Restoration Ecology: Introduction in a “Timely” Manner

Eco 101 Restoration Ecology: Introduction in a “Timely” Manner Mitchell J. Greer and Gail W. T. Wilson Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma 74078 Introduction Introducing a new topic to a class is always dificult, and introducing a topic that is relatively young (compared to other sciences) can be even more dificult, as engaging activities or technologies may be dificult to ind. It is well documented in the literature that scientiic concepts are more easily understood when they can be related to everyday events and/or objects (McKendrick and Bowden 1999, Smith and Blankinship 2000, Baine 2004), explained through case studies/narratives (Herreid 2005), or if students can be actively involved in the learning process ((McNeal and D’Avanzo 1997,Terenzini 1999) such as group discussions (McCallum 2010). For example, in graduate school there was a professor that introduced Multivariate (Ordination) Analysis to the class through a simple exercise. This exercise used yardsticks to represent axes and create the ordination space, while the class placed oak tree leaves into this space, grouping them by variables predetermined as important for describing these leaves (color, number of lobes, length, etc.). Without this visual aid, it would have been dificult to understand what these statistical methods were in fact accomplishing. It is activities such as these that relate dificult topics to everyday objects or use simple hands-on demonstrations that have been documented to increase the quality of education. We recently developed a restoration ecology class for junior, senior, and graduate-level students. Restoration ecology is a prominent component of our research, and we believe this is a ield that is increasing in popularity and pertinence, with ecological stressors increasing globally. Our restoration ecology class builds upon basic ecological principles, and we discuss how we can apply these principles to return habitats, populations, communities, nutrient and water cycles, soil structure, etc., to that of a selected reference site. Another important concept in restoration ecology is the ever-present funding limitations for projects and monitoring. With limited funding, restoration practitioners need to think critically about the importance, the beneits of restoring, and the cost of restoring each habitat/ environment and ind a way to prioritize possible restoration projects in a manner that will allow the largest ecological “bang” for the buck. However, getting the biggest ecological beneit for the investment is further complicated by stakeholders, because certain individuals or groups may value/ rank possible restoration projects differently based on their beliefs or preferences. So we were left with a question: How do we illustrate these real world critical thinking issues to a class of budding ecologists who have a solid understanding of ecological basics but little or no real world experience? One day while dropping off a wristwatch for repair, the clerk asked if all the parts from the broken 274 Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, 95(3) wristband were present. This question brought to mind a quote by Aldo Leopold that is included in many restoration ecology books: “The last word in ignorance is the man who says of an animal or plant, “What good is it?” If the land mechanism as a whole is good, then every part is good, whether we understand it or not. If the biota, in the course of eons, has built something we like but do not understand, then who but a fool would discard seemingly useless parts? To keep every cog and wheel is the irst precaution of intelligent tinkering.” Leopold (1953). The connection was obvious: ecosystems are made of many parts, and “repairing” them after anthropogenic disturbances can easily be related to attempting to repair a broken watch which also contains many different parts. Therefore, we began working to bring together various concepts that relate watchmakers to ecologists, and help students visualize the ecological, social, and inancial interactions of restoration ecology. Activity supplies and setup Prior to class, we select a watch (or parts of a watch) for each student in the class and place each into a manila envelope. The envelope conceals the contents, allowing each student to discover their watch at the same time, and prevents selection of preferred ones. Each watch varies greatly from simple wristwatches, to fancy gold pocket watches, to a child’s toy watch from a McDonald’s happy meal. We have found over the years that the more diversity in the watches, the better. There is also diversity in the degree of disrepair, although none of the watches are currently working. For example, some have a dead battery, others have a broken band, others have missing parts, some envelopes contain only a few pieces of a watch, others contain pieces from multiple watches, and for an added effect, one is submersed in oil and sealed in a plastic zip-lock baggie. Extreme treatments (such as our oil example) can be altered to best it situations of different geographic areas (e.g., wildire [scorch the watch] or urbanization [contort or physically damage the watch]). In-class activity During our irst class meeting of the semester, after the required course introduction and syllabus hand-out, students organize their desks into a circle, and we give each one an envelope. We instruct each student to open their envelope and inspect the contents. Going around the room in an organized step-by-step process, each student: 1) Explains what they have; 2) Determines if they believe the watch is functional; 3) If the watch is not functional, tries to determine the problem; 4) Assesses if all the original parts appear to be present; 5) Assesses if all parts present are from the same watch; 6) Determines if the watch can be repaired, and if so, what might be required; 7) Decides if they would use the watch, if it were repaired and functional, and if they feel their watch is worth repairing. Many students answer that they would throw the broken watch away and get a new watch (which leads to easy discussions later in the activity). It is important to push the students to clearly describe the contents of their envelope, as more details Eco 101 July 2014 275 Eco 101 will lead to a more interesting discussion later in the activity. We have found it is sometimes beneicial to select a student who is comfortable with speaking in front of the class to initiate the discussion, as this helps set the pace for students who are a little more reserved. It is also important to have each student highlight the