10.5061/DRYAD.5428H
Crouzeilles, Renato
Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
Ferreira, Mariana S.
Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
Universidade Veiga de Almeida
Chazdon, Robin L.
University of Connecticut
Lindenmayer, David B.
Australian National University
Sansevero, Jerônimo B. B.
Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro
Monteiro, Lara
International Institute for Sustainability, 22460-320 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Iribarrem, Alvaro
International Institute for Sustainability, 22460-320 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Latawiec, Agnieszka E.
International Institute for Sustainability, 22460-320 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Strassburg, Bernardo B. N.
International Institute for Sustainability, 22460-320 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Data from: Ecological restoration success is higher for natural
regeneration than for active restoration in tropical forests
Dryad
dataset
2018
Active restoration
Tropical forests
natural regeneration
2018-10-26T00:00:00Z
2018-10-26T00:00:00Z
en
https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1701345
411047 bytes
1
CC0 1.0 Universal (CC0 1.0) Public Domain Dedication
Is active restoration the best approach to achieve ecological restoration
success (the return to a reference condition, that is, old-growth forest)
when compared to natural regeneration in tropical forests? Our
meta-analysis of 133 studies demonstrated that natural regeneration
surpasses active restoration in achieving tropical forest restoration
success for all three biodiversity groups (plants, birds, and
invertebrates) and five measures of vegetation structure (cover, density,
litter, biomass, and height) tested. Restoration success for biodiversity
and vegetation structure were 34 to 56% and 19 to 56% higher in natural
regeneration than in active restoration systems, respectively, after
controlling for key biotic and abiotic factors (forest amount,
precipitation, time elapsed since restoration started, and past
disturbance). Biodiversity responses were based primarily on ecological
metrics of abundance and species richness (74%), both of which take far
less time to achieve restoration success than similarity and composition.
This finding challenges the widely held notion that natural forest
regeneration has limited conservation value and that active restoration
should be the default ecological restoration strategy. The proposition
that active restoration achieves greater restoration success than natural
regeneration may have arisen because of comparisons lacking controlled
biotic and abiotic factors. We did not find any difference between active
restoration and natural regeneration outcomes for vegetation structure
when we did not control for these factors. Future policy priorities should
align the identified patterns of biophysical and ecological conditions
where each or both restoration approaches are more successful,
cost-effective, and compatible with socioeconomic incentives for tropical
forest restoration.
DataMeta_analysis_controlledMeta_analysis_uncontrolled
Tropical Forests