Ecological restoration

Ecological Restoration
The Original Restoration Publication

Edited by Steven N. Handel, Ph.D., Professor and Director Center for Urban Restoration
Ecology, Dept. of Ecology, Evolution, & Natural Resources, Rutgers, The State University of
New Jersey
Associate Editor: Myla F.J. Aronson, Ph.D.
ISSN: 1522-4740, e-ISSN: 1543-4079
Published: four per year

Ecological Restoration is a forum for people advancing the science and practice of restoration
ecology. It features the technical and biological aspects of restoring landscapes, as well as
collaborations between restorationists and the design professions, land-use policy, the role of
education, and more. This quarterly publication includes peer-reviewed science articles,
perspectives and notes, book reviews, abstracts of restoration ecology progress published
elsewhere, and announcements of scientific and professional meetings.

"Ecological Restoration was instrumental in awakening restoration in North America, and

prospers as an invaluable publication for those whose approach to restoring ecosystems includes
ecology, culture and all that goes into making a project successful."—Eric Higgs, author of
"Nature By Design"

restoration
(ˌrɛstəˈreɪʃən)

1. the act of restoring or state of being restored, as to a former or original condition, place, etc

2. the replacement or giving back of something lost, stolen, etc

3. something restored, replaced, or reconstructed

4. a model or representation of an extinct animal, landscape of a former geological age, etc

Restoration Ecology
By: K. J. Vaughn (Department of Plant Sciences, University of California at Davis), L. M.
Porensky (Department of Plant Sciences, University of California at Davis), M. L. Wilkerson (Department
of Plant Sciences, University of California at Davis), J. Balachowski (Department of Plant Sciences,
University of California at Davis), E. Peffer (Department of Plant Sciences, University of California at
Davis), C. Riginos (Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Princeton University) & T. P.
Young (Department of Plant Sciences, University of California at Davis) © 2010 Nature Education

Citation: Vaughn, K. J., Porensky, L. M., Wilkerson, M. L., Balachowski, J., Peffer, E., Riginos, C. & Young, T
. P. (2010) Restoration Ecology. Nature Education Knowledge 3(10):66

Can we repair some of the damage humans have done to ecosystems and biodiversity? Ecological
restoration seeks to do just that, and restoration ecology is the science that underpins it.

Aa Aa Aa

Ecological restoration aims to recreate, initiate, or accelerate the recovery of an ecosystem that
has been disturbed. Disturbances are environmental changes that alter ecosystem structure and
function. Common disturbances include logging, damming rivers, intense grazing, hurricanes,
floods, and fires. Restoration activities may be designed to replicate a pre-disturbance ecosystem
or to create a new ecosystem where it had not previously occurred. Restoration ecology is the
scientific study of repairing disturbed ecosystems through human intervention.

Goals

Restoration projects differ in their objectives and their methods of achieving those goals. Many
restoration projects aim to establish ecosystems composed of a native species; other projects
attempt to restore, improve, or create particular ecosystem functions, such as pollination or
erosion control. Some examples of different kinds of restoration include the following:

 Revegetation- the establishment of vegetation on sites where it has been previously lost, often
with erosion control as the primary goal. For example, vegetated buffers are strips of vegetation
that protect water quality in riparian ecosystems from urban or agricultural runoff.
 Habitat enhancement- the process of increasing the suitability of a site as habitat for some
desired species.
 Remediation: improving an existing ecosystem or creating a new one with the aim of replacing
another that has deteriorated or been destroyed.
 Mitigation: legally mandated remediation for loss of protected species or ecosystems.

At a given restoration site, it may be possible to establish a number of different communities.

When choosing a target state for a restoration project however, restorationists generally select
only one (or a small range) of possible community types. Often some sort of "natural" pre-
disturbance condition, or reference state, is selected, along with its presumed properties (e.g.,
previous flooding or fire patterns). This is often represented by a nearby undisturbed reference
site. Even with good working knowledge of an historical ecosystem’s species composition and
functions, practitioners must still decide how far in the past is defined as "natural." For some
ecosystems the reference state may be before any human disturbance, but more commonly the
reference state is before agricultural or industrial intensification (such as pre-European contact in
the US). However, sometimes an historical target may no longer be appropriate under current or
projected climatic or biotic conditions. For example, future climates may not support certain
species, and some species may have already gone extinct in an area. Under these circumstances
practitioners may decide to create an ecosystem that did not exist historically at the project site,
but which corresponds to current or projected future conditions. Sometimes, restoration efforts
are designed to maintain a desirable human-derived state, such as montane meadows or Scottish
moors.

