4.6 Article

Badlands forest restoration in Central Spain after 50 years under a Mediterranean-continental climate

Journal

ECOLOGICAL ENGINEERING
Volume 97, Issue -, Pages 313-326

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2016.10.020

Keywords

Check dams; Erosion; Gullies; Hydrological restoration; Reforestation; Soil development

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study shows the results of a badlands restoration carried out 50 years ago in Central Spain in terms of soil evolution, vegetation and hydrological characteristics. Although gully restoration is frequently employed to recover degraded soils and reduce sediment yield to rivers and reservoirs, analysis of the evolution of this type of action after a long period of time is not so commonplace. Moreover, this study focuses on a unique area under a Mediterranean-continental climate, with granite and sandy soils. Restoration works consisted in the construction of at least 123 check dams and the reforestation of more than 730 ha, with 2700 trees ha(-1). Nowadays, the soils have begun to regenerate. Litter thickness and soil humus is 3.7 cm under the pine-forest, while it is null in the degraded soil. Forest soil has a higher resistance to penetration and higher K and P content. However, there are no significant differences in the% OM, in the content of Ca, Mg, Na and N, or in the steady-state infiltration rate, possibly because of the influence of soil texture. These results show that much more time is needed for soil evolution. As a conclusion, however, restoration works did improve forest cover and some physical and chemical soil properties as well as slowing down soil erosion and sediment production. Suitable silviculture and land management of the current pine forest will improve soil conditions and serve to recover the ancient native oak forest that grew before the intense historic degradation. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available