Revised Top Ten For Designers

Hobbs, R J, Harris, J A. 2001. Restoration Ecology: Repairing the Earth’s Ecosystems in the New Millennium. Restoration Ecology 9(2): 239-246

Introduces the idea of restoration ecology and highlights the importance of using criteria to develop a restoration plan and the use of post restoration studies to judge success.

Hobbs, RJ; Higgs, E; Harris, JA. 2009. Novel ecosystems: implications for conservation and restoration. TRENDS IN ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION 24( 11): 599-605.

Important in that it questions the logic of restoring back to a previous state, which we think is illogical in many instances, but dangerous in that it might be seen by designers as a green light to create new landscapes not based on ecology.

Palmer, M. A. (2009). Reforming watershed restoration: science in need of application and applications in need of science. Estuaries and Coasts, 32, 1–17.

Critiques a number of practices being used today that are ineffective and calls for the incorporation of informed ecology into restoration.

Jackson, S. T., and R. J. Hobbs. 2009. Ecological Restoration in the Light of Ecological History. Science 325:567-569.

Highlights the need for restoration practitioners to consider restoration goals through multiple lenses. The idea that restoration must consider history, but must also be grounded in a forward-looking approach that considers variability and climate change is extremely important.

Palmer, MA; Filoso, S. 2009. Restoration of Ecosystem Services for Environmental Markets SCIENCE, 325 (5940): 575-576.

Since designers are often brought into projects that have received funding through environmental markets, it’s imperative that we understand the inherent risks and limitations associated with restoration. Without this understanding, we run the risk of “restoring ecosystem services” only on paper, with no real-world benefit, after millions of dollars have been spent.

Nadasdy, P. 2007. Adaptive Co-Management and the Gospel of Resilience. In Adaptive Co-Mangement: Collaboration, Learning, and Multi-Level Governance, eds. D. Armitage, F. Berkes and N. Doubleday. Toronto, Ontario: University of British Columbia Press.

An important paper that questions the socio-political context in which adaptive co-management (or restoration) occurs. Informed designers need to be aware of who they are restoring for, and how this affects marginalized populations.

Kosoy, N. and Corbera, E. 2010. Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism. Ecological Economics 69: 1228-1236.

An important perspective from outside the paradigm of capitalism. Viewing ecological and social problems from all viewpoints is essential for a complete understanding of the issues.

Lundholm, J.T. and P.J. Richardson. 2010. Habitat analogues for reconciliation ecology in urban and industrial environments. Journal of Applied Ecology, 47 (5): 966-975.

This article encourages restoration practitioners to enhance ecological function in a degraded urban or industrial environment by drawing on the ecologies of analagous sites rather than looking to local and/or historical models that no longer fit. Since much design and planning addresses these degraded post-industrial sites, this model is well adapted to site-specific design solutions. Complex ecological issues are put forth in an enlightening and readable manner.

Peter W. Dunwiddie, Sonia A. Hall, et al. 2009. Rethinking Conservation Practice in Light of Climate Change. Ecological Restoration 27:3

This is an on-the-ground look at what some agencies are doing to restore ecosystems in the specter of climate change. Case studies and the logic behind the projects offer new ways of looking at such problems.

Groot, R.S. de; Alkemade, J.R.M.; Braat, L.; Hein, L.G.; Willemen, L.L. 2010. Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecological Complexity 7: 260-272.

This is an excellent introduction to the idea of restoring landscapes based on the concept of ecosystem services that also cautions designers about the complexity of ecosystem services. It’s important in that it provides a possible framework to guide future restoration projects, but also discusses the potential pitfalls associated with this landscape valuation.

Funk, JL; Cleland, EE; Suding, KN; Zavaleta, ES. 2008. Restoration through reassembly: plant traits and invasion resistance. TRENDS IN ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION 23 (12):695-703.

This paper gives readers an idea about the truly complex nature of the invasive-native relationship, while also introducing ecological theory in an accessible way. It also highlights a method for preventing the spread of invasive species through a designed landscape.

Tentative final top ten list (ecological side)

Here is what Sibyl, Lauren, Jessie, and I came up with this week. It's more than ten papers, and I personally favor a sort of "honorable mention" category, so maybe one thing we can discuss in class on Friday is which papers should be in the actual top ten and which should be honorable mentions. We started with more than 30 papers and got it down to 15 or so. Much of the text in the 'summaries' is copied from your summaries. I have also included some of our thoughts on possible themes below the list of papers; we could also discuss those tomorrow.


Top "Ten" Papers List for Restoration Ecology

Hobbs RJ, E Higgs, and JA Harris. 2009. "Novel ecosystems: implications for conservation and restoration". Trends in Ecology & Evolution (Personal Edition). 24 (11): 599-605.

