Practitioners' Perspectives on the Effectiveness of Restoration Methods for Southern Australia's Arid Ecosystems

IF 2.2 4区 环境科学与生态学 Q3 ECOLOGY
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,&nbsp;Shane R. Turner,&nbsp;David Warne,&nbsp;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.

Abstract Image

从业者对南澳大利亚干旱生态系统恢复方法有效性的看法
干旱植被的恢复是一项重要而艰巨的任务,选择合适的恢复方法是一项重要的选择。确定哪种方法最有效的一种方法是利用修复从业者积累的知识,这在科学文献中往往没有报道。这项研究创建了一个在线调查,向从业者询问不同干旱恢复方法的有效性,包括它们在促进恢复方面的有效性以及它们的财政和劳动力投入。该调查分发给澳大利亚的干旱恢复从业者,重点是南部地区,发现最常用的方法是在促进恢复方面最有效的方法,通常是最强烈推荐的方法。成本和劳动力投入与最常用或最推荐的方法无关,这表明这些是次要因素,不一定是调查受访者最关心的问题。虽然机械直接播种具有较低的财政和劳动力投入,但它和手工播种在恢复能力方面都是相似的,并且都是强烈推荐的。放牧控制方法和化学杂草控制方法也被证明对恢复有效,可能是因为放牧和杂草竞争会对植物造成损害。预播处理被发现在恢复方面既有效,又具有较低的劳动力和成本要求,使其成为最强烈推荐的方法之一。土壤改良剂,如持水凝胶和生物炭,尽管在成本和劳动力投入方面是低到中等的,但在恢复方面没有显示出有效的效果,因此不被强烈推荐。虽然可以发现一些一般趋势,但答复者也普遍指出,方法的选择往往取决于具体地点的条件。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Ecological Management & Restoration
Ecological Management & Restoration Environmental Science-Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信