Scroll down to view article

RESPONSE J. For. 113(4):430–432 Forest Restoration Is Forward Thinking http://dx.doi.org/10.5849/jof.15-049

R. Kasten Dumroese, Brian J. Palik, and “forest restoration” generates more than 1 million hits. A significant John A. Stanturf portion of the debate centers on the search for succinct, holistic, t is not surprising to us that the topic of forest restoration is being universally accepted terminology, and we confess that we have re- I discussed in the Journal of Forestry. It is a topic frequently ban- cently contributed to that effort (Stanturf et al. 2014a, 2014b). tered about in the literature; a quick search in Google Scholar for Given the lack of consensus on definitions for each word, forest and

Received April 3, 2015; accepted April 6, 2015; published online April 30, 2015. Affiliations: R. Kasten Dumroese ([email protected]), USDA Forest Service, Grassland, Shrubland, and Desert Ecosystems Program, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Moscow, ID. Brian J. Palik ([email protected]), USDA Forest Service, Center for Research on Ecosystem Change, Northern Research Station. John A. Stanturf ([email protected]), USDA Forest Service, Center for Forest Disturbance Science, Southern Research Station. Acknowledgments: The views expressed are strictly those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the positions or policy of their respective institutions.

430 Journal of Forestry • July 2015 restoration, it should not be surprising that focus from looking in the rearview mirror needed reference condition for restoration once combined, the discipline struggles to to the view down the road (e.g., Choi is increasingly recognized to be a contem- find consistent terminology, and the result- 2007). Some have gone a step further, call- porary functional reference state, rather ing discussions can be confusing. As we see ing for a new discipline of intervention than some poorly defined and perhaps ir- it, the problem is that forest restorationists ecology (Hobbs et al. 2011). Others have relevant past state, and indeed that ap- (those discussing the theory and those en- resisted discarding restoration altogether proach for identifying references is in itself gaged in the practice) often seek precise but are adapting to a future orientation for not a new idea (Palik et al. 2000). A prob- black and white terminology for every gra- ecological restoration (Clewell and Aron- lem arises, nevertheless, when members of dation of a topic that spans an infinite son 2013), similar to the view expressed by the public who have retained the focus on spectrum and combination of biological, Hanberry et al. (2015). historic conditions cannot come to terms ecological, and societal possibilities; thus, We do agree with the ultimate con- with changing terminology. the definition of forest restoration, clusions of Hart et al. (2015): the value of We appreciate the desire by Hanberry whether we like it or not, varies depending management (i.e., restoration) is in the et al. (2015) to frame restoration broadly so on context and is continuously evolving as ecosystem properties provided, not solely as to include actions that position forests for esoteric points are discussed. In our recent in the recreation of some prior condition; an uncertain and rapidly changing future. articles (Stanturf et al. 2014a, 2014b), we focusing on the past assumes that histori- However, they do seem to stretch the disci- spend considerable time dissecting, orga- cal conditions can resist current (i.e., in- plinary boundaries by suggesting that man- nizing, and defining terminology. Such vasive species) or future (i.e., climate) per- aging forests for adaptability to an uncertain constructs are a necessary evil to vigor- turbations; and managers should focus on climate future can always be considered res- ously debate ideas but probably leave prac- management toward producing stand toration. Might a point be reached in the ticing foresters, land managers, policy- conditions that favor resilience even if his- quest to manage forests where we transition makers, and the general public confused. torical conditions are not restored. them to a new climate future without the The reality is that restoration, no matter Following these tenets is, in our view, task needing to be termed “restoration,” how it is defined, is intimately and unde- the essence of contemporary restoration even by the broad function definition cited niably linked with management: you can- and more organizations embrace this con- by Hanberry et al. (2015)? Is the replace- not have restoration, even passive restora- cept than perhaps Hart et al. (2015) ac- ment of native tree species by a nonendemic, tion, without management (Zahawi et al. knowledge. Because we are talking about but future climate-adapted species that may 2014). Although it may not be politically forests in these discussions, functional res- be a functional equivalent, still restoration? correct to say so, forest restoration is sim- toration also means embracing silviculture We suggest that this deserves further discus- ilar to forest management in that both rely as the management tool that alleviates sion. Situations like this might become in- on silviculture although sometimes forest many, if not all, of the stumbling blocks, creasingly common, as well as deployment restoration requires extraordinary mea- points of conflict, and questions presented of seedlings of keystone species that have sures (Stanturf et al. 2014b). Approaching by Hart et al. (2015). been genetically modified to overcome non- it from a silvicultural perspective puts For the most part, we concur with the native pests, and challenge the underlying pragmatism back into play. excellent summary by Hanberry et al. naturalness paradigm of ecological restora- The recent discussion by Hart et al. (2015) because their description of forest tion (Stanturf et al. 2014a). Perhaps new ter- (2015) is based on their perception (and restoration and the points they make reiter- minology and, dare we say, a new discipline they are not alone) that ecological restora- ate our recent discussions (Stanturf et al. of transition management or the aforemen- tion is reserved exclusively for recreating a 2014a, 2014b). Indeed, the point that resto- tioned intervention ecology are discussions historical condition, generally assumed in ration is forward thinking aligns with an in- that are not misguided. the United States to be the conditions be- tellectual linking of restoration and manage- fore European influence (Society for Eco- ment, because silviculture nurtures forests Literature Cited logical Restoration 2004). We disagree toward a future desired state (the goal of res- CHOI, Y.D. 2007. Restoration ecology to the fu- with such a narrow definition and in fact toration); that future desired state may or ture: A call for new paradigm. Restor. Ecol. 15: 351–353. do not believe that it is widely shared in may not be a recreation of a historical con- CLEWELL, A., AND J. ARONSON. 2013. The SER the forest management community, at dition. primer and climate change. Ecol. Manage. Re- least when forest composition is consid- We do think, however, that Hanberry stor. 14:182–186. ered. The progression in restoration circles et al. (2015) may have underestimated the HANBERRY, B.B., R.F. NOSS, H.D. SAFFORD, away from this narrow perspective can be degree of enlightenment of contemporary S.K. ALLISON, AND D.C. DEY. 2015. Resto- charted by referring to definitions and forest management when they call for a ration is preparation for the future. J. For. 113(4):425–429. concepts in documents of the Society for “wider and more flexible management HART, J.L., J.L. BUCHANAN, AND L.E. COX. 2015. Ecological Restoration or in academic res- than a narrow focus on returning ecosys- Is forest restoration an end unto itself or a toration journals. Challenges to this nar- tems to the precise conditions of some his- means to an end? J. For. 113:266–267. row view, including experience from Eu- torical time period” and rightfully indicate HOBBS, R.J., L.M. HALLETT, P.R. EHRLICH, AND rope where almost all landscapes have that such a narrow focus has increasingly H.A. MOONEY. 2011. Intervention ecology: been heavily altered, led to a broadened less relevance in the face of rapid global Applying ecological science in the twenty-first century. BioScience 61:442–450. view of the historic range of variability change. In our experience, few public for- MILLAR, C.I. 2014. Historic variability: Inform- (Millar 2014). More recently, prominent est management agencies, at least, retain ing restoration strategies, not prescribing tar- restorationists advocated for a change of this narrow focus. In particular, the gets. J. Sustain. For. 33:S28–S42.

Journal of Forestry • July 2015 431 PALIK, B.J., P.C. GOEBEL, L.K. KIRKMAN, AND L. line at www.ser.org/docs/default-document- STANTURF, J.A., B.J. PALIK, AND R.K. DUMROESE. WEST. 2000. Using landscape hierarchies to library/english.pdf; last accessed Mar. 30, 2014b. Contemporary forest restoration: A re- guide restoration of disturbed ecosystems. 2015. view emphasizing function. For. Ecol. Manage. Ecol. Appl. 10:189–202. STANTURF, J.A., B.J. PALIK, M.I. WILLIAMS, R.K. 331:292–323. SOCIETY FOR ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION. DUMROESE, AND P. MADSEN. 2014a. Forest ZAHAWI, R.A., J.L. REID, AND K.D. HOLL. 2014. 2004. The SER international primer on eco- restoration paradigms. J. Sustain. For. 33: Hidden costs of passive restoration. Restor. logical restoration, version 2. Available on- S161–S194. Ecol. 22:284–287.

432 Journal of Forestry • July 2015