I wanted to make sure all you canoe enthusiasts like you knew about the inspirational documentary film Columbia River Canoe Project Available NOW on VOD!

This project follows Robert Lester and Braxton Mitchell as they canoed 1300 miles over 45 days from the continental divide to the Pacific Ocean. The project follows their long and tough journey while focusing awareness and attention to the health of the river basin and how dramatically the use of the river has changed since the native peoples who lived with and on these waters.

https://youtu.be/lqPdheZMJ_I?si=jfjsWvInmQa18K3r

Hi everyone! I’m cross-posting this in several places because I’m trying to gather as much experience and information as I can to help my client make an informed decision.

I’m an ecological landscaper, and I have a client who lives in an upscale woodland neighborhood in western North Carolina. They recently had a company come in and do extensive invasive plant removal, and they’re hiring me to replace the ground layer with native plants.

It’s a very large project with several different planting zones. Most of them are pretty straightforward, but the largest and most visible area has me thinking through a few different approaches. I would love to hear any firsthand experience, ideas, research, or thought processes that might help me give them the best options and manage their expectations appropriately.

The area in question is approximately 14,000 sq. ft. and is completely covered in Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum).

I’m currently unsure what methods the invasive removal company used to deal with the stiltgrass. I have their contact information and plan to find out more, but whether they pulled it or treated it with herbicide, I know there is a substantial seed bank waiting to germinate next year.

These clients seem to have a fairly substantial budget and are willing to invest quite a bit into the project. When I was trying to gauge their budget versus how quickly they’d like to see the area become ecologically functional and visually interesting, I got the impression they would prefer to spend more money upfront to get there faster.

Right now, I’m considering two approaches:

Option 1: Plant directly into the existing soil and commit to intensive maintenance.

We could install the native plantings directly into the ground as it is and plan for several years of consistent stiltgrass removal to gradually exhaust the seed bank.

I would focus on establishing native species that have at least some chance of competing with stiltgrass. I know I have some potential candidates buried in my notes somewhere, but I can’t think of them off the top of my head right now.

The obvious downside is the amount of ongoing maintenance required, especially with thousands of native plants to work around.

Option 2: Bury the seed bank under a substantial layer of wood chips, then plant into it.

I’m considering covering the area with approximately 4–6 inches of wood chips or another suitable mulch to suppress a large portion of the stiltgrass seed bank.

I would only apply that depth in the open areas, keeping it away from the bases and root flares of established trees. Areas immediately surrounding trees would need to be managed through hand weeding over the next several years.

The idea would be to install thousands and thousands of native plugs next spring, after the wood chips have had some time to begin breaking down. When planting, I would likely bring in some soil to incorporate into each planting hole to help support the plugs, since the wood chips would only be partially decomposed by then.

By my estimate, this approach would require well over 100 cubic yards of mulch, so it’s a substantial undertaking. However, I think these clients may be willing to invest in it if it offers a faster or more effective path toward establishing the native ground layer.

My biggest questions are:

• Does anyone have firsthand experience with burying or suppressing a Japanese stiltgrass seed bank under a thick layer of wood chips?
• Is 4–6 inches necessary, or could 2–3 inches be effective at preventing a significant portion of the seed bank from germinating?
• Has anyone tried establishing native plugs into an area prepared this way? What were your successes or challenges?
• Are there other approaches I should be considering that might produce better results?

I realize that any disturbance during planting could bring some buried seeds back to the surface, and I’m not expecting to eliminate stiltgrass entirely with either approach. My hope with the second option is that we could significantly reduce the amount of stiltgrass emerging and give the native plantings a better chance to establish without years of such intensive competition.

I’m very open to ideas, links to studies, firsthand experience, or even reasons why one of these approaches might be a terrible idea!

I take a lot of pride in my work and really try to make the most informed decisions I can, especially on a project of this scale. I want to give these clients realistic expectations and a plan that has the best chance of long-term ecological success.

Thanks in advance for any insight!

Photos are of the area in question.

I’m in Upstate SC. Have many invasives, but these 2 in particular are taking over. I’ve also got water primrose that I am clueless what to do about. I actually think my neighbor planted it based on what she said, but no way to prove that so it’ll be solely my responsibility to get rid of it. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.

If you happen to work in this area, pls let me know. I’m nervous about trying to treat the water primrose and would rather get professional help for it. The trees and bushes, I’m just unsure if I can treat during the winter.

A rewilding project at a South Downs National Park beauty spot has helped create a boom in butterfly numbers - including two nationally important species spotted at the site for the first time.

A total of 5,290 individual butterflies from 28 species - such as the dingy skipper and the UK's smallest species, the small blue - have been counted during surveys, following the renaturing work at Halnaker Hill Farm, near Chichester, West Sussex.

The boost in butterfly numbers comes after work at the site - which is famous for its windmill - to return 330 acres of previously intensively farmed land into a scenery rich in flora and fauna.

The team at Halnaker Hill Farm have been working with consultants at the South Downs National Park Authority, which is heading a "ReNature" programme to prevent biodiversity loss across 7,700 hectares of land - equivalent to more than 12,000 football pitches.

Conservationist Neil Hulme said the data "clearly indicate how rapidly and spectacularly the rich mosaic of habitat types at Halnaker Hill Farm has developed".

Meanwhile, Nick Heasman, head of natural capital for the South Downs National Park, said that the Halnaker project - which is owned by Halnaker Hill Natural Capital (HHNC) - would deliver more than 850 biodiversity net gain (BNG) units.

Our county has the least forest cover in the country (Kenya), and ironically has one of the best seasonal rainfall. We came together to try and reclaim lost trees and forest covers. We have currently planted over 10k trees. We also take care of the trees to ensure that they mature well. Our nursery at the moment has over 500k trees and our dream is to plant a million trees. I'm happy because we took initiative instead of talking and complaining. Apart from reintroducing indigenous and fruit trees, we have also managed to create passive employment to the volunteers, which is a positive thing considering the high rate of unemployment and poverty in the area.

Just thought I would share some positive news. I hope this puts a smile on someone's face

Hello, im in a early planning phase of making a robot to replant deforested areas and have a few questions:
\- Is there a point? As in ive read that sometimes its better to close off the forest to let it naturally regrow but does that make the action of planting seeds pointless?
\- What are some factors to most effectively plant seeds ?
\- Any information would be very appreciated, aswell as possible suggestions for how a robot could help nature in the correct way
Thank you

Hello, im in a early planning phase of making a robot to replant deforested areas and have a few questions:
\- Is there a point? As in ive read that sometimes its better to close off the forest to let it naturally regrow but does that make the action of planting seeds pointless?
\- What are some factors to most effectively plant seeds ?
\- Any information would be very appreciated, aswell as possible suggestions for how a robot could help nature in the correct way
Thank you

The game is called 'Open Land' and you can play the free demo now on Steam :)

Hey all! I’m pretty sure this is the right sub?

I have a creek in my backyard in New Jersey that is spring fed and I‘m really interested in possible restoration if possible. I do NOT know what I’m doing (16 year old who hasn’t researched anything like this before).

It‘s a small creek that runs through my family’s property, into my one neighbors property, and then into the main stem of a river. Behind our property, my family does not mow even remotely close to the stream, and it’s a nice habitat from what I can tell. None of us know what we’re doing and I’m the one mostly involved right now with some help from my dad.

Recently, this past year, I’ve been getting more and more interested in it. I trout fish a lot and one day I decided to measure the water temperature for fishing the main river but I crossed the creek and decided I’d measure the temperature out of curiosity. That day it was high 80’s air temperature and the water temperature was between 55-56 degrees! I also found a state-threatened salamander species known as the long-tailed salamander by the creek (I’m pretty sure). I thought maybe I’d mention that. I’m pretty sure it’s a good water quality indicator no?

Though here’s why I’m interested in restoring it. I remember my dad telling me the creek was flowing more, much less weed-choke, much less sediment/muck, and overall filled with more fish life. That was a little bit more than a decade ago. He doesn’t remember much but mostly that. My mom is going to try and see if she can dig out some pictures of what it used to look like.

Clearly it seems like it’s not supposed to be the way it is (but I could be mistaken and that’s why I came here). I‘m not going to get ahead of myself and alter the stream “my way”. I want what’s best for it.

I have come up with some possible ideas with the little knowledge I have as to why the stream is the way it currently is.

1. Invasive waterwort: I‘m pretty sure this species of plant is the main plant that has choked this stream. It seems like that it has covered the stream all the way to the middle in most areas unlike the natives (that I could identify) which were much closer to the banks. I also have seen that the plant caused “clogging” in the stream and has stacked muck, silt, and organic matter. With this, I think the sandy/rocky bottom has mostly disappeared under the silt almost acting like a dam.
2. Maybe a leaking cess pool? This was an idea from my dad. If there’s an old sewage system, maybe I leaking nitrogen and phosphates into the creek causing things to bloom more, choking the stream? Again, just an idea. Also, there are no roads nearby or pesticides used.
3. My neighbors lawn? My dad recently remembered that there were more plants and trees by the stream by our neighbors lawn over a decade ago (he’s really not sure exactly how long ago, but it could be around the same time the stream started having plants choking it)? Maybe him making it a fully cut and unshaded lawn across the stream has had a decent toll on it?

I realize it could be several of these factors all at once too. If possible, I would hope that the stream could be restored to a rockier more sandy bottom I remember hearing talked about. It definitely had decent current and depth at one point… I believe from what my parents have said, especially my mom who went down to the creek a lot. I remember walking in it very recently and the bottom went to 3.5 under feet under water below the sediment I‘m pretty sure.

It seems like it MIGHT even be possible native brook trout habitat if there can be some sort of restoration done to where there’s aquatic insects, current, structure, depth, etc., which would be really neat and I wonder if it was a brook trout stream at one point in time. Though I do NOT plan on doing anything to the stream to alter it until I find out what is right for it. It may very well be the way it’s supposed to be right now, but I’m not sure. I’m also not trying to do anything illegal.

I apologize for my lack of knowledge. Information on this stream before it was like this is sparse unless I get to talk to my neighbor who’s lived by the stream for his entire life.

I attached some photos. The first good few pictures showcase the stream and vegetation itself, then the last few show the surrounding habitat (if that helps).

Thanks in advance.

we hope yall find this as cool as it was for us to work on!

When Susan Downes bought an old farmhouse in York, Western Australia, she had imagined a quiet life in the countryside, with a small garden to look after. Instead, she found herself the owner of a 200-hectare property, including a hill where old native trees had survived more than a century of grazing but much of the vegetation beneath them had disappeared.

Nearly two decades later, the 76-year-old retired general practitioner has turned a substantial part of the land into a conservation project. About 120 hectares have been restored, around 45,000 native seedlings have been planted, and 45 plant species have returned naturally from seeds already present in the soil. As reported by The Guardian, Downes is now working to ensure that the work continues long after she is gone.

Downes was in her 60s, widowed and with her children grown up, when she began looking for a home in the countryside. The farmhouse in York appealed to her, but the size of the property initially seemed impractical. A second visit changed her mind. At the back of the farm, she discovered Mount Mackie, a 295-metre hill where ancient York gums and wandoos had survived about 150 years of grazing. Much of the understorey had vanished, leaving the old trees as some of the most visible remnants of the original landscape.

“I felt a great connection to the land,” Downes told The Guardian.

She decided to buy the property and began looking for ways to restore it. Her first step was to obtain a small local grant to control foxes and feral cats. She then secured funding for 24,000 trees over three years, giving her the means to begin planting on a larger scale. Downes had started her professional career as a botanist, but restoring a large property required more than an interest in plants.

The work involved managing invasive animals, removing weeds, planting seedlings and organising the practical details of a long-term conservation effort. Today, the restoration covers 120 hectares of her working farm. The return of 45 plant species through the soil's natural seed bank has also contributed to the recovery of the landscape.

For Downes, restoring the land is only part of the task. She also wants to ensure that the area cannot be cleared again in the future. She is working to place the restored land under a conservation covenant, a legal arrangement that can protect land from certain forms of development or clearing. The project is supported by Friends of Mt Mackie, a local volunteer group with a core team of about eight people and more than 80 others who take part in organised planting and seed-collection days. Downes has also been thinking about who will look after the property in the future.

The deaths and dementia diagnoses of friends have made her more conscious of how uncertain the time available to complete a long-term project can be.

She told The Guardian that she wants the arrangements for the land's future responsibility to be firmly established. Her hope is that her children and grandchildren will be inspired by the work, while the wider community will continue to have access to the place. The project also has a cultural dimension.

Ballardong women from York visit Mount Mackie several times a year for cultural healing sessions. Downes is working with Ballardong elders to find an Aboriginal name for the hill. Planning is also under way for a reconciliation event in 2030, marking 200 years since European arrival in the region.

A decade after Madhya Pradesh forest department began reintroducing hard-ground barasingha in Satpura tiger reserve, the endangered deer has returned in strength, with its population growing to around 303 and three population units established across the landscape.

The next phase of the conservation programme will focus on linking at least six grasslands through dedicated corridors to allow the animals to move between feeding and breeding habitats.

The recovery marks a major step in efforts to secure the future of the hard-ground barasingha (Rucervus duvaucelii branderi), which had disappeared from the Satpura landscape because of habitat loss and hunting. Kanha tiger reserve remained its principal natural stronghold, making the creation of a second population important for reducing the risks of depending on a single landscape.

Satpura tiger reserve field director Rakhi Nanda said the recovery reflected the combined efforts of frontline forest personnel, senior officers, scientific collaborators and communities that voluntarily left their ancestral homes for wildlife conservation.

“The establishment of a breeding population of more than 300 barasingha and three meta populations is one of the most encouraging examples of successful wildlife reintroduction in the country,” Nanda said.

She said the next priority was to strengthen habitat connectivity and develop grassland corridors to secure the species’ long-term future.

The Satpura programme demonstrates how wildlife reintroduction can move beyond the transfer of animals to the establishment of a naturally breeding population. The challenge now is to ensure that habitat availability, connectivity and protection keep pace with the growing herd, she added.

The forest department launched the reintroduction programme in 2015, bringing animals from Kanha to Satpura. Between 2015 and 2026, approximately 135 barasingha were translocated to the reserve. Initially, the animals were kept in a predator-protected enclosure in the Bori landscape to help them acclimatise, breed and adapt before being released into the wild.

The programme’s success is now reflected in natural breeding and the growth of successive generations born in Satpura, say officials. The population has expanded to around 303, demonstrating that the reintroduced animals have adapted to local ecological conditions.

The three population units are associated with the Bori enclosure, Bori grasslands and Malini grasslands in the Churna range. Establishing multiple populations reduces dependence on a single location and creates opportunities for the species to expand across suitable habitats, officials say.

With the population crossing 300, forest managers are turning their attention to habitat connectivity. The proposed corridor network will link at least six grasslands, allowing barasingha to move between habitat patches in search of seasonal forage, water and breeding grounds.

The initiative is intended to reduce pressure on individual grasslands as the population grows. Better connectivity could also facilitate dispersal between population units and support demographic and genetic exchange, provided animals move safely between the habitats.

Developing the corridors will require identification of suitable movement routes, management of intervening habitats and regular monitoring of animal movement. Ensuring adequate forage, water and protection from disturbance throughout the year will be crucial to their success.

The recovery has also been supported by grassland restoration, including areas made available after villages were voluntarily relocated from the reserve’s core area.

These landscapes have provided opportunities to restore wildlife habitats and reduce pressures associated with grazing and human activity.

Management measures include promoting palatable native grasses, removing invasive weeds, maintaining open grasslands and improving water availability. Forest managers are also focusing on breeding and fawning areas, where adequate cover and protection are essential for the survival of young animals. As the population expands, the availability of connected grasslands and the carrying capacity of the habitat will become increasingly important.

The population of New Zealand’s endemic wētāpunga – believed to be the world’s heaviest insect – is officially “increasing” thanks to a groundbreaking breeding programme that has overseen the release of 11,000 insects into the wild.

“The future of wētāpunga is looking bright,” said Dr Chris Green, an honorary researcher at the department of conservation, who documented the success of the project for the New Zealand Journal of Zoology. Green co-authored a report released on 2 October that outlines the success of the breeding programme.

“Eleven thousand individuals for release is extraordinary and outstanding.”

A female wētāpunga can weigh as much as a mouse. Its body can grow up to 10cm long (nearly 4in) and its leg span can be as wide as 20cm.

It is the largest of 70 wētā species and was once found across parts of the North Island before predation from introduced species and habitat loss contributed to their decline. By the 1990s, they were considered “endangered” and are now presumed extinct in the wild on New Zealand’s mainland. The insects reside primarily on a smattering of predator-free islands in Auckland’s Hauraki Gulf and off the coast of Northland.

But their fortune is starting to change. Over the past 15 years, tens of thousands of wētāpunga have been bred at Butterfly Creek, a wildlife facility, and Auckland zoo, enabling the release of wētāpunga across new predator-free islands and some mainland reserves north of Auckland.

Butterfly Creek and Auckland zoo established husbandry techniques that, over time, have been scaled up to rear large numbers of wētāpunga in communal creches. The young wētāpunga – or nymphs – are fed a three-part diet of fresh foliage, fish flake protein and leaf litter. The protein is “critical” to the survival of the youngest nymphs, Green said.

Once big enough to protect themselves, the insects are transferred to their new habitat. The efforts have led to 45 separate translocations to wild habitats, which is “a very high number in any recovery of a species”, Green said.

In eastern Germany, enormous pits carved into the landscape by decades of lignite mining are being transformed into a vast network of lakes, wetlands and restored land. The Lusatian Lakeland, spread across Brandenburg and Saxony between Berlin and Dresden, is being created by flooding former open-cast mines and reshaping their surroundings.

The tourist destination now comprises 23 post-mining lakes covering about 14,000 hectares of water. The transformation began with Lake Senftenberg in 1967 and has continued for decades, turning one of Germany's major coal-producing regions into a new water landscape. The project combines environmental restoration with tourism, recreation and long-term rehabilitation of land heavily altered by mining.

Lusatia was one of Germany's major lignite-mining regions, and open-cast extraction left huge excavated areas after the coal was removed.

The first major step towards their transformation began in 1967, when the former Niemtsch open-cast mine started filling to create Lake Senftenberg. Flooding was completed in 1972, and the lake opened for public use the following year. Since then, numerous other mine pits have been flooded, creating what regional authorities describe as Europe's largest artificial water landscape. The process has involved both groundwater and water brought in from rivers and other sources.

The Lusatian Lakeland is not a single giant lake but a collection of former mining sites that are gradually being integrated into a connected water landscape. LMBV identifies 23 post-mining lakes within the tourist destination, with a combined water surface of around 14,000 hectares.

Five of the most prominent are Senftenberger See, Geierswalder See, Partwitzer See, Sedlitzer See and Großräschener See. Their transformation has taken place over different periods, with Senftenberger See being the oldest of the group and Sedlitzer See among the most recent to reach its target level. In 2025, Sedlitzer See reached its planned water level, marking a major stage in the creation of the lake network. At about 1,400 hectares, it has become the largest recreational lake in the Lusatian region.

The transformation is extending beyond the creation of individual lakes. Canals are being constructed to connect several of the former mining pits, allowing boats to move between lakes that were once separated by mining infrastructure and spoil heaps. On June 29, 2026, five major lakes were officially connected through navigable waterways, creating a continuous water area of roughly 5,100 hectares.

The creation of lakes is only one part of the region's environmental transformation. Mining rehabilitation has also involved stabilising former mine slopes, restoring land and allowing new vegetation to establish across areas that were previously heavily disturbed. Young forests are growing on former spoil heaps, while grasslands, wetlands and other habitats are emerging around the newly created water bodies.

The changing landscape is therefore not simply an exercise in filling holes with water, but a long-term effort to establish a functioning post-mining environment. The scale of the intervention is considerable: LMBV says about 15,000 hectares of water surface has already emerged in the Lusatian Lakeland, while additional post-mining lakes continue to be developed elsewhere in Germany's former mining regions.

The result is a new regional identity built around water, recreation and nature while retaining links to the industrial past. Regional authorities describe the Lusatian Lakeland as Germany's fourth-largest lake district and Europe's largest artificial water landscape. What began with the flooding of a single former mine in 1967 has consequently grown into a decades-long landscape transformation involving two dozen lakes, interconnected waterways and thousands of hectares of reclaimed land.

I’m sharing my research published in 2025 on wildlife crime in western Serengeti, Tanzania.

The study, titled “Wildlife crimes and the demographic characteristics of offenders in western Serengeti, Tanzania: A review of court cases 2012–2022,” examines wildlife-related court cases over a 10-year period and looks at the demographic characteristics of offenders and patterns of wildlife crimes.

The research highlights how court records can provide valuable information for understanding wildlife crime and supporting conservation law enforcement.

I’d be interested to hear from researchers, conservationists, rangers, and others working on wildlife crime: what patterns have you observed in your own areas?