Impacts of Riparian Restoration on Vegetation and Avifauna on Private and Communal Lands in Northwest Mexico and Implications for Future Efforts

Abstract

<jats:p> Restoring and enhancing riparian vegetation on private and communal lands in Mexico is important for biodiversity conservation given the ecological significance of these areas and the scarcity of public protected areas. To enhance riparian vegetation and wildlife habitats and train local people in restoration techniques, we implemented restoration and outreach efforts on private and communal lands in the Sky Islands region of northwest Mexico. We fenced 475 ha of riparian zones from livestock, erected erosion-control structures, planted trees, and developed management agreements for cool-season grazing with landowners on 10 ranches across 3 sites in 2012-2013, then repaired fences and renegotiated agreements in 2017-2019. To foster evaluation, we used a before-after/control-impact design to measure attributes of vegetation structure and bird communities and compared baselines from 2012 with post-treatment estimates from 2019. As predicted, understory vegetation volume generally increased in treatments relative to controls ( P = .09), especially when one treatment area with the lowest pre-treatment grazing impacts was censored ( P = .01). Although canopy cover also increased, there was little differential change in treatments relative to controls ( P ⩾ .23) due likely to longer time periods needed to realize responses. Densities of most focal bird populations varied across time periods in directions that typically matched observed changes in vegetation structure, but fewer species showed signs of differential positive change linked to treatments relative to controls. Densities of Yellow-breasted Chat, a key understory obligate and important focal species, increased in treatments relative to controls across sites, as did densities of Sinaloa Wren, which also use dense underbrush ( P ⩽ .05). Positive changes by other understory obligates (eg, Common Yellowthroat, Song Sparrow) were more local but sometimes of high magnitude (&gt;8-fold) also suggesting positive impacts of treatments. Despite mixed results over a limited time period, these patterns suggest restoration efforts drove localized recovery of understory vegetation and associated bird populations, but benefits varied widely with environmental and social factors linked to management. Greater ecological benefits to riparian areas on private and communal lands in this region can be fostered by further incentivizing construction, maintenance, and proper use of restoration infrastructure, through education, and by building relationships based on trust and credibility with landowners. </jats:p>

Effects of Livestock Exclusion on Stream Habitat and Aquatic Biota: A Review and Recommendations for Implementation and Monitoring

“…The majority of papers were from the United States (88 papers), with 55 of those from studies in the western U.S. region (Figure 1). There were six papers from Canada and one from Mexico (Flesch and Esquer 2020). Twenty‐six papers were from areas outside of North America and thus were not included in our review: eight papers each from Australia and Europe, seven papers from New Zealand, one paper from South America (Uruguay), and two papers consisting of reviews or meta‐analyses that were conducted worldwide.…”

“…Many of the increases in bird response were attributed to increases in the amount and height of vegetation (Taylor 1986; Dobkin et al. 1998; Flesch and Esquer 2020; Poessel et al. 2020).…”

“…Similarly, Sovell et al (2000) found that canopy cover in continuously grazed areas was lower than canopy cover in areas with rotational grazing or no grazing with grassy buffers. In a study conducted in Mexico, canopy cover increased in treated areas 7 years after livestock exclusion; however, it was not significantly different than the value in control areas (Flesch and Esquer 2020), suggesting that for some areas, longer time periods are needed to measure a change in riparian vegetation cover (i.e., allowing for vegetation to establish and grow up into the canopy layer; Earnst et al 2012;Flesch and Esquer 2020). This is particularly the case in more arid climates.…”

Identifying Problems in Watering Ponds with Different Purposes

“…The riparian restoration trying to introduce native species of flora and fauna could be a good strategy to reduce the effects of this problem of systems based on communal lands. In fact, Flesch and Esquer [50] have reported quite positive results from their experience in private and communal lands in NW Mexico.…”

2021: The New Normal and the Air, Soil and Water Research Perspective

“…Among the wide variety of topics covered by ASW during 2020, most of them have been devoted precisely to deal with some of the Global Issues highlighted by UNF earlier this year by assessing the impact and uptake of heavy metals, 1,2 climate change effects and adaptations, 3,4 the use of novel materials and processes for water treatment, [5][6][7][8] social values perception of restoration economy, 9 plastic debris, 10 soil erosion, management practices and human health, [11][12][13] PM10 concentration, 14 indoor environments, 15 and riparian restoration. [16][17][18][19][20] Also, we are happy to share with the readers the first collaborative review paper written for twenty editors belonging to the soil section to highlight the challenges that soil scientists have to face in this new era from a transdisciplinary overview of relevant topics. 21 In this review, we also consider the relevance of micro-plastics as an emerging potential pollutant with the potential to negatively affect the world's soils, and now are even more important due to the residues of face masks (produced from polymers) used during the COVID-19 pandemic.…”