart showing the inclusion and exclusion of peer-reviewed publications for the systematic review.The "N" denotes the total number of included articles in each stage of article screening process.

Figure 3 .
Figure 3. Relative count of studies (%) about restoration of degraded lands across regions.The "no data" represented by light brown are countries that did not appear in the articles included in the review.

Figure 3 .
Figure 3. Relative count of studies (%) about restoration of degraded lands across regions.The "no data" represented by light brown are countries that did not appear in the articles included in the review.

Figure 4 .
Figure 4. (A) Restoration strategies and (B) factors influencing restoration success as identified in the reviewed literature.The figures in each pie have already been rounded.

Figure 5 .
Figure 5. Relative count of factors influencing the degree of local community participation in restoration efforts.

Figure 4 .
Figure 4. (A) Restoration strategies and (B) factors influencing restoration success as identified in the reviewed literature.The figures in each pie have already been rounded.

Figure 4 .
Figure 4. (A) Restoration strategies and (B) factors influencing restoration success as iden the reviewed literature.The figures in each pie have already been rounded.

Figure 5 .
Figure 5. Relative count of factors influencing the degree of local community participation ration efforts.

Figure 5 .
Figure 5. Relative count of factors influencing the degree of local community participation in restoration efforts.

Figure 6 .
Figure 6.The emerging research areas related to restoration methodologies identified in the review literature.The figures in each pie have already been rounded.

Figure 6 .
Figure 6.The emerging research areas related to restoration methodologies identified in the review literature.The figures in each pie have already been rounded.

Sustainability 2024 , 25 Figure 7 .
Figure 7. Effects of the increasing modification in precipitation and evapotranspiration patterns on ecosystem structure, function, and responses to disturbances.

Figure 7 .
Figure 7. Effects of the increasing modification in precipitation and evapotranspiration patterns on ecosystem structure, function, and responses to disturbances.

Figure 7 .
Figure 7. Effects of the increasing modification in precipitation and evapotranspiration patterns on ecosystem structure, function, and responses to disturbances.

Figure 8 .
Figure 8. Effects of the presence of weeds on native plant community establishment in restoration sites.

Figure 8 .
Figure 8. Effects of the presence of weeds on native plant community establishment in restoration sites.

Figure 9 .
Figure 9. Three important types of local participation necessary for effective engagement in restoration efforts.

Figure 9 .
Figure 9. Three important types of local participation necessary for effective engagement in restoration efforts.

Table 1 .
The search phrases used, together with their initial results in the ScienceDirect, PubMed, and Google Scholar databases.

Table 2 .
The data extraction criteria used in the present systematic review.

Table 2 .
The data extraction criteria used in the present systematic review.
Publication date rangeOnly articles published between 1990 and 2024; to assess the research trends over timeStudy site countryOnly studies conducted in temperate, subtropical, and tropical regions; to describe the distribution of studies and reflect geographical, cultural, economic, and socio-political differencesRestoration strategyOnly studies that clearly mentioned the techniques, implementation details, stakeholder involvement, resources, performance metrics, and impacts; to evaluate their relative effectiveness in environmental, social, and economic contexts/metricsPlant species used for restorationOnly articles that clearly provide information on the genera of plants used; to assess which group of plants are most effective for specific objectivesFactors influencing restoration successOnly articles that investigated biotic, abiotic, and socioeconomic factors; to provide a holistic understanding of what contributes to effective restoration

Table 3 .
Morphological, physiological, genetic, ecological, and socio-cultural characteristics of native and non-native plants.