• Traditional thinking about 'native' and 'introduced' species and the ecosystems they create needs to be turned on its head. This paper does exactly that, calling us to think about why we want to restore ecosystems and to what. The authors categorize ecosystems into those which can be restored to a reference state, those which will most likely become a hybrid ecosystem, partly novel and partly the reference state, and those which will be entirely novel. It may be that the ecosystems we have are not the ecosystems we wish we had, but we need to work with what is here. Even if we retain our original reference state as an objective, it is likely that our ecosystem will take a trajectory through some novel state, and we will need to think about how to manage those ecosystems as well. This paper makes us think about the purpose of restoration, and forces us to be realistic about what we really have to work with. (global change, novel ecosystems)

Bradley, BA; Oppenheimer, M; Wilcove, DS. 2009. Climate change and plant invasions: restoration opportunities ahead?. GLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY 15 (6): 1511-1521.

• Because so much of the field of restoration ecology is spent figuring out how to kill weeds, and then killing weeds, this paper is extremely important. Before practioners and restoration ecologists jump into response mode on every new weed invasion, or dismiss a weed as a non-threat, we need to consider whether this weed will be a problem and priority under future conditions. In addition, the authors propose that climate change may make some invasives less successful, reminding us to think about how different global changes may interact in unexpected and possibly positive ways. (climate change and also thinking outside the box)

Suding and Hobbs thresholds 2009

• Threshold models may become increasingly relevant for restoration attempts that occur in the face of global change. Identifying thresholds, however, is difficult, and examples are restricted to lakes and semiarid rangelands. Suding and Hobbs review the concept of ecological filters and discuss ways in which thresholds may be identified for management purposes (even if not identified with the same robustness as would be required by ecological theory). (resilience/thresholds)

Beschta, R. L., and W. J. Ripple. 2010. Recovering riparian plant communities with wolves in northern yellowstone, U.S.A. Restoration Ecology 18 (3): 380-9.

• The authors apply food web theory to the reintroduction of wolves in Yellowstone. The underlying concept is that without a top predator in the system, herbivores suppress vegetation, and when wolves are reintroduced, the herbivores are controlled, releasing the vegetation to grow. The restoration of food web structure (i.e. the reintroduction of the top predator) is an important consideration in restoring ecosystem function, and most restoration studies target plants rather than animals. This is a great example of taking basic ecological concepts and applying them to a restoration project. (food web/trophic ecology, top down trophic cascades)

Harris 2009 Soil Microbial Communities and Restoration Ecology: Facilitators or Followers?

• There is growing recognition the symbiotic relationships between mycorrhizal fungi and many plant species shapes patterns of succession and community composition. Few restoration projects, however, consider the role of belowground interactions in determining the success or failure of restoring plant communities. Harris suggests that restoring microbial communities may be essential when restoring completely denuded landscapes (such as minesites), that location restoration project may matter for colonization by mycorrhizae, and that addressing the role of mycorrhizal fungi may further our ability to determine which community establishes along a successional trajectory. (soil ecology, importance of microbes, belowground processes)

Funk, JL; Cleland, EE; Suding, KN; Zavaleta, ES. Restoration through reassembly: plant traits and invasion resistance. TRENDS IN ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION 23 (12):695-703. 2008.

• This theory paper presents trait-based community assembly as a framework for the restoration of invaded systems. The theory is that restoration managers should choose plants with traits that are similar to potential invasive species. Operating on the theory of limiting similarities will prevent the invasive species from entering open niches in the restored system. This paper discusses how measuring plant traits in a site can give valuable information for restoration efforts. Choosing a species to revegetate with that has traits similar to the invasive plant (ex: tarweed and yellow star thistle), would be an application used from this paper. The emphasis on functional trait matching in native species represents a proactive, theory-based approach to invasives management beyond current reactive control-eradication strategies. (plant traits/community ecology)

Garibaldi, A. and N. Turner. 2004. Cultural keystone species: implications for ecological conservation and restoration. Ecology and Society 9(3): 1. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss3/art1/

• Building off of the concept of ecological “keystone species,” this paper introduces an important socially oriented concept of cultural keystone species into restoration. Cultural keystone species can serve as a starting point from which to assess the effects of environmental disturbance or stress on a culture and whether it is able to withstand change without losing its identity. Thus, the paper provides a concrete strategy for linking complex social and ecological systems, as well as building partnerships between Indigenous knowledge and Western knowledge (complex social and ecological systems/TEK)

Reed, M.S. 2008. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biological Conservation. 141:2417–2431.

• This review paper addresses the complexity of stakeholder participation in decision-making processes and the best practices emerging from the participation literature. Reed provides a useful summary of multiple philosophies of participation. The paper addresses the power dynamics that are inherent to working with groups, the issues around top-down science communication, and highlights the need for skilled facilitation to help address these dynamics. It also considers approaches to integrating scientific and local knowledge, through triangulation of data. (participation/knowledge production/power)

Palmer, M. A. (2009). Reforming watershed restoration: science in need of application and applications in need of science. Estuaries and Coasts, 32, 1–17.

• This paper was truly exciting to me, and I believe is something everyone in the field of restoration ecology should read. The paper argues that successful restoration will not happen with scientists on one side and practitioners/application on the other. Practitioners need scientists involved throughout restoration project phases (planning, implementation, and monitoring), and scientists need to consider what science would be most valuable to the application of restoration ecology. Simple concept, but one that I think people in the field need to hear repeatedly. This paper summarizes the limitations to success that gaps in knowledge and project breadth generate; it also calls for a closer linking between theory and on-the-ground practice, to generate more holistic, integrated restoration processes. This paper points out restoration practices are currently engineering-driven and that ecological knowledge is being under-used. The author suggests important ways in which this knowledge should more effectively influence restorations and gaps in scientific knowledge that need to be addressed.

Palmer, MA; Filoso, S Restoration of Ecosystem Services for Environmental Markets SCIENCE, 325 (5940): 575-576 JUL 31 2009

• The idea of restoration-based credits in an environmental market may sound nice at first, encouraging more people to earn the credits for restoring degraded ecosystems, but it is a dangerous idea when the science has not advanced to the point of being able to really quantify what is 'restored' and how functional it is. Essential to these ideas is the importance of restoration of process rather than simply restoration of structure. Perhaps most importantly, by giving restoration credits to entities which degrade other ecosystems when the replacement ecosystem may not have adequate function, we could accelerate environmental degradation. This paper is a great 'wake-up call' on the idea of determining economic values for ecosystems and the dangers of trading in ecosystem functions when we are not really yet able to measure them adequately, and in fact they may not be truly comparable. (ecosystem services) (carbon credits - Galatowisch?

Lindenmayer and Likens 2009:

• Ecological monitoring is critical to determine the success of restoration projects. Monitoring projects are often viewed as management rather than science, however, and scientific funding is limited for monitoring. Lindenmayer and Likens propose a policy of “adaptive monitoring” to increase the effectiveness of monitoring to answer both management and scientific questions. They suggest monitoring projects should a) address well-defined questions determined before monitoring commences b) have a rigorous statistical design c) be based on a conceptual model of the how system may work d) include input from scientists, policymakers, natural resource managers and statisticians. (monitoring)

Vitt, Pati, K. Haven, A. Kramer, D. Sollenberger, E. Yates. 2009. Assisted migration of plants: Changes in latitudes, changes in attitudes. Biological Conservation. 10.1016/jbiocon.2009.08.15

• The authors discuss the strategy of collecting seeds from species likely to go extinct as a result of climate change. Prioritization of collection efforts can be determined through species distribution modeling. After collection of seeds, the authors recommend monitoring populations, and developing a plan for implementation of restoration or migration when/if appropriate. The authors argue that while the debate of whether or not to assist migration is happening, species are going extinct. They argue that seed collection and storage is a simple solution while scientists determine whether assisted migration is necessary. (Assisted Migration)

Chazdon, RL; Harvey, CA; Komar, O; et al. Beyond Reserves: A Research Agenda for Conserving Biodiversity in Human-modified Tropical Landscapes BIOTROPICA, 41 (2): 142-153 MAR 2009.

• A review of scientific knowledge of human-modified tropical forests. Lays out a clear research plan for restoring these systems, with an understandings of multiple costs and benefits (social, financial, ecological) that must be included in this approach. This paper provides a review of the integrated landscape approaches to restoration in human modified environments. By looking at a landscape scale approach through the multiple lenses of effects of human land development on biodiversity, provision of ecosystem services, and sustainability of rural livelihoods the authors touch on many of the major social and ecological issues, complexities, and opportunities of landscape scale restoration efforts. The comprehensive research agenda laid out by the authors provides a roadmap toward validating conservation strategies in human-dominated landscapes. Further, it embraces the importance of cross-disciplinary investigations. (whole landscape, as well as human aspect)

Perfecto, I., Vandermeer, J. The agroecological matrix as alternative to the land-sparing/agriculture intensification model. PNAS March 30, 2010 vol. 107 no. 13 5786-579

• This is exactly the sort of paper that would benefit much restoration ecologists, but which generally escapes their attention. Although it does not situate itself as explicitly as the ones above on a discussion of ecological restoration, it nevertheless follows the same rationale and brings the discipline around to the recognition of the full consequences of a move away from restoring historical states to domesticating ecosystems. Alongside with Newman's essay on urban ecological restoration and the ones above on novel ecosystems, we see the emergence of a much larger and richer field for ecological restoration work.

Some Ideas on Themes:

Sibyl’s list of themes/issues:
* global change, novel ecosystems
* trophic cascades (top down, bottom up)
* resilience/thresholds
* plant traits/communitiy ecology
* ecosystems services
* carbon credits
* monitoring
* participation/power
* TEK
* urban ecology
* invasive species
* applying stats

Melissa’s elaborated set of themes:

* emerging thinking/”thinking outside the box”

• global change contexts
• reference states
• novel ecosystems
  

* Applied Restoration ecology (formerly known as integrating knowledge)

• ecological theory applied to practice (community assembly, trophic interactions, soil microbes, etc)
• broader knowledge production/inclusion (TEK, stakeholder involvement, etc)
• communication between practitioners and scientists
• monitoring

* Human context

• social theory, political context, economics
• human-dominated ecosystems (we are a part of the system, urban systems need to be considered)

Some of our brainstorming ideas for broad theme:
* whole ecosystem approach/context
* world is changing, restoring in the face of change
* data driven restoration concepts

Top Ten Synthesis

In case ya'll want to get a bit quantitative about this, here are all the papers that got at least 2 votes, in order by number of votes. From this it seems like our collective interests are:

1. Novel ecosystems and novel approaches (concept papers Hobbs et al 2009, Jackson and Hobbs 2009; Seastedt et al 2008 and Funk et al 2008 brought it in with novel approaches)

2. Restoration and climate change (Bradley 2009, Hobbs and Cramer 2008, Harris et al 2006)

3. Restoration examples that consider the whole ecosystem (such as Chazdon 2009 in tropical forests and Flitcroft 2009, the Long Tom example)

4. Economic valuation of restoration and monetizing ecosystem services (e.g. Norgaard 2010, Galatowitsch 2009, Nadasdy 2007, Kosoy and Corbera 2010).

Palmer rocked the river restoration vote, and we also have a soft spot for Traditional Ecological Knowledge (Gangon et al 2009):

Paper - Votes
Hobbs et al 2009 - 9
Jackson and Hobbs 2009 - 6
Chazdon et al 2009 - 5
Norgaard 2010 - 5
Palmer 2009 - 5
Seastedt et al 2008 - 5
Flitcroft et al 2009 - 4
Galatowitsch 2009 - 4
Nadasdy 2007 - 4
Bradley et al 2009 - 3
Funk et al 2008 - 3
Gagnon et al 2009 - 3
Harris et al 2006 - 3
Hobbs and Cramer 2008 - 3
Kosoy and Corbera 2010 - 3
Palmer and Filoso 2009 - 3
deGroot et al 2010 - 2
Peterson et al 2010 - 2
Ruiz-Jaen and Aide 2005 - 2
Suding et al 2004 - 2
Veira et al 2009 - 2

*Note: these are through Kelly's entry

Top Ten Restoration Ecology Papers for Designers

There is a growing trend in the field of landscape architecture to incorporate ‘ecological’ or ‘restoration’ principles in the design of public spaces and landscapes. While we certainly support this shift towards ecological-based design, we think there is a general lack of knowledge of ecology upon which some of these designs are based. Often, a designed and restored landscape is used to substitute for an intact ecosystem that was displaced by development. The new design is often celebrated for recreating destroyed habitat, replacing ecosystem function, etc. Adequate follow-up studies, however, are very rarely, if ever, used to determine the actual efficacy of this designed environment in meeting any of the proposed restoration goals.

We used our top-ten list as an opportunity to present a list of papers that would in effect humble designers. Because of the costs involved in these designed ecosystems (economic, ecological and social) we feel that it is imperative that such actors know the reality and complexities behind the projects they support and propose. Simply drawing lines on a page that create wetland habitat and tidal marsh habitat is not enough. Practicing landscape architects and designers must, at the very least, improve their knowledge of the complexities inherent in ecological restoration, and be willing to think critically about the underlying roots of the marriage between landscape architecture and ecological restoration. To that end, we’ve put together a list of the top ten papers that every designer should read:

Note: we did not include in our list the social implications inherent in restoration as we believe that most designers already have knowledge of social factors, and yet for those that don’t, it is another topic worthy of an equally extensive review.

Hobbs, R J, Harris, J A. 2001. Restoration Ecology: Repairing the Earth’s Ecosystems in the New Millennium. Restoration Ecology 9(2): 239-246

Introduces the idea of restoration ecology and highlights the importance of using criteria to develop a restoration plan and the use of post restoration studies to judge success.

Hobbs, RJ; Higgs, E; Harris, JA. 2009. Novel ecosystems: implications for conservation and restoration. TRENDS IN ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION 24( 11): 599-605.

Important in that it questions the logic of restoring back to a previous state, which we think is illogical in many instances, but dangerous in that it might be seen by designers as a green light to create new landscapes not based on ecology.

