Abstract Across forested boreal peatlands in western Canada, forestry and energy development disturb threatened Woodland caribou habitat. Federal policy requires ≥65% undisturbed habitat in caribou ranges. Practitioners are starting to restore a ubiquitous footprint, conventional seismic lines—narrow forest clearings (3–10 m wide) used for oil and gas exploration. Research has assessed tree growth and peatland surface responses to seismic line restoration separately but rarely together, creating uncertainty about which practices most benefit ecosystem recovery. A more inclusive view of restoration that embraces intelligent tinkering by considering multiple structural responses, rather than a narrow focus on one response such as forest cover, is needed for Woodland caribou habitat recovery. Here, we used an intelligent tinkering framework to analyse dominant tree (black spruce and tamarack), woody shrub and peatland surface responses simultaneously to identify whether active (inverted mounding and tree planting) relative to passive (inhibit re‐disturbance and leave for natural) restoration promotes initial ecosystem recovery on seismic lines. We sampled and compared dominant tree, woody shrub and peatland surface responses on seismic lines and in reference adjacent fens 8–11 years after restoration treatments in the Cold Lake woodland caribou range of north‐eastern Alberta, Canada. We used generalized linear mixed‐effects models to compare structural responses for forested poor fens (20.2% of the Cold Lake range) and forested rich fens (17.3%) between restoration treatments and adjacent reference fens. Applying intelligent tinkering by comparing multiple structural responses, we found that active restoration did not promote initial recovery of forested fens more than a simple passive restoration strategy. Active restoration increased tree density and height, likely due to tree planting, but tree growth was not expedited compared to naturally regenerating trees in passive restoration. Seismic lines in active restoration treatments had reduced bryophyte coverage, increased open water and exposed soil and decreased hummock density relative to passive restoration and reference fens due to larger, man‐made mounds with little bryophyte coverage and open water pools. Synthesis and applications. Intelligent tinkering can identify divergent structural responses to active and passive restoration treatments that inhibit ecosystem recovery. Consideration of all structural responses to adapt restoration practices is not just needed within Woodland caribou ranges but is needed across peatland restoration, globally. Intelligent tinkering in restoration supports adaptive, evidence‐based restoration practices and policies that increase the likelihood of ecosystem recovery.
Sutheimer et al. (Thu,) studied this question.