ecological restoration across the mediterranean basin as...

Quarries Alive, 2-4 May 2018, University of Évora, Portugal

Ecological restoration across the Mediterranean Basin as viewed by

practitioners

Alice Nunes, Graça Oliveira, Teresa Mexia, Otília Correia, Cristina Branquinho

[email protected]

2

Mediterranean Basin and land degradation

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

67% occupied by drylandsparticularly vulnerable to desertification and land degradation


3

Restoration: ‘silvicultural’ vs. ecological

• Ecosystem-based approach• Diversification of plant species• Soils and fauna preservation

• Few tree species• Combination of forest productivity +

watershed protection

Reinforced by habitat directive 92/43/EEC, Convention on Biological Diversity, etc.


4

Ecological restoration definition

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

The process of assisting the recovery of a natural or semi-natural ecosystem that has been damaged, as similar as possible to a native reference ecosystem (SER)

McDonald T, Gann GD, Jonson J, and Dixon KW (2016) International standards for the practice of ecological restoration including principles and key concepts. Society for Ecological Restoration, Washington, D.C.


5




Eco

syst

em f

un

ctio

nin

g(b

iom

ass,

nu

trie

nt

cycl

ing,

etc


Degraded Ecosystem

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



6




Eco

syst

em f

un

ctio

nin

g(b

iom

ass,

nu

trie

nt

cycl

ing,

etc


Degraded Ecosystem

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

Represent the potential to deliver ecosystem services



7


McDonald et al 2016


8


• Is restoration practice following ER principles? • Are native species being used? • Are restoration outcomes evaluated, and how, and for how long?

etc.

?McDonald et al 2016


9

On-line survey on dryland restoration

COST Action ES1104 - ‘Arid Lands Restoration and Combat of Desertification: Setting Up a Drylands and Desert Restoration Hub’

I. Context and motivation

II. Planning, practice and maintenance

III. Criteria for plant species selection

IV. Monitoring and outcome

V. Costs and benefits


10

Responses from the Mediterranean Basin

N=36

Nunes et al. (2016). Ecological restoration across the Mediterranean Basin as viewed by practitioners. Science of the Total Environment 566-567: 722-732.

On-line survey on dryland restoration


11

Restoration main motivation

0 5 10 15 20

Natural (e.g. drought)

Fire

Industrial activities

Infrastructure develop.

Intensive agriculture

Deforestation/fuelwood

Overgrazing

Number of paired answers

0 5 10 15 20

Na…

Fi…

In…

In…

In…

De…

Ov…


Governamental iniciative (33%)

General laws (39%)

Laws for protected areas (14%)

Company initiative (22%)

Public opinion (22%)

Public health (11%)

Scientific research (11%)

0

EU (n=23) nEU (n=13)

EU countries Non-EU countries


0 5 10 15 20


Fire





Overgrazing


0 5 10 15 20

Na…

Fi…

In…

In…

In…

De…

Ov…



General laws (39%)




Public health (11%)


0

EU (n=23) nEU (n=13)


1212




13

0 5 10 15 20


Fire





Overgrazing


0 5 10 15 20

Na…

Fi…

In…

In…

In…

De…

Ov…



General laws (39%)




Public health (11%)


0

EU (n=23) nEU (n=13)

EU countries Non-EU countriesEU countries Non-EU countries



14

Soil source and revegetation techniques

0 5 10 15 20 25

Fire



Infrastructure (e.g.roads)

Deforestation (e.g.fuelwood)

Overgrazing



Planting from nursery (69%)

Local transplantation (28%)

Seeding (44%)

Hydroseeding (17%)

Grazing exclusion (3%)

Introduction biol. soil crusts (14%)

0 5 10 15

Fire



Infrastructure (e.g. roads)


Overgrazing



Disturbed original soil (erosion) (75%)

Undisturbed original soil (33%)

Reintroduced local topsoil (22%)

Spoil materials (3%)

Introduced non-local topsoil (8%)

0

Soil source Revegetation techniques

A B


15

0 5 10 15 20 25

Fire





Overgrazing





Seeding (44%)

Hydroseeding (17%)



0 5 10 15

Fire





Overgrazing








0


A B



16

0 5 10 15 20 25

Fire





Overgrazing





Seeding (44%)

Hydroseeding (17%)



0 5 10 15

Fire





Overgrazing








0


A B



17

0 5 10 15 20 25

Fire





Overgrazing





Seeding (44%)

Hydroseeding (17%)



0 5 10 15

Fire





Overgrazing








0


A B



18

Species nativeness and origin

0

10

20

30

40

50

Only native Mainly native Mainly non-native

Only non-native

Nu

mb

er o

f re

po

rted

cas

es EU (n=19)

nEU (n=9)

0

10

20

30

40

50


Only non-native

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f re

sto

rati

on

pro

ject

s (%

)

EU (n=21)

nEU (n=10)

0 10 20 30 40

Seed


Local (31%)Regional (17%)National (62%)International (14%)Unknown (7%)

0 10 20 30 40

Sapling/seedling



Saplings/seedlings Seeds

Provenance of propagules

**

**

A B

C D


19

0

10

20

30

40

50


Only non-native

Nu

mb

er o

f re

po

rted

cas

es EU (n=19)

nEU (n=9)

0

10

20

30

40

50


Only non-native

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f re

sto

rati

on

pro

ject

s (%

)

EU (n=21)

nEU (n=10)

0 10 20 30 40

Seed



0 10 20 30 40

Sapling/seedling





**

**

A B

C D



20

0

10

20

30

40

50


Only non-native

Nu

mb

er o

f re

po

rted

cas

es EU (n=19)

nEU (n=9)

0

10

20

30

40

50


Only non-native

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f re

sto

rati

on

pro

ject

s (%

)

EU (n=21)

nEU (n=10)

0 10 20 30 40

Seed



0 10 20 30 40

Sapling/seedling





**

**

A B

C D



21

Maintenance and success evaluation

0

10

20

30

40

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f re

sto

rati

on

pro

ject

s (%

)

Years after species instalation

Maintenance

Success evaluation

0 20 40 60 80

Plant cover

Plant diversity

Plant mortality/vitality

Plant functional diversity

Biomass production

C sequestration

Leaf nutritive value

Soil organic matter

Soil N

Soil physical properties

Soil erosion

Soil microbial activity

Litter decomposition

Multi-taxa diversity

Animal diversity

Indicator species

Eco-tourism

Proportion of restoration projects (%)

Success indicators

A B


22

0

10

20

30

40

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f re

sto

rati

on

pro

ject

s (%

)


Maintenance

Success evaluation

0 20 40 60 80

Plant cover

Plant diversity



Biomass production

C sequestration


Soil organic matter

Soil N


Soil erosion




Animal diversity

Indicator species

Eco-tourism


Success indicators

A B



Adaptive management: flexibility to deal with surprises/uncertainties by making adjustments in management decisions

Adapted from Nyberg 1999

23

0

10

20

30

40

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f re

sto

rati

on

pro

ject

s (%

)


Maintenance

Success evaluation

0 20 40 60 80

Plant cover

Plant diversity



Biomass production

C sequestration


Soil organic matter

Soil N


Soil erosion




Animal diversity

Indicator species

Eco-tourism


Success indicators

A B



• Restoration outcome never evaluated in 22% of cases

• Long term evaluation (>6 years) was only performed in 31%

24



0

10

20

30

40

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f re

sto

rati

on

pro

ject

s (%

)


Maintenance

Success evaluation

0 20 40 60 80

Plant cover

Plant diversity



Biomass production

C sequestration


Soil organic matter

Soil N


Soil erosion




Animal diversity

Indicator species

Eco-tourism


Success indicators

A B

FunctionalNot functional

Success indicators

25



0

10

20

30

40

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f re

sto

rati

on

pro

ject

s (%

)


Maintenance

Success evaluation

0 20 40 60 80

Plant cover

Plant diversity



Biomass production

C sequestration


Soil organic matter

Soil N


Soil erosion




Animal diversity

Indicator species

Eco-tourism


Success indicators

A B

FunctionalNot functional

Success indicators

• Functional indicators seldom used

• No attempt to quantify ecosystem services

26

Unexpected negative results

Probable causes

High

mortality

Low or

inadequate

biodiversity

Dominance of a

native species

Low plant

cover

Low natural

recruitment

Drought 11 4 3 1

Low soil quality 7 1 1 1

High erosion 3 1 1 1 1

Pests 2 1 1

Inappropriate

planting techniques 2 1 1

Excessive irrigation 1

Wildfire 1

Invasive species 1

High fragmentation 1

Short elapsed time 1

Reported for 50% of the projects


27

Ecological restoration practice index

Questions Score=2 Score=1 Score=0

1. Scientific assistance before, during, and

after the restoration

project

only in one or two of

such occasions

never

2. Soil origin only local local + other only non-local

3. Species nativeness only native native + non-native only non-native

4. Species provenance local local + other only national or

international

5. Duration of success

evaluation

> 5 years 1 - 5 years never

6. Success indicators based also on

functional indicators,

e.g. soil organic matter,

litter decomposition

rate

based only on species

diversity, e.g. multi-taxa

based only on diversity,

vitality or cover of plant

species

Higher agreement with ER principles


28

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

nEU(n=1)

EU(n=3)

nEU(n=3)

EU(n=12)

nEU(n=9)

EU(n=8)

Fire Infrastructure/Industrial Overgrazing/Agriculture

Eco

l. R

est

ora

tio

n in

de

x

Main degradation cause

abc

b

b

cabc

abc



0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

nEU(n=1)

EU(n=3)

nEU(n=3)

EU(n=12)

nEU(n=9)

EU(n=8)

Fire Infrastructure/Industrial Overgrazing/Agriculture

Eco

l. R

est

ora

tio

n in

de

x

Main degradation cause

abc

b

b

cabc

abc

29



30

Implications for practice

• High variability among restoration practices

• Need for improved scientific assistance and information exchange

• Need for greater use of native species of local provenance - crucial to preserve

local genetic and functional trait diversity critical to cope with drought

• Need for long-term monitoring and evaluation, including indicators of

ecosystem functioning and services – only way to understand restoration

trajectories and adopt adaptive management in order to create functional

ecosystems


31

Acknowledgments:

FCT-MEC (SFRH/BD/51407/2011)

Thank you for your attention

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

ecological restoration across the mediterranean basin as...

Documents