<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" xmlns:v =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m =
"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml"><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2180" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE>@font-face {
font-family: Cambria Math;
}
@font-face {
font-family: Calibri;
}
@font-face {
font-family: Tahoma;
}
@page WordSection1 {size: 8.5in 11.0in; margin: 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; }
P.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif"
}
LI.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif"
}
DIV.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif"
}
A:link {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlink {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
A:visited {
COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {
COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
SPAN.EmailStyle17 {
COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-style-type: personal-reply
}
.MsoChpDefault {
mso-style-type: export-only
}
DIV.WordSection1 {
page: WordSection1
}
</STYLE>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></HEAD>
<BODY lang=EN-US vLink=purple link=blue bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=4>Honorable Forum:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=4>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." </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=4>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.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=4>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. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=4>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
<EM>system,</EM> not a fixture. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=4>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.)
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=4>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. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=4>WT</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT size=4>----- Original Message -----
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><FONT
size=4><B>From:</B> </FONT><A title=rlb14@cornell.edu
href="mailto:rlb14@cornell.edu"><FONT size=4>Robert Layton
Beyfuss</FONT></A><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT size=4><B>To:</B> </FONT><A
title=katie@westernwatersheds.org
href="mailto:katie@westernwatersheds.org"><FONT size=4>Katie
Fite</FONT></A><FONT size=4> ; </FONT><A title=landrest@cox.net
href="mailto:landrest@cox.net"><FONT size=4>Wayne Tyson</FONT></A><FONT
size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT size=4><B>Cc:</B> </FONT><A
title=apwg@lists.plantconservation.org
href="mailto:apwg@lists.plantconservation.org"><FONT
size=4>apwg@lists.plantconservation.org</FONT></A><FONT size=4> ; </FONT><A
title=rwg@lists.plantconservation.org
href="mailto:rwg@lists.plantconservation.org"><FONT
size=4>rwg@lists.plantconservation.org</FONT></A><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT size=4><B>Sent:</B> Monday, February 27,
2012 7:26 AM</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT size=4><B>Subject:</B> RE: [APWG] [RWG]
Ecosystem Restoration Collapse</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV class=WordSection1>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'"><FONT
size=4>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.
<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'"><o:p><FONT
size=4> </FONT></o:p></SPAN></P>
<DIV
style="BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none">
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Tahoma','sans-serif'"><FONT
size=4>From:</FONT></SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Tahoma','sans-serif'"><FONT size=4>
apwg-bounces@lists.plantconservation.org
[mailto:apwg-bounces@lists.plantconservation.org] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Katie
Fite<BR><B>Sent:</B> Monday, February 27, 2012 9:12 AM<BR><B>To:</B> Wayne
Tyson<BR><B>Cc:</B> apwg@lists.plantconservation.org;
rwg@lists.plantconservation.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [APWG] [RWG] Ecosystem
Restoration Collapse<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p><FONT size=4> </FONT></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt"><FONT size=4>Wayne,<BR><BR>I am
interested in the discussion.<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>Katie Fite<o:p></o:p></FONT></P>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT size=4>On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Wayne Tyson
<</FONT><A href="mailto:landrest@cox.net"><FONT
size=4>landrest@cox.net</FONT></A><FONT size=4>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></FONT></P>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT size=4><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">All:</SPAN><o:p></o:p></FONT></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT size=4> <o:p></o:p></FONT></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT size=4><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">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? </SPAN><o:p></o:p></FONT></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT size=4> <o:p></o:p></FONT></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT size=4><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">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.
</SPAN><o:p></o:p></FONT></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT size=4> <o:p></o:p></FONT></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT size=4><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">First, the "return" of grassland
restoration projects to weed-dominance.</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'"> </SPAN><o:p></o:p></FONT></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT size=4> <o:p></o:p></FONT></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT size=4><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">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. </SPAN><o:p></o:p></FONT></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT size=4> <o:p></o:p></FONT></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT size=4><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">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.) </SPAN><o:p></o:p></FONT></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT size=4> <o:p></o:p></FONT></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT size=4><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">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. </SPAN><o:p></o:p></FONT></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT size=4> <o:p></o:p></FONT></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT size=4><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">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.
</SPAN><o:p></o:p></FONT></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT size=4> <o:p></o:p></FONT></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT size=4><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">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.
</SPAN><o:p></o:p></FONT></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT size=4> <o:p></o:p></FONT></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT size=4><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">In short, two of my biggest mistakes
(there have been many others) have been to:
</SPAN><o:p></o:p></FONT></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT size=4> <o:p></o:p></FONT></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT size=4><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">a. fail to properly assess site
conditions and develop a restoration program that modifies or matches those
conditions. </SPAN><o:p></o:p></FONT></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT size=4> <o:p></o:p></FONT></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT size=4><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">b. plant too many seeds and plants,
spending far too much money and doing far too much presumptuous guesswork.
</SPAN><o:p></o:p></FONT></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT size=4> <o:p></o:p></FONT></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT size=4><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">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. </SPAN><o:p></o:p></FONT></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT size=4> <o:p></o:p></FONT></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT size=4><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">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.
</SPAN><o:p></o:p></FONT></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT size=4> <o:p></o:p></FONT></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT size=4> <o:p></o:p></FONT></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT size=4><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">2. Collapse of "restored" ecosystems
that do not necessarily result in dominance of
weeds.</SPAN></B><o:p></o:p></FONT></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT size=4> <o:p></o:p></FONT></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT size=4><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">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."
</SPAN><o:p></o:p></FONT></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT size=4> <o:p></o:p></FONT></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT size=4><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">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.
</SPAN><o:p></o:p></FONT></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT size=4> <o:p></o:p></FONT></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT size=4><SPAN
style="COLOR: #888888; FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">WT</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: #888888"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: #888888"><FONT
size=4> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: #888888"><FONT
size=4> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: #888888"><FONT
size=4> <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P></DIV></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt"><BR><BR><FONT
size=4>_______________________________________________<BR>PCA's Restoration
Working Group mailing list<BR></FONT><A
href="mailto:RWG@lists.plantconservation.org"><FONT
size=4>RWG@lists.plantconservation.org</FONT></A><BR><A
href="http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/rwg_lists.plantconservation.org"
target=_blank><FONT
size=4>http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/rwg_lists.plantconservation.org</FONT></A><o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p><FONT size=4> </FONT></o:p></P></DIV><FONT
size=4>
<HR noShade SIZE=1>
</FONT><A></A>
<P class=avgcert align=left color="#000000"><FONT size=4>No virus found in
this message.<BR>Checked by AVG - </FONT><A href="http://www.avg.com"><FONT
size=4>www.avg.com</FONT></A><BR><FONT size=4>Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus
Database: 2113/4835 - Release Date:
02/27/12</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>