Upscaling restoration of native biodiversity: A New Zealand perspective
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
doi: 10.1111/emr.12316 FEATURE
Upscaling restoration of native
biodiversity: A New Zealand
perspective
By David A. Norton, Jason Butt and David O. Bergin
Efforts are being made to
upscale restoration of New
Zealand’s native ecosystems.
Success depends, however, on
consideration of several key
issues that need to be built into
restoration planning,
implementation and monitoring.
This study makes eight
recommendations to improve
the prospect of obtaining the
hoped-for biodiversity
conservation outcomes.
Key words: community involvement,
eco-sourcing, landscape scale, nursery
production, restoration.
David A. Norton is a Professor, School of
Forestry, University of Canterbury (Private Bag
4800, Christchurch 8140, New Zealand; Email:
david.norton@canterbury.ac.nz). Jason Butt is a
Biodiversity Officer, Environment Canterbury Figure 1. Restoration in New Zealand involves approaches ranging from allowing nature to
(PO Box 345, Christchurch 8140, New Zealand; reclaim the land (through natural succession) to active restoration plantings, such as in this case
Email: jason.butt@ecan.govt.nz). David O. at Port Hills, Canterbury. (Photo David Norton).
Bergin is an Applied Ecological Restoration
Scientist, Environmental Restoration Ltd (53 Te
Puea Road, RD 4, Rotorua 3074, New Zealand;
case for New Zealand where public Various approaches are used to sus-
Email: davidbergin.erl@gmail.com).
conservation areas are biased towards tain and enhance native biodiversity
inland and upland regions, excluding on private land. These usually involve
areas with higher productive value either working with surviving rem-
Introduction
that were converted to other land nants of the original ecosystems, such
Pconserving
ublic conservation lands (national
parks, reserves, etc.) are critical to
and sustaining native bio-
uses with human settlement (Leath-
wick et al. 2003; Norton & Reid
2013). If we are to sustain the full
as forest patches (especially through
protecting them), or through encour-
aging more sympathetic management
diversity as they represent areas that range of native biodiversity, then we of the matrix to reduce impacts on
have been least impacted by human also need to prioritise biodiversity the native biodiversity that remains.
activities; but such areas account for conservation on nonconservation These different approaches have been
only a small amount of the total land (private) lands that are used for pas- referred to as land sparing and land
area of most countries and often are toral farming, cropping, plantation sharing (Fischer et al. 2014) and the
not representative of the full range forestry and horticulture, and urban relative merits of both have generated
of ecosystems. This is certainly the areas. much discussion, although it seems
ª 2018 Ecological Society of Australia and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 0 NO 0 APRIL 2018 1
FEATURE
initiatives (e.g. Reconnecting North-
land, www.reconnectingnorthland.
org.nz, and Banks Peninsula Conserva-
tion Trust, www.bpct.org.nz), there is
still relatively little large-scale coordi-
nation for most of the excellent
restoration projects being under-
taken. However, this is set to change
through the Trees That Count initia-
tive (www.treesthatcount.co.nz), a
nongovernment programme which
aims to encourage New Zealanders
to plant millions of native trees for
multiple benefits including biodiver-
sity conservation, carbon sequestra-
tion and soil erosion control. The
initial target for additional native trees
planted for 2017 is one tree for every
New Zealander (4.7 million), increas-
ing by 15% per year to reach 200 mil-
lion trees by 2030. To count, trees
must be native, be capable of growing
to a minimum of 5 m height and be
planted with the intention of being
Figure 2. Allowing natural regeneration, often termed minimum interference management, is
an important component of restoration in New Zealand. Pictured here is Tiromoana Bush,
maintained and protected until matu-
Canterbury. (Photo David Norton). rity. This initiative has the potential
to result in an unprecedented
clear that both can be important environmental outcomes including increase in the amount of restoration
depending on the local context and enhanced water quality, reduced soil undertaken in New Zealand, with
spatial scale. erosion and increased carbon seques- almost all of it occurring on private
A further approach to enhancing tration. land previously used for pastoral farm-
native biodiversity on private land Recognising the magnitude of ing. The New Zealand government
involves facilitating the re-establish- human impacts on natural ecosys- has recently (February 2018)
ment of natural ecosystems in tems, the extent of both biodiversity announced an ambitious new pro-
degraded areas, usually after removal loss and the need for realistic carbon gramme to plant one billion trees in
of pastoral farming. This restoration sequestration efforts, many global the next decade, with a substantial
can either involve allowing nature to programmes have been initiated to number of these being native.
reclaim the land through largely natu- significantly upscale restoration Although the exact details of how this
ral successional processes or promot- efforts. For example, the Bonn Chal- will be done have yet to be con-
ing recovery through active lenge (www.bonnchallenge.org) aims firmed, this will further increase the
restoration planting and seeding to restore 150 million ha of the number of native trees planted in
(Fig. 1,2). The particular approach world’s deforested and degraded land New Zealand.
depends on a range of factors includ- by 2020 and 350 million ha by 2030, These initiatives to upscale restora-
ing the degree of degradation at the while The Nature Conservancy has tion efforts have the potential to make
restoration site, residual vegetation, a global programme that aims to significant contributions to both
availability of seed sources, project plant one billion trees by 2025 reversing biodiversity declines and
scale, resources available and restora- (www.plantabillion.org). addressing issues such as greenhouse
tion goals (Hobbs & Norton 1996). In New Zealand, a diverse range of gas emissions. However, to obtain
Restoration activities can both groups including community, iwi maximum biodiversity benefits, it is
improve the values of remnants (Maori tribal group), council, govern- not just a matter of planting trees in
through buffering and enhancing con- ment and business are involved in pri- the ground as has been the case in
nectivity and increase the overall vate land restoration (Peters et al. China where large monocultures of
extent of native habitat. Restoration 2015; Norton et al. 2016). While exotic tree species have done little
can also address a range of other there are several new regional-scale for biodiversity conservation (Hua
2 ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 0 NO 0 APRIL 2018 ª 2018 Ecological Society of Australia and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
FEATURE
et al. 2016). Rather, the new plant- Recommendations operates independently of govern-
ings need to be undertaken in a way ment and is widely respected through
that results in positive outcomes for 1 . Re t a i n W h a t i s L e ft a n d rural New Zealand (Norton & Reid
biodiversity as well as meeting goals M an a ge it Pr o p er l y 2013). Covenants remain under pri-
such as carbon sequestration. vate ownership, and the perpetual
In this article, we ask what are the protection they provide has withstood
Remnants of the original natural
issues that need to be addressed if we legal challenges through the New Zeal-
ecosystems
are to substantially upscale restoration and court system (Brown et al. 2015).
efforts in New Zealand? By upscaling, Remnants that occur through farmland While legal protection through pub-
we mean substantially increasing the – including some older regrowth that lic ownership, district planning rules,
area of New Zealand that is subject to often has similar attributes to remnants covenants and other protective mecha-
restorative activities involving tens to – are of vital importance. These areas, nisms is essential to ensure remnants
hundreds of thousands of hectares of which are collectively referred to as are retained (Brown et al. 2015), legal
new restoration. We focus specifically ‘remnants’ here, are all that persist of protection does not guarantee the
on areas that have been used for pas- the pre-agricultural development long-term sustainability of remnants
toral farming as these are the land- ecosystems and are both legacies of (Norton & Reid 2013). In particular,
scapes on which there is the most the past and propagule sources for remnant habitats, irrespective of land
opportunity for substantial biodiversity the future. Protection and manage- tenure, are being degraded by the
gains through upscaling restoration ment of remnant native habitat on pri- effects of fragmentation (small size,
efforts (and comprise some 40% of the vate land is critical as it provides key edge effects, isolation, etc.) and the
New Zealand land area; Dr Jennifer Pan- habitat in those parts of New Zealand ongoing impacts of plant and animal
nell & Prof David Norton, unpublished with the least public conservation land. pest species. In addition, small rem-
data, 2017). While our focus is on New In many parts of New Zealand, there is nants are also vulnerable to the impacts
Zealand, the issues we discuss are likely more remnant habitat on private land of changing climatic conditions (e.g.
to be relevant in many parts of the than there is in the public conservation increasing incidence of droughts). In
world. As a framework for this article, estate, and private land remnants often essence, legal protection of any form
we make eight recommendations that represent ecosystem types that are while important should be seen as the
we believe will assist upscaling restora- under-represented on public land (Dr start of the conservation effort rather
tion efforts: Jennifer Pannell & Prof David Norton, than the endpoint (Norton 1988).
unpublished data, 2017).
1 Retain what is left and manage it
Some form of protection of remnant
properly. Active regrowth of native woody
habitat is essential to ensure remnants
vegetation
2 Before starting restoration, address are retained. In New Zealand, this is
the factors that limit natural regen- often achieved through the district For a variety of reasons, including
eration and hence will also limit planning process where development removal of government subsidies to
any planting. activities such as clearance of habitat clear regenerating vegetation, large
deemed as ecologically ‘significant’ areas of lowland New Zealand are
3 Consider how large-scale plantings
are prohibited (Brown et al. 2015). In actively reverting to native shrubland
can increase strategic linkages and
some instances, government agencies and forest. Many successions are
habitat area, and enhance all-year-
provide funding for purchase and legal through native seral species such as
round food supplies for local fauna
protection of remnants, although non- Kanuka (Kunzea spp.) and T otara
4 Eco-source an ecologically appro- government approaches are more (Podocarpus totara; Smale et al.
priate range of plant species and common and more widely accepted 1997; Bergin & Kimberley 2014),
mycorrhizae. in rural communities (Norton & Reid although successions through exotic
2013). In New Zealand, the Queen Eliz- species towards native dominance are
5 Establish certification for seed and
abeth Second (QEII) National Trust is also widespread (Wilson 1994; Sullivan
seedling supply.
