Next, Urbanska et. al. (1997, pp. 4) defines restoration ecology as “the restoring of something which was already there”, highlighting that the objective is to create an ecosystem with the same species composition and functional characteristics as a systems which existed previously. Halle & Fattorini, (2004, pp.12.) wrote, “Restoration ecology can be defined as the theoretical and empirical study of principles and theories concerning the development of degraded ecosystems; that is, the scientific background of ecological restoration”.
Concluding, it can be said that very often the goal of restoration ecology ostensibly is to return ecosystems to a state or condition form which they can be self-sustaining thereafter (Parker & Pickett, 1997). Moreover, “restoration ecology implies an experimental, synthetic approach to research extending along a continuum, ranging from work with relatively simple systems to more complex, naturally occurring systems, and also carried out either in the field or under controlled conditions in the laboratory” (Jordan III et. al., 1987, pp. 18).
- Present state
Although restoration ecology has already achieved significant success among several programs and landmark schemes, it is evident that the scale or present restoration activity is quite inadequate to meet the growing problems of environmental degradation (Edwards et. al., 1997). Next, this paper will focus on some common problems and/or weaknesses of the discipline highlighted by different authors.
Parker & Pickett (1997) states that modern ecological principles show the shortcomings of some cases of restoration practice. Restoration practice is often based on the assumption that nature is fixed and unchanging. Therefore, it is common to expect public outcries when natural systems experience dramatic changes. This public response indicates how poorly people understand the dynamics of natural systems. Natural communities are constantly changing, and several processes maintain these systems. The assumption of objectification and idealization may undermine successful restoration.
Another problem is the adoption of simplistic goals for restoration. Many projects begin with vague goals, such as returning the system to some primeval state in which it can take care of itself. This common view of ecological systems also de-emphasizes the role of dynamic and multidimensional processes that have created these systems, and lacks the understanding of human and landscape contexts in which processes and ecosystems occur (Parker & Pickett, 1997). Moreover, very often the goals are not being clearly defined neither shared by the community (Hobbs & Harris, 2001).
Jordan III et. al. (1987) wrote, restoration efforts commonly involve bringing in certain key components, then letting nature take its cause in shaping the result. This may be effective and even efficient; in fact it is the way restoration must be done in many cases. However, at times, this heuristic idea of restoration may be quite simple from an ecological point of view. A lot goes in the healing in this way that the practicing restorationists does not control and may not even be aware of. The essential ides is control the ability not only to restore quickly, but to restore at will, controlling speed, altering its course, even preventing it entirely
Diggelen et. al. (2001) argues that the definition of restoration ecology includes many elements but does not address how to restore a degraded or fragmented landscape. In addition, it is often agreed that in practical cases one should collect as much knowledge and public support as possible. However, in reality, such an approach appears to be more an exception than a rule.
Hobbs & Harris (2001) add, although many parameters could be considered for inclusion in restoration success criteria, these are often ambiguous or hard to measure. That is why it is important to define an effective and easily measure success criteria.
After many years restoration research has not become part of ecological mainstream research, and has progressed little in conceptual development. Several workshops were done and the one held at the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis in Santa Barbara conclude that restoration present special limitations that make it more difficult to do research than in other areas. Some of them are:
- the use of areas to be restored at great expense
- the lack of replication and the lack of control in general
- the need of a reference or a restoration goal
The workshop group also states the attention to some needs:
- statistical approaches for un-replicated designs
- the reference concept for restoration
- interactions between researchers and practitioners
- research and management agencies need to work coordinately
- interaction at all levels from the federal government to the individuals doing the work (Allen et. al., 1997).
Choi (2004) enumerate a list of the issues (some of them) constraining the successful development of restoration programs in the past. There are:
- Unrealistic goals or lack of them
- Inadequate restoration plans based on an ad-hoc approach
- Lack of explicit and quantified evaluation criteria for restoration success
- Lack of ecological understanding social, economic and political constrains, or combination of these factors.
Finally, it is commonly assumed that restoration is a practical matter, a form of applied ecology, and it is taken for granted that it is the insights achieved as a result of more “basic” research that will provide the basis for successful restoration practice (Jordan III et. al., 1987).
- The need to create a conceptual framework
It is belief that few ecologists choose to submit proposals because restoration is still view as a discipline without the conceptual basis needed to support basic research. Nevertheless, interest in restoration has been increasing, and ecologists have pointed out the need for restoration to develop its own conceptual base (Allen et. al., 1997).
