Mesic (Pasture to Forest): 

Implementing multi-site planning to account for variability in climate conditions

 

The mesic pasture to forest group explored four restoration strategies: planting in favorable microclimates, developing successional planting plans, using fog capture screens, and group/clump planting. Most participants already plant in favorable microclimates. The discussion examined broader scale site selection, using mapping tools, versus in-site decision making, noting that shapefiles don’t necessarily provide the finer context for environmental conditions that planting happens under, demonstrating the value of incorporating both kinds of information into decision making. Regardless, it is necessary to balance site selection with funding constraints and plant needs. While formal successional planting plans are rare, many follow an intuitive approach, but the timing for seed collection and access to propagules are challenges. Group/clump planting is a way to hedge survival across variable conditions.

 

The group also proposed two additional strategies: the benefit of strategically timing outplanting with a passive start or capitalizing off vegetation clearing post-fire. One such example of a “passive start” was the edge effect, strategizing before there is a need to protect a forest from prospective threats. This approach connects to the need for longer-term plans that incorporate/outline restoration responses to natural disasters. However, there is a need for more sustainable infrastructure design to support the development of this type of management strategy. Additionally, there is a need for more research and development in the context of fire-related restoration.

 

Another strategy proposed pertains to resource and local information sharing around seedling knowledge. However, there is a need for a reforestation pipeline to support this concept. Those in the group who have been doing restoration for a long time discussed wanting to see more formal organization and sharing of restoration knowledge–discussed as “collective communication.” Examples of successful exchanges included the Willamette Valley Model and the California Restoration Pipeline (funded by American Forests).

​

In the second part of the conversation, the group proposed three steps to implement multi-site planning for variable climate conditions: leveraging existing data, gathering new information, and creating shared goals.

​

•  Existing Data: Climate maps, species ranges, fog data, land use history, and ʻŌlelo resources are key, but their use as an integrated resource is hindered by time and capacity constraints. Therefore, addressing this step may take more planning to develop the capacity. Collaborating with researchers and archivists could lead to open-source data sharing.

• New Information: Knowledge gaps, such as weather data, soil assessments, and community interactions with sites, need addressing. There is also a need to gather new data for a better understanding of the communities that interact with the spaces being managed–use, development, fencing, and public interest are all important factors in determining a restoration location. Lastly, kilo, the application of observing one's surroundings and the relationships between spaces, can provide important information for a better understanding of any place. These new data sets will require complex coordination to produce and ultimately are constrained by funding and time.

• Shared Goals: Clear, shared goals will foster collaboration and ensure long-term sustainability. Partnerships with landowners, hunters, communities, and other partners are crucial. A Restoration Alliance may facilitate the pooling of resources, securing funding, and increasing community engagement.