Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Empirical and Theoretical Ecology as a Basis for Restoration: An Ecological Success Story

  • Chapter
Successes, Limitations, and Frontiers in Ecosystem Science

Summary

Within this chapter, some samples of the contributions of ecological science to the process of disturbed system restoration are discussed. At nearly every stage of the development of restoration science, ecological studies have made significant contributions to developing more effective restoration procedures. Increasingly, ecosystem science and its intellectual approaches are being adopted by restorationists. Whole-system perspectives are now commonly included in restoration plans, modelling as a knowledge-organizing activity appears in many projects, especially those of large areal extent, and attention to such ecosystem processes as cycles of chemicals and not merely the list of component species is evolving.

Just as restoration has benefited from ecological knowledge, so has ecology benefited from restoration activities. In this chapter, insight into many ecological processes and phenomena have been highlighted in the context of restoration. Ecological theory is easily tested in the milieu of the highly managed restoration process. Additionally, restoration projects are often of a size and intensity that could neither be duplicated nor funded to conduct normal ecological research. In a sense, restoration projects are some of the large experiments that ecologists cannot afford to conduct. We must avail ourselves of these unique opportunities.

Ecology-based restoration will probably become more important in the future for two reasons. First, there will be more disturbed areas to restore than at present, and second, ecology-based restoration is apt to provide efficient methods (in terms of both time and money) of restoration. Various examples of ecology-based restoration projects have been presented in this chapter, and some comments about the future are offered both to alert ecologists to the future, and to bring decision-makers, restoration practitioners, and ecologists into closer partnerships.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Abrams, P.A. 1996. Evolution and the consequences of species introductions and deletions.Ecology77:1321–1328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, E.B. 1992. Evaluating community level processes to determine reclamation success. Pages 47–58 in J.C. Chambers, and G.L. Wade, eds.Evaluating reclamation success: the ecological consideration. General Technical Report NE-164. USDA Forest Service, Northeast Forest Experiment Station, Charleston, WV.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, M.F. 1991.The ecology of mycorrhizae. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, M.F., L.E. Hipps, and G.L. Wooldridge. 1989. Wind dispersal and subsequent establishment of VA mycorrhizal fungi across a successional arid landscape.Landscape Ecology2:165–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, M.F., and J.A. MacMahon. 1985. Impact of disturbance on cold desert fungi: comparative microscale dispersion patterns.Pedobiologia28:215–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, M.F., and J.A. MacMahon. 1988. Direct VA mycorrhizal inoculation of colonizing plants by pocket gophers(Thomomys talpoides)on Mount St. Helens.Mycologia80:754–756.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ames, M. 1993. Sequential sampling of surface-mined land to assess reclamation.Journal of Range Management46:498–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bentham, H., J.A. Harris, P. Birch, and K.C. Short. 1992. Habitat classification and soil restoration assessment using analysis of soil microbiological and physicochemical characteristics.Journal of Applied Ecology29:711–718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowles, M.L., and C.J. Whelan. 1994.Restoration of endangered species. Conceptual issues planning and implementation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Box, J. 1996. Setting objectives and defining outputs for ecological restoration and habitat creation.Restoration Ecology4:427–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradshaw, A.D. 1984. Ecological principles and land reclamation practice.Landscape Planning11:35–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradshaw, A.D. 1987. Restoration: an acid test for ecology. Pages 23–29 in W.R. Jordan III, M.E. Gilpin, and J.D. Aber, eds.Restoration ecology. A synthetic approach to ecological research.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradshaw, A.D. 1993. Restoration ecology as a science.Restoration Ecology1:71–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradshaw, A.D., and M.J. Chadwick. 1980.The restoration of land. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, England.

    Google Scholar 

  • Briggs, M.K. 1996.Riparian ecosystem recovery in arid lands. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cairns Jr., J. 1993. Is restoration ecology practical?Restoration Ecology1:3–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cairns Jr., J. 1995. Restoration ecology: protecting our national and global life support systems. Pages 1–12 in J. Cairns Jr., ed.Rehabilitating damaged ecosystems 2nd edition.Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, S.R., and J.F. Kitchell. 1988. Large-scale experimental manipulations reveal complex interactions among lake organisms.BioScience38:764–769.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, J.C., J.A. MacMahon, and G.L. Wade. 1992. Differences in successional processes among biomes: importance in obtaining and evaluating reclamation success. Pages 59–72 in J.C. Chambers and G.L. Wade, eds.Evaluating reclamation success: the ecological consideration-Proceedings of a symposium. American Society for Surface Mining. USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Radnor, PA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, J.C., and J.A. MacMahon. 1994. A day in the life of a seed: movements and fates of seeds and their implications for natural and managed systems.Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics25:263–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clements, F.E. 1916. Plant succession: an analysis of the development of vegetation.Carnegie Institution of WashingtonPublication Number 242, 15–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collier, M.P., R.H. Webb, and E.D. Andrews. 1997. Experimental flooding in Grand Canyon.Scientific American276:82–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Croker, R.A. 1991.Pioneer ecologist: the life and work of Victor Ernest Shelford 1877–1968. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahm, C N., K.W. Cummins, H.M. Valett, and R.L. Coleman. 1995. An ecosystem view of the restoration of the Kissimmee River.Restoration Ecology3:225–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, S.M., and J.C. Ogden, eds. 1994a.Everglades: the ecosystem and its restoration.St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, FL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, S.M., and J.C. Ogden. 1994b. Toward ecosystem restoration. Pages 769–796 in S.M. Davis and J.C. Ogden, eds.Everglades: the ecosystem and its restoration. St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, FL.

