Science Of Restoration Ecology Research Articles

Integrating the resilience concept into ecosystem restoration

Restoring resilient ecosystems is critical to preparing for the uncertain effects of climatic change on ecosystem functioning and socially relevant services. The UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration attempts to inspire the global ecological restoration movement, reverse degradation, and mitigate climate change impacts. We present ways in which resilience might be further integrated into the science of restoration ecology and the practice of ecological restoration to address the uncertainty associated with the current impacts of adverse climatic change. We describe how incorporating meaningful community engagement, expanding monitoring indicators, and upscaling across spatial–temporal scales will improve the current state of ecosystem restoration. We present case studies of restoration approaches across Southeast Asia that utilize approaches that confer resilience (resistance, recovery, reorganization) in their restoration projects and their broader social‐ecological systems. The panarchy framework encapsulates the importance of strengthening relationships between all stakeholders and restoration projects to build resilience across larger spatial–temporal scales.

Emerging approaches to successful ecological restoration: five imperatives to guide innovation

As the science of restoration ecology and the practice of habitat restoration adapt to new sets of goals in a changing climate, we turn our attention to novel techniques and emerging approaches in the field. This special issue brings together eight papers that answer the question, “Given that we have defined our goals, can we find better ways to reach them?” From them, we derive five directives for ecologists and practitioners seeking to innovate with new methods, analyses, or applications: (1) ground the approach in ecological theory; (2) take advantage of the latest technology and models; (3) reject dogma; (4) subject the analysis to critique; and (5) be aware of time, budget, and expertise constraints faced by stakeholders and practitioners. Our five imperatives are illustrated by examples of papers from the special issue.

The Ecological Processes that Underpin Ecological Restoration

The science of restoration ecology is closely linked to ecological knowledge and practical restoration principles are often heavily guided by ecology theory. Knowing that there are sections in community theory that are currently poorly understood, it might be dangerous if restoration principles are based on what science offers for these sections. The need to focus on dispersal, disturbance, colonization and succession dynamics is particularly important since many of our project sites are highly degraded and disjointed from a healthy regional pool of colonists. In this article, the importance of these major ecological theories and how relevant they are in restorations today are evaluated. Restoration work is set to bring not only corrections in functionality and community structure of degraded systems but also benefiting basic research in community ecology.

An Assessment of Introductory Restoration Courses in the United States and Canada

A considerable number of institutions offer courses in restoration ecology and its application, ecological restoration. We quantified the scope and structure of introductory restoration courses at 67 post-secondary institutions by reviewing institutional course catalogs and course syllabi. Most courses were available at Research-level institutions. More than half of the courses were offered within departments that focused on natural resource management, and were required or optional in a degree program. Most courses were taught in classroom settings during the academic year and were geared toward advanced students. Course titles suggested an emphasis on the science of restoration ecology over the practice of ecological restoration, and learning objectives focused primarily on concepts and less on skills and attitudes. Assessment was largely via conventional methods, notably exams. Many courses assigned readings from the primary literature; there was little consensus in terms of text selection. We conclude that restoration is being presented to students as an advanced undertaking and in largely theoretical terms. Although we were unable to consider other important elements such as thematic content, class size, or pedagogical method, our study provides a baseline assessment of introductory restoration courses that can be used to evaluate changes in restoration education or opportunities for restoration education in other countries. These results can inform the development of new introductory restoration courses, and raise important considerations in light of the development of a Practitioners' Certification Program by the Society for Ecological Restoration.

Bridging Restoration Science and Practice: Results and Analysis of a Survey from the 2009 Society for Ecological Restoration International Meeting

Developing and strengthening a more mutualistic relationship between the science of restoration ecology and the practice of ecological restoration has been a central but elusive goal of SERI since its inaugural meeting in 1989. We surveyed the delegates to the 2009 SERI World Conference to learn more about their perceptions of and ideas for improving restoration science, practice, and scientist/practitioner relationships. The respondents' assessments of restoration practice were less optimistic than their assessments of restoration science. Only 26% believed that scientist/practitioner relationships were “generally mutually beneficial and supportive of each other,” and the “science–practice gap” was the second and third most frequently cited category of factors limiting the science and practice of restoration, respectively (“insufficient funding” was first in both cases). Although few faulted practitioners for ignoring available science, many criticized scientists for ignoring the pressing needs of practitioners and/or failing to effectively communicate their work to nonscientists. Most of the suggestions for bridging the gap between restoration science and practice focused on (1) developing the necessary political support for more funding of restoration science, practice, and outreach; and (2) creating alternative research paradigms to both facilitate on-the-ground projects and promote more mutualistic exchanges between scientists and practitioners. We suggest that one way to implement these recommendations is to create a “Restoration Extension Service” modeled after the United States Department of Agriculture's Cooperative Extension Service. We also recommend more events that bring together a fuller spectrum of restoration scientists, practitioners, and relevant stakeholders.

Opportunities for Academic Training in the Science and Practice of Restoration within the United States and Canada

Abstract With increasing interest in ecosystem restoration, there is a corresponding need for trained professionals who understand not only the science of restoration ecology but also the management practices and social factors that lead to successful project implementation. We surveyed 300 academic institutions in the United States and Canada with research programs in the ecological, conservation, and natural resource sciences to determine whether current curricula in restoration meet the needs of this growing field. Opportunities to obtain a degree specifically in the field of restoration were extremely limited: only 11 institutions (4%) offered undergraduate degrees, and only four (1%) offered graduate degrees. Half of these programs were established within the last 5 years. Only three programs required more than one course in restoration, and over half did not include any specific core courses in the social sciences. There were more opportunities to obtain a degree relevant to restoration but not specifically restoration focused: 21% of institutions offered such undergraduate degrees and 12% offered graduate degrees. With regard to courses, only 23% of institutions offered courses that specifically focused on restoration, whereas 43% offered courses that included “restoration” in their description. These trends suggest that although training opportunities are increasing, the current pool of programs and courses that explicitly focus on restoration is not sufficient to meet current demand for qualified and experienced restorationists or to ensure that these scientists and practitioners have the training necessary to meet the complex challenges of restoring degraded ecosystems in the future.

RESTORATION IN A CHANGING WORLD: CASE STUDIES FROM CALIFORNIA INTRODUCTION TO SPECIAL ISSUE

As the human footprint occupies an ever increasing proportion of the earth’s surface and resources (e.g., Vitousek 1994; Vitousek et al. 1997; Tilman et al. 2001; Wackernagel et al. 2002), conservation biologists must develop strategies that both protect remnant natural areas and rebuild the ecological integrity of highly altered landscapes (Young et al. 2005). In almost no other region on earth is this need more imperative than in California. California is home to over 36 million residents and has roughly the 7th largest economy in the world, making it a highly human-influenced environment. Yet, the state possesses an exceptional diversity of ecosystems and taxa, many of them threatened with extirpation. The California Floristic Province has been classified as a World Biodiversity Hotspot because of its exceptional level of species endemism and the conservation challenges it faces (Meyers et al. 2000; Konstant et al. 2005). While the mission of the California Botanical Society is to advance the science of western American botany, today it is evident that a key element to that science is learning how to restore native plant communities so that native biodiversity can be sustained over time. There is still much to be learned and the science of restoration ecology is still in its infancy. Furthermore, the practice of ecological restoration must be accomplished in the face of dynamic global changes. In 2005, our board was invited to sponsor a symposium at the 2006 annual meeting of the Society for Conservation Biology (SCB) to be held in San Jose, CA in June 2006. The theme of the conference was ‘‘Conservation without Borders’’. This opportunity inspired us to organize the symposium ‘‘Restoration in a changing world: Case studies from California’’ which took place on Wednesday, June 28, 2006. This special issue is the culmination of that effort. The symposium delivered eight 15 min papers by Michael Vasey, Stuart Weiss, Jeffrey Corbin, K. Blake Suttle, John Callaway, Nathan Stephenson, Jodi McGraw, and Alison Purcell. There was a remarkable congruence between most of these talks and, in fact, several other talks and symposia at the SCB meeting. The common theme was that the threats posed by such elements of global change as climate change (including associated sea level rise), invasion of non-native species, alteration of disturbance regimes, and the input of nitrogen via air pollution are exerting unprecedented pressure on biodiversity, trophic interactions, and the physical structure of ecosystems in California and throughout the world. As many authors have recognized, multiple components of global change are also capable of interacting with each other to affect ecological interactions and the prospects for successful restoration (e.g., Dukes and Mooney 1999; Weiss 1999; Vila et al. 2007). Although Rein et al. (this volume) did not participate in the symposium, we welcome their contribution to this special issue as yet another good example of the challenges that invasive species pose to restoration practitioners. Taken collectively, the results presented in the symposium and in this special issue suggest that the challenges that face sensitive ecosystems will be substantial and will, in some cases, require wholly new strategies if we are to successfully preserve biodiversity and ecosystem function in this age of global change. California is hardly unique in North America, let alone worldwide, in confronting the challenges of climate change, invasive species, and changing land-use. Indeed, nearly every part of the globe must deal with one or more of them. This special issue considers the future of conservation and restoration efforts in California in the face of the myriad threats posed by the local and regional manifestations of several of the most important drivers of global change. We hope that insights gained from these papers can be helpful to scientists and habitat managers in other regions who must also confront the challenge of restoring ecosystems in the face of these challenges.

How to assess the success of restoration planting

To investigate the assessment of restoration success, we reviewed assessment program design, attributes to be restored, indicators for success assessment and criteria for determining success. Assessing the success of a restoration project is needed to advance both restoration management itself and the development of the science of restoration ecology. The assessment is performed by measuring the attributes correlated with the ecosystem structure and function. The success or failure of a project can be determined by examining the similarity of the plantings to naturally regenerating forests and the resilience of the restored sites. However, determining the success or failure within a short‐term frame is extremely difficult due to the absence of any standard criteria for judging the success of the project. When the success of a restoration planting project needs to be assessed within a short‐term time frame, only the success potential can be predicted, not the future success of the restoration itself. Nevertheless, restoration planting practices still include many arbitrary decisions in areas such as the selection of keystone species and the improvement of survival rates. In addition, after the assessment process is completed the restoration still proceeds with a high degree of uncertainty. Thus, continual monitoring of the restoration planting and hypothesis testing of the plantings are recommended.

Ecological engineering: A rationale for standardized curriculum and professional certification in the United States

The demand for engineering solutions to ecosystem–level problems has increased as the impact of human activities has expanded to global proportions. While the science of restoration ecology has been developed to address many critical ecosystem management issues, the high degree of complexity and uncertainty associated with these issues demands a more quantitative approach. Ecological engineering uses science-based quantification of ecological processes to develop and apply engineering-based design criteria for sustainable systems. We suggest that in the United States ecological engineering curricula should be offered at the graduate level and should require rigorous Accreditation Board of Engineering and Technology-accredited (or equivalent) undergraduate preparation in engineering fundamentals. In addition to strengthening students’ mastery of engineering theory and application, the graduate curriculum should provide core courses in ecosystem theory including quantitative ecology, systems ecology, restoration ecology, ecological engineering, ecological modeling, and ecological engineering economics. Advanced courses in limnology, environmental plant physiology, ecological economics, and specific ecosystem design should be provided to address students’ specific professional objectives. Finally, professional engineering certification must be developed to insure the credibility of this new engineering specialization.