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.     

A new era in forest restoration monitoring

Monitoring ecological restoration has been historically dependent on traditional inventory methods based on detailed information obtained from field plots. New paradigms are now needed to successfully achieve restoration as a large‐scale, long‐lasting transformative process. Fortunately, advances in technology now allow for unprecedented shifts in the way restoration has been planned, implemented, and monitored. Here, we describe our vision on how the use of new technologies by a new generation of restoration ecologists may revolutionize restoration monitoring in the coming years. The success of the many ambitious restoration programs planned for the coming decade will rely on effective monitoring, which is an essential component of adaptive management and accountability. The development of new remote sensing approaches and their application to a restoration context open new avenues for expanding our capacity to assess restoration performance over unprecedented spatial and temporal scales. A new generation of scientists, which have a background in remote sensing but are getting more and more involved with restoration, will certainly play a key role for making large‐scale restoration monitoring a viable human endeavor in the coming decade—the United Nations' decade on ecosystem restoration.     

Integrating trait‐based empirical and modeling research to improve ecological restoration

A global ecological restoration agenda has led to ambitious programs in environmental policy to mitigate declines in biodiversity and ecosystem services. Current restoration programs can incompletely return desired ecosystem service levels, while resilience of restored ecosystems to future threats is unknown. It is therefore essential to advance understanding and better utilize knowledge from ecological literature in restoration approaches. We identified an incomplete linkage between global change ecology, ecosystem function research, and restoration ecology. This gap impedes a full understanding of the interactive effects of changing environmental factors on the long‐term provision of ecosystem functions and a quantification of trade‐offs and synergies among multiple services. Approaches that account for the effects of multiple changing factors on the composition of plant traits and their direct and indirect impact on the provision of ecosystem functions and services can close this gap. However, studies on this multilayered relationship are currently missing. We therefore propose an integrated restoration agenda complementing trait‐based empirical studies with simulation modeling. We introduce an ongoing case study to demonstrate how this framework could allow systematic assessment of the impacts of interacting environmental factors on long‐term service provisioning. Our proposed agenda will benefit restoration programs by suggesting plant species compositions with specific traits that maximize the supply of multiple ecosystem services in the long term. Once the suggested compositions have been implemented in actual restoration projects, these assemblages should be monitored to assess whether they are resilient as well as to improve model parameterization. Additionally, the integration of empirical and simulation modeling research can improve global outcomes by raising the awareness of which restoration goals can be achieved, due to the quantification of trade‐offs and synergies among ecosystem services under a wide range of environmental conditions.     

Science‐Driven Restoration: A Square Grid on a Round Earth?

Is formal science necessarily an effective framework and methodology for designing and implementing ecological restoration programs? My experience as an ecologist in Hawaii suggests that even when scientific research programs are explicitly designed to guide and facilitate restoration, the culture of science, heterogeneity of nature, and real‐world complexities of implementing land management practices often limit the practical relevance of conventional scientific research. Although alternative models such as adaptive management and transdisciplinary science may facilitate research that more robustly models the real world, there is often little professional support or incentive to orient even these nonconventional research approaches toward actually solving on‐the‐ground problems. Thus, if one’s goal is to accomplish ecological restoration as quickly and efficiently as possible, a trial‐and‐error/intelligent tinkering–type approach might often be better than using more rigorous, data‐intensive scientific methodology. However, the sympatric implementation of ecological restoration and scientific research programs can lead to valuable synergies such as mutual logistical and financial support and the exchange of distinct forms of knowledge. The professional activities and mere presence of scientists can also greatly enhance a program’s prestige and visibility, which in turn can indirectly promote more and better ecological restoration. Improving our understanding of when formal science can directly assist restoration projects and when its value will more likely be synergistic and indirect could lead to better science, better ecological restoration, and better relationships between these two cultures.     

