{"title":"钻播蓝橡树橡子:测试一种新的恢复技术的(成本)效益,跨越年份和微型站点","authors":"Alex P Palmerlee, T. Young","doi":"10.3368/er.40.1.25","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"I both cleared and existing Quercus douglassii woodlands, there is a perceived lack of recruitment (Adams et al.1992, Swiecki and Bernhardt 1998, Koenig and Knops 2007). There are many factors that appear to limit blue oak recruitment, including cattle, annual grasses, rodents, deer, climate change, and fire regime (McCreary 2001). Traditional restoration methods focus on planting techniques that control for many of these factors via irrigation, container stock, tubes, fencing, and weed control (Brooks and Merenlender 2001). The limitation of this approach is that the cost/acre of a typical restoration project is too high to implement on a landscape scale and may be insufficient to mitigate for or reverse the current and future loss of extant oak woodlands (Standiford et al. 2002). The range of blue oaks covers some three million hectares across California (Bollsinger 1988). Challenges facing this ecosystem, including those posed by climate change, demand that we develop new, more cost-effective, techniques that can be applied on hundreds or thousands of hectares per year with the same limited restoration dollars. Although many restoration projects report on techniques and interventions that are “effective” (i.e., increase seedling survival or cover), they rarely quantitatively weigh these against their costs, which can be considerable. Estimates of cost effectiveness (dollars per established seedling or per percent cover) date back at least 25 years (Bainbridge 1995) but are still rare (Kimball et al. 2015). While drill-seeding is a common practice for smallerseeded species, it is not a common technique for largerseeded woody species. Our previous research demonstrated that direct (hand) seeding of woody plants is more cost effective (dollars per surviving plant) than container planting, particularly with large-seeded species (Palmerlee and Young 2010). We set out to build on our previous research to develop and quantify the cost-effectiveness of a novel drill-seeding technique, and to do so in different landscape contexts to provide greater direction for land managers. Study Site","PeriodicalId":11492,"journal":{"name":"Ecological Restoration","volume":"40 1","pages":"25 - 29"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Drill-Seeding Blue Oak Acorns: Testing the (Cost-)Effectiveness of a New Restoration Technique across Years and Microsites\",\"authors\":\"Alex P Palmerlee, T. Young\",\"doi\":\"10.3368/er.40.1.25\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"I both cleared and existing Quercus douglassii woodlands, there is a perceived lack of recruitment (Adams et al.1992, Swiecki and Bernhardt 1998, Koenig and Knops 2007). There are many factors that appear to limit blue oak recruitment, including cattle, annual grasses, rodents, deer, climate change, and fire regime (McCreary 2001). Traditional restoration methods focus on planting techniques that control for many of these factors via irrigation, container stock, tubes, fencing, and weed control (Brooks and Merenlender 2001). The limitation of this approach is that the cost/acre of a typical restoration project is too high to implement on a landscape scale and may be insufficient to mitigate for or reverse the current and future loss of extant oak woodlands (Standiford et al. 2002). The range of blue oaks covers some three million hectares across California (Bollsinger 1988). Challenges facing this ecosystem, including those posed by climate change, demand that we develop new, more cost-effective, techniques that can be applied on hundreds or thousands of hectares per year with the same limited restoration dollars. Although many restoration projects report on techniques and interventions that are “effective” (i.e., increase seedling survival or cover), they rarely quantitatively weigh these against their costs, which can be considerable. Estimates of cost effectiveness (dollars per established seedling or per percent cover) date back at least 25 years (Bainbridge 1995) but are still rare (Kimball et al. 2015). While drill-seeding is a common practice for smallerseeded species, it is not a common technique for largerseeded woody species. Our previous research demonstrated that direct (hand) seeding