malnland. T he evolution as well as the extinction of species are charted in the world’s fossil deposits. Mass extinctions, such as the decline of dinosaurs, have generated endless speculation about their causes. But there is nothing mysterious about the wave of extinctions now facing us. This global "biodiversity crisis" is either directly or indirectly attributable to the activities of people, and is rightly the subject of much concern. It may ultimately affect the capacity of the planet to support our descendants. A less well-known wave of extinctions has already cut a swath through the biological diversity of island archipelagos. Like the present crisis, the island extinctions were triggered by the activities of people. Their effects have wide geographical and temporal spread: over millennia in islands of the Mediterranean and Hawaii, over centuries in the Galapagos and New Zealand. Destruction of the New Zealand bird fauna is so comprehensive, the ornithologist Professor Jared Diamond once declared that New Zealand no longer has a bird fauna--just the wreckage of one. In this article, we report on how this ongoing slide towards biological impoverishment is being turned around in New Zealand. We will do this by describing:
{"title":"Lesson of the Islands","authors":"B. Mansfield, D. Towns","doi":"10.3368/er.15.2.138","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3368/er.15.2.138","url":null,"abstract":"malnland. T he evolution as well as the extinction of species are charted in the world’s fossil deposits. Mass extinctions, such as the decline of dinosaurs, have generated endless speculation about their causes. But there is nothing mysterious about the wave of extinctions now facing us. This global \"biodiversity crisis\" is either directly or indirectly attributable to the activities of people, and is rightly the subject of much concern. It may ultimately affect the capacity of the planet to support our descendants. A less well-known wave of extinctions has already cut a swath through the biological diversity of island archipelagos. Like the present crisis, the island extinctions were triggered by the activities of people. Their effects have wide geographical and temporal spread: over millennia in islands of the Mediterranean and Hawaii, over centuries in the Galapagos and New Zealand. Destruction of the New Zealand bird fauna is so comprehensive, the ornithologist Professor Jared Diamond once declared that New Zealand no longer has a bird fauna--just the wreckage of one. In this article, we report on how this ongoing slide towards biological impoverishment is being turned around in New Zealand. We will do this by describing:","PeriodicalId":105419,"journal":{"name":"Restoration & Management Notes","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1997-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131604901","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
vegetation. T single most important goal of any wetland restoration or creation project is the establishment of a hydrological regime suitable for wetland organisms, both plant and animal. Yet, once the appropriate hydrology has been established, the development of vegetation in created or restored wetlands can be said to depend on three factors: the survival growth and reproduction of planted nursery stock; the migration of propagules into the wetland by way of wind, water or animal activity; and the recruitment of new individuals from dormant propagules present in a soil seed-bank. When donor wetland soil is used as the final topsoil covering, recruitment from the seed bank may provide the new wetland with a substantial number of individuals. A recent study on a reclaimed phosphate mine in Florida showed that the development of vegetation on areas mulched with seedand propagule-rich organic matter harvested from nearby wetlands, was superior to development on areas with unmulched overburden (Erwin, 1990). Such results support earlier reports documenting the value of wetland soil in the development of diverse vegetation on created or restored wetlands (van der Valk, 1989). The great value of donor wetland-soil for restoration purposes, lies primarily in the astonishing number of viable seeds such soils typically contain--a consequence of the conservative reproductive strategies of many wetland species. Typical wetland soil may contain between 2,000 and 50,000 seeds per square meter, and some wetland soils may contain hundreds of thousands. Most seeds are found in the upper five centimeters of soil, and large numbers of species are commonly represented (Leck, 1989). Schneider and Sharitz, for example, found 59 species of plants in a riverine wetland in South Carolina (Schneider and Sharitz, 1986). Donor soil may also increase water-retention capability and introduce microorganisms and fungi to a created wetland (Clewell and Lea, 1990). Yet, while the use of donor wetland-soil as a way of ameliorating conditions and introducing native plants into restored or created wetlands is not a new idea, there is good reason to believe that it is an under-used method, and that restorationists often rely on the outplanting of nursery stock in situations where donor soil might be both more effective and less expensive. Transplanting of nursery stock is often cited as the most effective, though expensive, method of vegetating a created wetland ( Shisler, 1990 ). The reported advantages of transplanting nursery stock include control over the species composition of the community (Levine and Willard, 1990); the ability to place species in appropriate zones or patterns (Erwin, 1990); the quick establishment of suitable cover over what would otherwise be bare substrate, and the rapid development of a functioning wetland system (Kruczynski, 1990). At the same time, there are numerous examples of the failure of transplanted nursery stock. There are also examples of fo
{"title":"Donor Wetland Soil Promotes Revegetation in Wetland Trials","authors":"D. Burke","doi":"10.3368/er.15.2.168","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3368/er.15.2.168","url":null,"abstract":"vegetation. T single most important goal of any wetland restoration or creation project is the establishment of a hydrological regime suitable for wetland organisms, both plant and animal. Yet, once the appropriate hydrology has been established, the development of vegetation in created or restored wetlands can be said to depend on three factors: the survival growth and reproduction of planted nursery stock; the migration of propagules into the wetland by way of wind, water or animal activity; and the recruitment of new individuals from dormant propagules present in a soil seed-bank. When donor wetland soil is used as the final topsoil covering, recruitment from the seed bank may provide the new wetland with a substantial number of individuals. A recent study on a reclaimed phosphate mine in Florida showed that the development of vegetation on areas mulched with seedand propagule-rich organic matter harvested from nearby wetlands, was superior to development on areas with unmulched overburden (Erwin, 1990). Such results support earlier reports documenting the value of wetland soil in the development of diverse vegetation on created or restored wetlands (van der Valk, 1989). The great value of donor wetland-soil for restoration purposes, lies primarily in the astonishing number of viable seeds such soils typically contain--a consequence of the conservative reproductive strategies of many wetland species. Typical wetland soil may contain between 2,000 and 50,000 seeds per square meter, and some wetland soils may contain hundreds of thousands. Most seeds are found in the upper five centimeters of soil, and large numbers of species are commonly represented (Leck, 1989). Schneider and Sharitz, for example, found 59 species of plants in a riverine wetland in South Carolina (Schneider and Sharitz, 1986). Donor soil may also increase water-retention capability and introduce microorganisms and fungi to a created wetland (Clewell and Lea, 1990). Yet, while the use of donor wetland-soil as a way of ameliorating conditions and introducing native plants into restored or created wetlands is not a new idea, there is good reason to believe that it is an under-used method, and that restorationists often rely on the outplanting of nursery stock in situations where donor soil might be both more effective and less expensive. Transplanting of nursery stock is often cited as the most effective, though expensive, method of vegetating a created wetland ( Shisler, 1990 ). The reported advantages of transplanting nursery stock include control over the species composition of the community (Levine and Willard, 1990); the ability to place species in appropriate zones or patterns (Erwin, 1990); the quick establishment of suitable cover over what would otherwise be bare substrate, and the rapid development of a functioning wetland system (Kruczynski, 1990). At the same time, there are numerous examples of the failure of transplanted nursery stock. There are also examples of fo","PeriodicalId":105419,"journal":{"name":"Restoration & Management Notes","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1997-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126359888","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Chicago Wilderness and its Critics","authors":"L. Ross","doi":"10.3368/ER.15.1.17","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3368/ER.15.1.17","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":105419,"journal":{"name":"Restoration & Management Notes","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1997-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128548968","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Long viewed as a center of ecological restoration activity, over the past year the Chicago region has also gained notoriety as a center of ecological restoration controversy. After years of operating in relative obscurity, public agencies and private groups engaged in restoring metropolitan forest preserve sites have now drawn considerable attention from the press and some individuals and groups. While much of this attention has been positive, opposition to restoration has been so effective that, at the time of this writing, partial moratoriums on restoration activity have been imposed in two of the county forest preserve districts in the metropolitan area, pending further analysis of the issues by their boards of commissioners (see preceding story by Debra Shore).
{"title":"The Chicago Wilderness and its Critics","authors":"P. Gobster","doi":"10.3368/er.15.1.32","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3368/er.15.1.32","url":null,"abstract":"Long viewed as a center of ecological restoration activity, over the past year the Chicago region has also gained notoriety as a center of ecological restoration controversy. After years of operating in relative obscurity, public agencies and private groups engaged in restoring metropolitan forest preserve sites have now drawn considerable attention from the press and some individuals and groups. While much of this attention has been positive, opposition to restoration has been so effective that, at the time of this writing, partial moratoriums on restoration activity have been imposed in two of the county forest preserve districts in the metropolitan area, pending further analysis of the issues by their boards of commissioners (see preceding story by Debra Shore).","PeriodicalId":105419,"journal":{"name":"Restoration & Management Notes","volume":"34 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1997-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131059208","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
under fire in Chicago. I n a remarkable turnabout, less than six months after proudly heralding the debut of the Chicago Wilderness, Cook County Board President John Stroger issued an executive order last September calling an abrupt halt to all restoration activities in the Forest Preserve District of Cook County. Suddenly, a highly-regarded 19-yearold partnership between volunteer restorationists and the Cook County Forest Preserve District, which had served as a model of public/private collaboration nationally and internationally (R&MN 12(1):57), became the object of attack in the press and scrutiny by the very Board of Commissioners that had blithely approved its budget and plans annually and that had signed on as a charter member of Chicago Wilderness, the new coalition of 34 public and private agencies and organizations dedicated to preserving and restoring biodiversity in the Chicago region and to educating the public about the area’s globally rare natural resources (see accompanying story by Laurel Ross). How, then, did such a well-established restoration program come under fire ? Why did the County Board president summarily proclaim a moratorium on restoration activities leading thousands of volunteers throughout Cook County to fear that years of work restoring prairie remnants, woodlands and wetlands might be severely imperiled? And what kind of resolution could be achieved in response to a group of citizens vociferously opposing restoration activities and declaring that no healthy trees should be cut?
{"title":"The Chicago Wilderness and its Critics","authors":"D. Shore","doi":"10.3368/er.15.1.25","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3368/er.15.1.25","url":null,"abstract":"under fire in Chicago. I n a remarkable turnabout, less than six months after proudly heralding the debut of the Chicago Wilderness, Cook County Board President John Stroger issued an executive order last September calling an abrupt halt to all restoration activities in the Forest Preserve District of Cook County. Suddenly, a highly-regarded 19-yearold partnership between volunteer restorationists and the Cook County Forest Preserve District, which had served as a model of public/private collaboration nationally and internationally (R&MN 12(1):57), became the object of attack in the press and scrutiny by the very Board of Commissioners that had blithely approved its budget and plans annually and that had signed on as a charter member of Chicago Wilderness, the new coalition of 34 public and private agencies and organizations dedicated to preserving and restoring biodiversity in the Chicago region and to educating the public about the area’s globally rare natural resources (see accompanying story by Laurel Ross). How, then, did such a well-established restoration program come under fire ? Why did the County Board president summarily proclaim a moratorium on restoration activities leading thousands of volunteers throughout Cook County to fear that years of work restoring prairie remnants, woodlands and wetlands might be severely imperiled? And what kind of resolution could be achieved in response to a group of citizens vociferously opposing restoration activities and declaring that no healthy trees should be cut?","PeriodicalId":105419,"journal":{"name":"Restoration & Management Notes","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1997-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125372965","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Old Man of the Prairie","authors":"D. Egan","doi":"10.3368/ER.15.1.38","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3368/ER.15.1.38","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":105419,"journal":{"name":"Restoration & Management Notes","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1997-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125434032","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
ecology--a fact that R are often curious about the origins of the ecosystems they are trying to restore. In North America they have often assumed that these ecosystems are "natural" and that their structures and functions were -and are -maintained through natural disturbance with little or no human influence. Cultural environments shaped by Native Americans are seen as limited to areas along river bottoms and adjacent to village sites that harbored domesticated plants such as corn, beans, squash, and sunflowers. These were areas that were obvious to early settlers, missionaries, explorers, and later, discernable through methodologies used by archeologists and ecologists. These areas also somewhat resembled lands subject to forms of land management familiar to Westerners, including land clearing, planting in rows, and selection of one or a few favored domesticated species. The wildlands beyond the agricultural fields have been viewed as "pristine," despite the fact that large quantities of plant materials were gathered and managed by Indians for dyes, medicines, basketry, firewood, weapons, construction, clothing and many other items. The major focus in anthropology has been on plant manipulation for food viewed in isolation, not in a broader context of prehistoric subsistence systems and how these systems fit
{"title":"Tending the Wilderness","authors":"Kat Anderson","doi":"10.3368/er.14.2.154","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3368/er.14.2.154","url":null,"abstract":"ecology--a fact that R are often curious about the origins of the ecosystems they are trying to restore. In North America they have often assumed that these ecosystems are \"natural\" and that their structures and functions were -and are -maintained through natural disturbance with little or no human influence. Cultural environments shaped by Native Americans are seen as limited to areas along river bottoms and adjacent to village sites that harbored domesticated plants such as corn, beans, squash, and sunflowers. These were areas that were obvious to early settlers, missionaries, explorers, and later, discernable through methodologies used by archeologists and ecologists. These areas also somewhat resembled lands subject to forms of land management familiar to Westerners, including land clearing, planting in rows, and selection of one or a few favored domesticated species. The wildlands beyond the agricultural fields have been viewed as \"pristine,\" despite the fact that large quantities of plant materials were gathered and managed by Indians for dyes, medicines, basketry, firewood, weapons, construction, clothing and many other items. The major focus in anthropology has been on plant manipulation for food viewed in isolation, not in a broader context of prehistoric subsistence systems and how these systems fit","PeriodicalId":105419,"journal":{"name":"Restoration & Management Notes","volume":"758 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1996-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116410283","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
within test plots. y star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis) first invaded open grassland sites within the San Francisco Bay area sometime before 1869, when a specimen was collected in Oakland. Native to Eurasia, it was apparently introduced in association with livestock use during the Mexican and post-mission period (Maddox and Mayfield, 1985). A fast-growing, aggressive annual herb, yellow star thistle reaches a height of 0.3 to 2 meters (1 to 6.5 feet), and often grows in dense stands, mainly in grasslands. It rapidly crowds out less-aggressive natives. At present it is the most widely distributed weed in California, infesting over 4 million hectares (nearly 10 million acres), or approximately 10 percent of the total surface area of the state. In addition, it has infested large areas in Washington, Oregon and Idaho, and is present in smaller numbers throughout much of the United States and Canada (Maddox, 1981). Infestations of yellow star thistle can have devastating effects on both natural and agricultural ecosystems under certain conditions. It is of economic importance when it invades grainfields, orchards and vineyards, pastures, roadsides and wastelands. In pasture lands, for example, star thistle can lower forage yield and quality, interfere with grazing, cause problems in harvesting of forage and crops, and cause "chewing disease" in horses (Maddox, 1981). In natural areas, yellow star thistle reduces wildlife forage and habitat, displaces native grassland plants and decreases native plant and animal diversity (Sheley and Larson, 1994). Sugarloaf Ridge State Park is located in Sonoma County, in the northern Coast Range near Santa Rosa. It contains a complex mosaic of vegetation types that includes chaparral, mixed evergreen forest, woodland-savanna, grassland and conifer forest. Open grasslands occupy approximately 280 hectares (690 acres) of the park’s 1,080 hectares (2,667 acres). Although these areas have been heavily influenced by livestock grazing and related agricultural practices since before 1900, they have considerable value as examples of the now extremely rare native California grassland. The current grassland complex of the park includes both a native perennial component dominated by purple needle grass (Nassella pulchra), blue wild rye (Elymus glaucus), and creeping wild rye (E. triticoides), and an variety of annual European grassland species dominated by ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), soft brome or blando brome (B. hordeaceus), silver European hairgrass (Aira caryophyllea), wild oats (Avena fatua), and little quaking grass (Briza minor). Of special concern are scattered populations of the rare California endemic, Sonoma ceanothus (Ceanothus sonomensis), found growing on serpentine outcrops along the grassland and chaparral margins at Sugarloaf Ridge. Listed as endangered by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS), this species is endangered in portions of its limited range. There are good reasons, including the dramati
{"title":"Fire Controls Yellow Star Thistle in California Grasslands","authors":"Marla S. Hastings, J. Ditomaso","doi":"10.3368/er.14.2.124","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3368/er.14.2.124","url":null,"abstract":"within test plots. y star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis) first invaded open grassland sites within the San Francisco Bay area sometime before 1869, when a specimen was collected in Oakland. Native to Eurasia, it was apparently introduced in association with livestock use during the Mexican and post-mission period (Maddox and Mayfield, 1985). A fast-growing, aggressive annual herb, yellow star thistle reaches a height of 0.3 to 2 meters (1 to 6.5 feet), and often grows in dense stands, mainly in grasslands. It rapidly crowds out less-aggressive natives. At present it is the most widely distributed weed in California, infesting over 4 million hectares (nearly 10 million acres), or approximately 10 percent of the total surface area of the state. In addition, it has infested large areas in Washington, Oregon and Idaho, and is present in smaller numbers throughout much of the United States and Canada (Maddox, 1981). Infestations of yellow star thistle can have devastating effects on both natural and agricultural ecosystems under certain conditions. It is of economic importance when it invades grainfields, orchards and vineyards, pastures, roadsides and wastelands. In pasture lands, for example, star thistle can lower forage yield and quality, interfere with grazing, cause problems in harvesting of forage and crops, and cause \"chewing disease\" in horses (Maddox, 1981). In natural areas, yellow star thistle reduces wildlife forage and habitat, displaces native grassland plants and decreases native plant and animal diversity (Sheley and Larson, 1994). Sugarloaf Ridge State Park is located in Sonoma County, in the northern Coast Range near Santa Rosa. It contains a complex mosaic of vegetation types that includes chaparral, mixed evergreen forest, woodland-savanna, grassland and conifer forest. Open grasslands occupy approximately 280 hectares (690 acres) of the park’s 1,080 hectares (2,667 acres). Although these areas have been heavily influenced by livestock grazing and related agricultural practices since before 1900, they have considerable value as examples of the now extremely rare native California grassland. The current grassland complex of the park includes both a native perennial component dominated by purple needle grass (Nassella pulchra), blue wild rye (Elymus glaucus), and creeping wild rye (E. triticoides), and an variety of annual European grassland species dominated by ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), soft brome or blando brome (B. hordeaceus), silver European hairgrass (Aira caryophyllea), wild oats (Avena fatua), and little quaking grass (Briza minor). Of special concern are scattered populations of the rare California endemic, Sonoma ceanothus (Ceanothus sonomensis), found growing on serpentine outcrops along the grassland and chaparral margins at Sugarloaf Ridge. Listed as endangered by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS), this species is endangered in portions of its limited range. There are good reasons, including the dramati","PeriodicalId":105419,"journal":{"name":"Restoration & Management Notes","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1996-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122089087","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：