ABSTRACT
As evidence mounts for rapid changes in global climate systems, those of us who focus on restoring ecosystems sense the ground beneath us has given way, too. A fi eld so tightly focused on setting clear goals for successful restoration now fi nds itself turning to multiple ecological trajectories and very long-term historical ranges of variation for inspiration. Talk of adaptation is growing, and restoration may perhaps become a way of anticipating and mitigating the effects of rapid ecological shifts: novel ecosystems and a world lightly attached to the past will be our tableau. This will be especially true for work that concerns the recovery of already threatened species, many of which will have their tenuous hold on survival further compromised. Then, of course, there are some who are whispering that restoration may in fact be an incoherent practice in a turbulent new nature. What is the benefi t, so the argument goes, of fi xing our sights on historical patterns and processes when these will be rendered immediately irrelevant or bypassed in the long run? This points to a turn away from history and perhaps from the very idea of restoration. In the future, we may well be turning to new (and some old) paradigms-recreation, regeneration, rehabilitation, reclamation, designer ecosystems, synthetic nature-to set conditions of engagement with natural processes.