Hobbs & Harris (2001) states, that if we are to train restoration ecologists effectively for the future, it is necessary to have an up-to-date and comprehensive conceptual framework to provide a context for their activities. The conceptual basis guides specific actions. It aims to provide general understanding of how ecosystems work and the factors involved in system restoration. Also, clear enunciation of goals and the ability to assess progress is essential for success.
Choi (2004) proposed that a theoretical framework is necessary for a ‘futuristic’ restoration. Furthermore, he states that a ‘futuristic’ restoration implies:
- to set realistic and dynamic goals for future
- to assume multiple trajectories acknowledging unpredictable nature of ecological communities and ecosystems
- to take an ecosystem or landscape approach, instead of ad-hoc gardening, for both function and structure
- to evaluate the restoration progress with explicit criteria, based on quantitative inference
- to maintain long-term monitoring of restoration outcomes
3. RESTORATION ECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
The formulation of the concept of ecosystems services was a deliberate attempt to draw ecological processes into the domain of economics. We all depend for our survival upon natural processes such as biological productivity, nutrient cycling, and water cycling which provide clean air and water, maintain the fertility of the soil, and help to regulate the climate. As long as these resources were in abundance, there was no need to consider them in economic terms. However, if the intention is to turn the ecosystems services into sustainable resources, an important step is to define them as goods and services which can be quantified in economic terms. Then damage to them can be seen as an externality of some other economic activity (Edwards & Abivardi, 1997).
3.1 How can restoration ecology effectively contribute towards sustainable development?
Our present situation, in which the earth’s capacity to produce renewable natural resources is severely damaged while the demand for those resources increases as the world population grows, is definitely not sustainable (Urbanska et. al, 1997). In fact, damaged lands cannot contribute to effectively sustain economic development (Brown & Lugo, 1994).
Ecosystems processes provide several benefits or ecosystem services to all of us. Although opposite views sustaining that restoration ecology is unable to replace all of the nature value (Stevenson, 2000). It is the intention of restoration ecology to help to rehabilitate ecosystems and maintain them in order to ensure a natural balance. Restoration ecology is more than a “first step” (Leopold, 1934), it represents a better relationship with the environment and a deeper understanding of it (Jordan III et. al., 1987). Restoration ecology possessed a tremendous potential to be an important form of environmental technology. In spite of its limitations, this paper considers restoration ecology a major tool in the achievement of sustainable development.
Clark (1997) suggests that at least there are three contexts or ways in which restoration plays an important role as a key component of sustainability:
- The overall stock of natural capital should be kept constant or increased. The need to maintain natural capital is what drives the requirement for restoration.
- Thresholds of environmental carrying capacity should be identified and implemented as management constrains. The design and implementation of a restoration program with the capacity of being self sustaining is a major contribution to sustainability
- Effective restoration relates the internal and external factors influencing an ecosystem. By doing this restoration makes a contribution to establishing sustainable outcomes.
The long term contribution of restoration to sustainable development relies upon and interplays between scientific assertion and social values.
Edwards & Abivardi (1997) review more in detail some of the more important ecosystems processes and show how they provide sustainable benefits which can be described as ecosystems services.
-
Accumulation and stabilization of soils and sediments; one of the most important benefits of vegetation is its enormous capacity to stabilize soil and sediments. Vegetation promotes the accumulation of sediments in various ways. First, the aerial parts of plants have an important role in creating surface roughness which reduces wind speeds so that airborne sediment is deposited. Second, vegetation creates a cover of living and dead plant material which protects the mineral soil surface from the energy of wind and rain which would otherwise cause erosion. Finally, there is the remarkable capacity of roots to bind loose sediments together.
-
Decomposition and soil microbial processes; an important component of any ecosystem is the community of heterotrophic organisms which break down organic matter. It plays an important role in the immobilization and detoxification of pollutants. This function is particularly important at present, considering the high amounts of sediments affecting wetlands and catchments, as a consequence of urban storm water and agricultural run-off. Microbial biomass is a major sink and repository for organic carbon and many nutrients, and nutrients are strongly retained by wetland communities as a result.
-
Water balance; vegetation has major effects on the routing of water, and thus upon the water balance of ecosystems and the hydrological characteristics of catchments. The flow of water into rivers tends to occur more slowly and with a reduced peak flow in catchments which are forested compared with catchments where the vegetation has been destroyed. Furthermore, total evaporation from forested catchments tends to be greater. This effect is due to the increased roughness of tall vegetation which increases air turbulence and therefore promotes evapotranspiration. The vegetation reduces the erosive force of water falling upon the soil and the temporary storage of water by vegetation reduces peak flow and hence erosive effects. Indeed, vegetation plays an important role reducing flooding and preventing soil loss.