the primary nongovernment organisa- et al. 2007). While much of the focus in
6 Invest in new technologies for tion that is legislated to covenant conservation is on protecting remnants
revegetation. remnant habitat on private land of original ecosystems, regenerating
(www.openspace.org.nz). The QEII vegetation also has important values
7 Adopt best-practice planting and
National Trust has been remarkably and its protection should be a priority,
early management, including appro-
successful with nearly 5000 covenants both legal protection and protection
priate monitoring, to ensure the
covering some 200,000 ha of private of the successional processes. In fact,
long-term success of restoration.
land (Fig. 3). While government- in many parts of New Zealand, the area
8 Integrate all for an optimum result. funded, the QEII National Trust of regenerating native vegetation
ª 2018 Ecological Society of Australia and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 0 NO 0 APRIL 2018 3
FEATURE
greatly exceeds that of remnant natural
habitats (Wilson 1998). Such vegeta-
tion types are the future native forests
that have the potential to play a major
role in landscape-level biodiversity con-
servation by both increasing the total
area of natural habitats, especially of
under-represented ecosystems, and
through improving connectivity (Dr
Jennifer Pannell & Prof David Norton,
unpublished data, 2017).
The New Zealand biota evolved in
the absence of mammalian species
with the exception of three bat spe-
cies, and introduced mammalian her-
bivores and predators are having
unparalleled impacts on native biodi-
versity (Allen & Lee 2006). In farm-
land, exclusion of domestic livestock
is an important first step in remnant
management (Fig. 4), but control of
feral and wild mammals (e.g. deer,
goats, possums, pigs, rats, cats and
stoats) is also essential to protect bio-
diversity values in remnants (Dodd
et al. 2011) and regenerating vegeta-
tion. The New Zealand flora has more
naturalised exotic species than native
species and many of these exotic spe-
cies pose serious threats to remnant
native biodiversity through smother-
ing (e.g. vines) and competition (Tim-
mins & Williams 1991); many exotic
plants also have the ability to redirect
successional processes (McQueen
et al. 2006). Many of these pressures
are exacerbated by the location of
remnants within the agricultural
matrix. Remnants and regenerating
vegetation therefore require ongoing
management if their values are to be
sustained. Without this management,
Figure 3. Distribution of QEII National Trust covenants across New Zealand, superimposed
legal protection alone is insufficient on to a map of the amount of remaining native vegetation (image provided by QEII National Trust).
to ensure the sustainability of native
biodiversity in remnants.
is to identify the factors that have require more effort to remove or con-
2 . B e f o r e S ta r t i n g
led to degradation (Hobbs & Norton trol than biotic stressors (grazing or
Re s to r at io n, A d d r e s s th e
1996). Degrading processes (stres- loss of propagule sources). In many
Fa c t o r s T h at Li m i t N a t u r a l
sors) can result in a variety of ecosys- systems, abiotic and biotic stressors
Re g e n e r a t i o n a n d H e n c e
tem responses, depending on the collectively cause degradation. While
Will Also Limit Any
intensity, duration and scale of the it might be possible to remove one
Planting
impact, and can be both abiotic and stressor that affects, for example, the
The first step before implementing biotic. Abiotic stressors (e.g. changes biotic part of the system (e.g. grazing
any restorative management at a site in hydrology or soil loss) usually animals), this may not result in
4 ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 0 NO 0 APRIL 2018 ª 2018 Ecological Society of Australia and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
FEATURE
extensively cleared areas, can be
effectively unavailable. In addition, a
range of introduced herbivores and
carnivores are present that can limit
the success of any restoration effort
(Dodd et al. 2011). Herbivores such
as European Rabbit (Oryctolagus
c. cuniculus), Feral Goat (Capra hir-
cus), Deer (Cervus spp.) and Brush-
tail Possum (Trichosurus vulpecula)
can severely constrain plant growth;
omnivores such as House Mouse
(Mus musculus) consume seed, while
Feral Pig (Sus scofa) alters soil struc-
ture, and carnivores such as rats (Rat-
tus spp.), Stoat (Mustela ermine) and
Cat (Felis catus) impact native bird
populations that are important for dis-
persing later successional tree species
Figure 4. Exclusion of domestic livestock (Sheep Ovis aries and Cattle Bos tarus, left of fence) to restoration sites.
