Farag Aïda M, Hull Ruth N, Clements Will H, Glomb Steve, Larson Diane L, Stahl Ralph, Stauber Jenny
US Geological Survey, Jackson, Wyoming.
Intrinsik Environmental Sciences, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada.
Integr Environ Assess Manag. 2016 Apr;12(2):247-52. doi: 10.1002/ieam.1687. Epub 2015 Sep 28.
A workshop on Restoration of Impaired Ecosystems was held in Jackson, Wyoming, in June 2014. Experts from Australia, Canada, Mexico, the United Kingdom, and the United States in ecotoxicology, restoration, and related fields from both the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry and the Society for Ecological Restoration convened to advance the practice of restoring ecosystems that have been contaminated or impaired from industrial activities. The overall goal of this workshop was to provide a forum for ecotoxicologists and restoration ecologists to define the best scientific practices to achieve ecological restoration while addressing contaminant concerns. To meet this goal, participants addressed 5 areas: 1) links between ecological risk assessment and ecological restoration, 2) restoration goals, 3) restoration design, 4) monitoring for restoration effectiveness and 5) recognizing opportunities and challenges. Definitions are provided to establish a common language across the varied disciplines. The current practice for addressing restoration of impaired ecosystems tends to be done sequentially to remediate contaminants, then to restore ecological structure and function. A better approach would anticipate or plan for restoration throughout the process. By bringing goals to the forefront, we may avoid intrusive remediation activities that close off options for the desired restoration. Participants realized that perceived limitations in the site assessment process hinder consideration of restoration goals; contaminant presence will influence restoration goal choices; social, economic, and cultural concerns can factor into goal setting; restoration options and design should be considered early during site assessment and management; restoration of both structure and function is encouraged; creative solutions can overcome limitations; a regional focus is imperative; monitoring must occur throughout the restoration process; and reciprocal transfer of knowledge is needed among theorists, practitioners, and stakeholders and among varied disciplines.
2014年6月，一场关于受损生态系统恢复的研讨会在怀俄明州杰克逊市举行。来自澳大利亚、加拿大、墨西哥、英国和美国的生态毒理学、恢复及相关领域的专家齐聚一堂，他们分别来自环境毒理学与化学学会以及生态恢复学会，共同探讨如何推进对因工业活动而受到污染或损害的生态系统的恢复工作。本次研讨会的总体目标是为生态毒理学家和恢复生态学家提供一个论坛，以便在解决污染物问题的同时，确定实现生态恢复的最佳科学实践方法。为实现这一目标，与会者讨论了五个领域：1）生态风险评估与生态恢复之间的联系；2）恢复目标；3）恢复设计；4）恢复效果监测；5）认识机遇与挑战。会议给出了相关定义，以便在不同学科间建立共同语言。目前处理受损生态系统恢复的做法往往是先依次进行污染物修复，然后再恢复生态结构和功能。更好的方法是在整个过程中预先考虑或规划恢复工作。通过将目标置于首位，我们可以避免那些会限制理想恢复方案选择的侵入性修复活动。与会者意识到，场地评估过程中存在的明显局限性阻碍了对恢复目标的考虑；污染物的存在会影响恢复目标的选择；社会、经济和文化因素也会在目标设定中发挥作用；在场地评估和管理的早期就应考虑恢复方案和设计；鼓励同时恢复结构和功能；创造性的解决方案可以克服局限性；必须以区域为重点；在整个恢复过程中都要进行监测；理论工作者、实践者和利益相关者之间以及不同学科之间需要相互交流知识。
