Restoration ecology has historically focused on reconstructing communities of highly visible taxa while less visible taxa, such as invertebrates and microbes, are ignored. This is problematic as invertebrates and microbes make up the vast bulk of biodiversity and drive many key ecosystem processes, yet they are rarely actively reintroduced following restoration, potentially limiting ecosystem function and biodiversity in these areas. In this review, we discuss the current (limited) incorporation of invertebrates and microbes in restoration and rewilding projects. We argue that these groups should be actively rewilded during restoration to improve biodiversity, ecosystem function outcomes, and highlight how they can be used to greater effect in the future. For example, invertebrates and microbes are easily manipulated, meaning whole communities can potentially be rewilded through habitat transplants in a practice that we refer to as “whole‐of‐community” rewilding. We provide a framework for whole‐of‐community rewilding and describe empirical case studies as practical applications of this under‐researched restoration tool that land managers can use to improve restoration outcomes. We hope this new perspective on whole‐of‐community restoration will promote applied research into restoration that incorporates all biota, irrespective of size, while also enabling a better understanding of fundamental ecological theory, such as colonization and competition trade‐offs. This may be a necessary consideration as invertebrates that are important in providing ecosystem services are declining globally; targeting invertebrate communities during restoration may be crucial in stemming this decline.

Restoration of degraded areas is now a central tool in humanity's response to continued species‐loss. However, restoration projects often report exceedingly slow or failed recolonization of fauna, especially dispersal‐constrained groups such as invertebrates. Active interventions via reintroducing or “rewilding” invertebrates may assist recolonization and speed up restoration of communities toward a desired target. However, invertebrate rewilding is rarely implemented during ecological restoration. Here, we studied the efficacy of invertebrate rewilding as a means of reintroducing dispersal‐constrained species and improving diversity and compositional similarities to remnant communities during restoration. Rewilding was conducted by transplanting leaf litter and soil, including associated communities of invertebrates from species rich remnant sites into species poor, and geographically isolated, revegetated farmland sites. We sampled pre‐ and post‐rewilding invertebrate communities in remnant, rewilded revegetation, and control revegetation sites. We analyzed morphospecies richness, abundance, community composition, and modeled morphospecies traits (dispersal method/trophic guild) using a Hierarchical Modelling of Species Communities approach to determine which biological properties facilitated establishment. Beetle (Coleoptera) morphospecies richness increased rapidly in rewilded sites and was indistinguishable from remnant communities as early as 7 months post‐rewilding. Beetle community similarity in the rewilding sites significantly deviated from the control sites 27 months post‐rewilding, however remnant communities remained distinct over the study timeframe. Establishment success varied as other taxa did not respond as consistently as beetles within the study timeframe. Furthermore, there were no discernible shifts in dispersal traits in rewilded sites. However, predatory morphospecies were more likely to establish post‐rewilding than other trophic groups. Our results demonstrate that the relatively simple act of transplanting leaf litter can result in comparatively large increases in morphospecies richness during restoration in a short timeframe. We advocate methodologies such as ours should be adopted more frequently to address failed community restoration as they are cost‐effective and can be easily applied by practitioners in various restoration settings. However, further efficacy tests (e.g., varying the number of rewilding events) and longer study timeframes are needed to ensure effectiveness for a broader range of invertebrate taxa and ecosystems.

Habitat degradation and associated reductions in ecosystem functions can be reversed by reintroducing or ‘rewilding’ keystone species. Rewilding projects have historically targeted restoration of processes such as grazing regimes or top‐down predation effects. Few projects focus on restoring decomposition efficiency, despite the pivotal role decomposition plays in global carbon sequestration and nutrient cycling. Here, we tested whether rewilding entire communities of detritivorous invertebrates and fungi can improve litter decomposition efficiency and restore detritivore communities during ecological restoration. Rewilding was conducted by transplanting leaf litter and soil, including associated invertebrate and fungal communities from species‐rich remnant sites into species‐poor, and geographically isolated, revegetated farmland sites in a temperate woodland region of southeastern Australia. We compared communities in sites under the following treatments: remnant (conservation area and source of litter transplant), rewilded revegetation (revegetated farmland site with litter transplant) and control revegetation (revegetated site, no transplant). In one ‘before’ and three ‘after’ sampling periods, we measured litter decomposition and the abundance and diversity of detritivorous invertebrates and fungi. We quantified the effect of detritivores on the rate of litter decomposition using piecewise Structural Equation Modelling. Decomposition was significantly faster in rewilding sites than in both control and remnant areas and was largely driven by a greater abundance of invertebrate detritivores. Similarly, the abundance of invertebrate detritivores in rewilding revegetation sites exceeded the level of remnant communities, whereas there was little difference between control and remnant sites. In contrast, rewilding did not increase saprotrophic fungi relative abundance/diversity and there was no strong relationship between decomposition and fungal diversity. Our findings suggest the relatively simple act of transplanting leaf litter and soil can increase functional efficiency during restoration and alter community composition. Our methods may prove important across a range of contexts where other restoration methods have failed to restore ecosystem processes to pre‐degradation levels.

Artificial light at night poses a global threat to biodiversity and is increasing at a rate greater than any other pollutant. We conducted a field experiment to investigate the effects of short‐term nighttime illumination on nocturnal flying insects and insectivorous bats in previously unlit remnant bushland. We compared these organisms' responses to three types of light‐emitting diode (LED) lights, each with a unique spectral composition (cool white [CW], λP 457 nm; filtered white [FW], λP 586 nm; and amber [A], λP 601 nm), as well as a control (C) group without illumination. Our findings revealed that both CW and FW LEDs significantly increased the total activity of flying insects, particularly the orders Diptera, Coleoptera, and Hymenoptera. By contrast, total bat activity was independent of light treatment, but there was a marginally non‐significant effect on bats presumed to be light sensitive. Amber lights appear to mitigate the disruptive effects of light on at least one light sensitive bat species. Intriguingly, despite a positive association in one bat species with insect abundance, there was no corresponding increase in feeding activity around illuminated sites in this or any other species. These observations suggest that bats may not solely exploit the attraction of insects to LED lights as a feeding resource and that those species that persist in these environments are perhaps more light tolerant than light exploitive. Overall, our study highlights potentially complex responses of Australian insectivorous bats and flying insects to short‐term LED lighting and contributes further insights into the ecological consequences of nighttime lighting.

Restoring degraded ecosystems is a complex process that involves rebuilding myriad species interactions that make a functioning ecological community. Microorganisms are key to robust ecological restoration - their mutualisms with above-ground communities drive community assembly and increase host fitness. However, microbes are largely ignored during restoration and there is a significant knowledge gap regarding how to restore their interactions with above-ground communities. Here, we tested whether we could enhance interactions between microbes and their invertebrate hosts by reintroducing, or 'rewilding', leaf litter and soil from remnant sites containing species-rich microbial communities, into species poor and geographically isolated revegetated farmland sites. We sequenced both the soil microbiome and the gut microbiome of two dominant invertebrates: native Ecnolagria grandis beetles and introduced Ommatoiulus moreleti millipedes. We sampled 35 months after the initial reintroduction event in remnant (conservation area and source of litter and soil transplant), rewilding transplant (revegetation site with transplant), and control sites (revegetation with no transplant). We found that even ∼20 years after revegetation, restoration sites had distinct microbial communities compared to remnant areas. Although litter and soil transplants failed to increase soil microbial community similarity towards remnant sites, we found marked increases in the diversity and richness of E. grandis microbiomes and a greater degree of overlap with soil microbiomes within rewilding transplant sites relative to control sites. In contrast, there were few changes in O. moreleti microbiomes. Overall, our results suggest rewilding can recover some species interactions during restoration but may not influence all host-microbe systems.

Species traits often vary in a coordinated manner, making up an ecological strategy comprised of suites of interrelated traits. Environmental gradients, such as those along elevational gradients, provide an ideal venue in which to examine variation in ecological strategies with the environment. We examined variation in the morphological strategies of ants along elevational gradients on thirteen mountains across three mountain ranges in central and south-eastern Australia. We pitfall-trapped ants, counted and identified workers and measured morphological traits. Most species showed a hump-shaped relationship between occurrence and elevation, and several responded to microhabitat variables. Morphological traits varied along two key axes: “gracility”, where high values indicated longer-legged species with dorsally positioned eyes and smooth, bare cuticles; and “size and darkness”, where species with high values were larger and darker. Analysis of assemblage-weighted means revealed that gracility decreased with temperature and increased with precipitation, suggesting links with desiccation tolerance. Size and darkness increased with UV-B, declined with increasing canopy cover and peaked at mid-temperatures. We thus detected strong shifts in dominant morphological strategies along our elevational gradients. However, the multifunctionality and interrelatedness of traits and the covariance of climatic factors may make isolation of the function of individual traits difficult. Further, the predictive power of our models may be limited in the context of novel environments predicted under global change.