9722

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 9722
• Author: Hilderbrand, R.H., A.C. Watts and A.M. Randle.
• Title: The myths of restoration ecology.
• USFW Year: 2005.
• USFW - Doc Type: Ecology and Society
• Copyright Material: YES

successful, the restoration toolbox quickly expands,
and much about the system is learned. If, however,
no approach works, we will have quickly learned
the inability of several techniques compared with
the time it would take to gain the same results one
restoration at a time. The challenge is to implement
and design multiple approaches so that each can be
assessed independently of others, as well as
independently of adaptive responses that may occur
along decision points after periodic evaluations.
Multiple approaches within a larger restoration will
also likely increase system resilience because the
system created by each approach may have
differential response to and recovery from
disturbances. Maximizing species diversity in
restorations is likely to increase response diversity
(Elmqvist et al. 2003) and may increase the
likelihood of a restoration containing species
resistant or resilient to future conditions and
disturbances. Although the concept that diversity
begets ecosystem stability may itselfbe an emerging
myth, it seems worth pursuing for other reasons as
well.

Recognizing mythologies may also aid the goal-
setting process. The forest primeval no longer exists
and may not be attainable--exotic species, historic
disturbance regimes, and changes in climatic and
landscape drivers all serve to ensure that there never
was, and probably never will be a single, repeatable
end point. More realistically, goals should include
multiple scientifically defensible end points of
functional or structural equivalence. Although
maintaining biotic or ecological integrity is a noble
goal, invasive species are too entrenched in many
systems to consider their presence a restoration
failure, particularly when some may have similar
roles as native species. Providing for alternative
solutions to future conditions by setting multiple
end points implicitly increases resilience by
increasing the adaptive capacity and response
diversity of the system. In addition to being more
realistic and attainable, having several possible end
points may also reduce tension within and among
practitioners and stakeholders.

Restoration projects should expand goals and
expectations beyond quantitative targets or ranges
for ecological attributes, such as vegetation density,
biogeochemical processes, and hydroperiods.
Approaches that consider ecological capital,
connectivity, and variability are likely to improve
the ecological resilience of restored systems, and
therefore, their ability to absorb disturbances or

Ecology and Society 10(1): 19 ~
htto:/ /www.ecolol!.Vandsocietv.orl!/voII0/issl/artI9/

insults without resulting in a permanent change in
fundamental system attributes. One size does not fit
all, even when situations may appear very similar.
Any ecological restoration or management effort
involves both explicit and implicit attempts to
prescribe and predict the ecological future of a site.
These efforts require extrapolating far beyond our
predictive abilities, and we must be aware of our
limitations as scientists, as well as our tendency as
humans to rely on partial truths and assumptions
when implementing ecological restoration and
management projects.

We conclude by suggesting a [mal myth of
restoration ecology, but one held by society-the
Bionic Wodd. The myth of the Bionic Wodd is a
belief that science and technology will solve the
pressing issues of human population growth, fInite
resources, and altered ecosystems. In the Bionic
Wodd, degraded landscapes will be fixed or
reconstructed with the precision and surety of the
"Bionic Woman" and the "Six Million Dollar Man"
in the U.S. television shows of the 1970s. If we
follow this logic, we have no tough choices to make
about how we view and treat our surroundings, and
decisions can be put off until the economic markets
demand or justify a solution. Let's hope they're
right, but until supporting evidence emerges, we
must maintain what we have.

Responses to this article can be read online at:
htto://www. ecolo~andsociety. org/voll O/iss l/artI9/resDonses/

Acknowledgments:

This work was conducted as part of the Theories for
Sustainable Futures Working Group supported by
the National Center for Ecological Analysis and
Synthesis, a Center funded by the National Science
Foundation (Grant #DEB-94-21535), the University
of California at Santa Barbara, and the' State of
California. The authors thank Guy Barnett, Katia
Engelhardt, Lance Gunderson, Buzz Holling, and
two anonymous referees for helpful comments
throughout manuscript preparation. R. H. was
partially supported by aD. H. Smith Conservation
Research Fellowship from The Nature Conservancy.
This is publication DHS 2004-07 of the David H.
Smith Research Fellowship Program, University of
Maryland Center for Environmental Science
Appalachian Laboratory scientific contribution