ORCID Profile
0000-0001-5202-0634
Current Organisation
US Geological Survey
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 28-09-2015
DOI: 10.1002/IEAM.1687
Abstract: A workshop on Restoration of Impaired Ecosystems was held in Jackson, Wyoming, in June 2014. Experts from Australia, Canada, Mexico, the United Kingdom, and the United States in ecotoxicology, restoration, and related fields from both the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry and the Society for Ecological Restoration convened to advance the practice of restoring ecosystems that have been contaminated or impaired from industrial activities. The overall goal of this workshop was to provide a forum for ecotoxicologists and restoration ecologists to define the best scientific practices to achieve ecological restoration while addressing contaminant concerns. To meet this goal, participants addressed 5 areas: 1) links between ecological risk assessment and ecological restoration, 2) restoration goals, 3) restoration design, 4) monitoring for restoration effectiveness and 5) recognizing opportunities and challenges. Definitions are provided to establish a common language across the varied disciplines. The current practice for addressing restoration of impaired ecosystems tends to be done sequentially to remediate contaminants, then to restore ecological structure and function. A better approach would anticipate or plan for restoration throughout the process. By bringing goals to the forefront, we may avoid intrusive remediation activities that close off options for the desired restoration. Participants realized that perceived limitations in the site assessment process hinder consideration of restoration goals contaminant presence will influence restoration goal choices social, economic, and cultural concerns can factor into goal setting restoration options and design should be considered early during site assessment and management restoration of both structure and function is encouraged creative solutions can overcome limitations a regional focus is imperative monitoring must occur throughout the restoration process and reciprocal transfer of knowledge is needed among theorists, practitioners, and stakeholders and among varied disciplines.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 11-2017
DOI: 10.1111/REC.12583
Abstract: Three case studies illustrate how adaptive management (AM) has been used in ecological restorations that involve contaminants. Contaminants addressed include mercury, selenium, and contaminants and physical disturbances delivered to streams by urban stormwater runoff. All three cases emphasize the importance of broad stakeholder input early and consistently throughout decision analysis for AM. Risk of contaminant exposure provided input to the decision analyses (e.g. selenium exposure to endangered razorback suckers, Stewart Lake multiple contaminants in urban stormwater runoff, Melbourne) and was balanced with the protection of resources critical for a desired future state (e.g. preservation old growth trees, South River). Monitoring also played a critical role in the ability to conduct the decision analyses necessary for AM plans. For ex le, newer technologies in the Melbourne case provided a testable situation where contaminant concentrations and flow disturbance were reduced to support a return to good ecological condition. In at least one case (Stewart Lake), long‐term monitoring data are being used to document the potential effects of climate change on a restoration trajectory. Decision analysis formalized the process by which stakeholders arrived at the priorities for the sites, which together constituted the desired future condition towards which each restoration is aimed. Alternative models were developed that described in mechanistic terms how restoration can influence the system towards the desired future condition. Including known and anticipated effects of future climate scenarios in these models will make them robust to the long‐term exposure and effects of contaminants in restored ecosystems.
No related grants have been discovered for Diane Larson.