Palmer, M. A. (2009). Reforming watershed restoration: science in need of application and applications in need of science. Estuaries and Coasts, 32, 1–17.

Critiques a number of practices being used today that are ineffective and calls for the incorporation of informed ecology into restoration.

Jackson, S. T., and R. J. Hobbs. 2009. Ecological Restoration in the Light of Ecological History. Science 325:567-569.

Highlights the need for restoration practitioners to consider restoration goals through multiple lenses. The idea that restoration must consider history, but must also be grounded in a forward-looking approach that considers variability and climate change is extremely important.

Palmer, MA; Filoso, S. 2009. Restoration of Ecosystem Services for Environmental Markets SCIENCE, 325 (5940): 575-576.

Since designers are often brought into projects that have received funding through environmental markets, it’s imperative that we understand the inherent risks and limitations associated with restoration. Without this understanding, we run the risk of “restoring ecosystem services” only on paper, with no real-world benefit, after millions of dollars have been spent.

Nadasdy, P. 2007. Adaptive Co-Management and the Gospel of Resilience. In Adaptive Co-Mangement: Collaboration, Learning, and Multi-Level Governance, eds. D. Armitage, F. Berkes and N. Doubleday. Toronto, Ontario: University of British Columbia Press.

An important paper that questions the socio-political context in which adaptive co-management (or restoration) occurs. Informed designers need to be aware of who they are restoring for, and how this affects marginalized populations.

Kosoy, N. and Corbera, E. 2010. Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism. Ecological Economics 69: 1228-1236.

An important perspective from outside the paradigm of capitalism. Viewing ecological and social problems from all viewpoints is essential for a complete understanding of the issues.

Galatowitsch, S. M. 2009. Carbon Offsets as Ecological Restorations. Restoration Ecology 17:563-570.

Illustrates the basics and the inherent difficulties in one brand of market-based restoration. These complexities need to be much better understood by those involved in restoration based on ecosystem services.

Peter W. Dunwiddie, Sonia A. Hall, et al. 2009. Rethinking Conservation Practice in Light of Climate Change. Ecological Restoration 27:3

This is an on-the-ground look at what some agencies are doing to restore ecosystems in the specter of climate change. Case studies and the logic behind the projects offer new ways of looking at such problems.

Groot, R.S. de; Alkemade, J.R.M.; Braat, L.; Hein, L.G.; Willemen, L.L. 2010. Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecological Complexity 7: 260-272.

This is an excellent introduction to the idea of restoring landscapes based on the concept of ecosystem services that also cautions designers about the complexity of ecosystem services. It’s important in that it provides a possible framework to guide future restoration projects, but also discusses the potential pitfalls associated with this landscape valuation.

Funk, JL; Cleland, EE; Suding, KN; Zavaleta, ES. 2008. Restoration through reassembly: plant traits and invasion resistance. TRENDS IN ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION 23 (12):695-703.

This paper gives readers an idea about the truly complex nature of the invasive-native relationship, while also introducing ecological theory in an accessible way. It also highlights a method for preventing the spread of invasive species through a designed landscape.

by Alex Schuknecht & Rob Tidmore

additional articles

I forgot to post separately the additional articles I mentioned... Forgive me if I overlooked one or another that may actually have been on a week's list already.

Newman, A. 2008. Inclusive Planning of Urban Nature. Ecological Rest. 26(3):229-234

Perfecto, I., Vandermeer, J. The agroecological matrix as alternative to the land-sparing/agriculture intensification model. PNAS March 30, 2010 vol. 107 no. 13 5786-579

Walker, S., Brower, A. L., Stephens, R. T. and Lee, W. G. (2009), Why bartering biodiversity fails. Conservation Letters, 2: 149–157.

Rebecca Lave, Martin Doyle, and Morgan Robertson. Privatizing stream restoration in the US. Social Studies of Science October 2010 vol. 40 no. 5 677-703

Gonzalo-Turpin, H., N. Couix, and L. Hazard. 2008. Rethinking partnerships with the aim of producing knowledge with practical relevance: a case study in the field of ecological restoration. Ecology and Society 13(2): 53.

Aronson, J., Blignaut, J. N., Milton, S. J., Le Maitre, D., Esler, K. J., Limouzin, A., Fontaine, C., De Wit, M. P., Mugido, W., Prinsloo, P., Van Der Elst, L. and Lederer, N. (2010), Are Socioeconomic Benefits of Restoration Adequately Quantified? A Meta-analysis of Recent Papers (2000–2008) in Restoration Ecology and 12 Other Scientific Journals. Restoration Ecology, 18: 143–154.

Peterson, M. J., D. M. Hall, A. M. Feldpausch-Parker, and A. T. R. Peterson. 2010. Obscuring Ecosystem Function with Application of the Ecosystem Services Concept. Conservation Biology 24: 113-119.

