book of abstracts

1

VII World Conference on Ecological Restoration V Congreso Iberoamericano y del Caribe de Restauración Ecológica

August 27 to September 1, 2017 Recanto Cataratas Thermas Resort & Convention Foz do Iguassu Brazil

Linking Science and Practice for a Better World

I Conferência Brasileira de Restauração Ecológica

BOOK OF ABSTRACTS

VII World Conference on Ecological Restoration V Congreso Iberoamericano y del Caribe de Restauración Ecológica

August 27 to September 1, 2017 Recanto Cataratas Thermas Resort & Convention Foz do Iguassu Brazil

Linking Science and Practice for a Better World

I Conferência Brasileira de Restauração Ecológica

BOOK OF ABSTRACTS Organizer: Giselda Durigan SER / SOBRE / SIACRE

4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The VII World Conference on Ecological Restoration – SER2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Organizing Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Scientific Program Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Abstracts Plenary session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Oral presentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Poster presentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284 Video presentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 426 List of Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 431

978-85-94244-01-7 978-85-94244-00-0

5

T

THE VII WORLD CONFERENCE ON ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION – SER2017: LINKING SCIENCE AND PRACTICE FOR A BETTER WORLD

his document presents the abstracts of all presentations that built the VII World Conference on Ecological Restoration, which is also the V Congreso Iberoamericano y del Caribe de Restauración Ecológica and the I Conferência Brasileira de Restauração Ecológica. With ten plenary talks, one plenary panel, 60 symposia, 18 workshops and 42 oral sessions, comprising more than 600 oral presentations, and two poster sessions with close to 300 presentations, the abstracts presented here are a synthesis of the knowledge, the ongoing debates, the philosophical reflections and the practice of ecological restoration in the real world. Presentations during SER2017 show a balance in the proportion of scientific and practical approaches, followed by policy making, governance, planning, human engagement, social, philosophical and economic issues. With 12 concurrent sessions every day, however, each attendee can fully enjoy less than 9% of the entire program, and even with two poster sessions, reading and discussing all posters on display is simply not possible. This book of abstracts provides, at least, a synthesis of each presentation and authors’ contacts, so that those reading can search for more information about presentations they did not have a chance to see. All continents and biomes were represented in the abstracts submitted (Figure 1), with a strong bias towards tropical forests, likely because the science and practice of tropical forest restoration are both quite strong in Brazil, the host country, with about half the attendees of SER2017. It must be highlighted, however, the increasing proportion of studies related to water issues (wetlands, marine ecosystems, water-related ecosystem services, etc.), compared to previous SER conferences, a tendency to be celebrated. This proportion is higher than the proportion of the Earth surface occupied by wetlands and coastal ecosystems, but is certainly below the relative importance of water resources for biodiversity and human well-being, which requires attention and priority in ecological restoration.

Figure 1. Representativeness of different biomes among abstracts accepted for SER2017 (presentations invited for symposia, contributed oral presentations and posters). Only abstracts providing information about specific ecoregions were considered (n=627).

Each abstract submitted was analysed by two reviewers; some were rejected and many were revised according to suggestions from the reviewers. But most were high-quality abstracts based upon high-level studies or brilliant position pieces. We thank all of the reviewers who kindly devoted part of their time to this job, ensuring the quality of the presentations. We thank the keynote speakers, who accepted our invitation and generously shared their vast knowledge and expertise, with brilliant and stimulating talks summarized here. We thank, particularly, the organizers of symposia and workshops who formed the cornerstones of the conference, and all authors, whose contributions are like the bricks in a building. Our hope is that the more than a thousand scientists, decision makers, entrepreneurs, students, practitioners and other professionals from 61 countries enjoy the conference, learn from others’ experience, which is summarized in this book of abstracts, and make the link between science and practice in their work and daily life, becoming multipliers of the messages from SER2017. Giselda Durigan on behalf of the Program Committee – SER2017

