แบบบ้าน แปลนบ้าน พิมพ์เขียวก่อสร้าง บ้านป่าตาล

Hobbs, R. J., Arico, S. et al. Novel Ecosystems: Theoretical and Management Aspects of the New Ecological World Order. Global Ecology and Biogeography 15, 1–7 (2006). Several coastal functions can justify restoration: shoreline stability, habitat diversity, fish production, biodiversity and buffering of diffuse pollution. Shoreline restoration may cover several of these functions at once, although some types of restoration may not be compatible with others and may not be relevant everywhere along a river corridor. In addition, when identifying a target state, it is important to remember that most riparians have been altered by human influences, resulting in limited inheritances. As a result, restoring Riparia to “original” states is often unrealistic and can even be undesirable – for example, when virgin states are compared to what modern societies need in terms of goods and services or appreciate in terms of aesthetic qualities.

Restoration is defined as the application of ecological theory to ecological restoration. However, for many reasons, this can be difficult. Here are some examples of theory that informs practice. Ecological restoration can be challenging as it requires detailed knowledge of the autecology of a number of species and the processes of succession development. But the economic and social problems faced by many reforestation projects are equally complex. One of the most difficult to overcome is the financial cost of reforestation. Reforestation is not only expensive, but also has an opportunity cost. Some landowners will be willing to carry out reforestation to preserve biodiversity, but most will need the financial benefits of reforestation to exceed the direct and indirect costs of its implementation (see case study 6). Another problem is that, unlike most agricultural crops, growing trees takes many years to get a financial return, while most costs are incurred in the first few years. These cost issues will discourage many landowners from reforesting. Conservation biology`s focus on rare or threatened species limits the number of manipulative studies that can be conducted. As a result, conservation studies tend to be descriptive, comparative, and not reproduced (Young, 2000).

However, the highly manipulative nature of recovery ecology allows the researcher to test hypotheses more rigorously. In fact, any restorative activity is essentially an experimental test of what limits populations (Young et al. 2005). Progressing on a desired path of succession can be difficult when there are several stable states. Klötzli and Gootjans (2001) look back at 40 years of data on wetland restoration, stating that unexpected and undesirable vegetation gatherings “may indicate that environmental conditions are not suitable for target communities”. [66] Succession may evolve in unforeseen directions, but shrinking environmental conditions within a narrow range may limit possible succession trajectories and increase the likelihood of the desired outcome. [67] [68] Fig. 5.4.1. Temporal trends in the number of articles published on the subject of river restoration (solid line) and those that explicitly refer to hydrological terms relevant to IRES, in particular in the title, abstract and keywords (interrupted line). Ecological restoration applied to degraded natural environments has obvious limitations.

Even with the most intensive and expensive restoration methods currently available, allowing for long periods of succession and growth, many ecological attributes of primary habitats are impossible to restore in degraded environments (Shoo et al., 2016). This has a clear impact on prioritizing recovery areas. New ecosystems in which changes are irreversible are useless for conservation-oriented restoration. In contrast, hybrid ecosystems, where changes are reversible, may be the restoration objectives, but not all hybrid ecosystems will have the same conservation value. It is clear that priority should be given to the least modified habitats, which still require interventions to restore the modified structure and some missing ecological functions, but which have a reasonable chance of approaching a primary habitat. But other characteristics, both intrinsic and extrinsic, are also important for the classification of restoration candidates according to conservation value. The former are the presence of threatened species and their regeneration, and the latter are the total forest cover that remains in the landscape and the richness of the regional species basin. I propose the following ranking (Volis, 2016c): Lamm, D. Large-scale ecological restoration of degraded tropical forest areas: the potential role of timber plantations. Restoration Ecology 6, 271-279 (1998).

The second dilemma of a time lag between recovery and monitoring could be overcome if water managers and practitioners agree to monitor the effects of recovery over the long term (i.e., > 7 to 10 years). Our review found that the majority of recovery studies covered a period of 1 to 7 years. This period is relatively short and often insufficient to detect recovery and biological recovery effects. In the Kissimmee River project in Florida, the time required for recovery of different groups of organisms was estimated at 3 to 8 years for aquatic plants, 10 to 12 years for benthic macroinvertebrates, and 12 to 20 years for fish (Trexler 1995). It is therefore essential that restoration programmes are accompanied by tailor-made monitoring programmes (BACI design) and take into account both the nature of the recovery measures and the expected time for restoration. Since general indicators of deterioration may be inadequate to detect short-term effects and progress of recovery, there is also a need for indicators of recovery progress that can reliably track changes and their recovery trends (Matthews et al., 2010). These indicators may include physical measures of habitat (e.g., erosive relationship: deposition patterns, flow diversity and dynamics) or biological characteristics (e.g., r-relationship: K strategists) and should detect changes rather than states. A critical step in restoration planning is the setting of realistic goals. The preconditions for disturbance, often represented by nearby “reference sites”, are common recovery objectives, although the actual objectives are tailored to local environmental, social, legal and economic conditions. In addition, preventing further loss of protected populations or habitats is a common motivator for restoration.

Other objectives may be erosion control, pasture fodder production, protection of wildlife habitat and conservation of cultural landscapes. Climate change planning has become increasingly important. Once the objectives of the restoration project are set, the next step is to define the objectives and identify the measures of success. Clearly articulated objectives and a regular assessment of measurable progress towards these objectives provide information on the progress and success of the project, including how and when recovery measures should be modified. At his Koonamore research station in South Australia, founded in 1925, Professor T. G. Osborn studied the loss of native vegetation due to overcrowding and the resulting erosion and wind degradation, and concluded that the restoration of native salt pans (Atriplex spp.