    Google Scholar 

  • del Moral, R., J.H. Titus, and A.M. Cook. 1995. Early primary succession on Mount St. Helens, Washington, USA.Journal of Vegetation Science6:107–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobson, A.P., A.D. Bradshaw, and A.J.M. Baker. 1997. Hopes for the future: restoration ecology and conservation biology.Science277:515–522.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dvorak, A.J. 1984.Ecological studies of disturbed landscapes: a compendium of the results of five years of research aimed at the restoration of disturbed ecosystems. National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferris-Kaan, R. 1995.The ecology of woodland creation. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, England.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foster, D.R., J.D. Aber, J.M. Melillo, R.D. Bowden, and F.A. Bazzaz. 1997. Forest response to disturbance and anthropogenic stress.BioScience47:437–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franklin, J.F., P.M. Frenzen, and F.J. Swanson. 1995. Re-creation of ecosystems at Mount St. Helens: contrasts in artificial and natural approaches. Pages 287–333 in J. Cairns Jr., ed.Rehabilitating damaged ecosystems 2nd edition.Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedel, M.H. 1991. Range condition assessment and the concept of thresholds: a viewpoint.Journal of Range Management44:422–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, R., P. Bichier, A.C. Angon, and R. Reitsma. 1997. Bird populations in shade and sun coffee plantations in central Guatemala.Conservation Biology11:448–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffith, B., J.M. Scott, J.W. Carpenter, and C. Reed. 1989. Translocation as a species conservation tool: status and strategy.Science245:477–480.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hammer, D.A. 1997.Creating freshwater wetlands 2nd edition. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannah, L., D. Lohse, C. Hutchinson, J.L. Carr, and A. Lankerani. 1994. A prelimi-nary inventory of human disturbance of world ecosystems.Ambio23:246–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harwell, M.A. 1997. Ecosystem management of south Florida.BioScience47: 499–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgs, E.S. 1997. What is good ecological restoration?Conservation Biology11: 338–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs, R.J., and D.A. Norton. 1996. Towards a conceptual framework for restoration ecology.Restoration Ecology4:93–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holl, K.D. 1996. The effect of coal surface mine reclamation on diurnal lepidopteran conservation.Journal of Applied Ecology33:225–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holling, C.S., L.H. Gunderson, and C.J. Walters. 1994. The structure and dynamics of the everglades system: guidelines for ecosystem restoration. Pages 741–756 in S.M. Davis, and J.C. Ogden, eds.Everglades: the ecosystem and its restoration. St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, FL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jansen, A. 1997. Terrestrial invertebrate community structure as an indicator of the success of a tropical rainforest restoration project.Restoration Ecology5:115–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan III, W.R., M.E. Gilpin, and J.D. Aber. 1987.Restoration ecology. A synthetic approach to ecological research. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan III, W.R., R.L. Peters II, and E.B. Allen. 1988. Ecological restoration as a strategy for conserving biological diversity.Environmental Management12:55–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karr, J.R. 1991. Biological integrity: a long-neglected aspect of water resource management.Ecological Applications1:66–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langis, R., M. Zalejko, and J.B. Zedler. 1991. Nitrogen assessments in a constructed and a natural salt marsh of San Diego Bay.Ecological Applications1:40–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larsen, P. 1996. Restoration of river corridors: German experiences. Pages 124–143 in G. Petts and P. Calow, eds.River restoration.Blackwell Science Ltd., Oxford, England.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lockwood, J.L. 1997. An alternative to succession.Restoration & Management Notes15:45–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loucks, O.L. 1985. Looking for surprise in managing stressed ecosystems.BioScience35:428–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luken, J.O. 1990.Directing ecological succession. Chapman & Hall, London, England.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacMahon, J.A. 1981. Successional processes: comparisons among biomes with special reference to probable roles of and influences on animals. Pages 277–304 in D.C. West, H.H. Shugart, and D.B. Botkin, eds.Forest succession: concept and application.Springer-Verlag, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacMahon, J.A. 1987. Disturbed lands and ecological theory: an essay about a mutualistic association. Pages 221–237 in W.R. Jordan III, M.E. Gilpin and J.D. Aber, eds.Restoration ecology.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacMahon, J.A. 1997. Ecological restoration. Pages 479–511 in G.K. Meffe, and C.R. Carroll, eds.Principles of conservation biology 2nd edition. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Majer, J.D. 1989.Animals in primary succession. The role of fauna in reclaimed lands. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.

