People as Ecological Participants in Ecological Restoration

In 1987, Bradshaw proposed that ecological restoration is the ultimate “acid test” of our understanding the functioning of ecosystems ( Bradshaw 1987 ). Although this concept is widely supported academically, how it can be applied by restoration practitioners is still unclear. This is an issue not limited to Bradshaw’s acid test, but moreover, reflects a general difficulty associated with the polarization between conceptual restoration (restoration ecology) and practical restoration (ecological restoration), where each has functioned to certain degree in isolation of the other. Outside of the more obvious pragmatic reasons for the relative independence between ecological restoration and restoration ecology, we propose that a more contentious explanation is that the approach taken toward understanding ecosystem development in restoration ecology is tangential to what actually takes place in ecological restoration. Current paradigms assume that the process of ecosystem development in restoration should follow the developmental trajectories suggested by classical ecological succession models. However, unlike these models, ecosystem development in restoration is, at least initially, largely manipulated by people, rather than by abiotic and biotic forces alone. There has been little research undertaken to explore how restoration activities impact upon or add to the extant ecological processes operating within a restoration site. Consequently, ecological restoration may not be so much an acid test of our understanding the functioning of ecosystems, but rather, an acid test of our understanding mutually beneficial interactions between humans and ecosystems.     

Present State and Future Perspectives of Restoration Ecology—Introduction

Although the aim of and the need for ecological restoration, and restoration ecology as its scientific base, are obvious, the field is still struggling with defining its basics. This situation, reflected by the debate about alternative terms to replace “restoration,” the ambiguous self‐image as a movement, art, application, or science, and the lack of a unifying conceptual framework, results in an uncertainty about the future development of the field. In a 10‐year project, an interdisciplinary Research Training Group in Jena followed the regeneration of one degraded terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem, respectively, and suggested a conceptual model for regeneration and restoration that was derived from the shared features of the two systems. As part of the scientific discussion of this new approach, an international workshop “Present State and Future Perspectives of Restoration Ecology” was organized in Jena in November 2004. The following collection of 12 opinion papers and 1 concluding chapter reflect the discussions at the workshop and contributes to the “self‐finding” process of restoration ecology.     

Translocations,conservation, and climate change: use of restoration sites as protorefuges and protorefugia

High levels of human activity have affected the quality and usability of the natural landscape, leading to habitat degradation, loss of connectivity between sites, and reduced chances of long‐term survival for individual species. In line with conservation policy, ecological restoration practitioners try to improve degraded sites by means of reestablishing species lost from these sites, thereby returning ecological functionality and maintaining biological diversity. It may appear difficult to integrate the long‐term potential impacts of climate change within restoration strategies. However, more refined climate projections and species distribution models provide us with better understanding of likely scenarios, enabling us to consider future proofing as an integral part of the design of restoration sites, aiding plant conservation. We believe that it is possible to go one step further with a closer integration of restoration and conservation objectives. We introduce the novel concepts of “protorefuges” and “protorefugia”—restoration sites that threatened species can be translocated to, where the restoration design can be specifically adapted to help reduce the decline of threatened species at the leading and trailing edges (respectively) of bioclimatic envelope shifts. This is particularly relevant for nuclear decommissioning sites, which may be free from human activity for decades to centuries.     

Policy Language in Restoration Ecology

Relating restoration ecology to policy is one of the aims of the Society for Ecological Restoration and its journal Restoration Ecology. As an interdisciplinary team of researchers in both ecological science and political science, we have struggled with how policy‐relevant language is and could be deployed in restoration ecology. Using language in scientific publications that resonates with overarching policy questions may facilitate linkages between researcher investigations and decision‐makers' concerns on all levels. Climate change is the most important environmental problem of our time and to provide policymakers with new relevant knowledge on this problem is of outmost importance. To determine whether or not policy‐specific language was being included in restoration ecology science, we surveyed the field of restoration ecology from 2008 to 2010, identifying 1,029 articles, which we further examined for the inclusion of climate change as a key element of the research. We found that of the 58 articles with “climate change” or “global warming” in the abstract, only 3 identified specific policies relevant to the research results. We believe that restoration ecologists are failing to include themselves in policy formation and implementation of issues such as climate change within journals focused on restoration ecology. We suggest that more explicit reference to policies and terminology recognizable to policymakers might enhance the impact of restoration ecology on decision‐making processes.     

