Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHua, F.
dc.contributor.authorAdrian Bruijnzeel, L.
dc.contributor.authorMeli, P.
dc.contributor.authorMartin, P.A.
dc.contributor.authorZhang, J.
dc.contributor.authorNakagawa, S.
dc.contributor.authorMiao, X.
dc.contributor.authorWang, W.
dc.contributor.authorMcEvoy, C.
dc.contributor.authorPeña-Arancibia, J.L.
dc.contributor.authorBrancalion, P.H.S.
dc.contributor.authorSmith, P.
dc.contributor.authorEdwards, D.P.
dc.contributor.authorBalmford, A.
dc.date.accessioned2023-08-16T08:01:40Z
dc.date.available2023-08-16T08:01:40Z
dc.date.issued2022
dc.identifier.citationScience: 376 (6595): 839-844 (2022)es_ES
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10810/62203
dc.description.abstractForest restoration is being scaled up globally to deliver critical ecosystem services and biodiversity benefits; however, there is a lack of rigorous comparison of cobenefit delivery across different restoration approaches. Through global synthesis, we used 25,950 matched data pairs from 264 studies in 53 countries to assess how delivery of climate, soil, water, and wood production services, in addition to biodiversity, compares across a range of tree plantations and native forests. Benefits of aboveground carbon storage, water provisioning, and especially soil erosion control and biodiversity are better delivered by native forests, with compositionally simpler, younger plantations in drier regions performing particularly poorly. However, plantations exhibit an advantage in wood production. These results underscore important trade-offs among environmental and production goals that policy-makers must navigate in meeting forest restoration commitments.es_ES
dc.description.sponsorshipThe authors thank the many experts listed in table S3 for insights on data availability about soil erosion and particularly for providing data and related insights pertaining to water provisioning. The authors further thank D. A. Coomes, M. G. Betts, and G. Shackleton for helpful discussions, J. Dwyer for providing R code assistance on meta-regression plotting, N. Labrière for sharing potential data on soil erosion, and J. K. Vanclay for insights on timber production, as well as R. Heilmayr, M. Larjavaara, R. Pillay, D. S. Wilcove, and two anonymous reviewers for constructive comments that improved the quality of earlier versions of the manuscript. This work was supported by Royal Society Newton International Fellowship NF160839 and National Natural Science Foundation of China Grants 32122057 and 31988102 (to F.H.), as well as and São Paulo Research Foundation Postdoctoral Grant 2016/00052-9 (to P.M.).es_ES
dc.language.isoenges_ES
dc.publisherSciencees_ES
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesses_ES
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/es/*
dc.titleThe biodiversity and ecosystem service contributions and trade-offs of forest restoration approacheses_ES
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlees_ES
dc.rights.holderCopyright © 2022 The Authors, some rights reserved; exclusive licensee American Association for the Advancement of Science. No claim to original U.S. Government Works https://www.sciencemag.org/about/science-licenses-journal-article-reusees_ES
dc.rights.holderAtribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 3.0 España*
dc.relation.publisherversionhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.abl4649es_ES
dc.identifier.doi10.1126/science.abl4649


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Copyright © 2022 The Authors, some rights reserved; exclusive licensee American Association for the Advancement of Science. No claim to original U.S. Government Works https://www.sciencemag.org/about/science-licenses-journal-article-reuse
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Copyright © 2022 The Authors, some rights reserved; exclusive licensee American Association for the Advancement of Science. No claim to original U.S. Government Works https://www.sciencemag.org/about/science-licenses-journal-article-reuse