Sustainability 2012, 4(9), 2334-2347; doi:10.3390/su4092334

Riparian Forest Restoration: Conflicting Goals, Trade-Offs, and Measures of Success

1,* email, 2email and 3email
Received: 29 June 2012; in revised form: 23 July 2012 / Accepted: 1 September 2012 / Published: 19 September 2012
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Terrestrial Ecosystem Restoration)
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Abstract: Restoration projects can have varying goals, depending on the specific focus, rationale, and aims for restoration. When restoration projects use project-specific goals to define activities and gauge success without considering broader ecological context, determination of project implications and success can be confounding. We used case studies from the Middle Rio Grande (MRG), southwest USA, to demonstrate how restoration outcomes can rank inconsistently when narrowly-based goals are used. Resource managers have chosen MRG for restoration due to impacts to the natural flood regime, reduced native tree recruitment, and establishment of non-native plants. We show restoration “success” ranks differently based upon three goals: increasing biodiversity, increasing specific ecosystem functions, or restoring native communities. We monitored 12 restored and control sites for seven years. Treatments ranked higher in reducing exotic woody populations, and increasing proportions of native plants and groundwater salvage, but generally worse at removing fuels, and increasing species and habitat structural diversity. Managers cannot rely on the term “restoration” to sufficiently describe a project’s aim. Specific desired outcomes must be defined and monitored. Long-term planning should include flexibility to incorporate provisions for adaptive management to refine treatments to avoid unintended ecological consequences.
Keywords: riparian; restoration; ecological services; ecological standards; monitoring; invasive species
PDF Full-text Download PDF Full-Text [977 KB, Updated Version, uploaded 21 September 2012 16:02 CEST]
The original version is still available [977 KB, uploaded 19 September 2012 17:16 CEST]

Export to BibTeX |

MDPI and ACS Style

Bateman, H.L.; Merritt, D.M.; Johnson, J.B. Riparian Forest Restoration: Conflicting Goals, Trade-Offs, and Measures of Success. Sustainability 2012, 4, 2334-2347.

AMA Style

Bateman HL, Merritt DM, Johnson JB. Riparian Forest Restoration: Conflicting Goals, Trade-Offs, and Measures of Success. Sustainability. 2012; 4(9):2334-2347.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bateman, Heather L.; Merritt, David M.; Johnson, J. Bradley. 2012. "Riparian Forest Restoration: Conflicting Goals, Trade-Offs, and Measures of Success." Sustainability 4, no. 9: 2334-2347.

Sustainability EISSN 2071-1050 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert