Joseph Stapleton, Shane R. Turner, David Warne, Singarayer Florentine
{"title":"Practitioners' Perspectives on the Effectiveness of Restoration Methods for Southern Australia's Arid Ecosystems","authors":"Joseph Stapleton, Shane R. Turner, David Warne, Singarayer Florentine","doi":"10.1111/emr.70013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Restoration of arid vegetation is an essential and difficult task, making the selection of the right methods for restoration an important choice. One way to determine which methods would be most effective is by accessing the accumulated knowledge of restoration practitioners, which is often unreported in the scientific literature. This study created an online survey asking questions of practitioners on the effectiveness of different methods for arid restoration, including how effective they are at promoting restoration and their financial and labour inputs. The survey was distributed to arid restoration practitioners within Australia, with a focus on the southern areas, and found that the methods most commonly used are ones that appear most effective at promoting restoration and are generally the most highly recommended. The cost and labour input did not correlate with the most used or most recommended method, suggesting that these are secondary factors and are not necessarily the most important concerns for the survey respondents. While mechanical direct seeding was indicated to have lower financial and labour inputs, both it and hand-planting were indicated to be similar in restoration ability and were both highly recommended. Grazing control methods and chemical weed control were also indicated to be effective at restoration, likely due to damage that grazing and weed competition can inflict upon plantings. Pre-seeding treatments were found to be both effective at restoration and have low labour and cost requirements, making them one of the most highly recommended methods. Soil amendments, such as water-holding gels and biochar, despite being low-to-moderate in terms of cost and labour input, were not indicated to be effective at restoration and were subsequently not highly recommended. Though some general trends could be found, respondents also commonly pointed out that the choice of methods will often depend on the site-specific conditions.</p>","PeriodicalId":54325,"journal":{"name":"Ecological Management & Restoration","volume":"26 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/emr.70013","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecological Management & Restoration","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/emr.70013","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Restoration of arid vegetation is an essential and difficult task, making the selection of the right methods for restoration an important choice. One way to determine which methods would be most effective is by accessing the accumulated knowledge of restoration practitioners, which is often unreported in the scientific literature. This study created an online survey asking questions of practitioners on the effectiveness of different methods for arid restoration, including how effective they are at promoting restoration and their financial and labour inputs. The survey was distributed to arid restoration practitioners within Australia, with a focus on the southern areas, and found that the methods most commonly used are ones that appear most effective at promoting restoration and are generally the most highly recommended. The cost and labour input did not correlate with the most used or most recommended method, suggesting that these are secondary factors and are not necessarily the most important concerns for the survey respondents. While mechanical direct seeding was indicated to have lower financial and labour inputs, both it and hand-planting were indicated to be similar in restoration ability and were both highly recommended. Grazing control methods and chemical weed control were also indicated to be effective at restoration, likely due to damage that grazing and weed competition can inflict upon plantings. Pre-seeding treatments were found to be both effective at restoration and have low labour and cost requirements, making them one of the most highly recommended methods. Soil amendments, such as water-holding gels and biochar, despite being low-to-moderate in terms of cost and labour input, were not indicated to be effective at restoration and were subsequently not highly recommended. Though some general trends could be found, respondents also commonly pointed out that the choice of methods will often depend on the site-specific conditions.
期刊介绍:
Ecological Management & Restoration is a peer-reviewed journal with the dual aims of (i) reporting the latest science to assist ecologically appropriate management and restoration actions and (ii) providing a forum for reporting on these actions. Guided by an editorial board made up of researchers and practitioners, EMR seeks features, topical opinion pieces, research reports, short notes and project summaries applicable to Australasian ecosystems to encourage more regionally-appropriate management. Where relevant, contributions should draw on international science and practice and highlight any relevance to the global challenge of integrating biodiversity conservation in a rapidly changing world.
Topic areas:
Improved management and restoration of plant communities, fauna and habitat; coastal, marine and riparian zones; restoration ethics and philosophy; planning; monitoring and assessment; policy and legislation; landscape pattern and design; integrated ecosystems management; socio-economic issues and solutions; techniques and methodology; threatened species; genetic issues; indigenous land management; weeds and feral animal control; landscape arts and aesthetics; education and communication; community involvement.