|
| 2. According to site conditions and degradation impacts, were the objectives appropriate and
well-chosen? |
| No |
| Explain briefly: |
No goal. It's interesting to compare this site with natural regeneration with Saignon and Brusquet where plantations were undertaken |
|
| 3. According to site conditions and degradation impacts, were the methods (site preparation, species selection, prior actions,...) appropiate and
well-chosen? |
| No |
| Explain briefly: |
No work |
|
| 4. Do ecological health and integrity appear to be improved, enhanced? |
| Yes |
| Explain briefly: |
slightly |
|
| 5. Does the general ecological trajectory appear dynamic? |
| Yes |
| Explain briefly: |
limited by speed natural regeneration, especially in some locations (steep climbs) |
|
| 6. Any signs of threshold crossings? |
| Yes |
| Explain briefly: |
Vegetation cover threshold for erosion to control erosion for the whole watershed |
|
| 7. Consequences of the restoration project on the soil (physical properties, biological activities,
functions,...): |
| natural succession had stabilized part of the degraded soils (currently the less degraded soils) but about half of the watershed is still actively eroded (which leads to high rate of erosion) |
|
| 8. Consequences on ecosystem structure,
including forest cover, horizontal layers, etc. : |
| Natural dynamic, natural diversity (composition and stucture) |
|
| 9. Consequences on ecosystem functions : productivity, dissemination, etc.
: |
| Functions were enhanced except soil protection and pedogenesis |
|
| 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: |
to enhance natural dynamic and restoration of the most degraded parts where work is possible (about 15%) |
| b.- Demonstration, communication and education: |
|
| c.- Public policy: |
|
| d.- Other: |
|