Ecological Theory and Community Restoration Ecology

Community ecological theory may play an important role in the development of a science of restoration ecology. Not only will the practice of restoration benefit from an increased focus on theory, but basic research in community ecology will also benefit. We pose several major thematic questions that are relevant to restoration from the perspective of community ecological theory and, for each, identify specific areas that are in critical need of further research to advance the science of restoration ecology. We ask, what are appropriate restoration endpoints from a community ecology perspective? The problem of measuring restoration at the community level, particularly given the high amount of variability inherent in most natural communities, is not easy, and may require a focus on restoration of community function (e.g., trophic structure) rather than a focus on the restoration of particular species. We ask, what are the benefits and limitations of using species composition or biodiversity measures as endpoints in restoration ecology? Since reestablishing all native species may rarely be possible, research is needed on the relationship between species richness and community stability of restored sites and on functional redundancy among species in regional colonist “pools.” Efforts targeted at restoring system function must take into account the role of individual species, particularly if some species play a disproportionate role in processing material or are strong interactors. We ask, is restoration of habitat a sufficient approach to reestablish species and function? Many untested assumptions concerning the relationship between physical habitat structure and restoration ecology are being made in practical restoration efforts. We need rigorous testing of these assumptions, particularly to determine how generally they apply to different taxa and habitats. We ask, to what extent can empirical and theoretical work on community succession and dispersal contribute to restoration ecology? We distinguish systems in which succession theory may be broadly applicable from those in which it is probably not. If community development is highly predictable, it may be feasible to manipulate natural succession processes to accelerate restoration. We close by stressing that the science of restoration ecology is so intertwined with basic ecological theory that practical restoration efforts should rely heavily on what is known from theoretical and empirical research on how communities develop and are structured over time.     

Landscape Pattern Dynamics and Mechanisms during Vegetation Restoration: A Multiscale,Hierarchical Patch Dynamics Approach

The spatial pattern of vegetation changes during ecological restoration, and these changes are affected by the process of restoration. The objective of this study was to integrate the pattern and mechanism of forest restoration in the Dinghushan Nature Reserve (DNR), Guangdong, China, based on data from remote sensing and long‐term field observations. We studied the pattern dynamics of three main forest types and their underlying mechanisms during restoration following a multiscale, hierarchical patch dynamics framework that integrates population, community, and landscape processes. Remote sensing data were used to determine the changes in landscape pattern during different periods of forest restoration from 1978 to 2006. At the landscape scale, the number, area, and perimeter of the needle/broad‐leaved mixed forest (MF) and the evergreen broad‐leaved forest (BF) increased, whereas those of the tropical needle‐leaved forest (NF) decreased during succession. Our analysis based on long‐term field observations indicated that the change rate of NF was lower than that of MF during 1981–1996, but became much higher during 1996–2007. The rate of change in landscape pattern and the progression of succession stages were consistent with each other. Our results also showed that species regeneration and community succession are the biological basis of forest landscape dynamics during vegetation restoration. Landscape pattern analysis allowed us to show “what” happened during vegetation restoration and “where,” and population and community analysis indicated “why” and “how” it happened.     

Reconsidering what enclosure and exclosure mean in restoration ecology

There is ambiguity in the use of the terms “enclosure” and “exclosure” in describing the passive method used for the restoration of degraded ecosystems. We argue that in the context of ecological restoration, the term enclosure is generally more appropriate to use than exclosure. Unlike exclosure, the term enclosure focuses on the degraded area to be restored, does not exclude selective permeability of external factors, and potentially accommodates local people's livelihood needs. However, the term exclosure is appropriate to use in the case of experimental exclosures or management of restoration sites which explicitly exclude specific disturbance factors.     

The Challenge to Restore Processes in Face of Nonlinear Dynamics—On the Crucial Role of Disturbance Regimes

Increasingly, restoration ecologists and managers are challenged to restore ecological processes that lead to self‐sustaining ecosystem dynamics. Due to changing environmental conditions, however, restoration goals need to include novel regimes beyond prior reference conditions or reference dynamics. In face of these fundamental challenges in process‐based restoration ecology, disturbance ecology can offer useful insights. Here, I discuss the contribution of disturbance ecology to understanding assembly rules, ecosystem dynamics, regime shifts, and nonlinear dynamics. Using the patch and multipatch concept, all insights are organized according to two spatial and two temporal categories: “patch–event,”“patch–multievent,”“multipatch–event,” and “multipatch–multievent.” This concept implies the consideration of both spatial patterns and temporal rhythms inside and outside of a restoration site. Emerging issues, such as uncoupling of internal and external dynamics, are considered.     