of woody plants is more cost effective (dollars per surviving plant) than container planting, particularly with large-seeded species (Palmerlee and Young 2010). We set out to build on our previous research to develop and quantify the cost-effectiveness of a novel drill-seeding technique, and to do so in different landscape contexts to provide greater direction for land managers. Study Site\",\"PeriodicalId\":11492,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ecological Restoration\",\"volume\":\"40 1\",\"pages\":\"25 - 29\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ecological Restoration\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3368/er.40.1.25\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecological Restoration","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3368/er.40.1.25","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
无论是清除的还是现存的道格拉斯栎林地,都存在明显的招募不足(Adams et al.1992, Swiecki and Bernhardt 1998, Koenig and Knops 2007)。有许多因素限制蓝橡树的生长,包括牛、一年生草、啮齿动物、鹿、气候变化和火灾制度(McCreary 2001)。传统的恢复方法侧重于种植技术,通过灌溉、容器库存、管道、围栏和杂草控制来控制许多这些因素(Brooks和Merenlender 2001)。这种方法的局限性在于,典型的修复项目每英亩的成本太高,无法在景观规模上实施,而且可能不足以减轻或扭转现有橡树林地当前和未来的损失(Standiford et al. 2002)。蓝橡树的范围覆盖了加利福尼亚大约300万公顷(Bollsinger 1988)。这一生态系统面临的挑战,包括气候变化带来的挑战,要求我们开发新的、更具成本效益的技术,这些技术每年可以在同样有限的恢复资金下应用于数百或数千公顷。虽然许多恢复项目报告了“有效”的技术和干预措施(即增加幼苗存活率或覆盖度),但它们很少在数量上权衡它们的成本,这可能是相当大的。对成本效益的估计(每棵树苗或覆盖率的美元)可以追溯到至少25年前(Bainbridge 1995),但仍然很少(Kimball et al. 2015)。虽然钻播是小种子树种的常见做法,但它不是大种子木本树种的常用技术。我们之前的研究表明,直接(手工)播种木本植物比容器种植更具成本效益(每株存活植物的成本),特别是大种子物种(Palmerlee和Young, 2010年)。我们开始在之前的研究基础上开发和量化一种新型钻播技术的成本效益,并在不同的景观背景下进行研究,为土地管理者提供更大的指导。研究网站
Drill-Seeding Blue Oak Acorns: Testing the (Cost-)Effectiveness of a New Restoration Technique across Years and Microsites
I both cleared and existing Quercus douglassii woodlands, there is a perceived lack of recruitment (Adams et al.1992, Swiecki and Bernhardt 1998, Koenig and Knops 2007). There are many factors that appear to limit blue oak recruitment, including cattle, annual grasses, rodents, deer, climate change, and fire regime (McCreary 2001). Traditional restoration methods focus on planting techniques that control for many of these factors via irrigation, container stock, tubes, fencing, and weed control (Brooks and Merenlender 2001). The limitation of this approach is that the cost/acre of a typical restoration project is too high to implement on a landscape scale and may be insufficient to mitigate for or reverse the current and future loss of extant oak woodlands (Standiford et al. 2002). The range of blue oaks covers some three million hectares across California (Bollsinger 1988). Challenges facing this ecosystem, including those posed by climate change, demand that we develop new, more cost-effective, techniques that can be applied on hundreds or thousands of hectares per year with the same limited restoration dollars. Although many restoration projects report on techniques and interventions that are “effective” (i.e., increase seedling survival or cover), they rarely quantitatively weigh these against their costs, which can be considerable. Estimates of cost effectiveness (dollars per established seedling or per percent cover) date back at least 25 years (Bainbridge 1995) but are still rare (Kimball et al. 2015). While drill-seeding is a common practice for smallerseeded species, it is not a common technique for largerseeded woody species. Our previous research demonstrated that direct (hand) seeding of woody plants is more cost effective (dollars per surviving plant) than container planting, particularly with large-seeded species (Palmerlee and Young 2010). We set out to build on our previous research to develop and quantify the cost-effectiveness of a novel drill-seeding technique, and to do so in different landscape contexts to provide greater direction for land managers. Study Site
期刊介绍:
Ecological Restoration is a forum for people advancing the science and practice of restoration ecology. It features the technical and biological aspects of restoring landscapes, as well as collaborations between restorationists and the design professions, land-use policy, the role of education, and more. This quarterly publication includes peer-reviewed science articles, perspectives and notes, book reviews, abstracts of restoration ecology progress published elsewhere, and announcements of scientific and professional meetings.