Study

An evaluation of the effects of soil characteristics on mitigation and restoration involving blue elderberry, Sambucus mexicana

  • Published source details Koch-Munz M. & Holyoak M. (2008) An evaluation of the effects of soil characteristics on mitigation and restoration involving blue elderberry, Sambucus mexicana. Environmental Management, 42, 49-65

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Water: Restore habitat along watercourses

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Soil: Restore habitat along watercourses

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Other biodiversity: Restore habitat along watercourses

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland
  1. Water: Restore habitat along watercourses

    A replicated site comparison in 2005–2006 in 46 riparian sites in the Central Valley, California, USA, found similar amounts of water in soils at restored and natural sites. Water availability: Similar amounts of water were found in soils at restored and natural sites (amounts not reported). Methods: Thirty restored sites (urban: 19; agricultural: 11; all with <30 planted elderberry plants; 2–15 years old) and 16 natural sites (within 20 km of restored sites) were compared. Restored sites were surveyed in July–early November 2005 and August–October 2006 and natural sites in April–September 2006. Restored sites were 24% of the size of natural sites. Soil samples (5–30 cm depth) were collected under three or more shrubs at each site.

     

  2. Soil: Restore habitat along watercourses

    A replicated site comparison in 2005–2006 in 46 riparian sites in the Central Valley, California, USA, found less carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium in soils at restored sites, compared to natural sites. Organic matter: Less carbon was found in soils at restored sites, compared to natural sites (1.1% vs 1.8%). Nutrients: Less phosphorus (13 vs 41 ppm), potassium (181 vs 380), total nitrogen (0.09 vs 0.14%), and nitrate (5 vs 12 ppm) was found in soils at restored sites, compared to natural sites. Implementation options: Older restored sites had less total nitrogen, carbon, and phosphorous than younger restored sites (data not provided). Methods: Thirty restored sites (urban: 19; agricultural: 11; all with <30 planted elderberry plants; 2–15 years old) and 16 natural sites (within 20 km of restored sites) were compared. Restored sites were surveyed in July–early November 2005 and August–October 2006 and natural sites in April–September 2006. Restored sites were 24% of the size of natural sites. Soil samples (5–30 cm depth) were collected under three or more shrubs at each site.

     

  3. Other biodiversity: Restore habitat along watercourses

    A replicated site comparison in 2005–2006 in 46 riparian sites in the Central Valley, California, USA (same study as (9)), found that restored sites had lower canopy cover, stem diameter, and height than natural sites. Plants: Elderberry canopy size (400 vs 272 cm), stem diameter (8 vs 5 cm), and height (428 cm vs 320 cm) were larger in natural sites, compared to restored sites. Methods: Thirty restored sites (urban: 19; agricultural: 11; all with <30 planted elderberry plants; 2–15 years old) and 16 natural sites (within 20 km of restored sites) were compared. Restored sites were surveyed in July–early November 2005 and August–October 2006 and natural sites in April–September 2006. Restored sites were 24% of the size of natural sites. Growth rate was measured for 30 shrubs at each restored site (growth rate for natural sites came from a previous study).

     

Output references

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, terrestrial 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 17

Go to the CE Journal

Subscribe to our newsletter

Please add your details if you are interested in receiving updates from the Conservation Evidence team about new papers, synopses and opportunities.

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