    Google Scholar 

  • McClanahan, T.R., and R.W. Wolfe. 1993. Accelerating forest succession in a fragmented landscape: the role of birds and perches.Conservation Biology7:279–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miyawaki, A., and F.B. Golley. 1993. Forest reconstruction as ecological engineering.Ecological Engineering2:333–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mladenoff, D.J., R.G. Haight, T.A. Sickley, and A.P. Wydeven. 1997. Causes and implications of species restoration in altered ecosystems.BioScience47:21–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munshower, F.F. 1994.Practical handbook of disturbed land revegetation. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. 1986. Ecological knowledge and environmental problem-solving. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. 1992.Restoration of aquatic ecosystems: science technology and public policy.National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naveh, Z. 1994. From biodiversity to ecodiversity: a landscape-ecology approach to conservation and restoration.Restoration Ecology2:180–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill, R.V., D.L. De Angelis, J.B. Waide, and T.F.H. Allen. 1986. A hierarchical concept of ecosystems. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Packard, S., and C.F. Mutel, eds. 1997.The tallgrass restoration handbook.Island Press, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perfecto, I., R.A. Rice, R. Greenberg, and M.E. Van der Voort. 1996. Shade coffee: a disappearing refuge for biodiversity.BioScience46:598–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petts, G., and P. Calow, eds. 1996.River restoration.Blackwell Science, Oxford, England.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, D.L., and J.A. MacMahon. 1978. Gradient analysis of a Sonoran desert bajada.Southwestern Naturalist23:669–680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pickett, S.T.A., and V.T. Parker. 1994. Avoiding the old pitfalls: opportunities in a new discipline.Restoration Ecology2:75–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Primack, R.B. 1996. Lessons from ecological theory: dispersal, establishment, and population structure. Pages 209–233 in D.A. Falk, C.I. Millar, and M. Olwell, eds.Restoring diversity. Strategies for reintroduction of endangered plants.Island Press, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichard, S.H., and C.W. Hamilton. 1997. Predicting invasions of woody plants introduced into North America.Conservation Biology11:193–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reith, C.C. 1986. Understanding reclamation with models. Pages 85–107 in C.C. Reith, and L.D. Potter, eds.Principles & methods of reclamation science.University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, NM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, G.R., and S.N. Handel. 1993. Forest restoration on a closed landfill: rapid addition of new species by bird dispersal.Conservation Biology7:271–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruesink, J.L., I.M. Parker, M.J. Groom, and P.M. Kareiva. 1995. Reducing the risks of nonindigenous species introductions.BioScience45:465–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scatolini, S.R., and J.B. Zedler. 1996. Epibenthic invertebrates of natural and constructed marshes of San Diego Bay.Wetlands16:24–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sprugel, D.G. 1991. Disturbance, equilibrium, and environmental variability: what is “natural” vegetation in a changing environment?Biological Conservation58:1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, W.K. 1995.Miracle under the oaks. The revival of nature in America.Pocket Books, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toth, L.A. 1995. Principles and guidelines for restoration of river/floodplain ecosystems-Kissimmee River, Florida. Pages 49–73 in J. Cairns Jr., ed.Rehabilitating damaged ecosystems 2nd edition.Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walters, C.J., and L.H. Gunderson. 1994. A screening of water policy alternatives for ecological restoration in the Everglades. Pages 757–767 in S.M. Davis, and J.C. Ogden, eds.Everglades: the ecosystem and its restoration. St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, FL.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, N.E. 1993. Biodiversity of rangelands.Journal of Range Management46: 2–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodside, D., and D. O’Neill. 1995. Mining in relation to habitat loss and reconstruction. Pages 76–93 in R.A. Bradstock, T.D. Auld, D.A. Keith, R.T. Kingsford, D. Lunney, and D.P. Sivertsen, eds.Conserving biodiversity: threats and solutions. Surrey Beatty & Sons Pty. Limited, Chipping Norton, NSW, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wyant, J.G., R.A. Meganck, and S.H. Ham. 1995. A planning and decision-making framework for ecological restoration.Environmental Management19:789–796.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zedler, J.B. 1995. Salt marsh restoration: lessons from California. Pages 75–95 in J. Cairns Jr., ed.Rehabilitating damaged ecosystems 2nd edition.Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zedler, J.B. 1996a. Ecological function and sustainability in created wetlands. Pages 331–342 in D.A. Falk, C.I. Millar, and M. Olwell, eds.Restoring diversity. Strategies for reintroduction of endangered plants.Island Press, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zedler, J.B. 1996b.Tidal wetland restoration: a scientific perspective and southern California focus. California Seat Grant College System, University of California, La Jolla.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zedier, J.B. 1996c. Ecological issues in wetland mitigation: an introduction to the forum.Ecological Applications6:33–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. James A. MacMahon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, NY, 12545, USA

    Michael L. Pace  & Peter M. Groffman  & 

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1998 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

MacMahon, J.A. (1998). Empirical and Theoretical Ecology as a Basis for Restoration: An Ecological Success Story. In: Pace, M.L., Groffman, P.M. (eds) Successes, Limitations, and Frontiers in Ecosystem Science. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-1724-4_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-1724-4_9

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-0-387-98475-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4612-1724-4

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation