ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION IN CALIFORNIA: CHALLENGES AND PROSPECTS

2007·9 MB·English

by  Michael C Vasey

Madrono, Vol. 54, No. 3, pp. 215-224, 2007
ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION IN CALIFORNIA:
CHALLENGES AND PROSPECTS
Michael C. Vasey' ^ and Karen D. Holl^
^Department ofEnvironmental Studies, University ofCalifornia, Santa Cruz, 1 156 High St.,
CA
Santa Cruz, 95064
^Department of Biology, San Francisco State University, 1600 Holloway Ave.,
CA
San Francisco, 94132
[email protected]
Abstract
Given the rich biological diversity in California and dramatic loss and modification ofits habitats,
populations, species, and ecosystems, a concerted effort has emerged to restore large areas of the
state's public and private lands. Under these circumstances, ecological restoration represents an
important element in the strategy to conserve numerous at-risk species and maintain vital ecosystem
services. After reviewing the various motivations for ecological restoration, we identify some ofthe
keychallenges,bothpracticalandtheoretical, thatarelikelytoaffectthesuccessofrestorationefforts.
We describe a shift in defining restoration success from a focus on recreating historic "pristine"
ecosystems to viewing restoration in a dynamic landscape context in which realistic novel ecosystems
are accommodated. These accommodations are necessitated by a broad array of challenges that
include several global change factors. Finally, we argue that prospects for successful ecological
restoration will be enhanced by emphasizing landscape-scale resilience and incorporating restoration
into a regionally-coordinated, active adaptive management program.
Key Words: adaptive management, Cahfornia, ecological restoration, global change, novel
ecosystems, resilience.
Cahfornia is renowned for its extraordinary net result of this diversification is an estimated
levels of biological diversity. The California 300 natural communities, 178 habitat types
Floristic Province has been recognized as one of (Schoenherr 1992), 10 floristic provinces, and 24
25 global biodiversity hot spots (Meyers et al. floristic sub-provinces (Hickman 1993). A key
2000; Konstant et al. 2005) with an estimated point is that change, and particularly the recent
overall endemism of vertebrates and insects and climatic changes during the Pleistocene, have
other invertebrates exceeding 50% and ofvascu- been an important driver in Cahfornia's biotic
lar plants approximating 35% (Schoenherr 1992). diversification. Change is not inherently bad, but
This degree ofendemism is remarkable fora large it clearly can have important ecological and
continental region located in the temperate zone. evolutionary manifestations.
Numerous reasons have been advanced to Hoekstra et al. (2005) list most of the
explain this diversity (e.g., Stebbins and Major California ecoregion as critically endangered
1965; Stebbins 1978; Raven and Axelrod 1978, based on the extremely high habitat conversion
Davis et al. 1997). These fall into a combination rate relative to area protected. Noss (1994) and
of three premises: (1) California has served as Noss and Peters (1995) note a range of highly
a refuge for a flora and fauna that was oncemuch threatened California ecosystems, including
more widespread over western North America coastal strand and dune, southern California
during the Middle-Tertiary but that became coastal sage scrub, large rivers, riparian forest
progressively restricted in range due to cooling and wetlands, native grasslands, old growth
and drying ofthe interior; (2) California served as ponderosa pine forests, cave and karst systems,
a cauldron of evolution during the Pleistocene, and ancient Pacific Northwest forests. Less than
especially among annual plants and insects, as 10% ofthe original extent ofvernal pool habitat
numerous glacial and inter-glacial cycles pro- (Zedler 2003) and about 10% of tidal wetlands
voked frequent migratory shuffling of species (Zedler 1996) remain. More than 99% of grass-
assemblages while the advent of an extreme lands in California are now dominated by non-
Mediterranean climate drove adaptation to native species (Davis et al. 1997). This habitat
a higher frequency and intensity fire regime; loss and transformation has led to extensive
and (3) California presents a remarkably hetero- fragmentation and isolation. Non-native invasive
geneous combination of geology, soils, hydrolo- species and various kinds of pollution add
gy, climate, and topography comprising a fine- additional stresses to these habitat remnants.
grained substrate on which various species This combination of conditions may lead to an
assemblages have been able to differentiate. The "extinction vortex" (Gilpin and Soule 1986) that.
MADRONO
216 [Vol. 54
absent intervention, can progress down an preventing the extinction of endangered species
irreversible path toward species extinction. and the habitats on which they rely (Ehrenfeld
Super-imposedupontheCalifornialandscapeis 2000). For example, restoration of dune habitat
the influence of human populations. Beginning in Lobos Valley on the Presidio ofSan Francisco
with the first establishment ofhuman settlements was motivated in large measure by the desire to
between 12,000 and 15,000 yr ago, humans have recover a federally listed endemic annual plant
significantly influenced the distribution and com- species, the San Francisco Lessingia {Lessingia
position ofcommunities. For example, Anderson germanorum). This effort increased the number of
(2007) reviewed the use of fire by Native individuals from the low hundreds to approxi-
Californians to improve hunting, provide defensi- mately one million (Albert 2001), while also
ble areas surrounding villages, and enhance restoring an ecological educational resource in
germination of desirable species, among other the heart of San Francisco (Holloran 1998).
reasons. Today, human populations have an even Many restoration projects also aim to provide
greater impact on species composition and bio- important ecosystem services for humans such as
diversity, as there are now approximately 36 mil- water treatment provided by wetlands or re-
lion people in California and a growth rate of habilitation of drastically disturbed ecosystems,
13.6% per decade (U.S. Census Bureau 2006). such as mines and areas contaminated by
Understandably, future population growth has chemicals that may negatively affect human
provoked alarm at prospects for the future of health. Federal and state laws (e.g., the Endan-
biodiversity in California (e.g., Jensen et al. 1993). gered SpeciesAct, Section404oftheCleanWater
In particular, even at the level of popular Act, Surface Mining and Reclamation Act)
conservation advocacy (Brower and Chappie recognize these public values and mandate
1995), recognition has emerged that preservation restoration ofcertain habitats or species. Clewell
of California's remnant wild ecosystems is not and Aronson (2006), however, highlight that
enough; rather, it isconsidered imperative that we restoration may be motivated by other reasons,
begin the process of restoring and reconnecting such as attonement for environmental damage,
threatenedhabitatsifwearetopreventthecurrent reentry into nature, renewal ofthe nexus between
and growing extinction crisis (Wilson 2002). nature and culture, and spiritual renewal. Indeed,
In this review, we explore the relationship many efforts to remove invasive non-native
between ecological restoration and biodiversity species in California are not mandated by law
conservation in the future. To set the stage for and are largely staffed by volunteer labor.
