Home About us Contact | |||
Restoration Science (restoration + science)
Selected AbstractsOn the Status of Restoration Science: Obstacles and OpportunitiesRESTORATION ECOLOGY, Issue 2 2007Evan Weiher Abstract Terrestrial restoration ecology is not as well developed as aquatic and wetland restoration. There are several key obstacles to progress in restoration ecology, but these obstacles may also be viewed as opportunities to exploit. One obstacle is demonstration science, or an overreliance on simplistic experiments with few treatment factors and few levels of those factors. Complex, multivariate experiments yield greater insights, especially when teamed with sophisticated methods of data analysis. A second key obstacle is myopic scholarship that has led to little synthesis and weak conceptual theory. A greater awareness of and explicit references to ecological principles will help develop the conceptual basis of restoration science. Where should restoration ecology be headed? We should consider forming partnerships with developers, landscape artists, and industry to do complex, large-scale experiments and make restoration a more common part of everyday life. [source] The ecology of restoration: historical links, emerging issues and unexplored realmsECOLOGY LETTERS, Issue 6 2005T. P. Young Abstract Restoration ecology is a young academic field, but one with enough history to judge it against past and current expectations of the science's potential. The practice of ecological restoration has been identified as providing ideal experimental settings for tests of ecological theory; restoration was to be the ,acid test' of our ecological understanding. Over the past decade, restoration science has gained a strong academic foothold, addressing problems faced by restoration practitioners, bringing new focus to existing ecological theory and fostering a handful of novel ecological ideas. In particular, recent advances in plant community ecology have been strongly linked with issues in ecological restoration. Evolving models of succession, assembly and state-transition are at the heart of both community ecology and ecological restoration. Recent research on seed and recruitment limitation, soil processes, and diversity,function relationships also share strong links to restoration. Further opportunities may lie ahead in the ecology of plant ontogeny, and on the effects of contingency, such as year effects and priority effects. Ecology may inform current restoration practice, but there is considerable room for greater integration between academic scientists and restoration practitioners. [source] A Striking Profile: Soil Ecological Knowledge in Restoration Management and ScienceRESTORATION ECOLOGY, Issue 4 2008Mac A. Callaham Jr. Abstract Available evidence suggests that research in terrestrial restoration ecology has been dominated by the engineering and botanical sciences. Because restoration science is a relatively young discipline in ecology, the theoretical framework for this discipline is under development and new theoretical offerings appear regularly in the literature. In reviewing this literature, we observed an absence of in-depth discussion of how soils, and in particular the ecology of soils, can be integrated into the developing theory of restoration science. These observations prompted us to assess the current role of soil ecological knowledge in restoration research and restoration practice. Although soils are universally regarded as critical to restoration success, and much research has included manipulations of soil variables, we found that better integration of soil ecological principles could still contribute much to the practice of ecosystem restoration. Here we offer four potential points of departure for increased dialog between restoration ecologists and soil ecologists. We hope to encourage the view that soil is a complex, heterogeneous, and vital entity and that adoption of this point of view can positively affect restoration efforts worldwide. [source] Science Driven Restoration: A Candle in a Demon Haunted World,Response to Cabin (2007)RESTORATION ECOLOGY, Issue 2 2007Christian P. Giardina Abstract Cabin (2007) asks whether formal science is an effective framework and methodology for designing and implementing ecological restoration programs. He argues that beyond certain ancillary benefits, restoration science has little of practical value to offer the practice of restoration. He goes on to suggest that restoration science most often represents an impediment to restoration practice because an "ivory tower" mentality limits the utility of experiments and diverts research dollars away from answering practical questions. His conclusion is that a nonscientific gardening approach may be more effective at restoring degraded ecosystems. We disagree with this perspective because: (1) restoration science has moved beyond exclusively using "square grids" placed on small patches of land to examine treatment effects on species representation; (2) Cabin's critique greatly undervalues the contribution of science to restoration practice even where the input of restoration scientists is not directly evident; and (3) the practice of restoration is unlikely to advance beyond small-scale and truly haphazard successes without well-designed studies that can provide peer-reviewed and widely accessible published information on the mechanisms underlying both successes and failures. We conclude that through integration with other disciplines, restoration science increasingly will provide novel approaches and tools needed to restore ecosystem composition, structure, and function at stand to landscape scales. As with the broader role of science in the human enterprise (Sagan 1996), the contribution of restoration science to restoration practice can only grow as the discipline matures. [source] On the Status of Restoration Science: Obstacles and OpportunitiesRESTORATION ECOLOGY, Issue 2 2007Evan Weiher Abstract Terrestrial restoration ecology is not as well developed as aquatic and wetland restoration. There are several key obstacles to progress in restoration ecology, but these obstacles may also be viewed as opportunities to exploit. One obstacle is demonstration science, or an overreliance on simplistic experiments with few treatment factors and few levels of those factors. Complex, multivariate experiments yield greater insights, especially when teamed with sophisticated methods of data analysis. A second key obstacle is myopic scholarship that has led to little synthesis and weak conceptual theory. A greater awareness of and explicit references to ecological principles will help develop the conceptual basis of restoration science. Where should restoration ecology be headed? We should consider forming partnerships with developers, landscape artists, and industry to do complex, large-scale experiments and make restoration a more common part of everyday life. [source] |