22
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A global review of past land use, climate, and active vs. passive restoration effects on forest recovery

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Global forest restoration targets have been set, yet policy makers and land managers lack guiding principles on how to invest limited resources to achieve them. We conducted a meta-analysis of 166 studies in naturally regenerating and actively restored forests worldwide to answer: (1) To what extent do floral and faunal abundance and diversity and biogeochemical functions recover? (2) Does recovery vary as a function of past land use, time since restoration, forest region, or precipitation? (3) Does active restoration result in more complete or faster recovery than passive restoration? Overall, forests showed a high level of recovery, but the time to recovery depended on the metric type measured, past land use, and region. Abundance recovered quickly and completely, whereas diversity recovered slower in tropical than in temperate forests. Biogeochemical functions recovered more slowly after agriculture than after logging or mining. Formerly logged sites were mostly passively restored and generally recovered quickly. Mined sites were nearly always actively restored using a combination of planting and either soil amendments or recontouring topography, which resulted in rapid recovery of the metrics evaluated. Actively restoring former agricultural land, primarily by planting trees, did not result in consistently faster or more complete recovery than passively restored sites. Our results suggest that simply ending the land use is sufficient for forests to recover in many cases, but more studies are needed that directly compare the value added of active versus passive restoration strategies in the same system. Investments in active restoration should be evaluated relative to the past land use, the natural resilience of the system, and the specific objectives of each project.

          Related collections

          Most cited references13

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Enhancement of biodiversity and ecosystem services by ecological restoration: a meta-analysis.

          Ecological restoration is widely used to reverse the environmental degradation caused by human activities. However, the effectiveness of restoration actions in increasing provision of both biodiversity and ecosystem services has not been evaluated systematically. A meta-analysis of 89 restoration assessments in a wide range of ecosystem types across the globe indicates that ecological restoration increased provision of biodiversity and ecosystem services by 44 and 25%, respectively. However, values of both remained lower in restored versus intact reference ecosystems. Increases in biodiversity and ecosystem service measures after restoration were positively correlated. Results indicate that restoration actions focused on enhancing biodiversity should support increased provision of ecosystem services, particularly in tropical terrestrial biomes.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Restoration of ecosystem services and biodiversity: conflicts and opportunities.

            Ecological restoration is becoming regarded as a major strategy for increasing the provision of ecosystem services as well as reversing biodiversity losses. Here, we show that restoration projects can be effective in enhancing both, but that conflicts can arise, especially if single services are targeted in isolation. Furthermore, recovery of biodiversity and services can be slow and incomplete. Despite this uncertainty, new methods of ecosystem service valuation are suggesting that the economic benefits of restoration can outweigh costs. Payment for Ecosystem Service schemes could therefore provide incentives for restoration, but require development to ensure biodiversity and multiple services are enhanced and the needs of different stakeholders are met. Such approaches must be implemented widely if new global restoration targets are to be achieved. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              A global meta-analysis on the ecological drivers of forest restoration success

              Two billion ha have been identified globally for forest restoration. Our meta-analysis encompassing 221 study landscapes worldwide reveals forest restoration enhances biodiversity by 15–84% and vegetation structure by 36–77%, compared with degraded ecosystems. For the first time, we identify the main ecological drivers of forest restoration success (defined as a return to a reference condition, that is, old-growth forest) at both the local and landscape scale. These are as follows: the time elapsed since restoration began, disturbance type and landscape context. The time elapsed since restoration began strongly drives restoration success in secondary forests, but not in selectively logged forests (which are more ecologically similar to reference systems). Landscape restoration will be most successful when previous disturbance is less intensive and habitat is less fragmented in the landscape. Restoration does not result in full recovery of biodiversity and vegetation structure, but can complement old-growth forests if there is sufficient time for ecological succession.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS ONE
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                3 February 2017
                2017
                : 12
                : 2
                : e0171368
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Natura y Ecosistemas Mexicanos A.C., Mexico DF, Mexico
                [2 ]Fundación Internacional para la Restauración de Ecosistemas, Madrid, Spain
                [3 ]Environmental Studies Department, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, California, United States of America
                [4 ]Departamento de Ciencias de la Vida, Universidad de Alcalá, Alcalá de Henares, Spain
                [5 ]Department of Biological Sciences and Institute for the Study of the Environment, Sustainability, and Energy, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, Illinois, United States of America
                [6 ]Department of Biological Sciences, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, Illinois, United States of America
                [7 ]Centre for Biodiversity Theory and Modeling, Station D’Ecologie Experimentale du CNRS, Moulis, France
                [8 ]Centre INRA de Dijon, Dijon Cedex, France
                [9 ]School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
                [10 ]Basque Center for Climate Change – BC3, Bilbao, Spain
                [11 ]IKERBASQUE, Basque Foundation for Science, Bilbao, Spain
                Kerala Forest Research Institute, INDIA
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                • Conceptualization: PM KH JMRB HJ PJ DM DMM.

                • Formal analysis: PM KH JMRB HJ PJ.

                • Funding acquisition: KH JMRB HJ DMM.

                • Investigation: PM KH JMRB HJ PJ DM DMM.

                • Methodology: PM KH JMRB HJ PJ DM DMM.

                • Project administration: HJ DMM.

                • Resources: PM JMRB HJ PJ DMM.

                • Supervision: PM KH JMRB.

                • Validation: PM KH JMRB HJ PJ DM DMM.

                • Visualization: PM KH JMRB HJ PJ DM.

                • Writing – original draft: PM KH JMRB.

                • Writing – review & editing: PM KH JMRB HJ PJ DM DMM.

                [¤]

                Current address: Escola Superior de Agricultura Luiz de Queiroz, Universidade de São Paulo, Piracicaba, Brazil

                Article
                PONE-D-16-38237
                10.1371/journal.pone.0171368
                5291368
                28158256
                504ad842-80e7-4f75-be5c-c930fa724a26
                © 2017 Meli et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 29 September 2016
                : 19 January 2017
                Page count
                Figures: 5, Tables: 1, Pages: 17
                Funding
                Funded by: National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center
                Award ID: National Science Foundation DBI-1052875
                Funded by: German Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ
                Award ID: German Research Foundation DFG FZT 118
                Funded by: Synthesis Centre of the German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research
                Award ID: German Research Foundation DFG FZT 118
                Funded by: International Union for Conservation of Nature
                This work was supported by the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC) with funding received from the National Science Foundation DBI-1052875; by the German Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Leipzig (Research Program ‘Terrestrial Environments’); by sDiv, the Synthesis Centre of the German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig (German Research Foundation DFG FZT 118); and by a grant to the Fundación Internacional para la Restauración de Ecosistemas from ‘Improving the way knowledge on forests is understood and used internationally (KNOW-FOR)’ program from the International Union for Conservation of Nature. The KNOW-FOR program is funded by the Department for International Development (DFID).
                Categories
                Research Article
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Ecology
                Ecosystems
                Forests
                Ecology and Environmental Sciences
                Ecology
                Ecosystems
                Forests
                Ecology and Environmental Sciences
                Terrestrial Environments
                Forests
                Ecology and Environmental Sciences
                Biogeochemistry
                Physical Sciences
                Chemistry
                Geochemistry
                Biogeochemistry
                Earth Sciences
                Geochemistry
                Biogeochemistry
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Ecology
                Forest Ecology
                Ecology and Environmental Sciences
                Ecology
                Forest Ecology
                Earth Sciences
                Geography
                Human Geography
                Land Use
                Social Sciences
                Human Geography
                Land Use
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Ecology
                Ecosystems
                Forests
                Temperate Forests
                Ecology and Environmental Sciences
                Ecology
                Ecosystems
                Forests
                Temperate Forests
                Ecology and Environmental Sciences
                Terrestrial Environments
                Forests
                Temperate Forests
                Ecology and Environmental Sciences
                Terrestrial Environments
                Temperate Forests
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Ecology
                Biodiversity
                Ecology and Environmental Sciences
                Ecology
                Biodiversity
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Agriculture
                Agronomy
                Horticulture
                Planting
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Mathematical and Statistical Techniques
                Statistical Methods
                Meta-Analysis
                Physical Sciences
                Mathematics
                Statistics (Mathematics)
                Statistical Methods
                Meta-Analysis
                Custom metadata
                All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article