is essential to sustain native biodiversity in forest remnants, East Cape (David Norton). 3. Consider how large-scale
plantings can increase
strategic linkages and habitat
ecosystem recovery if strong abiotic Microclimates of open pasture sites
area, and enhance all-year-
stressors are also operating (e.g. ele- are very different to those experi-
round food supplies for local
vated nutrient levels or altered hydrol- enced in the temperate rainforests
fauna
ogy) or some parts of the system are that would have dominated prefarm-
missing (mutualists or seed sources). ing (Davies-Colley et al. 2000), and Restoration activities invariably focus
Ecosystems like this may have crossed through competition, pasture grasses on the site, but it is important to con-
ecological thresholds and now exist in limit the plant species that can be sider landscape-scale processes such
alternative stable states (Suding & established. Natural seed sources are as species interactions and dispersal
Hobbs 2009). It is important to recog- often distant and, in the most if we are to sustain biodiversity
nise when restoration can be
achieved by simple removal of stres-
sors and when this alone is insuffi-
cient, and further actions are
required (Hobbs & Norton 1996).
Understanding stressors and imple-
menting appropriate management
are essential for restoration success.
In sites that have been subjected to
a long history of pastoral farming,
which is the most common type of
site available for restoration in New
Zealand (Norton & Miller 2000), a ser-
ies of stressors have the ability to limit
both natural regeneration and restora-
tion. Increased soil P levels as a result
of fertiliser application promote the
dominance of an exotic grass sward
that can limit the success of both nat-
ural regeneration and plantings unless
controlled (Fig. 5). Soils have often Figure 5. Restoration plantings struggle to compete with a thick exotic grass on previously
been eroded and lost their original farmed sites, Tiromoana Bush, Canterbury (David Norton).
biota including mycorrhizae.
ª 2018 Ecological Society of Australia and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 0 NO 0 APRIL 2018 5
FEATURE
(Hobbs & Norton 1996; Norton & natural areas, landscape considera-
4. Eco-source an
Miller 2000). In particular, for many tions are essential in terms of the pro-
E c o lo g i c a l l y A p p r o p r i a t e
mobile species such as T uı (Prosthe- vision of seasonal food resources,
Ra n g e of P l a n t S p e c i e s
madera novaeseelandiae), a hon- including exotic plant species
a n d My c o r r h i z a e
eyeater, and Kerer u (Hemiphaga (Fig. 6), and ‘safe’ sites for nesting
novaeseelandiae), a pigeon, viable (MacLeod et al. 2008). Upscaling the restoration effort is
populations require substantial areas The importance of connectivity going to require an ‘order-of-magni-
of habitat including a full range of sea- cannot be overemphasised, and both tude’ increase in the provision of plant
sonal food resources (MacLeod et al. the location and composition of local material. The current capacity of plant
2008). The importance of spatial scale restoration plantings should be cog- nurseries is insufficient to meet the
is relevant both in terms of where we nisant of ecological processes that projected future demand, and it is
do restoration and the attributes of occur across larger spatial scales. But essential that the necessary increase
restoration plantings (species choice, landscape-scale processes can also be in nursery production does not trade
spatial layout, etc.). Most restoration facilitated by other landscape ele- quantity for quality of plant material.
plantings are patch-focussed and, ments such as plantation forests, Ensuring vegetation quality is criti-
except for those that result in the which can substitute for native forest, cal, both in terms of the genetics of
restoration of large areas, will face improving connectivity between rem- the source material and in the produc-
the same issues that remnant patches nants (Norton 1998). Recent large- tion of plants that are going to be able
face – small in area, edge effects, isola- scale New Zealand conservation initia- to perform well when planted out
tion, outside influences (e.g. fer- tives such as the Banks Peninsula Con- (especially with regard to the develop-
tiliser), exotic plant and animal pest servation Trust’s Wildside Project ment of mycorrhizal relations and suc-
pressure, etc. (Fraser et al. 2015). (Canterbury; www.bpct.org.nz/our- cessional diversity). For plants, eco-
Connectivity at landscape scale is crit- projects?id=30) focus on improving sourcing propagation material is criti-
ical, and individual restoration sites ecological linkages at the catchment cal because it involves a consideration
should be developed with considera- or larger spatial scale through rem- of genetic integrity (i.e. ensuring that
tion to how they can complement nant protection, restoration plantings, plantings represent sufficient individ-
other restoration sites and remnant facilitating natural regeneration, and uals adapted to local environmental
areas in order to enhance connectiv- plant and animal pest control. conditions) and avoids risks
ity, including under future climate
change.
A good New Zealand example of
the importance of connectivity comes
from a 3-year radio-tracking study of
23 North Island Brown Kiwi (Apteryx
mantelli) in Northland (Potter 1990).
