Research and Restoration: A conflict of interests
Research work and restoration work are often in conflict. It
is the purpose of this note to make a plea for the application of common sense
in the selection of sites for research purposes. For instance, in southern Wisconsin we have very
few high quality sites, and those that we do have are jewels deserving of
constant care. Most are completely unsuitable for manipulative field research.
As an example of what I would consider an inappropriate
research study is one on removal of aspen (Populus tremuloides) in one of southern Wisconsin’s
highest quality sites, a State Natural Area. In this justly famous site, aspen
had become a significant invader. The solution to this problem, girdling of the
aspens, is well known. However, a decision was made by the managers of the site
to do research on this aspen clone using a variety of control methods. Because
of this, volunteers interested in preventing aspen spread were refused permission to
carry out any aspen control work. In the meantime, the aspen clone continued to
expand. What a waste, since in southern Wisconsin
there are large numbers of aspen clones on sites of little or no ecological
interest, which would have been perfectly suited for this research. Why should
this high quality remnant be allowed to become degraded? Common sense would
suggest otherwise.
Another example involved a study on the ecology of garlic
mustard (Alliaria petiolata), a
highly invasive exotic. Garlic mustard is widespread in southern Wisconsin and there are
numerous highly degraded sites where it can be studied. However, the study in
question used a high quality site where efforts by volunteers to remove this
plant had been underway for a number of years. The researchers appropriated a
significant portion of this site and part of the research involved allowing
garlic mustard plants to remain intact (as controls). In addition to permitting
the plants to remain on the site, this research sent an inappropriate message
to volunteers, who had been working diligently to remove every vestige of this
highly invasive plant.
On the other hand, here is an example of what I would
consider appropriate research in a high quality site. In another State Natural
Area, a researcher interested in population genetics of a particular plant species
was interested in obtaining leaf samples for DNA analysis. Small samples were
taken from a number of plants on this site. The plants were barely disturbed
and there was no manipulation of the site as a whole.
Land managers responsible for the control of high quality
natural areas should consider carefully the appropriateness of manipulative
research on their sites, especially if the research requires that needed
restoration work be held in abeyance. Most high quality natural areas require
on-going maintenance and are not suitable research areas. Restoration
ecologists should be challenged to find and set aside field sites where
manipulative research is possible.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home