Ecological indicators for assessing ecological success of forest restoration: a world review

被引:110
|
作者
Gatica-Saavedra, Paula [1 ]
Echeverria, Cristian [1 ,2 ]
Nelson, Cara R. [3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Concepcion, Fac Ciencias Forestales, Lab Ecol Paisaje, Concepcion 631, Chile
[2] Millennium Nucleus Ctr Socioecon Impact Environm, Santiago, Chile
[3] Univ Montana, WA Franke Coll Forestry & Conservat, Dept Ecosyst & Conservat Sci, 32 Campus Dr, Missoula, MT 59812 USA
关键词
community composition; community structure; ecosystem functions; evaluation; monitoring; verification; ECOSYSTEM SERVICES; BIODIVERSITY; PATTERNS; BIOINDICATORS; COMMUNITY;
D O I
10.1111/rec.12586
中图分类号
Q14 [生态学(生物生态学)];
学科分类号
071012 ; 0713 ;
摘要
Restoration is increasingly being used to reverse degradation and destruction of forest ecosystems. With increasing investment in restoration, there is an urgent need to develop effective programs to assess treatment efficacy and effects. We conducted a global review of forest restoration assessments, in order to identify geographic trends in the locations where assessments have been implemented and the specific ecological attributes (ecosystem composition, structure, and function) and indicators being used to measure effects. We found that the number of forest restoration assessments varied by region and was not related to degree of degradation or restoration need. Some regions, like Africa, which have experienced high rates of forest loss and degradation, had few assessments. The majority (43%) of assessments included indicators for only two of three key ecological attributes (composition-structure or composition-function) and assessments on average used fewer than three indicators per attribute. The most commonly employed indicators for composition were richness and abundance of plant species and for structure were height and diameter of trees, variables that are generally relatively easy to measure. The use of functional indicators has been increasing over time and they are now more commonly used than structural indicators. The most common functional indicators were soil functions. Most investigators evaluated treatment effects for 6-10 years after implementation. Our findings related to gaps in analysis of ecological indicators can serve as a guide for developing monitoring and assessment protocols for current global forest restoration initiatives by 2020-2030.
引用
收藏
页码:850 / 857
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Assessing the impact of ecological forest restoration on soil carbon stocks in Sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review
    Qasha, Vuyo
    Manyevere, Alen
    Flynn, Trevan
    Mashamaite, Chuene Victor
    CARBON MANAGEMENT, 2024, 15 (01)
  • [22] Ecological restoration success: a policy analysis understanding
    Baker, Susan
    Eckerberg, Katarina
    RESTORATION ECOLOGY, 2016, 24 (03) : 284 - 290
  • [23] Positive Ecological Interactions and the Success of Seagrass Restoration
    Valdez, Stephanie R.
    Zhang, Y. Stacy
    van der Heide, Tjisse
    Vanderklift, Mathew A.
    Tarquinio, Flavia
    Orth, Robert J.
    Silliman, Brian R.
    FRONTIERS IN MARINE SCIENCE, 2020, 7
  • [24] Functional trajectory for the assessment of ecological restoration success
    Manhaes, Adriana P.
    Pantaleao, Laura C.
    Moraes, Luiz F. D.
    Amazonas, Nino T.
    Saavedra, Mariana M.
    Mantuano, Dulce
    Sansevero, Jeronimo B. B.
    RESTORATION ECOLOGY, 2022, 30 (08)
  • [25] Making ecological indicators management ready: Assessing the specificity, sensitivity, and threshold response of ecological indicators
    Fu, Caihong
    Xu, Yi
    Bundy, Alida
    Gruss, Arnaud
    Coll, Marta
    Heymans, Johanna J.
    Fulton, Elizabeth A.
    Shannon, Lynne
    Halouani, Ghassen
    Velez, Laure
    Akoglu, Ekin
    Lynam, Christopher P.
    Shin, Yunne-Jai
    ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS, 2019, 105 : 16 - 28
  • [26] How to measure outcomes in forest restoration? A European review of success and failure indicators
    Menendez-Miguelez, Maria
    Rubio-Cuadrado, Alvaro
    Canellas, Isabel
    Erdozain, Maitane
    de Miguel, Sergio
    Lapin, Katharina
    Hoffmann, Johanna
    Werden, Leland
    Alberdi, Iciar
    FRONTIERS IN FORESTS AND GLOBAL CHANGE, 2024, 7
  • [27] Ecological ICMS enables forest restoration in Brazil
    Silva Soares da Rocha, Samuel Jose
    Comini, Indira Bifano
    Machado de Morais Junior, Vicente Toledo
    Said Schettini, Bruno Leao
    Villanova, Paulo Henrique
    Bernardes Moura Alves, Eliana Boaventura
    Silva, Lauana Blenda
    Gonsalves Jacovine, Laercio Antonio
    Miquelino Eleto Torres, Carlos Moreira
    LAND USE POLICY, 2020, 91
  • [28] Forest species in ecological restoration of Cerrado vegetation
    Vieira, Daniel Alves
    Fernandes Silva, Pedro Henrique
    Miranda Matias, Renan Augusto
    Xavier Valadao, Marco Bruno
    Martins, Thalles Oliveira
    Ribeiro, Fabiana Piontekowski
    Rodrigues Pinto, Jose Roberto
    Gatto, Alcides
    SCIENTIA FORESTALIS, 2021, 49 (132):
  • [29] Ecological indicators: Imperative to sustainable forest management
    Kotwal, P. C.
    Omprakash, M. D.
    Gairola, Sanjay
    Dugaya, D.
    ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS, 2008, 8 (01) : 104 - 107
  • [30] Mapping and assessing the knowledge base of ecological restoration
    Heger, Tina
    Jeschke, Jonathan M.
    Febria, Catherine
    Kollmann, Johannes
    Murphy, Stephen
    Rochefort, Line
    Shackelford, Nancy
    Temperton, Vicky M.
    Higgs, Eric
    RESTORATION ECOLOGY, 2024, 32 (08)