Search in video
You can search the video captions for specific words or phrases.
Hide Transcript
Skip transcript
00:12
Welcome everyone.
00:15
Today's speaker in.
00:17
The postdoctoral researcher.
00:22
Working with scanning be
00:28
guessing recently completed
at UC Santa Cruz.
00:34
Research focused on restoration
outcomes and adapt in practice.
00:39
What he was talking about.
00:42
Today, we currently serves as
00:45
the board member for
California is vast and
00:48
then grasping
consideration. Thank you.
00:55
Hi, everyone. Thanks
for having me today.
00:58
And yeah, if you're interested in
grass and research and awards,
01:01
you can also contact me
01:03
because the California
grassland Association
01:05
offers students grant
awards every year and
01:07
that may be something that
is relevant to you all.
01:10
Today, I'll be talking
a little bit more about
01:12
my dissertation work
from UC Santa Cruz,
01:15
where I work to assess
01:17
37 different restored
Coastal grasslands
01:20
from Santa Barbara
to Humboldt County,
01:22
which is about a 1,000
kilometer range and covers
01:25
over two-thirds of the
coast range of our state.
01:29
To do this, I did a
interdisciplinary assessment
01:32
which I'll discuss
briefly in a moment.
01:34
But essentially I combined
01:36
vegetation surveys and
management interviews and data
01:39
to get a better picture of not just
what's happening ecologically,
01:44
but potentially why
we see what we see.
01:47
So before we get started,
01:49
I just want to do some brief
or long acknowledgments
01:52
and thank many,
01:54
many Land practitioners,
preserve land managers,
01:57
restoration practitioners, former
lab members, student workers,
02:02
and advisers that assist
02:05
me in this project and my
numerous funding sources.
02:08
And also acknowledge
that the land on which
02:12
this research was undertaken was
02:14
the unseated territory of
numerous indigenous tribes,
02:17
including the coast, me walk Como.
02:19
I'm a mood state and
a low need selenium,
02:22
Shamash and many others.
02:24
And currently many tribes are
working towards cultural,
02:28
traditional healing
and land stewardship.
02:33
So California's grasslands
are really unique systems.
02:39
They make up 20.
02:41
They make up 25% of
the state's area and
02:46
are important both economically
and ecologically for the state.
02:50
California's grasslands
support 90% of
02:53
the state's endangered and
threatened plant species.
02:55
But oftentimes these habitats are
02:57
overlooked for conservation
and compared to
02:59
other systems like forced because
03:02
they can often be much more
charismatic to start with.
03:05
And oftentimes people don't realize
that a lot of the flowers and
03:09
super blooms that we
see across the state
03:12
are actually supported
by grassland habitats.
03:14
California's coastal
prairies, or grasslands are
03:17
even smaller portion about
03:20
a very thin sliver of
the Californian coast.
03:23
That's a port, a unique
type of grassland.
03:25
These grasslands are typically
dominated by cranial bunch grasses,
03:29
and they often have numerous Forbes
species which are not grasses,
03:32
just wild flowers is typically
another way we call them,
03:35
which tend to be
annual or perennial.
03:38
And there's often a unique diversity
03:40
in these areas because they received
03:42
summertime drought relief through
coastal fog that actually
03:46
contributes water to plant
new string those dry periods,
03:49
allowing some perennial
plants to continue
03:51
growing through the
dry season and also
03:53
supports a unique diversity of
03:55
plants flowering
later in the summer.
03:59
Coastal prairies are also
04:01
increasingly affected
by land development,
04:03
which can directly replace habitats,
04:05
but can also indirectly affect
04:08
Coastal grasslands by increasing
habitat fragmentation,
04:11
changing disturbance patterns and
facilitating non-native species,
04:14
sometimes noxious species invasions.
04:16
And because Coastal grasslands
are often located in
04:19
a legally designated
County coastal zone,
04:21
they often require compensatory or
04:24
legally mandated mitigation
or restoration that is
04:28
required through the law with
04:30
the California Coastal Commission or
04:32
with general county plan documents.
04:38
Oops, sorry.
04:42
More important. Also importantly,
04:46
we are the most diverse
state in the country,
04:50
and we're also one of the most
diverse regions in the world.
04:53
California's a biodiversity hotspot
04:55
with over 5,000 endemic plants.
04:57
Coastal grasslands are special
interests because they host loved
05:01
these rare and unique
grasslands with
05:02
really high herbaceous
plant diversity.
05:04
And some of them you can see
on the screen right here.
05:07
And this is again often because
of their unique conditions.
05:09
We have the Mediterranean climate.
05:11
We have a lot of topographic
variation and diversity.
05:14
And then the summer region also
receives a lot of coastal fog,
05:18
which again supports
unique diversity.
05:20
However, Annual Forbes are
often really hard to restore.
05:24
Which has led to what
we call the perennial
05:25
elevation of California grasslands.
05:28
Which may be also another
important point to consider
05:31
as we continue to work towards
restoring grasslands in the future.
05:34
And so you can see on this
slide, on the previous slide,
05:36
there's a lot of species here,
05:38
and this is only a subset
of all the species
05:40
available that could be present
in close to the grasslands.
05:42
And if we think about the subset of
05:44
species that are being restored,
05:46
causing, so to speak, penalization.
05:48
There is a lot less species.
05:50
And so as we continue to
lose remnant habitat,
05:53
which hosts is high
diversity of species,
05:56
we may be concerned about
what's the future state of
05:59
our state biodiversity
if only some of
06:01
these species are being
used or commonly restored.
06:06
So Restoration,
06:09
some of you are familiar and
maybe some of you aren't.
06:12
But restoration is essentially
the act of recovering
06:16
or rehabilitating degraded or
lost habitat or ecosystem,
06:21
typically to restore
functioning or structure.
06:24
And oftentimes, it can be done
06:26
through multiple ways,
but in grasslands,
06:29
it's often done through
invasive plant control
06:31
and native plant re-introduction
06:33
through planting and
seeding methods.
06:35
Restoration is a growing priority,
06:37
both locally and globally.
06:39
Increasingly, there's
interdisciplinary stakeholder
06:42
meetings that result in
06:43
initiatives that call
for protection and
06:45
restoration about diversity, e.g.
06:48
then we have the convention
of biological diversity,
06:51
which is international UN committee
06:53
that has been active
since the early '90s.
06:55
And they help set Global Goals for
06:57
biodiversity protection to help
07:00
facilitate and promote local
production at the country levels.
07:04
More recently, the UN
also declared 2020 a
07:09
decade for ecological restoration
with ambitious goals,
07:12
like the 30 by 30 Initiative,
07:14
which seeks to conserve 30% of
the earth's surface by 2030,
07:17
which was also locally adopted
by governor Newsome in 2020.
07:21
And although we have lot of
habitat we could protect,
07:24
it's likely that we'll also have to
07:26
undertake some restoration to have
07:28
some high-quality habitat to protect
07:29
within these 30 by 30 initiatives.
07:32
More locally. We also have
the California Coastal Act,
07:35
which was passed in 1976,
07:37
which again also mandates
the restoration of
07:40
coastal areas that are
specifically affected
07:43
by coastal development
or any type of
07:46
activities in the coastal zone
that need to be legally permitted.
07:50
In 2018, we also have
the California about
07:53
diversity initiative
that again places
07:55
greater protections and emphasis on
07:58
the unique diversity we
have here in California.
08:01
Ecosystems and helps make it,
08:04
help makes it a little bit easier
08:06
to undertake conservation
activities in the state.
08:09
Recent studies survey studies
with community members.
08:13
So even shown that local
community members are
08:15
usually even willing to
pay for restoration as
08:18
long as the restoration happens in
08:20
their local area and not
08:22
elsewhere because they also
recognize the benefits.
08:24
So local restoration.
08:27
However, there is a large
issue and restoration,
08:31
which is a variable
outcomes and the fact
08:34
that we don't really know what
08:37
happens to grassland restoration
after it's been implemented.
08:40
Sure, we know a little bit about
08:42
experimental restoration
projects because scientists,
08:46
scientists have money
to plant some plants,
08:49
measure them for five years
and then make a conclusion.
08:52
But with actual projects that were
08:54
implemented by agencies
that do restoration,
08:56
we really have almost no
information about that.
08:59
We have a good assessment
of river effort,
09:01
river restoration
efforts in the country,
09:03
but that's more focused on
hydrological structure.
09:07
And we don't really have many
assessments thinking about, well,
09:10
what happens after you
remove plants or AD plants,
09:12
and what happens to the
outcomes of those areas.
09:16
And this is often because most
restoration projects lack
09:19
funds to conduct rigorous
post-implementation monitoring,
09:22
which prevents them from
knowing whether or not they
09:24
even actually achieved
their project goals.
09:26
This also means that
many projects aren't
09:29
able to apply adaptive
management because there's
09:32
insufficient information
and data about
09:34
previous restoration
and their own project.
09:37
Projects that do have money
often are only able to monitor
09:41
immediately after implementation or
09:44
for a short duration thereafter,
09:45
typically no longer than five years.
09:48
For statutory or legally
mandated projects.
09:51
We may know how successful they were
09:53
up to five years after
they were restored.
09:55
But again, we don't really know
what's happening after that.
09:58
Experimental restoration
studies have
10:01
shown that in a
variety of ecosystems,
10:03
outcomes really vary a lot.
10:05
And so really thinking
about why they
10:08
vary and maybe whether or
10:09
not management perspectives
can help and form.
10:11
This is another approach
that we can take.
10:16
Restoration management is really
10:19
important to think
about in my opinion,
10:21
because restoration,
unlike some activities,
10:23
but a lot of activities
do, but restoration
10:25
specifically requires
direct human intervention.
10:28
And because of that,
10:29
it often is shaped by the person or
10:31
persons undertaking those
restoration activities.
10:34
It's been shown by
various studies that
10:36
socioeconomic and
political factors often
10:39
play a strong defining role in
shaping ecological outcomes.
10:42
And even so, even
more so in projects
10:44
with direct human intervention, e.g.
10:47
the surrounding parcels
and their views and
10:49
perspectives that may
influence the tools and agency
10:52
undertakes to you to conduct
10:54
restoration or maybe even
10:56
limit the tools that
practitioners can use.
10:58
Prescribed fire or herbicides.
11:00
On the other hand, a
land managers interests
11:03
or influence may drive or create
11:05
restoration projects where
uninterested people may
11:08
pursue other types of
conservation projects
11:10
with discretionary funds.
11:12
Somewhere that has access to
11:14
machinery from nearby agricultural
parcels may also be more
11:17
likely to use similar practices as
11:18
nearby farmers even borrow their
equipment and collaborate.
11:22
Whereas other agencies that have
11:24
high staff and volunteer
labor like universities,
11:26
the Golden Gate National Park
and other areas like that,
11:29
can do a lot more hand removal
and a huge volunteer groups to do
11:32
a lot more fine-scale manual work.
11:36
Some practitioners even have
11:38
species preferences or even
landscaping aesthetic preferences,
11:41
which results in differences in how
11:43
they design the
restoration projects,
11:45
what plants they select to use,
11:47
and where they place their
plants in the environment.
11:50
As such, management practices
greatly differ across agencies and
11:54
even sometimes in the same agency,
across different practitioners.
11:58
And accordingly, goals will
also differ for that reason.
12:01
And goals also differ depending
12:03
on whether or not a
project is statutory.
12:05
Again, meaning that
it's legally required,
12:09
or if it's non-statutory,
12:10
essentially meaning that project is
12:12
a voluntary restoration project.
12:14
The commonality that
does continue to tie
12:16
the restoration projects
together though,
12:18
is the fact that they
tend to be fun unlimited.
12:23
It's also hard to address
the variability in
12:26
restoration because of a
critical science practice gap.
12:29
This gap leads to research
and management practice
12:32
that are not always synergistic.
12:33
And this lack of
communication leads to
12:35
experiments that may
also not readily be
12:37
applied to actual problems on the
ground, that management phase.
12:42
And this gap is also,
12:44
this gap is often facilitated
by differing goals of
12:46
research and practice and also
differ different resource levels.
12:50
E.g. research can
generate expensive,
12:52
labor-intensive
suggestions that aren't
12:54
really always feasible for practice.
12:56
And that's because
researchers like e.g.
12:58
here at Davis get million-dollar
grants to conduct
13:01
a five-year study on
13:03
a small parcel of land in
one-by-one meter plots.
13:06
And then practitioners, e.g.
13:08
maybe get $10,000 to
restore ten acres.
13:11
And so there's a huge difference
in resources available, knowable.
13:15
And so the practices
that we think are
13:17
the best practices for management
sometimes just aren't,
13:20
don't make sense to the
people on the ground.
13:22
And if we just talk
to them a little bit,
13:24
sometimes we can address
some of those issues.
13:26
Some of these research
projects are also often
13:29
focus and theoretical
frameworks that are technical
13:31
and not always repairing to
practitioners and managers unless we
13:36
translate it in this gap can also
13:37
be exacerbated by hard
to access research,
13:41
which are often behind
paywalls, if again,
13:43
not directly shared with
managers, which again,
13:46
are also fun unlimited,
so they don't really
13:47
have time to go out to read papers.
13:49
And I can tell you that
from my own experience
13:51
when I did restoration,
13:52
about 80% of my job
was just to go out.
13:54
We'd even as I moved up the ranks,
13:56
we we'd we'd every day, every week.
13:59
And we often don't really
have money to go read
14:02
a paper and then decide
how to manage our land.
14:06
To better understand how coastal
14:08
grassland restoration
outcomes fared.
14:11
Years later, I asked
for basic questions.
14:14
First, does coastal
grassland restoration meet
14:17
project-based goals and
14:18
a standard performance
metric across the state.
14:21
And next is native cover related to
14:23
project age or post,
post implementation age.
14:26
And next, what are
the biggest goals and
14:29
barriers limiting restoration
goals and success?
14:32
And finally, how does
funding and labor
14:35
investment influence
restoration outcomes?
14:38
To answer these questions, identify
14:41
37 restoration projects spanning
14:43
along a 1,000 kilometer gradient
14:45
north-south from Santa
Barbara to Humboldt County.
14:48
To locate projects, I contacted
the university's land trust,
14:52
non-profits, local nature reserves,
14:54
and pretty much anyone else
14:55
you could think of that
might know anything about
14:57
respiration to see if
they had completed
14:59
any restoration
projects in the area.
15:01
I also then reached out to
15:03
known contexts from my
prior experience and
15:05
restoration and ask the people I
15:07
had contacted to give
me referrals as well.
15:10
And in the end, I ended
up contacting about I'm
15:13
200.210 people and which
led me to my 37th projects.
15:21
I later also conducted
interviews which I'll
15:24
talk about shortly that asked
15:26
practitioners to reflect on
15:27
my my vegetation surveys and
then again ask them if I missed
15:31
any projects and could
survey them and then I
15:34
resurvey those sites the
next year when possible.
15:37
My surveys do indicate though,
15:39
that there's maybe up to
15:41
48 sites possible that
I could have surveyed.
15:43
And I was able to survey
about 37 of them,
15:46
which indicates that unlikelihood,
15:48
I've maybe surveyed
about two-thirds of all
15:50
existing restored Coastal
grasslands within this range,
15:52
within its existing rage.
15:54
The sites that I selected were
15:56
at least three years
post-implementation,
15:58
because first-year results
can often very widely,
16:00
plants can grow slow,
16:02
they can experience high mortality.
16:03
You just never know what happens
in the first couple of years.
16:06
I also selected projects that
were larger than an acre
16:08
because restoration doesn't usually
happen on such a small scale.
16:12
And I selected areas that were
specifically Coastal grasslands,
16:16
which mean they receive
summertime coastal fog.
16:19
The projects identified range
16:22
3-30 years
post-implementation by 2019,
16:26
and the sizes range 1-32 acres.
16:31
I conduct a vegetation
surveys in 2019, 2,020.20,
16:35
21 2019, I surveyed the first 32
sites I had identified in 2022.
16:41
I couldn't gain access to
all of these sites because
16:43
of COVID-19 restrictions and timing.
16:45
And I sampled about
20 of these sites.
16:47
In 2021, I surveyed many of
these original 32 sites.
16:51
And then I also
identified new projects,
16:53
about five of them to then study,
16:56
totaling about 34 projects
for that year to serve it.
16:59
I actually identified more projects
that I could have surveyed,
17:02
but they were managed by
what we call statutory
17:05
agencies or legally
mandated projects.
17:08
And they actually denied me
access to survey these areas,
17:11
which I'll talk about a
little bit more later,
17:13
but I can't really tell you what
17:15
happened there since I wasn't there.
17:16
But we can only speculate.
17:19
And then I also asked,
17:21
so at each of these
sites, Absolutely.
17:23
I estimated the absolute plant cover
17:25
of all plant species in
quarter meter quadrats
17:29
every 5 m along 50
meter transects using
17:32
three to 16 transects
ranging scale to cite size.
17:36
I also collected some soil samples
to characterize soils in 2019.
17:40
Before visiting any
of these projects,
17:42
I also conducted project
document analysis
17:46
to better understand what resources
17:48
were available and what
17:50
the goals were and if any
baseline data was collected.
17:53
After that, I conducted
semi-structured interviews with
17:57
practitioners after the first
round of fat surveys in 2019.
18:01
I did this app that way
so I could ask them to
18:04
reflect on the results that I
found for the restoration project.
18:08
To ask them, well,
why do you think this
18:10
was successful or not successful?
18:12
And what do you think
the biggest barriers
18:14
to reaching your goals are?
18:16
Reaching a higher target?
18:17
Might be, I ended up
interviewing about 26 people,
18:21
which is a little bit less
than the total amount
18:23
of agencies or projects I surveyed.
18:25
And that's because
oftentimes one practitioner
18:28
might be responsible
for five projects.
18:31
And in those cases,
18:32
I tried to interview to
practitioners when possible.
18:35
Interviews focused on
the largest barriers
18:38
to achieving restoration goals,
18:39
implementation strategies,
and help fill in information
18:42
for projects that had no
documents or information missing.
18:45
And because this is more
maybe a natural science
18:48
or plant sciences group,
18:51
I also want to mention
that when using
18:52
mixed qualitative and
quantitative methods,
18:54
it's important to remember
that qualitative methods,
18:57
which are social methods,
18:58
can't always be analyzed the
same way quantitative data is,
19:01
and oftentimes is used to provide
19:03
richer context and explanation
for quantitative data analysis.
19:09
So just to start with, summarize,
19:12
we found projects typically had
19:14
non-numeric, non directional goals.
19:17
And that was about
80% of projects and
19:19
only 20% of projects have
numeric time-bound goals.
19:22
And so that would be 25%
cover after five years,
19:27
whereas a directional goal
will just be increased
19:30
native cover or decrease
non native species cover.
19:33
And you may be wondering, well,
19:34
why do we have so many
non-numeric targets?
19:37
And that's because a
lot of these projects,
19:39
so as I mentioned earlier,
are non-statutory,
19:41
which means they're essentially
voluntary and people just
19:44
had some extra time and money
and decided to do restoration.
19:47
And so because they were just doing
19:49
it out of the goodness of
their hearts, so to speak.
19:51
They didn't want to have
such strict criteria
19:54
when they were
evaluating themselves.
19:56
But this does make it hard to
really follow up and evaluate
19:59
what projects to say whether or
not they're successful or not.
20:02
Because e.g.
20:04
if you started with 5% native cover
20:05
and you got to 10% native cover,
20:07
that'd be a success if you're
using project-based schools.
20:10
Which is also why I implemented
a standard performance metric of
20:13
25% native cover and at least six
native species after five years.
20:17
And I'm sure many
of you are thinking
20:19
25% native covers sounds really low,
20:21
and yes, it is low,
20:23
but grasslands actually have
a huge issue with invasion,
20:26
often making it very
difficult to get
20:28
high plant cover in remnant systems.
20:30
The highest cover often only
gets to around 40 to 60% cover.
20:35
And some may think and say that it's
20:39
unreasonable to ask a restoration
project with limited time
20:42
and resources to get
to the same level of
20:45
cover as a under relatively
undegraded system.
20:50
Because there's just been
20:51
so many different
habitat transformations
20:53
that we can't really account for.
20:55
And so that's why I set my cover
goal as 25% native covered.
20:58
It's also in line with
the lower cover goals
21:01
set by statutory or
legally legal agencies
21:04
like the Coastal Commission.
21:06
And also California
gracilis technically are
21:09
classified as native grasslands
21:11
if they have more than
10% native cover.
21:13
And so I thought this would be
21:14
a probably a safe
numbers like to aim for.
21:17
And so great news.
21:19
We found restoration was
pretty much successful at
21:21
reaching project base goals
21:23
and even a standard
performance metric.
21:24
All the two projects,
21:26
95% of projects reached
the project-based schools.
21:29
And again, sometimes reaching your
project bicycles can be easy.
21:32
80% of the projects
across all three years.
21:35
Essentially, we're successful at
21:37
reaching the standard
performance metric of
21:39
25% native cover and at least six
native species after five years.
21:43
And then 6% of the projects,
we're almost there.
21:46
They fell about 5% short
of the cover goal,
21:49
but had enough species richness.
21:51
And then about 13%
of the projects need
21:53
further improvement
in need more work,
21:56
and did not meet our
standard performance metric.
22:02
We found that also great news
22:05
that plant cover is
relatively stable.
22:07
With Project age, we
found native cover
22:10
ranges anywhere 13-79%
at these restored sites.
22:14
Also awesome to hear and see.
22:16
Native richness was
pretty high range 5-60,
22:19
unique native species
within my sampling.
22:22
And we found that native cover,
22:24
although it's not
increasing overtime,
22:25
which would be awesome, is
not decreasing over time,
22:28
which is the most important thing.
22:29
So we don't see
native group project,
22:31
not native cover decreasing
with post-implementation age.
22:35
Important to remember
here that age is
22:38
only a proxy because each project
was not sampled over time.
22:42
They were sampled and
they had a specific age.
22:44
So I'm not going back and reading.
22:46
I did get subcases,
22:47
go back and resample them,
22:48
but not 30 years apart.
22:49
And so when we're looking at this,
22:51
it's really thinking, Okay,
22:52
well this project is five years old.
22:53
This is its native
cover. This project is
22:55
30 years old, this
is its native cover.
22:57
With that type of relationship,
22:58
we don't really see a
decrease in native cover,
23:01
which is a good starting point.
23:03
For Non-Native cover.
23:04
We see the cover ranges
from 20% and 96%,
23:07
50% to 47 non native
species at a site.
23:10
And unfortunately we do here
see a very weak correlation
23:13
with non-Native cover increasing
23:15
with coastal moment
implementation age,
23:17
you will see later is also reflected
in the management interviews.
23:21
But unsurprising because
like I mentioned,
23:23
grasslands here suffer with
23:25
huge issue of competition
and invasive species.
23:28
And so here we see
non native species
23:29
cover is increasing over time,
23:31
which means that we likely
need long-term maintenance to
23:34
handle this increase with
post-implementation project age.
23:42
Unfortunately, we also did find
that non native species cover
23:46
was negatively related to
23:48
native cover and native
species richness,
23:51
which means when there is
higher non-Native cover,
23:53
there was often lower non-Native.
23:55
When there was higher
non-Native cover,
23:57
there was often lower native cover
and native species richness.
24:00
So if we think about the pattern
we saw from the last slide,
24:02
actually still see it.
24:04
If non-native cover is
decreasing over time and there's
24:07
this negative relationship
than over a long enough time,
24:11
we may be expecting that
24:12
native species and richness
will also be decreasing,
24:15
which again indicates that we
24:17
likely need some long-term management
and these types of systems.
24:21
Because grasslands are
disturbance dependent ecosystems.
24:25
And this is the species richness
graph, pretty much the same.
24:30
We did find though on the flip
side that, well, first off,
24:34
we found that financial
investment had no direct effect
24:37
on project metrics like
native species richness,
24:42
native cover, and non-Native cover.
24:44
And this is likely because
financial resources and
24:47
investment was highly
inflated for some projects.
24:50
Because some of them also had
24:52
a huge construction
Pope component, e.g.
24:55
in Mendocino. One of
24:56
the restoration projects was
retiring and lumber mill.
24:59
So they literally had to
dig up asphalt and flight,
25:02
redo the entire bluff and
then they had to dredge
25:05
sands because the soil is so
25:07
Chetty and they had to
basically fill it in up there.
25:10
And so that cost millions of
dollars just to do that component.
25:13
And the act of restoration for
25:14
that project itself
was only like maybe
25:16
like a like a five per
cent of the total budget.
25:20
So it's really hard to
disentangle the role
25:23
of total a financial investment
and restoration success.
25:28
However, we did also take a look at
25:29
it based on maintenance intensity.
25:31
And so here we can
see on these graphs
25:34
respectively native
species richness,
25:36
native cover and non native cover
on the y-axis and on the y-axis,
25:40
x-axis for all of these,
25:42
it's maintenance intensity where
low maintenance intensity is
25:45
either no maintenance at all or very
25:48
low-intensity annual
maintenance event
25:52
where like mowing or a year-round
grazing that's not targeted.
25:56
And so it's just really passive.
25:58
Medium intensity, medium
intensity maintenance.
26:01
Would it be multiple or are
targeted reading events
26:05
and potentially sheep receding
events if those had failed.
26:10
And high-intensity maintenance
is essentially projects
26:13
that had year-round money
for project maintenance.
26:16
We're able to we'd do
targeted leading for
26:18
multiple species multiple
times during the year and
26:21
could replant and receive if they
26:23
desired if their original
plantings failed.
26:27
And so here we can see that
26:29
projects with low maintenance
intensity or sorry,
26:33
projects and medium and high
names intensity typically
26:36
have higher native
species richness and
26:39
hire native species
cover and projects with
26:42
high maintenance intensity also
have lower non-native plant cover.
26:46
And so we can see that even
though post-implementation,
26:50
a non-native cover increases
with post meditation age,
26:53
if we do invest more in maintenance,
26:56
we can potentially
address these issues.
27:00
Some other stuff related
to our survey results.
27:03
Interestingly, we also found that
time increase the confidence of
27:08
practice for practitioners
and achieving
27:10
the restoration goals and
undertaking restoration projects.
27:13
Before 2005, only 10% of
27:16
projects actually
felt that they could
27:17
achieve the goals they had outlined.
27:19
But after 2005, 70% of
27:21
the projects essentially felt like
27:22
they could achieve the
goals they outlined.
27:24
And this means that this is good.
27:26
This means that one,
27:28
our methods are improving and we
27:29
are a bit more competent
in our methods.
27:31
And potentially we're also
sharing information with each
27:34
other to think about how
to improve our practices.
27:37
They also found that 95% of
27:39
the projects received some
type of community support,
27:41
which just meant that the community
27:43
was happy the restoration project
27:45
was happening and they weren't
27:46
actively fighting or
antagonizing against it.
27:51
We also ask practitioners
what they believe
27:55
the biggest barriers to achieving
their restoration goals were,
27:58
and unsurprisingly, 100%
every single practitioner we
28:01
interviewed indicated
invasive species management
28:04
was an issue for restoration.
28:06
84% of projects indicated
that funding was an issue.
28:10
About of those projects,
28:13
74% of them indicated that
if they had more money,
28:15
they would have implemented post
post restoration monitoring.
28:20
34% of the projects
also indicated they had
28:23
a difficulty sourcing sufficient
plant material for restoration.
28:26
And this could be because of
28:27
local genetics and they're
concerned with vocal genetics.
28:30
Or this also could be
because they want to
28:32
use a greater diversity of species,
28:34
but they can't access or
28:36
they don't know how to
source those species.
28:39
One of the most interesting
results from this study,
28:42
in my opinion, is from the surveys.
28:45
88% of these projects
indicated they're using the
28:48
same the same subset of a
species across the entire state.
28:54
And this is particularly concerning
28:57
because it's Coastal
grasslands can host
28:59
over 400 unique native
species that are
29:02
endemic and also more native
29:03
species that aren't, aren't
necessarily endemic.
29:05
And over again, only
restoring these eight species
29:08
commonly across a
1,000 kilometer span,
29:11
which again is from Santa Barbara,
29:12
which is essentially
Southern California,
29:14
all the way to humble than we may be
29:16
concerned about what's going
to happen with our rich,
29:18
bio-diverse plant communities
in the insect communities and
29:23
animal communities and
support as we continue
29:26
to restore habitats and
we lose remnant habitat.
29:29
And this is concerning,
29:32
and this could really
29:33
result in what we call
biotic homogenization,
29:35
which is the reduction
of biological diversity
29:38
through the dominance
of few key species.
29:40
On the flip side,
29:41
it is understandable that
practitioners did use
29:44
these eight key species
29:46
because they know these
species will do well.
29:48
They know they'll grow fast,
29:50
they know they'll survive,
29:51
and there'll be able to reach
their targets in that way.
29:53
So my personal opinion is
I can't really blame them.
29:57
I mean, I'm sure if
we put ourselves in
29:59
their shoes or think
of our own projects,
30:01
it would make sense
because no one wants to
30:02
fail at what they're setting
out to achieve, right?
30:05
So like if I was doing
restoration still,
30:06
I also wouldn't want to fail,
30:08
especially via legal
compliance target.
30:10
And, or if I'm working on a grant
and I'm running this experiment,
30:13
so to speak, I wouldn't
want it to fail
30:15
however that would,
however that may look.
30:17
And so they're just doing their
best with unlimited money,
30:21
they have to really
achieve these goals.
30:24
But that means we need to take
another step back and really think
30:29
about how we're going to
approach restoration in
30:31
the future now that we
know that certain efforts,
30:34
that current efforts are successful,
30:36
but we aren't using enough species.
30:42
Again, on the flip side,
30:45
just like I've mentioned previously,
30:46
increased allocation
and maintenance can
30:48
increase species richness
that we find at a site.
30:52
But we also find that
increasing the number of
30:55
restoration species or the number of
30:56
plant species you restore
use in a project.
30:59
Also increase off our office.
31:01
Also related to higher
species richness,
31:03
which is in the far
graph and graph seat.
31:07
Then in graph B, you can see
that using more species though,
31:11
is related to higher project costs.
31:14
So we're getting back to money
31:16
and it's really about how
you invest your money.
31:19
So as I mentioned,
31:20
some projects have
been inflated costs,
31:22
but we did have more
funding for maintenance.
31:24
If we had more funding to
diversity of ice species use,
31:27
we could potentially counter
31:28
biotic homogenization
from restoration.
31:31
Then graph a, it's just
kind of showing you
31:33
how many species do practitioners
typically use in a project,
31:37
you can see a good amount of
31:38
products actually
only use one species.
31:40
Strangely, no projects
use two species,
31:43
and most projects use
three to six species,
31:45
will have a very few amount of
31:47
projects using more
than six species.
