Restoration Services
At Enviromaint, we specialise in working with our clients to identify the assets of their sites and develop tailored solutions to increase local biodiversity. Our team of experts is dedicated to mitigating the risks of future challenges caused by weed species and pests. We are committed to preserving our environment and supporting our clients to make informed decisions about how they can help maintain biodiversity. Contact us to learn more about how we can help you reach your sustainability goals.
Weed Control
Invasive weeds can be a serous problem to biodiversity occupying and blocking habitat. These weeds can be what is termed habitat changing weeds disrupting interactions for autochthonous species while increasing interactions between those introduced, tipping the balance of biodiversity in favour of what we call "the dark web of biodiversity", and disrupting the ecosystem. As these introduced species often have their own network. Disturbances to sites cause weeds, whether this disturbance be human or introduced fauna, it's important that threating process to the site are reduced as much as possible. With our "method of least disturbance" we can gradually restore biodiversity balance to the site with the best possible outcomes. We offer comprehensive weed control services to help our clients manage invasive plant species and maintain the health and integrity of their landscapes. With the "method of least disturbance" control options are often used in combinations, utilising Succession Control and Chemical control factors by using selective methods for removing weeds with as minimum impact as possible whilst also minimising damage to indigenous species giving them a greater opportunity to take their course and gradually replace the weeds over time resulting in the best ecological outcomes over time, encouraging provenance and recruitment, pushing sites towards minimal physical control, and ultimately balance. When difficult situations arise, and suitable biological control can be used in attempt to slow the progress of a threat. Physical control methods involve removing or killing the weeds by manual or mechanical means, such as hand weeding, shading, ring barking, grubbing, felling, or mulching. These methods are time and labour-intensive whilst they do have the advantage of targeting the weed in question. However, they can also disturb the soil and damage the native seedlings, especially if the weeds have extensive root systems or are intertwined with the native plants. Therefore, the method of least disturbance suggests using physical control methods only when the weeds are isolated, sparse, or easy to remove. Chemical control methods involve applying herbicides to the weeds, either by spraying, basal barking, injecting, swabbing, or using granules or gels. These methods are effective and efficient, but they can also harm the native plants and the soil organisms, especially if the herbicides are non-selective, persistent, or applied at high doses. Therefore, the method of least disturbance suggests using chemical control methods only when the weeds are dense, difficult, or impossible to remove by physical means, and choosing the herbicide that is most selective, systematic, and appropriate for the weed and the site conditions. Biological control methods involve introducing natural enemies of the weeds, such as insects, fungi, or bacteria, to reduce their growth and reproduction. These methods are long-term and low-cost, but they do not eradicate the weeds and may have unintended consequences on the native plants and the ecosystem. Therefore, the method of least disturbance suggests using biological control methods only when the weeds are widespread, dominant, or invasive, and checking with the regional council to see if there are any approved and effective biological control agents for the weed. Succession control methods involve letting the native plants take their course and gradually replace the weeds over time. These methods are passive and natural, but they require patience and monitoring, as the weeds may persist or reinvade the site. Therefore, the method of least disturbance suggests using succession control methods only when the weeds are temporary, benign, or beneficial, and when the native plants are resilient, diverse, or competitive. Our experienced team utilises environmentally friendly methods to effectively control and eradicate weeds, ensuring the optimal growth of native plants and minimising the impact on surrounding ecosystems.
Management Plans
Our team can help create a restoration management plan that is tailored to your site's specific needs by utilising our methods of least disturbance. However, the challenge is how to implement restoration projects that are bigger than your backyard and can span from tens to hundreds of hectares. To overcome this challenge, it's crucial to take a strategic approach and learn from past work to ensure that the project is executed efficiently and effectively. By doing so, we can ensure that the restoration project is successful and meets all of your needs and requirements. Large-scale restoration initiatives often have ambitious goals to restore ecological integrity, biodiversity, climate resilience, and social goals across vast areas of land. However, achieving specific ecological restoration objectives can be challenging due to the conflicting and variable nature of local ecological constraints. Therefore, it's essential for individual restoration projects to establish clear and measurable objectives from the outset to assess the effectiveness of active restoration methods in achieving desired outcomes. It's also important to recognise that restoration is a gradual process that requires patience and a long-term perspective. Rushing the process by setting shorter timeframes can actually lead to more negative outcomes, such as increased disturbance, and may require more labour than anticipated. Numerous studies[1] have demonstrated that the cessation of land use and the absence of further human intervention or modification can lead to a high recovery of biodiversity. This finding suggests that Succession Control is a viable and cost-effective restoration option, particularly in cases where initial recovery may be rapid and the approach aligns with broader project goals, as highlighted by Chazdon and Guariguata[2] in their 2016 study. However, it's important to note that not all sites will recover quickly without intervention, and an integrated management approach involving other control methods may be necessary. Given the limited resources for active restoration, Succession Control should always be considered as the preferred option under the precautionary principle. It's essential to assess the natural resilience of a given site before selecting a restoration approach to avoid any potential disturbance that could negatively impact the ecosystem. To most effectively allocate your limited resources, it's crucial to tailor restoration strategies to the resilience of the ecosystem you're trying to restore and your specific project goals. The high variations in the rate of Succession Control across sites and the mixed effects of active restoration (revegetation) highlight the need to carefully consider all options and decide which ones are best suited to the site, project goals, and stopping threatening processes. Therefore, it's essential to conduct a thorough assessment of the site's natural resilience and carefully evaluate all available options before selecting a restoration approach. Certainly! When selecting restoration strategies, it's crucial to consider the unique characteristics of the site and the specific project goals. For instance, Succession Control combined with Chemical control may be a suitable approach for sites that were logged and in landscapes where there is sufficient evidence of recruitment of plants and animals. On the other hand, planting may be more appropriate for sites where recovery is slower due to factors such as the primary goal of providing specific high-value areas for the local community. In such cases, modification is always ongoing, and recruitment is not possible due to continuing disruption to certain biodiversity factors, such as small birds being absent due to human needs and wants. It's important to recognise that these are different zones (Self managed / Human habitat) and objectives, and each requires a tailored approach to achieve the desired restoration outcomes. By conducting a thorough assessment of the site and carefully evaluating all available options, land managers can select the most appropriate restoration approach and achieve their restoration goals more effectively and efficiently. In addition to institutional and policy factors, selecting restoration strategies requires careful consideration of ecological and social goals. We highly recommend that land managers wait a few years to observe the rate and direction of natural recovery before investing in restoration efforts. This approach allows for a better understanding of the site's natural resilience and can inform the selection of the most appropriate restoration approach. By taking a patient and informed approach and the time to observe and evaluate the site's natural recovery, land managers can make more knowledgeable decisions and allocate their resources more effectively. [1] The key to restoration success? Tailoring it to local ecosystems. | IUCN [2] Chazdon, RL & MR Guariguata. 2016. Natural regeneration as a tool for large-scale forest restoration in the tropics: prospects and challenges. Biotropica 48:716-730.