|
| 2. According to site conditions and degradation impacts, were the objectives appropriate and
well-chosen? |
| Yes |
| Explain briefly: |
|
|
| 3. According to site conditions and degradation impacts, were the methods (site preparation, species selection, prior actions,...) appropiate and
well-chosen? |
| Yes |
| Explain briefly: |
|
|
| 4. Do ecological health and integrity appear to be improved, enhanced? |
| Yes |
| Explain briefly: |
Soil enhanced, but forest structure and composition are incomplete and not healthy for a long-term |
|
| 5. Does the general ecological trajectory appear dynamic? |
| Yes |
| Explain briefly: |
since 1870, ecological trajectory appears to be dynamic. Nowadays, there are limitations due to black pines. Native species dynamics need to be reinforced |
|
| 6. Any signs of threshold crossings? |
| Yes |
| Explain briefly: |
Soil, further threshold identified (tree diversity) |
|
| 7. Consequences of the restoration project on the soil (physical properties, biological activities,
functions,...): |
| Soil stabilization (no more erosion), beginning of pedogenesis, good biological activity |
|
| 8. Consequences on ecosystem structure,
including forest cover, horizontal layers, etc. : |
| artificial, need to be improved |
|
| 9. Consequences on ecosystem functions : productivity, dissemination, etc.
: |
| productivity is enhanced but problem with dissemination |
|
| 10. Actions needed and next monitoring actions to be considered. Please explain in your own words and indicate your recommendations, e.g.,
for |
| a.- Research/Development: |
|
| b.- Demonstration, communication and education: |
local memory on erosion poblem and restoration |
| c.- Public policy: |
|
| d.- Other: |
management of restored forest to prepare next generation with broad-leaved species and a more viable ecosystem |
