This focus during planning on desired ecosystem restoration can lead to actions that may not improve regional biodiversity. In this opinion paper, USGS authors and collaborators make the point that restoration actions — such as, removal of encroaching conifers to restore sagebrush ecosystems — frequently drive ecological change. While the intention of restoration is to improve ecosystem function, changing ecosystems can potentially result in trade-offs among wildlife species and communities. For example, when birds like the pinyon jay rely on conifers for survival, the removal of these trees to restore sagebrush habitat may be detrimental to pinyon jay populations.

Improperly evaluating how the current state of an ecosystem contributes to biodiversity when prioritizing restoration sites may result in inefficient use of resources through opportunity costs or conservation actions which counteract one another. In the above example, benefits to the sagebrush system may be fully or partially offset by detrimental effects to another system of conservation concern. This issue is even more important when many systems are experiencing biodiversity loss. 

The authors suggest that restoration practitioners can avoid these consequences through more detailed accounting of the ecological benefits of the current ecosystem when prioritizing restoration action. In doing so, restoration practitioners can be more confident their efforts are contributing to the enhancement of regional biodiversity.