|
| 2. According to site conditions and degradation impacts, were the objectives appropriate and
well-chosen? |
| Yes |
| Explain briefly: |
Cárcavo Catchment is a semiarid area on risk of desertification by its own geological, geomorphological and land use history features that justified the restoration project. |
|
| 3. According to site conditions and degradation impacts, were the methods (site preparation, species selection, prior actions,...) appropiate and
well-chosen? |
| No |
| Explain briefly: |
Cárcavo Cachtment shows a great spatial heterogeneity, with lithological changes at mesoscale level and local slope and exposition gradients. However, afforestation and checkdam building sites were not subject to previous evaluation. In this sense, the site preparation method by means of terracing by heavy machinery was carried out without take into account this spatial heterogeneity. This absence of criterion can be applied to species selection too. Great extension of gypsipherous soils in different textural forms, slope position and expositions may require different site preparation methods and species selection. |
|
| 4. Do ecological health and integrity appear to be improved, enhanced? |
| Yes |
| Explain briefly: |
Cárcavo Catchment presents similar number and extension of habitats and ecological processes and relationships. The restauration project have only generate readjustment at mesoscale level. |
|
| 5. Does the general ecological trajectory appear dynamic? |
| No |
| Explain briefly: |
Ecological dynamic still being very slow, because it is limited by key factors (semiarid bioclimate, low fertility, superficial soils, etc.) that have not been improved by means of restauration project.. |
|
| 6. Any signs of threshold crossings? |
| No |
| Explain briefly: |
|
|
| 7. Consequences of the restoration project on the soil (physical properties, biological activities,
functions,...): |
| Restoration project have not improved soil surface conditions and soil fertitly. Moreover, soil seed bank may be locally affected by site preparation method. |
|
| 8. Consequences on ecosystem structure,
including forest cover, horizontal layers, etc. : |
| Total plant cover have been enhanced, but only by Pinus halepensis planted. Number of plant and animal species are not significant different. |
|
| 9. Consequences on ecosystem functions : productivity, dissemination, etc.
: |
| Significant changes have not been observed on ecosystem functions. |
|
| 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: |
|
| c.- Public policy: |
|
| d.- Other: |
Research project may be necessary to identify key factors and thresholds which have to take into account to develop innovative restoration treatments to facilitate plant recovery and succession in the catchment. In the same way, it is crucial examine linkages within the landscape at different scales to determine the key points for intervention. |