this analysis, we evaluate the range of motiva- Our goal here is not to provide an exhaustive
tions and endpoints for restoration in CaHfornia list of motivations for restoration, but rather to
and elsewhere. We then illustrate a number of note the diversity of reasons behind restoration
challenges confronting restoration efforts, focus- that will necessarily lead to differing goals of
ing on issues of landscape context and global restorationprojects. Theincreasingrecognitionof
change. Finally, we review contemporary litera- these different goals is reflected in the broadening
ture in restoration ecology that poses some definition ofrestoration. Earlypublicationsinthe
alternative prospects for how to best adjust field of restoration strove to distinguish between
conservation strategies to mesh with these over- restoration (an effort to restore 'predisturbance'
arching realities. While the application of these conditions) and efforts that aimed to reclaim or
approaches is critical to conserving biodiversity rehabilitate certain, but not all, species and
in California, they are equally compelHng in ecosystem functions (Cairns 1983; Bradshaw
a wide array of venues experiencing similar 1984). In contrast, the recent Society for Ecolog-
conservation challenges. ical (SER) definition of ecological restoration is
much more inclusive. Ecological restoration is
Motivations and Endpoints now defined as "intentional activity that initiates
FOR Restoration or accelerates the recovery of an ecosystem with
respect to its health, integrity and sustainability"
Restoration of damaged ecosystems in Cali- (SER 2004). This newer definifion reflects the
fornia and worldwide is motivated by myriad varied goals of different restoration projects, as
reasons (Ehrenfeld 2000; Clewell and Aronson well as the recognition that given historical
2006) and is undertaken by a wide array of contingencies and the dynamic nature ofecosys-
actors, ranging from volunteer community tems, it is impossible to achieve a highly fixed
groups focusing on small (sometimes less than restoration endpoint. As we argue later, changing
one hectare) sites to large multi-public agency global conditions make a broader view of the
consortiums engaged in projects involving thou- endpoint ofrestoration essential.
sands of hectares (e.g., the South Bay Salt Pond Trying to restore an exact replica of the full
Restoration Project along the shores of the San suite of pre-disturbance species is not the sole
Francisco Bay). Often restoration is initiated to reason for restoration or, perhaps, the most
achieve specific conservation goals, such as publicly compelling. Yet, biotic diversity is likely
2007] VASEY AND HOLL: ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION IN CALIFORNIA 217
to benefit from ecological restoration no matter the most important and least appreciated prob-
whatthemotive. Whatisessentialisthatthegoals lem facing restoration practitioners (Harris et al.
ofeachrestorationprojectareclearlystated atthe 2006). There are now clear signals that climate
outset, and reflect a certain degree of consensus change is affecting a host of biotic relationships
among parties involved, so that the degree of (e.g., Parmesan and Yohe 2003; Root et al. 2003;
success oftherestorationprojectcan beevaluated Thomas et al. 2004; Parmesan 2006). With
(Ehrenfeld 2000; Holl and Cairns 2002). a Mediterranean climate, CaHfornia is particu-
larly vulnerable to changes in rainfall patterns,
Challenges for Ecological Restoration snow pack storage, hydrology, temperature, and
IN California sea level rise (Callaway et al. 2007). Whereas past
efforts to conserve and restore at-risk species
Although debates about the motivations and have focused on a restricted set of habitats
endpoints of restoration are longstanding, in- impacted by large human populations (e.g.,
creasing recognition of the temporal and spatial wetlands and coastal dunes), it is now likely that
scale of human alteration require us to re- some of the most at-risk species are those that
evaluate the goals of restoration in California inhabit a broad array of environments and,
and elsewhere. Here we discuss how the spatial absent climate change, would be considered
scale that is necessary to restore ecosystem safely protected, such as high Sierran endemics
processes in the face of increasing impacts of and isolated edaphic endemics with nowhere to
global change will necessarily change how resto- migrate if local climate becomes unfavorable. In
ration is implemented and its success evaluated. this dynamic environment, active intervention
Despite the diversity of actors and scales of and strategic ecological restoration and manage-
projects, a common thread tyingmost restoration ment may be the only possible solution for "life
efforts togetheris that they are narrowly confined boating" several species through this episode of
to a given piece ofland, waterway, or particular rapid climate change. It is likely that major
habitat type (e.g., tidal wetlands). Although it is investments in current ecological restoration
widely recognized that the long-term success of projects will need to be modified to account for
restoration is dependent on the landscape-matrix problems such as rapid sea level rise and other
in which it is embedded, this recognition is rarely predictable climate-related phenomena, such as
put into practice (Holl et al. 2003). Recent studies altered rainfall patterns. These rapid climate
demonstrating the ecological importance of changes, in other words, assure that historical
cross-habitat subsidies (Pohs et al. 2004) have ecosystems will not serve as a faithful reference
served to reinforce the key role adjacent ecosys- template for future restored habitats.
tems can play in the ecological health of target
Invasive Species. The challenge of invasive
restoration habitats.
Considering restoration in a landscape context species to ecological restoration is all too well
becomes particularly critical when viewed known (D'Antonio and Myerson 2002; D'Anto-
through the lens of the serious challenges to nio and Chambers 2006). It is safe to say that the
ecological restoration now represented by global vast majority of ecological restoration activities
change. Global change agents that may dramat- in California are beset with a suite ofnon-native
invasive species. In an ideal world, restoration
ically affect ecological restoration in the future
include: (1) several related phenomena associated would involve stimulating ecological processes,
with rapidclimatechange includinganincreasein such as fire, natural succession, and sediment
deposition that would lead over time to desired
ptaetmtpeerrnast,uraen,dsienacrleeavesledriesxe,traelmteerewdeaptrheecripietvaetnitso;n natural communities. When non-native invasive
(2) the introduction of invasive non-native species enter the system and set offin unpredict-
able trajectories, they act to potentially exclude
species, including disease microbes; (3) the
desirable native species and undermine desired
atmospheric deposition of pollutants, e.g., nitro-
gen, and theirinfluence on biogeochemical cycles; outcomes. Since these non-native species usually
and (4) changing socio-economic patterns that come from other Mediterranean regions (Major
MEA and Barbour 1988) they are well-suited to
affect land use practices (Vitousek 1994;
2005). Many ofthese are discussed in more detail CaHfornia's Mediterranean climate and thrive
in other articles in this special issue of Madrono under current disturbance regimes. Further, non-
that is dedicated to exploring the topic of nraatmiovreumi,nvtahseivaegednitsecaasuess,ingsuScuhddaesn POhayktoDpetahtehr,a
ecological restoration in a changing world using
case studies from CaHfornia (Suttle and Thomp- and West Nile virus impact natural populations
son 2007; Callawayet al. 2007; Purcell et al. 2007; of common species, such as oaks and corvid
Rein et al. 2007; all in this volume). birds, creatingtrophic impacts to various levels of
species assemblages. The challenge of invasive
Climate Change. Potential developments asso- species, like climate change, may represent
ciated with rapid climate change may represent a virtually intractable reality that will simply
MADRONO
218 [Vol. 54
haveto be accepted and integrated into ecological valleys. Declines in prices of beef can cause
restoration goals and practices (D'Antonio and ranchers to sell their ranches for suburban home
Meyerson 2002; Keeley 2005). The omnipresence development. Development of homes in flood
of invasive species may be the most powerful plains in the Sacramento Valley can affect the
argument of all that there is no turning back to ability to create setback levees and to restore
some vision ofa "pristine" historic ecosystem in riparian forests. All of these local and regional
California. economicphenomenaaretodaylinkedto aglobal
economic engine that is highly dependent upon
Atmospheric deposition. The challenge of at- factors that transcend California's economy.
mospheric nitrogen deposition is an insidious
phenomenon that affects several ecosystems in
California. For example, in species rich serpen- Importance of Social Context
tinegrasslands located in areas with high volumes
of automobile traffic, nitrogen deposition pro- Although it is clear that restoring ecological
motes the success of non-native annual grasses processes will require large-scale coordination,
that suppress native annual herbs which are a major challenge is how to create institutional
utilized by rare butterflies such as the Bay mechanisms that will coordinate and support
Checkerspot, consequently reducing the popula- restoration activities at landscape and even
tion viability of this endangered species (Weiss regional scales among a diversity of actors over
1999). In southern California, montane chaparral extended periods of time. There are numerous
and yellow pine forests are impacted by the examples of this sort of coordination ranging
from Coordinated Resource Management and
combination of both ozone and nitrogen pollu-
tetional.du2e00t3o).suWmhmielresamboogvein-vgerrosuinodn ebffieocmtsas(sFeinnn- tPhleanCniAnLgFgEroDupBsacyo-nDfeilnteadAtuotshionrgilteywattheartsehendcsomt-o
cdfirenecearsereasosoedtdu,emraetssosualtafinenrgdtiiclniahzraebtiiogohhnytdeefrnfaeetcdte,vuabllenlleoorcawabt-iiglorinotyuanrodef plSaaasnnsdeJsaortaehaqeuoeifnntCiarrleiivdferrosraniin(aaa)gp.epsrAooxfpirtmohametieSslaiycnrg4a0emx%eanmtopoflaetnhides
these communities to wild fire. Also, nitrate the 2003 law (SB 107) creating a California
Natural Communities Conservation Program
runoff is increased dramatically, causing eutro- (NCCP). Cahfornia's NCCP focuses on natural
phic impacts to aquatic habitats that are influ-
enced by this runoff. These are just a few of the communities in which at-risk species are found,
manifestations of a broader problem involving but it also takes a broader landscape and/or
the general disruption of global biogeochemical regional approach to conservation strategies. For
example, a Yolo County Habitat Conservation
cycles due to pollution. Similarto climate change,
the effects of pollution are large-scale and rapid Plan (HCP/NCCP) currently underway (2006)
rpterilemaseteisnvcceaeleitsoonfogetecoodllirooeggciitcclaayllarpetpsirtmeoecr.iaatitHoeondwpienlvaetnhrne,intgytphiaecniadlr iasNednCvvveioCrslaoPvlre'scsitiareespJaoornitdntYpoePrlotoawiCenoriusnngtAytg.orAetehrimesecneYntotlsobceietHnwtCeiPfei/nc
implementation. It is likely that disruptions of (Spencer et al. 2006) outUnes a series of
biogeochemical cycling are another major factor management recommendations that involve res-
toration practices that are designed to improve
wthaaytsisthsahtaapriengstielcloyleotgipcoaolrlreystuonrdaetrisotnoaocdtibviuttietshaitn chaobmitmaotsn sfpoercieas. Tvahreievtiyrtuoeftoats-urcihska palnadn, mwohreen
will increasingly influence restoration trajectories.
and if adopted, is that local governments can
Land-use practices. A final element of global create zoning and other land use regulations that
change that merits attention is the socio-econom- have greater potency in guiding land use deci-
ic drivers of land use practice (Vitousek 1994; sions and practices than virtually any other
MEA
2005). Land use practice in California is public policy mechanisms (Jantz et al. 2007).
governed by a complex web of national, state, Unfortunately, these NCCPs and HCPs gen-
and local policies that attempt to protect the erally do not go farenough to engage the broader
public trust (e.g., conserve natural resources) public, including multiple restoration actors, in
whilecontendingwith a majority oflands that are strategic conservation and restoration activities.
