restauration écologique; filtre; référence écologique; trajectoire écologique; indicateur de suivi
Résumé :
[fr] Dans un contexte global de perturbations anthropiques toujours croissantes des écosystèmes naturels et semi-naturels, l’unique conservation de ces écosystèmes ne suffit plus. La restauration écologique peut ainsi se révéler un complément essentiel à la conservation s.l. L’article consiste en une synthèse de la littérature scientifique dédiée aux concepts de la restauration écologique. Nous abordons la notion d’objectifs de la restauration notamment au travers de la référence écologique. Outre la définition d’objectifs clairs de restauration, la référence permet ensuite d’évaluer les efforts de restauration, par le biais d’indicateurs de suivi. Les indicateurs peuvent par ailleurs fournir des informations quant aux attributs de l’écosystème restauré et/ou la trajectoire écologique empruntée. Les éventuelles contraintes rencontrées par les espèces au travers de filtres à la restauration pourront être détectées et des mesures de compensation adéquates pourront être proposées.
Disciplines :
Sciences de l’environnement & écologie
Auteur, co-auteur :
Cristofoli, Sara ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech > Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech
Angelstam P., 1992. Conservation of communities - the importance of edges, surroundings and landscape mosaic structure. In: Hansson L., ed. Ecological principles of nature conservation. Applications in temperate and boreal environments. London: Elsevier Applied Science, 9-70.
Aronson J. & Le Floc'h E., 1996. Vital landscape attributes: missing tools for restoration ecology. Restoration Ecol., 4, 377-387.
Bakker J.P. et al., 1996. Seed bank and seed dispersal: important topics in restoration ecology. Acta Bot. Neerl., 45, 461-490.
Balmford A. et al., 2005. The convention on biological diversity's 2010 Target. Science, 307, 212-213.
Bastin L. & Thomas C.D., 1999. The distribution of plant species in urban vegetation fragments. Landscape Ecol., 14, 493-507.
Bennett A.F., 1997. Habitat linkages: a key element in an integrated landscape approach to conservation. Parks, 7, 43-49.
Brussard P.F., 1991. The role of ecology in biological conservation. Ecol. Appl., 1(1), 6-12.
Bruun H.H., 2000. Patterns of species richness in dry grassland patches in an agricultural landscape. Ecography, 23, 641-650.
Burel F. & Baudry J., 1999. Écologie du paysage. Concepts, méthodes et applications. Paris: Lavoisier Tec & Doc.
Caro T.M., 2003. Umbrella species: critique and lessons from East Africa. Anim. Conserv., 6, 171-181.
Chase J.M., 2003. Community assembly: when should history matter? Oecologia, 136, 489-498.
Clifford H.T. & Stephenson W., 1975. An introduction to numerical classification. London: Academic Press.
Cristofoli S., et al., 2009. Colonization credit in restored wet heathlands. Restoration Ecol., doi: 10.1111/j.1526-100.2008.00495.x., in press.
Drake J.A., Hewitt C.L., Huxel G.R. & Kolasa J., 1996. Diversity and higher levels of organization. In: Gaston K.J., ed. Biodiversity: a biology of numbers and differences. Cambridge, UK: Oxford Press, 149-166.
Dulière J.F., 2001. L'étude de la banque de graines du sol est un outil efficace qui doit orienter les actions de restauration des milieux semi-naturels menacés. Thèse annexe de doctorat: Faculté universitaire des Sciences agronomiques de Gembloux (Belgique).
Eriksson O., 1996. Regional dynamics of plants: a review of evidence for remnant, source-sink and metapopulations. Oikos, 77, 248-258.
Eriksson O. & Ehrlén J., 2001. Landscape fragmentation and the viability of plant populations. In: Silvertown J. & Antonovics J., eds. Integrating ecology and evolution in a spatial context. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publications, 157-175.
Fattorini M. & Halle S., 2004. The dynamic environmental filter model: how do filtering effects change in assembling communities after disturbance. In: Temperton V.M., Hobbs D.A., Nuttle T. & Halle S., eds. Assembly rules and restoration ecology: bridging the gap between theory and practice. Washington, DC, USA: Island Press, 94-116.
Frankel O.H. & Soulé E., 1981. Conservation and evolution. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Franklin J.F., 1993. Preserving biodiversity: species, ecosystems or landscapes? Ecol. Appl., 3, 202-205.
Franklin J.F., 1994. Preserving biodiversity: species in landscapes. Response to Tracy and Brussart. Ecol. Appl., 4, 208-209.
Gaston K.J., 1996. Spatial covariance in the species richness of higher taxa. In: Hochberg M.E., Clobert J. & Barbault R., eds. Aspects of the genesis and maintenance of biological diversity. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 221-242.
Godron M. & Forman R.T.T., 1983. Landscape modification and changing ecological characteristics. In: Mooney H.A. & Godron M., eds. Disturbance and ecosystems: components of response. New York, USA: Springer-Verlag, 12-28.
Grubb P., 1977. The maintenance of species richness in pant communities: the importance of the regeneration niche. Bot. Rev., 52, 107-145.
Hanski I., 1998. Metapopulation dynamics. Nature, 396(5), 41-49.
Hanski I. & Ovaskainen O., 2002. Extinction debt at extinction threshold. Conserv. Biol., 16(3), 666-673.
Hanski I. & Simberloff D., 1997. The metapopulation approach: its history, conceptual domain, and application to conservation. In: Hanski I.A. & Gilpin M.E., eds. Metapopulation biology. San Diego, CA, USA: Academic Press, 5-25.
Harrisson S. & Bruna E., 1999. Habitat fragmentation and large-scale conservation: what do we know for sure? Ecography, 22, 225-232.
Hérault B. & Honnay O., 2005. The relative importance of local, regional and historical factors determining the distribution of plants in fragmented riverine forests: an emergent group approach. J. Biogeogr., 32, 2069-2081.
Hobbs R.J. & Norton D.A., 1996. Towards a conceptual framework for restoration ecology. Restoration Ecol., 4, 93-110.
Hobbs R.J. & Norton D.A., 2004. Ecological filters, thresholds, and gradients in resistance to ecosystem reassembly. In: Temperton V.M., Hobbs R.J., Nuttle T. & Halle S., eds. Assembly rules and restoration ecology: bridging the gap between theory and practice. Washington, DC, USA: Island Press, 72-95.
Jones C.G., Lawton J.H. & Shachak M., 1997. Positive and negative effects of organisms as physical ecosystem engineers. Ecology, 78, 1946-1957.
Keddy P.A., 1992. Assembly and response rules: two goals for predictive community ecology. J. Veg. Sci., 3, 157-164.
Keddy P.A., 1999. Wetland restoration: the potential for assembly rules in the service of restoration. Wetlands, 19, 716-732.
Krauss J., Steffan-Dewenter I. & Tscharntke T., 2003. How does landscape context contribute to effects of habitat fragmentation on diversity and population density of butterflies? J. Biogeogr., 30, 889-900.
Lake P.S., 2001. On the maturing of restoration: linking ecological research and restoration. Ecol. Manage. Restoration, 2, 110-115.
Lake P.S., Bond N. & Reich P., 2007. Linking ecological theory with stream restoration. Freshwater Biol., 52(4), 597-615.
Lambeck R.J., 1997. Focal species: a multi-species umbrella for nature conservation. Conserv. Biol., 11(4), 849-856.
Lavorel S., Mcintyre S., Landsberg J. & Forbes T.D.A., 1997. Plant functional classifications: from general groups to specific groups based on response to disturbance. Trends Ecol. Evol., 12, 474-478.
Le Floc'h E. & Aronson J., 1995. Écologie de la restauration. Définition de quelques concepts de base. Nat. Sci. Soc., 3, 29-35.
Leck M.A., Parker V.T. & Simpson R.L., 1989. Ecology of soil seed banks. San Diego, CA, USA: Academic Press Inc.
Levins R., 1969. Some demographic and genetic consequences of environmental heterogeneity for biological control. Bull. Entomol. Soc. Am., 15, 236-240.
Lockwood J.L. & Samuels C.L., 2004. Assembly models and the practice of restoration. In: Temperton V.M., Hobbs R.J., Nuttle T. & Halle S., eds. Assembly rules and restoration ecology: bridging the gap between theory and practice. Washington, DC, USA: Island Press, 34-54.
Lortie C.J. et al., 2004. Rethinking plant community theory. Oikos, 107(2), 433-438.
Madgwick F.J. & Jones T.A., 2002. Europe. In: Perrow M.R. & Davy A.J., eds. Handbook of ecological restoration. Principles of restoration. Vol. 2. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 32-56.
Maurer K., Durka W. & Stöcklin J., 2003. Frequency of plant species in remnants of calcareous grassland and their dispersal and persistence characteristics. Basic Appl. Ecol., 4(4), 307-316.
McKay J., Christian C., Harrison S.P. & Rice K.J., 2005. How local is local? A review of practical and conceptual issues in the genetics of restoration. Restoration Ecol., 13(3), 432-440.
Montalvo A.M. et al., 1997. Restoration biology: a population biology perspective. Restoration Ecol., 5, 277-290.
New T.R., 1997. Are the Lepidoptera an effective "umbrella group" for biodiversity conservation? J. Insect Conserv., 1, 5-12.
Noss R.F., 1983. A regional landscape approach to maintain biodiversity. Bioscience, 33, 700-706.
Ouborg N.J., 1993. Isolation, population size and extinction: the classical and metapopulation approaches applied to vascular plants along the Dutch Rhine-system. Oikos, 66, 298-308.
Palmer M.A., Ambrose R.F. & Poff N.L., 1997. Ecological theory and community restoration ecology. Restoration Ecol., 5, 291-300.
Pickett S.T.A. & Parker V.T., 1994. Avoiding old pitfalls: opportunities in a new discipline. Restoration Ecol., 2, 75-79.
Poff N.L., 1997. Landscape filters and species traits: towards mechanistic understanding and prediction in stream ecology. J. North Am. Benthological Soc., 16(2), 391-409.
Rahel F.J., 2002. Homogeneization of freshwater faunas. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst., 33, 291-315.
Ricketts T.H., 2001. The matrix matters: effective isolation in fragmented landscapes. Am. Nat., 158(1), 88-99.
Rosenzweig M.L., 1995. Species diversity in space and time. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Salwasser H., 1991. In search of an ecosystem approach to endangered species conservation. In: Kohm K.A., ed. Balancing on the brink of extinction: the endangered species act and lessons for the future. Washington, DC, USA: Island Press.
Saunders D.A., Hobbs R.J. & Margules C.R., 1991. Biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation: a review. Conserv. Biol., 5(1), 18-32.
Seabloom E.W. & van der Valk A.G., 2003. Plant diversity, composition, and invasion of restored and natural prairie pothole wetlands: implications for restoration. Wetlands, 23, 1-12.
SER, 2004. The SER (Society for Ecological Restoration International Science & Policy Working Group) international primer on ecological restoration, http://www.ser.org/content/ecological_restoration_primer.asp, (30/06/09).
Sheibley R.W., Ahearn D.S. & Dahlgren R.A., 2006. Nitrate loss from a restored floodplain in the lower Cosumnes River, California. Hydrobiologia, 571, 261-272.
Sih A., Jonsson B.G. & Luikart G., 2000. Habitat loss: ecological, evolutionary and genetic consequences. Trends Ecol. Evol., 15, 132-134.
Simberloff D.S., 1988. The contribution of population community biology to conservation science. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst., 19, 473-511.
Soulé M.E. & Orians G.H., 2001. Conservation biology research: its challenges and contexts. In: Soulé M.E. & Orians G.H., eds. Conservation biology, research priorities for the next decade. Washington, DC, USA: Island Press, 271-285.
Temperton V.M. & Hobbs R.J., 2004. The search for ecological assembly rules and its relevance to restoration ecology. In: Temperton V.M., Hobbs R.J., Nuttle T. & Halle S., eds. Assembly rules and restoration ecology: bridging the gap between theory and practice. Washington, DC, USA: Island Press, 34-54.
Thomas J.A. et al., 2001. The quality and isolation of habitat patches both determine where butterflies persist in fragmented landscapes. Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B, Biol. Sci., 268(1478), 1791-1796.
Tilman D., May R.M., Lehman C.L. & Nowak M.A., 1994. Habitat destruction and the extinction debt. Nature, 371, 65-66.
Tonn W.M., Magnuson M., Rask M. & Toivonen J., 1990. Intercontinental comparison of small-lake fish assemblages: the balance between local and regional processes. Am. Nat., 136, 345-375.
Trexler J.C., 1995. Restoration of the Kissimmee river: a conceptual model of past and present fish communitites and its consequences for evaluating restoration success. Restoration Ecol., 3, 195-210.
Trowbridge W.B., 2007. The role of stochasticity and priority effects in foodplain restoration. Ecol. Appl., 17(5), 1312-1324.
Tscharntke T., Steffan-Dewenter I., Kruess A. & Thies C., 2002. Characteristics of insect populations on habitat fragments: a mini-review. Ecol. Res., 17, 229-239.
Turner M.G., 1989. Landscape ecology: the effect of pattern on process. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst., 20, 171-197.
Turner M.G., Gardner R.H. & O'Neill R.V., 2001. Landscape ecology in theory and practice: pattern and process. New York, USA: Springer Verlag.
UNEP, 2007. Global environmental outlook-GEO 4. Valletta, Malta: Progress Press.
Wali M.L., 1987. The structure, dynamics, and rehabilitation of drastically disturbed ecosystems. In: Khoshoo T.N., ed. Perspectives in environmental management. New Delhi, India: Oxford and IBH Publishing, 163-183.
Weiher E. & Keddy P., 1999. Assembly rules as general constraints on community composition. In: Weiher E. & Keddy P., eds. Assembly rules: perspectives, advances, retreats. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 251-271.
Westhoff V., 1983. Man's attitude towards vegetation. In: Holzner W., Werger M.J.A. & Ikusima I., eds. Man's impact on vegetation. The Hague, The Netherlands: Dr. W. Junk Publishers, 7-21.
White P.S. & Walker J.L., 1997. Approximating nature's variation: selecting and using reference information in restoration ecology. Restoration Ecol., 5(4), 338-349.
Wright J.P., Jones C.G. & Flecker A.S., 2002. An ecosystem engineer, the beaver, increases species richness at the landscape scale. Oecologia, 132, 96-101.
Young T.P., Petersen D.A. & Clary J.J., 2005. The ecology of restoration: historical links, emerging issues and unexplored realms. Ecol. Lett., 8, 662-673.
