Despite being sometimes a somewhat a defender of Clementsian ecology, I am
not much of a fan of succession theory, nor, for that matter, "competition,"
but I agree with Vasquez in spirit. No need to split any more hairs (or
species?) than necessary . . . however . . .
As to "invasives," that's what they do, and they, too have a function in the
"restoration" process, aka ecosystem dynamics. But weedy species can be a
kind of perverse (or reverse) indicator of ecosystem health; they're easier
to measure or observe than trying to determine if every leaf and petal and
squirmer and runner is in the exact place it was before disturbance. Weeds
down, ecosystem health up. Well . . . sorta like that. But one of Ewel's
criteria, "resistance to invasion," is useful. It would seem a bit much to
worry too much about the weedy stage of "succession" at the outset, unless
experience has indicated that the establishment of a healthy ecosystem will
not "drive down" weed populations to some kind of insignificance within a
reasonable time. This is one of the "lessons" it took me--oh hell, how
many?--decades to learn. I have seen too many restoration projects
diminished or damned to failure because of weed paranoia. Glyphosate (ad
nauseam) may be, if properly applied (is rarely is), may be far superior to
trampling and pulling and digging out the vintage (as it can be, in spades),
but there is often little reason to "apply" it at all. Patience. Take
courage! (I think I'll have another, mate!)
WT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vasquez, Ed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 11:09 AM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecosystem Restoration Watersheds Wetlands Streams
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Follow the Silt -Why Stream Restoration Pro jects Fail
The first rule (for all science, all thinking) is what I call the
Margaret Mead dictum: "The most important thing is to know what you
don't know." WT
This is a very good point to consider as scientist. With respect to
restoration ecology, it's important that we address the causes of
succession not the symptoms. For example, traditional methods for
controlling invasive plant species have largely relied on treating
invasive plants, which are a symptom of some altered ecological process,
rather than modifying the ecological processes that facilitates their
invasion and disrupts natural successional dynamics. Good science is not
just about setting up (shotgun approach) a randomized complete
experimental design study (statistics) to test a hypothesis...that's
math. This type of approach is shooting in the dark hoping to hit
something significant! Good science is about trying to understand the
underlying mechanisms (processes) that drive succession and specifically
addressing those as fixed factors in a study/investigation. With this
approach we may be able to develop decision making tools that will help
resource managers deal with their specific ecological issue. I know I'm
preaching to the choir, but it amazes me that many restoration
ecologists' don't get it!
******************************************************
Ed Vasquez
Research Rangeland Management Specialist
USDA-Agricultural Research Service
67826-A Hwy 205
Burns, OR 97720
(541) 573-8937 fax: (541) 573-3042
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
******************************************************
-----Original Message-----
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wayne
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 9:26 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Ecosystem Restoration Watersheds Wetlands Streams
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Follow the Silt -Why Stream Restoration Pro jects Fail
Forum:
It has been said that "nine-tenths of the hell being raised in the world
is
well-intentioned." While it is necessary to stray into uncharted waters
little by little in order to learn, the "field" of ecosystem restoration
is
clogged with cases of "professionals" operating out of their depth.
The first rule (for all science, all thinking) is what I call the
Margaret
Mead dictum: "The most important thing is to know what you don't know."
The first rule of any kind of watershed restoration is "Start at the top
and
go all the way to the bottom."
While I would be delighted to see ditch-diggers convert to restoration
ecologists, I have been, well, shall we say "surprised" at the number of
biologists and even ecologists who wade right in, waving their business
cards (presumably to dry the fresh ink?) and attempting to do it all
based
upon a mixture of just enough knowledge, just enough certification, and
just
enough "experience" to walk on water.
What is astonishing is that there should be any "failures" at all. Once
site conditions are available and the right number and balance of
propagules
(from inoculum to seeds) are introduced--by natural agency, human
intervention, or both, how can failures occur? It must take some
seriously
determined effort to mess things up. I should know, I did so for
fifteen
years before I ever even started to "succeed." (Actually, restoration
ecologists are largely bystanders who reset conditions that accelerate,
not
create, ecological processes.)
Perhaps it would be useful to list, from this huge list (well over 6,000
subscribers the last I heard a few years ago) the various kinds of
failed
projects and the reasons for them?
WT
----- Original Message -----
From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 10:49 PM
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Follow the Silt -Why Stream Restoration Projects
Fail
Follow the Silt -Why Stream Restoration Projects Fail
By CORNELIA DEAN, NYTimes. 6/24/08 Science Times section, Page 1.
Correction Appended, (Excerpt instructions below on how to get rest of
article courtesy Herpdigest)
LITITZ, Pa. - Dorothy J. Merritts, a geology professor at Franklin &
Marshall College in Lancaster, Pa., was not looking to turn hydrology on
its
ear when she started scouting possible research sites for her students a
few
years ago.
But when she examined photographs of the steep, silty banks of the West
Branch of Little Conestoga Creek, something did not look right. The silt
was
laminated, deposited in layers. She asked a colleague, Robert C. Walter,
an
expert on sediment, for his opinion.
"Those are not stream sediments," he told her. "Those are pond
sediments."
In short, the streamscape was not what she thought.
That observation led the two scientists to collaborate on a research
project
on the region's waterways. As they reported this year in the journal
Science, their work challenges much of the conventional wisdom about how
streams in the region formed and evolved. The scientists say 18th- and
19th-century dams and millponds, built by the thousands, altered the
water
flow in the region in a way not previously understood.
They say that is why efforts to restore degraded streams there often
fail.
Not everyone agrees, but their findings contribute to a growing debate
over
river and stream restoration, a big business with increasing popularity
but
patchy success.
Many hydrologists and geologists say people embark on projects without
fully
understanding the waterways they want to restore and without paying
enough
attention to what happens after a project is finished.
For the rest of the article go to
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/24/science/24stream.html?ref=science
or send a request to us for a text only version.
