Restoration of EcosystemsJen Morse

Heather Bechtold

Hemlock forest in VT

West Hylebos Creek, WA

Outline• Introduction to restoration

– Overview of restoration projects

• Myths of restoration ecology– Carbon copy– Field of dreams– Fast forward– Cookbook– Command and control

• Lessons learned from past efforts– Is restoration important?– Are current methods working?– Recommendations for future projects

• Group discussion– Do we know enough as scientists to inform such efforts

• Intentional activity: method, tools, implementation• Recovery: ecosystem will be healthier than current

degraded state• Damaged by human or natural causes• Toward a historic trajectory or reference state

http://www.ser.org/content/ecological_restoration_primer.asp

Ecological restoration is the process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed. It is an intentional activity that initiates or accelerates an ecological pathway—or trajectory through time—towards a reference state.

• Restoring ecosystem services• Mitigating impacts to ecosystems elsewhere• Habitat for threatened or endangered species• Aesthetic concerns, moral reasons• Legal requirements (Clean Water Act, etc.)• Improve human livelihoods• Empower local people• Improve ecosystem productivity

Motivations for restoration

Adapted from SER and IUCN (2004). Ecological Restoration: a means of conserving biodiversity and sustaining livelihoods

Restoration of…

• Rivers and streams• Drylands and deserts• Old agricultural fields• Prairies and savannas• Wetlands• Forests

Island Press: Science and Practice of Ecological Restoration SeriesPart II: Restoration of Damaged Ecosystems

Long leaf pine restoration, Nature Conservancy, Sand Hills, North Carolina

Urban stream restoration, Durham, North Carolina

Spectrum of restoration

Stream reach scale: ~100m – 1km Iraq: marshland loss of 17,000 km2

• Spanning a very wide range of size and scope

1. Determine that an ecosystem is damaged

– Who decides? What are the criteria?

2. Who is responsible for overseeing the restoration?

3. Motivating factors?– Laws, government agencies, NGOs

Restoration: deciding to act

Goose Creek, Durham, NC, USA

Restoration: planning phase

• Goals for the restoration– Habitat for wildlife– Improved ecosystem functions– Improved appearance

• Project design– Timeline, permits, contracts– Funding, budget

Planned restoration of Everglades , south Florida, USA

Restoration: Implementation

Techniques• Engineering interventions• Disturbance regime:

– fire, flooding

• Planting native vegetation• Removing invasive species

Restoration: post-implementation

1. Monitoring 2. Reporting3. Evaluation

Myths of restoration ecology

Myth: simplified guiding principle- limitations and assumptions?

Hilderbrand et al. 2005. The myths of restoration ecology. Ecology and Society 10:19

Carbon copy

Hilderbrand et. al. 2005. The myths of restoration ecology. Ecology and Society 10:19

• Selecting goals and targets• Previous or reference state• Clementsian view: static endpoint

or climax • Disturbance is not good• Aiming for specific composition

Carbon copy (cont.)

Hilderbrand et. al. 2005. The myths of restoration ecology. Ecology and Society 10:19

• Assembly rules and ecological succession– Restoration = “accelerated succession”

• Ecosystems are dynamic, shifting mosaics

• Restoration targets (mandated?)– Pre-settlement conditions?– Pre-disturbance?

• Appropriate, realistic, • Allows impacts to continue• Alternative: functional equivalency?

Field of Dreams

Hilderbrand et. al. 2005. The myths of restoration ecology. Ecology and Society 10:19

• “If you build it, they will come”• Physical template

– Biota and function will self-assemble– Dynamic regime

• Assembly process repeatable trajectory• Wetland and stream restoration

– “self-design”

• Effectiveness is debated (depends on goals)– Limitations of dispersal, stochasticity of assembly, …

Fast-Forwarding

• Accelerate ecosystem development– Dispersal, colonization, community assembly

• Initial species composition determines succession and desired end point– Vegetation planting

• Recreate links between biota and physical environment

• Motivated by need to show rapid recovery (<5y)?• Little evidence that acceleration is successful

– Need longer time horizons (20+ years)

Cookbook• Same techniques across all projects• Similar ecosystems will respond

identically to restoration techniques• Often published handbooks

• Engineering approaches• Repeatable methods

• Rarely adaptive, often ignore uncertainty

• How idiosyncratic are ecosystems?• Do they behave predictably?

Command and Control (Sisyphus Complex)

• Common in natural resources mgt.• Active intervention and control

• Knowledge, ability, foresight to manage ecosystem state indefinitely

• Frequent intervention decreases system resilience• Treating symptoms rather than the root of the

problem • Political-social mandates to “do something”

Moving Beyond the Myths

• Provide a starting point for restoration design• Identifying themes:

– Planning for surprise, allow for uncertainty– Helps to set realistic goals

• Incorporating science:– Experiments in adaptive management – Testing multiple approaches

• Final myth: Bionic World

Ecosystem Stressors

• Habitat Degradation• Invasion of Species• Climate Change

Ecosystem Stressors

• Habitat Degradation• Invasion of Species• Climate Change

# of restoration projects recorded in NRRSS

Bernhardt et al 2005

Habitat Degradation• Land-use change

– Agriculture– Urban development

• Restoration goals– Return an ecosystem to some previous state– Inform scientific and policy decision making– Develop tools to evaluate ecosystem health

How do you evaluate ecosystem health?

Sept 2008

June 2009 Craig Miller

Measure Ecosystem Structure

• Patterns in space and time– biological communities and their resources

(chemistry), distribution

• Biotic indicators– Abundance, diversity and presence/absence

Streams:– Fish, invertebrates – Algae– Macrophytes

Sensitive Tolerant

Measure Functional Processes• Can be equated with ecosystem-level

– Rates and pattern of processes

• Less commonly used in ecological assessments

• Integrate abiotic and biotic aspects

• Examples of functional processes– Leaf decomposition– Nutrient retention– Metabolism

• Can compare across sites– Within or across landscapes– Multiple streams, forests, grasslands etc.

(http://nrrss.nbii.gov/)

To develop a common set of metrics by which to measure stream restoration

success.

Examine the links between ecological theory and stream restoration

Develop a series of specific recommendations to improve how stream restoration is carried out and its success evaluated.

Disseminate this information broadly and on an on-going basis.

Determining Restoration Success• 67% of restoration projects are

considered successful – Post-project appearance– Positive public opinion– 90% had no measurable goals/ lack

success criteria

• Pre and post monitoring efforts are lacking– Mean cost of monitoring efforts are

similar to projects without– Low effort data collection and analyses– Earn mitigation credits or have incentives

Bernhardt et al. 2005, Palmer et al. 2010

NRRSS Project Recommendations• Greater assessment of ecological

effectiveness– Integration of projects in the watershed– Project implementation based on data metrics– Document and make accessible outcomes– Appropriate goals and evaluation metrics

• Citizen involvement • New restoration design manuals

– Certification programs

Successful Restoration• Target more than physical structure

– Enhanced habitat heterogeneity does not relate to increased diversity– Restore functional processes– Use of softer self sustaining techniques (i.e. floodplain instead of

armor)

• Suite of stressors– Target most limiting factor

• Assessment and long-term monitoring– Habitat and spp– Nutrients– Function

• Conservation and protection– Storm water management– Incentive programs (CRP-USDA)

Roni et al. 2008, Palmer et al. 2009