The greatest threats to the conservation of the world’s ecosystems emanate from the economic, social and cultural activities of one species –Homo sapiens. Because these activities are multifaceted, the only logical way to alleviate the threats to ecosystem conservation is to ensure that ecological management is based on an improved understanding of the complex interactions between the socio-economic drivers of change and ecosystem response. This requires the integration of knowledge from multiple disciplines including ecology, economics, sociology, psychology, biochemistry and physics (to name a few), as well as knowledge from the policy and management fields. Without this integration, human society will not be able to manage the many environmental challenges it currently faces; challenges that threaten to undermine the capacity of global ecosystems to support human life, not to mention the existence of the approximately 9 million species with whom we share the planet (Mora et al. 2011). Over the last decade, there have been increasing calls for interdisciplinary approaches to solving ecological management problems (Ewel 2001; Balmford & Cowling 2006). Integration of diverse knowledge streams is gradually becoming fundamental to tackling environmental problems. This issue is highly relevant to the journal Ecological Management & Restoration, because the remit of the journal is ‘linking science and practice’– a clear recognition of the importance of knowledge integration. Indeed, integrating stakeholders and practitioners into problem framing and the development and application of appropriate management strategies is crucial for successful on-ground management of ecosystems. In this editorial, I address three areas which require further structural change to facilitate knowledge integration to improve ecological management outcomes: tertiary education, scientific research and the science–practice interface. Our universities train the next generation of ecosystem managers. Traditionally, universities have been structured as conglomerates of separate information silos (e.g. a physics department or a biology department, etc.), and courses for students are often embedded within one of these silos. This type of administrative and educational structure is antithetical to integration, and the parochialism that it fosters among staff and students can be quite startling; for example, I remember vividly my time at one tertiary institution where some staff of the botany and zoology departments expressed horror at the suggestion that the two departments should be merged, despite the obvious links between these fields of knowledge. Thankfully, we now recognise that integration across disciplines much more divergent than botany and zoology is vital to addressing complex ecological management problems. Indeed, educational institutions are recognising more and more the importance of interdisciplinary interaction; although, appropriate structures to facilitate this interaction are sometimes lacking. Crucial to this development is formal interdisciplinary study courses for students. One institution leading the way in this regard is Stanford University in California, which has established a number of interdisciplinary research programmes, including an interdisciplinary programme in environment and resources. Some Australian universities are also championing this issue; for example, The Australian National University has a Bachelor of Interdisciplinary Studies (Sustainability) that aims to address the interdisciplinary challenges of building a sustainable society. Such developments are promising. Graduates from these courses that go on to employment in environmental management should be better equipped to deal with the multifaceted dimensions of ecosystem conservation. Scientific research is the second area requiring further structural change to facilitate knowledge integration. Mirroring the administrative structure of universities, much of science is embedded in a reductionist, silo mentality. To be fair, in many cases this is necessary to develop the appropriate expertise to understand complex fields of enquiry. Yet, reductionism in this form puts us at huge risk of not being able to see the forest for the leaves. In concert with developing expertise in specialist fields is the vital need to foster skills in interdisciplinary science. My analogy for an interdisciplinary scientist is a project manager on a building site. Building a house requires specialist carpenters, plumbers, electricians and bricklayers, among others. However, it is the project manager that knows how everything fits together to achieve the desired look and functionality of the building. In the same vein, interdisciplinary scientists have a crucial role to play in ensuring the overall protection and maintenance of ecosystem function. Certain fields of ecosystem management are perfect vehicles to drive knowledge integration. One that I am most familiar with is the rapidly growing field of ecosystem services. The benefits that humans derive from ecosystems are manifested through ecosystem services, such as water filtration, nutrient cycling, pollination, biological control, carbon storage and waste disposal, to name a few. To understand the provision of these services requires input from ecologists, hydrologists, biochemists, climate scientists and others. Valuation of ecosystem services, in monetary or nonmonetary terms, is the realm of economists, sociologists and psychologists. It is no surprise then that research on ecosystem services boasts many examples of interdisciplinary collaborations aimed at developing an integrated approach to ecosystem management to ensure the protection of ecosystems and the continual flow of services that promote human well-being. Collaboration is the key to the success of integrated research agendas. Society increasingly faces what I call a ‘knowledge conundrum’. Collectively, we know more now about how the world works than we ever have. The body of human knowledge is overwhelming and ever increasing, and it is impossible for any one person to understand adequately even a small part of this volume of knowledge. This drives us even further towards reductionist science, as we strive to understand adequately each component of biophysical and socio-economic systems. Collaboration is the only way around this knowledge conundrum if we are to advance the integrated research agenda that is so badly needed. Yet, collaboration across disciplines faces many challenges. It requires developing a common language to facilitate effective interdisciplinary communication; heeding guidance from people experienced in managing interdisciplinary interactions; basing the collaboration around a common focus (e.g. ecosystem services or water management); and ensuring that all potential members of the collaboration are included from the outset and contribute to problem definition and moving the process forward. Research institutions can play an important role in facilitating collaboration through establishing appropriate administrative structures; for example, the Institute for Land, Water and Society, where I work, has established Strategic Research Areas that focus interdisciplinary interaction around a common theme. The third area of knowledge integration – linking science and practice – is arguably the most important. Any research collaboration that aims to influence on-ground action must include, as members, stakeholders and practitioners. Stakeholders are directly affected by management decisions and must be included in the decision-making process, and practitioners can contribute important ideas to enrich the research, as well as being required to interpret and implement research-based knowledge. Guidance in how to integrate knowledge from research and practice that is relevant to ecological management can be found in the relatively new discipline of ‘integration and implementation sciences’ (Bammer 2005). One of the aims of this discipline is to develop approaches to overcoming barriers to knowledge integration, particularly in relation to the practical application of interdisciplinary knowledge (also see van Kerkhoff & Lebel 2006). An important avenue for facilitating broader engagement in the generation of new knowledge is through appropriate research funding. In Australia, funding streams such as Australian Research Council Linkage Grants and Cooperative Research Centres are crucial for supporting a stronger engagement among researchers, practitioners and stakeholders in research endeavours. Critical to this process is the inclusion of practitioners and stakeholders during the problem definition phase rather than just at the information dissemination stage. This is particularly important for research aimed at changing policy and on-ground action. Failure to engage practitioners early in the research endeavour can lead to a disjunct between research knowledge and on-ground application, and failure to engage stakeholders can lead to strong resistance against subsequent policy changes if there is an actual or even perceived view that stakeholder concerns were not addressed as part of the process. The conservation of nature and human progress are often seen as competing goals. Yet, the future of human civilization rests in overturning this notion. Economic issues currently dominate societal discourse, but this emphasis is misguided, because functioning ecosystems that support human life are immensely more important to the survival of our species. Yet, attempts to push an environmental agenda without recognition of socio-economic realities is doomed to failure, as the human economy is so important to so many and its collapse would result in untold misery. This conundrum is something we have faced for many decades. The only way to solve it is to strive for the integration of knowledge across disciplines and across research and practice, so that we are better armed to face the complex management challenges that lie ahead.