Abstract
Restoration projects can have varying goals, depending on the specific focus, rationale, and aims for restoration. When restoration projects use project-specific goals to define activities and gauge success without considering broader ecological context, determination of project implications and success can be confounding. We used case studies from the Middle Rio Grande (MRG), southwest USA, to demonstrate how restoration outcomes can rank inconsistently when narrowly-based goals are used. Resource managers have chosen MRG for restoration due to impacts to the natural flood regime, reduced native tree recruitment, and establishment of non-native plants. We show restoration “success” ranks differently based upon three goals: increasing biodiversity, increasing specific ecosystem functions, or restoring native communities. We monitored 12 restored and control sites for seven years. Treatments ranked higher in reducing exotic woody populations, and increasing proportions of native plants and groundwater salvage, but generally worse at removing fuels, and increasing species and habitat structural diversity. Managers cannot rely on the term “restoration” to sufficiently describe a project’s aim. Specific desired outcomes must be defined and monitored. Long-term planning should include flexibility to incorporate provisions for adaptive management to refine treatments to avoid unintended ecological consequences.
Highlights
Ecological restoration projects focus on the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded or damaged [1]
Some guidelines are suggested as measures to gauge restoration successes [1,7], there is no quantitative evidence showing that by accomplishing each of the specific goals a project will lead to the same assessment of restoration success or failure
We evaluate how restoration treatments rank within each case study to accomplish three levels of project goals including how treatments affect: (1) native biodiversity, (2) ecosystem function and
Summary
Ecological restoration projects focus on the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded or damaged [1]. Some guidelines are suggested as measures to gauge restoration successes [1,7], there is no quantitative evidence showing that by accomplishing each of the specific goals (i.e., diversity, community structure or ecosystem function) a project will lead to the same assessment of restoration success or failure. We evaluate how restoration treatments rank within each case study to accomplish three levels of project goals including how treatments affect: (1) native biodiversity (either by removing exotic species or increasing total species richness), (2) ecosystem function (such as fire risk or groundwater availability and use) and (3) restoring communities (such as historic wildlife communities or habitat structural diversity). We predicted that in the absence of ecological objectives, divergent project goals will lead to confusion in evaluating which restoration activity is the best overall treatment which a resource manager may select to implement. The most appropriate treatment to minimize water use by non-native vegetation may not necessarily be the best treatment for, and may be in direct conflict with, supporting a diverse wildlife community
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
