Reference:
Ostertag, R., Warman, L., Cordell, S., & Vitousek, P.M. (2015). Using plant functional traits to restore Hawaiian rainforest. Journal of Applied Ecology, 52, 805-809. Summary: Researchers set to develop a model for ecosystem restoration that incorporates various functional traits of species to best inform land managers which species to plant. They determined that hybrid restoration would meet the goals of the ecosystem by focusing on function capacity of the species planted. Research Goals:
Five steps for planning a restoration project were developed: 1) determine the objectives and constraints of the ecosystem, 2) determine the functional traits needed by the ecosystem, 3) determine the pool of species to be planted, 4) collect and prepare plant trait data, and 5) analyze the data and determine best-choices Intervention ecology is when restoration leds to a functioning ecosystem that had intact ecosystem services but with both historic and introduced species present. Some ecosystems cannot be returned to pre-civilization conditions and therefore, alternatives must be used. There is a difference between invasive and non-native. Invasive species will dominate the landscape and outcompete other species. However, non-native species are species that have been introduced that ‘fit in’ like historic species and have limited competition and thrive alongside historic species. Questions:
0 Comments
Reference:
Zirbel, C.R., Bassett, T., Grman, E., & Brudvig, L.A. (2017). Plant functional traits and environmental conditions shape community assembly and ecosystem functioning during restoration. Journal of Applied Ecology, 54, 1070-1079. Summary: Researchers used the response-effect trait framework to understand how ecosystems respond to community assembly, environmental conditions, ecosystem functions, and trait composition. Understanding these connections can allow for improved predictability of ecosystem restoration success if the connections are well defined and goals are met during the restoration process. Research Goals:
Response-effect trait framework is the idea that community composition is determined by the environmental conditions and that the ecosystem functioning is determined by the traits present. These relationships are complex and multifaceted. Changes in one component (ie soil moisture) can cause changes in a variety of traits (ie plant height, leaf area). Even the conditions of the site before restoration create legacy ripples in the restored site. How was the land before restoration occurred? What condition should the land be in before restoration to increase the probability of success? To create a best-restoration plan, the traits and functions desired post-restoration need to be well defined and preliminary research should be conducted to understand the current traits and functions present in the ecosystem as well as understanding which traits, functions, and conditions are needed to meet those needs/goals. Questions:
Reference:
Walker, L.R., Walker, J., & Hobbs, R.J. (2007). Linking Restoration and Ecological Succession. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, New York, NY. pp 19-37. Summary: Various components and characteristics of restorations sites impact succession success. The complex relationships exhibited in an ecosystem should be understood in order to create the best approach for restoration. Research Goals:
There are different types of succession: mild, secondary, and primary. Mild succession occurs when a few species may be lost but the majority remain in the ecosystem. Secondary succession consists of degraded systems where only one target species remains. Here, planting of target species can aid recovery. Primary succession consists of severely degraded ecosystem where target species no longer exist. This is a “blank slate” ecosystem which can progress in various, unpredictable ways. Succession must be kept in mind when designing restoration plan. Ecosystem structure should shift seasonally and yearly as a natural system does. Succession in many restored sites may need a helping hand. A plan should be formed to determine the species composition the ecosystem should have and then those plants should be planted and monitored closely to ensure they survive. Questions:
Reference:
McIver, J., & Starr, L. (2001). Restoration of degraded lands in the interior Columbia River basin: passive vs. active approaches. Forest Ecology and Management, 153, 15-28. Summary: Active and passive methods exist for every restoration project; each approach has its benefits and drawbacks. It is up the the plan implementers to determine which approach is appropriate for the situation at hand with the best approach being determined by the goals of the restoration project as well as the extent and type of degradation. Research Goals:
Researchers conducted a literature review to better understand the relative merits and benefits of active vs passive restoration practices. Approaches are discussed for three specific examples where either active or passive approaches are best. However, the researchers concluded the paper by admitting that each restoration project needs to be assessed for its unique characteristics before choosing an approach to restore the degraded ecosystem. Questions:
Reference:
Suding, K.N., Gross, K.L., & Houseman, G.R. (2004). Alternative states and positive feedbacks in restoration ecology. TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution, 19(1), 46-53. Summary: Degraded ecosystems exhibit a variety of characteristics and feedback loops which in many cases cannot be corrected based on current restoration practices. To best restore ecosystems, researchers need to better understand the processes present in degraded ecosystems and how/if restoration will impact those processes. Research Goals:
Researchers call for better understanding of ecosystem processes. Especially processes that occur in degraded ecosystems. Understanding how these degraded ecosystems behave can help restoration planners and implementers decide which steps are appropriate to restore proper ecosystem functions. Researchers suggest that in many cases, restoration as-is approaches are not enough to reset the ecosystem and that sometimes, the alternative state that the ecosystem is progressing to may be the best condition for that ecosystem. Questions:
Suding, K.N. (2011). Toward and Era of Restoration in Ecology: Successes, Failures, and Opportunities Ahead. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst, 42, 465-487.
Summary: Researchers compiled a survey of over 200 restoration projects in order to better understand the success/failure rate of restoration while informally generating general categories for ecosystem restoration: restore for resilience, ecosystem services, compensate for habitat loss, and to guide recovery. The paper concludes with approaches for increasing success rates with restoration projects. Research Goals:
Science doesn’t always change minds so how can we expect X to complete more well-rounded restoration projects that cost more when they only have to do the bare minimum now. The paper said that in 33% of cases there was complete recovery but not what criteria was used to determine recovery. I would be interested in knowing if those cases looked at only a single aspect of the ecosystem to determine recovery. What is recovery? Shouldn’t recovery be a set of standards? To inform ecological restoration projects, current projects should be designed in a way that results will not be misleading. Moreover, research questions and approaches should be more focused and researchers shouldn’t be afraid of non-significant findings. Questions:
Hilderbrand, R.H., Watts, A.C., & Randle, A.M. (2005). The Myths of Restoration Ecology. Ecology and Society, 10(10), 19.
Summary: Restoration implementers tend to focus on certain aspects of the issue while neglecting the larger picture and in doing so, they miss the mark for restoration to succeed and last. Ecosystems impacted by humans must be managed but management needs to occur in a way that allows room for ecosystem disturbance and natural adaptation. Research Goals: This paper was written to help those in restoration ecology better understand and recognize their assumptions. Recognizing these assumptions can help improve future restoration practices. Summary of Results/Key Finding: Restoration implementers cannot create a ‘natural’ system. Creation of habitat does not lead to a functioning ecosystem. Ecosystem development cannot be controlled to meet society's needs immediately. Not all ecosystems behave the same way - restoration isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution. There is no way to manage an ecosystem indefinitely without causing unforeseen harm to the ecosystem which must be allowed to adapt to change on its own. Discussion: While restoration can reverse some adverse effects of human change, it cannot recreate a natural ecosystem. For mitigation, the myth that recreating an ecosystem somewhere else will provide the same function is still prevalent but not ‘correct’. Restoration cannot occur within a vacuum. Implementers should think about the larger picture and create restoration plans that are adaptive. Questions:
Reference:
Clewell, A.F., & Aronson, J. (2006). Motivations for the Restoration of Ecosystems. Conservation Biology, 20(2), 420-428. Summary: Researchers discuss five main reasons/approaches that ecosystems should be restored: technocratic, biotic, heuristic, idealistic, and pragmatic. Each reason/approach, while with noble intentions, cannot work to solve larger issues unless it is combined with other reasons/approaches. Research Goals:
None of the five main reasons/approaches for restoring will work in a vacuum. These reasons and approaches to restoration should be conducted in conjunction with other approaches and with various stakeholders. Discussion: Five main reasons for restoration are discussed. Technocratic reasons include restoring because of social values while society is left out of the process. Biotic reasons include restoring based on various ecological parameters that must/should be met. Heuristics reasons for restoring are based on a need for knowledge. Idealistic reasons include restoring to bring back functioning for personal needs or desires. Pragmatic reasons include restoring to meet the needs of consumers as well as to offset anthropogenic damage. Questions:
|
DNPAll summaries are my own. Archives
May 2020
Categories
All
|