Monitoring attributes for ecological restoration in Latin America and the Caribbean region

Abstract

Ecological restoration is becoming mainstreamed worldwide but target ecosystems' responses to restorative interventions are not sufficiently monitored, in terms of the wide range of ecological, social, and economic attributes available. In order to highlight and better understand this problem, we conducted a literature review of the ecological, social, and economic attributes cited in the scientific literature used for monitoring the success of ecological restoration projects in Latin America and the Caribbean region, where no regional study of this kind has previously been conducted. In 84 of the 91 articles retained for the study, ecological indicators were evaluated, while only seven articles included measurements of socioeconomic indicators. Regarding the Society for Ecological Restoration Primer attributes of restored ecosystems, we only found indicators measuring attributes 1–6, with attribute 1 (species assemblages) predominating (73%), followed by physical conditions (54%) and ecological functions (51%). Brazil was the country in the region where most monitoring was being carried out (51% of the articles), and tropical rainforest (33%) and tropical dry forest (25%) were the ecosystem types where ecological restoration was most frequently monitored. Highly vulnerable ecosystems such as mangroves and paramos were underrepresented. Attributes related to ecosystem stability or to governance and education of communities were not monitored at all. More real long‐term monitoring, instead of chronosequences, is needed, especially where understanding socioeconomic implications of, and barriers to, effective ecological restoration is a top priority.

Key gaps in soil monitoring during forest restoration in Colombia

“…The soil indicators that are used to monitor forest restoration projects have been investigated to some extent by previous global (Wortley et al 2013; Gatica‐Saavedra et al 2017) or regional (Bonnesoeur et al 2019; Mazón et al 2019) studies. The work of Murcia and Guariguata (2014) pointed out that most of the restoration projects in Colombia do not consider any soil indicator, but gaps remain regarding: (1) the extent to which soil indicators have been addressed; (2) the type of soil indicators that are used; (3) the regions where soil indicators have been measured during forest restoration.…”

Mangrove Rehabilitation and Restoration as Experimental Adaptive Management

“…Follow-up monitoring has been sporadic and, at best, short-term. Most failures result from the lack of community involvement, appropriate governance structures, and alignment of objectives and goals of external agents (including scientists) and local stakeholders (Field, 1998;Mazón et al, 2019). Cormier-Salem (1999) argued that interacting dynamics of natural and social systems was a sine qua non of effective long-term management of mangroves, but that social scientists had not been included in mangrove restoration projects.…”

“…Not only does adaptive management require regular monitoring of key indicators to determine if the objectives and goals of a rehabilitation or restoration project are being met, it also requires clear triggers or decision-points for appropriate intervention and action if the objectives or goals are not being met (Gann et al, 2019). For mangrove rehabilitation and restoration projects, long-term monitoring is uncommon (e.g., Mazón et al, 2019), and adaptive management is rarely applied. However, Eriksson et al (2016) showed clearly that adaptive management of an "ecosystem approach" improved outcomes associated with managing mangroves for small-scale fisheries in Indonesia (Lombok), the Philippines, Solomon Islands, and Tanzania.…”

Engagement increases people willingness to sustain restored areas beyond financial incentives

“…Ecosystem recovery should be evaluated by periodically monitoring key indicators and comparing them to the values measured in a reference ecosystem. However, most ecological restoration projects only evaluate implementation per se, that is, the survival or performance of planted species (see Block et al 2001), and when they include a structured monitoring plan, socioeconomic indicators are rarely considered (Aronson et al 2010; Mazón et al 2019).…”