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}
restoration ecology. The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) provisions of the 1985 Food Security Act set aside 16 million hectares of highly erodible cropland for a period of ten years. The enrolled land was planted with perennial vegetation to reduce the supply of surplus commodities, improve farm income, conserve soil, and provide improved habitat for wildlife. Since the program has been put into effect, it is estimated that soil erosion has been reduced, on average, by 17 metric tons per hectare on CRP lands (Clark et al., 1993). In addition, CRP lands have gained an average of 1 metric ton of carbon per hectare per year (Gebhart et al., 1994). Indeed, it is estimated that the land enrolled in CRP may be able to sequester about 45 percent of the 35 million metric tons of atmospheric carbon originating from U. S. agriculture annually (Gebhart eta!., 1994). Current CRP contracts began expiring in October, 1995, and more than 40 percent of these contracts will have ended by October, 1996. Congress recently reauthorized the CRP program, capping it at the current level of 14.7 million hectares for the seven-year life of the bill. While Congress’s commitment to enhancing the environment is to be applauded, under the reauthorization selected lands will still be withdrawn from the program because some rental payments will be reduced and because of an early-out provision for all or part of a farmer’s enrolled acreage. Thus among the many options available, farmers may return land to crop production, develop it for grazing or haying, or maintain it in the new Conservation Reserve Program. In any case, continuation of the program is important to conservationists, not only because it offers obvious ecological benefits, but also because CRP lands offer virtually unmatched opportunities for restoration-related research on a landscape scale.
恢复生态学。1985年《食品安全法》的保护储备计划(CRP)规定在10年内留出1600万公顷高度易侵蚀的农田。登记的土地上种植了多年生植被，以减少过剩商品的供应，提高农业收入，保护土壤，并为野生动物提供更好的栖息地。自该计划实施以来，据估计，CRP土地上的土壤侵蚀平均每公顷减少了17公吨(Clark et al.， 1993)。此外，CRP土地每年每公顷平均增加1公吨碳(Gebhart等人，1994年)。事实上，据估计，参与CRP计划的土地可能能够吸收美国每年3500万吨大气碳排放中的45% (Gebhart eta!)。, 1994)。目前的CRP合同于1995年10月开始到期，其中40%以上的合同将于1996年10月到期。国会最近重新批准了CRP计划，在该法案的七年有效期内，将其限制在目前的1470万公顷的水平。虽然国会对改善环境的承诺值得称赞，但根据重新授权，选定的土地仍将退出该计划，因为一些租金将减少，并且由于提前退出所有或部分农民登记面积的规定。因此，在众多可用的选择中，农民可以将土地恢复作物生产，开发用于放牧或干草，或在新的保护储备计划中维护它。无论如何，该项目的延续对保护主义者来说都很重要，不仅因为它提供了明显的生态效益，还因为CRP土地为景观尺度上的恢复相关研究提供了几乎无与伦比的机会。
{"title":"The Conservation Reserve Program","authors":"D. Jelinski, P. Kulakow","doi":"10.3368/er.14.2.137","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3368/er.14.2.137","url":null,"abstract":"restoration ecology. The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) provisions of the 1985 Food Security Act set aside 16 million hectares of highly erodible cropland for a period of ten years. The enrolled land was planted with perennial vegetation to reduce the supply of surplus commodities, improve farm income, conserve soil, and provide improved habitat for wildlife. Since the program has been put into effect, it is estimated that soil erosion has been reduced, on average, by 17 metric tons per hectare on CRP lands (Clark et al., 1993). In addition, CRP lands have gained an average of 1 metric ton of carbon per hectare per year (Gebhart et al., 1994). Indeed, it is estimated that the land enrolled in CRP may be able to sequester about 45 percent of the 35 million metric tons of atmospheric carbon originating from U. S. agriculture annually (Gebhart eta!., 1994). Current CRP contracts began expiring in October, 1995, and more than 40 percent of these contracts will have ended by October, 1996. Congress recently reauthorized the CRP program, capping it at the current level of 14.7 million hectares for the seven-year life of the bill. While Congress’s commitment to enhancing the environment is to be applauded, under the reauthorization selected lands will still be withdrawn from the program because some rental payments will be reduced and because of an early-out provision for all or part of a farmer’s enrolled acreage. Thus among the many options available, farmers may return land to crop production, develop it for grazing or haying, or maintain it in the new Conservation Reserve Program. In any case, continuation of the program is important to conservationists, not only because it offers obvious ecological benefits, but also because CRP lands offer virtually unmatched opportunities for restoration-related research on a landscape scale.","PeriodicalId":105419,"journal":{"name":"Restoration & Management Notes","volume":"46 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":"133537799","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：