North Island Brown Kiwi regularly
cross up to 80 m of pasture between
forest remnants, with the maximum
distance of pasture crossed being
330 m. However, this species can
move between forest patches up to
1.2 km apart so long as forest rem-
nants are available for use as stepping
stones. Targeted restoration is clearly
going to be important to allow North
Island Brown Kiwi to persist in these
agricultural landscapes when the dis-
tance between remnants is >330 m.
Another example involves the native
birds T uı and Kerer
u, both of which
use large areas of native and exotic
habitat (farmland and urban areas; Figure 6. Sustaining Kerer u requires landscape-scale restoration of food resources (including
Campbell et al. 2008). To sustain exotic species such as Tree Lucerne Chamaecytisus palmensis, in this image) and safe nesting
these species outside of protected sites (David Norton).
6 ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 0 NO 0 APRIL 2018 ª 2018 Ecological Society of Australia and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
FEATURE
associated with outbreeding depres- prudent to restrict plantings to mate- is then used in nurseries to enhance
sion, while also ensuring that suffi- rial sourced from the local area or eco- plant growth after establishment in
cient diversity is represented to logical district, but ensuring that the field. While many nurseries make
avoid inbreeding depression and genetic diversity is high by collecting use of commercial mycorrhizal inocu-
enable plants within fragmented seed across a large number of individ- lants, for some species, the best
ecosystems to adapt to a changing cli- uals occurring in as large populations growth occurs when native mycor-
mate. Eco-sourcing typically involves as available and across a range of habi- rhiza are used (Williams et al. 2010).
collecting seed (preferably) from a tats. Nurseries need to be able to pro- Again, the application and nature of
range of habitats within the same eco- vide guarantees to restoration mycorrhizal inoculation is something
logical district, as long as source pop- practitioners about the genetic origins that nurseries should be able to pro-
ulation sizes are sufficiently large to of their restoration plants, perhaps vide assurance on to restoration prac-
represent the high levels of genetic provided in accordance with a titioners.
diversity needed for adaptation much-needed nationally agreed stan- A third vegetation quality issue
(Broadhurst et al. 2008). dard for eco-sourcing. relates to the successional phase of
There has been recent discussion Mycorrhizal inoculation for restora- species that are propagated for
around the importance of considering tion is also important to ensuring veg- restoration. Most restoration projects
a greater degree of genetic variation etation quality (Harris 2009). For utilise short-lived fast-growing woody
to buffer restoration plantings against some species, there is no need for species (early successional species)
future climate change (Broadhurst inoculation prior to planting as myc- to suppress pasture grasses and cre-
et al. 2008; Vander Mijnsbrugge et al. orrhizal infection occurs readily in ate microclimatic conditions that
2010; Hancock et al. 2013). However, the field. However, for other species are suitable for the establishment
the benefits of more remote genetic and especially at sites where there and growth of late-successional spe-
material for climate change adaptation has been a long history of agricultural cies (Smale et al. 2001). Early suc-
need to be weighed up against the land use, the mycorrhizal fungal com- cessional species are also generally
potential negative consequences for munity composition tends to shift easier to source seed from and prop-
both the survival of plantings under towards dominance by the Glomer- agate in the nursery, but do not nec-
local conditions and the implications aceae at the expense of forest mycor- essarily contribute to long-term
of this genetic material for co-adapted rhiza families (Oehl et al. 2003). In forest development. There is clearly
species such as mistletoes (Fig. 7) and these situations, native mycorrhizal a trade-off between species that are
insect herbivores. It therefore seems species can be absent and inoculation cheap, easy to propagate and grow
quickly, suppressing pasture grasses
and other undesirable plants, but
might not live very long, with those
that are longer-lived in the field and
contribute towards the development
of a mature forest canopy, but are
harder and more expensive to prop-
agate. However, many of the late-
successional tree species require
the shelter of early successional spe-
cies to establish and grow, especially
on exposed sites. When dispersal of
later canopy dominants is
constrained, consideration should
be given to either establishing
these species with the initial plant-
ings or undertaking subsequent
enrichment plantings (Tulod et al.
2018).
Planting more diverse assemblages
of early successional species might
Figure 7. The New Zealand mistletoe, Ileostylus micranthus, exhibits local-scale variation in provide more resilience against dis-
host preference (Norton & de Lange 1999) and introduction of novel genetic material even of ease (e.g. myrtle rust) and climatic
the same host species could reduce the mistletoe’s ability to colonise and persist in restoration variations, although many New
plantings (David Norton).
ª 2018 Ecological Society of Australia and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 0 NO 0 APRIL 2018 7FEATURE Zealand early successional species are for restoration is substantially higher. (Smale et al. 1997; Bergin & Kimber- also vulnerable to mammalian her- For example, the average cost of ley 2014). The success of this regener- bivory and this needs to be consid- producing a 1-year-old Radiata Pine ation suggests that direct seeding has ered. Because natural regeneration of (Pinus radiata) seedling for commer- considerable potential. For direct species like Kanuka result in virtual cial forestry in New Zealand can be seeding to be a solution at scale, the monocultures for several decades,
FEATURE
project, a clear set of carefully defined not degrading genetic diversity, rather governments. This includes engaging
objectives and goals for particular than restricting innovation and flexi- with the corporate sector particularly
time periods need to be developed bility. Native forests established after in their increasing interest in offsetting
and the success of the project 1990 can earn carbon credits under carbon emissions. New models of
assessed against them (McDonald the New Zealand Emissions Trading regional biodiversity management pro-
et al. 2016). Monitoring the success Scheme (NZETS; Anonymous 2010) vide exciting opportunities for
or otherwise of plantings is especially and provide some economic return enhanced landscape-level outcomes,
important when it assesses the man- to land that is being restored. and these are all driven from the bot-
agement interventions being used It is equally important to ensure that tom-up (e.g. Reconnecting Northland
and can provide feedback on their the long-term integrity of all restoration and the Banks Peninsula Conservation
efficacy. With upscaling of the restora- projects (plantings and natural regener- Trust). The key is for all parties to work
tion effort and the commitment of ation) is guaranteed. With current together from government agencies
substantial amounts of resources, restoration efforts, and even more so and research institutes through land
obtaining the best outcomes for these with the upscaling envisioned by initia- owners and iwi to local community
investments is essential. tives such as Trees that Count, huge groups. All bring together relevant
Providing an easy-to-use yet robust amounts of resources (capital and vol- expertise and experience, and the out-
monitoring and mapping system is a unteers’ time) is being expended. It is comes for national biodiversity conser-
major objective for Trees That Count. imperative that the biodiversity outputs vation will be much stronger than if
Monitoring needs to be undertaken by from these projects are protected in these groups work in isolation (Norton
those undertaking the restoration and perpetuity or the resources spent will et al. 2016).
should be kept simple but scientifi- be wasted. At present, organisations
cally robust. It is essential for all those such as the QEII National Trust primar-
Conclusions
planting to know what is not work- ily covenant remnant native habitat
ing, and why it is not working, and and are unlikely to have the capacity Upscaling restoration efforts in New
the only way to do this is robust sys- to covenant large areas under restora- Zealand and globally poses many chal-
tems of mapping and monitoring so tion. It may be that new tools are lenges, but the potential gains for bio-
that the lessons learnt can be used required to provide guarantees on the diversity conservation far outweigh
to improve future planting. future security of restoration projects, the costs of tackling these challenges.
and this needs to be urgently sought In this study, we have reviewed what
8 . I n t e g r at e A l l f o r a n to provide both funders (government, we see as some of the challenges fac-
O p t i m u m Re s u lt philanthropy, business, community ing upscaling restoration activities in
If we are to upscale restoration activi- groups, iwi, etc.) and volunteers with New Zealand and have made eight
ties and achieve substantial improve- confidence to be involved in these pro- recommendations that we believe will
ment in the condition and jects. Provisions under the NZETS and assist in meeting this outcome.
sustainability of native biodiversity, various other carbon initiatives such as Addressing these recommendations
then all restoration activities need to the Permanent Forest Sink Initiative will benefit from the development of
be integrated. It is important to con- (Anonymous 2015) provide some pro- robust national guidance on these
sider how remnants of the original tection, while Safe Harbour Agreements issues to assist nurseries, restoration
ecosystems, natural regeneration and (Brown 2016) might be another tool for practitioners and stakeholders (from
restoration plantings can complement doing this. community groups to government
each other across all spatial and tem- Finally, restoration needs to be and nongovernment organisations) to
poral scales, and across both private strongly driven from the bottom-up ensure that we obtain the best out-
and public land. Integrating private through local communities who are come from proposed future invest-
land conservation with public conser- the foundation of many restoration ments in upscaling restoration.
vation land is paramount to provide efforts (Peters et al. 2015; Norton
connectivity of native biodiversity, et al. 2016). But equally, with the
Acknowledgements
particularly across working produc- majority of the million or more hec-
tive landscapes. tares of pastoral hill country that would Our thanks to Brad Case and Rhiannon
The regulatory environment is crit- benefit from restoration in private or Smith for helpful comments on this
ical to fostering large-scale ecological iwi ownership, upscaling of restora- article. The contribution of Norton
restoration. Regulation needs to facili- tion will also require commitment was made through Project 3.3 Enhanc-
tate restoration through grants, tax and resources from large landowners ing the Ecological Function of Native
rebates and carbon credits and allow and iwi, including incentives and Biodiversity in Agroecosystems (New
for appropriate economic use while support from regional and central Zealand’s Biological Heritage National
ª 2018 Ecological Society of Australia and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 0 NO 0 APRIL 2018 9FEATURE
Science Challenge) and funding from Dodd M., Barker G., Burns B. et al. (2011) Resi- Agricultural Landscapes, p. 294. CSIRO Pub-
lience of New Zealand’s native forest frag- lishing, Collingwood, Victoria.