31:51
So just to remind everyone,
31:53
it's statutory projects are
31:54
those that are legally mandated
and non-statutory projects
31:57
are not mandatory and
essentially voluntary.
32:00
We actually were able to serve
32:02
a more voluntary projects
and statutory projects,
32:04
even though we identified
an equivalent number
32:07
of statutory and voluntary
projects across the state,
32:10
about 20 for each.
32:11
However, like I mentioned,
32:13
some of the statutory projects,
32:15
five out of the eight newly
identified statutory projects
32:18
denied access and I couldn't
32:20
go and survey the plant
communities there.
32:22
And like my visor tells me,
32:25
I can't tell anyone what I
think is happening there,
32:28
but I think we can all make
our own assumptions and.
32:31
About what potentially happening at
32:32
these places where
they don't want us to
32:34
come and look at the
restoration efforts.
32:37
There are, of course,
methods where you can
32:39
go and get access
through the county.
32:41
And I did do that. But oftentimes,
32:44
by the time you get access,
32:46
it's really slow and the plants
don't get access is late May,
32:50
early June, they're
all pretty much dead.
32:52
I can identify some things,
32:53
but it's pretty hard if
they've been walked on
32:55
to do forensic botany, so to speak.
32:58
Interestingly, we found that
voluntary projects and not in
33:02
statutory projects
actually achieved similar
33:04
native and non-native species cover.
33:06
So that means these projects
that are not legally required,
33:09
that are just being done
under basically out of
33:11
passion and extra
money are achieving
33:14
similar results as
legally required projects
33:17
which likely have a lot more
money invested by developers,
33:20
which means voluntary
projects have some type of
33:23
a method or approach that's
really benefiting their success.
33:27
Other literature indicates
that this could be
33:29
because voluntary projects have
a greater intrinsic passion,
33:32
so to speak, for
undertaking these projects,
33:35
which could also motivate them
33:36
to basically have
higher-quality projects.
33:39
Interestingly, voluntary
projects also had
33:42
higher species richness compared to
33:44
non comparative statutory projects.
33:46
So not only are they achieving
33:48
similar targets in terms
of non-Native cover,
33:50
they're actually surpassing them
in terms of species diversity,
33:54
which I think is also
very interesting.
33:56
No voluntary project
manager ever denied access
33:59
because they were always happy to
34:01
find out what happened
with our project.
34:03
And like I mentioned,
about a third of
34:05
the statutory projects
denied us access.
34:07
One other concerning issue that
we may want to think about
34:10
is that some statutory
projects indicated
34:13
that the regulatory
agency actually lowered
34:16
their compliance target
after they didn't reach it.
34:19
In some cases, it made
sense to me because they
34:22
had set an unreasonable
goal of 80% native cover.
34:25
They lowered it to 50%
native cover and then
34:27
that project reach their
target, which I think is fine.
34:29
But in other cases,
the agency has set
34:31
a 25% native cover and then lower
the goal to 5% native cover,
34:35
which I think is maybe not as fine.
34:37
And then begs the question of, well,
34:40
if we're using restoration as
mitigation and biodiversity offsets,
34:44
how accountable are we being with
monitoring, with compliance?
34:50
And how can we address some of
34:53
these maybe potentially
concerning issues in the future,
34:55
especially since
we're only one using
34:57
a very limited amount of species.
34:59
And two, we may be lowering
our targets after the fact.
35:04
So just to summarize,
35:07
the restoration is large,
35:08
the successful at reaching
project-based goals,
35:10
and a standard performance metric.
35:12
And like I said,
35:13
while I think about it is
we're on the first row.
35:16
We're at the first step where
restoration is really new.
35:20
Restoration didn't really
begin until the '80s.
35:23
And so it's one of
the younger sciences.
35:27
And so I looked at this
as a positive first step.
35:29
We know restoration is successful.
35:31
Now we need to really
think about how can
35:33
we address these issues
with statutory projects,
35:36
changing goals into
diversifying species.
35:39
That's kinda the next step,
35:40
but it's not that we should discount
35:42
the progress we're
making though, also.
35:46
Because like I said,
No one wants to fail.
35:49
Um, and then another thing is
35:51
really thinking about
invasive species control.
35:53
It's been a problem for 40 years.
35:55
It's still a problem
no matter how much we
35:57
do research and we really need to
35:59
figure out way effective
strategies to really
36:01
approach some of these
issues in the future.
36:03
Which may be some people in
this room are thinking about.
36:07
There's also obstacles to
increasing regional diversity.
36:10
And this is often, like I mentioned,
36:12
because of risk aversion.
36:13
No one wants to fail at anything
they're setting out to achieve.
36:16
So it makes sense to me that they're
36:17
using these species that
they know will work.
36:19
But that means as scientists
and other producers,
36:23
we need to think about
how can we provide
36:25
more information on
species that aren't used.
36:27
So producers like hetero
farms and other native
36:30
farm see producers can
36:32
recommend these species
for certain contexts.
36:34
Because when I talked
to them, they tell
36:36
me they have all these
species available,
36:38
but they can't recommend them
because their business also,
36:40
and they have to make money and
they can't recommend species,
36:44
they don't know what word for sure.
36:45
We also need more information
about these species.
36:48
We need to be able to know how to
36:49
grow them because some
of these plants have
36:51
special propagation protocols or
36:54
special germination cues like e.g.
36:57
cactus up lutea has to go
through the gut of coyote
37:00
or has to be rinsed and sulfuric
acid for it to germinate.
37:04
And there's a bunch of
random small things like
37:06
that that we don't always know
unless we share information.
37:09
And the fact that practitioners
are all using species across,
37:14
across the entire state.
37:16
The same species also
indicates they're not
37:18
really communicating
or coordinating.
37:21
And when I share these
results with them,
37:22
they are actually all
really concerned.
37:24
And now we're trying to think about
37:25
how can we coordinate these efforts.
37:28
And that's something I'm
working towards in the future,
37:30
is creating a statewide crass
and restoration network.
37:34
So to summarize, again,
37:36
more Restoration need more money,
37:39
but not just the money thrown at it.
37:41
Money that's allocated
to specific processes
37:43
that we know will increase
diversity and success,
37:47
like maintenance intensity and
also increasing the species you
37:52
We likely also need to
allocate funding for
37:54
long-term maintenance
and restoration because
37:58
grasslands or disturbance
dependent ecosystems and
38:02
Beijing is a huge issue and we know
38:04
maintenance can help solve
some of these issues.
38:06
We also saw or time
non-Native cover increases,
38:09
which means we need work
38:12
and labor and maintenance
to basically address that.
38:14
We also need to think
about how we're going to
38:16
address some of these statutory
requirements for these mitigate,
38:21
mitigate Tory restoration
projects that aren't
38:23
allowing access that are
changing their goals.
38:26
And then potentially expand
38:30
research and production
of OSU species.
38:32
We could do that
potentially by starting
38:33
a seat exchange program in
which they already actually
38:37
done in Brazil to diversify
38:39
species use of different
tropical trees.
38:41
And also Brazil,
apparently a leader and
38:44
restoration laws and policies
have also implemented,
38:47
implemented mitigation laws where
38:50
practitioners may be required to use
38:52
more species than
they actually have to
38:54
observe in their
restoration project.
38:57
So this can give some practitioners
38:59
flexibility and the species
they use and not have
39:01
to feel so risk averse to one
of the species they select for,
39:05
that, they select
failing, so to speak.
39:08
Give them some flexibility.
39:12
With that.
39:13
I want to thank you
all for listening
39:15
and I am happy to
take any questions.
39:18
Here is type of okra,
our state grass,
39:20
purple needle grass, and here's
39:22
my cat who loves to eat
it and then throw it up.
39:25
And it also has an Instagram page
if you didn't know. Thank you.
39:35
Yes. Why don't I mentioned it,
39:41
but why is it that native
grassland or decreasing?
39:50
Is it mainly because
39:51
invasive species that are
establishing the climate change,
39:55
what are the factors that
actually lead to decreased?
39:58
Sure.
39:59
So the question is,
40:00
what's leading to a decrease in
40:02
native species diversity
in California grasslands.
40:05
And so essentially, it's
combination of all those factors.
40:09
At a base level,
40:10
changing land uses is the biggest,
40:13
biggest issue that threatens
native biodiversity.
40:17
Oftentimes have
attached directly loss.
40:20
Habitat is fragmented
and that can affect
40:22
gene flow and plants
excess in the long term.
40:26
Changing climate is causing
species shifts in range shifts.
40:30
But with habitat fragmentation,
40:32
species sometimes can't move.
40:34
Sometimes they can't
move fast enough,
40:35
and those are all issues.
40:38
The other issue when we
think about restoration is
40:41
that oftentimes we
don't know where to
40:44
collect these species to
use and restore them.
40:46
And so only a subset of
them are being restored.
40:48
We don't know how
well they respond to
40:50
different environmental
stressors like drought.
40:52
Whereas we know purple
Neil graphs will likely
40:55
survive and then grow better
and then grow another year.
40:59
And yeah, I'm not sure
if your question Great.
41:10
The most proud to show you
41:12
regarding maintenance scatter
wondering at that yet,
41:19
but having rights overtime.
41:22
Maybe Charles, I guess,
41:25
or maybe just hypothesize whether
41:27
the economic impact
for our highlights,
41:33
some kind of like show
doesn't quit without
41:37
becomes viable option for
a long time and maybe
41:42
having to continually add
frustration that it's all white.
42:01
Yeah, No. I think you're
42:05
asking if there are any
studies that are looking at
42:11
the role of long-term
maintenance and
42:14
the role of intense maintenance to
42:16
start with versus stronger
maintenance to start
42:18
with versus later on in
the project, so to speak.
42:21
So no, there's not many
projects that assess that
42:25
because a lot of times it's hard
to identify restoration projects.
42:30
And so that's why they're
often hasn't been
42:32
like a large assessment like this.
42:34
And then oftentimes it's hard
to get management data like
42:38
maintenance intensity and
stuff like that with how
42:40
approximating Aida
approximate in these cases.
42:42
Because there's not
good documentation.
42:44
And in other instances,
42:47
it's really hard to study also just
42:49
because there's not really money
for long-term maintenance.
42:52
And so it's hard to kind of
explore these questions.
42:55
At a research level.
42:57
Like for scientists,
42:58
funding periods are typically
three to five years.
43:01
And so that makes it hard
to stay long-term projects,
43:04
I guess through the trajectory
of someone's career,
43:07
they could come back and follow up
43:08
30 years later on
43:10
a big grant and I'm sure
they would get that, but
43:12
Not as many has many of those
things have happened yet.
43:15
And because like as I
mentioned, restoration
43:17
is relatively, relatively young.
43:19
And so it's hard to
follow up in that way.
43:22
And long-term maintenance, I
43:24
think even if you invest a lot
of maintenance at the beginning,
43:27
I think in the long term
you still need maintenance.
43:29
And this kind of addresses the other
43:30
question that I forgot to add two,
43:32
because grasslands evolve to
43:34
a periodic disturbance in
California, we used to,
43:37
Native Americans used to burn
43:39
the grasslands every two to
five years to keep it open,
43:43
to keep it productive,
43:44
to promote certain species.
43:46
We also used to have
large grazing ungulates
43:48
that are no longer
present and extinct.
43:50
And those created disturbances
and grasslands that allowed for
43:53
greater diversity and also far
more self-sustaining maintenance,
43:57
which we can't implement anymore,
44:00
which is also leading
to their decrease.
44:02
But long-term maintenance
would help with that.
44:04
And that might be that might not be
44:07
as intense maintenance in the
long term alone, one online.
44:12
There's an online question
from Claire Mary.
44:16
She asks, great
presentation, Justin,
44:18
I'm wondering how
widespread herbicide use
44:21
was for controlling interface
use in these projects.
44:25
And practitioners are looking
barriers for using herbicides.
44:30
Example, public opinion.
44:32
Yeah. So herbicide so
44:36
I can't I can't tell you exactly
how many projects use herbicides.
44:39
I would say about half the
projects using herbicide.
44:42
It's usually a really big
concern with the public.
44:45
And sometimes it is
what practitioners to.
44:48
But I think a lot of people that
have done management and removal,
44:52
you will know that it's
really impossible to do
44:56
hand removal by herself of a really
large area, maybe on one acre.
45:00
But when you get to ten acre,
45:02
it's getting really hard.
45:03
When you get to 30 acres, 40 years.
