Ecological Restoration FOR 406 Silviculture. HarvestRegenerate Tend.

Ecological RestorationEcological Restoration

FOR 406 Silviculture

HarveHarvestst

RegeneraRegeneratete

TendTend

What is a “natural” ecosystem?

• Native (indigenous) species interact in a self-sustaining manner

• Species persist through natural recruitment rather than managed reproduction

• Population dynamics are regulated internally• Disturbance regimes function within their pre-

disruption range of variability• Trophic dynamics are sustainable over time• Usually equated with some pre-existing

condition; e.g., “pre-European settlement”

Attainable?

Porcupine Mountains State ParkPorcupine Mountains State Park

Sleeping Bear Dunes National LakeshoreSleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore

What is an “unnatural” ecosystem?

• High proportion of nonnative (exotic) species• Exhibits wide swings in population dynamics,

thereby requiring continual management actions

• Dominated by disturbance regimes far different than those present before degradation

• Difficult or impossible to restore to natural conditions

What is a “degraded” ecosystem?

• Somewhere in between natural and unnatural conditions

• Potentially restorable to a more natural condition

Natural ecosystems

Unnatural ecosystems

Degraded ecosystems

Res

tora

tion

“Historical ecology”

• The desired future condition is a past condition

• How far past is past?• The goal should be to achieve a

historical range of variability• Therefore, not only species and

structures must be restored, but also processes

“Historical ecology”

How can pre-existing conditions be defined?

• Extrapolation from “undisturbed” natural ecosystems

Toumey WoodsToumey Woods

Newton WoodsNewton Woods

Estivant PinesEstivant Pines



• Matching species with habitat

Deep Shade Partial Intermittent Full sun shade shade sun

Tolerant Moderately Moderately Intolerant tolerant intolerant

Shade tolerance



• Matching species with habitat • General Land Office (GLO) survey records

15

6 5 4 3 2 1 7 8 9 10 11

18 17 16 15 14 13

19 20 21 22 23 24

30 29 28 27 26 25

31 32 33 34 35 36

One township

One section12

S 16

S 22

S 15

S 21

Historic forest composition changes at a location in Cheboygan County Michigan

(Data from Palik & Pregitzer 1992)

Species group ca. 1850s 1992 . . . . . % of total trees . . . . . Pine 21 7 Hemlock 44 -- Beech 22 <1 Maple 5 11 Paper birch 4 6 Aspen 1 67 Red oaks 2 8



• Matching species with habitat • General Land Office (GLO) survey records• Written descriptions by early settlers &

scientists; native oral traditions

J.W. Wing, 1839




scientists; native oral traditions • Old photographs & maps

State Archivesof Michigan

MSU Archives & Historical Collections


MAC Exp. Sta. Bulletin 162 (1898)




scientists; native oral traditions • Old photographs & maps• Micro-fossil (pollen) record

Pollen diagram from a bog in Lapeer County



• Matching species with habitat• General Land Office (GLO) survey records• Written descriptions by early settlers &

scientists; native oral traditions • Old photographs & maps• Micro-fossil (pollen) record• Dendrochronology

Rin

g w

idth

(m

m)

Year

226 years of radial growth in a northern white cedar swamp near Escanaba

~1890--tree120 years old