Fig 7 - uploaded by Stephen Elliott
Content may be subject to copyright.
3 Before and After. ( a ) BEFORE-Deforested, cultivated, abandoned and burnt, a typical plot requiring forest restoration in Doi Suthep-Pui National Park. ( b ) AFTER-6½ years after planting with 29 framework tree species, this plot has already developed a multilayered canopy and a dense carpet of leaf litter has replaced the herbaceous weeds
Source publication
This paper describes a forest restoration research project in Doi Suthep-Pui National Park, N. Thailand, which successfully combined the needs of science with those of local villagers. Field trials were established by Chiang Mai University’s Forest Restoration Research Unit (FORRU-CMU) to test the framework species method of forest restoration, in...
Citations
... The enrichment of restored forests with locally useful plants, like the ones reported and prioritised here, can potentially generate reciprocal effects between locally driven economic development and forest conservation (Georgiadis, 2008). As long as sustainable management and harvesting practices are maintained, the reconciliation of scientific objectives with everyday needs of the community may be the defining success factor for ecological restoration projects (Di Sacco et al., 2021;Elliott et al., 2012;Gann et al., 2019) and sustainable rural development. The observed subsistence and option value of wild plants in Mae Klang Luang is yet to be researched (Faith, 2021) to enable traditional ecological knowledge to drive strategies for biodiversity conservation, poverty reduction and climate resilience. ...
Societal Impact Statement
Global biodiversity is eroding at alarming rates due to anthropogenic factors, such as climate change and unsustainable land use management. These interrelated challenges often push forest ecosystems to their limits, leading many species to disappear before their characteristics and potential are explored. As a result, indigenous rural communities inhabiting the world's biodiversity hotspots are losing a vital resource that supports their subsistence and livelihoods against persistent poverty. This research documents traditional ecological knowledge of a Karen community inside the Doi Inthanon National Park, Northern Thailand, reporting ethnobotanical uses of 125 plant taxa. It provides a ranking of culturally important trees that can inform the selection of framework species for ecosystem restoration and sustainable development in the region's montane forests.
Summary
Climate change, population growth and persistent poverty are applying pressure to the world's most fragile ecosystems and biodiversity hotspots in unprecedented ways. There is an urgent need to document species that provide important ecological services and contribute to overall human quality of life.
Participatory rural appraisal tools and collection of herbarium specimens were used to elicit ethnobotanical knowledge of an ethnic community inside the mountain forest of Northern Thailand. Statistical analysis was performed on the basis of quantitative indices to rank the cultural significance of the reported species in a Karen community inside Doi Inthanon National Park, Northern Thailand.
This article presents an ethnobotanical inventory of 125 plants, including data on important botanical families, use categories and useful plant parts. A prioritisation of 30 culturally important tree species is attempted on the basis of four quantitative indices.
Most of the reported plants are neglected and underutilised in need of further research and development for the diversification of agriculture, diets, livelihoods and landscapes. The integration of cultural criteria in the selection of framework species for ecosystem restoration embeds local community needs in conservation efforts, increasing their potential for success and fostering an integrated approach to sustainable development.
... One of the goals of the Global Partnership on Forest Landscape Restoration (GPFLR) is to develop and maintain a learning network of FLR projects (van Oosten, 2013). While some knowledge transfer can occur using electronic media (web sites, email, etc.), the most effective transfer occurs in face-to-face encounters augmented by local demonstrations of effective practices (Elliott et al., 2012;Gardiner et al., 2008). ...
... x SLN Improve timber productivity (Chazdon, 2015), or may require only remedial measure such as enrichment planting (Ådjers et al., 1995;Elliott et al., 2012). Other policy reforms implemented at the stand, landscape, or national level to reduce or avoid forest degradation include securing tenure, implementing sustainable landscape (ecosystem) and forest management, and effective protection. ...
