|
| 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: |
connectivity, patchiness, mature forest stands improved |
|
| 5. Does the general ecological trajectory appear dynamic? |
| Yes |
| Explain briefly: |
shift to mature forest stands |
|
| 6. Any signs of threshold crossings? |
| Yes |
| Explain briefly: |
oak regeneration below pine trees |
|
| 7. Consequences of the restoration project on the soil (physical properties, biological activities,
functions,...): |
| Increase in organic matter, litter cover and nitrogen status |
|
| 8. Consequences on ecosystem structure,
including forest cover, horizontal layers, etc. : |
| Increase of plant richness (40 to 55) |
|
| 9. Consequences on ecosystem functions : productivity, dissemination, etc.
: |
| better nutrient cycling, higher timber and cork productivity, structure diversification |
|
| 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: |
long-term monitoring |
| b.- Demonstration, communication and education: |
communication on grazing and fire prevention |
| c.- Public policy: |
fire prevention and fire fighting |
| d.- Other: |
|
