The influence of recultivation technique and seed mixture on erosion stability after restoration in mountain environment

Krautzer, B., et al., 2011. Natural Hazards

Original research (primary data)
View External Publication Link

Abstract

Control of erosion, and all of its after effects, from increased surface drainage and erosion to the formation of karst, is one of the essential problems when undertaking recultivation following necessary interventions in the sub-alpine and alpine vegetation stage (high zones). Average slope inclinations of 30-45% in the vicinity of ski runs, and far above in areas of natural erosion and avalanche zones, make restoration processes with sufficient erosion protection the prerequisite for success. Only a sufficient vegetation development of more than 70% ground cover stabilises the topsoil in the long term and reduces soil erosion to an acceptable degree. From 1999 to 2002, an international EU project with the participation of research groups and private firms from Austria, Italy and Germany was carried out under the direction of the Agricultural Research and Education Centre Raumberg-Gumpenstein (AREC) on five different Alpine sites at altitudes from 1,245 to 2,350 m above sea level. The aim of the work was the formulation of practice-relevant requirements for recultivation following intervention in high zones, especially following constructional measures in the vicinity of ski runs and lifts, torrent- and avalanche barriers. In a statistical comparison, the relationship between restoration techniques, seed mixtures of differing ecological value and vegetation cover was observed. The influence of application technique on erosion processes after restoration was obvious for the first two vegetation periods. Only with the additional use of mulch covers could increase surface drainage and noticeable soil loss be avoided. At high altitudes, the choice of seed mixture, irrespective of whether rapid or slow growing and independent of the extent of accompanying fertilisation, had no significance in the first two vegetation periods following sowing. In the following growing seasons, however, higher cover values were obtained with site-specific seed mixtures at three of the five experimental sites. While few species of the commercial seed mixture showed satisfactory persistency, most of the grasses and in particular the alpine leguminosae of site-specific seed mixtures increased their share during the observation period. In the long-term, sufficient protection against erosion is only guaranteed by the use of stable, enduring and ecologically adapted species.

Case studies

Basic information

  • Case ID: INT-141-6
  • Intervention type: Created habitats
  • Intervention description:

    revegetation techniques. either with hydroseeding alone or hydroseeding + straw mulch application. use commercial seed mixture

  • Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: No
  • Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures
    Soil erosion  Mixed results % vegetation cover (if above threshold of 75%, deemed effective for erosion protection)
  • Approach implemented in the field: Yes
  • Specific location:

    Sudelfeld (southern Bavaria)

  • Country: Germany
  • Habitat/Biome type: Created grassland |
  • Issue specific term: Not applicable

Evidence

  • Notes on intervention effectivness: effectiveness determined by change from baseline (start of the restoration experiment) - but no control plots where no restoration technique was applied effectiveness also determined by comparing to a certain threshold of vegetation cover considered necessary to control erosion (do not have a direct measure of erosion itself) "Direct measurements of soil losses following the simulation of intense precipitation indicated that at values of at least 70% vegetation cover, soil erosion became acceptable, and an increasing cover up to 80% resulted in further erosion decline (Bunza 1989, rev. in Tappeiner et al. 1998)" mixed results because initially unclear (did not meet threshold) and then by later time it did meet threshold
  • Is the assessment original?: Yes
  • Broadtype of intervention considered: Another NbS
  • Compare effectivness?: No
  • Compared to the non-NBS approach: Not applicable
  • Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: No
  • Impacts on GHG: Not applicable
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: No
  • Impacts for the ecosystem: Not reported
  • Ecosystem measures:
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: No
  • Impacts for people: Not reported
  • People measures:
  • Considers economic costs: No
  • Economic appraisal conducted: No
  • Economic appraisal described:
  • Economic costs of alternative considered: No
  • Compared to an alternative: Not reported

Evaluation methodology

  • Type of data: Quantitative
  • Is it experimental: No
  • Experimental evalution done: Not applicable
  • Non-experimental evalution done: Empirical case study
  • Study is systematic:

Basic information

  • Case ID: INT-141-5
  • Intervention type: Created habitats
  • Intervention description:

    revegetation techniques. either with hydroseeding alone or hydroseeding + straw mulch application. use commercial seed mixture

  • Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: No
  • Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures
    Soil erosion  Mixed results % vegetation cover (if above threshold of 75%, deemed effective for erosion protection)
  • Approach implemented in the field: Yes
  • Specific location:

    Piancavallo (Friuli Venezia Giulia)

  • Country: Italy
  • Habitat/Biome type: Created grassland |
  • Issue specific term: Not applicable

Evidence

  • Notes on intervention effectivness: effectiveness determined by change from baseline (start of the restoration experiment) - but no control plots where no restoration technique was applied effectiveness also determined by comparing to a certain threshold of vegetation cover considered necessary to control erosion (do not have a direct measure of erosion itself) "Direct measurements of soil losses following the simulation of intense precipitation indicated that at values of at least 70% vegetation cover, soil erosion became acceptable, and an increasing cover up to 80% resulted in further erosion decline (Bunza 1989, rev. in Tappeiner et al. 1998)" mixed results because initially did not meet the threshold (therefore unclear) and then at later time it did (positive)
  • Is the assessment original?: Yes
  • Broadtype of intervention considered: Another NbS
  • Compare effectivness?: No
  • Compared to the non-NBS approach: Not applicable
  • Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: No
  • Impacts on GHG: Not applicable
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: No
  • Impacts for the ecosystem: Not reported
  • Ecosystem measures:
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: No
  • Impacts for people: Not reported
  • People measures:
  • Considers economic costs: No
  • Economic appraisal conducted: No
  • Economic appraisal described:
  • Economic costs of alternative considered: No
  • Compared to an alternative: Not reported

Evaluation methodology

  • Type of data: Quantitative
  • Is it experimental: No
  • Experimental evalution done: Not applicable
  • Non-experimental evalution done: Empirical case study
  • Study is systematic:

Basic information

  • Case ID: INT-141-4
  • Intervention type: Created habitats
  • Intervention description:

    revegetation techniques. either with hydroseeding alone or hydroseeding + straw mulch application; using a commercial seed mixture

  • Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: No
  • Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures
    Soil erosion  Mixed results % vegetation cover (if above threshold of 75%, deemed effective for erosion protection)
  • Approach implemented in the field: Yes
  • Specific location:

    Hochwurzen (Styria), Gerlos (Tyrol) and St. Anton (Tyrol)

  • Country: Austria
  • Habitat/Biome type: Created grassland |
  • Issue specific term: Not applicable

Evidence

  • Notes on intervention effectivness: effectiveness determined by change from baseline (start of the restoration experiment) - but no control plots where no restoration technique was applied effectiveness also determined by comparing to a certain threshold of vegetation cover considered necessary to control erosion (do not have a direct measure of erosion itself) "Direct measurements of soil losses following the simulation of intense precipitation indicated that at values of at least 70% vegetation cover, soil erosion became acceptable, and an increasing cover up to 80% resulted in further erosion decline (Bunza 1989, rev. in Tappeiner et al. 1998)" mixed results because at some sites they did not meet the threshold (therefore would be labeled as unclear) but at other sites it was positive
  • Is the assessment original?: Yes
  • Broadtype of intervention considered: Another NbS
  • Compare effectivness?: No
  • Compared to the non-NBS approach: Not applicable
  • Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: No
  • Impacts on GHG: Not applicable
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: No
  • Impacts for the ecosystem: Not reported
  • Ecosystem measures:
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: No
  • Impacts for people: Not reported
  • People measures:
  • Considers economic costs: No
  • Economic appraisal conducted: No
  • Economic appraisal described:
  • Economic costs of alternative considered: No
  • Compared to an alternative: Not reported

Evaluation methodology

  • Type of data: Quantitative
  • Is it experimental: No
  • Experimental evalution done: Not applicable
  • Non-experimental evalution done: Empirical case study
  • Study is systematic:

Basic information

  • Case ID: INT-141-3
  • Intervention type: Restoration
  • Intervention description:

    revegetation techniques. either with hydroseeding alone or hydroseeding + straw mulch application. use seed mixture containing site-specific sub-alpine and alpine species adapted to local site conditions

  • Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: No
  • Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures
    Soil erosion  Mixed results % vegetation cover (if above threshold of 75%, deemed effective for erosion protection)
  • Approach implemented in the field: Yes
  • Specific location:

    Sudelfeld (southern Bavaria)

  • Country: Germany
  • Habitat/Biome type: Montane/Alpine |
  • Issue specific term: Not applicable

Evidence

  • Notes on intervention effectivness: effectiveness determined by change from baseline (start of the restoration experiment) - but no control plots where no restoration technique was applied effectiveness also determined by comparing to a certain threshold of vegetation cover considered necessary to control erosion (do not have a direct measure of erosion itself) "Direct measurements of soil losses following the simulation of intense precipitation indicated that at values of at least 70% vegetation cover, soil erosion became acceptable, and an increasing cover up to 80% resulted in further erosion decline (Bunza 1989, rev. in Tappeiner et al. 1998)"
  • Is the assessment original?: Yes
  • Broadtype of intervention considered: Another NbS
  • Compare effectivness?: No
  • Compared to the non-NBS approach: Not applicable
  • Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: No
  • Impacts on GHG: Not applicable
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: No
  • Impacts for the ecosystem: Not reported
  • Ecosystem measures:
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: No
  • Impacts for people: Not reported
  • People measures:
  • Considers economic costs: No
  • Economic appraisal conducted: No
  • Economic appraisal described:
  • Economic costs of alternative considered: No
  • Compared to an alternative: Not reported

Evaluation methodology

  • Type of data: Quantitative
  • Is it experimental: No
  • Experimental evalution done: Not applicable
  • Non-experimental evalution done: Empirical case study
  • Study is systematic:

Basic information

  • Case ID: INT-141-2
  • Intervention type: Restoration
  • Intervention description:

    revegetation techniques. either with hydroseeding alone or hydroseeding + straw mulch application. use seed mixture containing site-specific sub-alpine and alpine species adapted to local site conditions

  • Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: No
  • Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures
    Soil erosion  Mixed results % vegetation cover (if above threshold of 75%, deemed effective for erosion protection)
  • Approach implemented in the field: Yes
  • Specific location:

    Piancavallo (Friuli Venezia Giulia)

  • Country: Italy
  • Habitat/Biome type: Montane/Alpine |
  • Issue specific term: Not applicable

Evidence

  • Notes on intervention effectivness: effectiveness determined by change from baseline (start of the restoration experiment) - but no control plots where no restoration technique was applied effectiveness also determined by comparing to a certain threshold of vegetation cover considered necessary to control erosion (do not have a direct measure of erosion itself) "Direct measurements of soil losses following the simulation of intense precipitation indicated that at values of at least 70% vegetation cover, soil erosion became acceptable, and an increasing cover up to 80% resulted in further erosion decline (Bunza 1989, rev. in Tappeiner et al. 1998)"
  • Is the assessment original?: Yes
  • Broadtype of intervention considered: Another NbS
  • Compare effectivness?: No
  • Compared to the non-NBS approach: Not applicable
  • Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: No
  • Impacts on GHG: Not applicable
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: No
  • Impacts for the ecosystem: Not reported
  • Ecosystem measures:
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: No
  • Impacts for people: Not reported
  • People measures:
  • Considers economic costs: No
  • Economic appraisal conducted: No
  • Economic appraisal described:
  • Economic costs of alternative considered: No
  • Compared to an alternative: Not reported

Evaluation methodology

  • Type of data: Quantitative
  • Is it experimental: No
  • Experimental evalution done: Not applicable
  • Non-experimental evalution done: Empirical case study
  • Study is systematic:

Basic information

  • Case ID: INT-141-1
  • Intervention type: Restoration
  • Intervention description:

    revegetation techniques. either with hydroseeding alone or hydroseeding + straw mulch application. use seed mixture containing site-specific sub-alpine and alpine species adapted to local site conditions

  • Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: No
  • Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures
    Soil erosion  Mixed results % vegetation cover (if above threshold of 75%, deemed effective for erosion protection)
  • Approach implemented in the field: Yes
  • Specific location:

    Hochwurzen (Styria), Gerlos (Tyrol) and St. Anton (Tyrol)

  • Country: Austria
  • Habitat/Biome type: Montane/Alpine |
  • Issue specific term: Not applicable

Evidence

  • Notes on intervention effectivness: effectiveness determined by change from baseline (start of the restoration experiment) - but no control plots where no restoration technique was applied effectiveness also determined by comparing to a certain threshold of vegetation cover considered necessary to control erosion (do not have a direct measure of erosion itself) "Direct measurements of soil losses following the simulation of intense precipitation indicated that at values of at least 70% vegetation cover, soil erosion became acceptable, and an increasing cover up to 80% resulted in further erosion decline (Bunza 1989, rev. in Tappeiner et al. 1998)" mixed results because at some sites they did not meet the threshold (therefore would be labeled as unclear) but at other sites it was positive
  • Is the assessment original?: Yes
  • Broadtype of intervention considered: Another NbS
  • Compare effectivness?: No
  • Compared to the non-NBS approach: Not applicable
  • Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: No
  • Impacts on GHG: Not applicable
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: No
  • Impacts for the ecosystem: Not reported
  • Ecosystem measures:
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: No
  • Impacts for people: Not reported
  • People measures:
  • Considers economic costs: No
  • Economic appraisal conducted: No
  • Economic appraisal described:
  • Economic costs of alternative considered: No
  • Compared to an alternative: Not reported

Evaluation methodology

  • Type of data: Quantitative
  • Is it experimental: No
  • Experimental evalution done: Not applicable
  • Non-experimental evalution done: Empirical case study
  • Study is systematic: