Ecological restoration of drylands ... - WordPress.com

Ecological restoration of drylands: practice, outcomes

and future perspectives

Alice Nunes & Working Group 3 COST Action ES1104

COST Action ES1104 WG meeting, University of Thessaloniki, Greece 28-30 April 2015

Alice Nunes ([email protected]) Cristina Branquinho ([email protected])

Reclamation

Natural processes (sucession)

Ecological restoration

Ecosystem structure and diversity (species number, habitat complexity, etc.)

Eco

syst

em f

un

ctio

nin

g (b

iom

ass,

nu

trie

nt

cycl

ing,

etc

.)

‘Reference’ Ecosystem

Degraded Ecosystem

Rehabilitation

WP3 survey on ecological restoration of drylands

Ecological restoration: the process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed (SER)


Species diversity (similar to the reference ecosystem)

Community structure (similar to the reference ecosystem)

Presence of functional groups

Presence of native species

Biotic flows with surrounding areas

Self-sustainability

Resilience

(http://www.ser.org/)

Attributes of the restored ecosystem

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Desertification Synthesis (World Resources Institute, Washington, DC).

Drylands: cover about 41% of Earth’s land surface are inhabited by 38% of the human population



Aim: to gauge the range of restoration projects that have been implemented in dryland areas, to establish current knowledge of best practice for dryland ecological restoration


•Target: dryland areas in Europe and also in other parts of the world

•Discussion among the WG3 concerning the survey target areas, format, structure and questions

•Format: on-line survey (or by other means whenever more convenient)

•Structure and questions: divided into parts A and B

Part A: information about the contributing expert and the restoration project area (10)



Part B: detailed information about restoration projects

I. Context and motivation (7) II. Planning, practice and maintenance (9) III. Criteria for plant species selection (14) IV. Monitoring and outcome (7) V. Costs and benefits (6)

Total of 148 answers, 81% drylands


WP3 survey on ecological restoration of drylands: answers to part A


Total of 77 answers (52%) in Europe and surrounding area, from which 74% drylands


Answers from 46 countries

Africa 28

Algeria 4

Botswana 2

Burkina Faso 1

Egypt 2

Ethiopia 1

Ghana 1

Kenya 2

Many 1

Morocco 2

Namibia 1

Niger 1

Rwanda 1

Senegal 1

Tanzania 1

Togo 1

Tunisia 5

Uganda 1



Asia 28

China 5

India 8

Iran 7

Jordan 1

Lebanon 1

Nepal 1

Pakistan 2

Palestine region 1

United Arab Emirates 1

Uzbekistan 1

America 7

Brasil 5

United States 2

Australia 2

Australia 2

Europe 77

Armenia 2

Azerbaijan 1

Belgium 1

Bulgary 3

England 1

Georgia 2

Germany 2

Greece 4

Iceland 1

Israel 6

Italy 3

Many 3

Portugal 12

Serbia 2

Spain 24

Switzerland 1

Turkey 8

Netherlands 1

Who answered?

Ecohydrologist

Ecologist

Forest_engineer/agronomist

Geographer/Geomorphologist

Project_manager/coordinator

Social_sciences

Soil_engineer/scientist

Governamental instituition

Private

University/Research institute



Where from?


WP3 survey on ecological restoration of drylands: answers to part B (more detailed info)

Total of 59 answers, 78% in drylands, 59% in Europe and surrounding area

Habitat type



B-I. Context and motivation

0 5 10 15 20 25

Riparian

Dunes

Farmland/agricultural

Savanna

Xeric shrubland

Annual grassland

Perennial grassland

Evergreen shrubland

Forest/Woodland

Nr of detailed case studies


Main degradation causes

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Extensive agriculture

Invasive species

Fire

Industry activities/mining

Infrastructure development (roads, dams, etc.)

Intensive agriculture

Natural (drought, etc.)

Deforestation/Fuel collection

Overgrazing




Restoration motivation

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

NGOs

Public health

Scientific research

Protected areas legislation

Enterprise/private initiative

Public pressure

General legislation

Government iniciative





0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

↑Scientific research

↑Dune stabilization

↑Sustainable management

↓Floods

↓Pollution

↓Invasive species

↑Conservation

↓Landscape impact

↑Biodiversity

↑Ecosystem services

↑People livelihood

↓Soil erosion



Restoration aims




B-II. Planning, practice and maintenance

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Topsoil transfer

Grazing exclusion

Hydroseeding

Inocculation/transpl. biological soil crusts

Transplantation from local area

Seeding/sowing

Planting plants grown in nursery


0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Added unstructured substrate (e.g. spoil …