privately owned (Jantz et al. 2007). As local Rather, there is still a perception that these
economies increasingly become part of a global- conservation plans have a long way to go to
ized market, unexpected changes in global reconcile the inherent conflicts between human
economic conditions (e.g., new markets or lost land use practices and the preservation of bio-
markets) can have major impacts on local land diversity (Feldman and Jonas 2000). Also,
use patterns (Lambin et al. 2001; Wadley et al. analyses of the focus on listed species for multi-
2006). For example, a relatively sudden surge in species conservation planning has come under
the demand for wine can lead to large-scale loss criticism forits inadequacy (Rubinoff2000; Rahn
ofoak woodland and chaparral habitat on slopes et al. 2006). But, the recent passage ofa strength-
surrounding California's coastal and interior ened law and the wave of new NCCP proposals
2007] VASEY AND HOLL: ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION IN CALIFORNIA 219
underway may represent important forerunners Clearly, for "adaptive management" to be mean-
of the kinds of institutions that ultimately could ingful, there must be at least as great an
be applied to this need for landscape and regional investment in "learning" as in "doing" (Vasey
coordination. 2003) and a much stronger effort made to engage
Such efforts to coordinate actions are necessary academic scientists, students, and restoration
not only because of the spatial scale of such practitioners (e.g., agency, non-profit, and con-
projects, but also because a reactive counter- sultants) in partnerships in which these adaptive
movement has emerged that presents a consider- management programs are designed and imple-
able level of social resistance to some ecological mented. Such an effort should include more
restoration activities (Gobster 2000). This social fundingand incentivesforcreatingeffective public
resistance can create major roadblocks to restora- outreach. Perhaps, byencouraginga more "public
tion activities that impact both the cost and ecology" (Robertson and Hull 2001) in which
timeliness of restoration implementation. Social science-based alternatives are explored in a trans-
resistance can occur both in an urban context, as parentmannerwithpublicstakeholders (Purcellet
with the San Francisco Natural Areas Program al. 2007, this volume), the onus to coordinate
wheredogwalkerandtreeadvocatecitizengroups restorationactivitiesatbroaderscalesinapublicly
derailed a management planning process for supportive environment might take root.
remnant natural areas (Garcia 2002a, b), and in Efforts to promote an exchange ofinformation
rural environments, such as the ambitious Sacra- and opinions among land owners, government
mento River Restoration Program where some agencies, and scientists are necessarily challeng-
involved farmers perceive restored areas as having ing, costly, and time consuming, but essential to
negative impacts on agricultural production (Go- the success oflarge-scale restoration efforts. Two
let et al. 2006; Buckley and Haddad 2006). good examples involve the exploration of alter-
Causes for social resistance to ecological native futureswith stakeholders in theWillamette
restoration are multiple. However, one problem Valley, Oregon, where GIS tools and computer
stems from a conceptual challenge to restoration models were used to explore future land use
ecology itself, namely, the definition of "restora- scenarios with stakeholders in the region (Baker
tion" and how practitioners and the public et al. 2003) and a similar public outreach process
interpret this concept. For practitioners, there is involving large-scale management of fire-prone
still controversy over whether restoration should ponderosa pine ecosystems and the urban-wild-
be focused on recoveringecosystems to some type land interface (Sisk et al. 2006). Other well
of historic "pristine" reference condition or publicized large-scale collaborative institutional
whetherrestoration should beviewed as aprocess arrangements for conserving and restoring natu-
CALFED
in which future ecosystems are shaped to ral resources, such as the Bay-Delta
maximize native species persistence, ecosystem Program and the Everglades Comprehensive
functions, and ecosystem services. For some Restoration Plan have met with mixed success
people, the notion of moving society back (Heikkila and Gerlak 2005). CALFED began in
towards a more "pristine" nature is a threatening 1994 as a forum for federal and state agencies to
prospect. Consequently, the rationale of re- develop a plan for managing the region around
creating historic natural conditions may be one the San Francisco Bay and San Joaquin-Sacra-
of the primary deterrents to public support for mento River Delta. It now includes 23 state and
restoration activity. federal agencies responsible for adaptively man-
Given the difficulties in coordinating heteroge- aging water resources and protecting natural
neous restoration activities, and the challenge of resources and funds a great deal of science to
generating public support for these activities, it is inform management decisions in this region
vital that socio-economic investments in restora- (Jacobs et al. 2003; Heikkila and Gerlak 2005).
tionaregroundedin a robust scientificframework It has led to dialogue among scientists, local land-
(Falk et al. 2006). Much ofthe information from owners, and many government agencies, much
various projects that could help to improve better coordination of management activities,
restoration science is not being gathered nor and an improved transparency of science that is
communicated(Holletal. 2003). Amajorproblem used for decision making. But achieving these
is the lack of investment in monitoring and goals has been a long and arduous process, and
CALFED
adaptive management. For example, Bernhardt has been criticized for spending
et al. (2005) synthesized information on 37,099 millions of dollars without clear evidence of
national river and stream restoration projects. accomplishments.