45:05
It's almost impossible to
manage projects that are large,
45:08
often used herbicide
or maybe mowing,
45:10
but usually herbicide is
45:12
unfortunately the most
effective thing currently.
45:15
And so I would say probably
45:18
about 60% of the
projects use herbicides.
45:21
I would say not all
of them are limited,
45:23
but they did where they're not
allowed to use herbicides.
45:26
They didn't use herbicides,
45:28
so they didn't meet those barriers.
45:30
And they just had to deal with
it and they use other methods,
45:33
but sometimes they're
not as effective.
45:36
You mentioned that you
are looking at sorry.
45:45
Are you able to talk to
any of the actual Leon's,
45:54
work out the area and
people like to or
45:57
are private or how to return
management of these areas.
46:06
Yeah, so that's a really rare I
mean, it's really rare right now.
46:11
So most of the restoration
projects that I know of that
46:14
indigenous tribes are responsible
46:15
for our completed by the AMA mucin,
46:18
which are federally recognized
tribe apart they'll only band.
46:21
And that's really in
the Central Coast area
46:24
around Santa Cruz down to pinnacles.
46:26
And they do a lot of restoration.
46:28
However, pinnacles is a little
bit to inland from my study.
46:31
Then the restoration they do alone.
46:34
A highway one from between
Santa Cruz to San Francisco
46:39
is only maintenance like
weeding and invasive control.
46:44
And my projects, we're
only looking at plants
46:46
about projects that were
actively planted her seated,
46:49
since those are the
most intensive efforts.
46:50
So at this point, I didn't
really serve any of those sites.
46:53
I did talk to people
from all my mucin tribe.
46:56
Not as a formal part of
46:58
the interview because I
didn't survey their projects.
47:00
But there are different ways
that we can support them.
47:04
They are, they are working
towards restoration.
47:06
And there were actually
that Tribal Band is
47:09
working a lot towards
restoration activities more than
47:11
some other groups that I know of
Because they have some access to
47:13
do so when they work
with UCSC to do so.
47:16
And the state parks and
then up and humble,
47:18
we also have a couple
of tribal groups,
47:21
part of the tribe that
also do restoration work.
47:24
But at that time that
47:25
the restoration projects were not
hold enough for me to assess.
47:32
Question. Competent,
you add one piece,
47:37
innovations, how that
makes them a cool word.
47:42
And is there a common
theme across what else?
47:46
Yeah. I mean, one of the
biggest issues is that that
47:49
grassland habitats are really
open and they don't have
47:52
what I would call environmental
filters as much so as
47:55
other ecosystems like
wetlands or forest wetlands,
47:59
they regulate in a
day and flood which
48:01
prevent invasion of
a lot of species.
48:03
Forest are heavily shaded,
48:04
which also prevent invasion
of a lot of species.
48:06
Whereas grasslands or just open
and anything that can grow fast,
48:10
as fast as possible
and produce a lot of
48:12
seeds which are using these problem,
48:14
problematic species are the
ones that usually takeover.
48:17
And so they're usually fast-growing.
48:19
They grow tall, they
produce a lot of seeds,
48:21
and they can survive
a lot of stress.
48:30
Well, there are no more questions.
48:33
Thank you, everyone.
48:44
Thank you, everyone. On Zoom.
48:46
I'm gonna go ahead and
end the meeting now.
48:49
Please help yourself.
49:02
I just wanted to say hello.
49:05
I'm trying to place one has
been really interesting.
49:09
Oh, thank you.
49:09
Yeah.
49:10
Thank you so much for presenting.
49:11
Yeah, of course.
49:12
I'm wondering if can I get
a photo of you together?
49:17
Just like, you know, like
49:20
something that is going to
happen in the grasslands,
49:25
california, and those
are the reasons.
49:27
Do you think that won't
happen this year?
49:31
It's hard to say that if it happens,
49:33
there'll probably be
late March or April.
49:35
Probably doesn't matter whether
not going to happen if you
49:38
go to caries uncle
and you're going to
49:39
see amazing wildflower bouquet.
49:41
There's two problems
there every year.
49:42
Where's that Caruso claim?
49:44
It's a national monument.
49:45
It's between San Luis
Obispo in Kern County and
49:47
that's how you can
camp anywhere there.
49:50
It's beautiful. I definitely
recommend checking out that place.
49:53
And that always has lovers.
49:54
Okay, Then yeah, I was
thinking of buying.
49:57
Definitely. Oh yeah, Death
Valley is beautiful too,
49:59
but it's depends on the rain year
and it was a super bloom year.
50:03
It usually happens in late
February, early March.
50:07
Like this. It'd be it'd be
ending around now. Okay.
50:10
Alright. I'll see one workplace.
50:12
It's not a coastal area,
50:14
but Table Mountain County.
50:17
Fabulous. Yeah, that's
not postal little bit.
50:20
It's very beautiful.
50:22
But people are discovering these
things and all of a sudden,
50:26
there's just way too
many people. Yeah.
50:28
That's the sad part of it.
50:31
Yeah.
50:32
Yeah.
50:34
Yeah. Yeah.
50:35
Sorry. What was that first place?
50:36
Theresa. Theresa.
50:38
How are you doing?
50:43
Great work. Thank you.
51:00
Oh, what was that when
you control the meeting?
51:05
I would ask Rob about that.
51:07
I don't know anything about
using that thing. Okay.
51:13
Yeah.
51:15
So do we have anybody want
to shout it out here?
51:18
I said it down here.
Sorry. That's okay.
51:21
That's good.
51:23
Camera.
51:25
Okay. It's still pretty good.
51:48
Jennifer, not here.
51:50
No.
51:51
I already gave I gave this
dog reason like in October
51:53
for the ecology or
Ian, I don't know.
51:56
He called it an evolution seminar or
51:58
something. She was there already.
51:59
And also I've given this, she might
have attended my dissertation,
52:02
talked to get into stock a few
top so a lot of different places.
52:05
Okay.
52:06
Yeah. Okay.
52:06
So as I recall,
52:08
It's okay for us to
post it publicly.
52:10
I think this will be let me get
52:12
a photo of the two of
you together. All right?
52:15
Yeah.
52:15
Frank, who intended to
just come right over here?
52:18
Right there's perfect. Okay.
52:26
123.
52:28
Thank you so much for having me.
Resume AutoScroll
Luong 3-8-23
From Robert Kerner
views
comments