Recap of
Day 2
Kozub held
a presentation on the different impact of the two common fen restoration
methods rewetting and top-soil removal on the release of methane and the
concentration of inorganic nitrogen and phosphorous. The rewetted sites had a
higher concentrations of inorganic nitrogen and inorganic phosphorous than the
top-soil removal sites had. Interestingly the methane release from the top-soil
removal sites was not only lower than the rewetted sites, but also lower than
the reference site, and comparable to the degraded control site.
Bishoff
held a very thought-provoking presentation based on his research on local
adaptation of plants. Theory suggests that if local adaptations really exist,
than local plants should have higher fitness and perform better on their home field,
compared to other plants that are brought in. The fitness of species should
also decrease with increasing distance from their source population. Bischoff´s
long distance transplant-experiments between different countries in Europe
showed however that although local plants performed better in two cases, the
third case did not show this at all. There were large differences between the
provenances in fitness in the transplant experiment, but there is no general
proof that local genotypes are superior. He stressed that the lack of clear
evidence for local adaptation is not an argument against using local
donor-sites in restoration, since the opposite (superior aliens), can be
detrimental to the local populations in the long term as well.
Scott from
the organization Lifeland held a presentation on how Lifeland produces seeds
for the creation of meadows on abandoned land in the UK, and how the local community
is involved in everything from initially wanting the meadow, to helping with the
sowing and seed collection. It was a great example on how thinking outside the
box, can lead to great education, community involvement and appreciation of
nature in urban areas without very high investments.
No comments:
Post a Comment