Only 10% of these projects had any post-
implementation assessment or monitoring. Of Prospects for the Future of Ecological
the approximately 3700 that did receive some Restoration in California
post-implementation evaluation, most did not
evaluate consequences of restoration activities or The new definition of ecological restoration,
provide for dissemination of monitoring results. with its focus on the recovery of ecosystem
—
MADRONO
220 [Vol. 54
health, integrity and sustainability (SER 2004), more adaptive focus on shaping future ecosys-
helps to push the science and practice of tems. However, moving from a general call for
ecological restoration beyond the goal ofrecreat- a broader view of restoration endpoints to
ing historic ecosystems. In the future, ecosystems making specific recommendations for how to
are more likely to be shaped so as to both design restoration plans in light ofclimatechange
perpetuate indigenous species and ecological is challenging, particularly given the uncertainty
functions while accommodating global change in the models that make specific predictions
in a more flexible and adaptive framework. This about how climate change will be manifested
conceptual shift in the focus of restoration (Weltzin et al. 2003; Callaway et al. 2007). Many
ecology is gaining momentum (e.g., Aronson have suggested increasing habitat connectivity in
and van Andel 2005; Palmeret al. 2005; Hobbs et fragmented landscapes to allow for species
al. 2006; Harris et al. 2006). For example, Hobbs migration in response to a changing climate
et al. (2006) explore the potential importance of (e.g., Donald and Evans 2006; Wilmers and Getz
"novel ecosystems" (i.e., "emerging ecosystems") 2005) demonstrate the importance of restoring I
that can be defined as "ecosystems containing intact food chains to buffer changing climatic
new combinations of species that arise through conditions. Other authors have noted the need to
human action, environmental change, and the consider whether there is sufficient genetic
impacts of deliberate and inadvertent introduc- variation in the propagules introduced as part
tion ofspecies from other regions". Palmer et al. of restoration to allow them to adapt to and
(2005) highlight the importance of selecting survive in future climate conditions (Rice and
a "guiding image" for river restoration that is Emery 2003; Saenz-Romero et al. 2006). In-
a realistic approximation ofan achievable result: creasingly, there is recognition that wetland
"Rather than attempt to recreate unachievable or restoration projects need to be designed recog-
even unknown historical conditions, we argue for nizing predicted sea level rises, although the
a more pragmatic approach in which the specifics ofthe rate ofrise are difficult to predict
restoration goal should be to move the river (Georgiou et al. 2005; Callawayet al. 2007). How
towards the least degraded and most ecologi- to design restoration for future conditions will
cally dynamic state possible, given the re- certainly be a growing area of research, but will
gional context" (p. 210 in Palmer et al. necessarily remain challenging given the uncer-
2005). tainty regarding the many climatic feedbacks and
It is noteworthy that some of the most other global changes at play (Rein et al. 2007;
advanced thinking along these lines comes out Suttle and Thomsen 2007; Callaway et al. 2007;
of Europe, a region in which landscapes have all in this volume).
been transformed by human practices for many This broader view ofrestoration is likely to be
millennia. Folke et al. (2002) and Bengtsson et al. more inclusive of different stakeholder's needs
(2003) articulate the need to tailor conservation and, therefore, should find broader public
practices to enhance resilience, defined as the support than a simple focus on restoring a few
"capacity to buffer change, learn and develop", endangered species. But, broadening the defini-
and the importance of adaptation to dynamic tion of restoration potentially increases the
human-influenced landscapes. Recognizing the conflicts about restoration goals and endpoints.
likely influence ofglobal change, Bengtsson et al. As we have noted earlier, the primary challenges
(2003) advocate a landscape-scale approach to to managing in a landscape context are as much
preserving "ecological memory"; i.e., the species, social as biological in that they involve policy
interactions, and structures that make ecosystem coordination, overcoming social resistance, and
reorganization possible in the face of changed supporting a more actively engaged scientific
conditions. Similar calls come from the contem- community in the practice ofrestoration ecology
porary American environmental movement, such (Holl et al. 2003). Resolvingconflicting needs will
as David Brower, who pointed out that "Resto- require embracing the recent movement towards
rationisnot aneffort to stop theclo—ck, butrather stakeholder participation throughout the resto-
a chance to keep the clock running in fact, our ration planning, implementation, monitoring,
best chance" (p. 99 in Brower and Chappie 1995). and adaptive management process (Holl and
Brower envisioned a combination of Conserva- Cairns 2002; Palmer et al. 2005). As discussed \
tion, Preservation, and Restorati—on (CPR) previously, this is a long and challenging process,
a metaphor for earth resuscitation as the key but engaging in this dialogue from the outset is I
strategy for recovering the earth's ecological much more likely to result in success in the long
vitality. run (Palmer et al. 2005). |
Given the challenges in which ecological Ultimately, the key to our ecological and
restoration and conservation management are evolutionary future is promoting resihence and
being practiced today in California and else- adaptation to what are likely to become in-
where, we believe that it is critical that we creasingly dynamic landscape processes (Folke et
embrace the creative potential inherent in this al. 2002; Bengtsson et al. 2003; Carpenter and
2007] VASEY AND ROLL: ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION IN CALIFORNIA 221
Folke 2006). Under this scenario, it is probable Literature Cited
that ecological restoration will play an increas- Albert, M. 2001. Botanical wonder of the dunes—San
ingly important role in shaping the future of Franciscolessingia{Lessingiagermanorum). In:http://
California's ecosystems and in creating a bridge www.nps.gov/prsf/nathistl/nathist/lessingl.htm.
for its rich biological diversity to survive these Accessed July 14, 2006.
changes as California's ecosystems experience Anderson, M. K. 2007. Native American uses and
biological reorganization. It behooves the eco- management of grasslands. Pp. 57-67 in M. R.
logical restoration community to adjust to this Stromberg, J. D. Corbin, and C. M. D'Antonio
new reality by adopting realistic standards for (eds.), California grasslands: ecology and manage-
ment. UniversityofCalifornia Press, Berkeley, CA.
restoration (Palmer et al. 2005). Also, it is Aronson, J. AND J. VAN Andel. 2005. Challenges for
essential to frame future restoration projects in ecological theory. Pp. 223-233 in J. van Andel and
a landscape context and to account for the J. Aronson (eds.). Restoration ecology: the new
emergence of novel ecosystems. Finally, there frontier. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, U.K.
must be greater investment in not only doing but Atkinson, A. J., P. C. Trenham, R. N. Fisher, S. A.
learning as well; i.e., the practice of developing Hathaway, B. S. Johnson, S. G. Torres, and
robust scientific approaches to conducting active Y. C. MoORE. 2004. Designing monitoring pro-
adaptive management. This will require the grams in an adaptive management context for
support of the pub—lic, government, and the rGeegoiloongailcamlultSiuprlveeys,peWceiesstecronnseErcvoaltogiiocnalplaRness.eaUr.cSh.
scientificcommunity atall orderbut anecessary Center, Sacramento, CA.
one if the practice of ecological restoration is to Baker, J. P., D. W. Hulse, S. V. Gregory, D.
be a cornerstone in sustaining California's bio- White, J. van Sickle, P. A. Berger, D. Dole,
diversity and its future ecological health. and N. H. Schumaker. 2003. Alternative futures
forthe Willamette River basin, Oregon. Ecological
Applications 14:313-324.
