Choosing appropriate temporal and spatial scales for ecological restoration

Area of Science:

• Ecological restoration
• Conservation biology
• Environmental history

Background:

• Classic ecological restoration assumes a static
• balance of nature
• paradigm, viewing climax communities as stable endpoints.
• Human disturbance is often considered unnatural and recent, with European settlement as a benchmark.
• This approach faces challenges with the dynamic
• flux of nature
• paradigm, where ecosystems are constantly changing.

Purpose of the Study:

• To critically evaluate traditional and emerging paradigms in ecological restoration.
• To propose a scientifically defensible framework for setting restoration targets.
• To reconcile ecological principles with the long-standing influence of human disturbance.

Main Methods:

• Comparative analysis of ecological restoration paradigms (Clementsian vs. flux of nature).
• Examination of spatio-temporal scales in ecological processes and disturbance regimes.
• Critique of benchmark selection for restoration, including historical and evolutionary scales.

Main Results:

• The
• balance of nature
• paradigm's reliance on static endpoints is challenged by ecological flux.
• Human disturbance is a long-standing, integral component of many ecosystems.
• Arbitrary selection of past states (e.g., Pleistocene-Holocene boundary) can be problematic.
• Ecological spatio-temporal scales offer a robust framework for defining restoration targets.

Conclusions:

• Ecological restoration should be framed within ecological spatio-temporal scales, not arbitrary historical benchmarks.
• Settlement conditions can be scientifically justified as restoration targets when considering post-settlement disturbances.
• This approach avoids teleological concepts and acknowledges indigenous peoples' ecological influence.