differences in the quality or novelty of their watch, as this will also become important in the follow-up discussion. After each member of the class has described the contents of their envelope, we pose the following question/scenario. Your class has been given $100 to repair the watches. You can repair any number of watches, in any combination, and can spend any amount (up to the $100 total limit) on each watch. However $100 is clearly not enough to repair them all. Students are asked to take a few minutes and work in small groups to determine what watch, or combination of watches, they would like to repair and provide rationale. We then have each group explain their decisions to the class. Finally, the class as a whole tries to decide how to best use the $100 to repair the watches. This is accomplished by having the class vote on which to repair, based on the rationale provide by the small groups. Many times this will require multiple votes and sometimes a inal decision may not ever be agreed upon (which can actually aid in illustrating some of the future points). Introducing restoration ecology After the discussion about which watches to repair, we introduce the linkage to restoration ecology. We start by asking how being a watchmaker relates to restoration ecology. In our experience, at least a few students understand that the watches represent ecosystems or habitats that have been deteriorated or destroyed due to anthropogenic disturbances, but for many this connection is not readily apparent. We start with the basics, describing how often restoration projects are like the watches; some are only slightly deteriorated and may only require alterations in management (for example, discontinue mowing or implement prescribed burning). Restoration of these ecosystems is much like the watches that need only a new battery. However, other ecosystems may be further deteriorated; using examples such as missing keystone species, damaged or altered soils, or contamination by heavy metals or invasive species. These ecosystems are represented by watches missing essential pieces (for example, the hour hand) or watches with damaged pieces (for example, broken crystal or wristband). We include watches with components added from other watches as an example of invasive species. Still other ecosystems may be extremely deteriorated and may be extremely dificult to fully restore to their predisturbance state (for example, the watch soaked in motor oil). The next concept introduced is the importance of a reference site. We ask the students how they would determine the best way to repair the watch given that they have not been provided instructions. Ultimately, the discussion leads to the idea of using a working watch as a model, allowing a comparison for our repaired watch during and after “restoration.” We expand the discussion to include complications in selecting a watch that serves as an excellent model. For example, can we ind an exact match? If not, how similar does the model watch need to be for successful repair of 276 Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, 95(3) our damaged watch? For example, a stopwatch will be no help in repairing a pocket watch, but one Timex wristwatch may help greatly in repairing a Timex of a similar model. Further, how do we know if our selected model watch is truly an excellent watch for comparison of our damaged watch? This may represent habitats that appear to be unaltered, but many mechanisms have been altered by global change. Discussion of global change allows for the introduction of novel ecosystem (i.e., ecosystems that differ in form, composition, and function from past ecosystems as they developed under new ecological stressors such as climate and land use change [Hobbs et al. 2009]). These novel ecosystems (represented by the McDonald’s happy meal watch), have ecological beneits (the watch functionally tells time). Indeed, some novel ecosystems may be home to endangered or keystone species. However, they are dificult to restore or manage as they are not directly comparable to other current or historic ecosystems. This “novelty” results in the selection of a reference site being dificult, or even impossible. Other important ecological principals related to restoration may include “assembly rules” (Diamond 1975) and succession. Assembly rules provide an underlying theory and set of possible mechanisms as to how species combine to form the communities present today; while succession refers to orderly and predictable change in an ecosystem over time. The dialogue over novel ecosystems allows for a transition into a more in-depth discussion of assembly rules and succession and how they inluence diversity on earth. Assembly rules and succession directly relate to restoration, as ultimately restoration success is recreating the communities and successional trajectories that were present prior to the disturbance, on a substantially shorter time scale (Temperton et al. 2004). Introducing inancial constraints, societal complications, and stakeholder management After completion of the basic ecological discussion, we direct the discussion towards the social and economic aspects of restoration ecology. Restoration of habitats and ecosystems is a very complicated endeavor as inancial limitations constrain many elements of the restoration process. In our scenario, there are numerous watches that need repair but only $100 in the budget. Is repairing three common watches that need only batteries better than spending our entire budget to repair one unique pocket watch? Asking small groups and then the whole class to decide which watches should be repaired illustrates the complicated reality of choosing which ecosystems should be restored when funds are limited. It also allows for a discussion as to why each member of the class chose a particular watch. Relating watches to ecosystems adds another level of depth. Should we repair a portion of tallgrass prairie adjacent to other tallgrass prairie, because it is home to many species and is highly fragmented? Or should we repair a small wetland (very expensive) that supplies habitat to an endangered species? Defense of preferences for the watch (ecosystems) illustrates the importance of stakeholders in restoration ecology and how the public can inluence the selection and the goals of a restoration project. Our exercise ends with a short discussion about how to judge when a restoration project is “complete,” including how long a system should be monitored. Here, we ask the class to focus on the watch scenario. Is a watch that counts only 59 seconds a minute functional? In the short term, the watch may work well but over time