Journal of Biosciences

, Volume 27, Issue 4, pp 409–420 | Cite as

Choosing appropriate temporal and spatial scales for ecological restoration

  • J. Baird Callicott


Classic ecological restoration seems tacitly to have taken the Clementsian “balance of nature” paradigm for granted: plant succession terminates in a climax community which remains at equilibrium until exogenously disturbed after which the process of succession is restarted until the climax is reached. Human disturbance is regarded as unnatural and to have commenced in the Western Hemisphere at the time of European incursion. Classic ecological restoration thus has a clear and unambiguous target and may be conceived as aiming to foreshorten the natural processes that would eventually lead to the climax of a given site, which may be determined by its state at “settlement”. According to the new “flux of nature” paradigm in ecology a given site has notelos and is constantly changing. Human disturbance is ubiquitous and long-standing, and at certain spatial and temporal scales is “incorporated”. Any moment in the past 10,000 years that may be selected as a benchmark for restoration efforts thus appears to be arbitrary. Two prominent conservationists have therefore suggested that the ecological conditions in North America at the Pleistocene—Holocene boundary, prior to the anthropogenic extinction of the Pleistocene megafauna, be the target for ecological restoration. That suggestion explicitly assumes evolutionary temporal scales and continental spatial scales as the appropriate frame of reference for ecological restoration. However, ecological restoration should be framed in ecological spatio-temporal scales, which may be defined temporally in reference to ecological processes such as disturbance regimes and spatially in reference to ecological units such as landscapes, ecosystems, and biological provinces. Ecological spatio-temporal scales are also useful in achieving a scientifically defensible distinction between native and exotic species, which plays so central a role in the practice of ecological restoration and the conservation of biodiversity. Because post-settlement human disturbances have exceeded the limits of such scales, settlement conditions can be justified scientifically as appropriate targets of restoration efforts without recourse to obsolete teleological concepts of equilibria and without ignoring the presence and ecological influence of indigenous peoples.