Kelly's Top 10

Restoration efforts are influenced by a diversity of factors: social and cultural values, species needs, and ecosystem processes and functions, to name a few. For this reason it is an inherently multidisciplinary field, requiring input from practitioners, scientist, policy makers, community members, funders, and others. Similarly, our class has been made up of a diversity of students who have varying degrees of experience on many different levels and coming from many different realms of expertise. It is for this reason that I think it is appropriate to choose the top papers of the last three years from the categories chosen by the class as they give a good representation of the major emerging and core issues in restoration ecology.

Defining a reference system, setting criteria for success

1. Jackson, S. T., & Hobbs, R. J. 2009.Ecological restoration in the light of ecological history. Ecological restoration in the light of ecological history. Science, 325(5940): 567-569.

This paper addresses the flaws involved with the continued focus on using historical reference sites to determine restoration goals. More and more this approach is being questioned as influences including alternative stable states and climate change make historical references reframe the question of what we should be restoring a site to.

Links to ecosystem ecology: recovery, succession, thresholds (disturbance regimes)

2. Hobbs, RJ; Higgs, E; Harris, JA. 2009. Novel ecosystems: implications for conservation and restoration. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 24( 11): 599-605.
This paper does a great job of introducing the idea of novel ecosystems which have broad implications for the theories surrounding restoration ecology and more importantly the practice of ecological restoration.

Links to community ecology: community assembly and invasion (biodiversity, mutualisms, trophic interactions)

3. Wallem, P.K., C.R. Anderson, G. Martinez-Pastur, and M.V. Lencinas. 2010. Using assembly rules to measure the resilience of riparian plant communities to beaver invasion in subantarctic forests. Biological Invasions. 12:325-335.

This paper does a great job of demonstrating how building resiliency in a system requires many steps including the identification of important functions which support resiliency and inform restoration activities.

Links to landscape ecology: dispersal, connectivity, urban-wildland

4. Chazdon, RL; Harvey, CA; Komar, O; et al. 2009. Beyond Reserves: A Research Agenda for Conserving Biodiversity in Human-modified Tropical Landscapes. Biotropica. 41 (2): 142-153

This paper provides a review of the integrated landscape approaches to restoration in human modified environments. By looking at a landscape scale approach through the multiple lenses of effects of human land development on biodiversity, provision of ecosystem services, and sustainability of rural livelihoods the authors touch on many of the major social and ecological issues, complexities, and opportunities of landscape scale restoration efforts.

Links to social ecology: education, traditional knowledge, community involvement

5. Gagnon, C. A., and D. Berteaux. 2009. Integrating traditional ecological knowledge and ecological science: a question of scale. Ecology and Society. 14(2): 19

This paper does a good job of comparing how both scientific and traditional knowledge is useful when approaching restoration and addresses how values are inherently involved in both view points.

6. Flitcroft, R. L., D. C. Dedrick, C. L. Smith, C. A. Thieman, and J. P. Bolte. 2009. Social infrastructure to integrate science and practice: the experience of the Long Tom Watershed Council. Ecology and Society .14 (2): 36.

This paper is a useful study in the effectiveness of a community involved project where all the stakeholders are involved to accomplish a flexible and adaptive design. It is a useful example for other communities who wish to pursue a landscape scale restoration project.

Links to economics: ecosystem services

7. Norgaard, R. 2010. Ecosystem services: from eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder. Ecological Economics. 69: 1219-1227.

This paper provides a broad perspective on the problems involved in giving economic value to ecosystem services and issues faced by the market system in approaching complex ecological problems.

8. Nicolás Kosoy and Esteve Corbera. 2010. Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism. Ecological Economics. 69(6,1): 1228-1236

This paper highlights the technical and ethical implications involved the commodification of ecosystem services which narrows complex ecosystem functions to a sing service.

Interactions with Global Change

9. A Hobbs, Richard J.A Cramer, Viki A.T. Restoration Ecology: Interventionist Approaches for Restoring and Maintaining Ecosystem Function in the Face of Rapid Environmental Change. 2008. Annual Review of Environment and Res

This paper reviews the importance of incorperating our growing knowledge of how climate change will have vast ecological impacts into restoration design and management. It also highlights the importance of greater coordination between experts across social and scientific fields in these efforts.

10. Galatowitsch, S. M. 2009. Carbon Offsets as Ecological Restorations. Restoration Ecology. 17:563-570.

This paper highlights the lack of input restoration ecologists have provided regarding carbon offset programs. It argues that restoration ecologists need to be leaders in these efforts to inform restoration projects funded and implemented under the auspicious of carbon offset, acting as a balance to hegemonic financial interests.

The chosen papers did a good job of introducing the many interdisciplinary issues directing the path restoration ecology is taking. Over and over these papers demonstrate how restoration projects are primarily value driven and therefore there is an increasing need to bring everyone to the table as more and more time, energy and money is put into restoration efforts around the world.

image credit: University of Wisconsin restoration Ecology logo

Top 10

Restoration ecology is a young science in a rapidly changing world. Multiple change factors, including global climate change, altered nutrient cycles, species invasion, and habitat fragmentation, can combine to exacerbate the effects of site-specific degradation and stymie restoration efforts. Recognizing these interacting factors has led to three major developments in restoration ecology: (1) A need to shift our goals from restoring an historic system and toward intervening to create a system we desire in the future (2) A recognition that our restoration approaches must account for multiple change factors (3) A reality that policy response to global change is increasingly focused on carbon sequestration. Restoration ecologists need to effectively navigate ecosystem service markets, and particularly carbon credits markets, in order to maximize restoration outcomes.

These themes and my specific paper recommendations were chosen through an informal combination of the following metrics: (1) An ISI search of “restoration ecology” between 2008 and 2010, sorted by times cited, (2) The 5 most-downloaded papers from Restoration Ecology, (3) Expert opinion; i.e. papers assigned by Katie, (4) Peer opinion, i.e. papers selected and voted for by this class, (5) Personal opinion, based on my own reading and thoughts. Most are conceptual and review papers, but there are a few data papers:

1. Jackson, S. T., and R. J. Hobbs. 2009. Ecological Restoration in the Light of Ecological History. Science 325:567-569.
A concise and compelling thought piece about why the idea of “restoring” an ecosystem fails to acknowledge indigenous land use as well as future global change. The conclusions of the paper push restoration away from its focus on reference sites. It’s worth considering the whole Science special section as entry one in a restoration “top 10” list.

2. Hobbs, RJ; Higgs, E; Harris, JA. 2009. Novel ecosystems: implications for conservation and restoration. TRENDS IN ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION 24( 11): 599-605.
Develops the idea of “novel ecosystems” – systems that are a mix of native and exotic species, which are occurring from combined global change. Novel ecosystems are a reality and can include desirable and non-desirable attributes: restoration should manage these ecosystems to maximize specific values rather than aim to return them to prior states.

3. Schaefer, V. 2009. Alien Invasions, Ecological Restoration in Cities and the Loss of Ecological Memory. RESTORATION ECOLOGY 17 (2): 171-176.
In top-5 recent Restoration Ecology downloads. Builds the argument that we need to consider feedback loops between species and their environments – feedback loops between native species and their environment can maintain a restoration trajectory, feedback loops between invasive species and their environment can impede restoration.

4. Brewer, J.S. and T. Menzel. 2009. A method for evaluating outcomes of restoration when no reference sites exist. Restoration Ecology 17: 4-11.
In top-5 recent Restoration Ecology downloads. Recognizing that we often do not know what a site looked like before degradation, Brewer and Menzel develop a habitat data matrix approach to assess the success of a restoration project in the absence of a reference site.

5. Chazdon, RL; Harvey, CA; Komar, O; et al. Beyond Reserves: A Research Agenda for Conserving Biodiversity in Human-modified Tropical Landscapes BIOTROPICA, 41 (2): 142-153 MAR 2009.
A review of scientific knowledge of human-modified tropical forests. Lays out a clear research plan for restoring these systems, with an understandings of multiple costs and benefits (social, financial, ecological) that must be included in this approach.
Related paper: Chazdon, RL 2008. Beyond deforestation: Restoring forests and ecosystem services on degraded lands. SCIENCE 32(5882): 1458-1460.

6. Funk, JL; Cleland, EE; Suding, KN; Zavaleta, ES. Restoration through reassembly: plant traits and invasion resistance. TRENDS IN ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION 23 (12):695-703. 2008.
A creative review of how planting native species with functional traits similar to likely invasive species may decrease invasion rates. This paper has fueled a larger movement to link plant traits and ecological filters with restoration.

7. Bradley, BA; Blumenthal, DM; Wilcove, DS; Ziska, LH. 2010. Predicting plant invasions in an era of global change. TRENDS IN ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION 25 (5): 310-318.
Bradley et al. consider three primary global change factors, climate change, increased resource availability and land cover change in a review describing how these factors will affect invasion. Highlights areas for future research.
Related paper: Bradley, BA; Oppenheimer, M; Wilcove, DS. 2009. Climate change and plant invasions: restoration opportunities ahead?. GLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY 15 (6): 1511-1521.

