Study

Comparison of reclamation techniques to re‐establish western white pine on smelter‐impacted hillsides in Idaho

  • Published source details Walsh J.R. & Redente E.F. (2011) Comparison of reclamation techniques to re‐establish western white pine on smelter‐impacted hillsides in Idaho. Restoration Ecology, 19, 141-150.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Cover the ground using techniques other than plastic mats after restoration planting

Action Link
Forest Conservation

Add lime to the soil to increase fertility

Action Link
Forest Conservation

Add lime to the soil after tree planting

Action Link
Forest Conservation

Add organic matter after tree planting

Action Link
Forest Conservation
  1. Cover the ground using techniques other than plastic mats after restoration planting

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 1991-1995 in a degraded temperate coniferous forest in Idaho, USA (Walsh & Redente 2011) found that covering the ground after restoration planting had mixed effects or no effect on vegetation cover depending on material used. Total plant cover was higher in plots covered with local redtop hay (46-49%) and erosion control blanket (50-54%) than plots covered with wood-fiber hydro mulch (33-35%) or uncovered (32-35%). Each of four covering treatments: local redtop hay (at 4.5  x 103 kg/ha), erosion control blanket (consisting of wood shavings of aspen and alder placed between two plastic nets), wood-fiber hydro mulch (applied at a rate of 1,682 kg/ha) and uncovered was applied in 1991 to four plots (3 × 10 m) at each of two hilltop sites. All plots were planted with western white pine Pinus monticola trees, shrubs and grasses before treatments in 1991. Vegetation cover was measured in 1995.

     

  2. Add lime to the soil to increase fertility

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 1991-1995 in a degraded temperate coniferous forest in Idaho, USA (Walsh & Redente 2011) found that adding lime to the soil before restoration planting increased total plant cover. Total plant cover was higher in lime addition (38-40%) than control plots (17-23%). Control and lime addition treatments (at 11,000 kg/ha ) were each applied in 1991 to eight plots (3 × 10 m) at each of two hilltop sites. All plots were fertilized with nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium at 112, 56 and 90 kg/ha respectively. Plots were planted with western white pine Pinus monticola trees, shrubs and grasses before treatments in 1991. Data were collected in 1995.

     

  3. Add lime to the soil after tree planting

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 1991-1995 in a degraded temperate coniferous forest in Idaho, USA (Walsh & Redente 2011) found that lime addition before restoration planting decreased the survival of western white pine Pinus monticola planted seedlings. Survival rate was lower with lime (lime: 63-66%) than without lime (72-75%). The two treatments, a control and lime addition (at 11 x 103kg /ha) were applied in 1991 to eight plots (3 x 10 m) at each of two hilltop sites. All sites were fertilized with nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium  at 112, 56 and 90 kg/ha respectively and were planted with western white pine  trees, along with shrubs and grasses, before treatments in 1991. Data were collected in 1995.

     

  4. Add organic matter after tree planting

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 1991-1995 in a degraded temperate coniferous forest in Idaho, USA (Walsh & Redente 2011) found that addition of wood-chips before restoration planting decreased the survival rate of planted western white pine Pinus monticola seedlings. Survival rate was lower with wood-chips (10-15%) than in untreated plots (72-75%). Untreated and wood-chip addition (at 90,000 kg/ha) treatments were applied in 1991 to eight plots (3 × 10 m) at each of two hilltop sites. All sites were fertilized with nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium at 112, 56 and 90 kg/ha respectively and were planted with western white pine trees, along with shrubs and grasses, before treatments in 1991. Data were collected in 1995.

     

Output references
What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 18

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.


Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust