Achieving Restoration Success: Myths in Bottomland Hardwood Forests

Abstract

Restoration of bottomland hardwood forests is the subject of considerable interest in the southern United States, but restoration success is elusive. Techniques for establishing bottomland tree species are well developed, yet problems have occurred in operational programs. Current plans for restoration on public and private land suggest that as many as 200,000 hectares could be restored in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley alone. The ideal of ecological restoration is to reestablish a completely functioning ecosystem. Although some argue that afforestation is incomplete restoration, it is a necessary and costly first step but not an easy task. The 1992 Wetlands Reserve Program in Mississippi, which failed on 90% of the area, illustrates the difficulty of broadly applying our knowledge of afforestation. In our view, the focus for ecological restoration should be to restore functions, rather than specifying some ambiguous natural state based on reference stands or pre‐settlement forest conditions. We view restoration as one element in a continuum model of sustainable forest management, allowing us to prescribe restoration goals that incorporate landowner objectives. Enforcing the discipline of explicit objectives, with restoration expectations described in terms of predicted values of functions, causal mechanisms and temporal response trajectories, will hasten the development of meaningful criteria for restoration success. We present our observations about current efforts to restore bottomland hardwoods as nine myths, or statements of dubious origin, and at best partial truth.

Field Performance of <i>Quercus bicolor</i> Established as Repeatedly Air-Root-Pruned Container and Bareroot Planting Stock

“…Oak reforestation has been problematic because bareroot planting stock can be slow to establish and it com-petes poorly with herbaceous vegetation (Groninger, 2005;Stanturf et al, 2001Stanturf et al, , 2004. In addition, bottomland reforestation requires selecting oak species that exhibit tolerance to flooding and poorly-drained soils such as pin (Q. palustris Muenchh.…”

Where is the avoidance in the implementation of wetland law and policy?

“…Bedford (1999) argued that wetland restoration will be more successful if individual wetland restoration decisions are made in light of past and present regional profiles, and Olsen and Christie (2000) highlighted the importance of locally and socially relevant indicators to build local ownership of coastal (wetland) management, especially for direct users/abutters of wetlands. Watershed planning can also provide rich opportunities for more place-based and prescriptive restoration goals (Stanturf et al 2001;Olsen and Christie 2000), thereby addressing some of the competing goals (individual to structural) that limit overall restoration effectiveness.…”

Performance of Oak Seedlings Grown under Different Oust® XP Regimes

“…Resultant stands often retain low percentages of planted oaks [4,[7][8][9]. The strong trend of failure observed in LMAV afforestation efforts indicates a need for greater understanding of hardwood plantation establishment in these settings.…”