Summary Barbour, M. G. and J. Major (eds) 1988. Terrestrial
vegetation ofCalifornia. Special Publication Num-
Ecological restoration will be a key to ber 9, CaliforniaNativePlantSociety, Sacramento,
conserving California's rich biodiversity, howev- CA.
er, the future impacts and uncertainties inherent Bengtsson, J., p. Angelstam, and T. Elmqvist.
in global change require that we adjust our 2003. Reserves, resilience, and dynamiclandscapes.
Ambio 32:389-396.
approach to the science and practice of restora-
tion ecology. In particular, we need to embrace BernAhlaerxdatn,deEr.,S.K,.MB.arAn.asP,alSm.eBrr,ooJ.ksD,.JA.lClaarnr,,GS..
a broader definition of restoration ecology that Clayton, C. Dahm, J. Follstad-Shah, D.
focuses more on shaping future ecosystems Galat, S. Gloss, P. Goodwin, D. Hart, B.
rather on trying to re-invent historic conditions; Hassett, R. Jenkinson, S. Katz, G. M. Kon-
i.e., place less emphasis on reference conditions. DOLF, p. S. Lake, R. Lave, J. L. Meyer, T. K.
We also need to engage in landscape and O'DoNNELL, L. Pagano, B. Powell, and E.
regionally scaled conservation and restoration SUDDUTH. 2005. Synthesizing U.S. river restora-
programs in which various public actors and tion efforts. Science 308:636-637.
scientists are fully engaged. And finally, we need Bradshaw, a. D. 1984. Land restoration: now and in
the future. Proceedings of the Royal Society of
to invest in meaningful, long-term adaptive London B 223:1-23.
management of restoration projects, so that we Brower, D. and S. Chapple. 1995. Let themountains
learn as we go and are able to make timely talk, let the rivers run: a call to those who would
corrections and disseminate information to other save the Earth. Harper Collins Publishers, New
practitioners. York, NY.
Although the. challenges are great, successful Buckley, M. and B. M. Haddad. 2006. Socially
restoration projects have taught us that ecosys- strategic ecological restoration: a game-theoretic
tems are inherently resilient if we can be analysis. Environmental Management 38:48-61.
sufficiently flexible as a society to give them the Cairns, J. J. 1983. Management options for rehabil-
opportunity to flourish. The key is to couple titeamtsi.onMiannedraelnshaanncdetmheentEnovfirsounrfmaecnet-m5i:n3e2d-3e8c.osys-
realistic restoration expectations while creating Callaway, J., V. T. Parker, M. Vasey, and L.
that opportunity on a broad enough scale to SCHILE. 2007. Changing issues for the restoration
sustain these species and ecosystems over time. of tidal marsh ecosystems in the context of
predicted climate change. Madrono 54:234-248.
Acknowledgments Carpenter, S. R. and C. Folke. 2006. Ecology for
tranformation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution
The authors thank JeffCorbin for taking the lead in 21:309-315.
organizing the symposium that gave rise to this special Clewell, a. F. and J. Aronson. 2006. Motivations
issue of Madrono and also members of the California for the restoration of ecosystems. Conservation
Botanical Society Council for supporting this effort. Biology 20:420^28.
Jaymee MartyandJeffCorbin provided helpfulreviews D'Antonio, C. and L. a. Meyerson. 2002. Exotic
and suggestions to improve this manuscript. plant species as problems and solutions in ecolog-
MADRONO
222 [Vol. 54
ical restoration: a synthesis. Restoration Ecology planning restoration oflarge alluvial rivers: a case
10:703-713. study ofthe Sacramento River project, California.
AND J. C. Chambers. 2006. Using ecological Environmental Management 37:862-879.
theorytomanage or restoreecosystems affected by Harris, J. A., R. J. Hobbs, E. Higgs, and J.
invasive plant species. Pp. 260-279 in D. A. Falk, Aronson. 2006. Ecological restoration and global
M. A. Palmer, and J. B. Zedler(eds.), Foundations climate change. Restoration Ecology 14:170-176.
ofRestoration Ecology. Island Press, Washington, Heikkila,T.anda. K. Gerlak. 2005.Theformation
DC. of large-scale collaborative resource management
Davis, S. D., V. H. Heywood, O. Herrera- institutions: clarifying the roles of stakeholders,
MACBRYDE, J. ViLLA-LOBOS, AND A. C. HAMIL- science, and institutions. Policy Studies Journal
TON (eds). 1997. Centers ofplant diversity: a guide 33:583-612.
and strategy for their conservation: the Americas. Hickman, J. C. (ed.) 1993. The Jepson manual: higher
WWF/IUCN, lUCN Publications, Cambridge, plantsofCalifornia. UniversityofCalifornia Press,
MA. Berkeley, CA.
Donald, P. F. and A. D. Evans. 2006. Habitat Hobbs, R. J., S. Arico, J. Aronson, J. S. Baron, P.
connectivity and matrix restoration: the wider Bridgewater,V.A. Cramer, P. R. Epstein,J.J.
implications ofagri-environment schemes. Journal EwEL, C. A. Klink, a. E. Lugo, D. Norton, D.
ofApplied Ecology 43:209-218. Ojima, D. M. Richardson, E. W. Sanderson, F.
Ehrenfeld, J. G. 2000. Defining the limits of Valladares, M. Vila, R. Zamora, and M.
restoration: theneedforrealisticgoals. Restoration Zobel. 2006. Novel ecosystems: theoretical and
Ecology 8:2-9. management aspects of the new ecological world
Falk, D. A., M. A. Palmer,and J. B. Zedler(eds.). order. Global Ecology and Biogeography 15:1-7. |
2006. Foundations ofRestoration Ecology. Island HoEKSTRA, J. M., T. M. Boucher, T. H. Ricketts,
Press, Washington, D.C. and C. Roberts. 2005. Confronting a biome
Feldman,T. D. anda. E. G. Jonas. 2000. Sagescrub crisis: global disparities of habitat loss and pro-
revolution? Property rights, political fragmenta- tection. Ecology Letters 8:23-29.
tion, and conservation planning in southern HOLL, K. D. AND J. Cairns, Jr. 2002. Monitoring i
California under the Federal Endangered Species ecological restoration. Pp. 413^44 in I. M. Perrow
Act. Annals of the Association of American and A. J. Davy (eds.). Handbook of Ecological ;
Geographers 90:256-292. Restoration. Cambridge University Press, Cam-
Fenn, M. E.,J. S. Baron, E. B. Allen, H. M. Rueth, bridge.
K. R. Nydick, L. Geiser, W. D. Bowman, J. O. , E. E. Crone, and C. B. Schultz. 2003.
SiCKMAN, T. Meixner, D. W. Johnson, and p. Landscape restoration: movingfromgeneralitiesto
i
Neitlich. 2003. Ecological effects of nitrogen methodologies. Bioscience 53:491-502.
deposition in the western United States. Bioscience Holland, R. F. and S. K. Jain. 1990. Vernal pools. j
53:404-420. Pp. 515-533 in M. Barbour and J. Major (eds.). :
FoLKE, C, S. Carpenter, T. Elmqvist, L. Gunder- Terrestrial vegetation of Cahfornia. California
SON, C. S. HOLLING, AND B. WALKER. 2002. Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA.
Resilience and sustainable development: building HOLLORAN, P. 1998. Seeing the trees through the
adaptive capacity in a world of transformations. forest: oaks and history in the Presidio. Pp. 333- j
Ambio 31:437^40. 352 inJ. Brook, C. Carlsson andN. J. Peters (eds.), |
Garcia, K. 2002a. Public ire at parks habitat program Reclaiming San Francisco: history, recent politics, j
rises.San Francisco Chronicle, July 19, 2002. Pp. culture. City Lights, San Francisco, CA.
WB-1.Availableat:http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article. Jacobs, K. L., S. N. Luoma, and K. A. Taylor. I
cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/07/19/WB6330.DTL. 2003. CALFED an experiment in science and
AccessedJuly 14, 2006. decisionmaking. Environment 45:30-41.
. 2002b. S.F. residents battling plant lovers: Jantz, p. a., B. F. L. Preusser, J. K. Fujikawa,J. A. I
little-known group chopping down trees. San KuHN,C.J. Bersbach,j. L. Gelbard,andF.W.
Francisco Chronicle, April 23, 2002. Available Davis. 2007. Regulatory protection and conserva-
at: http://www.lakemerced.org/Press/chronicle/ tion. Pp. 420^22 in M. R. Stromberg, J. Corbin,
sfchronicle_042302.html. Accessed July 14, 2006. and C. D. D'Antonio (eds.), California grasslands: I
Georgiou, I. Y., D. M. Fitzgerald, and G. W. ecology and management. University ofCalifornia
Stone. 2005. The impact of physical processes Press, Berkeley, CA.
along the Louisiana coast. Journal of Coastal Jensen, D. B., M. S. Torn, and J. Harte. 1993. In
Research 44(Special Issue):72-89. our own hands: a strategy for conserving Califor-
Gilpin, M. E. and M. E. Soule. 1986. Minimum nia's biodiversity. University of California Press,
viable populations: processes ofspecies extinction. Berkeley, CA. j'
Pp. 19-34 in M. E. Soule (ed.). Conservation Keeley, J. 2005. Firemanagement impacts oninvasive
biology: the science of scarcity and diversity. species in the western United States. Conservation
Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. Biology 20:375-384.
Gobster, p. H. 2000. Human actions, interactions and KoNSTANT, W. R., D. Taylor, D. A. Wake, S. R.
reactions. Pp. 1-20 in P. H. Gobster and B. Hull LoARiE, R. Bittman, and B. Ertter. 2005.
(eds.). Restoring nature: perspectives from the California FloristicProvince. In R. A. Mittermeier,
social sciences and humanities. Island Press, P. R. Gil, M. Hoffman,J. Pilgrim,T. Brooks, C. G.
Covelo, CA. Mittermeier, J. Lamoreux, G. A. B. da Fonseca,
Golet, G. H., M. D. Roberts, R. A. Luster, G. and P. A. Seligmann (eds.), Hotspots revisited:
Werner, E. W. Larsen, R. Unger, and G. G. Earth's biologically richest and most endangered |
:
White. 2006. Assessing societal impacts when terrestrial ecoregions. Available at: http://www.
2007] VASEY AND HOLL: ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION IN CALIFORNIA 223
biodiversityscience.org/publications/hotspots/Califomia. Fingerprints of global warming on wild animals
html.AccessedonJuly 14,2006. and plants. Nature 421:57-60.
Lambin, E. p., B. L. Turner, H. J. Geist, S. B. Rubinoff, D. 2000. Evaluating the California gnat-
Agbola, a. Angelsen, J. W. Bruce, O. T. catcher as an umbrella species for conservation of
CooMES, R. DiRZO, G. Fischer, C. Folke, P. S. southern California coastal sage scrub. Conserva-
George, K. Homewood, J. Imbernon, R. Lee- tion Biology 15:137^1383.
mans, X. Li, E. F. Moran, M. Mortimore, P. S. SAenz-Romero, C, R. Ricardo Guzman-Reyna,
Ramakrishnan, J. F. Richards, H. Skanes, W. AND G. E. Rehfeldt. 2006. Akitudinal genetic
Steen, G. D. Stoneu, U. Svedin, T. A. Veld- variation among Pinus oocarpa populations
KAMP, C. VoGEL, AND J. Xu. 2001. The causes of in Michoacan, Mexico: implications for seed
land-use and land-cover change: moving beyond zoning, conservation, tree breeding and global
the myths. Global Environmental Change 11:261- warming. Forest Ecology and Management 229:
269. 340-350.
MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). 2005. SCHOENHERR, A. A. 1992. A natural history of
Ecosystems and human well-being: Current state California. University of California Press, Berke-
and trends. Island Press, Washington DC. ley, CA.
