Biodiversity responses to restoration across the Brazilian Atlantic Forest

Romanelli, João Paulo; Meli, Paula; Santos, João Paulo Bispo; I, Jacob; Souza, Lukas Rodrigues; Rodrigues, André Vieira; Trevisan, Diego Peruchi; Huang, Chunbo; Almeida, Danilo Roberti Alves de; Silva, Luiz G. M.; Assad, Maria Leonor Ribeiro Casimiro Lopes; Cadotte, Marc W.; Rodrigues, Ricardo Ribeiro

doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.153403

Cited by 25 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 81 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our study demonstrated the necessity and effectiveness of modifying the model of HQ assessment for VR areas in the YRB. There are evidences that revegetation improves biodiversity (Bennett et al 2022, Romanelli et al 2022 and in situ investigations in YRB also show that revegetation enhances plant biodiversity (Liu et al 2015, however, it is difficult to prove our results using species abundance data at such a large scale. Species data are crucial for biodiversity conservation (Vallecillo et al 2016), and combining the two approaches can better enhance biodiversity conservation efforts.…”

Section: Advantages and Limitations Of The Modified Model And Future ...mentioning

confidence: 71%

A modified habitat quality model to incorporate the effects of ecological restoration

Lü

et al. 2022

Environ. Res. Lett.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ecosystem restoration has the potential to improve the ecological environment, increase ecosystem service delivery capability, and promote biodiversity conservation. Although Habitat quality (HQ) is being widely used as a metric for large-scale biodiversity conservation, it is poorly understood and measured in areas with significant vegetation restoration. This study proposes a modified approach based on the InVEST-HQ module by coupling Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) to measure the HQ in the Yellow River Basin (YRB) with extensive vegetation restoration in recent decades. The results show that the vegetation restoration area with significant increases in both Leaf Area Index (LAI) and Net Primary Production (NPP) accounts for 29.7% of the total area of the YRB. The original and modified modules were compared. Based on the InVEST-HQ module, the results show that HQ has a tendency for very small changes in the years 2000, 2010, and 2020, with first a small increase and then a small decrease; however, habitat quality based on the modified method has a significantly increasing trend, which is consistent with the ecological restoration status of the study area and the trend of key ecosystem parameters. The modified method effectively expresses habitat quality changes with vegetation restoration, making it more appropriate for usage in areas where nature conservation and ecosystem restoration are important management actions, allowing for realistic decision-making and data support for regional biodiversity conservation and habitat management.

show abstract

Section: Advantages and Limitations Of The Modified Model And Future ...mentioning

confidence: 71%

A modified habitat quality model to incorporate the effects of ecological restoration

Lü

et al. 2022

Environ. Res. Lett.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The utility of this framework hinges on understanding whether and how benefits accrue along this gradient, which requires research examining restoration outcomes at multiple levels of intervention intensity. Such studies are rare, however, because of an overwhelming tendency of restoration research to aggregate and make comparisons at the level of broad passive or active categories (Crouzeilles et al 2017; Jones et al 2018; Romanelli et al 2022). Just 6% of studies in the forest restoration dataset compare three or more restoration treatments, while studies examining a single treatment dominate at 86% (Supplement S1).…”

Section: Compare Multiple Restoration Treatmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond the passive–active dichotomy: aligning research with the intervention continuum framework of ecological restoration

Krishnan

Osuri

2022

Restoration Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Experts recommend moving beyond the passive-versus-active dichotomy toward an intervention continuum framework of ecological restoration. Restoration science should guide this transition by elucidating the performance of restoration strategies and underlying mechanisms along gradients of intervention intensity, but is constrained by a paucity of relevant comparisons, conflation of restoration goals, and incomplete documentation of interventions in the present literature. Moving beyond the passive-active dichotomy in restoration science requires emphasis on (1) designing studies that compare multiple restoration treatments to identify whether and how benefits accrue with increasing intervention intensity; (2) distinguishing ecological from other ecosystem restoration goals, as goals could modify outcomes at any given intervention intensity level; and (3) documenting restoration goals, methods, and costs consistently and in sufficient detail in publications, for reproducibility in science and practice, and relevance to comparative and synthetic research, in restoration frameworks based on the intervention continuum.

show abstract

“…Terms that have been used across the literature with somewhat similar meanings are forest rehabilitation, reforestation, and afforestation (Burton, 2014; Table 1). Forest restoration may also include different methods and techniques (Rodrigues et al, 2009;Klaus & Kiehl, 2021;Romanelli et al, 2022), and this has been extensively discussed elsewhere (e.g. Burton & Macdonald, 2011;Stanturf, Palik & Dumroese, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Convergence and divergence in science and practice of urban and rural forest restoration

Romanelli,

Piana,

Klaus

et al. 2023

Biological Reviews

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Forest restoration has never been higher on policymakers' agendas. Complex and multi‐dimensional arrangements across the urban–rural continuum challenge restorationists and require integrative approaches to strengthen environmental protection and increase restoration outcomes. It remains unclear if urban and rural forest restoration are moving towards or away from each other in practice and research, and whether comparing research outcomes can help stakeholders to gain a clearer understanding of the interconnectedness between the two fields. This study aims to identify the challenges and opportunities for enhancing forest restoration in both urban and rural systems by reviewing the scientific evidence, engaging with key stakeholders and using an urban–rural forest restoration framework. Using the Society for Ecological Restoration's International Principles as discussion topics, we highlight aspects of convergence and divergence between the two fields to broaden our understanding of forest restoration and promote integrative management approaches to address future forest conditions. Our findings reveal that urban and rural forest restoration have convergent and divergent aspects. We emphasise the importance of tailoring goals and objectives to specific contexts and the need to design different institutions and incentives based on the social and ecological needs and goals of stakeholders in different regions. Additionally, we discuss the challenges of achieving high levels of ecological restoration and the need to go beyond traditional ecology to plan, implement, monitor, and adaptively manage restored forests. We suggest that rivers and watersheds could serve as a common ground linking rural and urban landscapes and that forest restoration could interact with other environmental protection measures. We note the potential for expanding the creative vision associated with increasing tree‐containing environments in cities to generate more diverse and resilient forest restoration outcomes in rural settings. This study underscores the value of integrative management approaches in addressing future forest conditions across the urban–rural continuum. Our framework provides valuable insights for policymakers, researchers, and decision‐makers to advance the field of forest restoration and address the challenges of restoration across the urban–rural continuum. The rural–urban interface serves as a convergence point for forest restoration, and both urban and rural fields can benefit from each other's expertise.

show abstract

Biodiversity responses to restoration across the Brazilian Atlantic Forest

Cited by 25 publications

References 81 publications

A modified habitat quality model to incorporate the effects of ecological restoration

A modified habitat quality model to incorporate the effects of ecological restoration

Beyond the passive–active dichotomy: aligning research with the intervention continuum framework of ecological restoration

Convergence and divergence in science and practice of urban and rural forest restoration

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About