Urban Ecosystems

, Volume 12, Issue 1, pp 63–77 | Cite as

Ecological research can augment restoration practice in urban areas degraded by invasive species—examples from Chicago Wilderness

  • Liam Heneghan
  • Lauren Umek
  • Brad Bernau
  • Kevin Grady
  • Jamie Iatropulos
  • David Jabon
  • Margaret Workman


Urban biodiversity conservation needs a firm scientific foundation, one that draws upon active and regionally calibrated research programs. Until recently this foundation has not existed. In this paper we examine the way in which the emerging discipline of restoration ecology in an urban context can learn from the experiences of ongoing restoration projects and in turn how novel insights from research of urban soils can help these projects define and reach their goals. Limitations on collaboration between academic researchers and practitioners continues be problematic. We discuss a model whereby this impediment may be removed. A case study of Rhamnus cathartica, an invader of Midwestern woodlands which modifies some important soil ecosystem properties will be used to illustrate the potential for engagement between research and practice.


Urban ecology Restoration Ecology and management Interdisciplinary research Soil restoration Buckthorn Rhamnus cathartica Invasive species 


  1. Alberti M, Marzluff J-M, Shulenberger E, Bradley G, Ryan C, Zumbrunnen C (2003) Integrating humans into ecology: opportunities and challenges for studying urban ecosystems. Bioscience 53(12):1169–1179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Archibold O-W, Brooks D, Delanoy L (1997) An investigation of the invasive shrub European Buckthorn, Rhamnus cathartica L., near Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. Can Field Nat 111:617–621Google Scholar
  3. Averett J-M, Klips R-A, Nave L-E, Frey S-D, Curtis P-S (2004) Effects of soil carbon amendment on nitrogen availability and plant growth in an experimental tallgrass prairie restoration. Restor Ecol 12(4):568–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boudreau D, Willson G (1992) Buckthorn research and control at Pipestone National Monument (Minnesota). Restor Manage Notes 10(1):94–95Google Scholar
  5. Bowles M-L, Jones M-D, McBride J-L (2003) Twenty-year changes in burned and unburned sand prairie remnants in northwestern Illinois and implications for management. Am Midl Nat 149(1):35–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown VK, Gange AC (1992) Secondary plant succession-how is it modified by insect herbivory. Vegetatio 101(1):3–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brussaard L, Behan-Pelletier VM, Bignell DE, Brown VK, Didden W, Folgarait P, Fragoso C, Freckman DW, Gupta V, Hattori T, Hawksworth DL, Klopatek C, Lavelle P, Malloch DW, Rusek J, Soderstrom B, Tiedje JM, Virginia RA (1997) Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning in soil. Ambio 26(8):563–570Google Scholar
  8. Cabin RJ (2007) Science-driven restoration: A square grid on a round earth? Restor Ecol 15(1):1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cadenasso ML, Pickett STA, Grove JM (2006) Dimensions of ecosystem complexity: Heterogeneity, connectivity, and history. Ecol Complex 3(1):1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cherett JM (1989) Ecological concepts, the contribution of ecology to an understanding of the natural world. 29th BES Symposium, Blackwell, Oxford, 385 ppGoogle Scholar
  11. Choi Y-D (2004) Theories for ecological restoration in changing environment: toward ‘futuristic’ restoration. Ecol Res 19:75–81Google Scholar
  12. Chronopoulos G, Christodoulakis D (2000) Analysis of the adventive flora of a Greek city: The example of Patras. Bot Helv 110(2):171–189Google Scholar
  13. Clark D-L, Wilson, M-V (2001) Fire, mowing, and hand-removal of woody species in restoring a native wetland prairie in the Willamette Valley of Oregon. Wetlands 21:135–144Google Scholar
  14. Clements FE (1936) Nature and structure of the climax. J Ecol 24:252–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Collinge SK (1996) Ecological consequences of habitat fragmentation: Implications for landscape architecture and planning. Landsc Urban Plan 36(1):59–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Council CRB (1999) Biodiversity Recovery PlanGoogle Scholar
  17. Cowles HC (1899) The ecological relations of the vegetation on the sand dunes of lake Michigan. Part I.—Geographical relations of the dune floras. Bot Gaz 27(2):95–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Crane P, Kinzig A (2005) Nature in the metropolis. Science 308(5726):1225PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cronon W (1992) Nature’s Metropolis: Chicago and the Great West. Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Crooks J-A (2002) Characterizing ecosystem-level consequences of biological invasions: the role of ecosystem engineers. Oikos 97(2):153–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. D’Antonio C, Meyerson L-A (2002) Exotic plant species as problems and solutions in ecological restoration: a synthesis. Restor Ecol 10(4):703–713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Davis MA, Grime JP, Thompson K (2000) Fluctuating resources in plant communities: a general theory of invasibility. J Ecol 88(3):528–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Edwards B (1998) Green unseen (Architecture and ecology). Archit Rev 203(1216):18–18Google Scholar
  24. Ehrenfeld J-G (1997) Invasion of deciduous forest preserves in the New York metropolitan region by Japanese barberry (Berberis thunbergii DC.). J Torrey Bot Soc 124(2):210–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ehrenfeld J-G (2003) Effects of exotic plant invasions on soil nutrient cycling processes. Ecosystems 6(6):503–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ehrenfeld J-G, Kourtev P, Huang W (2001) Changes in soil functions following invasions of exotic understory plants in deciduous forests. Ecol Appl 11(5):1287–1300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Forbes SA (1887) The lake as a microcosm. Bull Peoria Sci Assoc III:77–87Google Scholar
  28. Fralish JS, Anderson RC, Ebinger JE, Szafoni R (1994) Proceedings North American Conference on Savannas and Barrens. http://www.epa.gov/ecopage/upland/oak/oak94/Proceedings/index.html. Cited August, 2007
  29. Giardina CP, Litton CM, Thaxton JM, Cordell S, Hadway LJ, Sandquist DR (2007) Science driven restoration: a candle in a demon haunted world—Response to Cabin (2007). Restor Ecol 15(2):171–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gleason, HA (1926) The individualistic concept of the plant association. Bull Torrey Bot Club 53:7–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Godwin H (1936) Studies in the ecology of Wicken Fen: III. The establishment and development of fen scrub (Carr). J Ecol 24(1):82–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Godwin H (1943) Rhamnus cathartica L. J Ecol 31(1):69–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Goode DA (1989) Urban nature conservation in Britain. J Appl Ecol 26(3):859–873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gordon D-R (1998) Effects of invasive, non-indigenous plant species on ecosystem processes: lessons from Florida. Ecol Appl 8(4):975–989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gourley LC, Howell E (1984) Factors in buckthorn invasion documented; control measure checked (Wisconsin). Restor Manage Notes 2(2):87Google Scholar
  36. Greenberg J (2002) A natural history of the Chicago region. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, ILGoogle Scholar
  37. Grimm N-B, Redman C-L (2004) Approaches to the study of urban ecosystems: the case of Central Arizona-Phoenix. Urban Ecosyst 7(3):199–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Harrington RA, Brown BJ, Reich PB (1989) Ecophysiology of exotic and native shrubs in Southern Wisconsin USA I. Relationship of leaf characteristics resource availability and phenology to seasonal patterns of carbon gain. Oecologia (Berlin) 80(3):356–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Harrison C, Davies G (2002) Conserving biodiversity that matters: practitioners’ perspectives on brownfield development and urban nature conservation in London. J Environ Manag 65(1):95–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Heneghan L, Clay C, Brundage C (2002) Observations on the initial decomposition rates and faunal colonization of native and exotic plant species in a urban forest fragment. Ecological Restoration 20(2):108–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Heneghan L, Rauschenberg C, Fatemi F, Workman M (2004) The impact of an Invasive Shrub (Rhamnus cathartica L.) on some ecosystem properties in urban woodland in Chicago, Illinois. Ecological Restoration 22(4):275–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Heneghan L, Steffen J, Fagen K (2006) Interactions of an introduced shrub and introduced earthworms in an Illinois urban woodland: Impact on leaf litter decomposition. Pedobiologia 50:543-551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Huenneke LF (1995) Involving academic scientists in conservation research—perspectives of a plant ecologist. Ecol Appl 5(1):209–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kaye JP, Groffman PM, Grimm NB, Baker LA, Pouyat RV (2006) A distinct urban biogeochemistry? Trends Ecol Evol 21(4):192–199PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kent M, Stevens RA, Zhang L (1999) Urban plant ecology patterns and processes: a case study of the flora of the City of Plymouth, Devon, U.K. J Biogeogr 26(6):1281–1298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Knight K-S, Reich P-B (2005) Opposite relationships between invasibility and native species richness at patch versus landscape scales. Oikos 109(1):81–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kourtev P-S, Ehrenfeld J-G, Haggblom M (2002) Exotic plant species alter the microbial community structure and function in the soil. Ecology (Washington DC) 83(11):3152–3166Google Scholar
  48. Lefebvre H (2003) The urban revolution. University of Minnesota Press,MinnesotaGoogle Scholar
  49. Lindeman, RL (1942) The trophic-dynamic aspect of ecology. Ecology 23:399–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Maron JL, Jeffries RL (2001) Restoring enriched grasslands: Effects of mowing on species richness, productivity, and nitrogen retention. Ecol Appl 11(4):1088–1100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Matlack GR (1997) Four centuries of forest clearance and regeneration in the hinterland of a large city. J Biogeogr 24(3):281–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. McDonnell MJ, Pickett STA (1990) Ecosystem structure and function along urban–rural gradients: an unexploited opportunity for ecology. Ecology 71(4):1232–1237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Midgely M (2001) Science and poetry. Routledge, Evanston, ILGoogle Scholar
  54. Miller JR, Hobbs RJ (2002) Conservation where people live and work. Conserv Biol 16(2):330–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Niemela J (1999) Ecology and urban planning. Biodivers Conserv 8(1):119–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Odum EP (1969) The strategy of ecosystem development. Science 164:262–270PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ong BL (2003) Green plot ratio: an ecological measure for architecture and urban planning. Landsc Urban Plan 63(4):197–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Packard S (1988) Just a few oddball species: restoration and rediscovery of the tallgrass savanna. Restor Manage Notes 6:13–24Google Scholar
  59. Packard S (1993) Restoring oak ecosystems. Restor Manage Notes 11:5–16Google Scholar
  60. Packard S, Mutel CF (1997) The tallgrass restoration handbook. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  61. Palmer M, Bernhardt E, Chornesky E, Collins S, Dobson A, Duke C, Gold B, Jacobson R, Kingsland S, Kranz R, Mappin M, Martinez ML, Micheli F, Morse J, Pace M, Pascual M, Palumbi S, Reichman OJ, Simons A, Townsend A, Turner M (2004) ECOLOGY: Ecology for a crowded planet. Science 304(5675):1251–1252PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Park RE (1936) Human ecology. Am J Sociol 42(1):1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Pickett STA, Cadenasso ML, Grove JM, Nilon CH, Pouyat RV, Zipperer WC, Costanza R (2001) Urban ecological systems: linking terrestrial ecological, physical, and socioeconomic components of metropolitan areas. Ann Rev Ecolog Syst 32:127–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Quinn JA (1940) Human ecology and interactional ecology. Am Sociol Rev 5(5):713–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Reever-Morghan KJ, Seastedt TR (1999) Effects of soil nitrogen reduction on nonnative plants in restored grasslands. Restor Ecol 7(1):51–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Rejmanek M (1996) A theory of seed plant invasiveness: the first sketch. Biol Conserv 78(1–2):171–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Rice S-K, Westerman B, Federici R (2004) Impacts of the exotic, nitrogen-fixing black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) on nitrogen-cycling in a pine-oak ecosystem. Plant Ecol 174(1):97–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Rudd H, Vala J, Schaefer V (2002) Importance of backyard habitat in a comprehensive biodiversity conservation strategy: a connectivity analysis of urban green spaces. Restor Ecol 10:368–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Stearns F, Holland K (1993) 1993 Midwest Oak Savanna Conferences. http://www.epa.gov/ecopage/upland/oak/oak93/index.html. Cited August 2007
  70. Stevens WK (1996) Miracle under the oaks: The revival of nature in America. Pocket, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  71. Suding KN, Gross KL, Houseman GR (2004) Alternative states and positive feedbacks in restoration ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 19(1):46–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Tarvainen O, Markkola AM, Strommer R (2003) Diversity of macrofungi and plants in Scots pine forests along an urban pollution gradient. Basic Appl Ecol 4(6):547–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Tilman D (1987) Secondary succession and the pattern of plant dominance along experimental nitrogen gradients. Ecol Monogr 57(3):189–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Todd J, Brown EJG, Wells E (2003) Ecological design applied. Ecol Eng 20(5):421–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Umek L, Heneghan L (2007) Chicago wilderness invasive species roundtable discussion: Pragmatic solutions to common problems in the Chicago Wilderness region. http://gis.depaul.edu/envirsci/LJH/CWInvasivesRoundtableWebpage/CWInvasiveShrubRoundtable.pdf. Cited July 2007
  76. Underwood AJ (1995) Ecological research and (and Research into) environmental management. Ecol Appl 5(1):232–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. UNPF (2007) State of world population 2007: unleashing the potential of urban growth. http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2007/presskit/pdf/sowp2007_eng.pdf. Cited August 2007
  78. Van der Ryn S, Cowan S (1995) Ecological design. Island Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  79. Van-der-Putten WH, Mortimer SR, Hedlund K, Van-Dijk C, Brown VK, Leps J, Rodriguez-Barrueco C, Roy J, Diaz-Len TA, Gormsen D, Korthals GW, Lavorel S, Santa-Regina I, Smilauer P (2000) Plant species diversity as a driver of early succession in abandoned fields: a multi-site approach. Oecologia (Berlin) 124(1):91–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Wackernagel M, Yount JD (1998) The ecological footprint: an indicator of progress toward regional sustainability. Environ Monit Assess 51(1–2):511–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Wang Y, Moskovits D-K (2001) Tracking fragmentation of natural communities and changes in land cover: applications of landsat data for conservation in an urban landscape (Chicago Wilderness). Conserv Biol 15(4):835–843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Wardle DA, Bardgett RD, Klironomos JN, Setala H, van der Putten WH, Wall DH (2004) Ecological linkages between aboveground and belowground biota. Science 304(5677):1629–1633PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Warner RE (1994) Agricultural land use and grassland habitat in Illinois: future shock for Midwestern birds? Conserv Biol 8(1):147–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Wirth L (1945) Human ecology. Bull Torrey Bot Club 50(6):483Google Scholar
  85. Worster D (1994) Nature’s economy: a history of ecological ideas, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  86. Zavaleta E-S, Hobbs R-J, Mooney H-A (2001) Viewing invasive species removal in a whole-ecosystem context. Trends Ecol Evol 16(8):454–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Zipperer WC, Wu J, Pouyat RV, Pickett STA (2000) The application of ecological principles to urban and urbanizing landscapes. Ecol Appl 10(3):685CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Liam Heneghan
    • 1
  • Lauren Umek
    • 1
  • Brad Bernau
    • 1
  • Kevin Grady
    • 1
  • Jamie Iatropulos
    • 1
  • David Jabon
    • 2
  • Margaret Workman
    • 1
  1. 1.Environmental Science ProgramDePaul UniversityChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Scientific Data Analysis and Visualization ProgramDePaul UniversityChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations