The role of wildlife science in wetland ecosystem restoration: Lessons from the Everglades

There has been little discussion of how and when to integrate wildlife science into ecological restoration projects. The recent emergence of wetland ecosystem restoration offers an opportunity to use wildlife science to increase the probability of a project being successful. This paper traces the evolution of wetland ecosystem restoration in North America and proposes three roles for wildlife science in wetland ecosystem restoration: (1) contribute to conceptual ecosystem models, (2) develop quantitative performance measures and restoration targets that track the progress of restoration, and (3) achieve social feasibility by sustaining long-term public support for a project. The extensive knowledge base for many species of wildlife makes them especially useful for contributing to conceptual ecosystem models. Wildlife species are often the subject of long-term monitoring and research because they have commercial value, are conspicuous, or have aesthetic appeal. Wildlife parameters can be good performance measures for large-scale restoration projects because some species integrate information over large spatial scales and are long-lived. Parameters associated with threatened or endangered wildlife species should get special consideration as performance measures because the information will meet multiple needs rather than just those of the conceptual ecosystem model. Finally, wetland ecosystem restoration projects need to sustain funding over decades to ensure the restored system is self-sustaining. Wildlife are a valued resource that can help achieve the social feasibility of a project by providing a way to communicate complex science in terms that society understands and values.     

基于生态监管的生态保护修复工程实施成效评估指标体系

生态监管是保障生态保护修复工程有效实施的重要途径，生态保护修复监督评估是我国当前维护生态环境安全的迫切需求和生态监管开展的有力抓手。在对国内外已有生态保护修复成效评估相关理论方法进行分析的基础上，围绕生态保护修复工程实施目标，结合生态监管要求，统筹考虑“山水林田湖草生命共同体”理念、生态保护修复工程类型、指标可操作性和兼容性等因素，综合运用频度分析法、专家咨询法和层次分析法等方法，提出了生态保护修复工程实施成效评估指标体系，构建了包括生态环境成效和工程管理成效的指标体系。其中，生态环境成效指标由共性指标和个性指标组成，共性指标包括生态系统格局、生态系统功能、生态干扰等方面的具体指标，个性指标包括森林保护修复工程、草原保护修复工程、湿地保护修复工程、矿山修复工程、防沙治沙工程、石漠化治理工程、水土流失治理工程、地质灾害治理工程、流域综合治理工程等不同工程类型的具体指标。工程管理成效指标主要包括工程绩效、工程实施及公众满意等方面的具体指标。在对各项指标评估的基础上，通过综合评估计算对生态保护修复工程实施成效进行评估。基于生态系统格局指数、生态系统功能指数、生态干扰指数、工程管理成效指数及不...     

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.     

Guidelines for evaluating performance of oyster habitat restoration

Restoration of degraded ecosystems is an important societal goal, yet inadequate monitoring and the absence of clear performance metrics are common criticisms of many habitat restoration projects. Funding limitations can prevent adequate monitoring, but we suggest that the lack of accepted metrics to address the diversity of restoration objectives also presents a serious challenge to the monitoring of restoration projects. A working group with experience in designing and monitoring oyster reef projects was used to develop standardized monitoring metrics, units, and performance criteria that would allow for comparison among restoration sites and projects of various construction types. A set of four universal metrics (reef areal dimensions, reef height, oyster density, and oyster size–frequency distribution) and a set of three universal environmental variables (water temperature, salinity, and dissolved oxygen) are recommended to be monitored for all oyster habitat restoration projects regardless of their goal(s). In addition, restoration goal‐based metrics specific to four commonly cited ecosystem service‐based restoration goals are recommended, along with an optional set of seven supplemental ancillary metrics that could provide information useful to the interpretation of prerestoration and postrestoration monitoring data. Widespread adoption of a common set of metrics with standardized techniques and units to assess well‐defined goals not only allows practitioners to gauge the performance of their own projects but also allows for comparison among projects, which is both essential to the advancement of the field of oyster restoration and can provide new knowledge about the structure and ecological function of oyster reef ecosystems.     

Defining the Limits of Restoration: The Need for Realistic Goals

The search for a universal statement of goals for ecological restoration continues to generate discussion and controversy. I discuss the diverse roots of restoration ecology, and show how the complex lineages within the field have led to diverse, and divergent, sets of goals. I then review the three major themes that currently are used to develop statements of goals: restoration of species, restoration of whole ecosystems or landscapes, and the restoration of ecosystem services, and point out both the advantages and the limitations and problems associated with each category. Finally, I suggest that restoration ecology would be better served by recognizing that the diversity of conditions requiring restoration demands much flexibility in goal setting, and that restorationists should seek to develop guidelines for defining the sets of conditions under which different kinds of goals are appropriate. I further suggest that goals would be more easily and more appropriately set if restorationists would set forth at the outset the true scope and limitations of what is possible in a given project. Key words: goal‐setting, wetlands, conservation biology, ecosystem management, ecosystem services, landscape management.     

Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act: A programmatic application of adaptive management

The Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act (CWPPRA), commonly referred to as ‘The Breaux Act’, has provided some of the resources necessary to begin implementing a comprehensive, large-scale, long-term coastal wetland restoration program for Louisiana USA. Due to the dynamic nature of this ecosystem and the uncertainty associated with large-scale restoration, adaptive management principles were embedded throughout CWPPRA’s organizational structure, planning process, project implementation, and monitoring program to facilitate achieving the mandates associated with the Breaux Act. Feedback loops were established within and between each of the programmatic components to encourage continuous learning, which is central to adaptive management. The knowledge gained has led to institutionalized change in projects as well as the program. This paper describes how the formation of the CWPPRA Task Force and associated committees and groups resulted in an integrated coast-wide process for planning, selection, construction, operation, maintenance, monitoring, and scientific evaluation of 84 restoration projects implemented or scheduled for implementation throughout coastal Louisiana.     

Long-Term Monitoring and Evaluation of the Lower Red River Meadow Restoration Project, Idaho, U.S.A.

Although public and financial support for stream restoration projects is increasing, long‐term monitoring and reporting of project successes and failures are limited. We present the initial results of a long‐term monitoring program for the Lower Red River Meadow Restoration Project in north‐central Idaho, U.S.A. We evaluate a natural channel design’s effectiveness in shifting a degraded stream ecosystem onto a path of ecological recovery. Field monitoring and hydrodynamic modeling are used to quantify post‐restoration changes in 17 physical and biological performance indicators. Statistical and ecological significance are evaluated within a framework of clear objectives, expected responses (ecological hypotheses), and performance criteria (reference conditions) to assess post‐restoration changes away from pre‐restoration conditions. Compared to pre‐restoration conditions, we observed ecosystem improvements in channel sinuosity, slope, depth, and water surface elevation; quantity, quality, and diversity of in‐stream habitat and spawning substrate; and bird population numbers and diversity. Modeling documented the potential for enhanced river–floodplain connectivity. Failure to detect either statistically or ecologically significant change in groundwater depth, stream temperature, native riparian cover, and salmonid density is due to a combination of small sample sizes, high interannual variability, external influences, and the early stages of recovery. Unexpected decreases in native riparian cover led to implementation of adaptive management strategies. Challenges included those common to most project‐level monitoring—isolating restoration effects in complex ecosystems, securing long‐term funding, and implementing scientifically rigorous experimental designs. Continued monitoring and adaptive management that support the establishment of mature and dense riparian shrub communities are crucial to overall success of the project.     

On Sustainability, Estuaries, and Ecosystem Restoration: The Art of the Practical

Ecosystem restoration in highly complex, human‐dominated estuaries rests on a strong conceptual foundation of sustainability, ecosystems, and adaptive management of human‐induced environmental impacts. Successful application involves evaluating uncertainty, incorporating place‐based information, and engaging diverse constituencies in the planning process. That means integration of technical knowledge with an understanding of the “cultural milieu” inherent in all estuaries, that is, the intensity of human activity and impacts plus socioeconomic factors relevant to restoration goals. Operational definitions of what constitutes acceptable ecosystem conditions and current baselines are critical yet rest in large measure on cultural values and socioeconomic considerations. Resources for long‐term monitoring and research to assess performance and ecosystem condition are paramount. Unprecedented population growth promises additional stressors on estuarine environments worldwide, making maintenance of present conditions difficult. The art of good, practical ecosystem restoration as a management tool at multiple geographic scales promises to play a crucial role in sustainability goals.     

