Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Influencing Landscape-Scale Revegetation Trajectories through Restoration Interventions

  • nterface of Landscape Ecology and Conservation Biology (J Watling, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Landscape Ecology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

This review focuses on potential approaches to restoring vegetation across former agricultural land, mainly considering the relatively well-studied case of once-forested landscapes. It presents an ecological framework within which the potential consequences of different practical interventions are described and compared, and then identifies implications for restoration decision-making.

Recent Findings

There is a still-growing range of restoration interventions other than high-cost intensive tree-planting. These aim to accelerate vegetation recovery at different stages of forest redevelopment, by removing factors that would otherwise have an inhibitory influence. Potential interventions include adding seed, installing structures to attract seed dispersers, selectively protecting or removing different vegetation elements (trees or ground plants) in the regenerating communities, and managing fire, livestock grazing or wildlife.

Summary

Given the potential variety of approaches, at a landscape scale, the best solution is most likely a spatial mosaic that tailors specific restoration interventions to differing contexts and outcomes. However, the current evidence base is insufficient to adequately guide decisions about how to match method to site, landscape and cost. Research has typically been small-scale and often disconnected from restoration practice. Larger-scale investment in collaborative and innovative restoration trials and experiments is needed to enable better decision-making.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. •• Chazdon RL. Landscape restoration, natural regeneration, and the forests of the future. Ann Mo Bot Gard. 2017;102(2):251–8 A comprehensive review of the potential of assisted and unassisted natural regeneration for restoring landscape forest cover.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Jones HP, Jones PC, Barbier EB, Blackburn RC, Rey Benayas JM, Holl KD, et al. Restoration and repair of Earth's damaged ecosystems. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2018;285:20172577.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Menz MH, Dixon KW, Hobbs RJ. Hurdles and opportunities for landscape-scale restoration. Science. 2013;339:526–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Miller BP, Sinclair EA, Menz MH, Elliott CP, Bunn E, Commander LE, et al. A framework for the practical science necessary to restore sustainable, resilient, and biodiverse ecosystems. Restor Ecol. 2017;25(4):605–17.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Perring MP, Standish RJ, Price JN, Craig MD, Erickson TE, Ruthrof KX, et al. Advances in restoration ecology: rising to the challenges of the coming decades. Ecosphere. 2015;6(8):1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Suding K, Higgs E, Palmer M, Callicott JB, Anderson CB, Baker M, et al. Committing to ecological restoration. Science. 2015;348:638–40.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Gellie NJ, Breed MF, Mortimer PE, Harrison RD, Xu J, Lowe AJ. Networked and embedded scientific experiments will improve restoration outcomes. Front Ecol Environ. 2018;16(5):288–94.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Koch A, Brierley C, Maslin MM, Lewis SL. Earth system impacts of the European arrival and Great Dying in the Americas after 1492. Quat Sci Rev. 2019;207:13–36.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Hall B, Motzkin G, Foster DR, Syfert M, Burk J. Three hundred years of forest and land-use change in Massachusetts, USA. J Biogeogr. 2002;29(10–11):1319–35.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hobbs RJ, Walker LR. Old field succession: development of concepts. In: Cramer VA, Hobbs RJ, editors. Old fields: dynamics and restoration of abandoned farmland. Washington DC: Island Press; 2007. p. 15–30.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Young TP, Petersen DA, Clary JJ. The ecology of restoration: historical links, emerging issues and unexplored realms. Ecol Lett. 2005;8(6):662–73.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hobbs RJ, Norton DA. Towards a conceptual framework for restoration ecology. Restor Ecol. 1996;4(2):93–110.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Nunez-Mir GC, Iannon BV, Curtis K, Fei S. Evaluating the evolution of forest restoration research in a changing world: a “big literature” review. New For. 2015;46(5–6):669–82.

    Google Scholar 

  14. •• Brancalion PH, van Melis J. On the need for innovation in ecological restoration. Ann Mo Bot Gard. 2017;102(2):227–37 Outlines how innovative approaches are critical for future success in landscape-scale restoration.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Stanturf JA. Future landscapes: opportunities and challenges. New For. 2015;46(5–6):615–44.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Stanturf JA, Palik BJ, Williams MI, Dumroese RK, Madsen P. Forest restoration paradigms. J Sustain For. 2014;33(sup1):S161–94.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Cramer VA, Hobbs RJ, Standish RJ. What's new about old fields? Land abandonment and ecosystem assembly. Trends Ecol Evol. 2008;23(2):104–12.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. • Ghazoul J, Chazdon R. Degradation and recovery in changing forest landscapes: a multiscale conceptual framework. Annu Rev Environ Resour. 2017;42:161–88 A thorough review of the dynamic ecological processes involved in both degradation and restoration.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Chazdon RL, Guariguata MR. Natural regeneration as a tool for large-scale forest restoration in the tropics: prospects and challenges. Biotropica. 2016;48:716–30.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Brancalion PH, Niamir A, Broadben E, Crouzeilles RR, Barros FS, Zambrano AMA, et al. Global restoration opportunities in tropical rainforest landscapes. Sci Adv. 2019;5(7):eaav3223.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Crouzeilles R, Ferreira MS, Chazdon RL, Lindenmayer DB, Sansevero JB, Monteiro L, et al. Ecological restoration success is higher for natural regeneration than for active restoration in tropical forests. Sci Adv. 2017;3(11):e1701345.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Locatelli B, Catterall CP, Imbach P, Kumar C, Lasco R, Marín-Spiotta E, et al. Tropical reforestation and climate change: beyond carbon. Restor Ecol. 2015;23(4):337–43.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Meli P, Holl KD, JMR B, Jones HP, Jones PC, Montoya D, et al. A global review of past land use, climate, and active vs. passive restoration effects on forest recovery. PLoS One. 2017;12(2):e0171368.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Perring MP, Erickson TE, Brancalion PH. Rocketing restoration: enabling the upscaling of ecological restoration in the Anthropocene. Restor Ecol. 2018;26(6):1017–23.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Suding KN. Toward an era of restoration in ecology: successes, failures, and opportunities ahead. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 2011;42:465–87.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Abella SR, Chiquoine LP, Weigand JF. Developing methods of assisted natural regeneration for restoring foundational desert plants. Arid Land Res Manag. 2020;34(2):231–87.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Pérez DR, Farinaccio FM, Aronson J. Towards a dryland framework species approach. Research in progress in the Monte austral of Argentina. J Arid Environ. 2019;161:1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Catterall CP. Roles of non-native species in large-scale regeneration of moist tropical forests on anthropogenic grassland. Biotropica. 2016;48:809–24.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Standish RJ, Cramer V, Yates CJ. A revised state-and-transition model for the restoration of woodlands in Western Australia. In: Hobbs RJ, Suding KN, editors. New models for ecosystem dynamics and restoration, vol. 169–88. Washington DC: Island Press; 2009. p. 30.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Holl KD, Aide TM. When and where to actively restore ecosystems? For Ecol Manag. 2011;261(10):1558–63. 31.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Ganade G. Processes affecting succession in old fields of Brazilian Amazonia. In: Cramer VA, Hobbs RJ, editors. Old fields: dynamics and restoration of abandoned farmland, vol. 75–92. Washington DC: Island Press; 2007. p. 29.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Elliot S, Blakesley D, Hardwick K. Restoring tropical forests: a practical guide. Kew: Royal Botanic Gardens; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Shoo LP, Freebody K, Kanowski J, Catterall CP. Slow recovery of tropical old field rainforest regrowth and the value and limitations of active restoration. Conserv Biol. 2016;30:121–32.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Reid JL, Fagan ME, Zahawi RA. Positive site selection bias in meta-analyses comparing natural regeneration to active forest restoration. Sci Adv. 2018;4(5):eaas9143.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Brancalion PH, Schweizer D, Gaudare U, Mangueira JR, Lamonato F, Farah FT, et al. Balancing economic costs and ecological outcomes of passive and active restoration in agricultural landscapes: the case of Brazil. Biotropica. 2016;48:856–67.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Holl KD, Zahawi RA. Factors explaining variability in woody above-ground biomass accumulation in restored tropical forest. For Ecol Manag. 2014;319:36–43.

    Google Scholar 

  37. • Shoo LP, Catterall CP, Nicol S, Christian R, Rhodes J, Atkinson P, et al. Navigating complex decisions in restoration investment. Conserv Lett. 2017;10(6):748–56 Illustrates the nature of method-cost-outcome interactions in restoration decision-making.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Zahawi RA, Reid JL, Holl KD. Hidden costs of passive restoration. Restor Ecol. 2014;22(3):284–7.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Shoo LP, Catterall CP. Stimulating natural regeneration of tropical forest on degraded land: approaches, outcomes, and information gaps. Restor Ecol. 2013;21(6):670–7.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Ammondt SA, Litton CM, Ellsworth LM, Leary JK. Restoration of native plant communities in a Hawaiian dry lowland ecosystem dominated by the invasive grass Megathyrsus maximus. Appl Veg Sci. 2013;16(1):29–39.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Elgar AT, Freebody K, Pohlman CL, Shoo LP, Catterall CP. Overcoming barriers to seedling regeneration during forest restoration on tropical pasture land and the potential value of woody weeds. Front Plant Sci. 2014;5:200. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2014.00200.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Gunaratne AMTA, Gunatilleke CVS, Gunatilleke IAUN, Madawala Weerasinghe HMSP, Burslem DFRP. Barriers to tree seedling emergence on human-induced grasslands in Sri Lanka. J Appl Ecol. 2010;47(1):157–65.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Griscom HP, Griscom BW, Ashton MS. Forest regeneration from pasture in the dry tropics of Panama: effects of cattle, exotic grass, and forested riparia. Restor Ecol. 2009;17(1):117–26.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Méndez-Toribio M, Benítez-Malvido J, Zermeño-Hernández IE, Castillo-Mandujano J. Removal of climbing plants and soil plowing as a strategy to enhance forest recovery in tropical dry forests old fields. Ecol Restor. 2019;37(2):113–22.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Sapkota RP, Stahl PD. Effectiveness of passive restoration on density and diversity of regenerating tree species in mixed Dipterocarp forests of Nepal. Restor Ecol. 2019;27(3):581–91.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Zahawi RA, Holl KD, Cole RJ, Reid JL. Testing applied nucleation as a strategy to facilitate tropical forest recovery. J Appl Ecol. 2013;50(1):88–96.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Cuneo P, Gibson-Roy P, Fifiel G, Broadhurst L, Berryman T, Crawford A, et al. Restoring grassy woodland diversity through direct seeding: insights from six ‘best-practice’case studies in southern Australia. Ecol Manag Restor. 2018;19(2):124–35.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Rodrigues SB, Freitas MG, Campos-Filho EM, do Carmo GHP, da Veiga JM, Junqueira RGP, et al. Direct seeded and colonizing species guarantee successful early restoration of South Amazon forests. For Ecol Manag. 2019;451:117559.

    Google Scholar 

  49. • Grossnickle SC, Ivetić V. Direct seeding in reforestation–a field performance review. Reforesta. 2017;4:94–142 A comprehensive review of all aspects of direct seeding, very relevant to large-scale restoration.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Elliot S. The potential for automating assisted natural regeneration of tropical forest ecosystems. Biotropica. 2016;48(6):825–33.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Reid JL, Holl KD. Arrival ≠ Survival. Restor Ecol. 2013;2:153–5.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Carlo TA, Morales JM. Generalist birds promote tropical forest regeneration and increase plant diversity via rare-biased seed dispersal. Ecology. 2016;97:1819–31.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. de Almeida A, Marques MCM, de Fatima Ceccon-Valente M, Vicente-Silva J, Mikich SB. Limited effectiveness of artificial bird perches for the establishment of seedlings and the restoration of Brazil’s Atlantic Forest. J Nat Conserv. 2016;34:24–32.