8. Biggs, R; Carpenter, SR; Brock, WA. 2009. Turning back from the brink: Detecting an impending regime shift in time to avert it. PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 106(3): 826-831.
If degradation causes as system to pass a threshold or experience a “regime shift”, it may require a lot of effort to restore the system to its prior state. It can be very difficult to identify a regime shift before it occurs: Biggs et al. propose a model to detect regime shifts in fisheries.
***Not on original lists***

9. Goldman, RL, Tallis, H, Kareiva, P, Daily, G. C. 2008. Field evidence that ecosystem service projects support biodiversity and diversity options. PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 105(27): 9445-9448.
Restoration projects are increasingly being viewed as carbon sequestration projects. Goldman et al. review funding to The Nature Conservancy to show that with growing carbon markets more money is now going to restoration, rather than money being diverted from traditional biodiversity restoration toward restoration for carbon sequestration.

10. Gagnon, CA; Berteaux, D. 2009. Integrating Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Ecological Science: a Question of Scale ECOLOGY AND SOCIETY, 14(2): Art. No. 19.
Compares Inuit traditional knowledge with scientific knowledge about the arctic fox and snow goose. Provides a case study for how traditional and scientific knowledge can complement one another to build a greater ecological understanding of a system.

A List of 10 Papers

In the field, species identification can be both frustrating and rewarding. Plant traits can be hard to decipher without specialized equipment and identification keys can often seem like they are written in cryptic code. This is especially true if plant identification takes place outside of the flowering period. Whether a plant is species A or species B, whether it has compound palmate leaves or a fused stamen, whether it is a keystone species or it is functionally redundant, are all intellectually interesting questions. Yet, when the practice of identification moves from an intellectual pursuit to part of the processes of commodifying wetlands, of complying with regulations and legal mandates, of marketing and corporate social responsibility, it becomes political. At that moment, the practice of plant identification is subsumed within a larger and dialectically bound set of biogeochemical, social, political, and economic processes. Socioecological complexity, it turns out, is quite a bit more complicated than it is currently theorized.

Ecological Restoration as a scientific and political project must become a fundamental part of future environmental and developmental policy. If we are to even begin to think about “saving the environment,” or slowing down the “great extinction spasm” and mitigating climate change, not only must we make this century the era of (socio)ecological intervention, we must do it so at the scales, both temporal and spatial, that can then serve as a threshold for a necessary state shift in the global socioecological system. But this necessary scaling up of ecological restoration can only be accomplished, in the current political economic environment, by private financing via marketization of ecosystem services and/or corporate social responsibility, or through state, federal, and international mechanisms that create liabilities and force compliance. Questions involving the origins and the influence of funding in shaping restoration goals are then crucial for understanding the practice and science of ecological restoration and how we judge success. Because social and economic objectives are becoming increasingly important to funding, management, and political/social acceptance of restoration projects, understanding social, economic and political processes must become part of the field of restoration ecology.

Restoration ecology arose in opposition to and only makes sense within the current logic of landscape discipline (i.e the current ways we organize nature). Maybe the goal should be to make restoration ecology irrelevant by reaching the critical scales at which new organizational thresholds appear. I’m ready to try, how about you?

A list of 10 papers:

Coase, R. H. 1960. The Problem of Social Cost. Journal of Law and Economics 3:1-44.

Costanza, R., R. d'Arge, R. de Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. Hannon, K. Limburg, S. Naeem, R. V. O'Neil, J. Paruelo, R. G. Raskin, P. Sutton, and M. van der Belt. 1997. The Value of the World's Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital. Nature 387:253-260.

Holl, K. D., and R. B. Howarth. 2000. Paying for Restoration. Restoration Ecology 8:260-267.

Robertson, M. 2006. The Nature that Capital Can See: Science, State, and Market in the Commodification of Ecosystem Services. Environment and Planning D 24:367-387.

Nadasdy, P. 2007. Adaptive Co-Management and the Gospel of Resilience. In Adaptive Co-Mangement: Collaboration, Learning, and Multi-Level Governance, eds. D. Armitage, F. Berkes and N. Doubleday. Toronto, Ontario: University of British Columbia Press.

Galatowitsch, S. M. 2009. Carbon Offsets as Ecological Restorations. Restoration Ecology 17:563-570.

Hobbs, R. J., E. Higgs, and J. A. Harris. 2009. Novel Ecosystems: Implications for Conservation and Restoration. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 24:599-605.

Palmer, M. A., and S. Filoso. 2009. Restoration of Ecosystem Services for Environmental Markets. Science 325:575-576.

Veira, D. L. M., K. D. Holl, and F. M. Peneireiro. 2009. Agro-Successional Restoration as a Strategy to Facilitate Tropical Forest Recovery. Restoration Ecology 17:451-459.

Peterson, M. J., D. M. Hall, A. M. Feldpausch-Parker, and A. T. R. Peterson. 2010. Obscuring Ecosystem Function with Application of the Ecosystem Services Concept. Conservation Biology 24:113-119.

Image credit: Adam R. - Arches National Park 2010