Are Socioeconomic Benefits of Restoration Adequately Quantified? A Meta‐analysis of Recent Papers (2000–2008) in Restoration Ecology and 12 Other Scientific Journals

Many ecosystems have been transformed, or degraded by human use, and restoration offers an opportunity to recover services and benefits, not to mention intrinsic values. We assessed whether restoration scientists and practitioners use their projects to demonstrate the benefits restoration can provide in their peer‐reviewed publications. We evaluated a sample of the academic literature to determine whether links are made explicit between ecological restoration, society, and public policy related to natural capital. We analyzed 1,582 peer‐reviewed papers dealing with ecological restoration published between 1 January 2000 and 30 September 2008 in 13 leading scientific journals. As selection criterion, we considered papers that contained either “restoration” or “rehabilitation” in their title, abstract, or keywords. Furthermore, as one‐third of the papers were published in Restoration Ecology, we used that journal as a reference for comparison with all the other journals. We readily acknowledge that aquatic ecosystems are under‐represented, and that the largely inaccessible gray literature was ignored. Within these constraints, we found clear evidence that restoration practitioners are failing to signal links between ecological restoration, society, and policy, and are underselling the evidence of benefits of restoration as a worthwhile investment for society. We discuss this assertion and illustrate it with samples of our findings—with regards to (1) the geographical and institutional affiliations of authors; (2) the choice of ecosystems studied, methods employed, monitoring schemes applied, and the spatial scale of studies; and (3) weak links to payments for ecosystem service setups, agriculture, and ramifications for public policy.     

Conservation planning and Indigenous governance in Australia's Indigenous Protected Areas

Indigenous Protected Areas (IPAs) recognize that “country” constitutes land and waters that have enduring cultural, social, and economic linkages for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples that extend over millennia, and which are critical to sustainable Indigenous futures. Within Australia's conservation system, IPAs become part of the National Reserve System (NRS) when Indigenous peoples voluntarily announce their intention to manage “country,” in accordance with their law, custom, and culture, and consistently with national and international conservation guidelines. The NRS requirement is that land is managed “in perpetuity” which highlights a potential tension between with the conservation goals and the voluntary character of IPAs. Ecological restoration in IPAs also raises contested ideas about what is “natural,” the relevant “baseline” for restoration, and what are the objectives to be achieved—ecological or cultural sustainability? Experience from Healthy Country Planning in IPAs indicates that restoration of traditional owner decision‐making, as well as respectful use and valuing community knowledge, is central to the sustainability of outcomes. Ecological restoration is most effectively achieved by restoring governance processes that support Indigenous peoples given the inseparability of cultural, social, economic, and ecological objectives.     

The Two-Culture Problem: Ecological Restoration and the Integration of Knowledge

The terms “ecological restoration” and “restoration ecology” are frequently interchanged. Restoration ecology is the suite of scientific practices that constitute an emergent subdiscipline of ecology. Ecological restoration is the ensemble of practices that constitute the entire field of restoration, including restoration ecology as well as the participating human and natural sciences, politics, technologies, economic factors, and cultural dimensions. This paper is motivated by the concern that the broader practice of restoration may become narrowed over the next decade as a result of zealous attention to scientific and technological considerations, and that restoration ecology will trump ecological restoration. Scientific and technological acumen is necessary for successful restoration, but insufficient. Maintaining a broader approach to restoration requires respect for other kinds of knowledge than science, and especially the recognition of a moral center that is beyond the scope of science to address fully. An example of integrated restoration is presented: the ecological and cultural restoration of Discovery Island (near Victoria, British Columbia, Canada) by the Lekwungen people (Songhees First Nation).     

Quantifying ecological memory during forest succession: A case study from lower subtropical forest ecosystems in South China

The concept of ecological memory provides a new perspective for research on forest succession by including historical factors and the initial state of ecological processes. However, there are still significant gaps between the concept and its application. We selected nine proxy indicators (plant species, soil seed banks, soil microbes, soil animals, birds, soil age, soil pollen, soil mineral distribution, and light environment) and developed a method to quantify ecological memory and succession in a subtropical forest succession in South China. Taking the climax-monsoon evergreen broad-leaved forest as the reference ecosystem, we found that ecological memory increased nonlinearly and accumulated following a specific assembly rule during succession. Memory concerning major soil microbes and soil animals, which improve the soil substrate, mainly accumulated from the initial to the early successional stage. Memory concerning the number of bird species and the availability of light, which ensure a source of regenerative seeds and the survival of understory seedlings, mainly accumulated from the early to middle successional stages. Memory concerning vegetation and soil seed banks mainly accumulated late in succession, guaranteeing that the ecosystem would reach the regional climax stage. Prospective memory was greater than retrospective memory in every successional stage except the late stage, which indicated that all stages but the late stage were undergoing progressive succession. Our study demonstrates that the concept of ecological memory and the proposed evaluation framework are useful for guiding research on succession and restoration, and especially for assessing how “far” a restored ecosystem is from a reference ecosystem or how far a restored ecosystem has deviated from its natural succession trajectory.     

