An overview of ecological restoration on sites with invasive

pests
J. M. Randall and J. R. Mauremootoo

Abstract
Ecological restoration can be defined as ‘returning the ecosystem to a close approximation of a pre-
existing condition, usually that prior to an identifiable disturbance or stress’. Clear, agreed upon goals
and objectives, focusing on what is to be managed for, must first be established. Activities required to
achieve these goals, Objectives, may include predator control, weed control, restoring or mimicking
ecological processes such as wildfire or flooding, planting, helping native plants establish and
reintroducing or supplementing extirpated or rare native plants. Monitoring is necessary to evaluate
progress towards the project’s goals and objectives and to provide a basis for determining whether
techniques used or even the objectives themselves need to be modified. Several projects from around
the USA are described, as examples, including the Everglades Hole-in-the-Donut, Castellow Hammock
and Blowing Rocks Preserve in Florida, the Tallgrass Prairie Preserve in Oklahoma, the Cosumnes
River Preserve in California, and projects on Lanai and Kaho'olawe in Hawaii.

Introduction - definitions and concepts

Ecosystem restoration
A working definition of ecosystem restoration is a return to an approximation of some pre-
existing or predicted state which may not necessarily be the pristine state (Lewis 1990). In many
instances we do not know what this was and therefore we aim to bring these ecosystems to a state which
we believe they were, in or would have been in before the effects of humans and our commensal plants
and animals. The first step is to decide what we are aiming for. In Mauritius it appears that there has
been a lot of thought about these aims. We in the Nature Conservancy sometimes failed to articulate
what we were aiming for occasionally went off-track as a consequence. In recent years we have
focused on setting management goals and acting to reach them.
The first and all-important step is defining what you are managing for. In weed control it often
appears you are managing ‘against’ things rather than for anything. However, if all you do is kill pests
you may end up with no pests and no desirable native species either, just ‘scorched earth’. This can
hardly be called conservation although there are rare cases such as mudflat restoration where you may
want to leave no higher vegetation (Schwartz and Randall 1995). When we manage for things, we want
to answer questions such as what densities and combinations of plants do we want and what fauna do
we want the ecosystem to support? We also want to know what processes we have to replace. Does the
system require flooding or fire for instance (Loope and Dunevitz 1981, Ewel 1986)? Therefore, we
need to look at the species we want as building blocks and the communities we would like to see. If we
cannot answer these questions we will have to make assumptions and/or arbitrary decisions and we
must be explicit about what they are so our successors can understand and follow up on our actions.
Weeds and pests, invasive plants and animals respectively, often interfere with the things we are
managing for. But we must be careful about our definitions. Organisms should only be designated
weeds or pests if they are interfering with what we are managing for or could do so in the future if
allowed to reproduce and spread. It is only under these circumstances that we should be really
concerned about them (Moody and Mack 1988, Zamora et al. 1989, Randall 1997). If they are just
‘part of the matrix’ and judged likely to remain so, we can leave them alone (Hiebert and Stubbendieck
1993).
When a relatively small area is set aside to preserve a remnant of a formerly extensive
ecosystem, we are often faced with decisions about what types of communities to preserve and restore.
Do we want to preserve just what existed in this small site prior to development of lands around it, or
do we want to mimic the variety that was present in the larger landscape? This is the type of question
we must ask before we embark on management. It is the kind of decision that may have to be made in
Mauritius.
The sorts of issues we must take up in the Nature Conservancy and the National Parks in the
USA are similar to those facing Mauritius. We need to control pests and weeds, restore and sometimes
translocate missing species, and plant and support young plants. In addition we are often involved in
restoring processes, particularly fire and flooding.

Adaptive Management
The term ‘adaptive management’ is frequently used but it may sound intimidatingly expensive or
overly complex to some managers. In truth, it is a straightforward system that encourages learning
from the results of your own management actions. In practical terms this means taking management
actions based on your management goals and objectives and monitoring the results. The monitoring
should be carried out such that it provides you with information on whether your actions are helping
you achieve your goals and objectives or (Schwartz and Randall 1995). In adaptive management for
weeds you must first set goals and objectives indicating what you want to preserve or restore, then take
action to control the weeds that are or will prevent desirable species from thriving, and then monitor
the impacts of your actions. Monitoring programs may be simple and qualitative, or more complex,
quantitative and statistically rigorous, but it is most efficient to use the simplest method that will
provide the needed information. Analysis of the monitoring data may indicate your actions are right on
track, or, in the worst case, that it will not be possible to achieve some of your original objectives. If
the latter is true you will need to modify your goals and objectives for the site. If you do have to set
your sights lower it is important to acknowledge this so as not to waste any more of your valuable time
(Ibid).
It is essential that you analyse your monitoring data in a timely manner. At one Nature
Conservancy site in the state of Oregon, a time-consuming monitoring program was developed and
carried out for over 5 years before the data were analysed. Unfortunately, when the analysis was done
it turned out that the sampling design was so poor that the resultant data were useless for determining
whether there had been a change in the population of interest or not. The message that so many
seasons of data collection had been useless reduced some of the staff to tears! If they had analysed the
first year’s data early they may have wasted one season monitoring, but no more. The message is clear:
analyse your data early and often!

Core and outlier concept

Fig. 1. Shows a schematic representation of a typical weed infestation with dark areas showing
large cores and smaller outliers. The outliers could potentially coalesce with time to swamp native
vegetation. There is a possibility, however, that this pattern can be reversed. We can thus envisage a
site with core areas of native plants and outliers where native plants are planted in undesirable
vegetation with the hope that the outliers will expand and coalesce. In Ile aux Aigrettes areas of native
vegetation have already been established and the aim is for them to eventually grow together. This
concept may be an effective way to take the invasion process and turn it inside out, i.e. to invade the
weeds with plants we want. This is a part of the overall strategy that will be demonstrated in the
following section.

Fig. 1. Idealised core and outlier pattern of weed invasion in nature reserves.
Case Studies of Ecological Restoration
Many ecosystems in the USA have suffered heavily from invasions by non-indigenous plants.
Such invasions have inspired some very imaginative restoration projects. Several of these will be
described in the following section. Projects from nine locations will be discussed, seven from the
continental USA and two from the Hawaiian islands (Fig. 2.).

Fig.2. Approximate location of the case studies discussed in the text. 1. Blowing Rocks Preserve, 2. Castellow
Hammock, 3. The Hole-in-the-Donut, 4. Tallgrass Prairies Preserve in Oklahoma, 5. Nachusa Prairie in Illinois, 6.
Cosumnes River Preserve, 7. Santa Cruz Island, 8. Kaho’olawe Island, 9. Lanai Island.

1. Blowing Rocks Preserve - The Nature Conservancy, Martin County,

Atlantic Coast of Florida.
This is a barrier island of about 23 ha., one side of which faces the Atlantic coast and the other a
sheltered lagoon. The local people began a restoration programme in 1985 when the site was infested
with a number of woody weeds. Volunteers did a great deal of the work. The site was near an urban
area so there was a large pool of volunteer labour available. The first project was the removal of
Casuarina equisetifolia which covering a 5 ha. area. The Casuarina litter was burned. This was an
effective way of removing the biomass but the process sterilised the soil and probably as a result of this
nearly all plantings in this location failed for the next several years. This illustrates the difficulties of
removing biomass. Other woody weeds, including the Brazilian pepper Schinus terebinthifolius, were
later removed from the interior dune swale on the preserve. Towards the lagoon several vines were
removed including one that is present in Mauritius, Colubrina asiatica, known locally as latherleaf. In
the swale and towards the lagoon large plantings of native plants were performed. Most of the material
was grown on a nursery on site. The site is now beginning to resemble an uninvaded ecosystem and
monitoring data indicates it is on its way towards success.

2. Castellow Hammock – Dade County Natural Areas Management,

interior of southern Florida
From the air over South Florida can be seen clusters of hardwood trees in seas of either
grassland or cypress trees. The clusters are composed of Antillean species and are known as hammocks.
A few of these hammocks escaped clearing for development and agriculture and they are now
protected. One, known as Castellow Hammock is the subject of this case study. It is now square-shaped,
having lost its original size and shape when parts of it were cleared for crops and rural homesites.
Baseline work was done to characterise the vegetation of the site in 1986. In 1992 Florida was struck by
Hurricane Andrew resulting in some of the highest hurricane damage recorded in the western
hemisphere (Molnar and Randall in preparation). Because of the existence of the baseline data
Castellow Hammock was an ideal site in which to study the events following the storm.
Soon after the storm non-native vines covered large areas of the Hammock. It is interesting to
note that some of the most aggressive species had not been major pests before the storm. Merremia
tuberosa, known locally as wood rose, is a good example of such a species (Molnar and Randall
unpublished data). Fortunately, Dade county, where the Hammock is located, received a $2 million
grant which land managers there to clear weeds from their preserves for a period of 5 years following
the storm. Most of these areas have been regenerating well. The obvious question is, were the cleaning
operations necessary? That was partly what our study was about. In 1995, our most of our study plots
were almost completely covered by non-native vines as were those of Carol Horvitz and colleagues
(1997; in review) who were carrying out similar work in Castellow Hammock and several other
hurricane damaged preserves. We made observations only in plots that had been characterized before
the storm in 1986 and which were not cleared of vines even when all areas surrounding them were
cleared of invasive pests. We found that very little native regeneration occurred without the clearance.
Horvitz (1997) and Horvitz et al. (in review), likewise found very little regeneration of natives in
uncleared plots and significantly higher regeneration of native species in cleared plots.
In this instance action was taken before it was known whether it was strictly necessary because it
was deemed an emergency situation. As land managers we are often forced to take action on incomplete
information. But we must make some sort of decision since even taking no action is a decision and a
form of management.

3. The Hole-in-the-Donut - Everglades National Park, Florida

This next case study details a massive $US 60 million project to restore a 2,000 ha. wetland site
(Doren et al. 1990). This huge sum has come from the money developers must pay in mitigation for the
development of wetlands elsewhere in the county.
This area was farmed for several decades around the middle of the century and had been rock-
ploughed. Before ploughing the oolitic limestone bedrock was covered by a thin soil. The farmers had
developed a technique to break the limestone to create an artificial soil (Ewel et al. 1982), much higher
in nutrients and more aerobic than before (Orth and Conover 1975). After the farmers abandoned
and/or sold the land to the National Park in the 1970s it became completely infested with Schinus
terebinthifolius. All efforts to control the Schinus and restore the area had failed for about 15 years
(Doren and Whiteaker 1990).
In the late 1980s and early 1990s a demonstration project was carried out in which an 18 ha.
area was cleared of Schinus and all the soil was removed from the site down to the bare rock. In an
adjacent area 5-10 cm of soil was left after the Schinus was cleared. In the area where all the soil was
removed colonisation was mostly by native herbaceous plants. In the other area Schinus rapidly re-
established itself to such an extent that it was predicted that the site would be as before in a few years.
The results of these demonstrations were deemed conclusive enough to justify clearing the entire 2,000
ha. site in this way (Ibid).
Thus far at least $US 60 million has been generated for the work and a large portion of the 2,000
ha area is being cleared of Schinus and scraped clean of artificial soil using large machinery. Stems and
roots are ground up in a tub grinder and the residue put in windrows which are scooped up along with
the soil and carried by truck to landfill sites elsewhere in Florida. This dramatic and apparently crude
process appears to be promoting re-establishment of marsh vegetation dominated by native forbs and
graminoids, and almost entirely free of Schinus.

4. Tallgrass Prairie Preserve – The Nature Conservancy, northeastern

Oklahoma
This next project is from a Nature Conservancy preserve deep in the heart of the American
heartland. The state of Oklahoma had no free-ranging buffaloes remaining until this preserve was
established and these animals were reintroduced about 4 years ago (Hamilton, personal communication
1996). The buffalo within the USA is seen as an important symbol of the nation’s heritage so
restoration of this animal to the state was a very emotional event. It made television news across the
nation and some famous celebrities attended the first releases adding to the emotional appeal.
The site of the preserve was formerly used for cattle grazing but the native prairie vegetation was
largely intact and few major weed species were present (Hamilton, personal communication 1996). On
the other hand, fire had been suppressed for decades even though they had been extremely important in
structuring the vegetation for thousands of years before the area was settled by people of Old World
ancestry in the late 1800s. Prescribed fires were re-introduced to the area along with the buffalo whose
grazing also has a major impact on the species composition and the structure of the vegetation in
tallgrass prairie.
5. Nachusa Prairie – The Nature Conservancy, northern Illinois
This is another tallgrass prairie preserve, where a type of vegetation that once covered a large
belt across central USA, is being restored. Most of the land on this site was formerly ploughed yearly to
raise corn and other crops. No buffalo reintroductions are planned as the site is too small. Nonetheless,
native tallgrass prairie species (native grasses and forbs) are being planted into old agricultural fields
successfully (Klieman, personal communication 1996). Seed is gathered from a portion of the preserve
that was used for pasture and not ploughed and it is used to revegetate the other areas. In this way tens
of hectares can be replanted with native species each year. We hope that the whole site of about 450 ha.
will eventually be completely revegetated with tallgrass prairie.

6. The Cosumnes River Preserve – The Nature Conservancy, the Bureau

of Land Management and cooperating organizations, central California
Here we find a forest type known as Valley oak riparian forest or Valley oak streamside forest.
In this instance we have a model on which to base our restoration efforts. There are some small
remaining pockets of this original forest in California but only along the Cosumnes River, where the
preserve is located, do we have natural flooding. All the other rivers in central California are dammed
and therefore no longer flood naturally. The distinctive forests on sites without natural flooding may
persist for many years but cannot regenerate themselves and so will change dramatically or disappear
with time.
A fairly large planting programme (over 100 ha.) of oak and other woody species was started in
the areas of the preserve that had been farmed or cleared for grazing (Reiner 1996). Non-native
herbaceous weeds dominated the fallow fields, but the easiest way to deal with them was not by direct
weeding but by waiting for their elimination as planted trees shaded them out. Much thought was given
to the different ways of planting and we experimented with several methods. At first, trees were planted
in lines and irrigated. Later they were planted within areas that were surrounded by a berm and flood
irrigated to help the plants through their first year.
Despite our success, the process was still very slow. We realised that if we broke the
embankments that restricted river overflow on portions of the preserve forest trees would regenerate
and colonize large areas of the fallow fields on their own (Reiner 1996). Thus by fully restoring
flooding to a larger area of the preserve we have begun to restore the native community.
Other portions of the preserve had been herbaceous wetland before they were drained, cleared
and plowed. We reconstructed artificial wetlands in some of these areas. Despite being undammed, the
river no longer completely unconstrained and can no longer supply enough water to these sites to
maintain them as wetlands so we had use a system of canals and pumps to supply this water. During
construction of the wetlands the site resembled a large housing development.!! Not pretty but it was all
for conservation. Very little recovery of vegetation was evident at first, but by the second year there was
a huge increase in native vegetation apparently as a result of an incredible influx of seed from nearby
marshes. This quickly produced a healthy marsh which is excellent habitat for waterfowl which was the
primary goal of this project. Many species of waterfowl now use these artificial wetlands in large
numbers and this aspect of the preserve restoration is also regarded as a major success (Reiner 1996).

7. Santa Cruz Island Preserve – The Nature Conservancy and the

National Park Service, California
Ninety percent of this island, part of the channel Islands group just off the coast of southern
California, is owned by the Nature Conservancy. The remaining 10% is now owned by the National
Park Service and the two organizations work cooperatively to manage the entire island. The Nature
Conservancy purchased its portion of the island in the mid-1980s and shortly thereafter began a
program to control the huge herd of feral sheep which were denuding the island. Following an
extensive hunting program the herd of over 20,000 feral sheep was eliminated from the 90% of the
island owned by The Nature Conservancy. A large herd of cattle was also removed from the island.
The remaining tenth of the island was still privately owned at that time and so had to be fenced off to
prevent the sheep that remained there from re-colonizing the preserve. Soil erosion had become a
massive problem because the feral sheep and cattle denuded large portions of the island before it
became a preserve. It remains a problem on the 10% of the island that the National Park Service gained
control of within the past year. There was a strong recovery of vegetation following the removal of
sheep and cattle Klinger and Randall in press).
 The challenge is to now to remove feral pigs from the island. With hindsight it appears that it
would have been better to remove the feral pigs before we removed the sheep and cattle. The feral
sheep cleared so much of the vegetation that feral pigs were at relatively low densities and easy to
locate. Now that the vegetation has returned there are more pigs and they can hide in the vegetation.
Parts of the island under Nature Conservancy management contain bishop pine forest. On the
mainland this type of forest is maintained by periodic wildfires but on the island these forests have not
burned in at least 80 years and they appear to be senescing. Our question is whether we should
introduce fire or not? There are reasons why introducing fire might not be a good thing. The slopes are
so steep and the conditions when burning can occur are so hot and dry that we might end up destroying
what forest we have. We may have to cut and remove some of the dead wood before we burn. At the
moment we are not sure of the exact course of action to take.
We have, however, reintroduced fire in other areas of the island occupied by a native community
called coastal sage scrub. We are not sure of the exact impact fire once had in these communities. This
island receives very little lightning and fires cannot spread to the island from across the channel where
lightning strikes and wildfires are more frequent. We are currently experimenting with fire to see what
effects has on these communities and the dominant species in them (Klinger and Randall in press).

8. Kaho’olawe island - Hawaii

Kaho’olawe is a small island to the south of Maui in the Hawaiian archipelago. It was used for
cattle grazing in the 1800s and much of the island was denuded by the end of the nineteenth century. As
a consequence soil erosion was a major problem. There were some attempts to introduce some soil-
holding plants so that the islands value for grazing could be maintained but unfortunately some of these
introduced species quickly became weeds. Ranching was abandoned in the 1920s and in the Second
World War the island was used by the US navy as a bombing range, much to the chagrin of native
Hawaiian people. The Navy relinquished control of the island a few years ago when the Kaho’olawe
Island Commission was formed to begin efforts to restore native plants and animals (Giambelluca 1997;
Higashino personal communication 1997).
Of the approximately 24,000 ha. island, about 13,000 ha. are currently regarded as denuded.
There is practically no vegetation in these areas and in some places there is no soil, just bedrock. A
massive restoration effort is already underway on the island. It involves urgent tasks including clearing
the remaining ordinance from island. After some consideration, a number of non-native tree species
were planted at certain sites as windbreaks in hopes that they would promote the build-up of soils and
the survival of native species plantings. Tamarix aphylla is one of the species commonly used for this
purpose. This species doesn’t seem particularly invasive in the South West of the USA (Randall et al.
1997) but it spreads wildly in Australia (Griffin et al. 1989). This programme was started by the Navy
before they relinquished control and those who currently manage the restoration work are very wary of
the plantings because of the situation in Australia. Nevertheless the plantings seem to be doing the job
but are not spreading. This is another example of acting on incomplete information when the situation is
urgent. Native grasses are now growing well in small areas of the island so there is evidence of some
success (Giambelluca 1997, Higashino personal communication 1997).

9. Lanai island – The Nature Conservancy, Hawaii

A project of direct interest to Mauritius is restoration work on Kanepuu Preserve, a small
preserve located on the small island of Lanai, which is located a short distance west of Kaho’olawe.
Most of the island has been farmed but there are a couple small remnant dry forest patches. The
similarities with the Mauritian situation are very interesting. It is a dryland forest but one of the
dominant species there is a Diospyros, Diospyros sandwicensis. Some of the techniques the managers
there are using and the problems that they are facing are very similar to those seen in Mauritius.
Invasive non-native rodents and deer are severe problems there (The Nature Conservancy 1997). The
managers have been using fencing to keep deer out and traps to reduce the rodent populations. They
also have problems with the regeneration of native plant species so they are establishing a nursery as
has been done on Ile aux Aigrettes. The parallels with Mauritius are clear. In both cases there has been
careful thought in establishing goals, a need to be inventive and to take actions that are unprecedented,
the need to evaluate how well management is working and then, perhaps, the need to reassess and
modify some of the goals and objectives (The Nature Conservancy 1997).
References.
Doren, R.F. & Whiteaker, L.D. (1990). Effects of fire on different size individuals of Schinus
terebinthifolius. Natural Areas Journal, 10, 107-113.

Doren, R.F., L.D. Whiteaker, G. Molnar & Sylvia, D. (1990). Restoration of former wetlands within the
Hole-in-the-Donut in Everglades National Park. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Conference
on Wetlands Restoration and Creation. pp. 33-50

Ewel, J.J. (1986). Invisibility: lessons from South Florida. In Ecology of biological invasions of North
America and Hawaii, ed H.A. Mooney & J.A. Drake, Springer-Verlag, New York. pp.214-230

Ewel, J.J., D.S. Ojima, D.A. Karl & DeBusk, W.F. (1982). Schinus in successional ecosystems of
Everglades National Park. South Florida Research Center Report T-676. 141 pp.

Giambelluca, T.W. et al. (1997). Final Report- Lessons learned: Kaho’olawe restoration efforts prior
to 1996. Unpublished report to the Kaho’olawe Island Reserve Commission.

Griffin, G. F., D. M. Stafford Smith, S. R. Morton, G. E. Allen, & Masters, K. A. (1989). Status and
implications of the invasion of tamarisk (Tamarix aphylla) on the Finke River, Northern Territory,
Australia. Journal of Environmental Management, 29, 297-315.

Hamilton, R. (1996). The Nature Conservancy, Tallgrass Prairie Preserve, Pawhuska, Oklahoma.
Personal communication.

Hiebert, R. D. & J. Stubbendieck, J. (1993). Handbook for ranking exotic plants for management and
control. Natural Resources Report NPS/NRMWRO/NRR-93/08. Nat. Park Serv., Nat. Res. Publ. Office,
Denver.

Higashino, P. (1997). Kaho’olawe Island Reserve Commission, Honolulu, Hawaii. Personal

communication.

Horvitz, C.C. (1997). Final report: Effects of an exotic removal restoration program on post-hurricane
regeneration in subtropical hardwood hammock preserves. Unpublished report to the Dade County
Tree Trust Fund and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Horvitz, C.C., Pascarella, J. B., McMann, S. , Freedman, A. & Hofstetter, R.H. (In review).
Regeneration guilds of invasive non-indigenous plants in hurricane-affected subtropical hardwood
forests.

Kleiman, W. (1966). The Nature Conservancy, Nachusa Grasslands, Franklin Grove, Illinois. Personal
communication.

Klinger, R. & J.M. Randall. (In press). Looking Beyond Control: an Approach to Determining
Outcomes of Eradication and Control Programs. Proceedings of the 50th Annual California Weed
Science Society, January 1998.

Lewis, R. (1990). Wetlands Restoration/Creation/Enhancement Terminology: Suggestions for

Standardization. In Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science. ed J. A. Kusler & M.
E. Kentula, Island Press, Washington, D.C. pp. 417-422.

Loope, L.L & Dunevitz, V.L. (1981). Impact of fire exclusion and invasion of Schinus terebinthifolius
on limestone rockland pine forests of southeastern Florida. Everglades National Park South Florida
Research Center Technical Report No. T-645.

Moody, M. E. & Mack, R. N. (1988). Controlling the spread of plant invasions: the importance of
nascent foci. Journal of Applied Ecology, 25, 1009-1021.
Orth, P.G. & Conover, R.A. (1975). Changes in nutrients resulting from farming the Hole-in-the-Donut,
Everglades National Park. Proceedings of the Florida State Horticultural Society, 88, 221-225.

Randall, J.M. (1997). Defining weeds of natural areas. In Assessment and Management of Plant
Invasions, ed. J.O. Luken & J.W. Theiret, Springer, New York, pp. 18-25.

Randall, J.M., Lewis, R.R. and Jensen, D.B. (1997). Ecological restoration. In Strangers in paradise:
impact and management of non-indigenous species in Florida. ed D. Simberloff, D.C. Schmitz & T.C.
Brown, Island Press, Washington, DC. pp. 205-220.

Reiner, R. (1996). The Cosumnes River Preserve: 1987-95 fertile ground for new conservation ideas.
Fremontia, 24(2), 16-19.

The Nature Conservancy. (1997). Kanepuu Preserve, Lanai, Hawaii: Long Range Management Plan
Fiscal Years 1998-2003. Unpublished report to the Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources,
Natural Area Partnership Program.

Zamora, D. L., D. C. Thill & Eplee, R. E. (1989). An eradication plan for plant invasions. Weed
Technology, 3, 2-12.