Scientific requirements for ecosystem-based management in the restoration of Chesapeake Bay and Coastal Louisiana

Ecosystem-based management requires integration of multiple system components and uses, identifying and striving for sustainable outcomes, precaution in avoiding deleterious actions, and adaptation based on experience to achieve effective solutions. Efforts underway or in planning to restore and manage two major coastal ecosystems, the Chesapeake Bay (Chesapeake Bay Program) and coastal Louisiana (Louisiana Coastal Area Plan and Gulf Hypoxia Action Plan), are examined with respect to these four principles. These multifaceted restoration programs represent among the foremost challenges for science and coastal management in the United States and, thereby, have important implications for addressing the coastal environmental crises being experienced throughout the world. Although frameworks exist for integration of management objectives in both regions, the technical ability for the quantitatively integrated assessment of multiple stressors and strategies is still in an early stage of development. Science is also being challenged to identify sustainable futures, but emerging concepts of ecosystem resilience offer some promising approaches. Precautionary management is best conceived with regard to fisheries, but should become a more explicit consideration for managing risks and avoiding unanticipated consequences of restoration activities. Adaptive management is embraced as a central process in coastal Louisiana ecosystem restoration, but has not formally been implemented in the more mature Chesapeake Bay restoration. Based on these experiences, ecosystem-based management could be advanced by: (1) orienting more scientific activity to providing the solutions needed for ecosystem restoration; (2) building bridges crossing scientific and management barriers to more effectively integrate science and management; (3) directing more attention to understanding and predicting achievable restoration outcomes that consider possible state changes and ecosystem resilience; (4) improving the capacity of science to characterize and effectively communicate uncertainty; and (5) fully integrating modeling, observations, and research to facilitate more adaptive management.     

Assessing,with limited resources,the ecological outcomes of wetland restoration: a South African case

Resources for evaluating the ecological outcomes of ecosystem restoration projects are often limited, especially within government‐funded programs. In order to rapidly assess the ecological outcomes of wetland restoration, an improved approach has been developed, which was applied in the assessment of the ecological outcomes at nine restoration sites of South Africa's Working for Wetlands program. The sites encompass a diversity of restoration problems and land use contexts. The approach begins by distinguishing hydrogeomorphic (HGM) units, for which ecological condition is assessed and reported for hydrology, geomorphology, and vegetation pre‐ and post‐restoration. These three components are closely linked but, as demonstrated at some of the sites, may respond differentially to restoration interventions. For most HGM units, overall ecological condition was improved by between 10 and 30%, with the greatest contribution of restoration generally being to the hydrology component. Having determined the integrity and costs of the interventions, cost‐effectiveness is then reported in South African Rands per hectare equivalent restored, which was found to vary by more than an order of magnitude across the HGM units assessed. Cost‐effectiveness must be interpreted in the light of the long‐term integrity of the interventions, the site's landscape context, and the contribution of restoration to ecosystem services provision. Some sites may be considerably less cost‐effective than others, but the cost may nonetheless be justified if the sites make key contributions to ecosystem services provision. The study was conducted in the context of a formative evaluation and the findings are envisaged to improve wetland restoration practice.     

Adaptive management of coastal ecosystem restoration projects

There is a clear need to apply better and more effective management schemes to coastal ecosystem restoration projects. It is very common for aquatic ecosystem restoration projects not to meet their goals. Poor performance has led to a high degree of uncertainty about the potential success of any restoration effort. Under adaptive management, the knowledge gained through monitoring of the project and social policies is translated into restoration policy and program redesign. Planners and managers can utilize the information from the monitoring programs in an effective way to assure that project goals are met or that informed and objective decisions are made to address both ecological and societal needs. The three main ingredients of an effective adaptive management plan in a restoration project are: (1) a clear goal statement; (2) a conceptual model; and (3) a decision framework. The goal ‘drives’ the design of the project and helps guide the development of performance criteria. The goal statement and performance criteria provide the means by which the system can be judged. With the conceptual model, the knowledge base from the field of ecological science plays an active and critical role in designing the project to meet the goal. A system-development matrix provides a simple decision framework to view the alternative states for the system during development, incorporate knowledge gained through the monitoring program, and formulate a decision on actions to take if the system is not meeting its goal.     

Alternatives for the protection and restoration of sturgeons and their habitat

This paper reviews the life history and habitat requirements of sturgeons, alternatives for their protection and restoration in North America, and a typical protection and enhancement program in the Columbia River. Sturgeon are uniquely adapted to mainstem river systems which are characterized by their large scale, diverse habitats, and dynamic nature. Adaptations include mobility, opportunistic food habits, delayed maturation, longevity, and high individual fecundity. Unfortunately these life history characteristics are now a handicap for sturgeon because of fragmentation and destruction of their habitat. A variety of habitat-related alternatives for the protection and restoration of sturgeon were identified in a review of the literature and a survey of sturgeon biologists and managers throughout North America. However, harvest restrictions and supplementation using aquaculture are much more likely to be implemented than the system-wide measures needed to affect sturgeon habitat. A program for white sturgeon protection and enhancement in the Columbia River is a typical case where harvest management and supplementation measures are being used to optimize production of existing habitat but significant changes in water use and hydropower operation are needed to restore sturgeon to historic levels of production.     

One option,two countries,several strategies: subjacent mechanisms of assisted migration implementation in Canada and France

Climate change obliges societies to develop adaptive strategies in order to maintain sustainable management of resources and landscapes. However, the development and implementation of these strategies require dialogue between researchers and policy‐makers about what they understand for adaptation. This dialogue can be hindered by language differences, the hidden agendas, and conflicting concerns of those involved. In this research study, we explored the mechanisms that underlie the implementation process of assisted migration (AM), an adaptation strategy that aims to limit the impact of climate change. We conducted a comparative analysis of 80 semistructured interviews with actors in the forestry sectors in Canada and France. In Canada, our results show a division between the provinces strategies, causing a debate about AM because researchers are wary of the geoengineering and economic arguments that frame AM in areas where the effects of climate change remain unclear. In contrast, we found that the observation of climate impacts is a strong trigger for the application of AM despite an awareness of its associated risks. In France, we explained the absence of AM implementation by a lack of information flow between research and foresters regarding the concept of AM, a cultural attachment of French foresters to their forest landscapes and that climate change effects are not clear yet. Clarity on what implies a true ecological engineering approach in ecological restoration can help maintaining adaptive actions like AM within the general scope of ecosystem management and minimize simplistic applications of adaptation strategies because of climate change.     

Upper Mississippi River restoration: implementation,monitoring, and learning since 1986

Upper Mississippi River Restoration (UMRR) was implemented to monitor environmental status and trends and restore degraded habitat. There was little experience conducting restoration in large rivers, and engineering and ecological integration evolved through project implementation. Loss of depth in backwaters and side channels, excessive biological oxygen demand, increased currents, and low water temperatures were common symptoms of backwater eutrophication that were primary objectives for implementing UMRR. Biological outcome monitoring was initially funded for six projects using the most common methods to restore aquatic and wetland habitat. UMRR island construction occurred as four generations of learning. Current plans represent a comprehensive restoration approach including: physical process modeling (i.e. hydraulic and wind‐wave modeling) of existing conditions and alternative restoration measures. Habitat Rehabilitation and Enhancement Projects, fish response monitoring validated winter habitat suitability models. Long term fish population monitoring indicates sustainable recovery, and now population interaction among restored lakes is under investigation. Isolated wetland management in Illinois River backwater lakes can achieve bottom consolidation that promotes emergent wetland habitat response that migratory waterfowl exploit in large numbers. Adult fish movement between the river and management units is restricted to flood stage or through control structures and post‐project movements into the lake for overwintering were not apparent. The lack of Illinois River overwintering habitat is shown by an abundance of young fish and few older fish in status and trends monitoring. Upper Mississippi River System ecosystem restoration practitioners have implemented ecosystem restoration science and practice in a manner that exemplifies the best intent of adaptive management.     

Achieving Restoration Success: Myths in Bottomland Hardwood Forests

Restoration of bottomland hardwood forests is the subject of considerable interest in the southern United States, but restoration success is elusive. Techniques for establishing bottomland tree species are well developed, yet problems have occurred in operational programs. Current plans for restoration on public and private land suggest that as many as 200,000 hectares could be restored in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley alone. The ideal of ecological restoration is to reestablish a completely functioning ecosystem. Although some argue that afforestation is incomplete restoration, it is a necessary and costly first step but not an easy task. The 1992 Wetlands Reserve Program in Mississippi, which failed on 90% of the area, illustrates the difficulty of broadly applying our knowledge of afforestation. In our view, the focus for ecological restoration should be to restore functions, rather than specifying some ambiguous natural state based on reference stands or pre‐settlement forest conditions. We view restoration as one element in a continuum model of sustainable forest management, allowing us to prescribe restoration goals that incorporate landowner objectives. Enforcing the discipline of explicit objectives, with restoration expectations described in terms of predicted values of functions, causal mechanisms and temporal response trajectories, will hasten the development of meaningful criteria for restoration success. We present our observations about current efforts to restore bottomland hardwoods as nine myths, or statements of dubious origin, and at best partial truth.     

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.     

Meta‐Analysis of Lost Ecosystem Attributes in Urban Streams and the Effectiveness of Out‐of‐Channel Management Practices

Urban development is a leading cause of stream impairment that reduces biodiversity and negatively affects ecosystem processes and habitat. Out‐of‐stream restoration practices, such as stormwater ponds, created wetlands, and restored riparian vegetation, are increasingly implemented as management strategies to mitigate impacts. However, uncertainty exists regarding how effectively they improve downstream ecosystems because monitoring is uncommon and results are typically reported on a case‐by‐case basis. We conducted a meta‐analysis of literature and used response ratios to quantify how downstream ecosystems change in response to watershed development and to out‐of‐stream restoration. Biodiversity in unrestored urban streams was 47% less than that in reference streams, and ecological communities, habitat, and rates of nutrient cycling were negatively affected as well. Mean measures of ecosystem attributes in restored streams were significantly greater than, and 156% of, those in unrestored urban streams. Measures of biodiversity in restored streams were 132% of those in unrestored urban streams, and indices of biotic condition, community structure, and nutrient cycling significantly improved. However, ecosystem attributes and biodiversity at restored sites were significantly less than, and only 60% and 45% of, those in reference streams, respectively. Out‐of‐stream management practices improved ecological conditions in urban streams but still failed to restore reference stream conditions. Despite statistically significant improvements, assessing restoration success remains difficult due to few comparisons to reference sites or to clearly defined targets. These findings can inform future monitoring, management, and development strategies and highlight the need for preventative actions in a watershed context.     

Opportunities and Challenges for Ecological Restoration within REDD+

The Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) mechanism has the potential to provide the developing nations with significant funding for forest restoration activities that contribute to climate change mitigation, sustainable management, and carbon‐stock enhancement. In order to stimulate and inform discussion on the role of ecological restoration within REDD+, we outline opportunities for and challenges to using science‐based restoration projects and programs to meet REDD+ goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and storing carbon in forest ecosystems. Now that the REDD+ mechanism, which is not yet operational, has expanded beyond a sole focus on activities that affect carbon budgets to also include those that enhance ecosystem services and deliver other co‐benefits to biodiversity and communities, forest restoration could play an increasingly important role. However, in many nations, there is a lack of practical tools and guidance for implementing effective restoration projects and programs that will sequester carbon and at the same time improve the integrity and resilience of forest ecosystems. Restoration scientists and practitioners should continue to engage with potential REDD+ donors and recipients to ensure that funding is targeted at projects and programs with ecologically sound designs.     

Habitat Restoration and Climate Change: Dealing with Climate Variability,Incomplete Data,and Management Decisions with Tree Translocations

Restoration programs need to increasingly address both the restitution of biodiversity and ecosystem services and the preparation of habitats for future climate change. One option to adapt habitats to climate change in the temperate zone is the translocation of southern populations to compensate for climate change effects—an option known as assisted migration (AM). Although AM is widely criticized for endangered species, forest managers are more confident that tree populations can be translocated with success because of previous experiences within native ranges. Here, we contend that translocations of tree populations are also subject to uncertainties, and we extract lessons for future programs of AM within species ranges from a well‐documented failed case of population translocation of Pinus pinaster Ait. in Europe. The failure of these translocations originated from the unawareness of several unpredictable ecological and social events: cryptic maladaptation of the introduced populations, underestimation of climate variability differences between the source and target sites, and complexity in the management schemes, postponing decisions that could have been undertaken earlier. Under the no‐analog conditions that are expected with climate change, management decisions need to be made with incomplete data, implying that a certain degree of maladaptation should always be expected when restoring plant populations from local or external seed sources .     

关于森林基础设施属性的探讨

分析了生态基础设施概念的由来和发展,国际社会对森林功能和作用的认识过程,森林对我国经济建设和生态安全的重要性,以及当前林业生态建设的形势和所面临的问题,提出应将森林定位为现代社会国民经济和社会发展的基础设施,强调了森林基础设施定位对转变当前林业生态建设方式的重要作用．在综合分析森林生态系统特点的基础上,认为森林基础设施属性具有一定的特殊性,即主体由活体的生物材料构成,权属带有明显的多元性质,所以林业生态建设的模式和管理体制既要遵循基础设施的基本原则,又应考虑到森林的特殊性．提出了当前开展林业生态建设的4点建议：发展以人与自然和谐为核心的现代生态观;建立长期稳定的林业生态建设投资渠道;按照基础设施建设的原则实施林业生态建设工程;按照基础设施管理的原则经营森林．     

基于分布式水文模型和福利成本法的生态补偿空间选择研究

空间选择是生态补偿研究的核心问题之一,选择合理的区域进行生态补偿有利于提高生态补偿项目的效率.以黑河流域上游肃南县为研究区域,运用分布式水文模型Soil and Water Assessment Tool(SWAT)对研究区实施生态补偿后的水源涵养增加量进行模拟,同时考虑土地利用类型转化成本以及生态系统服务丧失风险,采用福利成本法对研究区生态补偿空间选择进行研究.结果表明:黑河上游肃南段内不同子流域的生态补偿效率系数最高值为0.0394,最低值0.0131,相差明显;根据效率系数,采用聚类分析方法,可将各子流域划分为优先补偿区、次级优先补偿区和潜在补偿区,分批进行补偿;采用空间选择后生态补偿效率较不采用时可提高54.5％.     

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.     

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.     

The Restoration Gene Pool Concept: Beyond the Native Versus Non-Native Debate

Abstract Restoration practitioners have long been faced with a dichotomous choice of native versus introduced plant material confounded by a general lack of consensus concerning what constitutes being native. The “restoration gene pool” concept assigns plant materials to one of four restoration gene pools (primary to quaternary) in order of declining genetic correspondence to the target population. Adaptation is decoupled from genetic identity because they often do not correspond, particularly if ecosystem function of the disturbed site has been altered. Because use of plant material with highest genetic identity, that is, the primary restoration gene pool, may not be ultimately successful, material of higher order pools may be substituted. This decision can be made individually for each plant species in the restored plant community in the scientific context that ecosystem management demands. The restoration gene pool concept provides a place for cultivars of native species and noninvasive introduced plant material when use of native‐site material is not feasible. The use of metapopulation polycrosses or composites and multiple‐origin polycrosses or composites is encouraged as appropriate. The restoration gene pool concept can be implemented as a hierarchical decision‐support tool within the larger context of planning seedings.