Added non-local topsoil

Treated soil (e.g. fertilized, organic amendment)

Added local topsoil

Original soil undisturbed

Original soil disturbed (erosion)



Revegetation techniques

Soil used


B-III. Criteria for plant species selection

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Carbonate tolerance

↑Biodiversity

Fast growth

↑Soil nutrients

Dispersion ability

High/low pH tolerance

Fire

↑Biotic interaction

Shading/microclimatic amelioration

Salinity tolerance

Aesthetic value

Social acceptance

Economic value (e.g. timber, bio-oil)

Nativeness

Erosion control

Drought tolerance


Plant selection purpose

Plantation

0 10 20 30 40

None

Only non-native

Both

Only native

Nr of detailed case studies (seedlings)

native

non-native

0 10 20 30

None

Only non-native

Both

Only native

Nr of detailed case studies (seeds)

native

non-native

Seeding/Sowing




Reasons for the use of non-native species

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

↑Resistance

↑Biodiversity

Aesthetic

↑Knoledge growing requirements

Nurse, to be removed

Timber

↓Price

↑Comercial availability

↑Growth rate







0 10 20 30

>15

10-15

6-10

2-5


0 10 20 30

>80%

51-80%

20-50%

<20%


0 10 20 30

>20

11-20

5-10

<5


0 10 20 30

>80%

51-80%

21-50%

10-20%

<10%


Nr woody species Nr herbaceous species

% compared to the reference/non-disturbed ecosystem?


0 10 20 30

Non-native species dominance

Low mortality

Low recruitment

Low social involvement

Low cover

Fast recovery

Erosion

Native species dominance

Low biodiversity

High mortality


As expected

Partially unexpected

Restoration Results


Unexpected results


B-IV. Monitoring and outcome


0 10 20 30

Excessive irrigationLack of maintenance

PestsSoil contamination

FragmentationSocial reluctanceInvasive species

FireHerbivory

Not enough time passedErosion

Soil degradation/low qualityDrought/harsh climate


Causes for unexpected results




Partially successfulSuccessful

Unsuccessful

Success evaluation



0 5 10 15 20 25

>20 years

11-20 year

6-10years

2-5years

1 year

<1year

never




0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Soil pH

Eco-turism

Social aproval

Aesthetic

Indicator species

Soil microbial activity

C sequestration

Animal species number

Animal species abundance

Litter cover/decomposition

Multi-taxa

Plant functional diversity

Soil physical analysis

Biomass production

Soil erosion measures

SOM

Soil N

Plant mortality/vitality

Plant diversity

Plant species number

Plant cover


How was the success evaluated?


No

Yes

Attempt to quantify ES?



B-V. Costs and benefits

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

High, considering benefits

Appropriate, considering current benefits

Low, considering benefits

Appropriate, considering future benefits


0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19

Res

tora

tio

n c

ost

(€

/ha)

Min: 2 €/ha Mean: 2110 €/ha Máx outliers: 80000 and 200000€/ha

Restoration Cost

Some preliminary conclusions

Main restoration aims: protect soil from erosion, improve people livelihood, improve ecosystem services (ES), increase biodiversity

Most projects use original soil or add local topsoil; revegetation mainly through planting and seeding and to a lesser extent local transplantation and BSC Mostly native species are used; non-native species are used mainly due to a higher comercial availability and lower price

Restoration success is evaluated in short to medium term, and firstly based on plant and soil data

High plant mortality and low biodiversity are the main limitations to restoration success, attributed to drought

Althoug improving ES is a major restoration aim, few attemps are maid to quantify them


Work in progress


Which techniques are associated with higher restoration success?

Under different aridity levels?

Expected output: a peer-reviewed paper

Protected vs. unprotected areas?

Discuss the evaluation of ecosystem services in restoration

Thank you for your attention

Acknowledgments:

SFRH/BD/51407/2011)

COST Action ES1104 – Arid lands restoration and combat of desertification: setting up a drylands and desert restoration hub

Alice Nunes ([email protected]) Cristina Branquinho ([email protected])

Authors: Alice Nunes Teresa Mexia Graça Oliveira Otília Correia Benz Kotzen Sarah Milliken Alejandro Valdecantos Ruediger Prasse Eleni Abraham Apostolos Kyriazopoulos Edoardo Costantini Ayman Salah Abdel Rahman Al-Tawaha Cristoph Kuells Gudrun Schwilch & Cristina Branquinho

Documents

Ecological restoration of drylands ... - WordPress.com