-
Nutrient cycling; the benefits which arise from nutrient cycling in ecological restoration include the restoration of soil fertility. Another benefit is that pollutant nutrients may be immobilized within the ecosystem. For example, the restoration of forests vegetation can have important benefits over significant period in reducing unwanted nutrient input into watercourses. Similarly, in wetlands, the macrophyte vegetation can serve as a major storage for nutrients.
-
Biodiversity; all of the ecosystems processes so far reviewed depend upon biological diversity. These processes begin to operate whenever we create or restore an ecosystem. The increase in biodiversity can also contribute to ecosystem services. For example, the increase in numbers of beneficial insects provides the opportunity for reducing pesticides inputs through more effective biological control of insect pests. There is also good reason to suppose that increased diversity will be beneficial for long-term stability of ecosystems, since there is more potential for diverse systems to adjust to changing environmental conditions.
Restoration is indeed a potentially important component in a sustainable strategy, but the ideal situation is that circumstances should not be permitted to deteriorate to the point at which restoration is deemed necessary (Clark, 1997). In addition, given the high cost of restoration, it is important to bear in mind that sustainable consumption and doing more restoration work in the present could help poor countries avoid huge restoration and rehabilitation bills in the future (Aronson, 2000).
3.2 Projections
Young (2000) makes an important state about the critical role of restoration in the future. He supports his idea in the imperious need to make a change now, since we are in a unique biodiversity crisis. He also, said that this crisis represents the main challenge for ecology restoration in the next 50 years. Moreover, overcome it, will be the final test for this discipline.
Taking advantage of the age of unique biodiversity awareness that we are experiencing nowadays; Young (2000), also mention an opportunity immerse in the degradation problems, by making a positive shift in population stabilization, land abandonment, and biodiversity awareness, we will be able to avoid this pessimistic scenario and ensure a sustainable future for coming generations.
4. CASE STUDY: Converting a dairy farm back to a rainforest water catchment
Next, a case of restoration will be exposed. It is a good example of how does restoration works in practice. It shows achievements, failures, suggestions for future programs (planning), and how does new discoveries modified the course of the restoring work. The author of this case is Woodford (2000).
The restoration works took place in the Rocky Creek Dam. This place is located in cleared rainforest country in Australia’s northern NSW coastal hinterland. Originally, the property was covered by lowland subtropical rainforest. Then, the site began to be used by farmers for grazing. Some time after that, the Council acquired the site for the construction of a water supply dam for Lismore, which was completed by 1952. By 1983, there were some intentions to plant subtropical rainforest trees at the main entrance of the property to create an attractive public picnic area with rainforest theme.
Some years later, they realized that the planting was unnecessary given that so many species regenerated naturally over the years from either the soil seed bank or from seed freshly dispersed under perches by birds or bats. However, this discovery plus the new public aware for the site, cause by this planting, were the first steps of a more extensive rainforest regeneration program.
Next, the works began with the systematic remove of weeds and the poisoning of some others, the most serious species were: Lantana (Lantana camara), Small_leaved Privet (Ligustrum sinense) and Camphor Laurel (Cinnamomum camphora). The works were plan to be done in an orderly progression, beginning with an approximately area of 1 ha.
After some works, there was an evident strong germination of both, pioneer rainforest and secondary species. The best regeneration occurred in the areas that have been bulldozed, but which were neither excessively exposed to high temperatures nor completely smothered by Lantana mulch. It is believed that some seeds of the pioneer species may have been stored in the soil. However, it was assume that much of the more diverse regeneration is likely to have arisen from seed dispersed by fauna. That is why the importance of trees facilitating the dispersal of seed by birds. Nevertheless, the awareness of the role of perches occurred gradually, along with the regeneration work.
Released from weed competition, the rainforest put on rapid growth. By 1989, they start weeding a new 25 ha area using the same approach that was effective in controlling and eradicating the weeds species with the same results. Some effective works were done also in areas that were originally cleared for pasture, but after the removed of dairy cattle, were infested by weeds. Finally, after a small amount of following-up weeding, Lantana stops persisting on this site. The author highlighted the importance of removing this weed during dry seasons since this weed becomes vulnerable at this moment.
Later, with the help of some students, some monitoring works were carried to ensure the progress of regeneration after Lantana removal. These monitoring shows that: a higher number of birds and bats were regenerating on site; increasing numbers of later success ional species were colonizing the area; and after five years, there were a large diversity of canopy regenerating. These activities allow a virtuous cycle for restoration.
Among the years, several changes have been occurred. The nature of the flora has been influence by diverse factors, like defoliation by insects or competition among native species (shorter live of pioneers). Indeed, naturally regenerating early secondary species now dominate the canopy. The question that stays unsolved is whether the combination of these issues could be avoided by timely restoration intervention. .
