Habitat Conditions of Montane Meadows associated with Restored and Unrestored Stream Channels of California

Abstract

Mountain meadow habitats are valued for their ecological importance. They attenuate floods, improve water quality, and support high biodiversity. Many meadow habitats in the western US are degraded, and efforts are increasing to restore these montane meadow ecosystems. Rewatering projects such as pond-and-plug quickly raise the water table by blocking the existing incised stream channel and can result in the rapid recovery of wet meadow habitats. Based on the existing literature, however, it is difficult to determine realistic expectations for outcomes of restoration projects across a range of hydrogeologic conditions. We compared wetland, vegetation, soil carbon, and channel condition variables between ten randomly selected restored and ten paired unrestored montane meadows in California to provide a comparison of habitat conditions. We found that unrestored meadows had a higher proportion of wetland habitat, fewer indicators of channel instability, and greater topsoil carbon stores compared to restored meadows. Restored meadows had more herbaceous biomass within their wetland habitats, but also had more cattle exclosures. The restoration category of the meadow remained important when watershed variables were included in models. While restored meadows were highly degraded prior to project implementation, our results suggest that, in general, conditions do not improve beyond the average conditions of nearby unrestored meadows. Realistic expectations of outcomes and consequences are necessary for managers to make appropriate decisions about restoration options and whether or not to implement rewatering projects that often greatly alter the meadow landscape.

Bird response to hydrologic restoration of montane riparian meadows

“…We agree with Purdy et al (2011) that evaluating multiple ecological attributes of management and restoration interest provides the best assessment of meadow condition, a sentiment echoed by others in the context of evaluating the success of ecosystem restoration in general (Ruiz‐Jaen & Aide 2005; McDonald et al 2016). Pond‐and‐plug restoration of riparian montane meadows appears to meet objectives for hydrological processes (Hammersmark et al 2008; Hunsaker et al 2015), however, this and other similar meadow re‐watering techniques may be falling short of achieving objectives for channel condition and surface soil carbon stores (Pope et al 2015).…”

“…Because of the lack of rigorous and long-term evaluation (Ramstead et al 2012) and sensitivity to variation in ecosystem context and methodology (reviewed by Hunsaker et al 2015), the effectiveness of meadow restoration in achieving intended objectives is not well understood (cf. Hammersmark et al 2008;Pope et al 2015). Yet understanding the efficacy of meadow restoration in general, and specific restoration techniques in particular, in achieving desired outcomes is critical to maximizing the multiple benefits of restoration (e.g.…”

Grazing and wildfire effects on small mammals inhabiting montane meadows

“…Montane meadows in western North America are diverse systems of forbs and grasses that serve many ecological roles; they control flooding, protect water quality, and support high biodiversity and productivity (Brown , Roche et al , Pope et al ). In the southwestern United States, montane meadows vary in size (e.g., <1 to >1,000 ha) within coniferous forests.…”

Using conspecific broadcast for Willow Flycatcher restoration

“…In recent decades, however, grazing pressure has been reduced significantly, and numerous large-scale wetland restoration projects designed in part to improve habitat for riparian birds have been implemented across California (Pope et al 2015, Oles et al 2017. Despite apparently improving habitat conditions, Willow Flycatchers have not returned to restored habitat from which they have been lost, even when high-quality restored habitat is within the dispersal distance of potential source populations .…”