Restoring for Natural Authenticity

Abstract

In the practice of restoration we strive to restore healthy ecosys-tems, which I characterize as those that meet the following crite-ria: A restored healthy ecosystem contains a broad representation of species from the kind of ecosystem that is being restored. These consist of indigenous species to the greatest practicable extent and represent all of the structural and functional species-groups necessary for the development of that ecosystem. The physical environment has been suitably prepared to sustain these species as reproducing populations. Insofar as possible, potential threats to the restored ecosystem from the surrounding area have been eliminated. T h e restored ecosystem is apparently functioning rea-sonably well in terms of energy flow and nutrient cycling. The restored ecosystem is dynamic with respect to species recruit-ment, population growth, food-web development, accumulation of biomass, carbon storage, moisture balance, microclimatic con-trol, interspecific interactions, and the differentiation of habitat for specialized species. The restored ecosystem is sufiiciently resilient to endure normal stress events in the local environment, such as periodic fire or seasonal flooding. I t is self-sustaining, although it may and probably will need periodic post-restoration management to resist pervasive human influences, such as those caused by damaging land-use activities and the inexorable spread of exotic species. The restored ecosystem has the potential to per-sist indefinitely, although it may change in appearance in response to ecosystem dynamics and stress. I t is also potentially capable of evolving in response to long-term environmental changes in geomorphology, climate, sea level, etc. In addition to these criteria, the restored ecosystem provides natural services of economic, cultural, and aesthetic consequence, and it harbors germ plasm, can accommodate rare and endangered species, and otherwise conserves biodiversity. In this article I explore two questions of authenticity that are raised by the concept of restoration. First: Is what we restore nat-ural? In other words, does a restored ecosystem exhibit natural authenticity! By this I mean an ecosystem that developed in response to natural processes and that lacks indications of being intentionally planned or cultured. Or should every restored ecosystem be considered artifice and merely a replica of nature? The second question is: To what degree can we return authentic-ity in a restored ecosystem relative to the original one it replaces? In other words, can we really put the ecosystem back the way it was with historical authenticity? The answer to the first question is an emphatic yes. The prin-cipal task of restoration practice is to initiate or accelerate ecosys-tem dynamics-that is, natural autogenic processes. Once these processes of self-renewal have fully resumed, the practitioner's