The Myths of Restoration Ecology - OVEC

1 Copyright 2005 by the author(s). Published here under license by the Resilience , R. H., A. C. Watts, and A. M. Randle 2005. The Myths of Restoration Ecology . Ecology andSociety 10(1): 19. [online] URL: Myths of Restoration EcologyRobert H. Hilderbrand1, Adam C. Watts2, and April M. Randle3 Key Words: carbon copy; command and control; cookbook; ecological Restoration ; fast forward; field ofdreams; Myths ; resilience; Restoration Ecology ; sisyphus complexINTRODUCTIONH umanity s ever-increasing ability to effectenvironmental change on a number of spatial andtemporal scales requires tough decisions about howwe view, value, and manage ecosystems. Forexample, advances in agriculture that support vastlymore people per unit area than hunting and gatheringare clearly a positive outcome for society. However,many beneficial land-use practices, includingagriculture, may ultimately degrade ecosystems.

2 Tofunction as a society, some amount of ecosystemalteration must occur to support the humanpopulation, but we are ultimately dependent onecosystem services. Our actions both intentionallyand unwittingly alter the goods and services of manyecosystems on which we rely, and by entering intothis relationship of altering ecosystems, we incurresponsibility to our neighbors and to futuregenerations. However, the difficult decisions havelargely been avoided by the expectations andconfidence in conservation and, in particular,ecological the widespread alteration of natural systems,it is clear that conservation measures alone will notsuffice to protect ecosystem functions, services, andhabitat for a large number of species in the has traditionally been a rearguardmeasure to prevent further degradation rather thana means for increasing resources or natural such, simple maintenance as opposed toenhancement of ecosystems may often leaveecosystems and species vulnerable.

3 Despiteconservation policies such as roadless areas and the No Net Loss concept for wetlands, lossescontinue to exceed gains (Dahl and Allord 1996),and gains are often not functionally equivalent tolosses (Zedler 2000a, National Research Council2001). Increasing human population growth andresource consumption continue to place additionalstresses on systems and demands more capacity andservices, rather than simple maintenance of currentservices. Thus, we must either alter consumption orrely on our ability to create, restore, and enhanceecosystems and their our dependence on healthy ecosystems,society has made the decision to continue life asusual until a loss of valued goods and services isrealized; then, society will expect and rely onscience to clean up the mess and make it looknatural. Many government policies concerningdevelopment and extractive resource use alreadyassume the ability to mitigate ecosystem damagethrough the Restoration of degraded land or creationof new habitats.

4 However, many restorations are notsuccessful either in structure (Lockwood and Pimm1999) or function (Kentula 1996, Zedler andCallaway 1999) when compared with referenceecosystems. Such results underscore the need toevaluate our underlying beliefs and expectations incredible complexity of nature forces us tosimplify the systems we study in order to developtheory and generalities by reducing them tounderstandable subsets. Although we cannotfunction without theory and conceptual models,their creation often ignores the variability that is soimportant to accurately describe, predict, and re-create current and future system attributes. Inessence, Restoration Ecology strives to (re-)createcomplex systems from simplified guiding principles1 University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science Appalachian Laboratory, 2 University of Florida, 3 University of PittsburghEcology and Society 10(1): 19 Myths .

5 Failure to recognize the limitations andtacit assumptions can lead to failures because of theover-application of over-simplified concepts tocomplex systems (Holling 1995, Holling and Meffe1996). We believe the same is true in believe that many unsatisfactory restorationsresult from a failure to recognize and addressuncertainty, and from a focus on inappropriate timescales. Ecological Restoration is trying to do in amatter of years what takes decades or centuriesunder natural conditions. Expecting completerestoration on human time scales is unreasonable,even where full recovery may eventually , many of our underlying beliefs tacitlyassume that systems will return to a natural statein fairly short order if they are just nudged in theright direction through adjustments to physicalattributes or by regulating species problems arise in defining what is natural and in our inability to accept that systemsare dynamic and may have multiple trajectoriesleading to numerous possible outcomes.

