HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Infalt, S. B. Articles by Young, T. P. Search for Related Content

Forest Restoration in Campgrounds at Kings Canyon National Park, California

Susan B. Infalt, Department of Plant Sciences and Ecology Graduate Group, University of California, Davis, CA 95616. Current address: H.T. Harvey & Associates, 983 University Avenue, Building D, Los Gatos, CA 95032.sinfalt{at}harveyecology.com
Truman P. Young, Department of Plant Sciences and Ecology Graduate Group, University of California, Davis, CA 95616.

Intensive campground use at the Grant Grove area of Kings Canyon National Park, California, has compacted the soil and left areas without understory vegetation or tree recruitment. To better inform the restoration of these sites after closure, we tested natural regeneration potential and planting and soil restoration methods. The tested methods included planting with container stock and direct seeding, fencing, and soil treatments of tilling, mulching, and gypsum and humus additions. Container stock had high survivorship (69–100%), while germination and survival from direct seeding was low (0.6–4.1%). Wood chip mulch was beneficial to planting woody species, but detrimental to resident herbaceous species. Plots treated with tilling and gypsum, and humus amendments exhibited highest growth rates of container stock and greatest herbaceous species richness and cover. However, tilling without the other soil treatments reduced herbaceous cover and seedling recruitment (natural and sown). In tilled plots, gypsum treatments and humus treatments often had neutral or detrimental effects individually, but their combination greatly increased the success of direct seeding, growth of container stock, and herbaceous cover and richness. Fencing increased volunteer tree recruitment tenfold compared to outside the plots. Some treatments in this study were beneficial to species of one morphological group but detrimental to another.

Keywords: active and passive restoration, incense cedar (Calocedrus decurrens), Jeffrey pine (Pinus jeffreyi), sugar pine (Pinus lambertiana), white fir (Abies concolor)