A focus on learning from restoration field work

There has been a good deal of positive feedback from January’s

special issue on Indigenous land and sea management in Aus-

tralia, following on from the Ecological Society of Australia’s

Indigenous Symposium held in December 2010. Continuing this

theme, this issue of EMR includes an editorial by Anne Kerle and

Alison Fleming, touching on a case study involving the survey and

assessment of the biodiversity values held by Indigenous people

of Artok, a small island in Vanuatu, showing benefits of two-way

collaborations. The editorial also identifies parallels and contrasts

with the Australian situation, particularly southern Australia.

Including such case studies is important to EMR, as we seek to

publish on topics relevant to the whole of Australasia. Happily,

there has been an increase in submissions from other countries in

the region, particularly New Zealand, so readers can look forward

to more articles from across Australasia in future issues.

Many of the longer articles as well as short notes in this issue

of EMR focus on what we can learn from work in the field –

whether gained through monitoring on-ground projects or

incorporating experiments into the design and implementation of

projects. A classic example of this in Australia is described by

David Shorthouse and colleagues in their feature article on the

ongoing Mulligan’s Flat-Goorooyarroo project, which resulted

from the collaboration of researchers and the site’s managers.

Both researchers and managers are receiving multiple benefits

from the collaboration that would not have been possible if each

group was working independently.

This issue’s interview with practitioner ⁄ planner Ian Perkins

builds on this theme to show how individual players can move

between different levels of the restoration industry (including

practitioner, project manager, project planner, agency planner,

teacher and researcher), thus linking them in a very real way.

Ian’s early on-ground experience as a bush regenerator and expo-

sure to scientific principles, for example, enabled him, as a plan-

ner, to take the risk of trialing assisted natural regeneration

approaches to resurrect an example of an Endangered Ecological

Community in the suburbs of Sydney, a project that will be fea-

tured in a future issue of EMR. Familiarity with the various levels

of practice also helped to improve communication between each

level, facilitating implementation; and the outstanding results

have influenced ecological restoration planning and teaching.

This example reinforces the point that synergies that integrate

diverse sets of knowledge are essential if we are to progress the

business of improving the condition of ecosystems (Luck 2011).

Learning from the results of practice is illustrated again in the

report by Miriam Paul and colleagues. The authors used rainforest

soil seed banks as an indicator of the level of success of restora-

tion in sub-tropical New South Wales. Such a study is only possi-

ble now that rainforest restoration projects in that region are

sufficiently mature to have produced seed banks and this

represents a coming of age of the synergies between science and

practice in Australia.

A number of other papers in this issue use sites under land-

holder management to gain further knowledge to guide improved

ecological restoration and management practices. These include

the review by Baungartner and Boys on advances in fish screens,

the study by Gibb and colleagues assessing arthropods in natural

and experimental logs in paddocks and remnants, and the exami-

nation of the effects of changed disturbance types on the struc-

ture of grassland by Wong and colleagues. The two papers on

Eastern Bristlebird translocations (Bain et al. and Baker et al.)

show how science and practice must be combined for a success-

ful outcome. Without the information provided by the radio-track-

ing of birds released in the trial reported in paper 1, for example

later releases (reported in paper 2) could not have been carried

out as confidently. Moreover, the releases are not only contribut-

ing information to improve conservation management outcomes

for this species, but also basic knowledge about the species, an

added benefit predicted to flow from the discipline of ecological

restoration (Jordan et al. 1987).

This issue’s short notes and the project summaries on the

website (http://www.emrprojectsummaries.org.au) are similarly

focussed on what we can learn about field processes. It is

pleasing to know that, a dozen years on, EMR still maintains its

emphasis on publishing pieces that foster stronger links between

science and practice.

It is timely to therefore remind readers of a number of impor-

tant conferences being held in our region this year. First, EMR’s

parent organisation, the Ecological Society of Australia, will be

holding its conference in Melbourne from December 3 to 7 focus-

ing on the theme of ecology as the fundamental science for

greater knowledge relevant to of the most pressing questions fac-

ing the globe. This conference will include participation by resto-

ration NGOs and research bodies; as will the conference of the

New Zealand Ecological Society being held at Lincoln University

from November 25 to 29 on the theme ‘Is New Zealand ecology

on solid foundations?’. The Society for Ecological Restoration

Australasia, one of EMR’s affiliate organisations, is also holding its

first regional chapter conference in Perth November 28–30 on

the theme of ‘Our restoration capabilities within a changing

world’.

Tein McDonald (Editor, EMR)

References

Jordan W. R. III, Gilpin M. E. and Aber J. D. (1987) Restoration ecology: eco-logical restoration as a technique for basic research. In: Restoration Ecol-ogy: A Synthetic Approach to Ecological Research. (eds W. R. Jordan III,M. E. Gilpin and J. D. Aber), pp. 3–21. Cambridge University Press, NewYork.

Luck G. (2011) An integrated approach to ecological management: the onlyway forward. Ecological Management and Restoration, 12(3), 162–163.

E D I T O R ’ SP E R S P E C T I V E

ª 2012 Ecological Society of Australia ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 13 NO 2 MAY 2012 109

doi: 10.1111/j.1442-8903.2012.00653.x

EcologicalSociety of Australia