In press, 2nd Interface Between Ecology and Land Development in California J.E. Keeley, Coordinator. Occidental College, April 18-19, 1997. On the Perils of Ecological Restoration: Lessons fr om the El Segundo Blue Butterfly Travis Longcore,1 Rudi Mattoni,1 Gordon Pratt,2 and Catherine Rich1 1Urban Wildlands Group, UCLA Department of Geography, Los Angeles, CA 90095 2Department of Entomology, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521 Abstract . Land use planning and permitting in vegetation in an area (unpublished data and Califor- southern California increasingly relies on ecologi- nia Ecological Restoration Projects Inventory 1997). cal restoration as mitigation for damage done to If historic conditions are not the goal, as they rarely natural habitats by development projects. Many restoration attempts fail miserably, for a number are, the question arises whether restoration is under- of reasons. Three areas of concern for restoration taken to reassemble the species and ecotypes histori- projects are: 1) historical accuracy and complete- cally present or to use different species that the restor- ness, 2) ecotype accuracy, and 3) type conver- ationist believes will serve the same function in the sions. Using evidence from a restoration project ecosystem. The distinction here is made between a for the El Segundo blue butterfly we will show the concentration on diversity or function. Jordan et al. importance of historical accuracy in ecological (1987) suggest that restorationists can illustrate their restoration. Other examples from the El Segundo understanding of ecosystems by imitating rather than dunes will illustrate the vital importance of using copying natural systems. They claim that insight from local ecotypes in restoration projects. Finally, we restoration research will be gained from being able will discuss the issues raised by type conversions to “create communities that resemble other commu- and other questionable restoration practices, why they are allowed as mitigation, and their effect on nities in various ways, but that actually differ from them regional conservation goals. in species composition” (Jordan et al. 1987: 17). We differ from Jordan et al. about the goals of restoration Keywords : Restoration; mitigation; historical ac- and restoration research. For reasons that will be il- curacy; ecotype accuracy; type conversion; El lustrated below, we believe that restoration should Segundo blue butterfly have as its goal the preservation of biodiversity in a system that requires minimal human management INTRODUCTION and that is historically accurate and historically com- Ecological restoration is used as a mitigation for plete. To qualify as a “restoration” a project should damage done to natural habitats and species by de- strive to be historically complete and accurate and velopment projects. Although such restoration pro- consider the reintroduction or management of all jects take place under the auspices of public agencies biodiversity, including insects, mammals, birds, plants, such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. and cryptobiotic crusts. A project that reintroduces the Fish and Wildlife Service, the California Coastal Com- historically present plants is a “revegetation,” a project mission, and the California Department of Fish and that only establishes the dominant cover is a “partial Game, they often are plagued by weaknesses that go revegetation,” and any project that establishes species largely unnoticed or unquestioned by environmental not native to the site is an exercise in “landscaping.” activists, the academic community, politicians, and the A second aspect of the definition of restoration is agencies themselves. Drawing from experience with what has been called “the ecotype question” (Cairns a revegetation project for the El Segundo blue butter- 1987: 316, Kline and Howell 1987: 84). Debate cen- fly, we explore some of the common pitfalls of resto- ters around the relative importance of matching lo- ration projects. cal ecotypes when reestablishing plants on a restora- Any discussion of restoration requires an under- tion site. Although academic consensus seems to sup- standing of what is meant by the word. The definition port using local ecotypes (see Millar and Libby 1989, arrived upon by a National Research Council commit- Read et al. 1996, Allen 1997), we illustrate the impor- tee was “the return of an ecosystem to a close approxi- tance of local ecotypes on higher trophic levels and mation of its condition prior to disturbance” (NRC the maintenance of biodiversity. A project that does 1992). Unfortunately, mitigation almost never has re- not use local ecotypes is not a “restoration.” creation of the historic conditions as its goal, rather, The final facet of restoration that we discuss is success is defined as establishment of the dominant whether type conversion — the creation of one natu- 1400 4000 1200 3500 1000 Site 3 3000 800 Site 2 2500 600 Site 1 2000 400 1500 200 1000 Microlepidopterous Larvae/50 cc flowers 0 500 Estimated ESB Population Size 0 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 Sep 3, 85 Jul 16, 85 Jul 19, 85 Jul 23, 85 Jul 25, 85 Jul 30, 85 Aug 3, 85 Aug 6, 85 Aug 10, 85 Aug 14, 85 Aug 15, 85 Aug 21, 85 Aug 25, 85 Aug 27, 85 Aug 20, 86 Fig. 1. Abundance of larval microlepidopterous competi- Fig. 3. Recovery of ESB population following removal of tors of the ESB (Gelechiidae and Cochylidae) on Eriogonum fasciculatum and provision of more Eriogonum parvifolium at three sites at LAX (Pratt foodplant (Mattoni et al., in prep.). 1987). 30 1975 the backdune at LAX was recontoured to realign 25 Pershing Drive. The recontoured backdunes were sta- 20 Site 3 bilized with a “natural” seed mix (Mattoni 1989a). 15 Site 2 Although perhaps well intentioned, the seed mix was 10 representative of coastal sage scrub, not the native Site 1 5 dune scrub community. Whether this effort was meant ESB Larvae/50 cc flowers 0 as a restoration is irrelevant, the event of interest is that common buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum (Benth.) Torrey & A. Gray) was introduced and estab- Sep 3, 85 Jul 16, 85 Jul 19, 85 Jul 23, 85 Jul 25, 85 Jul 30, 85 Aug 3, 85 Aug 6, 85 Aug 10, 85 Aug 14, 85 Aug 15, 85 Aug 21, 85 Aug 25, 85 Aug 27, 85 Aug 20, 86 lished on the dunes.1 Numerous other insects exploit Eriogonum flower- Fig. 2. Abundance of ESB larvae on Eriogonum parvi- folium at three sites at LAX (Pratt 1987). heads, which results in intense competition for the resource. This guild of competitors includes at least ral community in an area that was previously occupied ten species of Lepidoptera in addition to an unknown by another natural community — constitutes restora- number of other orders. While the ESB is univoltine tion. Examples of this specific kind of historical inac- (one generation per year) and is specialized for the curacy abound, especially for wetland and riparian short, late blooming season of E. parvifolium, other restoration projects (Allen and Feddema 1996). We competitors are more opportunistic and will utilize argue that ecological restoration does not include type multiple hosts. The introduction of the earlier bloom- conversions. ing E. fasciculatum to the dunes therefore had the re- sult of differentially increasing populations of competi- HISTORICAL ACCURACY AND COMPLETENESS tors by providing another food source that the ESB A story illustrates the dangers of historical inaccu- could not exploit. Pratt (1987) showed that there was racy. The El Segundo blue butterfly (Euphilotes bern- a doubling of competitive larvae on E. parvifolium ardino allyni Shields) (ESB) was distributed historically flowerheads in mid-August, which, considering an along the El Segundo dunes from Ballona Creek to average generation time of one month, corresponded the Palos Verdes Peninsula (Mattoni 1992). Its sole with senescence of E. fasciculatum in mid-July. In- foodplant for all life stages is the coastal buckwheat, creased concentrations of other larvae correlated with Eriogonum parvifolium Smith. Larvae feed on the depressed ESB populations. Experiments confirmed flowerheads, pupate directly beneath the plant, and that other microlepidopterous larvae outcompete and adults perch, mate, usually nectar, lay eggs, and prob- even cannibalize ESB larvae. In addition, the other ably die on flowerheads (Mattoni 1992). moths probably provide a reserve of parasitoids that The ESB persists in greatest numbers on the dunes they share with the ESB (Pratt 1987, Mattoni 1988). at the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). In The increase in ESB and decrease in other larvae shown in the 1986 follow-up sample is likely the re- 1 Also present in the seed mix were Coreopsis gigantea (Kellogg) H.M. sult of intense pruning of E. fasciculatum to delay flow- Hall, Atriplex canescens (Pursh) Nutt., Lupinus excubitus M.E. Jones, ering. Eriogonum giganteum S. Watson, E. cinereum Benth., and other non- Mattoni initiated a revegetation program on the native species. Only E. fasciculatum has expanded on the dunes; the LAX dunes in 1986; one of the first actions was the others are gradually disappearing. removal of E. fasciculatum (Mattoni 1989b). Recovery of the ESB over the course of the revegetation pro- attention to local, ecotypical variation. However, some gram is estimated by using a model based on transect writers have addressed the importance of local varia- counts (Mattoni et al., in prep.). Increases in the first tion to the success or failure of restoration projects, two years of the program can largely be attributed calling it “the ecotype question” (Cairns 1987). to removal of E. fasciculatum, because newly estab- Scholarly discussion of the ecotype question gener- lished E. parvifolium had not yet matured. The reso- ally has supported a position of striving for ecotype nating effect of E. fasciculatum on insect community accuracy. McNeilly (1987) discussed the importance composition shows the result of introducing just one of local ecotypes in heavily degraded areas where species that is not native to an area.