History
The idea of restoring the land dates back centuries, but modern restoration ecology and its practice
began in the early 1900s when people such as renowned conservationist Aldo Leopold began promoting
the movement. It has since grown to include a wide variety of ecological restoration activities that range
from large-scale projects (e.g., of the Everglades, Louisiana wetlands, or the Mau Forest in Kenya) to
small-scale projects (e.g., tree planting). It is a defining characteristic of ecological restoration that many
projects are locally initiated and implemented by community volunteers. Because restoration projects
generally involve complex collaborations and negotiations among a diverse group of interested parties,
social science is an integral part of restoration at all scales.

Ecological research on restoration has largely focused on community ecology and ecosystem ecology,
with particular attention to plants. However, animal reintroduction, a common element of conservation
biology, is also essentially restoration. Gaining momentum in the latter half of the twentieth century,
restoration ecology is now established as a science and studied in many research institutions.
International societies and journals, such as the Society for Ecological Restoration (est. 1988) and its
journals Ecological Restoration (est. 1981) and Restoration Ecology (est. 1993), are dedicated to
furthering knowledge of restoration science and practice. Starting in the 1990s, the number of books
and journal articles on ecological restoration has risen exponentially. There has been a strong push to
formalize the science and practice of restoration, linking it explicitly with ecological theories. In fact,
ecological restoration can be used as a practical test of our ecological understanding. Conversely,
failures in ecological restoration can reveal gaps in our understanding of ecology.

Concepts Underpinning Restoration

Disturbance
Disturbance events can occur at many scales and different levels of severity, and some are natural parts
of every ecosystem. Disturbance events can alter species composition, nutrient cycling, and soil
properties. Natural disturbances include severe weather damage, fire, flooding, treefalls and even
volcanic eruptions. Anthropogenic (human-caused) disturbances can alter or destroy natural habitat
(like clearing land for agriculture) and/or ecological functions (like damming rivers for flood control).
Humans can also change natural disturbance events and cycles (like suppression of wildfires and
prevention of periodic flooding). The goal of a restoration project may be to initiate or speed the
recovery of an ecosystem after disturbance. Restoration activities may also be designed to reestablish
natural disturbance regimes.

Genetics
Restoration projects also typically include genetic considerations. Plants (or animals) from local sources
are more likely to be well adapted to the target ecosystem. Therefore, using animals or plant materials
(like seeds or cuttings) collected from local sources may increase the chance of successful
establishment. Including a large number of individual plants or animals can help ensure genetic diversity
in the restored populations. Genetic diversity is thought to be critical to maintaining the ability of
populations to evolve and recover from disturbances.

Succession
Ecological succession is the process by which biological community composition- the number and
proportion of different species in an ecosystem- recover over time following a disturbance event.
Passive restoration means simply allowing natural succession to occur in an ecosystem after removing a
source of disturbance. The recovery of the deciduous forests in the eastern United States after the
abandonment of agriculture is a classic example of passive restoration. Active restoration involves
accelerating the process or attempting to change the trajectory of succession. For example, mine tailings
would take so long to recover passively that active restoration is usually appropriate.
Community Assembly Theory
Community assembly theory suggests that similar sites can develop different biological communities
depending on order of arrival of different species. In the context of restoration, sites may not always
recover toward a desired or anticipated group of species or ecosystem functions. Composition of seed
mixes, planting order and year of planting may be important considerations for restoration
practitioners, particularly when goals include the establishment of certain ecological communities or the
prevention of invasion by weeds or pests.

