A Realistic Role for Reference in Wetland Restoration

Wetland restoration projects are often evaluated for success or failure by comparing attributes of restored ecosystems to undisturbed reference ecosystems. This method of evaluation has several flaws, including site-specific responses of restored ecosystems to topographic and geomorphic changes during degradation and restoration, the substantial differences in structure and function of early (restored) and mature (reference) ecosystems, and the inherent variability that exists for ecosystems that may not be represented in reference systems. We need a better framework for evaluating restoration success. Success could be demonstrated by using ecosystem attributes that indicate ecosystem integrity and maturation over time, such as: stable landforms, native plant community development, internal carbon and nutrient storage and cycling, connectivity within the broader landscape, ecosystem heterogeneity, and increasing complexity in species and community diversity. A more realistic role for reference areas in wetland restoration is useful information on structural and functional attributes of ecosystems and an indication of the natural variability that exists in ecosystems that we hope to emulate. Ultimately though, success in wetland restoration depends on our ability to establish conditions that promote ecosystem maturation and integrity and reference systems may be of limited value to evaluate this success.

[1]  R. Marrs,et al.  Do restored calcareous grasslands on former arable fields resemble ancient targets? The effect of time, methods and environment on outcomes , 2008 .

[2]  M. Power,et al.  Structural and Functional Loss in Restored Wetland Ecosystems , 2012, PLoS biology.

[3]  Robert A. Pastorok,et al.  An ecological decision framework for environmental restoration projects , 1997 .

[4]  M. Brinson,et al.  Application of Reference Data for Assessing and Restoring Headwater Ecosystems , 1999 .

[5]  V. Christensen.  Ecosystem maturity - towards quantification , 1995 .

[6]  R. Brooks,et al.  Canopy Composition and Forest Structure Provide Restoration Targets for Low‐Order Riparian Ecosystems , 2009 .

[7]  National Research Council,et al.  Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems. , 1993 .

[8]  A. G. Endress,et al.  Trajectories of vegetation-based indicators used to assess wetland restoration progress. , 2009, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[9]  S. Fennessy,et al.  Review of: Restoration of aquatic ecosystems: Science, technology, and public policy: Committee on Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems-Science, Technology, and Public Policy, National Research Council. National Academy Press, Washington, DC , 1993 .

[10]  J. Griffith,et al.  SER International Primer on Ecological Restoration , 2013 .

[11]  Debbie Whitall,et al.  WETLANDS , 1995, Restoration & Management Notes.

[12]  A. Watts,et al.  The Myths of Restoration Ecology , 2005 .

[13]  J. Ehrenfeld,et al.  Rapid Assessment of Urban Wetlands: Do Hydrogeomorphic Classification and Reference Criteria Work? , 2009, Environmental management.

[14]  T. Mitchell Aide,et al.  Restoration Success: How Is It Being Measured? , 2005 .

[15]  A. Newton,et al.  Enhancement of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services by Ecological Restoration: A Meta-Analysis , 2009, Science.

[16]  Robert P. Brooks,et al.  Are we purveyors of wetland homogeneity?: A model of degradation and restoration to improve wetland mitigation performance , 2005 .

[17]  Walter K. Dodds,et al.  Comparing Ecosystem Goods and Services Provided by Restored and Native Lands , 2008 .

[18]  Mark M. Brinson,et al.  The Role of Reference Wetlands in Functional Assessment and Mitigation , 1996 .

[19]  Sven Erik Jørgensen,et al.  Ecological Engineering and Ecosystem Restoration , 2003 .

[20]  J. Denslow.  Patterns of plant species diversity during succession under different disturbance regimes , 1980, Oecologia.

[21]  Lynton K. Caldwell,et al.  Science, Technology, and Public Policy , 1981 .

[22]  Richard J. Hobbs,et al.  Habitat Restoration—Do We Know What We’re Doing? , 2007 .

[23]  M. Wassen.  The use of reference areas in the conservation and restoration of riverine wetlands , 2005 .

[24]  E. Odum.  The strategy of ecosystem development. , 1969, Science.

[25]  Mary E. Kentula,et al.  Trends and patterns in section 404 permitting requiring compensatory mitigation in Oregon and Washington, USA , 1992 .

[26]  Peter M. Vitousek,et al.  Ecosystem Succession and Nutrient Retention: A Hypothesis , 1975 .

[27]  B. Palik,et al.  USING LANDSCAPE HIERARCHIES TO GUIDE RESTORATION OF DISTURBED ECOSYSTEMS , 2000 .

[28]  Jeffrey W. Matthews,et al.  Convergence and divergence in plant community trajectories as a framework for monitoring wetland restoration progress , 2010 .

[29]  M. Rode,et al.  The role of plant resources in forest succession: changes in radiation, water and nutrient fluxes, and plant productivity over a 300-yr-long chronosequence in NW-Germany , 1999 .

[30]  D. Whigham,et al.  Ecological issues related to wetland preservation, restoration, creation and assessment , 1999 .

[31]  Joy B. Zedler,et al.  Tracking Wetland Restoration: Do Mitigation Sites Follow Desired Trajectories? , 1999 .

[32]  Heather C. Venhaus,et al.  Exploiting the attributes of regional ecosystems for landscape design: The role of ecological restoration in ecological engineering☆ , 2007 .

[33]  J. Petranka,et al.  Tulula Wetlands Mitigation Bank , 2001, Ecological Restoration.

[34]  S. Pimm.  The complexity and stability of ecosystems , 1984, Nature.

[35]  E. Kiviat,et al.  Functional assessment of a reference wetland set as a tool for science, management and restoration , 2002, Aquatic Sciences.

[36]  Sam H. Ham,et al.  A planning and decision-making framework for ecological restoration , 1995 .

[37]  Stephen H. Schoenholtz,et al.  Achieving Restoration Success: Myths in Bottomland Hardwood Forests , 2001 .

[38]  D. Tilman.  Biodiversity: Population Versus Ecosystem Stability , 1995 .