9722 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Il Ecology and Society 10(1): 19 htto:/ /www.ecolol!.Vandsocietv.om/vollO/issl/artI9/ Table 1. The myths of restoration and their core issues Restoration Myth Core Issues Carbon Copy Field of Dreams Fast Forward Cookbook Command and Control: Sisyphus Complex Community assembly predictable; a single endpoint exists Sole focus on physico-chemical conditions; systems self-organize Succession and ecosystem development can be accelerated Methodology overused and not sufficiently validated Nature is controllable; Treating symptoms will fix the problem restoration. The mam reason IS that the underpinnings of restoration ecology involve ecological succession and assembly rules (Young 2000), which tend to reinforce subconsciously the concept of a static, climax end point. Indeed, van der Valk (1998) described restoration as accelerated succession. Ecology is rich with examples of succession (Glenn-Lewin et al. 1992), and there is little doubt of its importance in community and ecosystem development (Odum 1969), or potential in restoration (e.g., van der Valk 1998). The main issue is the extent to which succession is equilibrial and can be predicted or controlled to arrive at a predefined state under human time scales. Most landscapes are a mosaic of different vegetation types that shift through both space and time (Bormann and Likens 1979, Pickett and White 1985), and identifying a single state as the only end point is not realistic for most systems. The myth of the Carbon Copy has influenced resource agencies, such as the U.S. National Park Service, that have mandates to restore and manage some systems to pre-settlement conditions. At its extreme, the Carbon Copy emphasizes a natural or primeval state that existed before European settlement, and becomes the restoration or management objective. As the natural state existed before corruption by modem influences or before a need for restoration, its return is the objective. Although the purpose of restoration and management outside oflegislative mandates should guide the goals and end points, a de facto end point is all too often what the system was like in an undisturbed state. Restoration to a pre-disturbance state may be desirable when concerns are for the "naturalness" of the system, but many difficulties exist during implementation. Few would debate that a pre- disturbance state is, in most 'cases, preferable to a degraded one, but the ability to (re- )create a system resembling pre-disturbance may be difficult, if not impossible. Given the sheer number of non-native species that have invaded and been integrated into virtually every ecosystem, it is arguably impossible to achieve a pre-settlement target condition. Even if such a goal could be achieved, selection of the appropriate target remains in question-do we restore for the ecosystem of 1500 AD, 500 AD, or 1000 BC? Another difficulty arises when the underlying parameters and drivers have changed (e. g., Ehrenfeld 2000) or the system is too degraded to achieve pre-disturbance conditions (Hobbs and Norton 1996). Changes such as a rise in sea level, atmospheric acid deposition, and altered hydrology because of urbanization, dams, and water withdrawals may all substantially alter both structure and function as a result of changes in salinity, soil and water chemistry, and hydrography and geomorphology, respectively. Thus, we may aim at a target that is not only moving, but also at a target that is no longer attainable at a specific locale. Tension and conflict arise when the Carbon Copy is an unrealistic or inappropriate goal. Pre- disturbance or "pristine" conditions are often in conflict with stakeholder wishes, particularly in more urbanized situations (Shore 1997). Even setting goals that recognize multiple end points can be politically and socially problematic when various stakeholders each desire a different and conflicting