|
Defining Restoration Goals
<br />structuring element of the system. Similarly, the Ever-
<br />glades are dependent on the large -scale flow of surface
<br />water, and coastal dune restorations must start with the
<br />forcible, large transport of sand by wind that structures
<br />the environment. In environments less strongly affected
<br />by the kinetic energy of flowing fluids, such as grasslands
<br />or upland forests, other generalities should be sought.
<br />Similarly, separate generalities could be sought for sites
<br />with extreme soil chemical or physical conditions. By thus
<br />identifying sets of conditions that require different types
<br />of goals and procedures for restoration, the diversity of
<br />both ecosystems and situations requiring restoration (as
<br />reflected in the history of restoration ecology sketched
<br />above) can be accommodated.
<br />Second, be realistic within the community of ecolo-
<br />gists and restorationists, and even more so with the
<br />public, about what restoration ecology can accomplish.
<br />Restorations carried out to meet goals of conserving
<br />species, or providing specific services, or revegetating
<br />extremely damaged lands, are both appropriate and
<br />necessary. But these restorations should be recognized
<br />for what they are, without the pretense that they result
<br />in a replica of the original, "natural" system, or that
<br />they are, by definition, superior to or inferior to com-
<br />munity- or ecosystem -based restoration. Rather, they
<br />are appropriate under certain sets of conditions.
<br />Being realistic is also necessary in portraying the results
<br />of ecosystem - oriented restorations. Although whole sys-
<br />tems can indeed be created, their resemblance to natural
<br />systems is often questionable. Certainly, the available in-
<br />formation suggests that many restorations do not closely
<br />resemble "the real thing, ,' even after more than a decade
<br />(Bischel- Machung et al. 1996; Galatawitsch & van der
<br />Valk 1996; Zedler & Calloway 1999). Moreover, restora-
<br />tions may succeed with some taxa but fail with others at
<br />the same time (Simenstad & Thom 1996), whereas others
<br />appear to be largely successful (Clewell 1999).
<br />Realism in recognizing the limits of restoration would
<br />do much to resolve the conflicts among restorationists
<br />with different kinds of restoration projects, because it
<br />would no longer be necessary to shoe -horn every resto-
<br />ration into the same set of goals. Realism -or honesty-
<br />in admitting and portraying the differences between a
<br />functionally created ecosystem and the presumed origi-
<br />nal and natural system will also do much to help guide
<br />legislation and policy. For example, current wetland
<br />policy is based on the premise that creation and restora-
<br />tion of wetlands (mitigation) replace damaged or de-
<br />stroyed natural sites with sites of equivalent ecological
<br />complexity. Perhaps if the community of restorationists
<br />were more forthcoming in saying that, although a func-
<br />tioning wetland can be created, it should not be consid-
<br />ered an exact replacement for the original, wetland pol-
<br />icy would be more stringent in determining when
<br />mitigation can be offered in lieu of preservation.
<br />Acknowledgments
<br />I am grateful to the Board of Directors and the staff of the
<br />Environmental Defense Fund for the opportunity to de-
<br />velop, present, and discuss these ideas. D. Ehrenfeld
<br />provided valuable comments on an initial draft.
<br />LITERATURE CITED
<br />Allen, E., W. W. Covington, and D. A. Falk. 1997. Developing the
<br />conceptual basis for restoration ecology. Restoration Ecology
<br />5:275 -276.
<br />Allen, M. F. 1996. The role of restoration ecology in ecosystem
<br />management: opportunities and responsibilities. Pages 11-
<br />22 in D. L. Pearson and C. V. Klimas, editors. The role of res-
<br />toration in ecosystem management. Society for Ecological
<br />Restoration, Madison, Wisconsin.
<br />Anonymous. 1995. Wetlands: characteristics and boundaries. Na-
<br />tional Research Council, Washington, D. C.
<br />Aronson, J., and E. Le Floc'h. 1996. Vital landscape attributes:
<br />missing tools for restoration ecology. Restoration Ecology 4:
<br />327 -333.
<br />Bakker, J. P., and F. Berendse. 1999. Constraints in the restoration
<br />of ecological diversity in grassland and heathlands commu-
<br />nities. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 14:63 -67.
<br />Bischel - Machung, L., R. P. Brooks, S. S. Yates, and K. L. Hoover.
<br />1996. Soil properties of reference wetlands and wetland cre-
<br />ation projects in Pennsylvania. Wetlands 16:532 -541.
<br />Box, J. 1996. Setting objectives and defining outputs for ecological
<br />restoration and habitat creation. Restoration Ecology 4:427 -432.
<br />Boyer, K. E., and J. B. Zedler. 1999. Nitrogen addition could shift
<br />plant community composition in a restored California salt
<br />marsh. Restoration Ecology 7:74 -85.
<br />Carpenter, S. 1995. Organochlorine contaminants in the Great
<br />Lakes. Ecological Applications 5:291 -292.
<br />Christensen, N. L., A. M. Bartuska, J. H. Brown, S. Carpenter, C.
<br />D'Antonio, R. Francis, J. F. Franklin, J. A. MacMahon, R. F.
<br />Noss, D. J. Parsons, C. H. Peterson, M. G. Turner, and R. G.
<br />Woodmansee. 1996. The report of the Ecological Society of
<br />America Committee on the Scientific Basis for Ecosystem
<br />Management. Ecological Applications 6:665 -691.
<br />Clewell, A. F. 1999. Restoration of riverine forest at Hall Branch on
<br />phosphate -mined land, Florida. Restoration Ecology 7:1 -14.
<br />Costanza, R., R. d'Arge, R. de Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. Han-
<br />non, K. Limburg, S. Naeem, R. V. O'Neill, J. Paruelo, R. G.
<br />Raskin, P. Sutton, and M. van den Belt. 1997. The value of the
<br />world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:
<br />253 -260.
<br />de Groot, R. S. 1992. Functions of nature: evaluation of nature in
<br />environmental planning, management, and decision - making.
<br />Wolters - Noordhoff, Groningen, the Netherlands.
<br />Falk, D. A., C. I. Millar, and M. Olwell. 1996. Restoring diver-
<br />sity-strategies for the reintroduction of endangered plants.
<br />Island Press, Washington, D. C.
<br />Galatawitsch, S. M., and A. G. van der Valk. 1996. The vegetatior
<br />of restored and natural prairie wetlands. Ecological Applica•
<br />tions 6:102 -112.
<br />Goldstein, P. Z. 1999. Functional ecosystems and biodiversit3
<br />buzzwords. Conservation Biology 13:247 -255.
<br />Grumbine, R. E. 1994. What is ecosystem management? Conser
<br />vation Biology 8:27 -38.
<br />Heathcote, I. W. 1998. Integrated watershed management: princi
<br />pies and practice. John Wiley, New York.
<br />Hobbs, R. J., and D. A. Norton. 1996. Towards a conceptu2
<br />Restoration Ecology MARCH 20(
<br />
|