Using Short-Term Monitoring Data to Achieve Goals in a Large-Scale Restoration

Abstract

ABSTRACT. To evaluate the outcome of restoration projects, an overall goal, reformulated to specific subgoals or targets, must be explicit and translated into scientifically measurable ecological attributes. Monitoring ecological attributes is necessary to assess restoration progress. Data from long-term monitoring are rarely available when restoration interventions are planned and implemented. In this study, we show how short-term monitoring data are incorporated into the planning of the large-scale restoration of a former military training area: the largest restoration project approved in Norway, covering more than 165 km² and intended to enhance nature conservation.A pilot project was initiated in 2002 that removed 1.2 km of roads and tested three restoration treatments to facilitate vegetation development: stirred topsoil (C, control), fertilizer added to the stirred topsoil (F), and fertilizer and commercial grass seeds added to the stirred topsoil (FS). Vegetation turfs were transplanted in all treatments. A monitoring program was established, and three ecological attributes linked to the specific targets for vegetation development (vegetation cover, species richness, and presence of non-native species) were sampled at 2 yr and 7 yr after the intervention.We discuss pilot project results in relation to the temporal scale and to the type of intervention of the restoration treatments (introduction of non-native seeds and nutrient addition) in an ecosystem with slow nutrient turnover. We consider the implications of the short-term data for the large-scale restoration and describe the cooperation between developers, research ecologists, and contractors, illustrating how adaptive management is relevant to large-scale restoration projects.

Assisted Revegetation Following Contaminated Site Remediation in the Arctic: Four-Year Case Study of a Former Radar Site

“…While fertilizer was not used in this project due to proximity to the aquatic environment, the use of fertilizers is often deemed necessary in arctic revegetation projects to promote plant growth, especially for non-native species, as the uppermost soil layer which generally contains nutrients and soil bacteria that help cycle nutrients has generally been disturbed or removed by human activities [10] [17]. However, in some arctic environments, the use of fertilizers may be detrimental to some plants that are adapted to growing in nutrient-poor environments, or if non-native species become established due to a higher nutrient content, they may prevent re-colonization by native species through formation of a dense vegetation mat that is not easily penetrated [6] [13] [31]. For example, a study by Klokk and Rønning [10], determined that the effectiveness of fertilizer treatments on seven native species in Norway appeared to be species-specific.…”

“…[10] [11]. Slow-growing woody perennials such as Dryas integrifolia, Salix arctica, and Saxifraga oppositifolia are often undetectable or do not provide significant plant cover until much later in the natural succession process, if at all [11]- [13]. As species turnover is low in arctic and alpine ecosystems, early colonizing species may become part of the late successional stage.…”

Ecological and Social Aspects of Ecological Restoration: New Challenges and Opportunities for Northern Regions

“…They found that interactions were generally satisfactory, but also that well-functioning interactions were necessary for positive results. Hagen and Evju (2013) also stressed the importance of good and continued interactions between different actors of ecological restoration, both to improve commitment and endurance of the actors and to accommodate potential future changes that might result from adaptive management.…”

“…As an example of method development, Hagen and Evju (2013) present the results of a pilot project in the Norwegian mountains and its implications for larger-scale restoration. In their project, the revegetation of a former military area by three different techniques was evaluated, showing fairly convergent results with time.…”

“…In their project, the revegetation of a former military area by three different techniques was evaluated, showing fairly convergent results with time. By assessing and discussing these differences with developers and contractors, acceptable bestpractice solutions could be identified and agreed upon (Hagen and Evju 2013). Gardeström et al (2013) provide a similar example from northern Swedish streams formerly used for timber-floating where two different methods, one being relatively simple and cheap and another more labor intensive and expensive, were compared.…”