... Just as restoration goals should be scientifically grounded, dynamic, flexible, project specific, and realistic, future working definitions of ''native'' may need to be similarly conditioned (Shackelford et al., 2013). Reconstruction Native recolonization Re-establish hydrologic connectivity; physical processes Friedman et al. (1995), Stanford et al. (1996), Roni et al. (2002), Klimas et al. (2009), Hughes et al. (2012 and Jarzemsky et al. (2013) Afforestation, whole area Site preparation; plant or direct seed natives or non-natives Stanturf et al. (1998Stanturf et al. ( , 2000, Allen et al. (2001), Lockhart et al. (2003), Löf et al. (2004), Gardiner and Oliver (2005), Groninger (2005), Jõgiste et al. (2005), Lee and Suh (2005), Weber (2005), Ren et al. (2007), Rey Benayas et al. (2008), Weber et al. (2008Weber et al. ( , 2011, Onaindia andMitxelena (2009), Dey et al. (2010), Booth (2012), Harper et al. (2012) and Xi et al. (2012) Interplant; nurse crop; fast/slow growing natives or non-natives; inter-plant vegetables Arnalds et al. (1987), Ashton et al. (1997), Gardiner et al. (2004), Aradóttir (2005), Lamb et al. (2005), McNamara et al. (2006, Nichols and Carpenter (2006), Blay et al. (2008), Stanturf et al. (2009), Blay (2012, Chazdon (2013) and Douterlungne and Thomas (2013) Plant mixtures of natives; framework species method Ashton et al. (2001), Leopold et al. (2001), Blakesley et al. (2002), Elliott et al. (2003), de Souza and Batista (2004), Lockhart et al. (2006Lockhart et al. ( , 2008, Lamb (2011) and Corbin and Holl (2012) Afforestation, partial area Nucleation, cluster Schönenberger (2001), Manning et al. (2006), Zahawi (2008), Zahawi andHoll (2009), Holl et al. (2011), Corbin and Holl (2012), Díaz-Rodríguez et al. (2012) and Saha et al. (2012) Afforestation, linear planting Site preparation; plant or direct seed natives or non-natives Newmark (1993), Mann and Plummer (1995), Schultz et al. (1995), Parkyn et al. (2003), Kindlmann and Burel (2008), Mize et al. (2008) and Bentrup et al. (2012) Simple mixtures Interplant; fast/slow growing; natives or non-natives Pommerening and Murphy (2004) and Stanturf et al. (2009) Complex mixtures Plant mixtures of natives or nonnatives; planting group method, framework species method; rainforestation Blakesley et al. (2002), Elliott et al. (2003Elliott et al. ( , 2012, Göltenboth and Hutter (2004), Kamada (2005), Nave and Rodrigues (2007), Lockhart et al. (2008), Rodrigues et al. (2009Rodrigues et al. ( , 2011 and Lamb (2011) Degraded forest (cleared or burned, lacking desired species) ...
... Conversion Clear fell and plant all desired species Zerbe (2002), Thompson et al. (2003), Spiecker et al. (2004), Hansen and Spiecker (2005), Harmer et al. (2005Harmer et al. ( , 2011) Enrichment planting; framework species method Montagnini et al. (1997), Elliott et al. (2003Elliott et al. ( , 2012 Assisted natural regeneration; farmer assisted natural regeneration Hardwick et al. (1997), Friday et al. (1999), Otsamo (2000), Kobayashi (2004), van Noordwijk et al. (2008 and Haglund et al. (2011) Blowdown; with or without salvage logging; plant desired species Drouineau et al. (2000), Spiecker et al. (2004), Hahn et al. (2005), Brunner et al. (2006, Harmer and Morgan (2009) and Morimoto et al. (2011) Agroforestry methods Murgueitio et al. (2011), Friday et al. (1999, Schlönvoigt and Beer (2001), Khamzina et al. (2006), Sileshi et al. (2007), Blay et al. (2008), van Noordwijk et al. (2008, Tabuti et al. (2011), Blay (2012, Blinn et al. (2013), Roshetko et al. (2013) and Mbow et al. (2014) Transformation Partial overstory removal; underplanting; natural regeneration Malcolm et al. (2001), Nyland (2003, Kobayashi (2004), Hahn et al. (2005), Löf et al. (2005), Gardiner and Yeiser (2006), Paquette et al. (2006), Pommerening (2006), Madsen and Hahn (2008) and Schneider (2010) Reforestation (post-fire restoration) ...
... Choice of plant material is a function of what material is available, management objectives, seedling quality, ease of planting, and site conditions. Examples of appropriate material for specific objectives can be found for sites in Denmark in (Kjaer et al., 2005), for Populus plantations globally (Stanturf and van Oosten, 2014) and for framework species planting in Thailand (Elliott et al., 2012). Commonly used plant materials are illustrated in Fig. 5. Often, the goal for restoration plantings is different from traditional reforestation and commercially available material may not be suitable (Schröder and Prasse, 2013). ...
The forest restoration challenge (globally 2 billion ha) and the prospect of changing climate with increasing frequency of extreme events argues for approaching restoration from a functional and landscape perspective. Because the practice of restoration utilizes many techniques common to silviculture, no clear line separates ordinary forestry practices from restoration. The distinction may be that extra-ordinary activities are required in the face of degraded, damaged, or destroyed ecosystems. Restoration is driven by the desire to increase sustainability of ecosystems and their services and restoration is likely to have multiple goals arising from the motivations of those involved. The process of setting restoration objectives translates vague goals into feasible, measurable targets and ultimately actions on the ground. Our objective for this review is to synthesize the science underpinning contemporary approaches to forest restoration practice. We focus on methods and present them within a coherent terminology of four restoration strategies: rehabilitation, reconstruction, reclamation, and replacement. While not a consensus terminology, these terms have a logical foundation. Rehabilitation restores desired species composition, structure, or processes to a degraded ecosystem. Reconstruction restores native plant communities on land recently in other resource uses, such as agriculture. Reclamation restores severely degraded land generally devoid of vegetation, often the result of resource extraction, such as mining. Replacement of species (or their locally-adapted genotypes) with new species (or new genotypes) is a response to climate change. Restoration methods are presented as available tools; because adding vegetation is an effective restoration technique, the discussion of methods begins with a description of available plant materials. We then discuss altering composition under different initial overstory conditions, including deployment methods depending upon whether or not an overstory is present, how much of the landscape will be restored, and the complexity of the planting design. We present some major approaches for altering structure in degraded forest stands, and describe approaches for restoration of two key ecosystem processes, fire and flooding. Although we consider stand-level designs, what we describe is mostly scalable to the landscape-level. No restoration project is undertaken in a social vacuum; even stand-level restoration occurs within a system of governance that regulates relationships among key agents. Gathering information and understanding the social dimensions of a restoration project is as necessary as understanding the biophysical dimensions. Social considerations can trump biophysical factors.
The importance of wild insects as pollinators of tropical tree crops has rarely been tested. Across 18 small-scale lychee orchards in northern Thailand, we evaluated the roles of different wild insects as pollinators and predators of pests in fruit production. Quantitative assessments showed that bees (Family Apidae) were strongly dominant (83%) among insect flower visitors, comprising four species in tribes Apini and four in Meliponini. Experimental manipulations of inflorescences showed that fruit production in these orchards was: (1) dependent on flower visits by wild insects because enclosure of inflorescences in mesh bags decreased fruit set (to one-fifth) and (2) not greatly limited by pollinator deficiencies, because hand pollination of unbagged flowers did not enhance fruit set. Pollination success, as indicated by the proportion of unmanipulated flowers setting fruit, correlated positively across orchards with the abundance of large-bodied Apidae (>7 mm; most were Apis species) and of Apini, and negatively with abundance of small-bodied Apidae and of all Meliponini, despite the latter being the commonest flower visitors. We conclude that larger-bodied bees are most likely to travel sufficiently far to import genetically diverse pollen, in this landscape-scale mosaic where non-orchard habitats (both agriculture and treed patches) were sufficient to sustain wild pollinators.
Tropical deforestation reduces the global terrestrial carbon sink and substantially contributes towards global climate change. Conversely, tropical forest restoration could help to mitigate the problem, but few measurements of how much carbon can be absorbed by forest restoration have been published. Therefore, this study used a partial harvesting method to compare carbon se-questration among 11 framework tree species (selected to accelerate forest re-generation by suppressing weeds and attracting seed dispersers), in a restoration trial in northern Thailand. The goal was to enable restoration practitioners to factor in carbon sequestration, when selecting tree species to plant. Above-ground carbon sequestration was derived from wood density, tree volume and above-ground biomass of 3 trees of each of 12 tree species, in 5, 10 and 14-year old restoration plots (RF5, RF10 and RF14, respectively). Wood density did not vary significantly with tree age (p ≤ 0.05), but it did differ significantly among tree species (p ≤ 0.05). Gmelina arborea wood was the densest (0.57 ± 0.10 g/cm 3). Carbon concentration of stem wood did not vary significantly among tree species or age (p ≤ 0.05), averaging 44.67% (±0.54). Tree volume varied among the species in the youngest plot, but such variation declined with tree age. In the oldest plot (RF14), Erythrina subumbrans and Spondias axillaris grew significantly larger than the other species and seques-tered the most above-ground carbon: 135.23 and 115.87 kgC/tree respectively.
Governance challenges are frequently underestimated in forest landscape restoration. Forest
restoration practitioners are generally foresters or ecologists and their focus tends to be limited to
the specific restoration interventions themselves, such as removing exotic species, protecting sites
for natural regeneration and re-planting indigenous trees. Indeed there are many technical
challenges, unknowns in technical aspects of forest landscape restoration and knowledge gaps.
However, and even more so when dealing with large scales, additional challenges that fall under the
governance umbrella such as tenure, policy measures and institutions have a significant impact on
restoration, influencing it either positively or negatively. Conversely, the landscape-scale restoration
work itself can influence and shape governance arrangements. This paper attempts to explore this
wider relationship between large scale forest restoration - and specifically forest landscape
restoration (FLR) - and governance. It is intended to assist and provide guidance to forest landscape
restoration practitioners, researchers and policymakers on the consideration and importance of
governance, and alternative ways in which the two-way relationship (between governance and FLR)
plays out. A framework is proposed to support practitioners, researchers and decision-makers to
address governance in forest landscape restoration.