the Tindall Foundation, and that of Ber- ments to impacts of livestock and pest Norton D. A., Young L. M., Byrom A. E. et al.
gin as Technical Advisor to Trees That mammals. New Zealand Journal of Ecology (2016) How do we restore New Zealand’s bio-
Count managed by the Project Crim- 35, 83–95. logical heritage by 2050? Ecological Manage-
Fischer J., Abson D. J., Butsic V. et al. (2014) ment & Restoration 17, 170–179.
son Trust and funded by The Tindall Land sparing versus land sharing: moving for- Oehl F., Sieverding E., Ineichen K., M€ ader P., Bol-
Foundation. The views expressed in wards. Conservation Letters 7, 149–157. ler T. and Wiemken A. (2003) Impact of land
this article do not necessarily reflect Fraser P. L., Ewers R. M. and Cunningham S. (2015) use intensity on the species diversity of
The ecological consequences of habitat loss arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in agroecosys-
the views of Environment Canterbury. and fragmentation in New Zealand and Aus- tems of Central Europe. Applied and Environ-
This study is based on an invited ple- tralia. In: Austral Ark: The State of Wildlife in mental Microbiology 69, 2816–2824.
nary presentation to the Restore, Australia and New Zealand (eds A. Stow, N. Peters M. A., Hamilton D. and Eames C. (2015)
Maclean and G. I. Howell) pp. 45–64. Cam- Action on the ground: a review of community
Regenerate, Revegetate Conference, bridge University Press, Cambridge. environmental groups’ restoration objectives,
held at the University of New England Hancock N., Leishman M. R. and Hughes L. activities and partnerships in New Zealand.
from 5 to 9 February 2017. (2013) Testing the ‘local provenance’ para- New Zealand Journal of Ecology 39, 179–
digm: a common garden experiment in Cum- 189.
berland Plain Woodland, Sydney, Australia. Potter M. A. (1990) Movement of North Island
Restoration Ecology 21, 569–577. brown kiwi (Apteryx australis mantelli)
References Harris J. (2009) Soil microbial communities and between forest remnants. New Zealand Jour-
Allen R. B. and Lee W. G. (eds) (2006) Biological restoration ecology: facilitators or followers. nal of Ecology 14, 17–24.
Invasions in New Zealand, p. 457. Springer- Science 325, 573–775. SER (2004) The SER International Primer on Eco-
Verlag, Berlin. Hobbs R. J. and Norton D. A. (1996) Towards a logical Restoration, p. 16. Society for Ecolog-
Anonymous (2010) A Guide to Forestry in the conceptual framework for restoration ecology. ical Restoration, Washington, D.C.
Emissions Trading Scheme, p. 43. Ministry Restoration Ecology 4, 93–110. Smale M. C., McLeod M. and Smale P. N. (1997)
of Agriculture and Forestry, Wellington. Hua F., Wang X., Zheng X. et al. (2016) Opportu- Vegetation and soil recovery on shallow land-
Anonymous (2015) A Guide to the Permanent For- nities for biodiversity gains under the world’s slide scars in tertiary hill country, East Cape
est Sink Initiative, p. 43. Ministry for Primary largest reforestation programme. Nature region, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal
Industries, Wellington. Communications 7, 12717. https://doi.org/ of Ecology 21, 31–41.
Bergin D. and Gea L. (2007) Native Trees. Plant- 10.1038/ncomms12717. Smale M. C., Whaley P. T. and Smale P. N. (2001)
ing and Early Management for Wood Produc- Leathwick J. R., Overton J. McC. and McLeod M. Ecological restoration of native forest at Ara-
tion. New Zealand Indigenous Tree Bulletin (2003) An environmental domain classification tiatia, North Island, New Zealand. Restoration
no. 3, revised edn, p. 44. Forest Research of New Zealand and its use as a tool for bio- Ecology 9, 28–37.
Institute, Rotorua. diversity management. Conservation Biology Suding K. N. and Hobbs R. J. (2009) Threshold
Bergin D. O. and Kimberley M. O. (2014) Factors 17, 1612–1623. models in restoration and conservation: a
influencing natural regeneration of totara Ledgard N., Charru M. and Davey H. (2008) developing framework. Trends in Ecology &
(Podocarpus totara D. Don) on grazed hill Establishing native species from seed within Evolution 24, 271–279.
country grassland in Northland, New Zealand. exotic grasslands. New Zealand Journal of Sullivan J. J., Williams P. A. and Timmins S. M.
New Zealand Journal of Forestry Science Forestry 53, 23–32. (2007) Secondary forest succession differs
44, 13. MacLeod C. J., Blackwell G., Moller H., Innes J. through naturalised gorse and native k anuka
Broadhurst L. M., Lowe A., Coates D. J. et al. and Powlesland R. (2008) The forgotten near Wellington and Nelson. New Zealand
(2008) Seed supply for broadscale restora- 60%: bird ecology and management in New Journal of Ecology 31, 22–38.
tion: maximising evolutionary potential. Evo- Zealand’s agricultural landscapes. New Zeal- Timmins S. M. and Williams P. A. (1991) Weed
lutionary Applications 1, 587–597. and Journal of Ecology 32, 240–255. numbers in New Zealand’s forest and scrub
Brown M. A. (2016) Pathways to Prosperity. McDonald T., Gann G. D., Jonson J. and Dixon K. reserves. New Zealand Journal of Ecology
Safeguarding Biodiversity in Development, W. (2016) International Standards for the Prac- 15, 153–162.
p. 74. Environmental Defence Society, Auck- tice of Ecological Restoration – Including Prin- Tulod A. M., Norton D. A. and Sealey C. (2018)
land. ciples and Key Concepts, p. 47. Society for Canopy manipulation as a tool for restoring
Brown M. A., Stephens R. T. T., Peart R. and Fed- Ecological Restoration, Washington, D.C. mature forest conifers under an early-succes-
der B. (2015) Vanishing Nature. Facing New McQueen J. C., Tozer W. C. and Clarkson B. D. sional angiosperm canopy. Restoration Ecol-
Zealand’s Biodiversity Crisis, p. 196. Environ- (2006) Consequences of alien N2-fixers on ogy 26. in press.
mental Defence Society, Auckland. vegetation succession in New Zealand. In: Vander Mijnsbrugge K., Bischoff A. and Smith B.
Campbell K. L., Schotborgh H. M., Wilson K.-J. Biological Invasions in New Zealand (eds R. (2010) A question of origin: where and how
and Ogilvie S. C. (2008) Diet of kereru B. Allen and W. G. Lee), pp. 295–306. to collect seed for ecological restoration.
(Hemiphaga novaeseelandiae) in a rural- Springer-Verlag, Berlin. Basic and Applied Ecology 11, 300–311.
urban landscape, Banks Peninsula, New Zeal- Norton D. A. (1988) Managing for the long term. Williams A., Ridgway H. J. and Norton D. A.
and. Notornis 55, 173–183. Forest & Bird 19(2), 32–34. (2010) Growth and competitiveness of the
Ceccon E., Gonz alez E. J. and Martprell C. (2016) Norton D. A. (1998) Native biodiversity conserva- New Zealand tree species Podocarpus cun-
Is direct seeding a biologically viable strategy tion and plantation forestry: options for the ninghamii is reduced by ex-agricultural AMF
for restoring forest ecosystems? Evidences future. New Zealand Forestry 43(2), 34–39. but enhanced by forest AMF. Soil Biology
from a meta-analysis. Land Degradation and Norton D. A. and de Lange P. J. (1999) Host and Biochemistry 43, 339–345.
Development 27, 511–520. specificity in parasitic mistletoes (Loran- Wilson H. D. (1994) Regeneration of native forest
Davies-Colley R. J., Payne G. W. and van Elswijk thaceae) in New Zealand. Functional Ecology on Hinewai Reserve, Banks Peninsula. New
M. (2000) Microclimate gradients across a 7, 551–559. Zealand Journal of Botany 32, 373–383.
forest edge. New Zealand Journal of Ecology Norton D. A. and Miller C. J. (2000) Some issues Wilson H. (1998) Living in Raoul country: the
24, 111–122. and options for the conservation of native bio- changing flora and vegetation of Banks Penin-
Dodd M. B. and Power I. L. (2007) Direct seeding diversity in rural New Zealand. Ecological sula. In: Etienne Raoul and Canterbury Bot-
of native tree and shrub species into New Management & Restoration 1, 29–37. any 1840–1996 (ed. C. J. Burrows), pp.
Zealand hill country pasture. Ecological Man- Norton D. and Reid N. (2013) Nature and Farm- 101–121. Manuka Press, Christchurch.
agement & Restoration 8, 49–55. ing. Sustaining Native Biodiversity in
10 ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 0 NO 0 APRIL 2018 ª 2018 Ecological Society of Australia and John Wiley & Sons Australia, LtdYou can also read