6 Finally,because we are extrapolating from oversimplifiedconcepts, ignoring uncertainty may result insurprise and failure because we have not created asystem capable of adapting or responding to futuredrivers or events. Therefore, restorations should notbe one-time events, but are likely to require periodicattention and adaptive management to increase thechances of responsive, adaptive, and on our experiences as researchers andpractitioners in conservation and restorationecology, we propose five central Myths (Table 1)under which many ecological Restoration andmanagement projects seem to be conceived andimplemented. Myths have value because they helpus to organize and understand complex systems andphenomena. Identifying Myths can help make thetacit explicit by revealing assumptions that areotherwise hidden (Holling 1982).

7 However, theyremain simplified and potentially misguided modelsfor understanding and application (Holling 1982,Timmerman 1986). The first Myth, the CarbonCopy, addresses the goal-setting process, and assuch, it forms the basis of how restorations areevaluated. The Carbon Copy is closely tied to theremaining four Myths , which involve the process ofrestoration and management: the Field of Dreams;Fast Forwarding; the Cookbook; and Command andControl: the sisyphus Complex. We believe thatdescribing these Myths will be useful inunderstanding how some management orrestoration strategies are conceived, designed, andimplemented. For example, adherence to differentmyths may direct actions in divergent directions, ascould be the case when choosing between a focuson ecosystem structure (Carbon Copy) or on keyprocesses (Field of Dreams).

8 Examining thesemyths may also help us better understand why somerestoration projects do not meet our the pages below, we briefly describe each mythand its assumptions, and give examples where themyth objective is not to abandon what we propose tobe prevalent Myths in ecological Restoration thereare elements of truth in each but to recognize thatthere are tacit assumptions associated with eachmyth. Failure to recognize these assumptions canlead to conflict and disappointing results despitelarge expenditures of time and effort. Our challengeis to recognize the limitations and not acceptsometimes dogmatic beliefs without criticalexamination. We do not claim that every project isrooted in myth, but suggest that many perceivedfailures may be traced to over-reliance on one ormore of the Myths . We do not condemn restorationecology, but rather provide a means of self-examination so readers can identify from their ownexperiences what worked and possible reasons forperceived MYTH OF THE CARBON COPYThe myth of the Carbon Copy relates to the selectionof Restoration goals and end points, and maintainsthat we can restore or create an ecosystem that is acopy of a previous or ideal state.

9 The myth is rootedin the Clementsian (1936) idea that ecosystemsdevelop in a predictable fashion toward a specified,static, end point or climax. Accordingly, anydisturbance or degrading activity will reset thesystem, resulting in a phase of rebuilding and areturn to the previous trajectory of ecosystemdevelopment. However, Restoration sites aredifferent from those where secondary successionoccurs after disturbance (Zedler 2000b), andrestoring or creating an ecosystem of specificcomposition becomes quite difficult. Mostsuccesses appear to be only transitory (Lockwoodand Pimm 1999). Despite the shortcomings, themyth of a carbon copy persists in ecologicalEcology and Society 10(1): 19 1. The Myths of Restoration and their core issuesRestoration MythCore IssuesCarbon CopyCommunity assembly predictable; a single endpoint existsField of DreamsSole focus on physico-chemical conditions;systems self-organizeFast ForwardSuccession and ecosystem development can be acceleratedCookbookMethodology overused and not sufficiently validatedCommand and Control: sisyphus ComplexNature is controllable; Treating symptoms will fix theproblemrestoration.

10 The main reason is that theunderpinnings of Restoration Ecology involveecological succession and assembly rules (Young2000), which tend to reinforce subconsciously theconcept of a static, climax end point. Indeed, vander Valk (1998) described Restoration as acceleratedsuccession. Ecology is rich with examples ofsuccession (Glenn-Lewin et al. 1992), and there islittle doubt of its importance in community andecosystem development (Odum 1969), or potentialin Restoration ( , van der Valk 1998). The mainissue is the extent to which succession is equilibrialand can be predicted or controlled to arrive at apredefined state under human time scales. Mostlandscapes are a mosaic of different vegetationtypes that shift through both space and time(Bormann and Likens 1979, Pickett and White1985), and identifying a single state as the only endpoint is not realistic for most myth of the Carbon Copy has influencedresource agencies, such as the National ParkService, that have mandates to restore and managesome systems to pre-settlement conditions.