Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Restoration Management (restoration + management)
Selected AbstractsA Striking Profile: Soil Ecological Knowledge in Restoration Management and ScienceRESTORATION ECOLOGY, Issue 4 2008Mac A. Callaham Jr. Abstract Available evidence suggests that research in terrestrial restoration ecology has been dominated by the engineering and botanical sciences. Because restoration science is a relatively young discipline in ecology, the theoretical framework for this discipline is under development and new theoretical offerings appear regularly in the literature. In reviewing this literature, we observed an absence of in-depth discussion of how soils, and in particular the ecology of soils, can be integrated into the developing theory of restoration science. These observations prompted us to assess the current role of soil ecological knowledge in restoration research and restoration practice. Although soils are universally regarded as critical to restoration success, and much research has included manipulations of soil variables, we found that better integration of soil ecological principles could still contribute much to the practice of ecosystem restoration. Here we offer four potential points of departure for increased dialog between restoration ecologists and soil ecologists. We hope to encourage the view that soil is a complex, heterogeneous, and vital entity and that adoption of this point of view can positively affect restoration efforts worldwide. [source] Integrating Soil Ecological Knowledge into Restoration ManagementRESTORATION ECOLOGY, Issue 4 2008Liam Heneghan Abstract The variability in the type of ecosystem degradation and the specificity of restoration goals can challenge restorationists' ability to generalize about approaches that lead to restoration success. The discipline of soil ecology, which emphasizes both soil organisms and ecosystem processes, has generated a body of knowledge that can be generally useful in improving the outcomes of restoration despite this variability. Here, we propose that the usefulness of this soil ecological knowledge (SEK) for restoration is best considered in the context of the severity of the original perturbation, the goals of the project, and the resilience of the ecosystem to disturbance. A straightforward manipulation of single physical, chemical, or biological components of the soil system can be useful in the restoration of a site, especially when the restoration goal is loosely defined in terms of the species and processes that management seeks to achieve. These single-factor manipulations may in fact produce cascading effects on several ecosystem attributes and can result in unintended recovery trajectories. When complex outcomes are desired, intentional and holistic integration of all aspects of the soil knowledge is necessary. We provide a short roster of examples to illustrate that SEK benefits management and restoration of ecosystems and suggest areas for future research. [source] The conservation management of upland hay meadows in Britain: a reviewGRASS & FORAGE SCIENCE, Issue 4 2005R. G. Jefferson Abstract Upland hay meadows conforming to MG3 in the National Vegetation Classification of the UK are a rare habitat in Britain and are largely confined to upland valleys in northern England. Agricultural intensification, particularly ploughing and reseeding and a shift from hay-making to silage production over the last 50 years, has resulted in large losses of species-rich upland hay meadows. Remaining species-rich meadows have been the focus of much nature conservation effort resulting in many of the species-rich sites being protected by statutory designations or through voluntary agri-environment scheme agreements. Research and monitoring has tended to confirm that species richness is maximized by management involving spring and autumn grazing, a mid-July hay cut, no inorganic fertilizer and possibly low levels of farmyard manure. Deviations from this regime result in a loss of species richness. Restoration of semi-improved grassland to swards resembling species-rich MG3 also requires a similar regime but is also dependent on the introduction of seed of appropriate species. The role of Rhinanthus minor as a tool for manipulating meadow biodiversity during restoration management is discussed. Suggestions for future research are outlined. [source] The restoration of ecological interactions: plant,pollinator networks on ancient and restored heathlandsJOURNAL OF APPLIED ECOLOGY, Issue 3 2008Mikael Lytzau Forup Summary 1Attempts to restore damaged ecosystems usually emphasize structural aspects of biodiversity, such as species richness and abundance. An alternative is to emphasize functional aspects, such as patterns of interaction between species. Pollination is a ubiquitous interaction between plants and animals. Patterns in plant,pollinator interactions can be analysed with a food web or complex-systems approach and comparing pollination webs between restored and reference sites can be used to test whether ecological restoration has taken place. 2Using an ecological network approach, we compared plant,pollinator interactions on four pairs of restored and ancient heathlands 11 and 14 years following initiation of restoration management. We used the network data to test whether visitation by pollinators had been restored and we calculated pollinator importance indices for each insect species on the eight sites. Finally, we compared the robustness of the restored and ancient networks to species loss. 3Plant and pollinator communities were established successfully on the restored sites. There was little evidence of movement of pollinators from ancient sites onto adjacent restored sites, although paired sites correlated in pollinator species richness in both years. There was little insect species overlap within each heathland between 2001 and 2004. 4A few widespread insect species dominated the communities and were the main pollinators. The most important pollinators were typically honeybees (Apis mellifera), species of bumblebee (Bombus spp.) and one hoverfly species (Episyrphus balteatus). The interaction networks were significantly less complex on restored heathlands, in terms of connectance values, although in 2004 the low values might reflect the negative relationship between connectance and species richness. Finally, there was a trend of restored networks being more susceptible to perturbation than ancient networks, although this needs to be interpreted with caution. 5Synthesis and applications. Ecological networks provide a powerful tool for assessing the outcome of restoration programmes. Our results indicate that heathland restoration does not have to occur immediately adjacent to ancient heathland for functional pollinator communities to be established. Moreover, in terms of restoring pollinator interactions, heathland managers need only be concerned with the most common insect species. Our focus on pollination demonstrates how a key ecological service can serve as a yardstick for judging restoration success. [source] The contribution of rewetting to vegetation restoration of degraded peat meadowsAPPLIED VEGETATION SCIENCE, Issue 3 2007J. van Dijk van der Meijden (1990) Abstract Question: What is the contribution of a rise in groundwater level to vegetation restoration of degraded peat meadows compared to abandonment only? Location: Abandoned peat meadows in the central part of The Netherlands. Methods: Comparison of species composition and species abundance of vegetation and seed banks of reference and rewetted peat meadows, using plant trait and seed bank analysis. Results: Vegetation of rewetted meadows shared on average only 27% of their species with the reference meadow, while this was 50% on average for species in the seed bank. Rewetted meadows had a lower total number of species and a lower number of wet grassland and fen species present in the vegetation, but had higher species richness per m2, although evenness was not affected. Rewetting increased the dominance of species of fertile and near neutral habitats, but did not result in an increase of species of wet or waterlogged habitats. Re-wetted meadows were dominated by species relying mainly on vegetative reproduction and species with a low average seed longevity compared to the reference meadow. Conclusion: Rewetting was not effective as a restoration measure to increase plant species diversity or the number of wet grassland and fen species in the vegetation. If no additional restoration management is applied, the seed bank will be depleted of seeds of species of wet grassland or fen habitats, further reducing the chances of successful vegetation restoration. [source] The impact of site conditions and seed dispersal on restoration success in alluvial meadowsAPPLIED VEGETATION SCIENCE, Issue 1 2003Tobias W. Donath Wisskirchen & Haeupler (1998) Abstract. We studied the restoration success of flood plain meadows in the northern Upper Rhine valley, where between 1988 and 1992, 35 ha of arable land was converted into grassland and subsequently managed for nature conservation. Remnant populations of typical alluvial meadow species were found in old meadows and along drainage ditches that dissect the whole area. We analysed the site conditions and phytosociological relevés in old and new meadows. Small differences in site parameters between old and new meadows contrasted with a clear floristic differentiation between the two meadow types. The vegetation of old meadows was much more differentiated along prevailing environmental gradients than the vegetation of new meadows. Despite the favourable site conditions for the re-establishment of species-rich meadows on the former arable land, restoration success was limited to the vicinity of remnant stands. In contrast to old meadows, indicator species of new grassland were still typical species of regularly disturbed ruderal and arable habitats, often capable of building up a persistent seed bank. The precise mapping of 23 target species revealed that even wind dispersal predominantly leads to re-establishment in the close circumference of parent plants. We found no indication that regular flooding, hay-making and autumnal grazing had an impact on recolonization of newly created grassland. Even under favourable conditions for the re-establishment of target species, restoration success in alluvial meadows proved to be strongly dispersal limited. We discuss the implications of our findings for future restoration management in grasslands. [source] | |||||||||||||