Defining the Limits of Restoration: The Need for Realistic Goals

By J. Ehrenfeld. 2000

420 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/87b45dc1c748dc08a71c5f3d58e3de0d1b0bfd8f

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

1. Jere Salminen
2. Mark A. Davis
3. Sami Lindgren
4. M. Perrow
5. N. Williams
6. J. Memmott
7. C. Adams
8. L. Slobodkin

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

1. I. Lunt
2. S. Prober
3. M. Kuussaari
4. J. Pöyry
5. N. Williams
6. K. Thiele
7. Sami Lindgren
8. J. Memmott

Citations in the corpus

• Application of genetic diversity–ecosystem function research to ecological restoration (2014, background): “Therefore, biodiversity ecosystem function (BEF) research suggests tangible means to achieve the lofty and often elusive goal of restoring fully functioning ecosystems (i.e. to restore a broad suite of EFs including the services they provide to humans; Costanza et al. 1997; Ehrenfeld 2000; Benayas e”
• The Restoration of Plant–Pollinator Interactions in Hay Meadows (2005, background): “In practice though, restorationists are unlikely to attempt building exact copies, given that many unknowns, coupled with financial and social constraints, make the undertaking extremely unlikely to succeed (Ehrenfeld 2000).”
• The restoration of ecological interactions: plant-pollinator networks on ancient and restored heathlands (2007, background): “Moreover, an approach that aims to restore some historical community structure is fundamentally flawed where landscape properties have changed and can no longer sustain the target community (Cairns & Heckman 1996; Palmer, Ambrose & Poff 1997; Ehrenfeld 2000). Similarly, the use of reference communit”
• RESTORATION OF BUTTERFLY AND MOTH COMMUNITIES IN SEMI-NATURAL GRASSLANDS BY CATTLE GRAZING (2004, background): “Evaluation of restoration goals and success Restoration success can only be evaluated when the goals for restoration are clear and testable, and when achieving them is possible with the existing management tools (Ehrenfeld 2000).”
• Plant root traits affecting the resistance of soils to concentrated flow erosion (2012, background): “…of fast-growing pioneer species can quickly restore some of the damaged or lost ecosystem services, here erosion control and soil retention, but restoring one particular service, can modify environmental conditions and can be detrimental to the provision of other services (Ehrenfeld, 2000).”
• The Science and Values of Restoration Ecology (2004, background): “…1995; Sagoff 1995; Lele & Niggaard 1996; Gould 1998; Kapustka & Landis 1998; Lancaster 2000; Lackey 2001), and there has been considerable self- reflection from within the field on these issues as well (Higgs 1994; Aronson et al. 1995; Ehrenfeld 2000; Hobbs & Harris 2001; Swart et al. 2001).”
• Restoration of Nontarget Species: Bee Communities and Pollination Function in Riparian Forests (2011, background): “We should therefore not expect pollinator communities at restored sites to mirror those at any reference site including habitat remnants, nor should we set perfect congruence between remnant and restored sites as an explicit restoration goal (Ehrenfeld 2000; Forup et al. 2008).”
• Determining reference conditions for management and restoration of temperate grassy woodlands: relationships among trees, topsoils and understorey flora in little-grazed remnants (2002, background): “Activities that attempt to manage or restore diverse ‘natural’ ecosystems require accurate biological information to identify management goals and guide on-ground works (Ehrenfeld 2000).”
• Handbook of Ecological Restoration: List of contributors (2002, background): “1, rather than to the ecosystem in its entirety (Ehrenfeld, 2000).”
• Contemporary forest restoration: A review emphasizing function (2014, background): “No single paradigm fits all conditions or social contexts but expectations should be realistic in terms of project scope, goals, and available resources (Ehrenfeld, 2000).”
• Can an Ecoregion Serve as a Seed Transfer Zone? Evidence from a Common Garden Study with Five Native Species (2011, background): “Whether or not these risks are acceptable will depend on restoration objective, cost, seed availability, and restoration goals (Ehrenfeld 2000; Doede 2005; Wilkinson et al. 2008).”