Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Science for Conservation Insufficient monitoring may obscure true outcomes of restoration projects Gregory H. Golet, Thomas Gardali, John W. Hunt, David A. Koenig, and Neal M. Williams. 2010. Temporal and taxonomic variability in response of fauna to riparian restoration. Restoration Ecology doi: 10.1111/j.1526-100X.2009.00525.x. Contact: [email protected] Ecologists spend a lot of time and money attempting to restore biodiversity to degraded ecosystems. Restoration methods vary, but the goal is usually the same: to bring back onceabundant native species and all their complex biological interactions. Vertebrates were more consistent across sites than invertebrates. And among vertebrates, more mobile animals like birds were distributed more evenly across the landscape than their sedentary counterparts, the rodents, which were sometimes abundant, but other times not. To assess whether restoration efforts are working, researchers often conduct native species surveys in restored areas and compare what they find to nearby natural areas. However, tracking all organisms of interest is impractical, so researchers typically choose to monitor a limited number of species under the assumption that their response will parallel that of the broader ecological community. These findings suggest that evaluations of restoration success based on short-term studies of single groups of species may not accurately represent the response of the broader ecological community. However, instead of monitoring an array of species—a variety of insects, birds, mammals, rodents and fish, for example—most restoration response studies only focus on a single type of animal (perhaps reflecting the particular expertise of the scientists involved.) Moreover, site assessments are typically short-lived, even though it is widely recognized that site conditions change as sites mature. Authors of a recent article in Restoration Ecology explored the limitations of such studies by examining how birds, rodents, bees and beetles (Figure 1) responded to restoration along the Sacramento River for up to five years. They found that responses to restoration varied among the different types of species. In other words, success for one group did not necessarily imply success for the others. They also found that the relative success of different restoration sites varied over time, suggesting that the impact of restoration activities cannot be accurately determined from one-time assessments. In addition, the researchers found that certain groups of animals were more spatially variable in their response to restoration than others. The Nature Conservancy 201 Mission Street, 4th Floor Figure 1: Focal taxa for the Sacramento River restoration study Key points Most assessments of restoration success track a single type of species over a single season. When a variety of species are monitored, restoration response is shown to vary across species and over time. Robust restoration assessments should examine the response of multiple types of species over multiple seasons and years. San Francisco, CA 94105 www.nature.org