[APWG] [RWG] Ecosystem Restoration Collapse

Tue Feb 28 11:19:10 CST 2012

Nice to see so many posts from names I do not recognize. Ecological restoration, renovation, reclamation, renewal, Does it really matter what we call "our" efforts?  Since when does science require precise definitions? Why should invasion biology be encumbered by a lack of agreed upon definitions? This minor glitch does not seem to stem the flow of money into eradication and restoration efforts nationwide. Surely the money providers know what is the best policy.
So, to what end do we seek to restore (pick your favorite term here) ecosystems? I hope we do this because we desire the ecological services that previous ecosystems provided.  We much prefer navigational waterways compared to those choked with weeds so we can navigate them. We prefer habitats that support biological diversity. We want clean air and water. We bemoan the loss of plant and animal species that once were common.  I liken this to urban renewal efforts in which we seek to renew urban areas that have degenerated into ghettos, back to the thriving neighborhoods they once were.  At one time the generally accepted best way to do this was to destroy the old buildings and erect high rise apartments. Now we seem to favor renovating the old buildings but unless the conditions that led to the decline are addressed, many of these efforts fail. This is also true of ecological restorations which fail for the same reasons.
Of course, this all costs money and there is only so much money.
I question the expenditure of large sums of tax dollars to restore ecosystems simply because the current ecosystems are different than previous ones, unless some human benefit can be realized. I question the efforts to kill exotic plants unless there is some tangible benefit. Humans need to be responsible for their efforts, both positive and negative. Humans seek to tweak nature for our own perceived benefits, whether it is to allow traversing a river or spying a bird that is rare or unique. Those who claim these efforts are simply the "right thing to do" must have direct access to some superior being that tells them what is "right". I claim no such clairvoyance. I will end this latest blurb with a quote from J.R.R.  Tolkien that I think is most appropriate for programs designed to kill off exotic plants with no real goal beyond that itself.
"Many that live deserve death.
And some that die deserve life.
Can you give it to them?
The be not too eager to deal out death......
Even the wise cannot see all ends."

From: apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org [mailto:apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org] On Behalf Of Wayne Tyson
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 9:28 PM
Cc: apwg at lists.plantconservation.org; rwg at lists.plantconservation.org
Subject: Re: [APWG] [RWG] Ecosystem Restoration Collapse

Honorable Forum:

I don't think "we" actually restore ecosystems either. This is an old debate, and I tend to accept some of the points made by both "sides."

At one time we had to settle for terms like "preservation," "conservation," and even (ugh!) "reclamation," the latter often being used in connection with ecosystem destruction for "practical" purposes.

I use ecosystem restoration because I can think of no better term. I am willing to change, but so far I have not adopted the phrase, "ecological restoration." All we can do in ecosystem restoration is to set up the conditions for natural forces, ecological functions, to do their thing.

All I have ever done is to attempt to understand what is going on with respect to various disturbances and dynamic ecosystems and nudge them, only as much as necessary, toward the biological fulfillment of the site's potential, sometimes adjusting that potential. I do not believe that ecosystem restoration to some state that existed in the past, because dynamic systems do not have "states." Only we think in terms of states, or fixed assemblages of organisms. I would never try to "replicate" the factors that influenced the nature of any past snapshot of an ecosystem as conceived of by anyone or an group that is deluded enough to think that they know about it. I attempt to understand what is going on and why, the nature of the dynamic system that is reflected in the whole complex of organisms that is responding to the dynamic "state" of the context affecting those organisms. It is in this sense that I think that ecosystem restoration is valid--because it is a system, not a fixture.

I think "liking" has nothing to do with ecosystem restoration. I am aware that this is not the common or even the accepted view, and I, alone, accept responsibility for having that view. I believe that ecosystem restoration has to do with accelerating ecosystem processes toward the complex of organisms that have the potential represented by the context (which I might alter in the process of "restoring" a fully-functioning, self-sufficient complex of organisms that we call an ecosystem. (We could extend the argument to say that there is only one ecosystem, too, but I again accept, at least provisionally, the division of the earth ecosystem into biomes and mudpuddles, for example, as the situation happens to require. We also could argue how many angels can dance on the point of a pin too, but I'll leave that to the theists.)

But yes, I will agree with Beyfuss that there is some deep-seated kind of species-consciousness operating that makes us prefer meadows to weed patches. I prefer tiny flowers and even spikerushes to thistles and ripgut brome. I confess.

WT

----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Layton Beyfuss<mailto:rlb14 at cornell.edu>
To: Katie Fite<mailto:katie at westernwatersheds.org> ; Wayne Tyson<mailto:landrest at cox.net>
Cc: apwg at lists.plantconservation.org<mailto:apwg at lists.plantconservation.org> ; rwg at lists.plantconservation.org<mailto:rwg at lists.plantconservation.org>
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 7:26 AM
Subject: RE: [APWG] [RWG] Ecosystem Restoration Collapse

I do not understand how ecosystems can be restored since I consider them as dynamic and constantly changing. It is not possible to completely re-create the environmental conditions that led to a given ecosystem at any given time in the past. If ecosystems represent the interactions of living and environmental factors, to restore an ecosystem requires replicating the previous environmental factors that affect the living organisms. The level of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere has doubled in the past 80 years. Plant growth, reproduction and survival is profoundly affected by carbon dioxide levels. I consider attempts to restore ecosystems  as  no more than human's creating new ecosystems using species of plants that previously occurred because humans liked the previous once more than the current one.

From: apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org<mailto:apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org> [mailto:apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org] On Behalf Of Katie Fite
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 9:12 AM
To: Wayne Tyson
Cc: apwg at lists.plantconservation.org<mailto:apwg at lists.plantconservation.org>; rwg at lists.plantconservation.org<mailto:rwg at lists.plantconservation.org>
Subject: Re: [APWG] [RWG] Ecosystem Restoration Collapse

Wayne,

I am interested in the discussion.

And discussions of what ecological restoration is, and also discussions of how the term "restoration" is currently being used by agencies or at times industry  -  to describe imposing major disturbances on mature or old growth woody vegetation communities  - with such disturbances often then leading to weed invasions.

Katie Fite
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Wayne Tyson <landrest at cox.net<mailto:landrest at cox.net>> wrote:
All:

One of my fellow subscribers has been corresponding with me off-list the subject of ecosystem restoration standards, and I have been unsuccessful in persuading the subscriber to keep the discussion on-list, as I believe the subject is of broad common interest. This person apparently believes that I am the only one (with one or two others) interested, because no one else has weighed in on the subject. Is this person right? Are none but three or four of us interested in this topic? Should this and related topics be kept off list (to keep topics of restricted interest from clogging the in-baskets of the majority? If so, how many subscribers are there to APWG and RWG?

I am hereby taking the liberty to broach the most recent topic, the collapse of ecosystem restoration projects, signified by the return of weed dominance in some cases. I would add to this that ecosystem restoration projects also "collapse" or fail to "take" whether or not weeds dominate. The off-list poster confined the comments to grasslands, so I will primarily address that issue, but the same principles hold true for other biomes and can be more broadly applied.

First, the "return" of grassland restoration projects to weed-dominance.

There are a number of reasons for this, some related to context issues like soil type, some related to restoration methods, but consideration of soil type must be part of the restoration assessment, planning, and execution process. Soil type is important; in the case of grassland restoration, it is preferable (actually essential) that a grassland soil is present--if it isn't, all the King of Restoration's horses and all the KoR's men and women will not be able to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear (without some major alterations to the soil). I invite others to expand and expound on this subject; I will mention only some factors.

True grassland soils tend to have identifiable characteristics. They tend to develop on alluvial or aeolian soils of finer texture and containing considerable natural humus and soil flora/fauna, as well as mineral deposits at depth (commonly at or near the effective bottom of the root zone) such as calcium and sodium. Disturbance of such soils can render the site largely incapable of supporting a true grassland, such as when bulldozed or otherwise excavated and the surface is changed from a grassland-type soil to a jumbled mass, sometimes consisting of coarse B-horizon or deeper deposits unsuited to grassland development. This should be determined in the initial assessment and feasibility investigation, and consideration should be given to restoring an ecosystem/plant community type other than grasslands, at least as a transitional measure until something resembling a grassland soil can be developed. (Wholesale replacement of the degraded soil with grassland soil can be done, but it is terribly expensive.)

If one tries to establish a grassland on non-grassland soils, one is most likely going to be disappointed, and "failure" is almost foreordained. I have, however, attempted to grow hair on such billiard-ball sites, with limited success. If other conditions are favorable, a soil can sometimes be developed (or its development accelerated) by certain tricks (e.g., praying for gopher or prairie-dog invasions, adding mycorrhizal fungi and other essential soil organisms, and transitional plantings of annual plants--sometimes even grasses, but more commonly dicots like weeds and flowers that will be humus-builders. Short-lived perennial plants, even some shrubs, also can be used. This approach is much cheaper than soil importation, and sometimes can be better. The actual strategy should fit the context.

I should make it clear that my first fifteen years of attempting ecosystem restoration projects were all failures by my own standards, and I have continued to make some mistakes once ever since. One must, I believe, learn from actual experience. However, just experience is no guarantee of expertise. If I had stubbornly held on to what I "knew" and refused to consider that what I knew might be wrong, I would have continued to fail. I did get to the point that could reliably initiate ecosystem processes and avoid "collapse." All restoration practitioners can do is to accelerate ecosystem development anyway, largely by setting up conditions that will permit or even maybe encourage natural ecosystems processes to work. We don't actually restore living systems.

In short, most failures can be traced back to the kind of work done and not done to set up favorable conditions for natural forces to work upon.

In short, two of my biggest mistakes (there have been many others) have been to:

a. fail to properly assess site conditions and develop a restoration program that modifies or matches those conditions.

b. plant too many seeds and plants, spending far too much money and doing far too much presumptuous guesswork.

If a grassland soil is present, indigenous species can persist and eventually re-assert dominance over weed populations. If one can mimic grassland soils, one has a chance of fostering the development of grassland, but one must out-draw the Lone Ranger to do it. If one is presumptuous enough to believe that all that needs to be done is to kill weeds and scatter seeds, collapse, unless one is terribly lucky, is rather more likely than not.

Disturbed sites (from bulldozing to trampling) tend to favor weeds. They are the scabs, as it were, on the scarred face of the earth--not pretty, but an inevitable result of land mismanagement.

2. Collapse of "restored" ecosystems that do not necessarily result in dominance of weeds.

This phenomenon is often the result of simply seeding or planting too many and/or the wrong balance of the right (and/or wrong) species at the wrong time, possibly including "maintenance."

This can be the subject of another discussion, but I have run out of time . . . (and since it does not include weeds so much, it might be "inappropriate" for these lists.

WT

_______________________________________________
PCA's Restoration Working Group mailing list
RWG at lists.plantconservation.org<mailto:RWG at lists.plantconservation.org>
http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/rwg_lists.plantconservation.org

________________________________

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2113/4835 - Release Date: 02/27/12
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20120228/3c7b6f85/attachment.html>