    Google Scholar 

  54. La Mantia T, Rühl J, Massa B, Pipitone S, Lo Verde G, Bueno RS. Vertebrate-mediated seed rain and artificial perches contribute to overcome seed dispersal limitation in a Mediterranean old field. Restor Ecol. 2019;27(6):1393–400.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Tomazi AL, Castellani TT. Artificial perches and solarization for forest restoration: assessment of their value. Trop Conserv Sci. 2016;9:809–31.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Stone MJ, Shoo L, Stork NE, Sheldon F, Catterall CP. Recovery of decomposition rates and decomposer invertebrates during rain forest restoration on disused pasture. Biotropica. 2019;52(2):230–41.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Shono K, Cadaweng EA, Durst PB. Application of assisted natural regeneration to restore degraded tropical forestlands. Restor Ecol. 2007;15(4):620–6.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Charle LS, Dwyer JM, Chapman HM, Yadok BG, Mayfield MM. Landscape structure mediates zoochorous-dispersed seed rain under isolated pasture trees across distinct tropical regions. Landsc Ecol. 2019;34(6):1347–62.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Laborde J, Guevara S, Sánchez-Ríos G. Tree and shrub seed dispersal in pastures: the importance of rainforest trees outside forest fragments. Ecoscience. 2008;15:6–16.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Zahawi RA, Augspurger CK. Tropical forest restoration: tree islands as recruitment foci in degraded lands of Honduras. Ecol Appl. 2006;16(2):464–78.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Hol KD, Loik ME, Lin EHV, Samuels IA. Tropical montane forest restoration in Costa Rica: overcoming barriers to dispersal and establishment. Restor Ecol. 2000;8:339–49.

    Google Scholar 

  62. García-Orth X, Martínez-Ramos M. Isolated trees and grass removal improve performance of transplanted Trema micrantha (L.) Blume (Ulmaceae) saplings in tropical pastures. Restor Ecol. 2011;19(1):24–34.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Lamb D, Erskine PD, Parrotta JA. Restoration of degraded tropical forest landscapes. Science. 2005;310:1628–32.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Brancalion PH, Amazonas NT, Chazdon RL, van Melis J, Rodrigues RR, Silva CC, et al. Exotic eucalypts: from demonized trees to allies of tropical forest restoration? J Appl Ecol. 2020;57(1):55–66.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Bechara FC, Dickens SJ, Farrer EC, Larios L, Spotswood EN, Mariotte P, et al. Neotropical rainforest restoration: comparing passive, plantation and nucleation approaches. Biodivers Conserv. 2016;25(11):2021–34.

    Google Scholar 

  66. • Holl KD, Reid JL, Chaves-Fallas JM, Oviedo-Brenes F, Zahawi RA. Local tropical forest restoration strategies affect tree recruitment more strongly than does landscape forest cover. J Appl Ecol. 2017;54(4):1091–9 Illustrates many aspects of uncertainty in outcomes of forest restoration, the associated processes, and alternative approaches.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Paul M, Catterall CP, Pollard PC, Kanowski J. Recovery of soil properties and functions in different rainforest restoration pathways. For Ecol Manag. 2010;259(10):2083–92.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Kanowski J, Catterall CP, Neilan W. The potential value of weedy regrowth for rainforest restoration: the case of camphor laurel in north-East New South Wales. Ecol Manag Restor. 2008;9:88–99.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Sample M, Aslan CE, Policelli N, Sanford RL, Nielsen E, Nuñez MA. Increase in nonnative understorey vegetation cover after nonnative conifer removal and passive restoration. Austral Ecol. 2019;44(8):1384–97.

    Google Scholar 

  70. César RG, Moreno VS, Coletta GD, Chazdon RL, Ferraz SF, de Almeida DR, et al. Early ecological outcomes of natural regeneration and tree plantations for restoring agricultural landscapes. Ecol Appl. 2018;28(2):373–84.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Lindenmayer DB, Blanchard W, Crane M, Michael D, Sato C. Biodiversity benefits of vegetation restoration are undermined by livestock grazing. Restor Ecol. 2018;26(6):1157–64.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Posada JM, Aide TM, Cavelier J. Cattle and weedy shrubs as restoration tools of tropical montane rainforest. Restor Ecol. 2000;8(4):370–9.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Olff H, Vera FWM, Bokdam J, Bakker ES, Gleichman JM, De Maeyer K, et al. Shifting mosaics in grazed woodlands driven by the alternation of plant facilitation and competition. Plant Biol. 1999;1(2):127–37.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Pausas JG, Bond WJ. Humboldt and the reinvention of nature. J Ecol. 2019;107(3):1031–7.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Catterall CP. Fauna as passengers and drivers in vegetation restoration: a synthesis of processes and evidence. Ecol Manag Restor. 2018;19:54–62.