At present, the work involves 5-year plans involving clearing areas of approximately 2ha per year. However, the author suggests that it would be good to have an overall long-term plan management for the restoration of the rest of the site. Furthermore, it is believed that such a plan would, ideally, allow and encourage restoration conducted by local university, so that reciprocal benefits can flow from both, the site will be treated and the university’s will gain expertise designing experiments.
The current results of the works done, demonstrate a very high natural regeneration capacity of the Rocky Creek Dam site. Nowadays, it represents an important place used by many birds and mammals. Furthermore, only eight of the 71 trees and shrubs recorded in the Big Scrub Flora Reserve in the 1970s, are not represented at all on the site. 10 species are only represented as re-growth trees on the site, while all the remaining 53 species have been recorded as seedlings regenerating on the site.
In addition, the author states the major things he had learnt form this experience:
- The importance to follow a seasonal approach
- To do a continual observation of the regenerated areas and use these observations as feedback, and
- Be able to change to suit the variability in season or site
However, it is also important to: have an ongoing input on the site, carry the restoration in the adequate season can save a lot of work and time, take in account any historical data of the site (if it exists), and visit regularly the site to have an update idea of how does the restoration is working.
This case shows that the term restoration ecology covers a wide range of activities involved with the repair of damaged or degraded ecosystems (Halle & Fattorini, 2004). It demonstrates how can restoration ecology provides a framework for the reconstruction of ecosystems (Aber & Jordan III, 1985).
5. RECOMMENDATIONS
Some recommendations that should be taken in account before implementing a restoration program will be:
It is important to prepare a strategic plan before the implementation of a restoring program. Answering the following simple questions can help. First, we need to state what do the restoration program intend to achieve or in another words, what kind of ecosystem should we aim for? Then, what is the actual condition of the ecosystem; and finally, how do we get from current state to the desire one. Obviously these are only the general guidelines, but although its simplistic nature, very often, these questions are not take in account during the design of a restoration program.
For restoration ecology to be seen as a science rather than a technique, development of a common conceptual framework is an obvious prerequisite. Ecologists and practitioners need to work on several fronts to solve these problems (Allen et. al., 1997). However, despite the many obstacles, advances have recently been achieved because of increasing experience gained from the restoration of a variety of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems and also because of new insights from theoretical considerations (Halle & Fattorini, 2004).
Each restoration program is unique. When any work of restoration is undertaken, it is very important to work out and understood very clearly the different options and what they each might involve. Then it must be made clear what is to be the aim and what is to be the actual endpoint (Bradshaw, 1997).
Restoration ecology programs need to avoid general or vague goals. Their goals need to be clear and achievable. It is also important to take in account the interests and needs of the communities when developing a restoration plan. Furthermore, it is necessary to involve them and make them part of the decision making. Communities represent a key stakeholder in the development of a restoration program.
Finally, it is important to internalize the cost of ecosystems degradation, in order to achieve sustainable practices. Although the benefits of restoration and rehabilitation are the product of natural ecological processes such as nutrient cycling and decomposition, ecological processes should be treated – in the language of economics – as goods and services which have financial value (Edwards & Abivardi, 1997).
6. CONCLUSIONS
Restoration happens differently in each site. The conditions and the response are variable for each restoration program. Furthermore, in order to consider restoration ecology as a helpful theory capable of helping to achieve sustainability, it is necessary to design and carried it under a conceptual framework.
Ecological rehabilitation and restoration produce a great range of benefits which are often not sufficiently recognized, and yet are important for quality of life and for sustainability (Edwards & Abivardi, 1997).
If restoration really is a valuable technique for ecological research, it will certainly be worthwhile to recognize this, to explore its strengths and weaknesses, and perhaps to exploit it more systematically as a research technique (Jordan III et. al., 1987). It is necessary to recognize the importance of the economic role of a healthy landscape and be willing to invest our best technology and efforts to maintain the health of lands and ecosystems (Brown & Lugo, 1994).
Restoration ecology works, properly carried out and interpreted, will show not only what we know but also what we forgotten. They represent an important way of putting ecological research into context, because they demonstrate which functions are of crucial importance, and which not, and how they are all interconnected (Bradshaw, 1987).
There are several challenges facing humanity in this new era, the challenge for restorations and scientists is to devise and deliver together, effective restoration strategies and practices. It is also needed to translate the research findings into action and maintain a continue feedback between users and researchers (Hobbs & Harris, 2001). Restoration is a healing of the land as well as a healing of the person involved in the process. It allows making real connections with the environment and finding a positive place in the natural world (Woodford, 2000).
