project. F restoration projects have assumed a civic dimension as broad as that of the recent woodlands revival in New York’s Central Park. From removing political roadblocks to surviving public scrutiny to handling an eager but diverse corps of volunteers, park planners faced tremendous challenges that required innovative responses. Rather than a restoration to a precontact landscape, the Central Park woodlands project sought to renew the magnificent urban plan of Frederick Law Olmsted and Calvert Vaux, who designed the park in the mid-1800s. Their original intent--to create rural tranquillity among the chaos of the city--guided each phase of the restoration.
{"title":"Urban Renewal","authors":"Marianne Cramer","doi":"10.3368/er.11.2.106","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3368/er.11.2.106","url":null,"abstract":"project. F restoration projects have assumed a civic dimension as broad as that of the recent woodlands revival in New York’s Central Park. From removing political roadblocks to surviving public scrutiny to handling an eager but diverse corps of volunteers, park planners faced tremendous challenges that required innovative responses. Rather than a restoration to a precontact landscape, the Central Park woodlands project sought to renew the magnificent urban plan of Frederick Law Olmsted and Calvert Vaux, who designed the park in the mid-1800s. Their original intent--to create rural tranquillity among the chaos of the city--guided each phase of the restoration.","PeriodicalId":105419,"journal":{"name":"Restoration & Management Notes","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1993-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128675235","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This reference focuses on the growth of vegetation on disturbed lands, specifically the problems of plant seeding and growth, and the ecological consequences of that growth. The book covers the spectrum of plant development, including the creation of an acceptable rooting medium and seeding or planting, and discusses practices to enhance diversity and usefulness of the plant community,
{"title":"Practical Handbook of Disturbed Land Revegetation","authors":"F. Munshower","doi":"10.3368/er.14.2.203","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3368/er.14.2.203","url":null,"abstract":"This reference focuses on the growth of vegetation on disturbed lands, specifically the problems of plant seeding and growth, and the ecological consequences of that growth. The book covers the spectrum of plant development, including the creation of an acceptable rooting medium and seeding or planting, and discusses practices to enhance diversity and usefulness of the plant community,","PeriodicalId":105419,"journal":{"name":"Restoration & Management Notes","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1993-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116985102","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
T he control of tamarisk, or salt cedar (Tamarix ramosissima), is a controversial issue. There are several reasons for this. One is the presumed futility of control efforts. If tamarisk control is a lost cause,why devote precious money and labor to the effort? Another is that in areas that are heavily infested and have a long history of manipulation, it is often difficult, and may even be impossible, to determine just what the historic ecosystem was like. In addition there are questions about the recovery of native vegetation and recolonization by animals on sites from which tamarisk has been cleared. Under what conditions will the community recover more or less on its own? When is a more active program of restoration called for? What techniques are most likely to be effective? Despite these uncertainties, in 1986 we initiated a tamarisk control project in a heavily infested 10-hectare wetland in the Coachella Valley Preserve in Riverside County, California. While the project is just nearing completion, the results so far have been encouraging, and suggest that, while complete and perpetual eradication of tamarisk is unlikely in most situations, control followed by restoration of historic vegetation is a viable option in many watersheds.
{"title":"TAMARISK CONTROL","authors":"C. Barrows","doi":"10.3368/er.11.1.35","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3368/er.11.1.35","url":null,"abstract":"T he control of tamarisk, or salt cedar (Tamarix ramosissima), is a controversial issue. There are several reasons for this. One is the presumed futility of control efforts. If tamarisk control is a lost cause,why devote precious money and labor to the effort? Another is that in areas that are heavily infested and have a long history of manipulation, it is often difficult, and may even be impossible, to determine just what the historic ecosystem was like. In addition there are questions about the recovery of native vegetation and recolonization by animals on sites from which tamarisk has been cleared. Under what conditions will the community recover more or less on its own? When is a more active program of restoration called for? What techniques are most likely to be effective? Despite these uncertainties, in 1986 we initiated a tamarisk control project in a heavily infested 10-hectare wetland in the Coachella Valley Preserve in Riverside County, California. While the project is just nearing completion, the results so far have been encouraging, and suggest that, while complete and perpetual eradication of tamarisk is unlikely in most situations, control followed by restoration of historic vegetation is a viable option in many watersheds.","PeriodicalId":105419,"journal":{"name":"Restoration & Management Notes","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1993-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126658538","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
T here has been a considerable amount of discussion during the past few years, here in R&MN and elsewhere, about the value of the restored ecosystem. Often this discussion concerns the issue of accuracy--how closely the restored system resembles its natural or historic counterpart in a purely technical sense. But behind this there is always the deeper question of authenticity--of the value of the system in a broader sense, of how "real" it is, of what philosophers call its ontological status or value. Typically, I find, restorationists more or less take it for granted that the value of the systems they create is in this sense less than that of its natural counterpart--that, however skillfully restored and lovingly maintained, the artificial natural system is not and can never be fully authentic, or quite as real or valuable in some fundamental sense as its natural counterpart. The assumption seems to be that the really real--or sacred--is a given, that it is to be found or discovered in nature, and that the effect of human influence is to diminish it--to desacralize the world. From this point of view, of course, the restored ecosystem, being in a sense artificial, or actually made by people, necessarily has less value than its natural counterpart, if indeed it has any at all in this higher, spiritual sense. British naturalist Chris Baines put the point quite neatly several years ago when, summing up his views on this matter at a conference on land rehabilitation at Wye, England, he said "We may make the forest look as good as the original. But it won’t sound as good, and it won’t smell as good, and it won’t have the ghosts in it"by which, I assume, he means the associations, the history and perhaps most important the sense ofotherness and of higher meaning that imbues an ecosystem such as an ancient or old-growth forest. BRines’ audience seemed willing to accept this formulation. But to me it raises some questions. Specifically, what do we mean by real--or authentic? How can one thing be any more real than another--and how does it get that way? And what, after all, do most of us know about ghosts, "what" they are, or how they get "into" things? Are we right in assuming that our restored ecosystems lack ghosts, or that we couldn’t put them there--or entice them back in-if only we wanted to or knew how? One source of answers to these questions is religious tradition, especially, perhaps that of the earth-based religions of indigenous people, which are at least most obviously related to the work of restoration. In his classic book, The Myth of the Eternal Return (Princeton, 1974), religious historian Mircea Eliade explores in some detail what h calls "archaic ontology," or ideas of being and reality that he believes to be characteristic of premodern or traditional cultures. If I understand correctly what Eliade is saying, these traditional ideas about value in nature and how it is acquired are, understandably, quite different from what most of us se
{"title":"The Ghosts in the Forest","authors":"W. Jordan","doi":"10.3368/ER.11.1.3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3368/ER.11.1.3","url":null,"abstract":"T here has been a considerable amount of discussion during the past few years, here in R&MN and elsewhere, about the value of the restored ecosystem. Often this discussion concerns the issue of accuracy--how closely the restored system resembles its natural or historic counterpart in a purely technical sense. But behind this there is always the deeper question of authenticity--of the value of the system in a broader sense, of how \"real\" it is, of what philosophers call its ontological status or value. Typically, I find, restorationists more or less take it for granted that the value of the systems they create is in this sense less than that of its natural counterpart--that, however skillfully restored and lovingly maintained, the artificial natural system is not and can never be fully authentic, or quite as real or valuable in some fundamental sense as its natural counterpart. The assumption seems to be that the really real--or sacred--is a given, that it is to be found or discovered in nature, and that the effect of human influence is to diminish it--to desacralize the world. From this point of view, of course, the restored ecosystem, being in a sense artificial, or actually made by people, necessarily has less value than its natural counterpart, if indeed it has any at all in this higher, spiritual sense. British naturalist Chris Baines put the point quite neatly several years ago when, summing up his views on this matter at a conference on land rehabilitation at Wye, England, he said \"We may make the forest look as good as the original. But it won’t sound as good, and it won’t smell as good, and it won’t have the ghosts in it\"by which, I assume, he means the associations, the history and perhaps most important the sense ofotherness and of higher meaning that imbues an ecosystem such as an ancient or old-growth forest. BRines’ audience seemed willing to accept this formulation. But to me it raises some questions. Specifically, what do we mean by real--or authentic? How can one thing be any more real than another--and how does it get that way? And what, after all, do most of us know about ghosts, \"what\" they are, or how they get \"into\" things? Are we right in assuming that our restored ecosystems lack ghosts, or that we couldn’t put them there--or entice them back in-if only we wanted to or knew how? One source of answers to these questions is religious tradition, especially, perhaps that of the earth-based religions of indigenous people, which are at least most obviously related to the work of restoration. In his classic book, The Myth of the Eternal Return (Princeton, 1974), religious historian Mircea Eliade explores in some detail what h calls \"archaic ontology,\" or ideas of being and reality that he believes to be characteristic of premodern or traditional cultures. If I understand correctly what Eliade is saying, these traditional ideas about value in nature and how it is acquired are, understandably, quite different from what most of us se","PeriodicalId":105419,"journal":{"name":"Restoration & Management Notes","volume":"41 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1993-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121752565","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Photo: Native vegetation in the central portion of the Lower Rio Grande Valley: "..,the dense brush that comprises part of this ecosystem provides food, nest sites, and cover for many wildlife species, including the endangered ocelot and jaguarundi," Photo courtesy of Robin Vora W ith elimination of 95 percent of the native woodlands of the lower Rio Grande Valley, maintenance of habitat for more than 500 vertebrate species (Jahrsdoerfer and Leslie, 1988) now depends on land acquisition and restoration of native vegetation on recently-cultivated fields. Little is known, however, about propagation and establishment of many of the native species. Riskind et a!. (1987) reported on early efforts by Texas Parks and Wildlife to establish five native woody species by transplanting from existing native stands, on planting techniques used with nursery-grown seedlings in the mid-1980s, and on cooperative farm agreeraents used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to accomplish restoration planting. This article is a follow-up to that report. I concentrate on results of experiments and field trials conducted between 1984 and 1987 while I was working as an ecologist for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge, near Alamo, Texas. I also include updates based on personal communication with the present ecologist, Chris Best. Jahrsdoerfer and Leslie (1988) and others described the Lower Rio Grande Valley as a unique ecosystem in the United States.
图片:下里约热内卢格兰德山谷中部的原生植被:“……在美国，茂密的灌木丛构成了这一生态系统的一部分，为许多野生动物提供了食物、筑巢地点和掩护，包括濒危的豹猫和美洲虎。”罗宾·沃拉·W的照片由罗宾·沃拉·W提供。随着格兰德山谷下游95%的原生林地的消失，500多种脊椎动物的栖息地的维护(Jahrsdoerfer和Leslie, 1988)现在依赖于土地收购和恢复新开垦的土地上的原生植被。然而，人们对许多本地物种的繁殖和建立知之甚少。Riskind et a!(1987)报道了德克萨斯州公园和野生动物通过从现有的本地林分移植来建立五种本地木本物种的早期努力，20世纪80年代中期使用苗圃种植幼苗的种植技术，以及美国鱼类和野生动物管理局使用的合作农场协议来完成恢复种植。这篇文章是那篇报道的后续文章。我专注于1984年至1987年间进行的实验和实地试验的结果，当时我是美国鱼类和野生动物管理局的生态学家，在德克萨斯州阿拉莫附近的里约热内卢格兰德谷国家野生动物保护区工作。我还包括了基于与现任生态学家克里斯·贝斯特的个人交流的更新。Jahrsdoerfer和Leslie(1988)等人将下里约热内卢格兰德河谷描述为美国独特的生态系统。
{"title":"Restoration of Native Vegetation in the Lower Rio Grande Valley, 1984-87","authors":"R. Vora","doi":"10.3368/er.10.2.150","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3368/er.10.2.150","url":null,"abstract":"Photo: Native vegetation in the central portion of the Lower Rio Grande Valley: \"..,the dense brush that comprises part of this ecosystem provides food, nest sites, and cover for many wildlife species, including the endangered ocelot and jaguarundi,\" Photo courtesy of Robin Vora W ith elimination of 95 percent of the native woodlands of the lower Rio Grande Valley, maintenance of habitat for more than 500 vertebrate species (Jahrsdoerfer and Leslie, 1988) now depends on land acquisition and restoration of native vegetation on recently-cultivated fields. Little is known, however, about propagation and establishment of many of the native species. Riskind et a!. (1987) reported on early efforts by Texas Parks and Wildlife to establish five native woody species by transplanting from existing native stands, on planting techniques used with nursery-grown seedlings in the mid-1980s, and on cooperative farm agreeraents used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to accomplish restoration planting. This article is a follow-up to that report. I concentrate on results of experiments and field trials conducted between 1984 and 1987 while I was working as an ecologist for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge, near Alamo, Texas. I also include updates based on personal communication with the present ecologist, Chris Best. Jahrsdoerfer and Leslie (1988) and others described the Lower Rio Grande Valley as a unique ecosystem in the United States.","PeriodicalId":105419,"journal":{"name":"Restoration & Management Notes","volume":"48 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1992-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128211546","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Mending the Meadow","authors":"R. Rochefort, Stephen T. Gibbons","doi":"10.3368/er.10.2.120","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3368/er.10.2.120","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":105419,"journal":{"name":"Restoration & Management Notes","volume":"41 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1992-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128352342","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Restoration, as an attempt to replicate natural landscapes or ecosystems, provokes deeply held feelings about the separation of humanity and nature which have been a part of Western culture for centuries. The environmental movement, from which the field of restoration is at least partly derived, generally postulates a clear separation between humanity’s works (although not necessarily humanity) and nature. Restoration challenges this separation, and we will continue to question both the restorationist’s ability to replicate natural landscapes and the degree to which purely human objectives should influence restoration efforts until an ethical framework is developed within the restoration movement to resolve this challenge. Two recent publications, "The ethical significance of human intervention in nature" by Eric Katz (R&MN 9:2, pp. 90-96) and The Experience of Place by Tony Hiss (Harper & Row, 240 pp.) approach the relationship between nature and humanity and its implications for restoration quite differently. Here I will review both publications in the hope of contributing to the development of an ethical framework for the field of restoration.
{"title":"Zentner on Katz (and Zedler, and Hiss)","authors":"J. Zentner","doi":"10.3368/er.10.2.113","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3368/er.10.2.113","url":null,"abstract":"Restoration, as an attempt to replicate natural landscapes or ecosystems, provokes deeply held feelings about the separation of humanity and nature which have been a part of Western culture for centuries. The environmental movement, from which the field of restoration is at least partly derived, generally postulates a clear separation between humanity’s works (although not necessarily humanity) and nature. Restoration challenges this separation, and we will continue to question both the restorationist’s ability to replicate natural landscapes and the degree to which purely human objectives should influence restoration efforts until an ethical framework is developed within the restoration movement to resolve this challenge. Two recent publications, \"The ethical significance of human intervention in nature\" by Eric Katz (R&MN 9:2, pp. 90-96) and The Experience of Place by Tony Hiss (Harper & Row, 240 pp.) approach the relationship between nature and humanity and its implications for restoration quite differently. Here I will review both publications in the hope of contributing to the development of an ethical framework for the field of restoration.","PeriodicalId":105419,"journal":{"name":"Restoration & Management Notes","volume":"30 6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1992-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130646690","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：