Ecosystems respond well to restoration
A new analysis contradicts the popular notion that ecosystems take centuries or even millenniums to recover.
By Moises Velasquez-Manoff | Staff writer for The Christian Science Monitor/ July 13, 2009 edition
During the 20th century, the world’s population nearly quadrupled, from 1.6 billion people in 1900 to 6 billion by century’s end. In that same period, the world’s gross domestic product ballooned from $1.98 trillion to over $28 trillion (both in 1990 dollars), according to author John R. McNeill.
Throughout this period of unprecedented economic expansion and population growth, humanity also transformed the earth. “This is the first time in human history that we have altered ecosystems with such intensity, on such scale, and with such speed,” writes Mr. McNeill in his book “Something New Under the Sun.”
Vertebrate numbers are down by one-third since the 1970s, according to the WWF. And between 20 and 30 percent of plants and animals are in danger of extinction with the temperature increases that are likely this century, says the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The plight of other living things aside, scientists worry that humanity’s demands on – and disruption of – natural systems threaten their very ability to support people. Scientists increasingly stress the need for active conservation – not just putting bits of nature off limits, but restoring degraded ecosystems. The question is: Can ecosystems recover after such major disturbances?
A new analysis in the June issue of the journal PLoS ONE finds that, if societies commit to cleanup and restoration, ecosystems can recover faster than previously thought.
Surveying 240 studies, scientists at the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies found that the speed of recovery depended upon the type of ecosystem and the growth rate of the organisms within it. Forests recovered within 42 years, but ocean floors in less than a decade. Polluted ecosystems – those plagued by oil spills, mining, trawling, or invasive species – could recover in just five years. Only 15 percent were deemed beyond recovery.
The findings seem to contradict the popular notion that ecosystems take centuries or even millenniums to recover – boosting the rationale for proactive conservation.
( More stories )
Comments
2. The Traveler | 07.14.09
We can and must start the process!! Although our work may not be as lovely as mother nature. Our work gives mother nature back the canvas to do her wonder and Us the time to grow up as a productive part of Mother Natures painting. As a people “all of US” forgot to respect “everything” the things that make it possible for us and our great grand children to live.
3. Carolyn Hopper | 07.14.09
Roadsides along what Charles Kurault called “The Most Beautiful Highway in America”– the Beartooth Highway between Montana and Wyoming are being scraped and bulldozed in order to make the road safe for enormous recreation vehicles - the size of houses - and the need for speed by many drivers of today.
I contacted the government agencies responsible for the road widening and found out that there are special seed banks where seeds are saved and then used to restore roadside plants. However not all species and varieties can be saved or respond well to this storage. So even though there is some effort being made Nature is given short shrift. I do not understand why it is a good thing to destroy and then hope somehow that the land destroyed will be improved by people in the future. Yes I understand that some good work is being done. I don’t understand how anyone thinks that people can make the best decisions for the land. We need to be better stewards in the future.
4. adunca | 07.14.09
I volunteer at a nearby 2,000 acre wildlife refuge where we do a lot of habitat restoration (the land was used as a farm/ranch for 80 years). I can tell you that it may be technically possible to “restore degraded ecosystems” relatively quickly, but I would not say that it is realistic to do so on a large scale, for at least the following reasons:
- Lack of resources to do the restoration.
- Lack of interest among the general population to restore the ecosystem, especially among young people. When they are not playing video games, they are fretting about global warming and polar bears. They know & care very little about the ecosystems where they live.
- Invasive species. At the refuge we spend more time and resources fighting and monitoring invasives than doing anything else. Habitat restoration is not a one-time event; until the habitat reaches its mature state, invasives will constantly battle against your restoration efforts. Some invasives will even take over even when your restored ecosystem is mature (e.g. english ivy, garlic mustard, bullfrogs).
- We think we know what we are doing, but in fact we know only a small amount about the ecosystems we are trying to restore. If we fail to successfully restore some critical component, the whole effort will fail.
- Ecosystems are impacted by the land uses around them. e.g. if the ecosystem includes a stream which runs through a subdivision before it enters the ecosystem, the stream will likely never be restored to a pristine state due to the modifications from development, fertilizer/pesticide/roof/street/pet waste runoff, etc.
- If creatures have already been extirpated from the ecosystem (or even gone extinct), it can be very difficult or impossible to re-establish them. If the creature(s) are keystone species, the ecosystem will never be fully restored without their presence.
I am not saying that we shouldn’t try, I am just saying that ecosystem restoration is often a lot more difficult than you would think, and is not a “project” but rather a “process”. Also we have a systemic problem with our population which I believe is rooted in what some call “Nature Deficit Disorder”. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_deficit_disorder
5. editorial | 07.14.09
Those who have commented may be interested in these recent Monitor articles about ecological restoration.
http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2009/06/17/when-nature-gets-a-second-chance/
6. JP | 07.14.09
Yes, but how big and how much intact habitat must be present nearby? These don’t seem to be covered in the article, yet seem to be crucial to the issue. There must be a size range (acres, square miles?) within which each kind of ecosystem can recover in this “speedy” time frame. Also, to what extent must the surrounding ecosystem be intact? A two acre tract of cleared forest that is surrounded on all sides by miles of intact forest would probably recover faster and better than the same size tract on the edge of its habitat.
7. Jean Gerard | 07.16.09
Perhaps the more unique and useful thing about the Monitor is the articles which tell what can be done, what is being done, what people can do about specific problems, whether environmental or social. The ordinary press gives this subject short shrift, and what coverage problems get is usually pessimistic or evades covering responsibility for repairs. Very often we see polluting corporations bragging about what they do to clean up, using such reports as public relations gimicks. The overall effect of environmental reporting often simply induces hopelessness or, the opposite, a false sense that something is being done by somebody else.
I commend the Monitor on this point. People will do helpful thing or demand helpful changes if they know something can be done as a result of their actions.
8. Dan Mackay | 07.20.09
I direct the readers to http://www.oregon.gov/ODF/TSF/forestmgmt.shtml.
The Tillamook Burn(s) have much to teach about restoration, diversity and most importantly the average person’s involvement. While it must be true that most of the immediate restoration was done by professionals there was a significant participation by local individuals and groups. Out of that came a sense of ownership and care about the land. We would do well to foster and encourage this kind of restoration activity in other areas.
I think of the “O&C” lands managed by the BLM for the benefit of Oregon counties “in lieu of taxes”. Much might be done by volunteer groups with lasting effect on the forest and attitudes.
DRM
9. santi | 07.20.09
I agree strongly with “think again”. Being a forest ecologist who specializes in studying and protecting the remaining fragments of ancient forest in the Pacific Northwest I am very familar with the process of ecological sucession that takes place after clearcutting. For the forests to return to any where near the levels of biodiversity, biocomplexity,biological resilience, carbon sequestered in the system, positive impacts on the hydrological cycles and etc… found in the ancient stands, it will indeed take centuries to millenia (and there are other keystone living systems that would share this time-scale).
From a pragmatic standpoint I also have to say I agree with “the traveler’s” call to action. The reality is we can’t recreate the complex systems we have degraded but we can move in a positive direction and now there are far too few systems that are anywhere close to pristine and so just trying to save what little fragments are (for the most part) intact will not be enough.
We do have to take these actions N0W and they will in a short time need to reach a scale few have even contemplated if we want to retain even a semblance of the world we know today.
10. Shane | 07.21.09
I grew up in the rural west of Ireland during the 80s and early 90s, a time of rampant emigration when the population was constantly falling. That nature may recover quickly is no surprise to me - I was surrounded by empty houses collapsing gradually into the ground, torn down by storms and ivy, with saplings growing through the sunken roofs. The domination of nature was absolute, and old kitchens became gardens for wild flowers, foxes, rabbits and rats.
11. Elizabeth Stevens | 07.28.09
This seems like a pretty toothless article, which is a disappointing surprise compared to the usual integrity of reporting in the Monitor.
A forestry school looked over studies on ecosystem restoration and concluded that restoration can occur more quickly than is normally argued.
Well, yes, that’s wonderful new and we should certainly urge and support ecosystem restoration, but do you think that a forestry school might have a vested interest in their happy conclusion?
How about some “sound science” here that’s from studies independent of an industry that makes its money by destroying (oops, “temporarily compromising”) ecosystems.
12. editorial | 07.28.09
Actually, Ms. Stevens, this was one part of a roundup article reporting on various new discoveries and scientific findings about the environment. It was posted online by itself so that those interested in this specific topic could find it and read about something new in the field. It’s meant as just a brief newsy item rather than a full-fledged article.
13. Richard Smith | 07.28.09
The Exxon Valdez spill area has not recovered yet, and they don’t expect it to for quite some time.
14. Shane | 08.01.09
When Hiroshima city was nuclear bombed in 1945, rumours spread that nothing would grow there for 75 years. That autumn weeds were sprouting in the ruins. Life can be tenacious.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. Think Again | 07.13.09
Recover to what extent? That’s the question.
Just have some tree cover back with some of the more adaptable animals? Sure.
But for the tapestry of life to establish itself, it takes a long long time.
To use an analogy, we can easily replace a Persian rug with an acrylic carpet within a few years. But that does not have the beauty, diversity, and wealth of a Persian rug.