Balance of nature ecological function ecological restoration flux of nature native/exotic species temporal/spatial scale wilderness 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Brittingham M C and Temple S A 1983 Have cowbirds caused forest songbirds to decline?;BioScience 33 31–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Clements F E 1916Plant succession: An analysis of the development of vegetation (Washington DC: Carnegie Institution Publication, No. 42)Google Scholar
  3. Coblenz B E 1990 Exotic organisms: a dilemma for conservation biology;Conserv. Biol. 4 261–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Costanza R, Norton B G and Haskell B D (eds) 1992Ecosystem health: New goals for environmental management (Washington DC: Island Press)Google Scholar
  5. Davis M B 1984 Climatic instability, time lags, and community disequilibrium; inCommunity ecology (eds) J Diamond and T J Case (New York: Harper and Row) pp 269–284Google Scholar
  6. Denevan W (ed.) 1992The native populations of the Americas in 1492 2nd edition (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press)Google Scholar
  7. Denevan W 1998 The pristine myth; inThe great new wilderness debate (eds) J B Callicott and M P Nelson (Athens: University of Georgia Press) pp 414–442Google Scholar
  8. Dobyns H F 1983Their numbers became thinned: Native American population dynamics in eastern North America (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press)Google Scholar
  9. Egan D and Glass S 1995 A new tool for killing woody species (Wisconsin);Rest. Manage. Notes 13 134–135Google Scholar
  10. Frith H J 1969Kangaroos (Melbourne: Cheshire)Google Scholar
  11. Garrot R A, White P J and Vanderbilt-White C A 1993 Over-abundance: An issue for conservation biologists?;Conserv. Biol. 7 946–949CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gauthier-Pilters H 1981The camel: Its evolution, ecology, itbehavior, and relationship to man (Chicago: University of Chicago Press)Google Scholar
  13. Gleason H A 1926 The individualistic concept of the plant association;Bull. Torr. Bot. Club 53 1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grayson D K 1977 Pleistocene avifaunas and the overkill hypothesis;Science 183 691–693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Harrington F H and Paquet P C 1982Wolves of the world: Perspectives of behavior, ecology, and conservation (New Jersey: Noyes)Google Scholar
  16. Higgs E S 1997 What is good ecological restoration?;Conserv. Biol. 11 338–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Holling C S 1978Adaptive environmental assessment and management (New York: John Wiley)Google Scholar
  18. Holling C S 1992 Cross-scale morphology, geometry, and dynamics of ecosystems;Ecol. Monogr. 62 447–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jordan W R 1991 A new paradigm;Rest. Manage. Notes 9 64–65Google Scholar
  20. Jordan W R, Gilpin M E and Aber J D (eds) 1987Restoration ecology: A synthetic approach to ecological research (New York: Cambridge University Press)Google Scholar
  21. Kay C 1994 Aboriginal overkill: The role of Native Americans in structuring Western ecosystems;Hum. Nat. 5 359–398Google Scholar
  22. Kay C 1995 Aboriginal overkill and native burning: Implications for modern ecosystem management;West. J. Appl. For. 10 121–126Google Scholar
  23. Kretch S 1999The ecological Indian: Myth and history (New York: W W Norton)Google Scholar
  24. Leopold A 1949A sand county almanac: And sketches here and there (New York: Oxford University Press)Google Scholar
  25. Leopold A 1991 Conservation: In whole or in part?; inThe river of the mother of God and other essays by Aldo Leopold (eds) S L Flader and J B Callicott (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press) pp 310–319Google Scholar
  26. Leopold A 1999a What is the University of Wisconsin arboretum, wild life refuge, and forest experiment preserve?;Trans. Wis. Acad. Sci. Arts Lett. 87 15–17Google Scholar
  27. Leopold A 1999bFor the health of the land: Previously unpublished essays and other writings (Washington DC: Island Press)Google Scholar
  28. MacPhee R D E (ed.) 1999Extinctions in near time: Causes, contexts, and consequences (New York: Kluwer Academic/ Plenum)Google Scholar
  29. Marshall L G 1988 Land mammals and the great American exchange;Am. Sci. 76 380–388Google Scholar
  30. Martin P S 1973 The discovery of America;Science 179 969–974PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Martin P S and Burney D 1999 Bring back the elephants!;Wild Earth 9 57–65Google Scholar
  32. Martin P S and Klein R (eds) 1984Quarternary extinctions: A prehistoric revolution (Tucson: University of Arizona Press)Google Scholar
  33. Marshall R 1998 The problem of the wilderness; inThe great new wilderness debate (eds) J B Callicott and M P Nelson (Athens: University of Georgia Press) pp 85–96Google Scholar
  34. McIntosh R P 1975 Gleason H A: "individualistic ecologist", 1882–1975: his contribution to ecological theory;Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 102 253–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McIntosh R P 1985The background of ecology: Concept and theory (New York: Cambridge University Press)Google Scholar
  36. Meffe G K and Carroll C R 1997Principles of conservation biology 2nd edition (Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates)Google Scholar
  37. Meine C 1988Aldo Leopold: His life and work (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press)Google Scholar
  38. Moyle P B 1989 Message from the president;Newslet. Introd. Fish Sec. Am. Fish. Soc. 9 1–2Google Scholar
  39. Noss R F 1995Maintaining ecological integrity in representative reserve networks (Toronto, Washington DC: World Wildlife Fund — Canada, World Wildlife Fund — United States)Google Scholar
  40. Noss R F and Cooperrider A Y 1994Saving nature’s legacy: Protecting and restoring biodiversity (Washington DC: Island Press)Google Scholar
  41. O’Neill R V, DeAngelis D G, Wade J B and Allen T F H 1986A hierarchical concept of ecosystems (New Jersey: Princeton University Press)Google Scholar
  42. Pickett S T A and Ostfeld R S 1995 The shifting paradigm in ecology; inA new century for natural resources management (eds) R L Knight and S F Bates (Washington DC: Island Press) pp 261–278Google Scholar
  43. Pickett S T A and White P S 1985The ecology of natural disturbance and patch dynamics (Florida: Academic Press)Google Scholar
  44. Pister E P 1974 Desert fishes and their habitats;Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 103 531–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Plumwood V 1998 Wilderness skepticism and wilderness dualism; inThe great new wilderness debate (eds) J B Callicott and M P Nelson (Athens: University of Georgia Press) pp 652–690Google Scholar
  46. Randall J M 2000 Improving management of nonnative invasive plants in wilderness and other natural areas; inWilderness science in a time of change, vol 5: wilderness ecosystems, threats, and management (eds) D N Cole, S F McCool, W T Borrie and J O’Loughlin (Utah: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station) pp 64–73Google Scholar
  47. Rolston H 1998 The wilderness idea reaffirmed; inThe great new wilderness debate (eds) J B Callicott and M P Nelson (Athens: University of Georgia Press) pp 367–386Google Scholar
  48. Simpson G G 1956Horses: The story of the horse family in the modern world through six million years of evolution (New York: Scribner)Google Scholar
  49. Sloan J D and Padoch H C (eds) 1988People of the tropical rainforest (Berkeley: University of California Press)Google Scholar
  50. Soulé M E 1990 The onslaught of alien species, and other challenges in the coming decades;Conserv. Biol. 4 233–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Soulé M E 1995 The social siege of nature; inReinventing nature: Responses to postmodern deconstruction (eds) M E Soulé and G Lease (Washington DC: Island Press) pp 137–170Google Scholar
  52. Tanner H A, Patriarche M H and Mullendore W J 1980Shaping the world’s finest freshwater fishery (Lansing: Michigan Department of Natural Resources)Google Scholar
  53. Tansley A G 1935 The use and abuse of vegetational concepts and terms;Ecology 16 284–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tobey R 1981Saving the prairies: The life-cycle of the founding school of American plant ecology, 1895–1955 (Berkeley: University of California Press)Google Scholar
  55. US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment 1993Harmful non-indigenous species in the United States (Washington DC: US Government Printing Office)Google Scholar
  56. Wasowski S 1988Native Texas plants: Landscaping region by region (Houston: Gulf)Google Scholar
  57. West R G 1964 Inter-relations of ecology and quarternary paleobotany;J. Ecol. 52 47–57Google Scholar
  58. Westman W E 1990 Park management of exotic species: problems and issues;Conserv. Biol. 4 251–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Willers B 1992 Toward a science of letting things be;Conserv. Biol. 6 605–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Worster D 1994Nature’s economy: A history of ecological ideas 2nd edition (New York: Cambridge University Press)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Academy of Sciences 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Baird Callicott
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Philosophy and Religion StudiesUniversity of North TexasDentonUSA

Personalised recommendations