Landscape Ecology
Restoration draws on several concepts from landscape ecology. Restored areas are often relatively small
and isolated, which makes them especially sensitive to problems associated with habitat fragmentation.
Habitat fragmentation occurs when continuous areas of habitat become disconnected by natural or
human causes (for example, building roads through a forest). Fragmentation generally leads to small,
isolated patches of hospitable habitat. Smaller habitats support fewer species and smaller populations,
which are at greater risk of inbreeding and local extinction. The theory of island biogeography predicts
that populations are more likely to persist in habitat patches that are large and/or well connected with
populations in other hospitable habitats. This theory assumes that the matrix—the region between
habitat patches—is uniform and inhospitable. The most common examples of this concept are oceanic
islands, dots of terrestrial species’ habitat surrounded by uninhabitable water. More recently, the classic
dichotomy of hospitable versus inhospitable habitat has been modified to include the existence a
multiple types of habitat patches which are juxtaposed to form a patch mosaic. These different patches
within the mosaic may be more or less hospitable for the species, communities and ecosystem functions
targeted by restoration activities.

Fragmentation may also intensify negative edge effects — impacts of one habitat on an adjacent habitat
— by increasing the amount of edge habitat and reducing the distances among edges. For instance,
invasive weeds are more abundant along forest edges, so small forest fragments (which have more edge
habitat) are more likely to be invaded. Restoration activities often seek to improve connectivity among
habitat patches in fragmented landscapes by creating or restoring linkages. Examples of linkages
commonly used to improve connectivity are corridors and stepping stones. Corridors are relatively
narrow, linear strips of habitat between otherwise isolated habitat patches. Stepping stones are small
unconnected patches of habitat that are close enough together to allow movement across the
landscape.

Application
Applied restoration is a multi-step process, which may include some or all of these stages:

 Assessing the site: A thorough appraisal of the current conditions at the restoration site is
essential for determining what kind of actions will be necessary. In this step, the causes of
ecosystem disturbance and methods for stopping or reversing them are identified.
 Formulating project goals: To determine targets for the restored community, practitioners may
visit reference sites (similar, nearby environments in natural condition) and/or consult historical
 sources that detail the pre-disturbance community. Goals may also include considerations of
what species will be best suited to present or future climate conditions.
 Removing sources of disturbance: Before restoration can be successful, forces of disturbance
may need to be removed. Examples include cessation of mining or farming or causes of erosion,
restricting livestock from riparian areas, removing toxic materials from soil or sediments, and
eradicating invasive exotic species.
 Restoring processes/disturbance cycles: Sometimes restoring important ecological processes
such as natural flood or fire regimes is enough to restore ecosystem integrity. In these cases,
native plants and animals that have evolved to tolerate or require natural disturbance regimes
may come back on their own without direct action by practitioners.
 Rehabilitating substrates: This can include any activity aimed at repairing altered soil texture or
chemistry, or restoring hydrological regimes or water quality.
 Restoring vegetation: In many cases, restoration activities involve direct revegetation of a site.
Usually, native species suited to local environmental conditions are chosen for planting. Seeds
or cuttings are generally collected from a variety of sources within a local region in order to
ensure genetic diversity. Vegetation can be planted as seeds, or seedlings.
 Monitoring and maintenance: Monitoring the restoration site over time is critical to determining
whether goals are being met, and can inform future management decisions. Observations made
at the site may indicate that further action, such as periodic weed removal, is necessary in
ensuring the long-term success of the project. Ideally restoration projects would eventually
achieve a self-sustaining ecosystem without the need for future human intervention.

Virtually all the worlds' ecosystem types have been the subject of restoration efforts, but
particular attention has been paid to ecosystems most impacted by human activities, such as
wetlands, grasslands/rangelands, riparian areas, and tropical forests.

Broader Considerations
In a world with a rapidly changing climate, restorationists plan for an uncertain future. One new and
controversial approach to dealing with climate change is assisted migration: the idea of establishing a
species in a place where it does not presently occur and has not occurred in the recent past, but where
the climate is predicted to be suitable for that species in the future. If the climate is currently changing
faster than many plants and animals can move (through dispersal or migration), and many hospitable
habitat patches are now isolated, then it may be necessary to actively move species to new habitats.

Strategies to avert future biodiversity loss are likely to include many of the techniques of ecological
restoration, but its practice is not without controversy. One contentious issue is the process of
mitigation, in which destruction of protected populations or habitats is allowed if there are offsetting
mitigation plantings. Even mitigations that fulfill legal requirements often fail to fully compensate for the
lost populations or communities. Some fear that restoration provides an excuse for activities that are
destructive of biodiversity. Restoration activities should instead be viewed as complementary to, not a
substitute for, efforts for the conservation of biodiversity.

There is also some apprehension with the idea that we know enough to create functioning ecosystems.
This unease stems from the fact that restoration is inherently uncertain at every step, from the planning
(what really existed there before or how do we balance multiple objectives with conflicting
requirements?), to the implementation (what is the best way to control weeds or how do we really
restore flooding?), to the continued management (when can we judge a project to be truly successful?).
Despite this uncertainty, ecological restoration is a rapidly growing field that represents a foundational
change in our relationship to the natural world.

Introduction
Human activity has left a major imprint on the global environment. The diversity and proportion of
different ecosystems found within the landscape have been greatly altered by human land-use activities.
We have cleared forests, dammed rivers, drained wetlands, established new vegetation communities
and released a variety of chemicals into ecosystems. As a result of these activities, many ecosystems
that provide important functions are degraded. Within the last century we have become aware of the
potentially dangerous consequences of these actions and are attempting to reverse the degradation
process by restoring these important ecosystems.

The goal of restoration is to restore the structure and function of a degraded ecosystem, habitat area or
site, herein referred to as ecosystem (National Research Council 1992, Hobbs and Norton 1996, Palmer
et al. 1997, Zedler 2000). Historically restoration research and implementation has focused more on the
reestablishment structure because measuring and restoring ecological functions is a much more time
consuming and complex task (Mitsch and Wilson 1996, Grayson et al. 1999). Ecosystems are not closed
systems within which all critical ecological processes are contained. Instead, ecosystems are open and
therefore are impacted by ecological processes that function at larger spatial scales (Pickett and Parker
1994). This openness also allows ecosystems to interact with other ecosystems in the landscape
through the movement of energy, materials and organisms (Pickett and Parker 1994, Parker 1997,
Pickett and Rogers 1997). These large-scale processes in conjunction with smaller, internal processes
determine the specific function of an ecosystem in the landscape (Picket and Parker 1994). The degree
of influence that large-scale ecological processes have on a specific ecosystem depends, in part, on the
ecosystem’s position within the landscape (Turner 1989, Parker 1997). For example, if three similar
habitat types are present in a landscape, two of which are relatively close while the third is farther away,
seed dispersal between the two closer patches will be greater than that to the third patch. When
determining the function of a site that is slated for restoration one must look at a variety of scales larger
than the site’s physical boundary.

Wetland Restoration
Wetlands are some of the most productive ecosystems providing habitat for numerous terrestrial and
aquatic species and serving important hydrologic functions. Until the mid 1970’s, wetland destruction
was permitted and even at times encouraged (National Research Council 1992). This mindset of
destruction has shifted to one of protection and restoration because we now understand that wetlands
are vital components of our environment (National Research Council 1992). Wetlands are also prime
examples of how placement within a landscape and the processes outside of an ecosystem’s boundaries
influence an ecosystem’s functions. Wetlands occur when the geology and hydrology of an area allows
for surface or soil water to accumulate or be retained in the upper soil levels. Geology and hydrology
are large-scale processes; therefore, Bedford (1996) noted that wetlands are “local manifestations of
larger-scale processes.” The specific type of wetland located on a landscape is the result of long-term
spatial and temporal patterns and fluxes in the hydrology and geochemistry of a landscape (Bedford
1996). Although hydrology is considered to be the most important element in wetland development,
other processes also have a strong influence on wetland function. For instance, the connectivity of
different ecosystem patches within the landscape is important for the proper functioning of wetlands
(Zedler 1996a, Palmer et al. 1997). A wetland and its specific functions may become degraded when
these larger-scale processes are altered or removed. To successfully restore a degraded wetland one
must examine the important processes that exist within and outside of the spatial and temporal
boundaries of a specific wetland. Moreover, numerous spatial and temporal scales must be examined at
all stages of wetland restoration including identification of degrading agents, selection of processes to
be restored, analysis of restoration impacts on the landscape and monitoring.

Identification of the Degrading Agents

The identification of the agents or actions that caused the degradation of a wetland is the first step in
conducting a restoration. If the causes of the wetland’s degradation (the stressors) are not removed or
accounted for than the probability that the site will continue to be negatively impacted is high (Pastorok
et al. 1997). One must expand the scale of examination to determine if stressors occur outside of the
site’s boundaries and are impacting important large-scale processes. For example, if diking and filling
activities occurring up stream from a wetland significantly alter the hydrology of the landscape, that
wetland may be negatively impacted because it is not receiving enough water into its system.
Additionally, the loss of functioning wetlands is often the result of cumulative disturbances to the
ecosystems (Bedford 1999). Wetlands, especially those in urban settings, are subject to ongoing large-
scale stresses from human land-use activities (Grayson et al. 1999). The multitude of stressors
cumulatively influencing a system at different scales and intensities makes the identification of the
important degrading agents a very complex and convoluted process. Many wetland restorations have
failed because they have not accounted for all of the stressors that influence the system (Mitsch and
Wilson 1996, Grayson et al. 1999, Bedford 1999). To properly identify the important stressors
negatively affecting a wetland ecosystem one must methodically examine the individual wetland and its
landscape setting at different spatial scales.
Stressors are imbedded in the temporal scale; therefore, the temporal scale must be considered when
identifying the specific factors that caused the degradation. A stressor can occur over a short or long
time period and result in either short- or long-term disruptions to a wetland’s function (Glasby and
Underwood 1995, Grayson et al. 1999). A historical event that occurred over a short time period and
resulted in long-term impacts to a wetland’s function will not be identified if the temporal scale is not
expanded beyond the current timeframe. A stressor that occurs over a long time period and has long-
term impacts, such as urbanization and land-use changes, may be seen as a constant feature of the
landscape and may not be classified as a stressor if the temporal scale of analysis is not increased. Not
all degrading events occur within the same time period. The severity of an existing stressor on a
wetland may not be obvious because it occurred after the site was already damaged. Depending on the
specific temporal scale being examined, important degrading factors may be masked; therefore, it is
important to look at various temporal scales when identifying stressors.

Selection of Processes to be Restored

Degradation is a complicated process involving numerous changes to the function of a wetland

ecosystem; restoration will be at least as complex (Zedler 2000). Although the identification and, if
possible, removal of stressors is the first step in the restoration process, it is not the only step. Stressors
impact the function of a wetland by altering or removing structural components and ecological
processes; therefore, even if the stressors are eliminated these components may still be absent from the
restored ecosystem (Naveh 1994, Hobbs and Norton 1996, Ehrenfeld and Toth 1997). To be a successful
long-term solution, restoration must include the reintroduction or creation of structure and critical
small- and large-scale processes that generate the function of a wetland ecosystem (Naveh 1994,
Aronson and Le Floc'h 1996, Ehrenfeld and Toth 1997).

To restore the necessary small- and large-scale processes, one must first identify what the function of a
wetland area is and by extension, what the goal is of the restoration. There is currently a large debate
regarding the appropriateness of restoring wetlands to their historical functions and engineering
wetlands to mimic the function of reference sites (Pastorok et al. 1997, Grayson et al. 1999). Historical
functions and reference sites can greatly assist with the restoration process, but may not always be the
most appropriate end goals for restoration. The landscape in which the restored wetland exists differs
from what was historically present. Some stressors may not be able to be removed and not all of the
processes that were present historically can be reestablished because the surrounding landscape has
changed (Race and Fonseca 1996, Parker 1997). For example, because of increasing urbanization many
wetlands that were originally connected to specific ecosystems are now isolated. Isolated wetlands are
not able to function like their connected counterparts because in addition to being physically separate,
many ecological processes have been removed (Bedford 1996, Mitsch and Wilson 1996, Race and
Fonseca 1996, Bell et al. 1997). Zedler (1996a) discusses a restoration project in which appropriate
vegetation was planted in a wetland that was separated from adjacent ecosystems by a railroad and
freeway. The planted vegetation did not become a viable community because the individual plants
were unable to produce enough seeds. The historical pollinators of that wetland community inhabit
upland ecosystems and forage in the wetland area. Because this particular wetland was separated from
the upland ecosystem the pollinators were unable to perform their ecological function for the site
resulting in restoration failure. When restoring a site one must expand the spatial scale at which the
wetland is being examined to determine which ecological process can be established and will function
appropriately given the specific landscape setting of that site (Bell et al. 1997, Pastorok et al. 1997).

The use of reference sites as an expected end point is also problematic. Locating an appropriate
reference site with a similar landscape setting is difficult and may not be possible. However, even if an
identical reference site can be located, the ability to restore a wetland to exactly match its reference site
may not be possible. Wetlands are the result of long-term spatial and temporal patterns in
hydrogeologic processes; effectively mimicking or recreating these long-term processes is virtually
impossible (Bedford 1996). Instead of using historic and reference sites as the desired endpoints, it is
more feasible and appropriate to use them as models for the range of potential functions for which
restoration should aim. By identifying the ecological processes that generated a site’s historical function
as well as what processes are influencing other similar wetlands, restoration ecologists can begin to
identify the particular large- and small-scale processes that should be established.

Analysis of Restoration Impacts on the Landscape

Various spatial and temporal scales need to be examined to determine how the restoration of a wetland
may impact landscape processes and adjacent habitats. Hydrology has a large influence on what types
of habitats are present in a landscape. Most wetland restoration projects focus on establishing a
specific hydrologic regime to the restored site, which may alter the hydrology of other ecosystems in the
landscape. Bedford (1999) cautions that if restoration is performed on a site-by-site basis without
consideration of the landscape, we risk a reduction in biodiversity and overall wetland function. The
restoration process is a series of alterations to the current processes and patch interactions within a
landscape. By altering these ecological processes, we may be positively or negatively impacting other
ecosystem patches within a landscape. This is not to say that restoration work should not be preformed
for fear that it may be damaging to the landscape, but that considerations regarding how restoration
activities are impacting other portions of the landscape must be included.

By expanding our scale of view to the landscape or regional perspective, a restoration can be designed
so that it is adding to the value or function of the entire landscape (Zedler 1996b, Bedford 1999). With
the increased need for wetland restoration for mitigation purposes, there is a danger that restorations
will be treated as a cookie cutter process in which the same type of wetland is restored to an area
regardless its landscape context (Race and Fonseca 1996). If all wetland restorations are designed to be
the same type, than the diversity of wetland functions and habitats as well as the diversity of species
within a landscape will be reduced (Bedford 1999). By including large–scale considerations in
restoration activities, restorations can be designed to enhance both local and regional ecosystem
functions and preserve the diversity of wetlands present in a landscape (Naveh 1994, Hobbs and Norton
1996, Bedford 1999).

Monitoring
Although often overlooked, post-restoration monitoring is very important. Pickett and Parker (1994)
noted that one of the pitfalls of restoration is to think of it as a discrete event when restoration is
actually “an intervention into an ongoing process.” Regulations regarding restoration monitoring
illustrate the idea that restoration should be a discrete event with long-term results. Required
monitoring periods typically range from three to five years during which the site’s structure and function
is expected have become fully established (Mitsch and Wilson 1996). This three to five year time period
is inadequate for an ecosystem to become established or to determine if all of the reestablished
ecological processes are properly functioning (Mitsch and Wilson 1996; Parker 1997). To ensure that
ecological processes, especially those that function on larger spatial and temporal scales have been
properly reestablished to a system, restored sites should be monitored and managed for longer periods
of time. Moreover, by monitoring restoration activities for longer periods of time restorationists can
assess the ability of different restoration activities to achieve desired goals and focus future research
efforts where needed ((Pickett and Parker 1994, Ehrenfeld and Toth 1997, Parker 1997, Pastorok et al.
1997).

Conclusion
Restoration is a relatively new and rapidly expanding discipline that combines many fields of science
including ecology, geology and engineering. Although the specific goal of restoration is to restore the
ecological function of a particular ecosystem, a multi-scale approach is needed to ensure the successful
restoration of a site, especially in the case of wetland restoration. Those conducting restoration
activities must examine how ecological processes that vary in spatial and temporal scales have
influenced the function of a wetland and determine which processes need to be reestablished to restore
wetland function. A multi-scale approach can ensure that stressors to the wetland ecosystem are
removed or accounted for, that critical ecological processes have been successfully introduced and that
the restoration itself is not negatively impacting the function of the landscape. Additionally, a multi-
scale approach to restoration may result in greater ecological and environmental benefits because it
allows for enhancement to occur at more than one scale.

"Ecological Restoration brings together the two essential components of restoration: science and
community. This journal speaks to people and the process of making restoration happen as well
as the monitoring and research that underpin it."—Leslie Sauer, author of "The Once and Future
Forest"