Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Human Element of Restoration Success: Manager Characteristics Affect Vegetation Recovery Following Invasive Tamarix Control

  • Physical and Biotic Drivers of Change in Riparian Ecosystems
  • Published:
Wetlands Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We investigated the relative role of manager traits and decisions for explaining the impact of riparian restoration. To do this, we used the difference in vegetation between post-restoration and controls for 243 pairs of sites to create a success index. We then determined how much variability in success could be explained by physical variables that directly impact vegetation (environment and weed removal) versus human variables (characteristics of the people who managed those sites and their management decisions). More than 60% of the variability in vegetation change could be explained, with human variables increasing adjusted R-square values of physical-only models by an average of 47%. Restoration “success” was positively associated with an increase in the number of collaborators, the number of information sources used, and the relative priority of plant-related goals. Worse outcomes were associated with an increase in the number of roles the manager held, monitoring frequency, and with higher manager education level. These results point to the indirect impacts of the human element, and specifically supports recommendations to include multiple partners and set specific goals. To our knowledge, this is the first time the importance of human characteristics as drivers of restoration outcomes has been quantified.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bartón K (2019) MuMIn: Multi-Model Inference. R package version 1.43.6. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=MuMIn

  • Bash JS, Ryan CM (2002) Stream restoration and enhancement projects: is anyone monitoring? Environmental Management 29:877–885

  • Beauchamp VB, Stromberg JC (2007) Flow regulation of the Verde River, Arizona encourages Tamarix recruitment but has minimal effect on Populus and Salix stand density. Wetlands 27(2):381–389

  • Bernhardt ES, Sudduth EB, Palmer MA, Allan JD, Meyer JL, Alexander G, Follastad-Shah J, Hassett B, Jenkinson R, Lave R, Rumps J, Pagano L (2007) Restoring rivers one reach at a time: results from a survey of U.S. river restoration practitioners. Restoration Ecology 15:482–493

  • Briggs MK, Roundy BA, Shaw WW (1994) Trial and error: assessing the effectiveness of riparian Revegetation in Arizona. Ecological Restoration 12:160–167

    Google Scholar 

  • Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2004) Multimodel Inference. Sociological Methods & Research 33:261–304

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi BCK, Pang T, Lin V, Puska P, Sherman G, Goddard M, Ackland MJ, Sainsbury P, Stachenko S, Morrison H, Clottey C (2005) Can scientists and policy makers work together? Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health 59:632–637

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark LB (2018) The ecology of land managers in riparian restoration. Master's thesis, University of Denver

  • Clark LB, Henry AL, Lave R, Sayre NF, González E, Sher AA (2019) Successful information exchange between restoration science and practice. Restoration Ecology 27:1241–1250

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper DJ, Andersen DC, Chimner RA (2003) Multiple pathways for woody plant establishment on floodplains at local to regional scales. Journal of Ecology 91:182–196

    Google Scholar 

  • England J, Skinner KS, Carter MG (2008) Monitoring, river restoration and the water framework directive. Water Environment Journal 22:227–234

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernández N, Navarro LM, Pereira HM (2017) Rewilding: a call for boosting ecological complexity in conservation. Conserv Lett 10(3):276–278

  • Fliervoet JM, Van den Born RJG, Smits AJM, Knippenberg L (2013) Combining safety and nature: a multi-stakeholder perspective on integrated floodplain management. Journal of Environmental Management 128:1033–1042

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gann GD, McDonald T, Walder B, Aronson J, Nelson CR, Jonson J, Hallett JG, Eisenberg C, Guariguata MR, Liu J, Hua F (2019) International principles and standards for the practice of ecological restoration. Restoration Ecology 27:S1–S46

    Google Scholar 

  • González E, Sher AA, Tabacchi E, Masip A, Poulin M (2015) Restoration of riparian vegetation: a global review of implementation and evaluation approaches in the international, peer-reviewed literature. Journal of Environmental Management 158:85–94

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • González E, Felipe-lucia MR, Bourgeois B, Boz B, Nilsson C, Palmer G, Sher AA (2017a) Integrative conservation of riparian zones. Biological Conservation 211:20–29

    Google Scholar 

  • González E, Masip A, Tabacchi E, Poulin M (2017b) Strategies to restore floodplain vegetation after abandonment of human activities. Restoration Ecology 25:82–91

    Google Scholar 

  • González E, Sher AA, Anderson RM, Bay RF, Bean DW, Bissonnete GJ, Bourgeois B, Cooper DJ, Dohrenwend K, Eichhorst KD, El Waer H, Kennard DK, Harms-Weissinger R, Henry AL, Makarick LJ, Ostoja SM, Reynolds LV, Robinson WW, Shafroth PB (2017c) Vegetation response to invasive Tamarix control in southwestern U.S. rivers: a collaborative study including 416 sites. Ecol Appl 27:1789–1804

  • González E, Sher AA, Anderson RM, Bay RF, Bean DW, Bissonnete GJ, Cooper DJ, Dohrenwend K, Eichhorst KD, El Waer H, Kennard DK, Harms-Weissinger R, Henry AL, Makarick J, Ostoja SM, Reynolds LV, Robinson WW, Shafroth PB, Tabacchi E (2017d) Secondary invasions of noxious weeds associated with control of invasive Tamarix are frequent, idiosyncratic and persistent. Biol Conserv 213:106–114

  • Hagger V, Dwyer J, Wilson K (2017) What motivates ecological restoration? Restoration Ecology 25:832–843

    Google Scholar 

  • Henry L, Makarick J, Ostoja SM, Reynolds LV, Robinson WW, Shafroth PB, Tabacchi E (2017) Secondary invasions of noxious weeds associated with control of invasive Tamarix are frequent, idiosyncratic and persistent. Biological Conservation 213:106–114

    Google Scholar 

  • Holling CS, Meffet GK (1996) Command and control and the pathology of natural resource management. Conservation Biology 10:328–337

    Google Scholar 

  • Hychka K, Druschke CG (2017) Adaptive Management of Urban Ecosystem Restoration: learning from restoration managers in Rhode Island. USA. Society and Natural Resources 427(30):1358–1373

    Google Scholar 

  • Jähnig SC, Lorenz AW, Hering D, Anton C, Sundermann A, Jedicke E, Haase P (2011) River restoration success: a question of perception. Ecological Applications 21:2007–2015

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • JMP® Version 14 (2019) SAS Institute Inc. Cary, NC, pp 1989–2019

  • Kondolf GM, Anderson S, Lave R, Pagano L, Merenlender A, Bernhardt ES (2007) Two decades of river restoration in California: what can we learn? Restoration Ecology 15:516–523

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin-Lopez B, Montes C, Benayas J (2007) The non-economic motives behind the willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation. Biological Conservation 139:67–82

    Google Scholar 

  • Merritt DM, Poff NLR (2010) Shifting dominance of riparian Populus and Tamarix along gradients of flow alteration in western north American rivers. Ecological Applications 20:135–152

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Moore HE, Rutherfurd ID (2017) Lack of maintenance is a major challenge for stream restoration projects. River Research and Applications 33:1387–1399

    Google Scholar 

  • Morandi B, Piégay H, Lamouroux N, Vaudor L (2014) How is success or failure in river restoration projects evaluated? Feedback from French restoration projects. Journal of Environmental Management 137:178–188

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno-Mateos D, Alberdi A, Morriën E, van der Putten WH, Rodríguez-Uña A, Montoya D (2020) The long-term restoration of ecosystem complexity. Nature Ecology & Evolution 4:676–685

    Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson C, Aradottir AL, Hagen D, Halldórsson G, Høegh K, Mitchell RJ, Raulund-Rasmussen K, Svavarsdóttir K, Tolvanen A, Wilson SD (2016) Evaluating the process of ecological restoration. Ecol Soc 21(1):41. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08289-210141

  • Noss RF (1990) Society for Conservation Biology Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach. Conservation Biology 4:355–364

    Google Scholar 

  • Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Friendly M, Kindt R, Legendre P, McGlinn D, Minchin PR, O’Hara RB, Simpson GL, Solymos P, Stevens MHH, Szoecs E, Wagner H (2019) Vegan: community ecology package. R package version 2.5–5. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan

  • Oppenheimer JD, Beaugh SK, Knudson JA, Mueller P, Grant-Hoffman N, Clements A, Wight M (2015) A collaborative model for large-scale riparian restoration in the western United States. Restoration Ecology 23:143–148

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmer MA (2009) Reforming watershed restoration: science in need of application and applications in need of science. Estuaries and Coasts 32:1–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmer MA, Bernhardt ES, Allan JD, Lake PS, Alexander G, Brooks S, Carr J, Clayton S, Dahm CN, Follstad Shah J, Galat DL, Loss SG, Goodwin P, Hart DD, Hassett B, Jenkinson R, Kondolf GM, Lave R, Meyer JL, O’Donnell TK, Pagano L, Sudduth E (2005) Standards for ecologically successful river restoration. J Appl Ecol 42:208–217

  • Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D, R Core Team (2019) _nlme: Linear and Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models_. R package version 3.1–139, URL: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=nlme

  • Poff NL (2014) Rivers of the Anthropocene? Front Ecol Environ 12:427–427

  • Prach K, Durigan G, Fennessy S, Overbeck GE, Torezan JM, Murphy SD (2019) A primer on choosing goals and indicators to evaluate ecological restoration success. Restoration Ecology 27:917–923

    Google Scholar 

  • R Core Team (2019) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Ripley B (2019) MASS: support functions and datasets for Venables and Ripley’s MASS

  • Roche LM, Schohr TK, Derner JD, Lubell MN, Cutts BB, Kachergis E, Eviner VT, Tate KW (2015) Sustaining working rangelands: insights from rancher decision making. Rangeland Ecology & Management 68:383–389

    Google Scholar 

  • Rohal CB, Kettenring KM, Sims K, Hazelton ELG, Ma Z (2018) Surveying managers to inform a regionally relevant invasive Phragmites australis control research program. Journal of Environmental Management 206:807–816

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Roni P, Hall JE, Drenner SM, Arterburn D (2019) Monitoring the effectiveness of floodplain habitat restoration: a review of methods and recommendations for future monitoring. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Water 6:e1355

    Google Scholar 

  • RStudio Team (2019) RStudio: integrated development for R. RStudio, Inc., Boston

  • Ruiz-Jaen MC, Aide TM (2005) Restoration success: how is it being measured? Restoration Ecology 13:569–577

    Google Scholar 

  • Saldaña J (2014) Coding and analysis strategies. The Oxford Handbook of Qualitative Research

  • Shafroth PB, Beauchamp VB, Briggs MK, Lair K, Scott ML, Sher AA (2008) Planning riparian restoration in the context of tamarix control in Western North America. Restoration Ecology 16:97–112

    Google Scholar 

  • Sher A, Quigley MF (eds) (2013) Tamarix: A case study of ecological change in the American west. Oxford University Press, Oxford

  • Sher AA, Lair KD, DePrenger-Levin M, Dohrenwend K (2010) Best management practices for Revegetation after tamarisk removal in the Upper Colorado River Basin. Denver Botanic Gardens, Denver, CO:1–56

  • Sher AA, Waer HE, González E, Anderson R, Henry AL, Biedron R, Yue P (2018) Native species recovery after reduction of an invasive tree by biological control with and without active removal. Ecological Engineering 111:167–175

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith EP (2001) BACI design

  • Stanford B, Zavaleta E, Millard-Ball A (2018) Where and why does restoration happen? Ecological and sociopolitical influences on stream restoration in coastal California. Biological Conservation 221:219–227

    Google Scholar 

  • Stromberg JC, Lite SJ, Marler R, Paradzick C, Shafroth PB, Shorrock D, White JM, White MS (2007) Altered stream-flow regimes and invasive plant species: the Tamarix case. Global Ecology and Biogeography 16:381–393

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland WJ, Pullin AS, Dolman PM, Knight TM (2004) The need for evidence-based conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 19:4–7

    Google Scholar 

  • Tabacchi E, Correll DL, Hauer R, Pinay G, Planty-Tabacchi AM, Wissmar RC (1998) Development, maintenance and role of riparian vegetation in the river landscape. Freshwater Biology 40:497–516

    Google Scholar 

  • Venables WN, Ripley BD (2002) Modern applied statistics with S, 4th edn. Springer, New York ISBN 0-387-95457-0

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallington TJ, Hobbs RJ, Moore SA (2005) Implications of current ecological thinking for biodiversity conservation: a review of the salient issues. Ecology and Society 10:15

    Google Scholar 

  • White ER, Cox K, Melbourne BA, Hastings A (2019) Success and failure of ecological management is highly variable in an experimental test. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116:23169–23173

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wohl E, Angermeier PL, Bledsoe B, Kondolf GM, MacDonnell L, Merritt DM, Palmer MA, Poff NL, Tarboton D (2005) River restoration. Water Resources Research 41

  • Wortley L, Hero JM, Howes M (2013) Evaluating ecological restoration success: a review of the literature. Restoration Ecology 21:537–543

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are indebted to Rebecca Lave for her assistance with creating and analyzing the social data, and to both she and Nathan Sayre for their feedback at early stages in this research. Thanks to Fran Simon of Simon Analytics for assistance with the survey and general support at every stage. Thanks to all of the research assistants who were crucial to data collection and management, including Maddie Sligh, Kayleigh Kearnan, and Carly McGuire. We also appreciate the feedback from three anonymous reviewers that strengthened the manuscript. Most importantly, we thank all of the land managers who agreed to participate in this study. This research was supported by funding from the National Science Foundation (Coupled Natural and Human Systems grant, award number 1617463) and the University of Denver grants including the Moras and Erne Shubert Graduate Fellowship Fund and a PROF grant.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biological Sciences, University of Denver, Denver, CO, USA

    Anna A. Sher, Lisa Clark, Annie L. Henry, Alexander R. B. Goetz, Anit Tyagi & Isabelle Simpson

  2. Department of Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA

    Eduardo González

  3. Department of Plant Sciences, Université Laval, Quebec city, QC, Canada

    Bérenger Bourgeois

Authors
  1. Anna A. Sher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lisa Clark
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Annie L. Henry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alexander R. B. Goetz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Eduardo González
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Anit Tyagi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Isabelle Simpson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Bérenger Bourgeois
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

AAS, EG and LC conceived of the study and obtained funding. LC was responsible for the collection, entry, and organization of all human data. AH constructed the dataset, and she and LC performed extensive preliminary analyses. BB contributed the R scripts, while AG did most of the final data analyses; EG and BB advised on all data analysis methods, and EG did significant work on the writing of the methods and the revision. AT and IS conducted exploratory analyses and created many of the manuscript elements. AAS led the data analysis and writing effort, with significant contributions to these by all authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anna A. Sher.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Survey given to all managers associated with 234 sites included in this study, administered with Qualtrics (Clark et al. 2019)

  1. 1.

    Which describes your role? Select all that apply:

    1. a.

      Directly make land/resource management decisions

    2. b.

      Responsible for implementing management decisions made by someone else (e.g., a supervisor)

    3. c.

      Oversee restoration projects with input from a team or partnership

    4. d.

      Collect data on management actions

    5. e.

      Other (specify)

  2. 2.

    How long have you been a land/resource manager?

    1. a.

      Less than 2 years

    2. b.

      2–5 years

    3. c.

      6–10 years

    4. d.

      11–20 years

    5. e.

      More than 20 years

    6. f.

      I am not a land/resource manager.

  3. 3.

    Is the ownership consistent across all land you work with?

    1. a.

      Yes

    2. b.

      No

  4. 4.

    (If yes) Which best describes your land’s ownership?

    1. a.

      Federal (e.g., BLM, USFS, etc.)

    2. b.

      State (e.g., State Forest Service)

    3. c.

      Non-profit (e.g., land trust)

    4. d.

      Private

    5. e.

      Other (specify)

  5. 5.

    (If a selected for question 4) Which federal agency owns the land you manage?

    1. a.

      Bureau of Land Management

    2. b.

      US Fish and Wildlife Service

    3. c.

      National Park Service

    4. d.

      US Forest Service

    5. e.

      Other (specify)

  6. 6.

    (If b selected for question 4) Which state agency owns the land you manage?

    1. a.

      State Fish and Wildlife Service

    2. b.

      State Forest Service

    3. c.

      State Park Service

    4. d.

      Other (specify)

  7. 7.

    Is the managing agency consistent across all land you manage?

    1. a.

      Yes

    2. b.

      No

  8. 8.

    (If yes) Who makes management decisions on your land? Select all that apply.

    1. a.

      Federal agency personnel

    2. b.

      State agency personnel

    3. c.

      County personnel

    4. d.

      Private individuals

    5. e.

      Other (specify)

  9. 9.

    How many codes were you given? [minimum of 1, maximum of 8]

________ codes

  1. 10.

    Enter the first (or only) code here.

  2. 11.

    Please list the location/name of the sites this code refers to.

  3. 12.

    (If no to question 3) Which best describes the ownership of these sites?

    1. a.

      Federal (e.g., BLM, USFS, etc.)

    2. b.

      State (e.g., State Forest Service)

    3. c.

      Non-profit (e.g., land trust)

    4. d.

      Private

    5. e.

      Other (specify)

  4. 13.

    (If a selected for question 12) Which federal agency owns the land you manage, corresponding to this code?

    1. a.

      Bureau of Land Management

    2. b.

      US Fish and Wildlife Service

    3. c.

      National Park Service

    4. d.

      US Forest Service

    5. e.

      Other (specify)

  5. 14.

    (If b selected for question 12) Which state agency owns the land you manage, corresponding to this code?

    1. a.

      State Fish and Wildlife Service

    2. b.

      State Forest Service

    3. c.

      State Park Service

    4. d.

      Other (specify)

  6. 15.

    (If no to question 7) Who makes management decisions for these sites? Select all that apply.

    1. a.

      Federal agency personnel

    2. b.

      State agency personnel

    3. c.

      County personnel

    4. d.

      Private individuals

    5. e.

      Other (specify)

  7. 16.

    How long have you been working in this specific area?

    1. a.

      Less than 2 years

    2. b.

      2–5 years

    3. c.

      6–10 years

    4. d.

      11–20 years

    5. e.

      More than 20 years

  8. 17.

    What were your specific restoration goals for these sites? Select all that apply.

    1. a.

      Improve native plant diversity

    2. b.

      Aesthetics

    3. c.

      Forage supply for livestock

    4. d.

      Water access for livestock

    5. e.

      Recreational access to water

    6. f.

      Ecosystem resilience (i.e., ability to recover from disturbance)

    7. g.

      Removal of exotic plants

    8. h.

      Wildfire mitigation

    9. i.

      Channel maintenance

    10. j.

      Restore natural flows/over-bank flooding

    11. k.

      Habitat improvement

    12. l.

      Water quality

    13. m.

      Endangered species

    14. n.

      Other (specify)

  9. 18.

    Please rank your selected restoration goals in importance with 1 as the most important by dragging and dropping them.

  10. 19.

    What was your biggest concern in managing these sites?

Repeat questions 10–19 for each code

  1. 20.

    How much do these information sources influence your decisions? (1 = Not influential at all, 2 = Not very influential, 3 = Somewhat influential, 4 = Very influential, 5 = Extremely influential, Do not use)

    1. a.

      Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

    2. b.

      US Forest Service (USFS)

    3. c.

      US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

    4. d.

      State Weed Coordinator

    5. e.

      County weed coordinator (or other county officials)

    6. f.

      NRCS

    7. g.

      Extension service

    8. h.

      State Forest Service

    9. i.

      Water Conservation Districts

    10. j.

      USDA-ARS (Agricultural Research Service)

    11. k.

      The Nature Conservancy

    12. l.

      Tamarisk Coalition

    13. m.

      US Geological Survey (USGS)

    14. n.

      Personal communication with neighbors/peers

    15. o.

      Scientific articles

    16. p.

      Private consultants (e.g., Habitat Management Inc., Rim to Rim Restoration, etc.)

    17. q.

      Newspaper/magazine articles

    18. r.

      Supervisor/employer

    19. s.

      Workshops/Conferences

    20. t.

      Short-courses

    21. u.

      Email/listserv communications

    22. v.

      Personal past experience in the area

  2. 21.

    (For every agency selected 3, 4, or 5 in question 20) List specific resources (if any) from these agencies/information sources that you find particularly helpful.

  3. 22.

    Are there any other information sources that you use?

    1. a.

      Yes

    2. b.

      No

  4. 23.

    (If yes) Please list any other information sources and where they come from.

  5. 24.

    Is there ongoing monitoring of restoration projects on your land?

    1. a.

      Yes

    2. b.

      No

  6. 25.

    (If no) Why is monitoring not being done?

  7. 26.

    (If yes to question 24) Who performs/performed the monitoring? Select all that apply.

    1. a.

      Yourself

    2. b.

      Other personnel in your agency

    3. c.

      Collaborators

    4. d.

      University scientists

    5. e.

      Private consultants

    6. f.

      Other (specify)

  8. 27.

    (If yes to question 24) Which monitoring methods do you use? Select all that apply.

    1. a.

      Visual (e.g., repeat photographs from a particular point)

    2. b.

      Biological (e.g., fish populations or riparian vegetation)

    3. c.

      Physical (e.g., channel cross-sections or pebble counts)

    4. d.

      Chemical (e.g., dissolved oxygen or water temperature)

  9. 28.

    (If a selected for question 27) How often do you use visual methods?

    1. a.

      More than once a year

    2. b.

      Once a year

    3. c.

      Once every other year

    4. d.

      Every 5 years

    5. e.

      Less than every 5 years

    6. f.

      Other (specify)

  10. 29.

    (If a selected for question 27) In one sentence, how do you visually monitor?

  11. 30.

    (If b selected for question 27) How often do you use biological methods?

    1. a.

      More than once a year

    2. b.

      Once a year

    3. c.

      Once every other year

    4. d.

      Every 5 years

    5. e.

      Less than every 5 years

    6. f.

      Other (specify)

  12. 31.

    (If b selected for question 27) In one sentence, how do you biologically monitor?

  13. 32.

    (If c selected for question 27) How often do you use physical methods?

    1. a.

      More than once a year

    2. b.

      Once a year

    3. c.

      Once every other year

    4. d.

      Every 5 years

    5. e.

      Less than every 5 years

    6. f.

      Other (specify)

  14. 33.

    (If c selected for question 27) In one sentence, how do you physically monitor?

  15. 34.

    (If d selected for question 27) How often do you use chemical methods?

    1. a.

      More than once a year

    2. b.

      Once a year

    3. c.

      Once every other year

    4. d.

      Every 5 years

    5. e.

      Less than every 5 years

    6. f.

      Other (specify)

  16. 35.

    (If d selected for question 27) In one sentence, how do you chemically monitor?

  17. 36.

    Who do you work in partnership with on a regular basis as a land manager? Select all that apply.

    1. a.

      Federal agency personnel

    2. b.

      State agency personnel

    3. c.

      Private consultants

    4. d.

      Scientists

    5. e.

      Neighbors/Peers

    6. f.

      Other (specify)

  18. 37.

    (If d is selected for question 36) Which agency or agencies do the scientists you collaborate with work for? Select all that apply.

    1. a.

      Federal

    2. b.

      State

    3. c.

      County

    4. d.

      Private consultants

    5. e.

      Non-profit agency

    6. f.

      Universities

    7. g.

      Other (specify)

  19. 38.

    Who is responsible for research on your land? Select all that apply.

    1. a.

      Yourself

    2. b.

      University scientists

    3. c.

      Other scientists (specify)

  20. 39.

    What is your highest level of formal education?

    1. a.

      Less than high school

    2. b.

      High School diploma/GED

    3. c.

      Some college/technical school

    4. d.

      Associate’s degree

    5. e.

      Bachelor’s degree

    6. f.

      Master’s degree

    7. g.

      Doctorate

    8. h.

      Prefer not to answer

  21. 40.

    Any additional comments or information you’d like to share?

The following is the template of possible interview questions.

  1. 1.

    Please talk me through any experience with restoration or conservation you had before taking this job.

  2. 2.

    What did you get your degree in?

    1. a.

      Do you find that it helps you do your job?

  1. 3.

    You said you have worked as a land manager here for ___ years. What kind of changes have you seen since you started, in terms of the riparian areas?

  2. 4.

    How did this particular project come about?

  3. 5.

    How involved were you?

  4. 6.

    Are you still doing restoration on these sites?

  5. 7.

    What are the positives and negatives of having multiple managing agencies here?

  1. a.

    (If not covered in response to the previous question) How does it affect decision making?

  1. 8.

    Tell me about the individual collaborations (give specific examples taken from survey) you are a part of. Do they work? How have they impacted this project?

  2. 9.

    Which of the people involved in this project are scientists?

  3. 10.

    What differences, if any, do you see in working with agency scientists rather than university scientists?

  4. 11.

    What information sources do you use the most?

    1. a.

      Why are they the most useful for you?

    2. b.

      Ask about USFWS and Tamarisk Coalition if they don’t come up on their own.

  5. 12.

    You said that _____ was not influential at all. Why not?

  6. 13.

    Are there kinds of information or other sources you wish you had access to?

  7. 14.

    Why is removal of exotic plants not one of your selected goals?

  8. 15.

    How were the overall goals for this project generated?

    1. a.

      If not addressed: were there differences among the multiple agencies involved in managing the site?

    2. b.

      If so, how were those differences reconciled?

  9. 16.

    How do you determine if these goals have been met?

  10. 17.

    Who decides what monitoring methods you use?

  11. 18.

    What do you do with the data?

  12. 19.

    Do you consider this project to be successful? Why/why not?

  13. 20.

    Is there anything else I didn’t ask about that you think I should know?

  14. 21.

    Is there anyone you recommend I interview?

Appendix 2

Fig. 5
figure 5

Histograms of vegetation measures used in Principal Components Analysis (PCA) to create success index

Full size image

Appendix 3

Table 4 Correlation matrix of all independent variables used in analysis, using Spearman’s rho. Variables are summarized in table on following page. Cells showing correlation <0.7 are highlighted in light blue, and cells showing correlation <−0.7 are highlighted in light pink
Full size table

Appendix 4

Table 5 Environmental differences between river basins: Rio Grande, Lower Colorado River Basin (LCRB), and Upper Colorado River Basin (UCRB)
Full size table

Appendix 5

Table 6 Model details showing individual p value of each variable included. Variables are listed in order of increasing p
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sher, A.A., Clark, L., Henry, A.L. et al. The Human Element of Restoration Success: Manager Characteristics Affect Vegetation Recovery Following Invasive Tamarix Control. Wetlands 40, 1877–1895 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-020-01370-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-020-01370-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation