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: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU 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: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU> 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.
