University of FloridaSolutions for Your Life

Download PDF
Publication #ENH1161

Research Needs and Logistic Impediments in Restoration, Enhancement, and Management Projects: A Survey of Land Managers1

Carrie R. Adams and Nancy M. Steigerwalt2

Restoration, enhancement, and management projects involve reducing the effects of anthropogenic and biological stressors on ecosystems as much as possible. Managing the influence of stressors, such as invasive flora and fauna that occur in ecosystems throughout the southeastern coastal plain, is often important for project success (Schmitz 2007; Simberloff, Schmitz, and Brown 1997; Wilcove et al. 1998). Additional anthropogenic stressors affecting a number of ecosystems in this region are hydrologic alteration (Light and Dineen 1994; Pringle, Freeman, and Freeman 2000; Slate and Stevenson 2000) and nutrient enrichment (Mitsch et al. 2001; Schelske et al. 2005; Slate and Stevenson 2000). Fire (Kirkman et al. 2000; Main and Barry 2002; Tucker and Robinson 2003) and hurricanes (Edmiston et al. 2008; Otvos and Carter 2008; Ugarte et al. 2006) are naturally occurring stressors influencing ecosystems in this region.

Logistical impediments affecting restoration, enhancement, and management projects may include a lack of research in needed areas, adequate funding, employees and contractors with necessary expertise, equipment, plant material, and time. Some logistical problems, such as extreme weather events or a lack of core habitat, are beyond control, while others have the potential of being remedied or lessened. For example, educational workshops can be developed for contractors and developers, plant material needs can be communicated to growers, and research can be conducted to answer questions in critical areas.

The University of Florida's Restoration and Plant Ecology Lab surveyed practitioners and land managers in an effort to determine current research and outreach needs and common impediments to restoration, enhancement, and management goals in the southeastern coastal plain. Data were gathered on the types of ecosystems they restored, enhanced, or managed; stressors affecting the ecosystems; current research needs; sources of information commonly used; and factors found to interfere with meeting project goals, including logistical impediments and plant material availability.

Methods

Surveys were distributed to land managers at the annual symposium of the Society for Ecological Restoration, Coastal Plain Chapter, and at the Florida Native Plant Society annual conference. Surveys were also accessible on the Restoration and Plant Ecology Lab Web site from February to December 2007. Surveys were anonymous and did not contain requests for any personally identifiable information. Thirty-eight completed surveys were returned for analysis. The 17 participants who volunteered geographic information from the Florida Native Plant Society conference were from Florida (14), Alabama (1), Louisiana (1), and North Carolina (1). The annual symposium for the Society for Ecological Restoration, Coastal Plain Chapter, also included participants from Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia.

The survey consisted of six voluntary questions, each allowing both closed and open-ended responses. For each question, respondents were instructed to mark each response that applied to their management experiences and record any additional details in the space provided below each question. Questions were developed using knowledge gathered from literature, practitioners, and personal experience.

All survey questions and summaries of the participants' answers are provided below. Summaries of responses volunteered by participants are also included. Surveys were analyzed by calculating the percentage of participants who selected each response.

Results

The most widespread stressor to sites managed or restored by respondents was invasive species (74%) (Table 1). Imperata cylindrica (21%) was the most frequently encountered species. Hydrologic alteration was the second most common stressor indicated by respondents, affecting over half of sites (55%). Respondents frequently worked in pine flatwoods and dry prairies (71%), scrub and high pine (47%), and wetland mitigation banks (45%) (Table 2).

The top two perceived research needs were, in order of preference, propagation and practical planting advice (Table 3). Restoration and management information was most frequently gathered from other practitioners or natural resource management staff (87%) (Table 4). Scientific journals were read by 74% of respondents, and 61% used white papers and reports.

A myriad of logistical difficulties hampers restoration, enhancement, and management goals, including sufficient money for projects (61%), knowledgeable contractors (39%), and employees who have the needed expertise (32%) (Table 5). Obtaining the appropriate quantity and quality of plant material for projects was also a problem (Table 6). Forty-seven percent of respondents were unable to find appropriate genotypes, and 42% were unable to find necessary species.

Conclusions

The results of this survey indicate that invasive species affected most of the sites that respondents restored, enhanced, or managed. Research into control and eradication of invasive species, including recolonization site management, is currently needed. Additional research in plant propagation and germination (especially for less common species) and practical planting advice was also deemed necessary. Respondents gathered the majority of their restoration and management information from their colleagues and journal articles. Individuals worked in a wide range of ecosystems, including pine flatwoods, dry prairies, wetland mitigation banks, and salt marshes. The main logistical impediment to achieving restoration, enhancement, or management goals was a lack of money; however, the inability to obtain both common and rare native plant species and appropriate genotypes also hindered success. Other logistical impediments affecting projects included the lack of knowledgeable contractors and the lack of employees with needed expertise.

By collecting information on stakeholder situations and information needs, research can be designed to be immediately applicable, and industry can target profitable markets. These survey conclusions can be used to:

1) Tailor experiments and projects to meet the research needs identified by land managers.

2) Communicate critical plant material needs to the nursery industry.

3) Develop educational programs, including workshops to fill gaps in employee and contractor knowledge.

References

Edmiston, H. L., S. A. Fahrny, M. S. Lamb, L. K. Levi, J. M. Wanat, J. S. Avant, K. Wren, and N. C. Selly. 2008. Tropical storm and hurricane impacts on a Gulf Coast estuary: Apalachicola Bay, Florida. Journal of Coastal Research SI 55: 38–49.

Kirkman, L. K., P. C. Goebel, L. West, M. B. Drew, and B. J. Palik. 2000. Depressional wetland vegetation types: A question of plant community development. Wetlands 20(2): 373–385.

Light, S. S., and J. W. Dineen. 1994. Water control in the Everglades: A historical perspective. In Everglades: The ecosystem and its restoration, ed. S. M. Davis and J. C. Ogden, 47-84. Boca Raton, FL: St. Lucie Press.

Main, M. B., and M. J. Barry. 2002. Influence of season of fire on flowering of wet prairie grasses in South Florida, USA. Wetlands 22(2): 430–434.

Mitsch, W. J., J. W. Day Jr., J. W. Gilliam, P. M. Groffman, D. L. Hey, G. W. Randall, and N. Wang. 2001. Reducing nitrogen loading to the Gulf of Mexico from the Mississippi River basin: Strategies to counter a persistent ecological problem. BioScience 51(5): 373–388.

Otvos, E. G., and G. A. Carter. 2008. Hurricane degradation—Barrier development cycles, northeastern Gulf of Mexico: Landform evolution and island chain history. Journal of Coastal Research 24(2): 463–478.

Pringle, C. M., M. C. Freeman, and B. J. Freeman. 2000. Regional effects of hydrologic alterations on riverine macrobiota in the new world: Tropical–temperate comparisons. BioScience 50(9): 807–823.

Schelske, C. L., E. F. Lowe, L. E. Battoe, M. Brenner, M. F. Coveney, and W. F. Kenney. 2005. Abrupt biological response to hydrologic and land-use changes in Lake Apopka, Florida, USA. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment 34(3): 192–198.

Schmitz, D. C. 2007. Florida's invasive plant research: Historical perspective and the present research program. Natural Areas Journal 27(3): 251–253.

Simberloff, D., D. Schmitz, and T. Brown. 1997. Strangers in paradise: Impact and management of nonindigenous species in Florida. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Slate, J. E., and R. J. Stevenson. 2000. Recent and abrupt environmental change in the Florida Everglades indicated from siliceous microfossils. Wetlands 20(2): 346–356.

Wilcove, D. S., D. Rothstein, J. Dubow, A. Phillips, and E. Losos. 1998. Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States. BioScience 48: 607–615.