The business perspective in ecological restoration: issues and challenges

Much of the practice of restoration is conducted by businesses—contractors, consultants, designers, engineers. Restoration businesses interact with a variety of stakeholders to complete projects on time and on budget, and to achieve ecological and business objectives. Our research explores the business perspective in restoration; it is based on data collected from businesses (contractors, consultants, design engineers), agencies, and nongovernmental organizations involved in a Superfund cleanup project in Montana, one of the largest river restoration efforts ever. Our findings highlight several areas restoration businesses must navigate. First, restoration businesses must juggle potentially competing goals, maintaining ecological integrity while achieving profitability objectives. Second, these businesses must manage the risk that arises from variability in the natural environment as well as individuals' risk tolerances. Third, they must navigate the disconnect between “science” and “practice,” including how to best monitor restoration projects. Fourth, they must make decisions about new techniques and innovations. Fifth, on‐the‐ground implementation must acknowledge that personnels' motives and expertise might conflict with original plans. We discuss these findings in relation to relevant scholarly research, offering implications for theory and practice. For example, the business of ecological restoration requires learning over time to be profitable while achieving the desired ecological and social outcomes; restoration businesses leverage monitoring in pursuit of adaptive management and engage “frontline personnel” as important voices in the restoration process. Understanding the business of restoration adds an important perspective in the complex dynamics of social‐ecological systems.     

Some Remarks on the Socio-Cultural Background of Restoration Ecology

Restoration ecology plays an important role in nature conservation policy in Europe today. It establishes the scientific basis for restoring ecosystems altered or destroyed by man to a more “natural” state. The goals of restoration ecology can generally be described in terms of increased biodiversity, enhanced water retention capacity, avoidance of soil erosion, etc. In practice, however, a discrepancy exists between the high ideals of restoration goals and reality, where one often encounters limiting factors. These limiting factors can include the conflict between different restoration goals, the unpredictability of restoration goals owing to long‐term effects and stochastic events, the insufficient social acceptance of landscape changes during restoration processes, and the use of restoration processes themselves (e.g., undisturbed succession, certain management measures like impoverishment of fertilized areas) as restoration goals in place of a certain resource quality (such as species composition, population sizes, water quality). Two examples from southern Germany show that restoration goals in European cultural landscapes can only be implemented successfully when they are integrated into the respective land use systems.     

湖滨带退化生态系统的恢复与重建

湖滨带是水陆生态交错带的一种类型,在湖泊流域生态系统中发挥着重要作用,具有较高的生态、社会和经济价值.湖滨带的功能包括:缓冲带功能、保持生物多样性及生境保护功能、护岸功能和经济美学价值.湖滨带退化的原因主要是人为因素引起的生物群落结构的逆向演替及生态功能下降,退化湖滨带生态恢复与重建的理论基础是恢复生态学,其生态恢复技术可划分为三大类:湖滨带生境恢复与重建技术、湖滨带生物恢复与重建技术、湖滨带生态系统结构与功能恢复技术.云南洱海湖滨带近3年的生态恢复与重建试验的生态调查结果表明,试验区水生植被得到恢复,水质净化作用明显,藻类得到抑制,浮游动物的构成和数量发生变化,湖滨带湿地生态系统的生物多样性和稳定性增加.     

恢复生态学研究的一些基本问题探讨

对恢复生态学的研究概况、基本概念、内涵与研究内容以及生态恢复的目标、原则、程序与技术进行了分析与探讨。指出恢复生态学应加强基础理论研究(包括生态系统的演替理论及干扰条件下生态系统的受损过程与响应机制研究等)和应用技术研究(包括土壤、水体、大气和植被恢复技术、生物多样性保护技术以及生态系统的组装与集成技术等).生态恢复与重建是指根据生态学原理,通过一定的生物、生态以及工程的技术,人为地切断生态系统退化的主导因子和过程,调整和优化系统内部及其与外界的物质、能量和信息的流动过程及其时空秩序,使生态系统的结构、功能和生态学潜力尽快地成功地恢复到原有的乃至更高的水平。     

恢复生态学焦点问题

就恢复生态学的概念、近期的发展趋势与前沿命题、传统生态学理论在生态恢复过程中的应用及恢复生态学的社会性等核心问题展开论述。恢复生态学是一门年轻的学科,迄今尚无统一的定义。代表性的有3方面的学术观点。第1种强调受损的生态系统要恢复到理想的状态;第2种强调其应用生态学过程;第3种强调生态整合性恢复。笔者认为,恢复生态学是研究生态系统退化的原因、退化生态系统恢复与重建的技术与方法、过程与机理的科学。从近年的国际恢复生态学大会来看,恢复生态学研究近期主要有3个方面的发展趋势。一是强调自然恢复与社会、人文的耦合。认为恢复生态是全球性的,不只是自然的过程,应有全社会的支持,包括政治、经济和人文的介入。二是强调无论是在地域上还是在理论上都要跨越边界。有效的生态恢复实践在地域上要求多地区甚至是多国家的合作,在理论上要求多学科的交叉与耦合。三是强调以生态系统为基点,在景观尺度表达。随着环境和经济问题的全球化,生态系统和景观尺度的恢复生态学研究引起了越来越多的关注。2004年第15届国际恢复生态学大会的会议主题已定为：恢复、景观与设计。在当前研究趋势的基础上,提出了恢复生态学当前研究的6个前沿命题：恢复生态学的学科理论框架研究、恢复生态系统的功益研究、生物多样性在生态恢复中的作用研究、生态恢复对全球变化的响应研究、生态恢复立法研究和生态恢复与社会、经济的整合性研究。退化生态系统的恢复与重建是一项十分复杂的系统工程,尤其需要生态学理论的指导。多数生态学理论已被应用于恢复生态学的研究与实践。结合实例,着重阐述了生态系统演替理论在生态恢复中的应用。恢复生态与全球变化间的相互作用研究越来越多的引起了人们的关注,但多数研究仍停滞在定性研究阶段。在广东的恢复生态学研究表明,广东省从1986年至1998年,植被覆盖从26％到51％,新造林绿化的植被每年可吸收、固定广东省年排放CO2量的一半。人类社会与自然环境的协调可持续发展,不仅要求实现生态环境的可持续,同时亦要求实现人类社会与经济的可持续发展。这就要求生态系统的恢复与重建必须同时实现生态、经济与社会效率的三重优化。中国科学院华南植物研究所生态中心在中国热带、南亚热带进行的退化生态系统的恢复与重建研究历时30余年,所产生的显著的经济和社会效益,在各个实验站点均已有所反映。     

The SER Standards,cultural ecosystems,and the nature‐culture nexus—a reply to Evans and Davis

Evans and Davis claim the SER Standards use a “pure naturalness” model for restoration baselines and exclude most cultural ecosystems from the ecological restoration paradigm. The SER Standards do neither. The SER Standards consider both “natural” ecosystems (that are unequivocally not cultural) and “similar” cultural ecosystems as suitable reference models. Furthermore, Evans and Davis propose assessing whether a cultural ecosystem exhibits “good, bad, or neutral impacts from humans on ecosystems” as the basis for reference models. We argue that such an approach would overlook the indispensability of native ecosystem benchmarks to measure human impacts and provide a springboard for social‐ecological restoration.     

Intelligent Tinkering in Ecological Restoration

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 typology 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 “amateur intelligent tinkering,” and “careless tinkering.” We compare these three types of tinkering, and a more formal “scientific approach.” In professional intelligent tinkering, 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 experimental 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.     

A primer on choosing goals and indicators to evaluate ecological restoration success

We discuss aspects of one of the most important issues in ecological restoration: how to evaluate restoration success. This first requires clearly stated and justified restoration goals and targets; this may seem “obvious” but in our experience, this step is often elided. Indicators or proxy variables are the typical vehicle for monitoring; these must be justified in the context of goals and targets and ultimately compared against those to allow for an evaluation of outcome (e.g. success or failure). The monitoring phase is critical in that a project must consider how the monitoring frequency and overall design will allow the postrestoration trajectories of indicators to be analyzed. This allows for real‐time management adjustments—adaptive management (sensu lato)—to be implemented if the trajectories are diverging from the targets. However, as there may be large variation in early postrestoration stages or complicated (nonlinear) trajectory, caution is needed before committing to management adjustments. Ideally, there is not only a goal and target but also a model of the expected trajectory—that only can occur if there are sufficient data and enough knowledge about the ecosystem or site being restored. With so many possible decision points, we focus readers' attention on one critical step—how to choose indicators. We distinguish generalizable and specific indicators which can be qualitative, semiquantitative, or quantitative. The generalizable indicators can be used for meta‐analyses. There are many options of indicators but making them more uniform would help mutual comparisons among restoration projects.