Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Landscape restoration in a changing climate

Landscape restoration in a changing climate This ‘bumper’ issue provides EMR with the rare opportunity to simultaneously publish articles that look back at the success of restoration programmes spanning multiple decades and look forward to a challenging future in a warming climate. The two features – one on Northern NSW’s Lowland Rainforest and the other on Sydney’s Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub – report on progress with restoration projects initiated by practitioners. Both projects, which now have the support of agencies and researchers, are providing ground‐breaking insights into restoration potential and the ways these communities work ecologically. Both ecological communities involved, however, are already classified Endangered, one Critically Endangered; and the danger will only increase with the effects of a rapidly warming climate. The first of this issue’s two papers by Booth et al . reinforce the warnings of recent years that the bioclimatic envelope of many species will move entirely outside the species’ current distribution in a few decades or less as global temperatures increase. Focusing on eucalypts as these are dispersal limited and critical to the outcomes of the Australian Government’s Biodiversity Fund and Carbon Farming Initiative, the paper reviews available models and tools for identifying growth and persistence potential of eucalypts in a warming climate. Their second paper provides practical advice for on‐ground managers on how to use the Atlas of Living Australia, a freely accessible online database, to check the viability of a wider range of site‐native species in a changing climate. The value of the Atlas is yet to be fully realised as planners, managers and practitioners use it to refine their species lists to meet the challenges ahead. Assisted regeneration is a key means of revegetation in the rainforest and heathland case studies mentioned earlier, but planting is a key to increase connectivity in highly cleared landscapes, particularly to allow natural plant and animal migration in a changing climate. The need to ensure that planting stock is genetically appropriate for species to grow and recruit in a warming climate however (see Schneeman & McElhinny this issue) is only starting to get the broad attention it deserves. Some misinterpretation of the concept of ‘local provenance’ has been characteristic of restoration practice in past decades. As Hancock & Leslie show in their survey results, however, practitioners appear to be increasing their appreciation of the need to ensure planting stock is sufficiently diverse to support functional populations in a warming climate, although translating this into action may not be as rapid as is needed. This may be partly due to lack of detailed empirical genetic data on the existence and ranges of regional genotypes to assist decision making. This issue also brings us two papers about mitigating the effects of warming, connecting strongly to the role of restoration. Penny van Oosterzee comments on the Australian Government’s Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI), drawing on her real‐world experience to comment on past international efforts to achieve synergies between biodiversity conservation and carbon storage and what this means for the future success of the CFI. Singh & Singh comment on the potential for soil methanotrophic organisms to digest methane, a most potent greenhouse gas. This important comment reveals that soil microbiology should perhaps be an area that receives greater attention from restoration practice and theory. Mitigating impacts other than climate change (see Goosem this issue) remains a priority, to give adaptation the best chance; while understanding stakeholders' motivation to undertake restoration and mitigation is also still critical. This topic of stakeholder motivation has been examined by authors in previous issues of EMR but is further developed in this issue’s comment piece by Carina Wyborn et al . It is a key point in any contested social‐ecological landscape, including the terrestrial/aquatic landscapes referred to by Sam Lake in his comment piece on restoring flooding to floodplains. Both our northern NSW and Sydney practitioner case studies argue that restoration progress will be limited without substantial attention to increasing incentives for landholders and industry to engage in restoration practice. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Ecological Management & Restoration Wiley

Landscape restoration in a changing climate

McDonald, Tein
Ecological Management & Restoration , Volume 13 (3) – Sep 1, 2012
Download PDF
1 page

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/landscape-restoration-in-a-changing-climate-z3o07xE13U

References (0)

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
© 2012 Ecological Society of Australia
ISSN
1442-7001
eISSN
1442-8903
DOI
10.1111/emr.12006
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

This ‘bumper’ issue provides EMR with the rare opportunity to simultaneously publish articles that look back at the success of restoration programmes spanning multiple decades and look forward to a challenging future in a warming climate. The two features – one on Northern NSW’s Lowland Rainforest and the other on Sydney’s Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub – report on progress with restoration projects initiated by practitioners. Both projects, which now have the support of agencies and researchers, are providing ground‐breaking insights into restoration potential and the ways these communities work ecologically. Both ecological communities involved, however, are already classified Endangered, one Critically Endangered; and the danger will only increase with the effects of a rapidly warming climate. The first of this issue’s two papers by Booth et al . reinforce the warnings of recent years that the bioclimatic envelope of many species will move entirely outside the species’ current distribution in a few decades or less as global temperatures increase. Focusing on eucalypts as these are dispersal limited and critical to the outcomes of the Australian Government’s Biodiversity Fund and Carbon Farming Initiative, the paper reviews available models and tools for identifying growth and persistence potential of eucalypts in a warming climate. Their second paper provides practical advice for on‐ground managers on how to use the Atlas of Living Australia, a freely accessible online database, to check the viability of a wider range of site‐native species in a changing climate. The value of the Atlas is yet to be fully realised as planners, managers and practitioners use it to refine their species lists to meet the challenges ahead. Assisted regeneration is a key means of revegetation in the rainforest and heathland case studies mentioned earlier, but planting is a key to increase connectivity in highly cleared landscapes, particularly to allow natural plant and animal migration in a changing climate. The need to ensure that planting stock is genetically appropriate for species to grow and recruit in a warming climate however (see Schneeman & McElhinny this issue) is only starting to get the broad attention it deserves. Some misinterpretation of the concept of ‘local provenance’ has been characteristic of restoration practice in past decades. As Hancock & Leslie show in their survey results, however, practitioners appear to be increasing their appreciation of the need to ensure planting stock is sufficiently diverse to support functional populations in a warming climate, although translating this into action may not be as rapid as is needed. This may be partly due to lack of detailed empirical genetic data on the existence and ranges of regional genotypes to assist decision making. This issue also brings us two papers about mitigating the effects of warming, connecting strongly to the role of restoration. Penny van Oosterzee comments on the Australian Government’s Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI), drawing on her real‐world experience to comment on past international efforts to achieve synergies between biodiversity conservation and carbon storage and what this means for the future success of the CFI. Singh & Singh comment on the potential for soil methanotrophic organisms to digest methane, a most potent greenhouse gas. This important comment reveals that soil microbiology should perhaps be an area that receives greater attention from restoration practice and theory. Mitigating impacts other than climate change (see Goosem this issue) remains a priority, to give adaptation the best chance; while understanding stakeholders' motivation to undertake restoration and mitigation is also still critical. This topic of stakeholder motivation has been examined by authors in previous issues of EMR but is further developed in this issue’s comment piece by Carina Wyborn et al . It is a key point in any contested social‐ecological landscape, including the terrestrial/aquatic landscapes referred to by Sam Lake in his comment piece on restoring flooding to floodplains. Both our northern NSW and Sydney practitioner case studies argue that restoration progress will be limited without substantial attention to increasing incentives for landholders and industry to engage in restoration practice.

Journal

Ecological Management & Restoration – Wiley

Published: Sep 1, 2012

There are no references for this article.