Myers, N., R. A. Mittermeier, C. G. Mittermeier, SER. 2004. The SER primer on ecological restora-
G. A. B. DA FONSECA, AND J. KENT. 2000. tion, version 2. Available at: http//:www.ser.org/
Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. reading_resources.asp. Accessed July 14, 2006.
Nature 403:853-858. SiSK, T. D., J. W. Prather, H. M. Hampton, E. N.
Noss, R. F. 1994. California's ecosystem decline. AUMACK, Y. XU, AND B. G. DiCKSON. 2006.
Defenders 69(4), 34-35. Participatory landscape analysis to guide resto-
AND R. L. Peters. 1995. Endangered ecosys- ration of ponderosa pine ecosystems in the
tems: a status report on America's vanishing American Southwest. Landscape and Urban Plan-
habitat and wildlife. Defenders ofWildlife, Wash- ning 78:300-310.
ington, DC. Spencer, W., R. Noss, J. Marty, M. Schwartz, E.
Palmer, M. A., E. S. Bernhardt, J. D. Allan, P. S. SODERSTROM, P. BLOOM, AND G. WYLIE. 2006.
Lake, G. Alexander, S. Brooks, J. Carr, S. Report of independent science advisors for
Clayton, C. N. Dahm, D. L. G. J. F. Shah, S. G. Yolo County Natural Community Conservation
Loss, P. Goodwin, D. D. Hart, B. Hassett, R. Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP) in
Jenkinson, and G. M. Kondolf. 2005. Stan- http://www.dfg.ca.gOv/nccp/status.htm#Yolo. Last
dards for ecologically successful river restoration. viewed May 18, 2006.
Journal ofApplied Ecology 42:208-217. Stebbins, G. L. 1978. Why are there so many rare
Parmesan, C. 2006. Ecological and evolutionary plants in California? I. Environmental factors.
responses to recentclimatechange. Annual Review Fremontia, 6-10.
of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 37:637 ANDJ. Major. 1965. Endemism and Speciation
639. in the California Flora. Ecological Monographs
AND G. YoHE. 2003. A globally coherent 35:1-35.
fingerprint of climate change impacts across SuTTLE, K. B. AND M. A. Thomsen. 2007. Climate
natural systems. Nature 421:37^2. change and the fate of native bunchgrasses in
PoLis, G. A., M. E. Power, and G. R. Huxel (eds.) California: lessons from six years of rainfall
2004. Food webs at the landscape level. University manipulation in a north coast grassland. Madrono
ofChicago Press, Chicago, IL. 54:225-233.
PURCELL, A. H., J. D. CORBIN, AND K. E. Hans. 2007. Thomas, C. D., A. Cameron, R. E. Green, M.
Urban riparian restoration: an outdoor classroom Bakkenes, L. J. Beaumont, Y. C. Collingham,
for college and high school students collaborating B. F. N. Erasmus, M. F. de Siqueira, A.
in conservation. Madrofio 54:258-267. Grainger, L. Hannah, L. Hughes, B. Hunt-
Rahn, M. E., H. Doremus, and J. Diffendorfer. ley, A. S. van Jaarsveld, G. F. Midgley, L.
2006. Species coverage in multispecies habitat Miles, M. A. Ortega-Huerta, A. T. Peterson,
conservation plans: where's the science? Bioscience O. L. Phillips, and S. E. Williams. 2004.
56:613-619. Extinction risk from climate change. Nature 427:
Raven, P. H. and D. I. Axelrod. 1978. Origin and 145-148.
relationships of the California flora. University of U. S. Census Bureau. 2006. State and county quick
California Publications in Botany 72:1-134. facts. Available at: http://quickfacts.census.gov/
Rein, F. A., M. Los Huertos, K. D. Hole, andJ. H. qfd/states/06000.html. Accessed May 1—8, 2006.
Langenheim. 2007. Restoring native grasses as Vasey, M. C. 2003. Adaptive management the future
vegetative buffers in a coastal California agricul- ofhabitat conservation planning. Linkages (Spring
tural landscape. Madrofio 54:249-257. Issue):1-5.
Rice, K. J. and N. C. Emery. 2003. Managing ViTOUSEK, P. M. 1994. Beyond global warming:
microevolution: restoration in the face of global ecology and global change. Ecology 75:1861-1876.
change. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment Wadley, R. L., O. Mertz, and A. E. Christensen.
1:469^78. 2006. Local land use strategies in a globalizing
Robertson, D. P. and R. P. Hull. 2001. Beyond world: managing social and environmental dynam-
biology: toward a more public ecology for conser- ics. Land Degradation and Development 17:117-
vation. Conservation Biology 15:970 979. 121.
Root, T. L. J. T. P., K. R. Hall, S. H. Schneider, Weiss, S. B. 1999. Cars, cows, and checkerspot
C. A. ROSENZWEIG, AND J. A. POUNDS. 2003. butterflies: nitrogen deposition and management
MADRONO
224 [Vol. 54
of nutrient-poor grasslands for a threatened spe- WiLMERS, C. C. AND W. M. Getz. 2005. Gray wolves
cies. Conservation Biology 13:1476-1486. as climate change buffers in Yellowstone. PLoS
Weltzin, J. F., M. E. LoiK, S. Schwinning, D. G. Biology 3:e92.
Williams, P. A. Fay, B. M. Haddad, J. Harte, Wilson, E. O. 2002. The future of hfe. Alfred A.
T. E. HuxMAN, A. K. Knapp, G. H. Lin, W. T. Knopf, New York, NY.
PocKMAN, M. R. Shaw, E. E. Small, M. D. Zedler, J. B. 1996. Coastal mitigation in southern
Smith, S. D. Smith, D. T. Tissue, andJ. C. Zak. California: the need for a regional restoration
2003. Assessing the response of terrestrial ecosys- strategy. Ecological Applications 6:84-93.
tems to potential changes in precipitation. Bio- Zedler, P. H. 2003. Vernal pools and the concept of
Science 53:941-952. "isolated wetlands". Wetlands 23:597-607.