Linking Restoration and Ecological Succession (Springer ... - Inecol

Chapter 8 Integrating Restoration and Succession 171
(Lockwood and Pimm 1999). Indeed, all the chapters in the book emphasize
that structure and function go hand in hand, and that one cannot readily be
restored without the other. However, one may not need all the species that were
once in a particular location to successfully restore ecosystem function. Partial
restoration of function, in turn, allows most species to return and persist.
The goals that are chosen also depend on a number of considerations, including
the current state of the system and the degree of disturbance that has been
experienced in the past and is currently being experienced. In some cases, the
state of the system has been irrevocably changed and a return to the original may
be impractical (see Chapters 3 and 7). In addition to restoring these intrinsic
properties of the system, the levels of economic resources and societal commitment
to the restoration are important determinants of what can realistically
be achieved. These latter aspects are critical determinants, but are not fixed
and can change with changing societal attitudes and political settings. A recent
example of this is the situation in and around New Orleans (USA), where the
extent of the damage from Hurricane Katrina in September 2005 was in some
part attributable to the decline in coastal wetlands and barrier islands on the
Louisiana coast. The problem of degrading coastal ecosystems had been recognized
for some time, and ambitious but costly restoration projects had been
proposed but rejected by the government prior to the hurricane. Post-Katrina,
it is now thought that the government will be much more easily convinced that
such projects should go ahead (Arnold 2006).
8.5 How Does Restoration Proceed?
The “How?” of restoration is intimately tied up with the “Why?” and “What?”
questions. Deciding how to restore a degraded landscape involves selecting
from the current and expanding set of management options available, given
limitations set by the system to be restored, and the financial resources and expertise
available to do it. Proximate considerations relate to the type and extent
of damage being reversed. In some cases, the system can be left to regenerate
on its own or simple inexpensive biotic manipulations may be all that is required.
Alternatively, more expensive species introductions and plantings may
be needed. In some cases, abiotic factors may need remediation first (Whisenant
2002, Chapters 5 and 6). Further considerations relate to the spatial scale of the
restoration project. Clearly, small, patch-scale restorations will have very different
methodologies and constraints from broad-scale landscape and regional
restoration efforts. Nonetheless, even landscape restoration has to be conducted
by treating individual landscape elements, and careful attention to spatial relations
is essential. Guidance for making these restoration decisions comes from
an understanding of successional dynamics at the site.
Broader considerations relate to the societal will and ability to undertake
restoration and decisions about who should conduct the restoration. In many
cases, it is either the company responsibility for the degradation or a government
agency, but over the past two decades, more community groups and nongovernment
organizations have become involved in restoration programs. Is anyone
interested in doing anything, and is there sufficient time and money to conduct
the restoration effectively? Is there sufficient political will and are there effective
policy mechanisms in place to allow the restoration to proceed? Is there sufficient
knowledge to undertake the restoration, and who holds that knowledge?