Ecological restoration of drylands: practice, outcomes
and future perspectives
Alice Nunes & Working Group 3 COST Action ES1104
COST Action ES1104 WG meeting, University of Thessaloniki, Greece 28-30 April 2015
Alice Nunes ([email protected]) Cristina Branquinho ([email protected])
Reclamation
Natural processes (sucession)
Ecological restoration
Ecosystem structure and diversity (species number, habitat complexity, etc.)
Eco
syst
em f
un
ctio
nin
g (b
iom
ass,
nu
trie
nt
cycl
ing,
etc
.)
‘Reference’ Ecosystem
Degraded Ecosystem
Rehabilitation
WP3 survey on ecological restoration of drylands
Ecological restoration: the process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed (SER)
COST Action ES1104 WG meeting, University of Thessaloniki, Greece 28-30 April 2015
Species diversity (similar to the reference ecosystem)
Community structure (similar to the reference ecosystem)
Presence of functional groups
Presence of native species
Biotic flows with surrounding areas
Self-sustainability
Resilience
(http://www.ser.org/)
Attributes of the restored ecosystem
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Desertification Synthesis (World Resources Institute, Washington, DC).
Drylands: cover about 41% of Earth’s land surface are inhabited by 38% of the human population
WP3 survey on ecological restoration of drylands
WP3 survey on ecological restoration of drylands
Aim: to gauge the range of restoration projects that have been implemented in dryland areas, to establish current knowledge of best practice for dryland ecological restoration
COST Action ES1104 WG meeting, University of Thessaloniki, Greece 28-30 April 2015
•Target: dryland areas in Europe and also in other parts of the world
•Discussion among the WG3 concerning the survey target areas, format, structure and questions
•Format: on-line survey (or by other means whenever more convenient)
•Structure and questions: divided into parts A and B
Part A: information about the contributing expert and the restoration project area (10)
COST Action ES1104 WG meeting, University of Thessaloniki, Greece 28-30 April 2015
WP3 survey on ecological restoration of drylands
Part B: detailed information about restoration projects
I. Context and motivation (7) II. Planning, practice and maintenance (9) III. Criteria for plant species selection (14) IV. Monitoring and outcome (7) V. Costs and benefits (6)
Total of 148 answers, 81% drylands
COST Action ES1104 WG meeting, University of Thessaloniki, Greece 28-30 April 2015
WP3 survey on ecological restoration of drylands: answers to part A
COST Action ES1104 WG meeting, University of Thessaloniki, Greece 28-30 April 2015
Total of 77 answers (52%) in Europe and surrounding area, from which 74% drylands
WP3 survey on ecological restoration of drylands: answers to part A
Answers from 46 countries
Africa 28
Algeria 4
Botswana 2
Burkina Faso 1
Egypt 2
Ethiopia 1
Ghana 1
Kenya 2
Many 1
Morocco 2
Namibia 1
Niger 1
Rwanda 1
Senegal 1
Tanzania 1
Togo 1
Tunisia 5
Uganda 1
COST Action ES1104 WG meeting, University of Thessaloniki, Greece 28-30 April 2015
WP3 survey on ecological restoration of drylands: answers to part A
Asia 28
China 5
India 8
Iran 7
Jordan 1
Lebanon 1
Nepal 1
Pakistan 2
Palestine region 1
United Arab Emirates 1
Uzbekistan 1
America 7
Brasil 5
United States 2
Australia 2
Australia 2
Europe 77
Armenia 2
Azerbaijan 1
Belgium 1
Bulgary 3
England 1
Georgia 2
Germany 2
Greece 4
Iceland 1
Israel 6
Italy 3
Many 3
Portugal 12
Serbia 2
Spain 24
Switzerland 1
Turkey 8
Netherlands 1
Who answered?
Ecohydrologist
Ecologist
Forest_engineer/agronomist
Geographer/Geomorphologist
Project_manager/coordinator
Social_sciences
Soil_engineer/scientist
Governamental instituition
Private
University/Research institute
COST Action ES1104 WG meeting, University of Thessaloniki, Greece 28-30 April 2015
WP3 survey on ecological restoration of drylands: answers to part A
Where from?
COST Action ES1104 WG meeting, University of Thessaloniki, Greece 28-30 April 2015
WP3 survey on ecological restoration of drylands: answers to part B (more detailed info)
Total of 59 answers, 78% in drylands, 59% in Europe and surrounding area
Habitat type
COST Action ES1104 WG meeting, University of Thessaloniki, Greece 28-30 April 2015
WP3 survey on ecological restoration of drylands
B-I. Context and motivation
0 5 10 15 20 25
Riparian
Dunes
Farmland/agricultural
Savanna
Xeric shrubland
Annual grassland
Perennial grassland
Evergreen shrubland
Forest/Woodland
Nr of detailed case studies
COST Action ES1104 WG meeting, University of Thessaloniki, Greece 28-30 April 2015
Main degradation causes
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Extensive agriculture
Invasive species
Fire
Industry activities/mining
Infrastructure development (roads, dams, etc.)
Intensive agriculture
Natural (drought, etc.)
Deforestation/Fuel collection
Overgrazing
Nr of detailed case studies
WP3 survey on ecological restoration of drylands
B-I. Context and motivation
Restoration motivation
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
NGOs
Public health
Scientific research
Protected areas legislation
Enterprise/private initiative
Public pressure
General legislation
Government iniciative
Nr of detailed case studies
COST Action ES1104 WG meeting, University of Thessaloniki, Greece 28-30 April 2015
WP3 survey on ecological restoration of drylands
B-I. Context and motivation
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
↑Scientific research
↑Dune stabilization
↑Sustainable management
↓Floods
↓Pollution
↓Invasive species
↑Conservation
↓Landscape impact
↑Biodiversity
↑Ecosystem services
↑People livelihood
↓Soil erosion
Nr of detailed case studies
COST Action ES1104 WG meeting, University of Thessaloniki, Greece 28-30 April 2015
Restoration aims
WP3 survey on ecological restoration of drylands
B-I. Context and motivation
WP3 survey on ecological restoration of drylands
B-II. Planning, practice and maintenance
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Topsoil transfer
Grazing exclusion
Hydroseeding
Inocculation/transpl. biological soil crusts
Transplantation from local area
Seeding/sowing
Planting plants grown in nursery
Nr of detailed case studies
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Added unstructured substrate (e.g. spoil …
Added non-local topsoil
Treated soil (e.g. fertilized, organic amendment)
Added local topsoil
Original soil undisturbed
Original soil disturbed (erosion)
Nr of detailed case studies
COST Action ES1104 WG meeting, University of Thessaloniki, Greece 28-30 April 2015
Revegetation techniques
Soil used
WP3 survey on ecological restoration of drylands
B-III. Criteria for plant species selection
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Carbonate tolerance
↑Biodiversity
Fast growth
↑Soil nutrients
Dispersion ability
High/low pH tolerance
Fire
↑Biotic interaction
Shading/microclimatic amelioration
Salinity tolerance
Aesthetic value
Social acceptance
Economic value (e.g. timber, bio-oil)
Nativeness
Erosion control
Drought tolerance
Nr of detailed case studies
Plant selection purpose
Plantation
0 10 20 30 40
None
Only non-native
Both
Only native
Nr of detailed case studies (seedlings)
native
non-native
0 10 20 30
None
Only non-native
Both
Only native
Nr of detailed case studies (seeds)
native
non-native
Seeding/Sowing
COST Action ES1104 WG meeting, University of Thessaloniki, Greece 28-30 April 2015
WP3 survey on ecological restoration of drylands
B-III. Criteria for plant species selection
Reasons for the use of non-native species
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
↑Resistance
↑Biodiversity
Aesthetic
↑Knoledge growing requirements
Nurse, to be removed
Timber
↓Price
↑Comercial availability
↑Growth rate
Nr of detailed case studies
COST Action ES1104 WG meeting, University of Thessaloniki, Greece 28-30 April 2015
WP3 survey on ecological restoration of drylands
B-III. Criteria for plant species selection
WP3 survey on ecological restoration of drylands
B-III. Criteria for plant species selection
0 10 20 30
>15
10-15
6-10
2-5
Nr of detailed case studies
0 10 20 30
>80%
51-80%
20-50%
<20%
Nr of detailed case studies
0 10 20 30
>20
11-20
5-10
<5
Nr of detailed case studies
0 10 20 30
>80%
51-80%
21-50%
10-20%
<10%
Nr of detailed case studies
Nr woody species Nr herbaceous species
% compared to the reference/non-disturbed ecosystem?
COST Action ES1104 WG meeting, University of Thessaloniki, Greece 28-30 April 2015
0 10 20 30
Non-native species dominance
Low mortality
Low recruitment
Low social involvement
Low cover
Fast recovery
Erosion
Native species dominance
Low biodiversity
High mortality
Nr of detailed case studies
As expected
Partially unexpected
Restoration Results
COST Action ES1104 WG meeting, University of Thessaloniki, Greece 28-30 April 2015
Unexpected results
WP3 survey on ecological restoration of drylands
B-IV. Monitoring and outcome
COST Action ES1104 WG meeting, University of Thessaloniki, Greece 28-30 April 2015
0 10 20 30
Excessive irrigationLack of maintenance
PestsSoil contamination
FragmentationSocial reluctanceInvasive species
FireHerbivory
Not enough time passedErosion
Soil degradation/low qualityDrought/harsh climate
Nr of detailed case studies
Causes for unexpected results
WP3 survey on ecological restoration of drylands
B-IV. Monitoring and outcome
COST Action ES1104 WG meeting, University of Thessaloniki, Greece 28-30 April 2015
Partially successfulSuccessful
Unsuccessful
Success evaluation
WP3 survey on ecological restoration of drylands
B-IV. Monitoring and outcome
0 5 10 15 20 25
>20 years
11-20 year
6-10years
2-5years
1 year
<1year
never
Nr of detailed case studies
WP3 survey on ecological restoration of drylands
B-IV. Monitoring and outcome
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Soil pH
Eco-turism
Social aproval
Aesthetic
Indicator species
Soil microbial activity
C sequestration
Animal species number
Animal species abundance
Litter cover/decomposition
Multi-taxa
Plant functional diversity
Soil physical analysis
Biomass production
Soil erosion measures
SOM
Soil N
Plant mortality/vitality
Plant diversity
Plant species number
Plant cover
Nr of detailed case studies
How was the success evaluated?
COST Action ES1104 WG meeting, University of Thessaloniki, Greece 28-30 April 2015
No
Yes
Attempt to quantify ES?
COST Action ES1104 WG meeting, University of Thessaloniki, Greece 28-30 April 2015
WP3 survey on ecological restoration of drylands
B-V. Costs and benefits
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
High, considering benefits
Appropriate, considering current benefits
Low, considering benefits
Appropriate, considering future benefits
Nr of detailed case studies
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19
Res
tora
tio
n c
ost
(€
/ha)
Min: 2 €/ha Mean: 2110 €/ha Máx outliers: 80000 and 200000€/ha
Restoration Cost
Some preliminary conclusions
Main restoration aims: protect soil from erosion, improve people livelihood, improve ecosystem services (ES), increase biodiversity
Most projects use original soil or add local topsoil; revegetation mainly through planting and seeding and to a lesser extent local transplantation and BSC Mostly native species are used; non-native species are used mainly due to a higher comercial availability and lower price
Restoration success is evaluated in short to medium term, and firstly based on plant and soil data
High plant mortality and low biodiversity are the main limitations to restoration success, attributed to drought
Althoug improving ES is a major restoration aim, few attemps are maid to quantify them
COST Action ES1104 WG meeting, University of Thessaloniki, Greece 28-30 April 2015
Work in progress
COST Action ES1104 WG meeting, University of Thessaloniki, Greece 28-30 April 2015
Which techniques are associated with higher restoration success?
Under different aridity levels?
Expected output: a peer-reviewed paper
Protected vs. unprotected areas?
Discuss the evaluation of ecosystem services in restoration
Thank you for your attention
Acknowledgments:
SFRH/BD/51407/2011)
COST Action ES1104 – Arid lands restoration and combat of desertification: setting up a drylands and desert restoration hub
Alice Nunes ([email protected]) Cristina Branquinho ([email protected])
Authors: Alice Nunes Teresa Mexia Graça Oliveira Otília Correia Benz Kotzen Sarah Milliken Alejandro Valdecantos Ruediger Prasse Eleni Abraham Apostolos Kyriazopoulos Edoardo Costantini Ayman Salah Abdel Rahman Al-Tawaha Cristoph Kuells Gudrun Schwilch & Cristina Branquinho