its functionality will decrease. Returning our focus on restoration, how do we know if we have restored an ecosystem? In our experience, at this point in the discussion students are fully engaged and involved. They typically volunteer that restoration requires monitoring Eco 101 July 2014 277 Eco 101 and may require long time periods of intensive monitoring. This leads to debates about how long, and how intensively, should we monitor a system? What is the cost of long-term, intensive monitoring? There is, of course, no right answer, but the class begins to relate restoration to funding and time constraints. In this way, restoration is not always driven by the project objectives, but also by funding and stakeholder decisions. These are a few of the ecological, social, and inancial concepts that can be incorporated into a class discussion, and there are, of course, many additional possibilities (Table 1). Using our activity to introduce restoration ecology emphasizes the inancial constraints, societal complications, and stakeholder management decisions, encouraging an overall understanding of restoration as a whole (science/theory and practice). Added emphasis on real world application and skills, such as we have developed in this activity, has been shown to improve the overall understanding of restoration ecology, as compared to classes with learning objectives focusing solely on the science and concepts of restoration (Bakker and Howell 2011). We encourage expanding this classroom activity further to include the incorporation of hands-on restoration practices in the ield. Bowler et al. (1999) reported that restoration ecology courses that actively involve students in ieldwork had improved environmental attitudes and “ecological behavior”. With continued emphasis on restoration practice and science/theory through projects, discussions, and ield work that focus on student-active learning we, as educators, have the potential to increase the educational quality for future restoration practitioners. Student response This hands-on interactive activity has been well received by our students. Students become engaged and enthusiastic, and there is whole-class participation in the discussions. To help initiate the discussion, we have found that selecting students who are more out-going to be the irst students to describe their watches sets the pace for the rest of the class. We have not developed a formal evaluation to assess the beneits of this activity, but each year we ask the students to comment on this activity on our teacher evaluation forms. Each year, all student comments are positive, with statements such as: “I was amazed at how well one activity covered so many topics related to restoration” or “I really enjoyed the watch activity; it helped break the ice of a new class and gave a great overview of things to come”. We have included this activity as a component of the irst class for ive years and it has always been very well received; we both plan to continue to start our restoration classes with students as watchmakers far into the future. Literature cited Bakker, J. D., and J. Howell. 2011. An assessment of introductory restoration courses in the United States and Canada. Restoration Ecology 19:572–577. Baine, K. 2004. What the best college professors do. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. Bowler, B. A., F. G. Kaiser, and T. Hartig. 1999. A role for ecological work in university environmental education. Journal of Environmental Education 30:19–26. Diamond, J. M. 1975. Assembly of species communities. Pages 342–444 in M. L. Cody and J. M. Diamond, editors. Ecology and evolution of communities. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 278 Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, 95(3) Massachusetts, USA. Herreid, C. F. 2005. Because wisdom can’t be told: using case studies to teach science. Peer Review 7:30–31. Hobbs, R. J., E. Higgs, and J. A. Harris. 2009. Novel ecosystems: implications for conservation and restoration. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 24:599–605. Leopold, A. 1953. Round River from the journals of Aldo Leopold. Oxford University Press, New York, New York, USA. McCallum, M. L. 2010. A method for encouraging classroom discussion of scientiic papers. ESA Bulletin 91:363–366. McKendrick, J. H., and A. Bowden. 1999. Something for everyone? An evaluation of the use of audio-visual resources in geographical learning in the UK. Journal of Geography in Higher Education 23:9–20. McNeal, A.P., and C. D’Avanzo. 1997. Student-active science: models of innovation in college science teaching. Harcourt Brace, Orlando, Florida, USA. Smith, B. K., and E. Blankinship. 2000. Justifying imagery: multimedia support for learning through exploration. IBM Systems Journal 39:749–768. Temperton, V. M., R. J. Hobbs, T. Nuttle, M. Fattorini, and S. Halle. 2004. Intrduction: Why assembly rules are important to the ield of restoration ecology. Pages 1–8 in V. M. Temperton, R. J. Hobbs, T. Nuttle, and S. Halle, editors. Assembly rules and restoration. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA. Terenzini, P.T. 1999. Research and practice in undergraduate education: and never the twain shall meet? Higher Education 38:33–48. Table 1: Potential restoration topics and mechanisms relating restoration ecology to a watchmaker’s decisions. Restoration/ecological concepts Varied levels of disturbance Keystone species Invasive species Reference site selection Novel ecosystem Assembly rules Succession Mechanisms to relate concepts to watchmaker activity Watches with varied levels of damage Hour hand is key to watch functioning Including watch components from other watches Use working watch to repair a broken watch Is an exact match needed to repair broken watch How close does the model watch need to be (stopwatch won’t work as a reference for a pocket watch) Is reference site truly unaltered (global change) McDonald’s Happy Meal watch (unlike any other watch but does tell time) Speciic pattern required to put watch together Speciic pattern required to put watch together for it to properly function Eco 101 July 2014 279 Eco 101 Financial limitations Stakeholders Restoration endpoint Monitoring time 280 $100 to repair watches (not enough to repair each student’s watch) Different watches selected as most important to repair by different students Watch that counts only 59 seconds each minute (looks functional in the short term) Watch that counts only 59 seconds each minute (over time this is increasingly more important, how much time is important to assess the lack of functionality) Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, 95(3)