7. LIST OF REFERENCES
Aber, J & Jordan III, W 1985, ‘Restoration Ecology: An Environmental Middle Ground’, Bioscience, vol. 35, no. 7, pp. 399.
Allen, E, Covington, W & Falk, D 1997, ‘Developing the Conceptual Basis for Restoration Ecology’, Restoration Ecology, vol. 5, no.4, pp. 275-276.
Aronson, J 2000, ‘Restoration of Natural Capital: Pros and Problems’, Restoration Ecology, vol.8, no.3, pp. 214-216.
Bradshaw, A 1987, ‘Restoration: an acid test for ecology’, in Jordan III, W, Gilpin, M & Aber, J (eds), Restoration ecology: A synthetic approach to ecological research, Cambridge University Press, Great Britain.
Bradshaw, A 1997, ‘What do we mean by restoration?’, in Urbanska, K, Nigel, W & Edwards, P (eds), Restoration Ecology and Sustainable Development, Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom.
Brown, S & Lugo, A 1994, ‘Rehabilitation of Tropical Lands: A key to Sustaining Development’, Restoration Ecology, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 97-111.
Choi, Y 2004, ‘Theories for ecological restoration in changing environment: Toward ‘futuristic’ restoration’, Ecological Research, vol. 19, pp. 75-81.
Clark, M 1997, ‘Ecological restoration – the magnitude of the challenge: an outsider’s view’, in Urbanska, K, Nigel, W & Edwards, P (eds), Restoration Ecology and Sustainable Development, Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom.
Diggelen, R, Grootjans, Ab & Harris, J 2001, ‘Ecological Restoration: State of the Art or State of the Science?’, Restoration Ecology, vol.9, no.2, pp.115-118.
Edwards, P & Abivardi, C 1997, ‘Ecological engineering and sustainable development’, in Urbanska, K, Nigel, W & Edwards, P (eds), Restoration Ecology and Sustainable Development, Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom.
Edwards, P, Nigel, R, Urbanska, K & Bornkamm, R 1997, ‘Restoration ecology: science, technology, and society’, in Urbanska, K, Nigel, W & Edwards, P (eds), Restoration Ecology and Sustainable Development, Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom.
Ewel, J 1987, ‘Restoration is the ultimate test of ecological theory’, in Jordan III, W, Gilpin, M & Aber, J (eds), Restoration ecology: A synthetic approach to ecological research, Cambridge University Press, Great Britain.
Gilpin, A 1996, Dictionary of Environment and Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, England.
Halle, S & Fattorini, M 2004, ‘Advances in Restoration Ecology: Insights from Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecosystems’, in Temperton, V, Hobbs, R, Nuttle, T & Halle, S (eds), Assembly Rules and Restoration Ecology: Bridging the Gap between Theory and Practice, Island Press, Washington.
Hobbs, R & Harris, J 2001, ‘Restoration Ecology: Repairing the Earth’s Ecosystems in the New Millennium’, Restoration Ecology, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 239-246.
Hobbs, R & Norton, D 1996, ‘Towards a conceptual framework for restoration ecology’, Restoration Ecology, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 93-110.
Jordan III, W, Gilpin, M & Aber, J 1987, ‘Restoration ecology: ecological restoration as a technique for basic research’, in Jordan III, W, Gilpin, M & Aber, J (eds), Restoration ecology: A synthetic approach to ecological research, Cambridge University Press, Great Britain.
Leopold, A 1934, ‘The Arboretum and the University’, Parks and Recreation, vol. 18, no. xviii, pp. 59-60.
Niering, W 1997, ‘Human-Dominated Ecosystems and the Role of Restoration Ecology’, Restoration Ecology, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 273-274.
Parker, T, & Pickett, S 1997, ‘Restoration as an ecosystem process: implications of the modern ecological paradigm’, in Urbanska, K, Nigel, W & Edwards, P (eds), Restoration Ecology and Sustainable Development, Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom.
Stevenson, M 2000, ‘Problems with Natural Capital: A Response to Clewell’, Restoration Ecology, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 211-213.
Urbanska, K, Nigel, W & Edwards, P 1997, ‘Why restoration?’, in Urbanska, K, Nigel, W & Edwards, P (eds), Restoration Ecology and Sustainable Development, Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom.
Woodford, R 2000, ‘Converting a dairy farm back to a rainforest water catchment’, Ecological Management & Restoration, vol. 1, no. 2, 83-92.
Young, T 2000, ‘Restoration ecology and conservation biology’, Biological Conservation, vol. 92, pp. 73-83.
