February 6 2013 - rrnw.orgB. Rhode, S. Rizza, D. Smith, I. Tattam, N. Weber, E. Winkelman, and the...
Transcript of February 6 2013 - rrnw.orgB. Rhode, S. Rizza, D. Smith, I. Tattam, N. Weber, E. Winkelman, and the...
Riparian plant restoration along an incised stream using deep‐planting and tree shelters for the purpose of improving
habitat and providing food for beaver
February 6 2013February 6, 2013
Jason Hall1, Michael Pollock2, Shirley Hoh3, Chris Jordan4, Carol Volk5, and Josh Goldsmith5
1NOAA, Northwest Fisheries Science Center (Email: [email protected])2NOAA, Northwest Fisheries Science Center
3National Park Service, John Day Fossil Beds National Monument 4NOAA Newport Research Station
5South Fork Research
Background:Background:• Part of Bridge Creek restoration
project*– Dry interior Columbia River basin
– Heavily incised watershed
• Process based restoration using beaver
• Establishing riparian vegetation is an important component
• Channel incision presents significant riparian restoration challenges
2
challenges
* see http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/isemp.
Objectives:Objectives:• Develop an effective riparian
planting strategy that…– Minimizes cost/effort and maximizing survivalW k ith l d t– Works with lowered water tables
– Does not require irrigationDoes not require irrigation• Strategy can then be applied on
large scale to…g– Provide ecosystem functions– Support process based
i (b )
3
restoration strategy (beaver)
ApproachApproach: Riparian Planting Experiments
Phase 1: *• Deep‐Planting:
– Motorized auger– Penetrate lowered water table– Terraces ≤ 2.5 m above stream– Long pole cuttings (≤ 2.3 m)– 1330 plants– Willow (Salix spp.)Willow (Salix spp.) – Cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa)– Evaluate survival and growth
• Herbi ore protection• Herbivore protection:– High herbivore pressure– 3 protection strategies
4
– Evaluate survival, growth, and browsing
* See Hall, J.E., M. Pollock, S. Hoh. 2011. Ecological Restoration. 29(3):261‐269.
ApproachApproach: Herbivore Protection
Unprotected 3‐ft Vented Plastic Tree Shelter
6‐ft Circular Fence Cage
(6’CC)
5
Shelter (3’PTS)
(6 CC)
ResultsResults: Deep‐planting and tree shelters
6
n = 38 n = 94 n = 81 n = 288 n = 346 n = 483
ResultsResults: Deep‐planting and tree shelters
• Deep‐planting is an effective strategyeffective strategy…
• If you penetrate the water tablewater table
• 3’PTS increased survivalsurvival
• 3’PTS provided poor h bi t tiherbivore protection
7
ResultsResults: Deep‐planting and tree shelters
8
ApproachApproach: Riparian Planting Experiments
Phase 2:• Deep‐Planting:p g
– Only when water table is penetrated
– Motorized augerMotorized auger
• Planting:– Long pole cuttings (≤ 2.3 m)– 2170 additional plants in 3 years– Willow (Salix spp.) – Cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa)Cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa)– Tested 4 more (taller) herbivore protection strategies Evaluate survival growth and
9
– Evaluate survival, growth, and browsing
ResultsResults: Deep‐planting and tree shelters
3’PTS + 6’CC 5 ft Mesh Tree 3’PTS + 5’MTS 6’PTS3 PTS + 6 CC 5‐ft Mesh Tree Shelter (5’MTS)
3 PTS + 5 MTS 6 PTS
10
ResultsResults: Deep‐planting and tree shelters
11
ResultsResults: Deep‐planting and tree shelters
12
ResultsResults: Deep‐planting and tree shelters
13
Lessons LearnedLessons Learned: Deep‐planting and tree shelters
• Deep‐Planting works – Lowered water table– No irrigation needed if water
table penetrated• Taller shelter designs thatTaller shelter designs that
include a PTS were best.• Recommend 6’PTS
– High survival ≈70% 1st year – Lowest browser impacts, only
≈16% within first 3‐yearsf y– Easiest and most cost effective
to install– Lowest failure rate (0.03% 6’
14
Lowest failure rate (0.03% 6 PTS vs 6% for 5’MTS)
AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements:• Funded by BPA, NOAA Fisheries,
and the National Park Service• All live stakes were supplied by thepp y
BLM nursery in Clarno, Oregon• All planting experiments were
conducted with permission withinthe John Day Fossil Beds National MMonument
• Many thanks are due to E. Anspach,M. Allen, A. Bontrager, J. Decker, G. Ellson, B. Fleming, K. Martin, B. Mattias, B Rhode S Rizza D Smith I TattamB. Rhode, S. Rizza, D. Smith, I. Tattam, N. Weber, E. Winkelman, and the many others who helped with planting, maintenance, and monitoring operations throughout the project. p g p j
• And to many others who are contributing to the ISEMP John Day Subbasin Pilot Project (over 150people from over 30 agencies)
15
Supporting SlidesSupporting Slides:
16
TreatmentsTreatments: Planting Year
Shelter 2008 2009 2010 2011
Grand
Treatment 2008 2009 2010 2011
Total
None 254 36
290
6CC 344
344
MTS
43
43
3PTS+CC
111
111
3PTS 136 192 175
503
3PTS+MTS 311 331 6423PTS+MTS
311 331
642
6PTS
47 357 1086 1490
Grand Total 734 740 863 1086 3426
17
Grand Total 734 740 863 1086 3426
Cottonwood verses WillowCottonwood verses Willow:
18
Water TablesWater Tables:
19