Some Thoughts on Self-Sustainability in Restoration: A Response to Thomas B. Simpson

As explained in the SER Primer (SERI 2004), ecological restoration returns an ecosystem to its historic developmental trajectory by reinitiating autogenic, self-sustaining processes that had been impaired. For that reason, we can only restore to the future. If internal flux was modest and environmental conditions had not undergone much change, a preindustrial landscape could reappear following restoration. However, it would be a future expression in that ecosystem’s trajectory that perchance resembled one from its past. The intentional reassembly of static ecosystems from a preindustrial era is better designated as landscape design or ecosystem management, and it would avoid confusion if it were not conflated with ecological restoration. With respect to the sustainability issue, Simpson asserted that landscapes were never self-sustaining. We agree with most aspects of his argument for the reasons he stated. However, we take issue with Simpson’s assumption that by self-sustaining we meant that an ecosystem is homeostatic and recovers to its former order. On the contrary, intact ecosystems, both restored and previously undisturbed, may express considerable flux over time. For that reason, the initial restored state may differ notably from the predisturbance state. We caution, however, that an ecosystem is not satisfactorily restored until it expresses integrity and health in terms of the nine attributes of restored ecosystems identified in the SER Primer. We endorse the statement in the SER Primer that says: