OPINION ARTICLE Intelligent Tinkering in Ecological Restoration Carolina Murcia 1,2,3 and James Aronson 4,5 Abstract Restoration practitioners adopt a multiplicity of approaches that range from basic trial and error, and site-specific efforts, to complex experimental designs that test cutting edge theoretical hypotheses. We classify these different strategies to understand how restoration is planned and executed, and to contribute to the discussion on certification and evaluation. We use Aldo Leopold’s notion of “intelligent tinkering” as a basis for a typol- ogy of four different approaches to restoration based on four parameters: motivation, general strategy, method of inquiry, and temporal and spatial scales of the expected outcomes. We argue that efforts to restore a damaged ecosystem in a skilled and experimental manner should be called “professional intelligent tinkering” versus “ama- teur intelligent tinkering,” and “careless tinkering.” We compare these three types of tinkering, and a more formal “scientific approach.” In professional intelligent tinker- ing, interventions and adjustments are done in a logical and careful manner, and with a methodical, experimental mindset. In contrast to the scientific approach, intelligent tinkering does not necessarily follow a formal experimen- tal procedure, with replications and controls that allow extrapolation, nor is it driven by the motivation to publish in peer-reviewed journals. Rather, it is primarily driven by a desire to solve site-specific problems even in the absence of sufficient ecological knowledge to apply previously tested knowledge and techniques. We illustrate three approaches with three on-going restoration projects in southeastern Brazil, two of which are small scale, and one of which is very large scale. Key words: amateur intelligent tinkering, Atlantic Forest Restoration Pact, professional intelligent tinkering, restoration approach typology. To keep every cog and wheel is the first precau- tion of intelligent tinkering. Aldo Leopold 1953. The practice of ecological restoration integrates many dis- ciplines and attracts the attention of many interests in society, from scientists, politicians, industry, entrepreneurs, NGOs, and local communities. No formal education is required to prac- tice ecological restoration. Rather, the general consensus is that these projects must be inclusive to increase their impact and effectiveness (Nellermann & Corcoran 2010). A consequence of this diversity in practitioners, stakeholders, and of objec- tives, is that there will be a multiplicity of approaches, some better than others. As the discipline matures, the practice must become more formal, in order to respond to demands for larger scale efforts (CBD 2012; Aronson & Alexander 2013), and for greater scrutiny of return on investment (Goldstein et al. 2008; Blignaut et al. 2014). This formalization has started a dialogue 1 Department of Biology, University of Florida, 220 Bartram Hall, PO Box 118525, Gainesville, FL 32611, U.S.A. 2 Organization for Tropical Studies, Duke University, 410 Swift Avenue, PO Box 90630, Durham, NC 27705, U.S.A. 3 Address for correspondence to C. Murcia, email carolinamurcia01@gmail.com 4 Centre d’Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive (CNRS-UMR 5175), 1919, Route de Mende, 34293, Montpellier, France 5 Missouri Botanical Garden, St. Louis, MO 63110, U.S.A.  2014 Society for Ecological Restoration doi: 10.1111/rec.12100 within the Society for Ecological Restoration on the need for professional certification (Clewell & Aronson 2013). To contribute to this dialogue, we present here a simple classification of restoration approaches that spans a continuum of rigor in the practice. They vary in terms of motivation, general strategy, method of inquiry, and temporal, and spa- tial scales of the expected outcomes. This should help the ecological restoration community and project evaluators to better understand how practice is conducted and how differ- ent approaches may be applied, rejected, or combined, under varying sets of conditions and goals. We have chosen the expression “intelligent tinkering” as a starting point of a typol- ogy that describes different approaches to restoration, because it spans between two extremes: that of a tinkerer with no plan or method and no awareness for the value or replication, test- ing, or communication of methods, and that of a tinkerer whose work is rigorously planned. The next step beyond this is the approach adopted by restoration scientists where, in principle, every intervention is replicated, and results are documented and communicated to a larger restoration science and practice community. Aldo Leopold’s memorable line about intelligent tinkering quoted above has become a standard aphorism of conservation ethics, underlining the need to conserve all elements of a biological community or an ecosystem (e.g. McGlincy & Haines 1994; Sissenwine & Murawski 2004). This message goes straight to the heart of modern conservation science and MAY 2014 Restoration Ecology Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 279–283 279