Tucker, J. W., Jr., and W. D. Robinson. 2003. Influence of season and frequency of fire on Henslow's sparrows (Ammodramus henslowii) wintering on Gulf Coast pitcher plant bogs. The Auk 120(1):96–106.

Ugarte, C. A., L. A. Brandt, S. Melvin, F. J. Mazzotti, and K. G. Rice. 2006. Hurricane impacts to tree Islands in Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge, Florida. Southeastern Naturalist 5(4):737–746

Tables

Table 1. 

Types of ecosystem stressors affecting restored, enhanced, or managed sites by survey respondents in the southeastern coastal plain (n = 38)

Survey question: What types of degradation most affect sites that you manage or restore?

 

Stressor

Percent

Invasive species (please list species below)

74

Hydrologic alteration

55

Erosion

24

Nutrient enrichment

16

All-terrain vehicle damage

13

Nonpoint source pollution

8

Other (please list below)

 

Silviculture impacts

18

Fire disruption, agricultural impacts

13

Development impacts, mining impacts, large-scale mechanical impacts and filling, feral hog damage, timber and bedding issues, off-site species, habitat loss and fragmentation, historical nutrient changes

3

Invasive species

 

Imperata cylindrica

21

Schinus terebinthifolius

11

Ligustrum sinense, Lygodium spp., Panicum repens, Paspalum notatum, Triadica spp.

10

Cynodon, Melinis repens, Microstegium spp.

8

Casuarina spp.

5

Ardisia spp., Cinnamomum camphora, Dioscorea bulbifera, Festuca spp., Lonicera japonica, Melaleuca quinquenervia, Murdannia keisak, Paederia foetida, Pueraria spp., Pyrostegia venusta, Rhodomyrtus tomentosa, Rosa multiflora, Typha spp., Urochloa maxima, all category I and II species, pasture grasses

3

Table 2. 

Ecosystem types restored and enhanced or managed by survey respondents in the southeastern coastal plain (n = 38)

Survey question: What ecosystem type(s) do you work in?

 

Ecosystem

Percent

Pine flatwoods and dry prairies

71

Scrub and high pine

47

Wetland mitigation banks

45

Swamps

42

Freshwater marshes

39

Salt marshes

32

Temperate hardwood forests

29

Rivers and springs, dunes and maritime forests

26

Mangroves

25

Lakes

16

South Florida rockland

11

Inshore marine habitats

8

Coral reefs

3

Other (please list below)

 

Wet prairies

5

Wetlands, streams, beaver impoundments, pitcher plant bogs, seepage slopes, limestone glades, tropical hammocks, shortleaf pine woodlands, montane longleaf pine woodlands, xeric oak/hickory woodlands, xeric sandhills, savannahs, Alabama tallgrass prairies

3

Table 3. 

Plant community restoration research needs identified by survey respondents in the southeastern coastal plain (n = 33)

Survey question: What issues have you tried to resolve related to restoration of plant communities where you found the research to be lacking? Please rank from 1–4, with 1 being most important.  

Research area

Rank

Propagation

1

Practical planting advice (e.g., appropriate seedling density, species selection)

2

Installation of plant material

3

Genotype considerations

4

Other (please list below)

Percent

Habitat selection, donor and recolonization site management, control of exotics, and effects of site disturbance on restoration

14

Germination cycles and requirements, ecotypic considerations, and geographic barriers, range, etc. for less common species

11

Natural recruitment versus mechanical planting, direct seeding, timing of seed banking and planting (Example: In flatwoods, sites are too wet for equipment during optimum wiregrass planting time. What are the effects of a delay in seeding/planting on wiregrass establishment?)

8

Table 4. 

Information sources used by survey respondents who restore and enhance or manage sites in the southeastern coastal plain (n = 38)

Survey question: Who or what do you turn to for information and knowledgeable people to help with projects?

 

Information source

Percent

Other practitioners or natural resource management staff

87

Scientific literature (journals)

74

White papers or reports (nonjournal publications)

61

University researchers

53

Web sites (please list below)

34

Other (please list below)

 

Conferences and meetings

10

Training seminars, center agency discussions

3

Web sites

 

Association of Florida Native Nurseries – http://afnn.org

Native Plants Propagation Protocol Database– http://nativeplants.for.uidaho.edu/network

The Institute for Regional Conservation – http://regionalconservation.org

5

The Institute for Regional Conservation – http://regionalconservation.org

Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF) – http://www.ifas.ufl.edu

Society for Ecological Restoration – http://www.ser.org

Atlas of Florida Vascular Plants – http://www.plantatlas.usf.edu/

Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute – http://www.fau.edu/hboi/

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Environmental Quality –http://www.fws.gov/contaminants/

3

Table 5. 

Logistic parameters hampering restoration and enhancement or management by survey respondents in the southeastern coastal plain (n = 38)

Survey question: What logistic parameters most prevent you from achieving restoration goals?  

Logistic parameter

Percent

Money

61

Lack of knowledgeable contractors (e.g., heavy equipment operators)

39

Lack of employees with needed expertise

32

Finding, training, and/or working with volunteers

11

Other (please list below)

 

Arranging for progression of work in the necessary seasonal sequence

8

Burn limitations, difficulties reinstating burn regimes, limited quantity of qualified fire managers for ground fires, and weather

3

Lack of core habitat, time to complete projects, equipment and staff to collect seeds, knowledgeable developers, and expertise in systematic long-term planning, stretch goal developments, backcasting technique, establishing protocols for monitoring, performance criteria, and milestones

3

Table 6. 

Plant material availability problems encountered by survey respondents in the southeastern coastal plain (n = 38)

Survey question: What problems do you encounter with respect to plant material availability? (Please list species)  

Plant material availability

Percent

Genotype – local source material is unavailable

47

Species required are unavailable

42

Quantity of individuals needed cannot be found

29

Other (please list below)

 

Limited sources provide local native plant material and seeds

15

Low donor site availability; contracting in advance necessary for many species

5

Timing harvest of species to seed viability

3

Species

 

Aristida beyrichiana

13

Grasses, wet prairie, and longleaf pine species

8

Spartina alterniflora, all listed species

5

Acacia farnesiana, Aesculus pavia, Borrichia frutescens, Carpinus caroliniana, Carya spp., Castanea pumila, Catalpa bignonioides, Celtis laevigata, Ceratiola ericoides, Conocarpus erectus, Crataegus spp., Cyrilla racemiflora, Echinacea spp., Eugenia rhombea, Fagus grandifolia, Frangula caroliniana, Guapira discolor, Ilex spp., Licania michauxii, Lilium catesbaei, Morus rubra, Nyssa spp., Ostrya virginiana, Panicum amarum, Pinckneya bracteata, Quercus spp., Quercus stellata, Sabal spp., Sapindus saponaria var. saponaria, Schizachyrium scoparium, Sideroxylon tenax, Sorghastrum secundum, Spartina spp., Styrax grandifolius, Tilia floridana, Ulmus crassifolia, Uniola spp., less common shrubs and trees, perennial bunchgrasses, Florida panhandle species, and species from flatwoods, sandhills, uplands, and xeric environments.

3

Footnotes

1.

This document is ENH1161, one of a series of the Environmental Horticulture Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida. Original publication date March 2010. Visit the EDIS Web Site at http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu.

2.

Carrie R. Adams, assistant professor, and Nancy M. Steigerwalt, biological scientist, Environmental Horticulture Department


The Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) is an Equal Opportunity Institution authorized to provide research, educational information and other services only to individuals and institutions that function with non-discrimination with respect to race, creed, color, religion, age, disability, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, political opinions or affiliations. For more information on obtaining other extension publications, contact your county Cooperative Extension service.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Service, University of Florida, IFAS, Florida A. & M. University Cooperative Extension Program, and Boards of County Commissioners Cooperating. Nick T. Place, Dean.