6

ORGANIZING COMMITTEE Conference Chair: ■■ Vera Lex Engel (UNESP, Botucatu, São Paulo, Brazil) Vice-Chair (SER): ■■ Cara Nelson (University of Montana, Missoula, USA) Vice-Chair (SIACRE): ■■ José Ignacio Barrera Cataño (Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá, Colombia) Members: ■■ Aurélio Padovezzi (World Resources Institute, São Paulo, Brazil) ■■ Bethanie Walder (SER Executive Director, Missoula, USA) ■■ Giselda Durigan (Instituto Florestal do Estado de São Paulo, Brazil) ■■ Ingo Isernhagen (Embrapa Agrosilvopastoril, Sinop, Mato Grosso, Brazil) ■■ José Marcelo Domingues Torezan SOBRE Chair, UEL, Londrina, Paraná, Brazil) ■■ Jerônimo B.B Sansevero (UFRRJ, Seropédica, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) ■■ Levi Wickwire (SER Program Manager, Tucson, USA) ■■ Luiz Fernando Duarte de Moraes (Embrapa Agrobiologia, Seropédica, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) ■■ Márcia Cristina Mendes Marques (UFPR, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil) ■■ Rubens Benini (The Nature Conservancy, São Paulo, Brazil) ■■ Veridiana A.A. da Costa Pereira (Itaipu Binacional, Foz do Iguaçu, Paraná, Brazil

SCIENTIFIC PROGRAM COMMITTEE Chair: ■■ Giselda Durigan (Instituto Florestal do Estado de São Paulo, Brazil) Steering Group: ■■ Bethanie Walder (SER Executive Director, Missoula, USA) ■■ Cara Nelson (University of Montana, Missoula, USA) ■■ Cristian Echeverria (University of Concepción, Concepción, Chile) ■■ Gustavo Zuleta (Maimónides University, Buenos Aires, Argentina) ■■ Ingo Isernhagen (Embrapa Agrossilvipastoril, Sinop, Mato Grosso, Brazil) ■■ Jerônimo Boelsums Barreto Sansevero (Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro- RJ, Brazil) ■■ José Marcelo Domingues Torezan (Universidade Estadual de Londrina, Londrina, Paraná, Brazil) ■■ Levi Wickwire (SER Program Manager, Tucson, USA) ■■ Luiz Fernando Duarte de Moraes (Embrapa Agrobiologia, Seropédica, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) ■■ Márcia Cristina Mendes Marques (Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil) ■■ Pedro Henrique Santin Brancalion (Universidade de São Paulo, Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil) ■■ Pilar Andres Pastor (CREAF, Cerdanyola del Vallès, Spain) ■■ Rubens Benini (The Nature Conservancy, São Paulo, Brazil) ■■ Stephen Murphy (University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada) Referees: ■■ An Cliquet (Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium) ■■ Anne Tolvanen (Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke); Thule Institute of the University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland) ■■ Bethanie Walder (SER Executive Director, Missoula, USA) ■■ Bryan Finegan (Tropical Agricultural Research and Higher Education Center (CATIE), Turrialba, Costa Rica) ■■ Cara Nelson (University of Montana, Missoula, USA) ■■ Carla Catterall (Griffith University, Queensland, Australia) ■■ Christo Marais (Department of Environment Affairs - Republic of South Africa, Cape Town, South Africa) ■■ Consuelo Bonfil (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico) ■■ Cristian Echeverria (University of Concepción, Concepción, Chile) ■■ Daniel Roberto Pérez (Universidad Nacional del Comahue, Neuquén, Argentina) ■■ Daniel M. Vieira (Embrapa Recursos Genéticos e Biotecnologia, Brasília-DF, Brazil) ■■ David Lamb (University of Queensland, Australia) ■■ Eliane Ceccon (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico) ■■ Elise Buisson (University of Avignon-Institute of Technology / Mediterranean Institute of Biodiversity and Ecology-IMBE Avignon, France) ■■ Emanuela Weidlich (Leuphana University Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany)

