From military training area to National Park over 20 years: Indicators for outcome evaluation in a large-scale restoration project in alpine Norway

Hagen, Dagmar; Evju, Marianne; Henriksen, Pål Skovli; Solli, Svein; Erikstad, Lars; Bartlett, Jesamine

doi:10.1016/j.jnc.2021.126125

Cited by 6 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… The Hjerkinn military training area in Dovrefjell, Innlandet county, central Norway. Before the restoration the training area was surrounded by protected areas (dark colors), including national parks, landscape protected areas, and nature reserves (Hagen et al 2022). …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To reach this goal, restoration activities were carried out by the Norwegian Defence Estates Agency from 2009 to 2020. The restoration included removing technical infrastructure, including 75 km of roads (Hagen et al 2022).…”

Section: Study Sitementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recovery after disturbance is slow in alpine ecosystems, due to abiotic factors such as low temperatures, a short growing season, and low water and nutrient availability (Billings 1987, Willard et al 2007, Rydgren et al 2011). Efficient restoration treatments to enhance recovery rates is therefore particularly needed in alpine ecosystems (Forbes and Jefferies 1999, Krautzer et al 2012, Hagen et al 2022). To restore alpine areas after disturbance, three main groups of restoration techniques have traditionally been applied: 1) remediation of soil and terrain, 2) adding nutrients, and 3) seeding or planting (Urbanska and Chambers 2002, Hagen and Evju 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The goal of the large‐scale restoration project, covering 165 km 2 in a former military training area, was to restore the vegetation to a ‘natural state' (Norwegian Ministry of Defence 1998), i.e. similar to the alpine vegetation occurring in undisturbed parts of the area (Hagen and Evju 2013, Hagen et al 2022). Monitoring of vegetation recovery in restored sites was central to evaluating this goal.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Recovery of vegetation on former alpine roads: how long does it take?

Evju

Hagen

Olsen

et al. 2023

Nordic Journal of Botany

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Alpine areas worldwide are under heavy land‐use pressure and degradation. Active restoration treatments can contribute to accelerating recovery of degraded areas. However, monitoring data are needed to understand the contribution of restoration treatments to long‐term management and to predict time to recovery (TR). In this study, we used monitoring data on removed roads in an alpine area in Norway to investigate TR of three vegetation‐based indicators. Four restoration treatments were tested: 1) removal of added gravel down to original terrain surface, and stirring of topsoil; 2) adding fertilizer to the stirred topsoil; 3) adding seeds to the fertilized topsoil; and 4) no removal of added gravel, but stirring of top layer (gravel and soil). The restoration of roads took place in 2002, and monitoring of permanent plots was carried out in 2004, 2009, 2014, and 2019. Reference plots in intact vegetation next to removed roads were monitored in 2014 and 2019. We used species composition and species richness of vascular plants as well as total vegetation cover as indicators of restoration outcome and investigated predicted TR for these indicators under different restoration treatments. Species composition changed significantly with time since restoration in all treatments, approaching that of the reference vegetation. The recovery of species composition was slowest in fertilized and seeded plots, where estimated TR was 2–3 times longer (> 45 years) than in the other treatments (< 20 years). Species richness of vascular plants was restored quickly (< 5 years) within all restoration treatments, whereas recovery of vegetation cover varied more (20–30 years). Our study confirms that vegetation recovery in alpine environments is a long‐term process, but that adding seeds and nutrients is unnecessary for, and even inhibits, the recovery of narrow, disturbed sites such as former roads.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Study Sitementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Recovery of vegetation on former alpine roads: how long does it take?

Evju

Hagen

Olsen

et al. 2023

Nordic Journal of Botany

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Accurate, consistent information on the extent and distribution of ecosystems is the foundation for a wide range of research activities and applied purposes, such as spatial planning and environmental impact assessments (Hersperger et al, 2021), conservation planning (Beier et al, 2015), ecosystem accounting (Hein et al, 2020), nature restoration (Hagen et al, 2022), and evaluation of the economic potential of natural resources (e.g. grazing capacity; Mysterud et al, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What explains inconsistencies in field‐based ecosystem mapping?

Naas

Halvorsen

Horvath

et al. 2023

Applied Vegetation Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Questions Field‐based ecosystem mapping is prone to observer bias, typically resulting in a mismatch between maps made by different mappers, that is, inconsistency. Experimental studies testing the influence of site, mapping scale, and differences in experience level on inconsistency in field‐based ecosystem mapping are lacking. Here, we study how inconsistencies in field‐based ecosystem maps depend on these factors. Location Iškoras and Guollemuorsuolu, northeastern Norway, and Landsvik and Lygra, western Norway. Methods In a balanced experiment, four sites were field‐mapped wall‐to‐wall to scales 1:5000 and 1:20,000 by 12 mappers, representing three experience levels. Thematic inconsistency was calculated by overlay analysis of map pairs from the same site, mapped to the same scale. We tested for significant differences between sites, scales, and experience‐level groups. Principal components analysis was used in an analysis of additional map inconsistencies and their relationships with site, scale and differences in experience level and time consumption were analysed with redundancy analysis. Results On average, thematic inconsistency was 51%. The most important predictor for thematic inconsistency, and for all map inconsistencies, was site. Scale and its interaction with site predicted map inconsistencies, but only the latter were important for thematic inconsistency. The only experience‐level group that differed significantly from the mean thematic inconsistency was that of the most experienced mappers, with nine percentage points. Experience had no significant effect on map inconsistency as a whole. Conclusion Thematic inconsistency was high for all but the dominant thematic units, with potentially adverse consequences for mapping ecosystems that are fragmented or have low coverage. Interactions between site and mapping system properties are considered the main reasons why no relationships between scale and thematic inconsistency were observed. More controlled experiments are needed to quantify the effect of other factors on inconsistency in field‐based mapping.

show abstract

Working with Natural Processes: Restoring a Mining Landscape in the High Arctic, Svalbard, Norway

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Svea coal mines in Svalbard have been closed, and the area is under restoration. The goal of the landscape restoration was to enable dynamic ecological and geomorphological processes by removing roads, housing, industrial facilities, airports, landfills, and quarries that once dominated the area. Cultural heritage features, such as pre-1946 buildings, structures, and mining traces, have been preserved, while the rest of the landscape has been restored to a near-natural state. The focus has been restoring geodiversity in this arctic environment, where biotic processes are slow. Geomorphological processes such as glacial, slope, fluvial, coastal, and permafrost processes dominate and give the landscape its geological character. The objective of the restoration is not merely to re-create the landscape’s previous appearance but rather to ensure that natural processes can function as they did in the past, contributing to the ongoing development and evolution of all restored land surfaces. As of 2023, most of the area has already been restored. In areas with rapid geomorphological processes, the land will soon be dominated by these processes. Revegetation is one of the major ecological processes the restoration seeks to facilitate. Revegetation is a slow process in arctic environments, and it will take many decades before vegetation covers restored bare surfaces. The project forms a valuable baseline for studying and discussing geomorphology, landscape dynamics, geodiversity, biodiversity, and ecology for nature management and landscape restoration.

show abstract

From military training area to National Park over 20 years: Indicators for outcome evaluation in a large-scale restoration project in alpine Norway

Cited by 6 publications

References 39 publications

Recovery of vegetation on former alpine roads: how long does it take?

Recovery of vegetation on former alpine roads: how long does it take?

What explains inconsistencies in field‐based ecosystem mapping?

Working with Natural Processes: Restoring a Mining Landscape in the High Arctic, Svalbard, Norway

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About