Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMeli, P.
dc.contributor.authorHoll, K.D.
dc.contributor.authorBenayas, J.M.R.
dc.contributor.authorJones, H.P.
dc.contributor.authorJones, P.C.
dc.contributor.authorMontoya, D.
dc.contributor.authorMateos, D.M.
dc.date.accessioned2020-06-18T11:03:18Z
dc.date.available2020-06-18T11:03:18Z
dc.date.issued2017
dc.identifier.citationPlos One 12(2) : E0171368 (2017)
dc.identifier.issn1932-6203
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10810/44034
dc.description.abstractGlobal 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. (c) 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.
dc.description.sponsorshipThis 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 Fundacio´n Internacional para la Restauracio´n 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)
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherPloS One
dc.relation.urihttps://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0171368
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/es/
dc.titleA global review of past land use, climate, and active vs. passive restoration effects on forest recovery
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/review
dc.rights.holder(c) 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.
dc.identifier.doi10.1371/journal.pone.0171368


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

(c) 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.
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as (c) 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.