    Google Scholar 

  76. McAlpine C, Catterall CP, Mac Nally RM, Lindenmayer D, Reid JL, Holl KD, et al. Integrating plant-and animal-based perspectives for more effective restoration of biodiversity. Front Ecol Environ. 2016;14(1):37–45.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Hayward MW, Scanlon RJ, Callen A, Howell LG, Klop-Toker KL, Di Blanco Y, et al. Reintroducing rewilding to restoration–rejecting the search for novelty. Biol Conserv. 2019;233:255–9.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Bellingham PJ, Kardol P, Bonner KI, Buxton RP, Morse CW, Wardle DA. Browsing by an invasive herbivore promotes development of plant and soil communities during primary succession. J Ecol. 2016;104(6):1505–17.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  79. Griffiths CJ, Zuel N, Jones CG, Ahamud Z, Harris S. Assessing the potential to restore historic grazing ecosystems with tortoise ecological replacements. Conserv Biol. 2013;27(4):690–700.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Hobbs RJ, Higgs E, Hall CM, Bridgewater P, Chapin FS III, Ellis EC, et al. Managing the whole landscape: historical, hybrid, and novel ecosystems. Front Ecol Environ. 2014;12(10):557–64.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Radeloff VC, Williams JW, Bateman BL, Burke KD, Carte SK, Childress ES, et al. The rise of novelty in ecosystems. Ecol Appl. 2015;25:2051–68.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Harris JA, Hobbs RJ, Higg E, Aronson J. Ecological restoration and global climate change. Restor Ecol. 2006;14(2):170–6.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Lugo AE. Novel tropical forests: nature’s response to global change. Trop Conserv Sci. 2013;6:325–37.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Catterall CP. Values of weedy regrowth for rainforest restoration. Ecol Manag Restor. 2020;21(1):9–13.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Kettenring KM, Adams CR. Lessons learned from invasive plant control experiments: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Appl Ecol. 2011;48(4):970–9.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Prior KM, Adams DC, Klepzig KD, Hulcr J. When does invasive species removal lead to ecological recovery? Implications for management success. Biol Invasions. 2018;20(2):267–83.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Evers CR, Wardropper CB, Branoff B, Granek EF, Hirsch SL, Link TE, et al. The ecosystem services and biodiversity of novel ecosystems: a literature review. Glob Ecol Conserv. 2018;13:e00362.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Guerrero AM, Shoo L, Iacona G, Standish RJ, Catterall CP, et al. Using structured decision-making to set restoration objectives when multiple values and preferences exist. Restor Ecol. 2017;25(6):858–65.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Catterall CP, Freeman AND, Kanowski J, Freebody K. Can active restoration of tropical rainforest rescue biodiversity? A case with bird community indicators. Biol Conserv. 2012;146(1):53–61.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Tambosi LR, Martensen AC, Ribeiro MC, Metzger JP. A framework to optimize biodiversity restoration efforts based on habitat amount and landscape connectivity. Restor Ecol. 2014;22(2):169–77.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Tobón W, Urquiza-Haas T, Koleff P, Schröter M, Ortega-Álvarez R, Campo J, et al. Restoration planning to guide Aichi targets in a megadiverse country. Conserv Biol. 2017;31(5):1086–97.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Meyfroidt P, Chowdhury RR, de Bremond A, Ellis EC, Erb KH, Filatova T, et al. Middle-range theories of land system change. Glob Environ Chang. 2018;53:52–67.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Latawiec AE, Strassburg BBN, Brancalion PHS, Rodrigues RR, Gardner T. Creating space for large-scale restoration in tropical agricultural landscapes. Front Ecol Environ. 2015;13:211–8.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Holl KD, Brancalion PH. Tree planting is not a simple solution. Science. 2020;368(6491):580–1.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I thank many past and present collaborators (especially Kylie Freebody, John Kanowski and Luke Shoo) for helping to stimulate the development of ideas around which this review is structured, and Griffith University for providing resources to support the work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Environmental Futures Research Institute, Griffith University, Nathan, QLD, 4111, Australia

    Carla P. Catterall

Authors
  1. Carla P. Catterall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carla P. Catterall.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Interface of Landscape Ecology and Conservation Biology

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Catterall, C.P. Influencing Landscape-Scale Revegetation Trajectories through Restoration Interventions. Curr Landscape Ecol Rep 5, 116–126 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40823-020-00058-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40823-020-00058-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation