Vital Landscape Attributes
Transcript of Vital Landscape Attributes
-
7/28/2019 Vital Landscape Attributes
1/27
Reference: Aronson, J. & Le Floc'h, E. 1996. Vital landscape attributes: missing tools for
restoration ecology.Restoration Ecology 4: 377-387.
Vital landscape attributes: missing tools for restoration ecology
James ARONSON and Edouard LE FLOC'H
Centre d'Ecologie Fonctionelle et Evolutive
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique
B.P. 5051, 34033 Montpellier cedex 01, France
Fax + 334 67.41.21.38
Abstract
Twenty three "vital ecosystem attributes" (VEAs) were previously proposed to aid inquantitative evaluation of whole ecosystem structure, composition and functional complexity over
time. We here introduce a series of 16 quantifiable attributes for use at a higher spatial scale and
ecological organisational level, the landscape. "Vital landscape attributes" (VLAs), should be useful
in evaluating the results of ecological restoration or rehabilitation undertaken with a landscape
perspective, provided that clear definitions and boundaries are agreed upon for the different spatial
and ecological entities involved. Like VEAs, VLAs should be sensitive to changes wrought by
human as well as non-human factors leading to ruptures in flow processes or vegetation `switches'.
They should be applicable over a wide range of landscape types and therefore aid in conducting
rigorous inter-landscape comparisons.
Three groups of VLAs are presented: 1) landscape structure and biotic composition, 2)
functional interactions among ecosystems within the landscape, and 3) degree, type and causes of
landscape fragmentation and degradation. Ecotones between ecosystems are touched upon by
several different VLAs. As conflicting terminology abounds in this area, we append a glossary
defining the problematic terms used.
-
7/28/2019 Vital Landscape Attributes
2/27
Introduction
Fifteen years ago, Forman & Godron (1981) called for distinct, measurable units to describe
landscapes. Today, "landscape ecologists" do measure spatial components and dimensions of
landscapes, but the concepts and units of measurement
appropriate to the study of ecological aspects of whole landscapes have not yet been adequately
developed. Many recent papers in this journal have cited the need for specific criteria to evaluate
restoration and rehabilitation projects undertaken with a landscape perspective (Brown & Lugo
1994; Dahm et al. 1995; Jackson et al. 1995; Kondolf 1995). However, there have been few
attempts at developing a practical approach with concrete methods.
Perhaps the first problem has to do with defining the word "landscapes". Geographers in
western Europe and North America tend to think of landscapes as something entirely subjective,
whereas ecologists grapple only with the objective, material aspects of what they also namelandscapes. Some authors (e.g., Berque 1990) have suggested - and rightly we think - that the
notion of landscape is subjective and objective at the same time, and can therefore be used in
different ways by different people. However, this arrangement requires that each author clearly
define his or her use of the term.
By most of its dozen-or-more `official' definitions, landscape certainly is generally
something that involves humans - as individual observers or as a society. In contrast, ecologists
place emphasis on biophysical features and the various interactions of an ecological and
evolutionary character that take place within a landscape.
Clearly, some kind of rapprochement is needed since, as Bertrand (1972) noted, dealing
scientifically with landscape means working at the crossroads between ecology and human
geography. Otherwise, ecologists may have to give up the term "landscape" altogether and coin a
new one to indicate what they are talking about. But the problem of interacting across disciplinary
lines would not have been eliminated by this tactic.
A second stumbling block for ecologists and geographers alike has been the failure to
clearly identify the place of landscapes in spatial or ecological hierarchies. Naveh & Lieberman
(1984), Orians (1986), Tongway (1991), Hobbs (1993), and Whisenant et al. (1995) have all written
of the need for quantifying landscapes as something discretely embedded within a well-definedhierarchy. However, they did not provide one!
Working with wetlands, Zedler (Pacific Estuarine Research Laboratory 1990), Swanson et
al. (1990), Kelly & Harwell (1990) and many of the contributors to Stetzner et al. (1994) worked
and reported results within a coherent conceptual hierarchy of fluvial units. For no apparent reason,
far less has been attempted to develop quantifiable traits and experimental approaches to studying
-
7/28/2019 Vital Landscape Attributes
3/27
and manipulating terrestrial systems with a nested approach (Hobbs & Saunders 1992; Hobbs &
Norton 1996). Yet, just as when `landscape' is used as a spatial entity, we need to know where the
authors draw boundaries around it on a map, so if this same word is denotes a level of ecological
complexity (Forman & Godron 1981, 1986), then we need a clear exposition of the ecological
hierarchy in which it appears (Aronson & Le Floc'h, 1996).
We have previously presented a schematic model of ecosystem degradation, and the three
main responses available, with emphasis on arid and semiarid lands where degradation tends to be
widespread and severe (Aronson et al. 1993a). Applications of this model, and of a series of "vital
ecosystem attributes" (VEAs), to on-going field experiments in southern Tunisia, central Chile and
northern Cameroon were also described (Aronson et al. 1993b). A somewhat comparable overview
for aquatic systems, particularly streams and rivers, was provided by Kelly & Harwell 1990). Lefroy
& Hobbs (1993) have made an excellent contribution in the same vein, although they restrictedthemselves to agricultural systems where economic considerations are as or more important than
biodiversity or other environmental or aesthetic concerns.
In this paper, we introduce a series of measures to be used as a corollary to VEVEAVEAs;
we call them "vital landscape attributes", or VLAs. Like VEAs, VLAs should provide quantitative
indicators of levels of landscape degradation or - as is often said when ecologists are speaking of
landscapes - their "fragmentation" (Hobbs & Saunders 1991, 1992). In other words, they should
help to monitor and compare restoration or rehabilitation projects whether or not the project
designers fully realized the importance of a landscape perspective. No doubt such concerns are of
most relevance in areas where people are likely to continue being the primary ecological factor at
work.
VLAs should be sensitive, therefore, to perturbations wrought by both human or non-human
interventions, and also easily applicable over the full range of landscape types. They should help
reveal ruptures in spatial flow processes across landscapes and previous crossing of thresholds
leading to vegetation "switches" (Wilson & Agnew 1992; Wilson & King 1995). Ideally, they
should also reveal something about how local people are managing their environment, since the
`health' of a landscape has a great deal to do with the degree of good management that people have
attained and applied to their resource exploitation and production systems. No single index canprovide such information. Instead, large suites of indicators are required to thoroughly assess the
`health' and evolutionary direction (which we call "trajectory") of ecosystems and landscapes.
Change at these scales comes about from socioeconomic, but also climatic or biogeophysical
factors, and the myriad interactions among them.
