DOCSLIB.ORG

Evaluating and Monitoring the Success of Ecological Restoration Implemented by the University of Washington Restoration Ecology Network (UW-REN) Capstone Projects

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Evaluating and Monitoring the Success of Ecological Restoration Implemented by the University of Washington Restoration Ecology Network (UW-REN) Capstone Projects Evaluating and Monitoring the Success of Ecological Restoration Implemented by the University of Washington Restoration Ecology Network (UW-REN) Capstone Projects Joy Kristen Wood A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science University of Washington 2011 Program Authorized to Offer Degree: School of Forest Resources University of Washington Graduate School This is to certify that I have examined this copy of a master‟s thesis by Joy Kristen Wood and have found that it is complete and satisfactory in all respects, and that any and all revisions required by the final examining committee have been made. Committee Members: ___________________________________________________ James L Fridley __________________________________________________ Kern Ewing __________________________________________________ Warren G. Gold Date:__________________________________ In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a master‟s degree at the University of Washington, I agree that the Library shall make its copies freely available for inspection. I further agree that extensive copying of this thesis is allowable only for scholarly purposes, consistent with “fair use” as prescribed in the U.S. Copyright Law. Any other reproduction for any purposes or by any means shall not be allowed without my written permission. Signature ________________________ Date ____________________________ University of Washington Abstract Evaluating and monitoring the success of ecological restoration implemented by the University of Washington Restoration Ecology Network (UW-REN) capstone projects Joy Kristen Wood Co-Chairs of the Supervisory Committee: Professor James L. Fridley School of Forest Resources Professor Kern Ewing School of Forest Resources For every year since 2000, five to ten ecological restoration sites have been implemented in the Puget Sound region through the University of Washington Restoration Ecology Network (UW-REN) capstone program. These sites represent the integral cooperation necessary to facilitate successful restoration, as faculty, students, and community partners participate. Thirty sites were chosen for this study and evaluated for success across different parameters. I hypothesized that certain elements of restoration design and implementation, such as selected techniques for invasive vegetation suppression and removal, and the degree of site maintenance and stewardship strongly contribute to the success of these restoration sites. From the available documentation and field methods, information was gathered to conduct statistical analyses of the plant cover with respect to five explanatory variables: ownership, stewardship, initial invasive plant control technique, use of cardboard, and use of wood chip mulch. Ownership, stewardship, and control technique contribute significantly to the native composition, species richness, and species diversity of these restoration sites. Privately owned sites have greater native species composition than county and state owned sites, and city sites are more likely to have greater native species composition than state owned sites. High levels of stewardship result in greater native species composition than low stewardship, and mowing does not work as well as grubbing for initial invasive plant control technique in the outcome of native species composition. The use of cardboard and wood chip mulch is less clear. In the end, while stewardship is of the utmost importance in successful restoration, initial control technique and the use of mulch should also be considered important in determining the resulting native species composition. The use of cardboard should be considered carefully, weighing the benefits of deploying the resources to acquire the cardboard against the only slight benefit it seems to offer the outcome of native species composition. Different vegetative layers vary in their relationship with native and non-native cover, with trees being positively correlated and tall shrubs negatively correlated to native composition. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………….. ii List of Tables…………………………………………………………………………...…iii 1.0 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………1 2.0 Literature Review……………………………………………………………………...4 2.1 Successional Trajectories……………………………………………………...4 2.2 Monitoring and Stewardship…………………………………………………..5 2.3 Invasive Species……………………………………………………………….7 2.4 Ecological Function and Native Biodiversity…………………………………9 3.0 Methods………………………………………………………………………………12 3.1 Site Selection…………………………………………………………………12 3.2 Document Review…………………………………………………………….13 3.3 Field Measurements…………………………………………………………..16 3.4 Canopy Cover………………………………………………………………….17 3.5 Data Analysis…………………………………………………………………19 4.0 Results………………………………………………………………………………...21 4.1 Project Goals…………………………………………………………………21 4.2 Ecological Evaluation Results………………………………………………..22 4.3 Site Management and Initial Restoration Technique…………………………28 4.4 Vegetative Cover at Various Layers………………………………………….32 4.5 Species Diversity……………………………………………………………..35 5.0 Discussion…………………………………………………………………………….38 5.1 Project Goals………………………………………………………………….38 5.2 Ecological Findings…………………………………………………………...39 5.3 Management and Technique…………………………………………………..42 5.4 Monitoring and Recommendations……………………………………………46 References………………………………………………………………………………….48 Appendix…………………………………………………………………………………...54 A. Applications and Lessons Learned……………………………………………..54 B. Site Summaries…………………………………………………………………56 C. Monitoring Protocol…………………………………………………………….92 D. Species Codes………………………………………………………………….101 i LIST OF FIGURES Figure Number Page 1. Sites Selected………………………………………………………………….13 2. Canopy Cover…………………………………………………………………18 3. Canopy Cover Values…………………………………………………………26 4. Cover and Explanatory Values………………………………………………..29 5. Multiple Regression Tree………………………………………………………31 6. Correlations…………………………………………………………………….32 7. Nonmetric Multidimensional Scaling (NMDS)………………………………..33 8. NMDS Canopy Cover………………………………………………………….34 9. NMDS Tree Cover……………………………………………………………..34 10. NMDS Vegetation Layers……………………………………………………..35 11. Species Richness and Diversity………………………………………………..37 12. Earth Sanctuary 2005…………………………………………………………..61 13. Frink Park 2002………………………………………………………………...67 14. Grass Lawn Park 2003………………………………………………………….69 15. Swamp Creek 2006……………………………………………………………..77 16. Swamp Creek 2007……………………………………………………………..79 17. West Duwamish Greenbelt 2006……………………………………………….88 ii LIST OF TABLES Table Number Page 1. Site Summary…………………………………………………………………..15 2. Explanatory Variables………………………………………………………….16 3. Project Goals…………………………………………………………………...22 4. Vegetation Abundance…………………………………………………………24 5. Regenerating Trees……………………………………………………………..27 6. Explanatory Variables ANOVA and Multiple Comparisons…………………..30 7. Species Richness and Diversity ANOVA and Multiple Comparisons…………36 8. Recommendations………………………………………………………………54 9. Site Composition Summary…………………………………………………….56 iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am grateful to my advisor, Jim Fridley, co-chair, Kern Ewing, and committee member, Warren Gold for their advice and guidance on this project. I would like to thank and acknowledge my invaluable and intrepid field assistants Ann Stevens, Lara Ramey, Mia Cole, and Jeremy Cairns for sticking it out with me at the restoration sites. Thank you to Rodney Pond for making available to me the project documentation. This project would not have been possible without the statistical advice I received from Aditya Khanna, Dev Niyogi, Joowon Park, and Jon Bakker. Thank you to those who supplied comments and revisions, help and support, and occasional babysitting: Kelsey Ketcheson, Ann West, Ann Stevens, Patti Wood, Brian Collins, Meredith Gilbert, and Marie-France Minton. And finally I would like to thank and acknowledge the endless support and encouragement from my best friend and husband, Stephen Wood, and Cameron Wood for her enduring patience with Mommy. 2 1.0 INTRODUCTION In 1999 the UW-REN program was established in order to integrate students, faculty and community interests in ecological conservation and restoration (Gold et al. 2006). For every year since 2000, five to ten restoration sites have been established in cooperation with a community partner, usually a non-profit organization, private land stakeholder, or governmental agency. Many of the restoration sites lie in urban, suburban, and rural areas such as the West Duwamish Greenbelt, Union Bay Natural Area, and Licton Springs in the Seattle area, Swamp Creek in Snohomish County, and the Earth Sanctuary on Whidbey Island. They include forested wetlands, streams, and upland forest habitats. The restoration sites varied in their land use context, ecological challenges, treatments used, and expectations for restoration. Each community partner submitted a request for proposal (RFP) outlining their restoration goals. Then the students accommodated those requests by designing a restoration plan that addressed the goals suggested in the RFP, considered the ecological state of the area as determined by a site assessment, and worked within the constraints of the team expertise, time, and available resources. Each restoration plan had specific goals and objectives in order to bring the site to a state of restoration, and the capstone students performed the first stages of restoration for the community partner. Various approaches were used, as the needs, goals, and challenges of each restoration site were unique. The students
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Success of Seeding Native Compared with Introduced Perennial Vegetation for Revegetating Medusahead-Invaded Sagebrush Rangeland
    Success of Seeding Native Compared with Introduced Perennial Vegetation for Revegetating Medusahead-Invaded Sagebrush Rangeland Davies, K. W., Boyd, C. S., Johnson, D. D., Nafus, A. M., & Madsen, M. D. (2015). Success of seeding native compared with introduced perennial vegetation for revegetating medusahead-invaded sagebrush rangeland. Rangeland Ecology & Management, 68(3), 224-230. doi:10.1016/j.rama.2015.03.004 0.1016/j.rama.2015.03.004 Elsevier Version of Record http://cdss.library.oregonstate.edu/sa-termsofuse Rangeland Ecology & Management 68 (2015) 224–230 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Rangeland Ecology & Management journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/rama Success of Seeding Native Compared with Introduced Perennial Vegetation for Revegetating Medusahead-Invaded Sagebrush Rangeland☆,☆☆ K.W. Davies a,⁎,C.S.Boyda,D.D.Johnsonb,A.M.Nafusc,M.D.Madsend a Rangeland Scientists, USDA—Agricultural Research Service, Eastern Oregon Agricultural Research Center, Burns, OR 97720, USA 1 b Associate Professor, Oregon State University, Eastern Oregon Agricultural Research Center, Burns, OR 97720, USA c Research Associate, Oregon State University, Eastern Oregon Agricultural Research Center, Burns, OR 97720, USA d Ecologist, USDA—Agricultural Research Service, Eastern Oregon Agricultural Research Center, Burns, OR 97720, USA 1 article info abstract Article history: Millions of hectares of Wyoming big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata Nutt. subsp. wyomingensis Beetle Received 16 October 2014 &Young) rangeland have been invaded by medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae [L.] Nevski), an exot- Accepted 2 March 2015 ic annual grass that degrades wildlife habitat, reduces forage production, and decreases biodiversity. Reveg- etation of medusahead-invaded sagebrush plant communities is necessary to restore ecosystem services.
    [Show full text]
  • Guide to Native Plants
    - AA GUIDEGUIDE TOTO THETHE NATIVENATIVE PLANTS,PLANTS, NATURALNATURAL PLANTPLANT COMMUNITIESCOMMUNITIES ANDAND THETHE EXOTICEXOTIC ANDAND INVASIVEINVASIVE SPECIESSPECIES OFOF EASTEAST HAMPTONHAMPTON TOWNTOWN EAST HAMPTON TOWN Natural Resources Department TableTable ofof Contents:Contents: Spotted Beebalm (Monarda punctata) Narrative: Pages 1-17 Quick Reference Max Clearing Table: Page 18 Map: East Hampton Native Plant Habitats Map TABS: East Hampton Plant Habitats (1-12); Wetlands flora (13-15): 1. Outer Dunes Plant Spacing 2. Bay Bluffs 3. Amagansett Inner Dunes (AID) 4. Tidal Marsh (TM) Table: A 5. Montauk Mesic Forest (MMF) 6. Montauk Moorland (MM) guideline for the 7. North of Moraine Coastal Deciduous (NMCD) 8. Morainal Deciduous (MD) 9. Pine Barrens or Pitch Pine Oak Forest (PB) (PPO) number of 10. Montauk Grasslands (MG) 11. Northwest Woods (NWW) plants needed 12. Old Fields 13. Freshwater Wetlands 14. Brackish Wetlands and Buffer for an area: 15. East Hampton Wetland Flora by Type Page 19 Native Plants-Resistance to Deer Damage: Pages 20-21 Local Native Plant Landscapers, Arborists, Native Plant Growers and Suppliers: Pages 22-23 Exotic and Invasive Species: Pages 24-33 Native Wildflower Pictures: Pages 34-45 Samdplain Gerardia (Agalinas acuta) Introduction to our native landscape What is a native plant? Native plants are plants that are indigenous to a particular area or region. In North America we are referring to the flora that existed in an area or region before European settlement. Native plants occur within specific plant communities that vary in species composition depending on the habitat in which they are found. A few examples of habitats are tidal wetlands, woodlands, meadows and dunelands.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluating and Mitigating Introduction of Marine Non-Native Species Via Vessel Biofouling
    ICES AD HOC REPORT 2019 ICES Viewpoint background document: Evaluating and mitigating introduction of marine non-native species via vessel biofouling Editors Bella S. Galil ● Cynthia McKenzie Authors Bella S. Galil ● Cynthia McKenzie ● Sarah Bailey Marnie Campbell ● Ian Davidson ● Lisa Drake ● Chad Hewitt Anna Occhipinti-Ambrogi ● Richard Piola International Council for the Exploration of the Sea Conseil International pour l’Exploration de la Mer H. C. Andersens Boulevard 44–46 DK-1553 Copenhagen V Denmark Telephone (+45) 33 38 67 00 Telefax (+45) 33 93 42 15 www.ices.dk [email protected] Recommended format for purposes of citation: Galil, B.S., McKenzie, C., Bailey, S., Campbell M., Davidson, I., Drake, L., Hewitt, C., Occhipinti-Ambrogi, A., and Piola, R. 2019. ICES Viewpoint background document: Evaluating and mitigating introduction of marine non-native species via vessel bio- fouling. ICES Ad Hoc Report 2019. 17 pp. http://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.4680 For permission to reproduce material from this publication, please apply to the mate- rial in this report may be reused using the recommended citation. ICES may only grant usage rights of information, data, images, graphs, etc. of which it has ownership. For other third-party material cited in this report, you must contact the original copyright holder for permission. For citation of datasets or use of data to be included in other databases, please refer to the latest ICES data policy on the ICES website. All extracts must be acknowledged. For other reproduction requests please contact the General Secretary. The document is a report of an Expert Group under the auspices of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea and does not necessarily represent the views of the Council.
    [Show full text]
  • Glossary and Acronyms Glossary Glossary
    Glossary andChapter Acronyms 1 ©Kevin Fleming ©Kevin Horseshoe crab eggs Glossary and Acronyms Glossary Glossary 40% Migratory Bird “If a refuge, or portion thereof, has been designated, acquired, reserved, or set Hunting Rule: apart as an inviolate sanctuary, we may only allow hunting of migratory game birds on no more than 40 percent of that refuge, or portion, at any one time unless we find that taking of any such species in more than 40 percent of such area would be beneficial to the species (16 U.S.C. 668dd(d)(1)(A), National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act; 16 U.S.C. 703-712, Migratory Bird Treaty Act; and 16 U.S.C. 715a-715r, Migratory Bird Conservation Act). Abiotic: Not biotic; often referring to the nonliving components of the ecosystem such as water, rocks, and mineral soil. Access: Reasonable availability of and opportunity to participate in quality wildlife- dependent recreation. Accessibility: The state or quality of being easily approached or entered, particularly as it relates to complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Accessible facilities: Structures accessible for most people with disabilities without assistance; facilities that meet Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards; Americans with Disabilities Act-accessible. [E.g., parking lots, trails, pathways, ramps, picnic and camping areas, restrooms, boating facilities (docks, piers, gangways), fishing facilities, playgrounds, amphitheaters, exhibits, audiovisual programs, and wayside sites.] Acetylcholinesterase: An enzyme that breaks down the neurotransmitter acetycholine to choline and acetate. Acetylcholinesterase is secreted by nerve cells at synapses and by muscle cells at neuromuscular junctions. Organophosphorus insecticides act as anti- acetyl cholinesterases by inhibiting the action of cholinesterase thereby causing neurological damage in organisms.
    [Show full text]
  • Invasive and Other Problematic Species, Genes and Diseases
    Invasive and Other Problematic Species, Genes and Diseases The threat category ‘invasive and other problematic species, genes and diseases’ (IUCN 8) includes both native and non-native plants, animals, pathogens, microbes, and genetic materials that have or are predicted to have harmful effects on biodiversity following their introduction, spread and/or increase in abundance. This definition encompasses a broad array of organisms, and the types of impacts to native species and habitats are equally variable. It includes invasive species that were not present in New Hampshire prior to European settlement, and have been directly or indirectly introduced and spread into the state by human activities. A variety of wildlife species are vulnerable to increased predation from both native and non-native animals. Many species are also affected by diseases and parasites, including white-nose syndrome in bats, fungal pathogens in reptiles, and ticks and nematodes in moose. Native and non-native insects act as forest pests, damaging or killing native tree species and causing significant changes to wildlife habitats. Native tree species can also be affected by non-native fungal pathogens. Invasive plants can compete with native species for nutrients, water and light, and can change the physical environment by altering soil chemistry. Risk Assessment Summary Invasive species affect all 24 habitats and 106 SGCN. This is second only to pollution in the number of species affected. The majority of threat assessment scores were ranked as low (n=116, 51%), followed by moderate (n = 83, 37%) and high (n = 26, 12%). Only the moderate and high-ranking threats are summarized for each category in Table 4-17.
    [Show full text]
  • Impacts of Invasive Species on Ecosystem Services
    13 Impacts of Invasive Species on Ecosystem Services Heather Charles and Jeffrey S. Dukes 13.1 Introduction The impacts of invasive species on ecosystem services have attracted world- wide attention. Despite the overwhelming evidence of these impacts and a growing appreciation for ecosystem services, however, researchers and poli- cymakers rarely directly address the connection between invasions and ecosystem services. Various attempts have been made to address the ecosys- tem processes that are affected by invasive species (e.g., Levine et al. 2003; Dukes and Mooney 2004), but the links between these mechanisms and ecosystem services are largely lacking in the literature. Assessments of the economic impacts of invasive species cover costs beyond those associated with ecosystem services (e.g., control costs), and generally do not differentiate by ecosystem service type. Additionally, while advances have been made in quantifying non-market-based ecosystem services, their loss or alteration by invasive species is often overlooked or underappreciated. Ecos ystem services are the benefits provided to human society by natural ecosystems, or more broadly put, the ecosystem processes by which human life is maintained. The concept of ecosystem services is not new, and there have been multiple attempts to list and/or categorize these services, especially as the existence of additional services has been recognized (e.g., Daily 1997; NRC 2005). For the purposes of this chapter, we address ecosystem services in the framework put forward by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). The services we list are primarily those enumerated in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005), with minimal variation in wording, and inclu- sion of several additional services not explicitly stated in this assessment.
    [Show full text]
  • Dune Ecology: Secondary Dunes and Beyond
    Dune Ecology: Secondary Dunes and Beyond Secondary Dunes and Dune Swales Behind the first or primary dune in natural areas are panicgrass, pin-sedge (Carex grayii) , lichens (Cladonia usually a series of additional or secondary dunes. In spp.) (Hosier 2003), the occasional low-growing beach most coastal areas this and the nearby landward plum or baybush, and Eastern prickly pear cactus communities have been lost to human developments (Opuntia humifussa). such as boardwalks, homes, and roads. However, in the few remaining undeveloped areas, such as northern Little bluestem is a clump-forming grass found in a Sandy Hook, Island Beach State Park, Edwin B. number of habitats, including dunes. It produces Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge, North Brigantine abundant seeds that are an important food source for Natural Area, Stone Harbor Point, and Cape May songbirds, and its leaves form cover for ground birds National Wildlife Refuge, this zone is home to a wide and small mammals (Tober and Jensen 2013). Coastal variety of communities. Secondary dunes that are panicgrass is a tall grass species that only grows once relatively close to the dune front tend to have similar the sand has been stabilized by American beachgrass or vegetation to other species. Once established, it creates a fibrous root Sand spurge the primary system that further stabilizes the dune (USDA 2006b). dunes, e only cactus species native to New Jersey, the although the Eastern prickly pear, has virtually no leaves. Instead its beach grass stems are swollen into flat, green, fleshy pads that tends to be allow this plant to be extremely drought resistant.
    [Show full text]
  • Science Priorities for Reducing the Threat of Invasive Species to Sustainable Forestry Elizabeth A
    USDA Forest Service { National Agroforestry Center USDA Forest Service / UNL Faculty Publications University of Nebraska - Lincoln Year 2005 Science Priorities for Reducing the Threat of Invasive Species to Sustainable Forestry Elizabeth A. Chornesky Ann M. Bartuska, US Department of Agriculture Gregory H. Aplet, Wilderness Society Kerry O. Britton, USDA Forest Service Jane Cummings-Carlson, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Frank W. Davis, University of California Jessica Eskow, International Paper Doria R. Gordon, University of Florida Kurt W. Gottschalk, USDA Forest Service Robert A. Haack, USDA Forest Service Andrew J. Hansen, ofMontana State University Richard N. Mack, Washington State University Frank J. Rahel, University of Wyoming Margaret A. Shannon, State University of New York Lisa A. Wainger, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science T. Bently Wigley, National Council for Air and Stream Improve- ment, Inc. This paper is posted at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usdafsfacpub/86 Articles Science Priorities for Reducing the Threat of Invasive Species to Sustainable Forestry ELIZABETH A. CHORNESKY, ANN M. BARTUSKA, GREGORY H. APLET, KERRY O. BRITTON, JANE CUMMINGS- CARLSON, FRANK W. DAVIS, JESSICA ESKOW, DORIA R. GORDON, KURT W. GOTTSCHALK, ROBERT A. HAACK, ANDREW J. HANSEN, RICHARD N. MACK, FRANK J. RAHEL, MARGARET A. SHANNON, LISA A. WAINGER, AND T. BENTLY WIGLEY Invasive species pose a major, yet poorly addressed, threat to sustainable forestry. Here we set
    [Show full text]
  • Invasive Species Management Environmental Assessment
    United States Department of Agriculture Invasive Species Management Environmental Assessment Forest Service MAY 2011 Shawnee National Forest Alexander, Gallatin, Hardin, Jackson, Johnson, Massac, Pope, Saline, Union and Williamson Counties, Illinois Responsible Official: Hurston A. Nicholas, Forest Supervisor Contact Person: Matthew Lechner, Natural Resources Program Manager Shawnee National Forest Supervisor’s Office 50 Highway 145 South, Harrisburg, IL 62946 (618) 253-7114, Fax (618) 253-1060 [email protected] This document and supporting documents can be found on our website: http://fs.usda.gov/goto/shawnee 1 Table of Contents Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Proposed Action ........................................ 3 Background ...................................................................................................................................... 3 Purpose of and Need for Action ....................................................................................................... 6 Proposed Action ............................................................................................................................... 6 Decision Framework ........................................................................................................................ 7 Public Involvement ........................................................................................................................... 7 Issues .............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Biodiversity Glossary
    BIODIVERSITY GLOSSARY Biodiversity Glossary1 Access and benefit-sharing One of the three objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity, as set out in its Article 1, is the “fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources, including by appro- priate access to genetic resources and by appropriate transfer of relevant technologies, taking into account all rights over those resources and to technologies, and by appropriate funding”. The CBD also has several articles (especially Article 15) regarding international aspects of access to genetic resources. Alien species A species occurring in an area outside of its historically known natural range as a result of intentional or accidental dispersal by human activities (also known as an exotic or introduced species). Biodiversity Biodiversity—short for biological diversity—means the diversity of life in all its forms—the diversity of species, of genetic variations within one species, and of ecosystems. The importance of biological diversity to human society is hard to overstate. An estimated 40 per cent of the global economy is based on biologi- cal products and processes. Poor people, especially those living in areas of low agricultural productivity, depend especially heavily on the genetic diversity of the environment. Biodiversity loss From the time when humans first occupied Earth and began to hunt animals, gather food and chop wood, they have had an impact on biodiversity. Over the last two centuries, human population growth, overex- ploitation of natural resources and environmental degradation have resulted in an ever accelerating decline in global biodiversity. Species are diminishing in numbers and becoming extinct, and ecosystems are suf- fering damage and disappearing.
    [Show full text]
  • Growth Characteristics and Anti-Wind Erosion Ability of Three Tropical Foredune Pioneer Species for Sand Dune Stabilization
    sustainability Article Growth Characteristics and Anti-Wind Erosion Ability of Three Tropical Foredune Pioneer Species for Sand Dune Stabilization Jung-Tai Lee 1,*, Lin-Zhi Yen 1, Ming-Yang Chu 1, Yu-Syuan Lin 1, Chih-Chia Chang 1, Ru-Sen Lin 2, Kung-Hsing Chao 3 and Ming-Jen Lee 1 1 Department of Forestry and Natural Resources, National Chiayi University, Chiayi 60004, Taiwan; [email protected] (L.-Z.Y.); [email protected] (M.-Y.C.); [email protected] (Y.-S.L.); [email protected] (C.-C.C.); [email protected] (M.-J.L.) 2 Hsinchu Forest District Management Office, Forestry Bureau, Hsinchu 30046, Taiwan; [email protected] 3 Chiayi Forest District Management Office, Forestry Bureau, Chiayi 60049, Taiwan; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 25 March 2020; Accepted: 17 April 2020; Published: 20 April 2020 Abstract: Rainstorms frequently cause runoff and then the runoff carries large amounts of sediments (sand, clay, and silt) from upstream and deposit them on different landforms (coast, plain, lowland, piedmont, etc.). Afterwards, monsoons and tropical cyclones often induce severe coastal erosion and dust storms in Taiwan. Ipomoea pes-caprae (a vine), Spinifex littoreus (a grass), and Vitex rotundifolia (a shrub) are indigenous foredune pioneer species. These species have the potential to restore coastal dune vegetation by controlling sand erosion and stabilizing sand dunes. However, their growth characteristics, root biomechanical traits, and anti-wind erosion abilities in sand dune environments have not been documented. In this study, the root growth characteristics of these species were examined by careful hand digging.
    [Show full text]
  • Native Plants for Wildlife Habitat and Conservation Landscaping Chesapeake Bay Watershed Acknowledgments
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Native Plants for Wildlife Habitat and Conservation Landscaping Chesapeake Bay Watershed Acknowledgments Contributors: Printing was made possible through the generous funding from Adkins Arboretum; Baltimore County Department of Environmental Protection and Resource Management; Chesapeake Bay Trust; Irvine Natural Science Center; Maryland Native Plant Society; National Fish and Wildlife Foundation; The Nature Conservancy, Maryland-DC Chapter; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Cape May Plant Materials Center; and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Chesapeake Bay Field Office. Reviewers: species included in this guide were reviewed by the following authorities regarding native range, appropriateness for use in individual states, and availability in the nursery trade: Rodney Bartgis, The Nature Conservancy, West Virginia. Ashton Berdine, The Nature Conservancy, West Virginia. Chris Firestone, Bureau of Forestry, Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Chris Frye, State Botanist, Wildlife and Heritage Service, Maryland Department of Natural Resources. Mike Hollins, Sylva Native Nursery & Seed Co. William A. McAvoy, Delaware Natural Heritage Program, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. Mary Pat Rowan, Landscape Architect, Maryland Native Plant Society. Rod Simmons, Maryland Native Plant Society. Alison Sterling, Wildlife Resources Section, West Virginia Department of Natural Resources. Troy Weldy, Associate Botanist, New York Natural Heritage Program, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Graphic Design and Layout: Laurie Hewitt, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Chesapeake Bay Field Office. Special thanks to: Volunteer Carole Jelich; Christopher F. Miller, Regional Plant Materials Specialist, Natural Resource Conservation Service; and R. Harrison Weigand, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Maryland Wildlife and Heritage Division for assistance throughout this project.
    [Show full text]