9722 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

or myths. Failure to recognize the limitations and tacit assumptions can lead to failures because of the over-application of over-simplified concepts to complex systems (Holling 1995, Holling and Meffe 1996). We believe the same is true in ecological restoration. We believe that many unsatisfactory restorations result from a failure to recognize and address uncertainty, and from a focus on inappropriate time scales. Ecological restoration is trying to do in a matter of years what takes decades or centuries under natural conditions. Expecting complete restoration on human time scales is unreasonable, even where full recovery may eventually occur. Nonetheless, many of our underlying beliefs tacitly assume that systems will return to a "natural" state in fairly short order if they are just nudged in the right direction through adjustments to physical attributes or by regulating species composition. Additional problems arise in defining what is "natural" and in our inability to accept that systems are dynamic and may have multiple trajectories leading to numerous possible outcomes. Finally, because we are extrapolating from oversimplified concepts, ignoring uncertainty may result in surprise and failure because we have not created a system capable of adapting or responding to future drivers or events. Therefore, restorations should not be one-time events, but are likely to require periodic attention and adaptive management to increase the chances of responsive, adaptive, and successful projects. Based on our experiences as researchers and practitioners in conservation and restoration ecology, we propose five central myths (Table 1) under which many ecological restoration and management projects seem. to be conceived and implemented. Myths have value because they help us to organize and understand complex systems and phenomena. Identifying myths can help make the tacit explicit by revealing assumptions that are otherwise hidden (Holling 1982). However, they remain simplified and potentially misguided models . for understanding and application (Holling 1982, Timmerman 1986). The first Myth, the Carbon Copy, addresses the goal-setting process, and as such, it forms the basis of how restorations are evaluated. The Carbon Copy is closely tied to the remaining four myths, which involve the process of 'restoration and management: the Field of Dreams; Fast Forwarding; the Cookbook; and Command and Control: the Sisyphus Complex. We believe that Ecology and Society 10(1): 19 II htto:/ /www.ecoIOl!.Vandsocietv.oT!!lvoII0/issl/artI9/ describing. these myths will be useful in understanding how some management or restoration strategies are conceived, designed, and implemented. For example, adherence to different myths may direct actions in divergent directions, as could be the case when choosing between a focus on ecosystem structure (Carbon Copy) or on key processes (Field of Dreams). Examining these myths may also help us better understand why some restoration projects do not meet our expectations. In the pages below, we briefly describe each myth and its assumptions, and give examples where the myth exists. Our obj ective is not to abandon what we propose to be prevalent myths in ecological restoration-there are elements of truth in each-but to recognize that there are tacit assumptions associated with each myth. Failure to recognize these assumptions can lead to conflict and disappointing results despite large expenditures oftime and effort. Our challenge is to recognize the limitations and not accept sometimes dogmatic beliefs without critical examination. We do not claim that every project is rooted in myth, but suggest that many perceived failures may be traced to over-reliance on one or more of the myths. We do not condemn restoration ecology, but rather provide a means of self- examination so readers can identify from their own experiences what worked and possible reasons for perceived failures. TIlE MYTH OF TIlE CARBON COPY The myth ofthe Carbon Copy relates to the selection of restoration goals and end points, and maintains that we can restore or create an ecosystem that is a copy of a previous or ideal state. The myth is rooted in the Clementsian (1936) idea that ecosystems develop in a predictable fashion toward a specified, static, end point or climax. Accordingly, any disturbance or degrading activity will reset the system, resulting in a phase of rebuilding and a return to the previous trajectory of ecosystem development. However, restoration sites are different from those where secondary succession occurs after disturbance (Zedler 2000b), and restoring or creating an ecosystem of specific composition becomes quite difficult. Most successes appear to be only transitory (Lockwood and Pimm 1999). Despite the shortcomings, the myth of a carbon copy persists in ecological