The United Nations General Assembly has declared 2021–2030 the Decade on Ecosystem Restoration, during which the recovery of degraded nature should be massively upscaled to effectively fight the climate and biodiversity crises (<www.decadeonrestoration.org/>). Furthermore, the Parties of the Conference on Biological Diversity confront the challenge of setting ambitious targets to not only protect species and ecosystems, but also to revert degradation trends and restore functional nature. This requires a significant increase in the area, connectivity and integrity of natural ecosystems (Convention on Biological Diversity 2021). Global policy thus put restoration of degraded ecosystems at the forefront of the range of actions that should be promoted to address the twin crises of climate change and biodiversity loss.

The scientific community plays a key role in building the knowledge base necessary to support the global restoration agenda and to help point towards effective solutions for society (Gann et al. 2019). In a recently published synthesis on the science underpinning the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), 50 scientists from 23 countries challenged the GBF focus on area-based targets for conservation and restoration, noting that too much emphasis on protected areas may fall short of meeting ambitious biodiversity objectives (Leadley et al. 2022). This is in line with the idea that conserving remnants of nature in protected areas and protecting endangered species are no longer sufficient to bend the curve of biodiversity loss (Leclère et al. 2020). Restoration efforts should shift towards proactive, functionalist, approaches to nature management, guided by evidence and knowledge of socioecological dynamics at various scales.

Scientific research in spatial ecology, macroecology, biogeography and at their intersections with society and policy are particularly relevant to support decision making and to upscale restoration efforts. This Ecography special issue presents a set of empirical and theoretical articles that together offer a critical analysis of next directions for the field of restoration science at multiple geographical scales. The studies cover three main topics: 1) complexity as a key objective for restoration; 2) the assessment of restoration effectiveness, including careful consideration of baselines; 3) potential and challenges for upscaling restoration.

联合国大会已宣布 2021-2030 年为生态系统恢复十年，在此期间应大规模提高退化自然的恢复规模，以有效应对气候和生物多样性危机（<www.decadeonrestoration.org/>）。此外，生物多样性大会缔约方面临的挑战是制定雄心勃勃的目标，不仅要保护物种和生态系统，还要扭转退化趋势并恢复功能性。这需要显着增加自然生态系统的面积、连通性和完整性（《 2021年生物多样性公约》）。因此，全球政策将恢复退化的生态系统置于应促进应对气候变化和生物多样性丧失双重危机的一系列行动的最前沿。

科学界在建立必要的知识库以支持全球恢复议程和帮助指出有效的社会解决方案方面发挥着关键作用（Gann 等人，2019 年）。在最近发表的关于支持 2020 年后全球生物多样性框架 (GBF) 的科学综合报告中，来自 23 个国家的 50 名科学家对 GBF 对基于区域的保护和恢复目标的关注提出了质疑，并指出过分强调保护区可能会达不到要求实现雄心勃勃的生物多样性目标（Leadley et al. 2022）。这与保护保护区内的自然遗迹和保护濒危物种不再足以扭转生物多样性丧失曲线的想法一致（Leclère et al. 2020）。恢复工作应转向积极的、功能主义的自然管理方法，以各种规模的社会生态动态证据和知识为指导。

空间生态学、宏观生态学、生物地理学及其与社会和政策交叉领域的科学研究对于支持决策和扩大恢复工作特别重要。本期生态学特刊介绍了一组经验和理论文章，它们共同对多个地理尺度的恢复科学领域的下一个方向进行了批判性分析。这些研究涵盖三个主要主题：1）复杂性作为恢复的关键目标；2) 评估恢复效果，包括仔细考虑基线；3) 升级修复的潜力和挑战。