Analogous to vital ecosystem attributes, VLAs should serve to identify and quantify
-
7/28/2019 Vital Landscape Attributes
4/27
landscape-scale traits that change in the course of degradation, restoration or rehabilitation. They
can play a critical role in "directing landscape dynamics" (Whisenant 1994, 1995), or piloting
ecosystem trajectories, by permitting the formulation and testing of hypotheses concerning the
organisation of landscapes, and their effects on individual ecosystems.
The main difficulty lies in identifying attributes that are truly appropriate to the landscape
scale and can, therefore, increase the sharpness or acuity with which we perceive interacting
components, trends, anamolies, etc. In other words, VLAs should help us resolve the complexity we
perceive in landscapes, both spatially and ecologically, so as to increase our ability to analyse,
compare and manage them in whatever context we are presented with. Accordingly, our approach is
purposefully somewhat simplistic so as to help inachieving rapid evaluations - or as a doctor might
say, diagnoses - of a landscape's current state and its probable evolutionary trajectory.
VLAs differ from VEAs primarily by dealing with two or more interacting ecosystems,and/or the ecotones occurring between them. Secondly, some VLAs must be defined that permit
quantitative description and analytical comparison of historical, cultural and other anthropogenic
dimensions of landscapes. While we do not dwell here on symbolic, perceptual, or other cultural
aspects of landscapes, we suggest, once again, that landscapes are not only a critically important
scale for evaluation and intervention by restoration ecologists, but also the meeting place between
ecology, human geography, environmental management and of course urban and rural landscape
design. It thus becomes inevitable to include both bio-pedo-physical and cultural/historical
variables when evaluating a landscape. However, our main goal here remains to establish a
preliminary list of VLAs for ecologists.
We now present 16 candidate VLAs. Depending on the study area and the priorities of the
restoration team, this list can and should be modified, as mentioned above. In what follows, an
ecosystem is considered as being contained within a landscape embedded in a biogeographical
matrix. (See Appendix for terms in italics.) The VLAs listed come under three headings:
a) structural and biotic composition, b) functional interactions among ecosystems, and c) degree,
type and causes offragmentation and degradation. Conversely, the level of landscape reintegration
achieved may be measured. Despite their importance, we devote little attention here to ecological
processes that affect populations of individual species (e.g., source-sink and neighborhood effects)(Dunning et al. 1992). Nevertheless, unless careful population-level studies are also carried out on
at least some key organisms, it will be very difficult to undertake reliable syntheses at higher levels
such as `community' or `ecosystem'.
In selecting and classifying VLAs, we have generally followed the criteria of Kelly &
Harwell (1990) and Aronson et al. (1993a). Identifying correlations among these various VLAs, and
-
7/28/2019 Vital Landscape Attributes
5/27
comparing them for various contrasted landscapes, with different past histories, are research
priorities for the future.
Vital Landscape Attributes (VLAs)
1. Type, number and range of landforms is a logical starting point. In Russia, Siberia and central
Europe, a long tradition exists for studying physical-chemical "geosystems" or "natural territorial
complexes" (Grin 1984; Rougerie & Beroutchachvili 1991). These concepts also recur in the
German notion of "landschaft" and the English phrase "natural landscape" as opposed to "cultural
landscape", and they have had a strong influence on French geographers as well. Swanson et al.
(1988) discussed geosystem processes or landform features that can affect ecosystems and
landscapes, including environmental gradients and the movement of material, organisms,
propagules and energy along them, and geomorphic processes that alter biotic features andprocesses. These same authors also pointed out that landforms also influence the frequency and
spatial pattern of non-geomorphically induced disturbances such as fire, wind and grazing.
2. The number of ecosystems present needs to be explicit, including both aquatic and terrestrial
types. These different ecosystems, and their boundaries, should be defined and located as carefully
as possible. This may be difficult in areas where landscape heterogeneity has been drastically
reduced by human activities over the past few centuries, and the natural boundaries between
ecosystems obscured. In most situations, however, a tentative listing can be achieved on the basis of
broad differences in landforms and/or extant biotic communities. When this is not possible, it may
be preferable to work initially with "land units" (see below).
Biotic communities can be typified according to mathematical indices of landscape
richness, evenness and patchiness (Romme 1982). McCoy et al. (1986) developed a quantitative
method to determine biotic boundaries along environmental gradients that requires only presence-
absence data and a series of multivariate analyses. This approach could well be applied to
landscapes by employing a series of transects along complete toposequences in such a way as to
represent the entire landscape (Aronson et al. in press a). Patchiness was also used by Romme
(1982) to reveal the interspersion and contrast of `communities' at the landscape scale. However,communities do not segregate neatly in accordance with ecosystems and, as mentioned above,
ecosystems and communities boundaries are often masked by past human activities. Accordingly,
caution must be employed.
Where legitimate doubt exists as to the distinctions that can be drawn between `landscape'
and `ecosystem', we may subdivide the territory under study into "land units" (Christian & Stewart
-
7/28/2019 Vital Landscape Attributes
6/27
1964). When more data are available, notably via quantification of various VEAs and VLAs, then
more precise terms can be substituted.
Spatial aspects of landscape pattern (or physiognomy, as some would call it) can indeed be
most readily - if not always satisfactorily - analysed in terms of land units, i.e., "ecologically
homogeneous tracts of land at the scale at issue" (Zonneveld 1989). By definition, a land unit may
either represent portions of a landscape in a given stage of "recovery" following a disturbance, or
else "permanent cultures of at least a decade", e.g., orchards, vineyards (Zonneveld 1989:79). They
can also be tracts of "wilderness", fallows, or anything else that lends itself to spatial cartography.
3. Type, number and range of land units are three simple measures of heterogeneity within a
landscape. Land units can also be characterized or categorized by more sophisticated indices, e.g.,
dominance and contagion within a landscape, and fractal dimension. O'Neill et al. (1988) have usedthis approach to discriminate between major landscape types in the eastern United States.
Dominance measures the relative frequency of a land unit in a landscape. The contagion index
measures the extent to which the different land uses are aggregated or clumped. Conveniently, the
fractal geometry of land units is highly correlated with the degree of human manipulation of a given
landscape. See O'Neill et al. (1988) for units of measurement and computation techniques.
It may be mentioned that many other workers in landscape ecology have applied
information theory and fractal geometry to quantifying shapes and boundaries in a landscape
(Turner 1989). Exceptionally, Turner & Ruscher (1988) and Odum & Turner (1990) used these
approaches to describe landscape changes in Georgia (USA) since 1920, thereby tracking changing
spatial dynamics and fractal dimensions over a considerable period of time. This seems a
particularly promising research direction to pursue.
4. Diversity, length and intensity of former human uses.
This type of investigation has been called, in France, the archeology of landscapes. In
attempting to `read' or decipher a landscape's current condition, it can be extremely useful to
identify the dates and duration of periods of particularly intensive exploitation of the study area in
the past.The age or longevity of different uses, and of intensive use in general, to which man has put
a landscape and its bio-resources, and the intensity of that use as well, are often critical variables in
the current state of `health' of the various ecosystems operating within the landscape under study.
The plant and animal species found in landscapes long since occupied by man have tended to
evolve certain commensal characteristics allowing them to subsist despite the repeated, intense
-
7/28/2019 Vital Landscape Attributes
7/27
perturbations cause by rural populations....otherwise they have disappeared. Thus, knowing
something about the history of land use by people is critical (Aronson et al. in press a,b).
For example, we are currently engaged in comparing long-term ecosystem studies in
southern France and central Chile where an order of difference in magnitude separates the age since
energy- intensive systems of agricultural exploitation have been introduced and practised. In France
there are some 6 - 10 millenia of such history, as compared with only four to 460 years in central
Chile (Aronson & Le Floc'h 1996). What's more many of the most common plant species found in
central Chile are in fact originally from the Mediterranean Basin, where they evolved in co-
habitation with people. (N.B. It is be useful to speak of `positive feedback systems' in this context
but, technically, the term "coevolution" should be avoided.)
5. Diversity of present human uses of landscapes, or portions thereof, includes those activitesleaving no trace (hunting, hiking, mushroom collecting, etc.). This is not the same as the preceding
VLA, since they cannot be easily mapped or studied spatially. In any case, they require in-depth
studies of local people and their day-to-day activities and preferences. Typically, this is a VLA for
which the help of geographers or sociologists may be required.
6. Number and proportion of land use types refers initially to the uses to which people put different
pieces of land, with concrete physical consequences visable in the landscape. These are broad
categories such as plough-farming, pasturing, tree-farming, etc., and do not necessarily correspond
to specific geographical land units. The proportion of each land use type to overall land area can be
readily quantified. This calculation may have important social and political ramifications when
many different actors or interest groups are present in a given landscape.
By using ratios for this VLA, size-related variations can be overcome for the purpose of
inter-landscape comparisons. However, the problem with both proportions and ratios is that they
tend to encourage thinking in terms of linear relationships that in fact only rarely exist. To avoid
such oversimplification, a modified Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index (Westman 1985) can be used
to measure three indices of landscape pattern: proportion of land use type, mean size, and an overallindex of diversity, combining number and relative abundance within the landscape.
7. Number and variety of ecotones i.e., zones of high biological and energetic connectivity between
ecosystems, and of varying shapes and widths. As habitat boundaries and more-or-less permeable
barriers, ecotones have major impact on the movement of organisms and materials across
-
7/28/2019 Vital Landscape Attributes
8/27
landscapes (Hansen & di Castri 1992). For example, conserving a variety of ecotones of differing
shapes and sizes may lead to higher retention of nutrients and may influence nutrient cycling over
predominantly agricultural landscapes (Ryszkowski 1992). Hardt & Forman (1989) reported similar
results on reclaimed surface mines. More research on ecotones is needed in other kinds of
landscapes. In some areas (e.g., much of southern Europe, where lands are being `liberated' from
agriculture), there may be long-term value in not only conserving existing ecotones but also
artificially recreating semi-permeable barriers to animal or plant movements, as well as to water,
nutrient and energy flows. In theory, this could complement the sort of artificially fostered patch
dynamics practised with success by Hardt & Forman (1989) and by Ludwig & Tongway (1996).
8. Number and types of corridors or "wildlife corridors" are increasingly investigated, but seldom in
conjunction with human movements across landscapes; these are usually treated apart, and bydifferent investigators. In our view, more attention should be paid to the direction and orientation of
all travel routes traversing a landscape.
In past Oriental as well as Occidental and African cultures, great attention was paid to the
siting, routing and orientation of roads, bridges, tombs and other conveyors of human souls, or
bodies, or livestock, produce and the like. These routes were often determined by simple factors
such as topography, but also by more cryptic ones, such as wind and rainfall patterns, or the
behavior of certain rivers in exceptionally wet years. Telluric force lines were also considered in
some cases, and such efforts should not be neglected by modern day restorationists. Similarly,
determining exactly why animals followed one path rather than another merits our full attention.
For present purposes, however, we simply recommend some kind of census be undertaken
of all forms of movement corridors within a landscape (see below). An obvious follow-up to this
would be to monitor actual numbers of people, livestock or wild animals moving in each direction
along a corridor in, say, a 24-hour period, per week, or per year. The important thing is to
characterize how movements across the landscape were traditionally effected.
9. Diversity of selected critical groups of organisms (or "functional groups"; Krner 1993) is an
essential component to the characterization of habitats or communities (representing anapproximation of ecosystems). Birds, fish, crustaceans, higher plants, mycorrhizae, etc., could all be
considered as key groups of interest at the landscape level; there are often close, functional
correlations among groups. For example, it is widely held that abundance and diversity of birds in a
river valley are indicators of abundance and diversity of fish. Large animals are usually given
particular attention (Naiman 1988; Pastor et al. 1988). Some measures of beta (i.e., between sites of
-
7/28/2019 Vital Landscape Attributes
9/27
a similar type), and gamma (overall landscape) diversity should be obtained, e.g., on the basis of
presence-absence data (Wilson & Shmida 1984).
10. Range and modalities of organisms regularly crossing ecotones is a related VLA directly
affecting trajectories of more than one ecosystem. This can be quantified simply by using the
number of entities involved and one of several existing indices of similarity chosen to compare
them. It would be important to quantify the number and frequency of these trans-landscape
movements to help understand the dynamics which drive them.
11. Cycling indices of flows and exchanges of water, nutrients and energy within and among
ecosystems. We have proposed cycling indices (Finn 1976, 1982) as a VEA (Aronson et al. 1993a),
but they probably apply better at the level of landscapes. In either case, they should be used toevaluate whether or not nutrient and water `leaks' are becoming more or less important, both within
and among adjacent ecosystems as a result of past actions or current restoration efforts.
Since "ecosystem health" (Leopold 1948; Costanza et al. 1992) and "ecosystem integrity",
may well rely on a full complement of biological diversity being present, all tending to serve in
"leak plugging" (von Voris et al. 1980; Main 1981), and thereby maintaining ecosystem structure
and functioning, the study of "leakiness" at both the ecosystem and landscape levels can be a very
powerful tool. Ultimately it should reveal what proportions of available energy, water and nutrient
resources are being captured and recycled and where; a serious research committment is required
for this and indeed, such enquiries should receive high priority.
12. Pattern and tempo of water and nutrient movements among contiguous ecosystems is an
important VLA for which the traditional units of limnology and hydrology (cubic meters of water
moving past a point per minute or cubic centimeters of silt charge in the water) are not appropriate.
However, Band et al. (1991) offered some useful guidelines and quantitative measures for
modalities of water circulation in a watershed, including rainfall and surface run-off patterns, water
table dynamics, etc.).
13. Level of anthropogenic transformation of a landscape indicates relative homogenization of a
landscape as a function of cumulative human activities. In French, and other Romance languages,
this is called "anthropisation" or "artificialisation". "Banalisation" is a related concept. In English,
no single words exist to convey these notions. In ecology, however, they are simply a special kind
-
7/28/2019 Vital Landscape Attributes
10/27
of disturbance or perturbation and can to a large degree be lumped together. Plant and animal
populations respond quickly to this kind of selective pressure; communities and ecosystems having
achieved some sort of metastability despite prolonged human presence will presumably give an
accurate reflection of the degree of anthropogenic transformation that obtains (Hobbs & Hopkins
1990; Aronson et al. in press a, b).
Means of quantifying this VLA depend on the origin and severity of the processes involved.
If quantitative or semi-quantitative measures can be agreed upon, this VLA can be used both when
comparing between two or more landscapes in a given matrix, or else to characterize the range and
proportions of past and ongoing artificialisation among land use units in a given landscape. This, of
course, implies determining a "landscape of reference", however imperfect.
Just as an ecosystem undergoing rapid transformation will present varying vegetation
`facies' that are more or less removed from the "ecosystem of reference", it is important to clarifyhow much or how far each part of a landscape has been altered in the time frame of concern. Here
in the Mediterranean Basin, of course, heterogeneity at all scales of analysis is the byword for all
ecosystems and, until recently, all landscapes. Therefore, it is important to seek all available data on
the past history of the specific study areas (see VLA 4). This approach was exemplified in the
recent issue of this journal devoted to the Kissimme River project (Dahm 1995), where a detailed
historical account of the study area was presented (Koebel 1995) prior to discussing the orientation
and various details of the restoration project itself.
One of the emergent properties of the landscape that should be become more apparent
through study of this VLA is the relative degree of homogeneity to be found at the landscape unit
level, and this can be expected to increase in situations of declining (or abolished) land use, at least
in areas where ecosystem resiliency has not been totally destroyed. In the milder, subhumid portions
of mediterranean Europe, this situation is generally perceived as a degradation of, or at least
unwelcome departure from traditional landscapes that people have known in the 20th century. In
drier parts of the same region (southern Spain, Greece, etc.), the greater aridity probably intensifies
and accelerates the undesireable side-effects of prolonged human use, and extant ecosystem
resilience is apparently much lower as a rule. Particular attention should be given to whether one ormore "thresholds of irreversibility" have been crossed in the process of anthropogenic
transformation.
Land abandonment may also have direct consequences for some native plants, animals and,
of course, people. In the case of southern France and adjacent parts of Spain and Italy, the hazard of
disastrous fires raging out of control during the dry summer months increases rapidly as woodlands
-
7/28/2019 Vital Landscape Attributes
11/27
and shrublands become inpenetrable (Etienne et al. in press).
To give one more example, we cite a land-mapping study carried out in southern Tunisia
(Le Floc'h 1979), wherein the number of man-hours spent working per hectare and per year proved
a very useful indicator both for research and management purposes. This parameter is well-known
in cultural anthropology and rural economy as well and should prove useful in the present context
as well.
14. Spread of disturbance across a landscape, and ecological disturbance regimes in general, need to
be studied since "disturbances operate at many scales simultaneously, and their interactions
contribute to the observed landscape mosaic" (Turner 1989). Ecosystem and landscape managers
should learn to expect and indeed plan for risk of unexpected disturbance and chance events in
their multiscale, multidimensional projects (Allen & Hoekstra 1987; Bodkin 1990). To do so, theyneed to have a notion of the indigenous disturbance regimes of given ecosystems and their potential
impact on whole landscapes.
15. Number and importance of biological invasions deal with a kind of disturbance for which the
indigenous ecosystem was theoretically not `designed' to cope. Vitousek (1989) has elegantly
demonstrated the profound impact of certain invasive organisms on certain ecosystems. At the
landscape level, this impact may well be greater than at the ecosystem level. Many restoration
efforts therefore logically begin with straightforward eradication efforts aimed at eliminating
noxious animals or plants introduced intentionally or inadvertently in the past. However, the
environmental impact of those invaders is not always well determined. These invaders may be the
only organisms of a functional type to be able to survive under present conditions and can serve an
important intermediary role while a range of native species is being reintroduced.
An effective complement would be to rate landscape units, or even whole ecosystems,
according to their "resistance to invasive (plant or animal) species", as recommended by Zedler and
coworkers (Pacific Estuarine Research Laboratory 1990) in their manual for evaluating coastal
wetlands in southern California. Of course such ratings must be periodically reviewed as the extent
of the "eternal external threat" (Janzen 1986) changes. The rate of plant invasion now occurring forthe first time in the Galapagos Islands, for example, could hardly have been predicted ten years ago.
16. Nature and intensity of the different sources of degradation, whether legal or illegal. An
example of how to use this self-explanatory VLA would be to quantify the sources and current
levels of pollution by their relative importance, duration, origin, or other ecological or socio-
-
7/28/2019 Vital Landscape Attributes
12/27
economic criteria. In some areas, illegal activities such as poaching or tree-stealing may be
particularly influential but hard to quantify.
With the last attribute in this list, we returned to our colleagues in the realm of sociology,
cultural anthropology and human geography. All of these disciplines have much to contribute to the
emerging "science of landscapes", especially in areas where restoration or rehabilitation must co-
exist with local populations' social, economic and other cultural needs.
We note that Ruzicka & Miklos (1990) combine ecological and socioeconomic variables in
their LANDEP system for "landscape optimization" planning. Other examples of this kind of
thinking are given in Young's (1992) volume on "sustainable investment and resource use", and the
well-known work of Costanza and co-workers (Costanza & Daly 1992). See also the
interdiscipinary syntheses undertaken by Zube et al. (1975), Raveneau (1977), Brown & Lugo
(1994) and Jackson et al. (1995) for examples of how to at least juxtapose, if not fully integrate,data from various disciplines ranging from ecology to rural sociology and economics.
Discussion
In this paper, we have proposed a preliminary list of 16 vital landscape attributes or VLAs
to complement our previous list of vital ecosystem attributes, or VEAs. These should aid in refining
existing models of spatial and ecological hierarchies relevant to restoration and landscape ecology.
More concretely, developing quantifiable, sensitive, reliable, and universal VLAs appears to be an
essential step in the advancement of a landscape perspective in restoration and rehabilitation
ecology. Whether the goal is "ecologically sustainable landscapes" (Forman 1990), the preservation
of biodiversity (Franklin 1993), or else "sustainable development", the landscape seems a crucial
scale at which to work, both conceptually and practically. We hope that VLAs will provide a useful
tool for such endeavors.
Acknowledgements
We warmly thank Sandra Brown, Shivcharn Dhillion, Richard Hobbs, Byron Lamont, Bill Niering,
Dan Simberloff and Steven Whisenant for comments and criticisms on earlier versions of the
manuscript.
-
7/28/2019 Vital Landscape Attributes
13/27
Literature cited
Allen, T.F.H. and T.W. Hoekstra 1987. Problems of scaling in restoration ecology: a practical
application. Pages 289-299 in Jordan, W.R. III, M.E. Gilpin and J.D. Aber, editors. Restoration
ecology: a synthetic approach to ecological research. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.
Aronson, J. and E. Le Floc'h (in press). Hierarchies and landscape history: dialoging with Hobbs
and Norton. Restoration Ecology 5:000-000.
Aronson, J., C. Floret, E. Le Floc'h, C. Ovalle and R. Pontanier 1993a. Restoration and
rehabilitation of degraded ecosystems in arid and semiarid regions. I. A view from the south.Restoration Ecology 1:8-17.
Aronson, J., C. Floret, E. Le Floc'h, C. Ovalle and R. Pontanier
1993b. Restoration and rehabilitation of degraded ecosystems in arid and semiarid regions. II. Case
studies from southern Tunisia, central Chile and northern Cameroon. Restoration Ecology 1:
168-187.
Aronson, J., Del Pozo, A., Ovalle, C., Avendano, J. and Lavin, A. (in press a). Land use change in
central Chile: the third wave. Pages 000-000 in P. Rundel, editor. Landscape degradation in
mediterranean-type ecosystems. Springer Verlag, New York.
Aronson, J., E. Le Floc'h, S. Dhillion, C. Ovalle and M. Abrams (in press b). Studies in ecosystem
trajectories in France and Chile: experimental design and the possibilities of comparisons.
Restoration Ecology 0:000-000.
Band, L.E., D.L. Peterson, S.W. Running, J. Coughlan, R. Lammers, J. Dungan and R. Nemani.
1991. Forest ecosystem processes at the watershed scale: basis for distributed simulation.Ecological Modelling 56:171-196.
Baudry, J. and Merriam, G. 1988. Connectivity and connectedness: functional versus structural
patterns in landscapes. Pages 23-28 in K.-F.Schreiber, editor. Connectivity in landscape ecology.
Mnstersche Geographische Arbeiten 29. Mnster, Germany.
-
7/28/2019 Vital Landscape Attributes
14/27
Berque, A. 1984. Paysage-empreinte, paysage matrice. L'Espace Gographique 12:3-4.
Berque, A. 1986. Le sauvage et l'artifice. Les Japonais devant la nature. Gallimard, Paris.
Berque, A. 1990. Mdiance. De milieux en paysages. Reclus, Montpellier.
Bertrand, G. 1972. Ecologie d'un espace gographique: les gosystmes du Valle de Prioro. Espace
gographique 2: 113-128.
Bodkin, D. 1990. Discordant harmonies. Oxford University,
Oxford.
Brown, S.A. and A.E. Lugo. 1994. Rehabilitation of tropical lands: a key to sustaining
development. Restoration Ecology 2:97-111.
Christian, C.S. and G.A. Stewart. 1964. Methodology of integrated surveys. Proceedings of the
UNESCO Conference on Principles and Methods of integrated Aerial Surveys of Natural
Resources for Potential Development. Toulouse, France. WS/0394.15/NS.
Clements F.E. 1916. Plant succession : an analysis of the development of vegetation. Carnegie
Institute, Washington, D.C. Publication No. 242: 1-512.
Costanza, R. and H.E. Daly. 1992. Natural capital and sustainable development. Conservation
Biology 6:37-46.
Costanza, R., Norton, B.G. and B.D. Haskell, editors. 1992. Ecosystem health: new goals of
environmental management. Island Press, New York.
Cousins, S. 1993. Hierarchy in ecology: its relevance to landscape ecology and geographicalinformation systems. Pages 75-86 in R. Haines-Young, D.R. Green and S.H. Cousins, editors.
Landscape ecology and GIS. Taylor & Francis, London.
Dahm, C.N. editor. 1995. Special Issue: Kissimmee River Restoration. Restoration Ecology 3:1-
238.
-
7/28/2019 Vital Landscape Attributes
15/27
Dahm, C.N., K.W. Cummins, H. M. Valett and R.L. Coleman. 1995. An ecosystem view of the
restoration of the Kissimmee River. Restoration Ecology 3:225-238.
Dunning, J.B., B.J. Danielson and H.R. Pulliam. 1992. Ecological processes that affect populations
in complex landscapes. Oikos 65:169-175.
Etienne, M., J. Aronson and E. Le Floc'h (in press). Abandoned lands and land use conflicts in
southern France. Piloting ecosystem trajectories in the 21st century. Pages 000-000 in P. Rundel,
editor. Landscape degradation in mediterranean-type ecosystems. Springer Verlag, New York.
Finn, J. T. 1976. Measures of ecosystem structure and function derived from analysis of flows.Journal of Theoretical Biology 56: 362-380.
Finn, J. T. 1982. Ecosystem succession, nutrient cycling and output-input ratios. Journal of
Theoretical Biology 99:479-489.
Forman, R.T.T. 1990. Ecologically sustainable landscapes: the role of spatial configuations. Pages
261-278 in I.S. Zonneveld and R.T.T. Forman, editors. Changing landscapes: an ecological
perspective. Springer Verlag, New York.
Forman, R.T.T. and M. Godron. 1981. Patches and structural components for a landscape ecology.
BioScience 31:733-740.
Forman, R.T.T. and M. Godron. 1986. Landscape ecology. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Franklin, J.F. 1993. Preserving biodiversity: species, ecosystems or landscapes? Ecological
Applications 3:202-205.
Goodall, B. 1987. The Penguin dictionary of human geography. Penguin, Haemondsworth,
Middlesex, England.
Grin, A.M., 1984. the monitoring of geosystems: the case of the Kursk Biosphere Nature Reserve.
Geoforum 15:113-122.
-
7/28/2019 Vital Landscape Attributes
16/27
Hansen, A.J. and F. di Castri, editors. 1992. Landscape boundaries: Consequences for biotic
diversity and ecological flows. Springer Verlag, New York.
Hardt, R.A. and R.T.T. Forman. 1989. Boundary form effects on woody colonization of reclaimed
surface mines. Ecology 70:1252-1260.
Henein, K. and G. Merriam. 1990. The elements of connectivity where corridor quality is variable.
Landscape Ecology 4:157-170.
Hobbs, R.J. 1993. Effects of landscape fragmentation on ecosystem processes in the westernAustralian wheatbelt. Biological Conservation 64:193-201.
Hobbs, R.J. and A.J.M. Hopkins. 1990. From frontier to fragments: European impact on Australia's
vegetation. Proceedings of the Ecological Society of Australia 16: 93-114.
Hobbs, R.J. and D. A. Saunders. 1991. Re-integrating fragmented landscapes - a preliminary
framework for the Western Australian Wheatbelt. Journal of Environmental Management 33:161-
167.
Hobbs, R.J. and D.A. Saunders, editors. 1992. Reintegrating fragmented landscapes. Towards
sustainable production and nature conservation. Springer Verlag, New York.
Hobbs and D.A. Norton. 1996. Towards a conceptual framework for Restoration Ecology.
Restoration Ecology 4: 93-110.
Jackson, L.L., N. Lopoukhine and D. Hillyard. 1995. Ecological restoration: a definition and
comments. Restoration Ecology 3:71-75.
Janzen, D.H. 1986. The eternal external threat. Pages 286-303 in M.E. Soul, editor. Conservation
biology: the science of scarcity and diversity. Sinauer, Sunderland.
-
7/28/2019 Vital Landscape Attributes
17/27
Kelly, J.R. and M.A. Harwell. 1990. Indicators of ecosystem recovery. Environmental Management
14: 527-545.
Koelbel, J.W., Jr. 1995. An historical perspective on the Kissimmee River restoration project.
Restoration Ecology 3:149-159.
Kondolf, G.M. 1995. Five elements for effective evaluation of stream restoration. Restoration
Ecology 3:133-136.
Krner, C. 1993. Scaling from species to vegetation: the usefulness of functional groups. Pages
117-140 in Schulze, E.-D. and H.A. Mooney, editors. Biodiversity and ecosystem function.
Ecological Studies 99. Springer Verlag, Berlin.
Lamont, B. 1982. Mechanisms for enhancing nutrient uptake in plants, with particular reference to
Mediterranean South Africa and Western Australia. The Botanical Review 48:597-689.
Le Floc'h, E. 1979. Elments pour une cartographie de l'occupation des terres en Tunisie aride et
saharienne. Projet UNDP/FAO/ UNESCO/CNRS-Tun 78/007. Montpellier, France.
Lefroy, E.C. and R.J. Hobbs. 1993. Ecological indicators for sustainable agriculture. Pages 1-24 in
P.R. Scott, compiler. The role of trees in sustainable agriculture. Resource Management Technical
Report 138. Department of Agriculture, Perth, Western Australia.
Leopold, A. 1948. A Sand County Almanac. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Lindeman, R.L. 1942. The trophic-dynamic aspect of ecology. Ecology 23:399-418.
Ludwig, J.A. and D.J. Tongway. 1996. Rehabilitation of semi-arid landscapes in Australia.I.
Restoring vegetation patchs. Restoration Ecology 4:000-000.
Main, A.R. 1981. Ecosystem theory and management. Journal of the Royal Society of Western
Australia 64:1-4.
McCoy, E.D., S.S. Bell and K. Walters. 1986. Identifying biotic boundaries along environmental
-
7/28/2019 Vital Landscape Attributes
18/27
gradients. Ecology 67:749-759.
Merriam, G. 1984. Connectivity: a fundamental characteristic of landscape pattern. Pages 5-15 in
Brandt, J. and P. Agger, editors. Methodology in landscape ecological research and planning. Vol. I.
Landscape ecological concepts. Roskilde University centre, Denmark.
Naiman, R. J. 1988. Animal influences on ecosystem dynamics. BioScience 38:750-752.
Naveh, Z. and A. S. Lieberman. 1984. Landscape ecology: theory and applications. Springer
Verlag, New York.
Odum, E.P. 1969. The strategy of ecosystem development. Science 164:262-270.
Odum, E.P. and M.G. Turner. 1990. The Georgia Landscape: A Changing Resource. Pages 137-164
in I.S. Zonneveld and R.T.T. Forman, editors. Changing landscapes: an ecological perspective.
Springer Verlag, New York.
O'Neill, R.V., D. DeAngelis, J.B. Wade and T.F.H. Allen. 1986. A Hierarchical concept of
ecosystems. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
O'Neill, R.V., J.R. Krummel, R.H. Gardner, G. Sugihara, B. Jackson, D.L. de Angelis, B.T. Milne,
M.G. Turner, B. Zygmunt, S.W. Christensen, V.H. Dale and R.L. Graham. 1988. Indices of
landscape pattern. Landscape Ecology 1:63-69.
Orians, G.G. 1986. Ecological and evolutionary approaches to the landscape aesthetic. Pages 3-25
in E.C. Penning-Roswell, editor. Landscape meanings and values. Allen and Unwin, London.
Pacific Estuarine Research Laboratory. 1990. A manual for the assessment of restored and natural
wetlands with examples from southern California. California Sea Grant Report No. T-CSGCP-021.La Jolla, California.
Pastor, J., R. Naiman, B. Dewey, and P. McInnes. 1988. Moose, microbes and the boreal forest.
BioScience 38:770-777.
-
7/28/2019 Vital Landscape Attributes
19/27
Pickett, S.T.A., J. Kolasa and C.G. Jones. 1994. Ecological understanding. Academic Press, San
Diego.
Raveneau, J. 1977. Analyse morphologique, classification et protection des paysages: le case de
Charlevoix. Cahiers du gographe du Qubec 21:135-178.
Romme, W.H. 1982. Fire and landscape diversity in subalpine forests of Yellowstone National
Park. Ecological Monographs 52:199-221.
Rougerie, G. and N. Beroutchachvili. 1991. Gosystmes et paysages: bilan et mthodes. Armand
Colin, Paris.
Ruzicka, M. and L. Miklos. 1990. Basic premises and methods in landscape ecological planning
and optimization. Pages 233-260 in
I. S. Zonneveld and R.T.T. Forman, editors. Changing landscapes: an ecological perspective.
Springer Verlag, New York.
Ryszkowski, L. 1992. Energy and material flows across boundaries in agricultural landscapes Pages
270-284 in A.J. Hansen and F. di Castri, editors. Landscape boundaries: consequences for biotic
diversity and ecological flows. Springer Verlag, New York.
Saunders, D.A., R.J. Hobbs and C.R. Margules. 1991. Biological consequences of ecosystem
fragmentation: a review. Conservation Biology 5:18-32.
Simberloff, D., J. Farr, J. Cox and D.H. Mehlman. 1992. Movement corridors: conservation
bargains or poor investments? Conservation Biology 6:493-504.
Stetzner, B., V.H. Resh and A.L. Roux, editors. 1994. Ecology of the Upper Rhne River: a test of
habitat templet theories. Freshwater Biology 31:253-554.
Swanson, F.J., T.K. Kratz, N. Caine, and R.G. Woodmansee. 1988. Landform effects on ecosystem
patterns and processes. BioScience 38:92-98.
Swanson, F.J., J. Franklin and J. Sedell. 1990. Landscape patterns, disturbance, and management in
-
7/28/2019 Vital Landscape Attributes
20/27
the Pacific Northwest, USA. Pages 191-213 in I.S. Zonneveld and R.T.T. Forman (editors)
Changing Landscapes: an ecological perspective. Springer Verlag, New York.
Tansley, A.G. 1935. The use and abuse of vegetational concepts and terms. Ecology 16:284-307.
Tongway, D.J. 1991. Functional analysis for degraded rangelands as a means of defining
appropriate restoration techniques. Pages 166-168 in A. Gaston, A., M. Kernick and H.N. Le
Hourou, editors. Proceedings 4th International Rangeland Congress, Vol. 4. Centre International
de Recherche Agricole pour le Dveloppement, Montpellier.
Troll, G. 1971. Landscape ecology (geo-ecology) and bio-ceonology -a terminology study.
Geoforum 8:43-46.
Turner, M.G. 1989. Landscape ecology: the effect of pattern on process. Annual Review of Ecology
and Systematics 20:171-197.
Turner, M.G. and C. Lynn Ruscher. 1988. Changes in landscape pattern in Georgia, USA.
Landscape Ecology 1: 241-251.
Urban, D.L., R. V. O'Neill and H. H. Shugart. 1987. Landscape ecology. BioScience 37:119-127.
Vitousek, P.M. 1989. Biological invasion by Myrica faya in Hawai'i: plant demography, nitrogen
fixation, ecosystem effects. Ecological Monographs 59:247-265.
von Voris P., R. V. O'Neill, W.R. Emanuel and H.H. Shugart. 1980. Functional complexity and
ecosystem stability. Ecology 61:1352-1360.
Westman, W.E. 1985. Ecology, impact assessment and environmental planning. John Wiley &
Sons, New York.
Whisenant, S.G. 1994. Directing landscape dynamics: an evolving restoration paradigm (Texas).
Restoration and Management Notes 12:221-222.
Whisenant, S.G. 1995. Landscape dynamics and arid land restoration. Pages 26-34 in B. Roundy,
-
7/28/2019 Vital Landscape Attributes
21/27
A. McArthur, E. Durant, J.S. Haley, D.K. Mann, editors. Proceedings: wild land shrub and arid land
restoration symposium. Geological Technical Report INT-GTR-315. Ogden, Utah.
Whisenant, S.G., T.L. Thurow and S.J. Maranz. 1995. Initiating autogenic restoration on shallow
semiarid sites. Restoration Ecology 3:61-67.
Wilson, J.B. and A.D.Q. Agnew. 1992. Positive feedback switches in plant communities. Advances
in Ecological Research 23:264-336.
Wilson, J.B. and W.M. King. 1995. Human-mediated vegetation switches as processes in landscape
ecology. Landscape Ecology 10: 191-196.
Wilson, M.V. and A. Shmida. 1984. Measuring beta diversity with presence-absence data. Journal
of Ecology 72:1055-1064.
Young, M.D. 1992. Sustainable investment and resource use. Parthenon Press and UNESCO, Paris.
Zonneveld, I.S. 1972. Textbook of photo-interpretation, Vol. 7. ITC, Enschade, The Netherlands.
Zonneveld, I.S. 1989. The land unit - a fundamental concept in landscape ecology, and its
applications. Landscape Ecology 3:
67-86.
Zube, E.H., R.O. Brush and J.G. Fabos, editors. 1975. Landscape assessment, value, perceptions
and resources. 2nd edition. Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania.
-
7/28/2019 Vital Landscape Attributes
22/27
Appendix: Glossary
Ecosystem trajectories
The sampling, evaluation and indeed monitoring of ecosystems (see below) as living,
evolving systems, often far from thermodynamic equilibrium, is greatly facilitated by adapting the
notion of trajectories. We see this as an integrative concept grouping succession, as defined by
Clements (1916), as well as all other paths or itineraries imagined or engineered by people for any
given ecosystem or set of ecosystems. On a short time scale, some ecologists may argue that
ecosystems simply change without necessarily following a trajectory. However, with sufficient
perspective, any and all changes an ecosystem undergoes in a given period of time can be seen as
comprising a `trajectory'.
It may be argued that any path taken by an ecosystem from one state to another is, bydefinition, succession. However, as commonly understood, succession is something autogenic (Cf.
"autogenic restoration" (Whisenant 1994)). In contrast, the term trajectory implies a subject that
`throws' or `guides' an object, which is accordingly `thrown' or `trajected'. Thus, trajectory seems a
useful term for describing what happens to an ecosystem that is undergoing ecological restoration
or rehabilitation.
Ecosystem
The term ecosystem was defined by Tansley (1935) as a biotic community and its
biogeophysical environnment, including all the interactions between and among them. Lindeman
(1942) wrote that an ecosystem could occur "within a space-time unit of any magnitude" (emphasis
added). Recently, however, ecologists have grown dissatisfied with the lack of an intrinsic scale in
this definition: either a more precise definition is needed, which indicates clearly the position of the
ecosystem within a larger hierarchy, or else `ecosystem' must be abandoned as an independent,
discrete entity (O'Neill et al. 1986). Naturally, we opt for the former. We follow Cousins (1993)
who argues that an `ecosystem' can be defined as a "subjectively determined [emphasis added]
aggregate with boundaries given by an observer...in a hierarchy of functional objects". That is to say
that some number of visable or measurable attributes must be selected as criteria for delineatingecosystems within a landscape.
Landscape
The same process as described for ecosystem must also apply to landscape, if we are to
avoid semi-mystical usages of these two terms. Objective or subjective barriers must also ultimately
-
7/28/2019 Vital Landscape Attributes
23/27
be drawn between adjacent landscapes. Most hierarchies constructed by ecologists have
tended to jump from `ecosystem' to biome, without stopping at `landscape'. The reason for this may
be an unspoken desire to avoid dealing with `the human dimension' of landscapes. Some
geographers, social scientists, and the general public tend to define `landscape' as something
profoundly unquantifiable, a stew of human culture and symbolism, combined with, or carved out
of, hard-edged (i.e., physical, biogeochemical) determinants of `natural', i.e., non-human origin. The
Penguin Dictionary of Human Geography (Goodall 1987) notes ten concepts of landscape which
differ slightly in emphasis, but are not mutually exclusive. In general, landscape is thought of as
something comprising ecological, geographical and cultural components (Troll 1971). In passing, it
should be noted that ecologists have at least that many different definitions of `ecosystem', but tend
to eliminate all that cannot be seen or touched objectively in both cases.
To cite one example of a geographer's thoughts on landscape, Augustin Berque (1984,1986, 1990) writes of landscapes as being both the `imprint' of the past, and the matrix of current
(and future) human activities in a given area. In other words, landscape is both objective and
subjective at the same time. Berque argues that landscapes should be seen primarily as the ongoing
relationship between people and their "milieu" or habitat. They are not simply a setting in which
people (and other organisms) act out their lives; rather they are also the living matrix which makes
those lives possible and determines the possibilities available to them. Landscapes are in turn
continuously being altered and modelled by the cumulative effects of the organisms present within
them, especially people (Cf. Troll 1971; Naveh & Lieberman 1984).
As ecologists we must reject Berque's position for two reasons. First, with regards
landscapes, his definition fails to meet the Popperian criterion that hypotheses should be amenable
to rigorous testing via experimentation (Cf. Pickett et al. 1994, however, for a critique of Popper in
the modern context). As an alternative approach, we follow Forman & Godron (1981, 1986) who
defined landscape as something physical, tangible and, therefore, measureable. For these authors,
and indeed most working ecologists today, a landscape is a heterogeneous portion of land (of some
undetermined area, but often several square kilometers wherein occurs a "recognizable cluster of
ecosystems that interact in ways producing spatially repeated patterns" (Forman & Godron 1986).
Slightly different definitions are found in Swanson et al. (1988), Urban et al. (1987), and Turner(1989).
Matrix
In his timely call to pay more attention to ecosystems and landscapes, Franklin (1993) made
extensive use of the term matrix. He follows the prevailing paradigm in landscape ecology when he
-
7/28/2019 Vital Landscape Attributes
24/27
writes of nature reserves and parks as occurring within a "landscape matrix" that he defines as the
"unreserved portion of the landscape" (Franklin 1993:204). By "unreserved", he means that portion
of the landscape with which he is not concerned.
According to this formulation, there is no indication of hierarchical scaling, and landscape
and matrix are synonymous. While urging more attention be paid to higher levels of organization
(ecosystem, landscape and matrix), Franklin fails to show how to quantifiy or even distinguish
among them practically.
We propose that the word `matrix' should be used, in the present context, to describe a new
hierarchical scale, just above landscapes. As we have seen, landscapes are the result, the "imprint",
of past human activities in a given setting. The matrix is thus the biological or, better still, the
biogeophysical environment in which a landscape comes to be created. In other words, working
with a certain vegetation type, geological substrate and prevailing climate - all of which togetherconstitute the matrix in our hierarchy -, people create landscapes. (In the context of general ecology
and biogeography, the notion of biome is nearly synonymous.)
Note that several different landscapes can conceivably arise within a given matrix, as when,
for example, populations from two different ethnic groups live and work in proximity one to the
other. Each landscape is therefore the result of interactions between a matrix and the activities of a
given cultural group.
Fragmentation of landscapes
This term (Hobbs & Saunders 1991, 1992) describes a generally gradual phenomenon
marked by the rupture of certain linkages, i.e., a reduction in `connectivity' (Merriam 1984; Baudry
& Merriam 1988) among ecosystems in a given landscape. Such a rupture will naturally have
profound consequences for the trajectories of each ecosystem, and the structure, composition and
functioning of the landscape itself. In theory, even subtle consequences of landscape fragmentation
should be measurable at inter-and intra-community levels within ecosystems, and among
ecosystems as well.
Reintegration of landscapes
This term (Hobbs & Saunders 1991, 1992) denotes a conscious effort to reestablish pre-
existing relationships of connectivity among contiguous ecosystems in cases where human activites
have caused ruptures and fragmentation. It suggests that a return to former ecosystem trajectories,
or something close to them, can be achieved by revising management practices (and, perhaps, land
-
7/28/2019 Vital Landscape Attributes
25/27
tenure, zoning laws, etc.). For this to work, all of the local `actors' must agree to cooperate in the
common interest.
Much of the discussion surrounding landscape reintegration and biological conservation in
densely populated areas has centered on "movement corridors" for wildlife (e.g., Henein &
Merriam 1990; Saunders et al. 1991). However, although corridors may have strong public appeal,
and therefore be useful for eco-activist lobbying or environmental reeducation, they are only a small
part of the problem of reintegration (Simberloff et al. 1992). In a broad sense, landscape
reintegration involves restorations, rehabilitations and reallocations, applied in different places and
proportions, according to local context and contingencies.
We have used the terms restoration, rehabilitation and reallocation in the plural, since the
same ecosystem can occur more than once in a given landscape, especially in areas where human
activities have a long history. In restoration projects concerned with the landscape as well asecosystems, it may be necessary to treat land units of a given ecosystem type differentially. In some
cases, they may be treated in an identical fashion but at different paces, to achieve a mosaic of land
units in different stages of a given trajectory.
Artificial `rejuvenation' of selected land units
In areas of agricultural abandonment, such as are common throughout western Europe
today, landscapes show a tendency to
closed canopies, and to lose open spaces. As a result, they lose biodiversity at all hierarchical levels.
It may thus prove worthwhile to attempt to maintain some open spaces by a variety of techniques
we would group under the heading "artificial rejuvenation". The most obvious way to achieve
`rejuvenation' of a given land unit is by engaging in cutting, plowing, burning, etc. in order to
eliminate certain species or functional groups, and thereby temporarily halt, or slow, secondary
succession. For example, in some countries, controlled fires are routinely used to maintain prairies
or other grassland-type systems.
In Figure 1 we have tried to show how rejuvenation relates to restoration, rehabilitation and
reallocation. In some cases (Figure 1, a1
) following degradation (or abandonment), with or without
subsequent intervention, a trajectory can follow the same pattern, in reverse, as that shown by thepre-disturbance ecosystem or other ecosystem of reference. However, other possible trajectories
exist (see Figure 1, a2) that may or may not converge at some point, and will no doubt proceed at
different paces.
In rehabilitation efforts, one or more thresholds of irreversibility can be crossed (Figure 1,
b1 and b2). Furthermore, different trajectories should be anticipated in different phases of
-
7/28/2019 Vital Landscape Attributes
26/27
restoration or rehabilitation (i.e., a1 vs. a'1 vs. a''1 and a2 vs. a'2 vs. a''2). Reallocations can lead to
entirely new uses for land units; rejuvenation is a site-specific managerial activity that should be
considered as part of a holistic landscape reintegration project. It is for this reason that "ecosystems"
is given in the plural in this figure.
Landscape of reference
We propose a term both analogous to and complementary with "ecosystem of reference". It
seems useful to have a standard of comparison and evaluation when working with complex
systems, even though their past history is not fully knowable and any given ecosystem (or
landscape) or reference selected will necessarily be arbitrary. To be acceptable to local people, the
landscape of reference may be chosen on the basis of the cultural, social and economic context at
some moment' in the past.
-
7/28/2019 Vital Landscape Attributes
27/27
Figure 1. Schematic representation of alternative ecosystem trajectories over three phases,
illustrating the notions of restoration, rehabilitation, reallocation, and rejuvenation as well as that of
"thresholds of irreversibility". See text for further details).