7

■■ Eric Higgs (University of Victoria, Victoria, Canada) ■■ Fabiola Lopez (Instituto de Ecología A.C. de México, Veracruz, Mexico) ■■ Gerhard Overbeck (Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil) ■■ Gustavo Zuleta (Maimónides University, Buenos Aires, Argentina) ■■ Ima Célia Guimarães Vieira (Museu Paraense Emilio Goedi, Belém, Pará, Brazil) ■■ Ingo Isernhagen (Embrapa Agrossilvipastoril, Sinop, Mato Grosso, Brazil) ■■ James Aronson (Missouri Botanic Garden, St. Louis, USA) ■■ Jerônimo Boelsums Barreto Sansevero (Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro- RJ, Brazil) ■■ Joanna Eyquem (AECOM Company, Montreal, Quebec, Canada) ■■ John Herbohn (University of the Sunshine Coast, Queensland, Australia) ■■ John Leighton Reid (Missouri Botanical Garden, St. Louis, USA) ■■ John Parrotta (U.S. Forest Service, Washington-DC, USA) ■■ John Stunturf (U.S. Forest Service Southern Research Station, Athens, Georgia, USA) ■■ Jordi Cortina (University of Alicante, Alicante, Spain) ■■ José Marcelo Domingues Torezan (Universidade Estadual de Londrina, Londrina, Paraná, Brazil) ■■ Joy Zedler (University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA) ■■ Junguo Liu (Southern University of Science and Technology of China, Shenzhen, China) (Academia) ■■ Karel Prach (University of South Bohemia, České Budějovice, Czech Republic) ■■ Karen Holl (University of California, Santa Cruz, USA) ■■ Kent Prior (Parks Canada Agency, Gatineau, Quebec, Canada) ■■ Kingsley Dixon (Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia) ■■ Kristin Skrabis (US Department of the Interior, Washington-DC, USA) ■■ Levi Wickwire (SER Program Manager, Tucson, USA) ■■ Luiz Fernando Duarte de Moraes (Embrapa Agrobiologia, Seropédica, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) ■■ Manuel Guariguata (Center for International Forestry Research-CIFOR, Lima, Peru) ■■ Márcia Cristina Mendes Marques (Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil) ■■ Mauro Gonzalez (Universidad Austral de Chile, Valdivia, Chile) ■■ Mercy Derkyi (University of Energy and Natural Resources, Sunyani, Ghana) ■■ Mitchell Aide (University of Puerto Rico, San Juan, Puerto Rico, USA) ■■ Nigel Tucker (Biotropica Australia, Queensland, Australia) ■■ Nikolai Aguirre (Universidad Nacional de Loja, Loja, Ecuador) ■■ Palle Madsen (University of Copenhagen, Frederiksberg, Denmark) ■■ Piet Smit (Kara Nawa Environmental Solutions, Windhoek, Namibia) ■■ Pilar Andres Pastor (CREAF, Cerdanyola del Vallès, Spain) ■■ Rubens Benini (The Nature Conservancy do Brasil, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil) ■■ Sabine Tischew (Anhalt University of Applied Sciences, Bernburg, Germany) ■■ Samira Omar Asem (Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research, Kuwait City, Kuwait) ■■ Stanley Liphadzi (Water Research Commission, Pretoria, South Africa) ■■ Stephanie Mansourian (Environmental Consultant, Gingins, Switzerland) ■■ Stephen Elliott (University of Chiang Mai, Chiang Mai, Thailand) ■■ Stephen Murphy (University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada) ■■ Swidiq Mugerwa (National Livestock Resources Research Institute, Tororo, Uganda) ■■ Tein McDonald (Australian Association of Bush Regenerators-AABR, NSW, Australia) ■■ Vera Lex Engel / (UNESP, Botucatu, São Paulo, Brazil) ■■ Vicky M. Temperton (Leuphana University Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany) ■■ Wesley Rodrigues (Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil) ■■ Wilson Ramirez (Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt, Bogotá, Colombia)

41

O12 Ecological filters in restoration ecology O12.01 - Look down – there is a gap – need to include soil data in restoration projects in Atlantic Forest of Brazil MAIARA MENDES; AGNIESZKA LATAWIEC; BERNARDO STRASSBURG; LUISA LEMGRUBER; HELENA ALVES PINTO; ANA CASTRO;

RENATO CROUZEILLES; JULIANA SANTOS; FELIPE BARROS; ROBIN CHAZDON; JERÔNIMO BOELSUMS; LUIZ FERNANDO DE MORAES; PEDRO BRANCALION; RICARDO RODRIGUES; STELLA MATA

Rio Conservation and Sustainability Science Centre, Department of Geography and the Environment, Pontificia Universidade Católica, 22453-900, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. [email protected]

There is an increasing number of restoration projects in Brazil and elsewhere, yet some of these initiatives are not successful

due to a range of reasons. Among environmental reasons soil conditions may be a limiting factor. However, there is a scarcity of scientific studies analysing or even reporting restoration projects along with physical and chemical properties of soil. In most

cases, the emphasis is given on the above characteristics of vegetation and below-ground part of the restoration project is un-

der-reported. In this study, we carried out a systematic literature review to evaluate the extent of the data gap (and which data) regarding soil characteristics in restoration projects in the Atlantic Forest Biome (Brazil). Of 152 retrieved articles and theses, 41% (N =62) did not present any information on soil variables. The majority of the published works (71%) reported the information on

pH while 66% presented information on potassium. The least reported variables were water retention (6%) and soil seed bank (3%). Most of the studies (60%) did not include any information on the reference area. This may have serious consequences for

appropriate evaluation of the restoration success and its impacts on ecosystem services. Interestingly, studies that reported the reference area, the frequency on soil data reported changed with data on carbon being reported more frequently. This study highlights the gap that exists in sampling and analyzing soil data in restoration projects and its possible consequences on restoration success.

O12.02 - Riparian Atlantic Forest restoration: water table depth and planting spacing affected the growth of planted trees EMANUELA WEHMUTH ALVES WEIDLICH; GUSTAVO R CURCIO; ALEXANDRE UHLMANN

Leuphana University, Scharnhorststrasse 1, C13.013, 21335, Lueneburg, NI, Germany. [email protected] In researches concerning the restoration of the Atlantic Forest floodplain, tree species development is affected by water table

fluctuation. Thus, there is a need to investigate how the common species used to restore Atlantic Forest respond to water table fluctuation, and how it affects the success of restoration plantings. We measured tree species growth and water table depth in a five years restoration site in riparian Atlantic Forest, in order to verify the effects of water table fluctuation on the planted

species development. We used the spatial interpolation method (Kriging) to interpolate the water table values on each 0. 5 x 0.5 m of the experimental area, and used these values, as well as planting spacing (distance between trees), as predictors of

total growth in OLS models. We checked the model premises and verified spatial autocorrelation. We added MEMs (Moran´s Eigenvector Maps) to the model when necessary. There was a clear spatial pattern of water table fluctuation that depended on

river channel proximity. Although the growth of all species tested was affected in a certain extent by water table fluctuation, Citharexylum myrianthum was more strongly affected by it, while the distance between the planted trees was a more important

factor influencing the growth of Schinus terebinthifolius. Fluctuation of the water table needs to be taken into account when establishing a restoration planting in riparian areas, as well as the type of species that are well adapted and therefore suitable for restoration in such riparian habitats.

215

S91 The role of priority effects during assembly for ecological restoration ORGANIZER: VICKY M. TEMPERTON

S91.01 - Current overview of research on priority effects and its relevance to restoration EMANUELA W A WEIDLICH; CARA R NELSON; VICKY M TEMPERTON

Leuphana University, Scharnhorststrasse 1, C13.013, 21335, Lueneburg, NI, Germany. [email protected] Priority effects occur when organisms that first arrive at a site significantly affect the establishment, growth, or reproduction of

the species arriving later, thus influencing further assembly. In order to advance understanding of community assembly, there is a need to synthesize existing literature on priority effects, explore variation in results, and identify gaps in knowledge. Toward that end, we conducted a literature review of priority effects with a specific focus on plant communities. We found that although

many authors framed their work in the context of priority effects, only half of the articles actually experimentally manipulated order of arrival to assess effects on community assembly. In the experiments that tested priority effects, most were conducted in USA (67%) and Europe (20%), in grassland, and in controlled experiments. More than half of the experiments tested the effects

of order of arrival between exotic and native species. We also found that the number of publications about priority effects has increased significantly since 2012. There is a need for researchers to move beyond controlled experiments at small spatial scales

and to test effects at restoration-relevant scales, as well as on how order of arrival can affect the performance of species from

habitats others than grasslands (e.g. savannas, forests, heathlands, bog species). In addition, it is necessary to propose a clearer concept to define what should be considered a priority effect, and what not.

S91.02 - Exploring priority effects in a central European grassland field experiment in order to inform restoration EMANUELA WEIDLICH

Leuphana University Lüneburg, Scharnhorststrasse 1, Bldg 13, D-21335, Lüneburg, Niedersachsen, Germany. vicky.temperton@ leuphana.de

The role of history in community assembly is uncontested. Species that arrive first can significantly affect further assembly

by creating priority effects that affect ecosystem functioning and services as well as community composition. Thus, there is a potential for using priority effects for restoration, in order to steer communities to a desired restoration outcome. European

grasslands are some of the most diverse habitats globally on a small scale, but are severely threatened by both agricultural intensification and land abandonment. We tested whether priority effects of order of arrival can be used to create more produc-

tive yet still diverse grasslands that motivate both farmers and conservationists. We established a grassland field experiment in Germany combining biodiversity and assembly approaches on two different soil types. We studied the effect of order of ar-

rival of three plant functional groups (grasses, legumes and forbs) and of sowing low / high diversity seed mixtures on species composition, aboveground and belowground biomass. Whilst sown diversity did not affect aboveground biomass, changing the

order of arrival affected both above and belowground biomass and species composition. Sowing legumes first created priority

effects with higher aboveground and lower belowground biomass (lower root length). Priority effects created by changing order of arrival were more consistent below than aboveground, indicating an asynchrony between processes below and aboveground which may have repercussions on ecosystem functioning as well as service provision. Further studies will test the role of year of initiation on priority effects and their relevance for restoration.

216 S91.03 - Context-dependence of priority effects in the restoration of California grasslands TRUMAN P. YOUNG; KATHARINE L. STUBLE; KURT J. VAUGHN

We examined multiple contingences in a controlled set of restoration experiments in grasslands/rangelands in north-central

California Restoration, including priority effects, year effects, and site effects. Practitioners have long noted that restoration

outcomes vary strongly across years and across similar sites, but field ecologists have been slow to examine such contingen-

cies. First, we demonstrated that we could give desirable plants a better chance of establishing in restoration projects by giving

them a ‘head start’ of either two weeks or one year (called priority effects). This could provide a helpful tool in settings where a) noxious weeds often choke out desirable plant species, and b) some species in a restoration mix are initially very competitive,

and exclude other desirable plants in the mix. Second, we demonstrated that even subtle differences between sites and between

planting years can profoundly shift the outcomes of restoration plantings in general, and of the importance of priority effects in those plantings. These results suggest that we need to do a better job at testing the generality of our research, since most

ecological field experiments are currently initiated in a single year at a single site. Third, using watering experiments embed-

ded in our overall design and statistical analyses across our many experimental trials, we were able to show that a substantial amount of the variation in our restoration plantings from year to year was due to the timing and amount of rainfall. Fourth, we were able to demonstrate that although these priority relationships with rainfall may hold over a

ormal range of years, they break down when rainfall patterns shift in the directions projected under climate change. These results contribute to the growing evidence that managed and natural biological systems are far more richly contingent than previously recognized.

S91.04 - Are priority effects driving the assembly of tropical forests undergoing restoration? GISELDA DURIGAN; NATALIA GUERIN; MARCIO SEIJI SUGANUMA

Instituto Florestal do Estado de São Paulo, BRAZIL, Cx Postal 104, 19802-970, Assis, SP, Brazil. [email protected] Priority effects have been slowly understood in the context of ecological restoration, especially for grasslands and herbaceous plants. The role of the first to arrive, however, have rarely been explored when it is about tree species or forest ecosystems. Con-

sidering that trees are long-lived organisms, priority effects, if occurring, should give the species introduced in a degraded area the long-lasting power of driving the community assembly and the future composition of the restored forest. We assessed the set of planted species and the young trees spontaneously regenerating (that represent the future composition of these forests)

under pure and mixed stands of tree species planted to restore forest ecosystems in Brazil. We found as a rule that the identity

of the trees planted does not determine the future composition of these forests. The abundance of the species spontaneously

regenerating, however, is influenced by functional traits of the species planted, related to the resulting light availability and thickness of the litter layer. The future composition of restored forests will be mostly determined by seed dispersers and seed sources in the regional species pool (forest remnants and isolated trees), with animal-dispersed and shade tolerant species

dominating. With rare exceptions, planted species (the first to arrive), even exotics, tend to lose space for immigrant natives (the latter to arrive) over time. The community assembly in these forests undergoing restoration is, therefore, driven by ecological filters constraining seed dispersal and plant establishment, a pattern more related to the succession than to priority effects.

S91.05 - Can priority effects prevent invasion in Cerrado (Brazilian Savanna) restoration?

ANDRÉ GANEM COUTINHO; MONIQUE ALVES; JOSÉ FELIPE RIBEIRO; ISABEL BELLONI SCHMIDT; ALEXANDRE BONESSO SAMPAIO; DANIEL LUIS MASCIA VIEIRA

Universidade de Brasília - Campus Universitário Darcy Ribeiro, Parque Estação Biológica PqEB Av. W5 Norte (final), 70910-900, Brasília, Distrito Federal, Brazil. [email protected]

In Brazil a large portion of Cerrado, the Brazilian savanna, has been converted into exotic grass pastures. Exotic grasses are difficult to eliminate, due to vegetative propagation, abundant long-lived seed bank and propagule pressure from surroundings. To increase restoration success in a savanna in Central Brazil, we tested the hypothesis that once native species are established,

they would prevent exotic grasses re-colonization, but if exotic grasses were present, they would outcompete native species; the so-called priority effect hypothesis. For two years, we observed the dynamics of 1-3 years-old savanna communities established

through direct seeding of native species on a previous exotic grass pasture. We established 120 plots (1m2) in a gradient of

vegetation cover, ranging from only native to only exotic species. We compared the variation in groundcover between plots first

217 dominated by natives, exotics or with mixed initial dominance. For both native and exotics, their relative cover were reduced in plots first dominated by themselves, and did not varied in plots with mixed initial dominance. These results indicate equilibrium

between natives and exotics, and that none of them were favored by priority effects. Both native and exotic grasses and forbs

were able to disperse and colonize plots where they were not present before. However, total vegetation groundcover is still increasing, indicating that colonization is high and competition is still low. If these results remain in the following years, it will indicate that priority effects do not prevent spread by exotics, neither by natives.

S91.06 - Can knowledge of priority effects improve outcomes of ecological restoration? CARA R. NELSON; EMANUELA WA WEIDLICH; VICKY M TEMPERTON

Department of Ecosystem and Conservation Sciences - University of Montana, 32 Campus Drive, 59812, Missoula, Montana, United States. [email protected]

Successful ecological restoration requires removing degradation and returning the target site to the condition that it would

have been in if it had not been destroyed. Restoration targets and reference models generally are developed without considering of the equilibrium dynamics of the target system. Ecosystems vary, however, in the extent to which successional development

involves deterministic changes toward a single equilibrium state. Setting restoration targets for systems with single equilibrium endpoints requires different considerations than does developing targets for systems that exhibit multiple equilibrium states

(i.e. develop along two or more distinct pathways). In these systems, with complex equilibrium dynamics, history (i.e. priority effects) and stochastic factors may play a larger role in successional development than do deterministic factors. Knowledge of the

equilibrium dynamics, including the potential importance of priority effects on ecosystem assembly, can help restoration practitioners with both developing appropriate restoration targets and with assessing treatment efficacy and effects. For instance, a broader set of restoration targets may need to be employed in ecosystems with strong priority effects than in those in which

history does not influence successional outcomes. In addition, understanding priority effects can aid managers in determining the order of species introductions to achieve different ecosystems conditions across restoration project and program sites and can also help with more effectively interpreting treatment success. For practitioners to incorporate equilibrium dynamics and

priority effects theory into practice, however, there is a need for much greater understanding of the factors that are predictive of single versus multiple equilibrium endpoints.