Developing a vision for improved monitoring and reporting of riparian restoration projects

Representatives from agencies involved in natural resource management in the Murray‐Darling Basin gathered for a workshop in November 2010 to develop a vision for improved monitoring and reporting of riparian restoration projects. The resounding message from this workshop was that the effectiveness of riparian restoration depends on having sound, documented and agreed evidence on the ecological responses to restoration efforts. Improving our capacity to manage and restore riparian ecosystems is constrained by (i) a lack of ecological evidence on the effects of restoration efforts, and (ii) short‐termism in commitment to restoration efforts, in funding of monitoring and in expected time spans for ecosystem recovery. Restoration at the effective spatial scope will invariably require a long‐term commitment by researchers, funding agencies, management agencies and landholders. To address the knowledge gaps that constrain riparian restoration in the Basin, participants endorsed four major fields for future research: the importance of landscape context to restoration outcomes; spatio‐temporal scaling of restoration outcomes; functional effects of restoration efforts; and developing informative and effective indicators of restoration. To improve the monitoring and restoration of riparian zones throughout the Basin, participants advocated an integrated approach: a hierarchical adaptive management framework that incorporates long‐term ecological research.     

Using performance standards to guide vernal pool restoration and adaptive management

Although many restoration projects now include monitoring and evaluation in an adaptive management approach, a failure to employ distinct performance standards can lead to inconsistent and unclear results that may hinder learning from project outcomes and complicate large‐scale assessments of restoration success. Such is the case with vernal pool restoration projects in California, where performance standard guidelines are vague and inconsistently applied across agencies implementing restoration projects. However, positive steps have been made in recent years to develop wetland functional assessments and monitoring protocols in California to reduce inconsistencies and promote ecologically meaningful restoration. Additional work is needed to develop specific guidelines for vernal pool restoration performance standards and define their role within an adaptive management framework. We provide a case study of a vernal pool restoration project in central California to illustrate some of the challenges in using currently available vernal pool performance standard guidelines and propose suggestions for increasing their ecological relevance and clarity.     

Plant phenological research enhances ecological restoration

While phenology data (the timing of recurring biological events) has been used to explain and predict patterns related to global change, and to address applied environmental issues, it has not been clearly identified as pertinent for restoration. This opinion article thus aims to raise awareness of the potential of phenology to enhance the quality of restoration projects and ecological restoration theory. We based our analysis on a systematic literature survey carried out in February 2014, searching the words “phenology” or “phenological” in books dealing with restoration, the term “phenolog*” in the journal Restoration Ecology, and the terms “restoration” and “phenolog*” in the database Web of Science until February 2014. We finally selected 149 studies relevant to our goals, and first classified them according to the context in which phenology was addressed. We then analyzed them within the framework of the five key steps of restoration projects: (1) the reference ecosystem; (2) biotic resources; (3) restoration methods; (4) monitoring; and (5) adaptive management. The literature survey showed that phenological information improved decision‐making in the few restoration projects in which it was incorporated. We thus advocate taking phenological data into account at all stages of restoration when appropriate: from the acquisition of baseline data on the reference ecosystem to treatment design, and from restoration action planning and timing to monitoring. Phenological data should at minimum be collected for sown, keystone, dominant, and/or rare species to improve restoration quality. Phenology studies and monitoring should be promoted in future restoration guidelines.     

生态建设的理论分析

20世纪80年代以来,生态恢复逐渐成为生态学和环境科学研究的热点领域。总结了近年来有关生态恢复的众多研究成果,认为生态建设是人类理性行为参与下积极的生态恢复与重建过程,它具有复杂性、针对性、动态性和不确定性特征,受地理环境地域分异的影响,其类型多种多样。从方案运筹的角度,提出了生态建设的共性原则,包括面向区域的问题导向原则、目标的科学性原则、参与的广泛性原则和科学监测与评价原则。生态建设是一个不断试验、学习和优化的过程。具体包括问题识别、方案设计、决策、实施、监测与评价以及方案调整等重要环节。公众参与对于生态建设是一种很好的知识、信息和资源输入渠道,对活化生态建设的管理运行机制,提高生态建设决策的科学性和有效性能够发挥重要作用。以这些理论分析为依据,对中国生态建设中存在的主要问题展开深入剖析,并提出建立科学评价机制是提高生态建设有效性的核心方略。     

Planning Riparian Restoration in the Context of Tamarix Control in Western North America

Throughout the world, the condition of many riparian ecosystems has declined due to numerous factors, including encroachment of non‐native species. In the western United States, millions of dollars are spent annually to control invasions of Tamarix spp., introduced small trees or shrubs from Eurasia that have colonized bottomland ecosystems along many rivers. Resource managers seek to control Tamarix in attempts to meet various objectives, such as increasing water yield and improving wildlife habitat. Often, riparian restoration is an implicit goal, but there has been little emphasis on a process or principles to effectively plan restoration activities, and many Tamarix removal projects are unsuccessful at restoring native vegetation. We propose and summarize the key steps in a planning process aimed at developing effective restoration projects in Tamarix‐dominated areas. We discuss in greater detail the biotic and abiotic factors central to the evaluation of potential restoration sites and summarize information about plant communities likely to replace Tamarix under various conditions. Although many projects begin with implementation, which includes the actual removal of Tamarix, we stress the importance of pre‐project planning that includes: (1) clearly identifying project goals; (2) developing realistic project objectives based on a detailed evaluation of site conditions; (3) prioritizing and selecting Tamarix control sites with the best chance of ecological recovery; and (4) developing a detailed tactical plan before Tamarix is removed. After removal, monitoring and maintenance as part of an adaptive management approach are crucial for evaluating project success and determining the most effective methods for restoring these challenging sites.     

River Restoration in the Twenty-First Century: Data and Experiential Knowledge to Inform Future Efforts

Despite some highly visible projects that have resulted in environmental benefits, recent efforts to quantify the number and distribution of river restoration projects revealed a paucity of written records documenting restoration outcomes. Improving restoration designs and setting watershed priorities rely on collecting and making accessible this critical information. Information within the unpublished notes of restoration project managers is useful but rarely documents ecological improvements. This special section of Restoration Ecology is devoted to the current state of knowledge on river restoration. We provide an overview of the section’s articles, reflecting on lessons learned, which have implications for the implementation, legal, and financing frameworks for restoration. Our reflections are informed by two databases developed under the auspices of the National River Restoration Science Synthesis project and by extensive interactions with those who fund, implement, and permit restoration. Requiring measurable ecological success criteria, comprehensive watershed plans, and tracking of when and where restoration projects are implemented are critical to improving the health of U.S. waters. Documenting that a project was put in the ground and stayed intact cannot be equated with ecological improvements. However, because significant ecological improvements can come with well‐designed and ‐implemented stream and river restorations, a small investment in documenting the factors contributing to success will lead to very large returns in the health of our nation’s waterways. Even projects that may appear to be failures initially can be turned into success stories by applying the knowledge gained from monitoring the project in an adaptive restoration approach.     

生态技术评价方法及全球生态治理技术研究

全球范围内生态退化形势严峻,生态技术在遏制生态退化进程中发挥着重要作用。长期以来,对生态技术缺乏系统研究和评价,影响了其在脆弱生态区生态治理中的应用与推广。"生态技术评价方法、指标体系及全球生态治理技术评价"项目(2016YFC0503700)获得国家重点研发计划"典型脆弱生态修复与保护研究"专项支持。该项目旨在厘清全球生态退化状况及其对生态技术的需求,建立生态技术评价指标体系与方法模型,评价国内外不同类型生态技术以及重大生态工程区和不同生态退化区域的生态技术实施效果,筛选和推介满足我国及发展中国家生态治理需求的生态技术,建立生态技术评价平台和集成系统,为推动我国生态文明建设和发展中国家生态治理提供科学支撑。     

青藏高原重大建设工程生态修复综合效益评估指标体系

青藏高原作为我国重要的生态屏障和战略资源基地,兼顾经济社会的发展和生态环境的保护,是当前区域发展的主要目标。为实现该目标,国家先后开展了多项推动当地经济发展的重大建设工程项目,并在项目开展的过程中,针对出现的生态问题,实施了一系列的生态修复措施。目前针对青藏高原重大建设工程生态修复的研究,在多工程类型修复效益的融合,以及宏观空间布局尺度上对生态修复成效的评估还相对较少,并且缺乏统一的评价标准。故本研究选取青藏高原道路、水电和矿产开发三类典型的重大建设工程,结合区域及工程特点,通过文献调研、业界专家咨询等方法手段,以生态修复后的生态系统结构、质量和服务为核心架构,筛选能够综合客观的反映该地区生态修复效益的具体指标,最终构建系统、合理和科学的青藏高原重大建设工程生态修复综合效益评估指标体系。该评估指标体系涉及生态系统结构、质量和服务三大指标类别,包括10个主题指标,21个具体指标。以期为青藏高原重大建设工程生态修复效益的总体认知和长期监测,以及未来生态修复工程的制定、建设工程的布局及其他生态系统管理措施的实施,和未来生态修复评估的相关研究提供科学参考和理论支撑。     

山水林田湖草生态保护修复试点工程布局及技术策略

习近平总书记提出的山水林田湖草生命共同体理念对我国新时代生态保护修复工作具有重要的指导意义,开展山水林田湖草整体保护、系统修复、综合治理是解决我国生态环境问题的重要途径,也是推进生态文明建设的必然要求。2016以来,财政部、原国土资源部、原环境保护部在全国24个省（自治区、直辖市）共安排25个山水林田湖草生态保护修复工程试点,对现有试点工程布局和技术策略进行全面剖析,能够为全面推进生态保护修复工作提供依据。在介绍山水林田湖草生态保护修复工程概念和主要任务的基础上,揭示试点工程布局特征,总结生态保护修复技术策略,同时探讨试点目前已经取得的效益、工程实施所存在的问题,并提出相关的建议。研究表明,25个试点大多分布于我国生态安全战略格局骨架区域,并且基本都属于国家重点生态功能区,对维护国家生态安全、提升区域生态功能具有重要意义;总结25个试点实施措施可以发现,工程技术策略主要包含了重要生态系统保护修复、生物多样性保护、流域水环境保护治理、污染与退化土地修复治理、矿山生态修复、土地综合整治等内容。试点工程的实施,开始取得生态、社会和经济等多重效益,但也存在工程宏观布局不尽完善、生态系统理念没能贯彻、自然恢复策略有待实施、监测评价管理缺乏科学、区域全面发展尚需提升等问题。未来应从完善国家宏观生态战略格局保障体系、加强区域生态系统状况和恢复力调查评价、优化工程项目实施规模和时序、研究和实践自然恢复标准与技术、开展长期跟踪监测与进行适应性管理等方面构建山水林田湖草生态保护修复工程技术和制度体系。     

Short‐term vegetation recovery after alien plant clearing along the Rondegat River,South Africa

The outcomes of ecosystem restoration projects should be periodically monitored to inform subsequent adaptive management decisions. In 2012, a project was begun to remove both invasive alien plants and fish from the Rondegat River in South Africa. Although the initial post‐intervention dynamics of aquatic fauna have been documented, the results of the simultaneous clearing of dense riparian stands of alien trees and shrubs have not been reported. We examined native riparian vegetation recovery over 3 years after alien plant clearing. We documented increased cover of native riparian shrubs, but a simultaneous increase of alien and native weedy grass cover. Secondary invasions, especially by grasses, can have strong effects on ecosystem dynamics and achieving the goals of restoration may therefore require additional active management. Our findings provide an initial baseline reference for future monitoring and adaptive management decisions.     

Integrating Soil Ecological Knowledge into Restoration Management

The variability in the type of ecosystem degradation and the specificity of restoration goals can challenge restorationists’ ability to generalize about approaches that lead to restoration success. The discipline of soil ecology, which emphasizes both soil organisms and ecosystem processes, has generated a body of knowledge that can be generally useful in improving the outcomes of restoration despite this variability. Here, we propose that the usefulness of this soil ecological knowledge (SEK) for restoration is best considered in the context of the severity of the original perturbation, the goals of the project, and the resilience of the ecosystem to disturbance. A straightforward manipulation of single physical, chemical, or biological components of the soil system can be useful in the restoration of a site, especially when the restoration goal is loosely defined in terms of the species and processes that management seeks to achieve. These single‐factor manipulations may in fact produce cascading effects on several ecosystem attributes and can result in unintended recovery trajectories. When complex outcomes are desired, intentional and holistic integration of all aspects of the soil knowledge is necessary. We provide a short roster of examples to illustrate that SEK benefits management and restoration of ecosystems and suggest areas for future research.     

Restoring Rivers One Reach at a Time: Results from a Survey of U.S. River Restoration Practitioners

Despite expenditures of more than 1 billion dollars annually, there is little information available about project motivations, actions, and results for the vast majority of river restoration efforts. We performed confidential telephone interviews with 317 restoration project managers from across the United States with the goals of (1) assessing project motivations and the metrics of project evaluation and (2) estimating the proportion of projects that set and meet criteria for ecologically successful river restoration projects. According to project managers, ecological degradation typically motivated restoration projects, but post‐project appearance and positive public opinion were the most commonly used metrics of success. Less than half of all projects set measurable objectives for their projects, but nearly two‐thirds of all interviewees felt that their projects had been “completely successful.” Projects that we classified as highly effective were distinct from the full database in that most had significant community involvement and an advisory committee. Interviews revealed that many restoration practitioners are frustrated by the lack of funding for and emphasis on project monitoring. To remedy this, we recommend a national program of strategic monitoring focused on a subset of future projects. Our interviews also suggest that merely conducting and publishing more scientific studies will not lead to significant improvements in restoration practice; direct, collaborative involvement between scientists, managers, and practitioners is required for forward progress in the science and application of river restoration.