Restoration and repair of Earth's damaged ecosystems

Jones, Holly P.; Jones, Peter Tom; Barbier, Edward B.; Blackburn, Ryan C.; Benayas, José María Rey; Holl, Karen D.; McCrackin, Michelle L.; Meli, Paula; Montoya, Daniel; Moreno-Mateos, David

doi:10.1098/rspb.2017.2577

Cited by 256 publications

(280 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

260

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our results are consistent with other studies showing that, where possible, regrowth offers cost‐effective opportunities to deliver conservation and carbon benefits in agricultural regions (Crouzeilles et al ; Meli et al ; Jones et al ). Where active reforestation is required, we suggest that recruitment and recruit survival is a high priority.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Comparing the recovery of richness, structure, and biomass in naturally regrowing and planted reforestation

Staples

Mayfield

England

et al. 2019

Restoration Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The clearing of natural vegetation for agriculture has reduced the capacity of natural systems to provide ecosystem functions. Ecological restoration can restore desirable ecosystem functions, such as creating habitat for animal conservation and carbon sequestration as woody biomass. In order to maintain these beneficial ecosystem functions, restoration projects need to mature into self‐perpetuating communities. Here we compared the ecological attributes of two types of restoration, “active” tree plantings with “passive” natural forest regeneration (“natural regrowth”) to existing remnant vegetation in a cleared agricultural landscape. Specifically, we measured differences between forest categories in factors that may predict future restoration failure or ecosystem collapse: aboveground plant biomass and biomass accrual over time (for regrowing stands), plant density and size class distributions, and diversity of functional groups based on seed dispersal and growth strategy traits. We found that natural regrowth and planted forests were similar in many ecological characteristics, including biomass accrual. Despite this, planted stands contained fewer tree recruit and shrub individuals, which may be due to limited recruitment in plantings. If this continues, these forests may be at risk of collapsing into nonforest states after mature trees senesce. Lower shrub density and richness of mid‐story trees may lead to lower structural complexity in planting plots, and alongside lower richness of fleshy‐fruited plant species may reduce animal resources and animal use of the restored stand. In our study region, natural regrowth may result in restored woodland communities with greater conservation and carbon mitigation value.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Comparing the recovery of richness, structure, and biomass in naturally regrowing and planted reforestation

Staples

Mayfield

England

et al. 2019

Restoration Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This confirms findings by Rey Benayas et al (2009), Moreno-Mateos et al (2017), and Jones et al (2018), who also reported incomplete recovery of restored ecosystems worldwide, highlighting that conservation of intact ecosystem has highest priority. This confirms findings by Rey Benayas et al (2009), Moreno-Mateos et al (2017), and Jones et al (2018), who also reported incomplete recovery of restored ecosystems worldwide, highlighting that conservation of intact ecosystem has highest priority.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Integrated assessment of ecosystem recovery using a multifunctionality approach

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ecological restoration has great potential for reversing anthropogenic degradation, as it aims at the simultaneous recovery of several ecosystem functions and services. However, it can be challenging to evaluate multiple restoration targets based on a high number of indicators, and this calls for a multifunctionality approach. Multifunctionality is an integrated measure of the relative supply of multiple ecosystem functions or services. As temporal aspects are of key importance for ecosystem recovery, we analyzed multifunctionality against time since restoration. We used rewetted peatlands in a mountainous region in Central Germany as a study case. Restored peatlands are expected to become multifunctional, while their recovery is rather slow.We investigated to what extent rewetted peatlands recover, and how time since restoration controls the simultaneous development of multiple ecosystem properties. We studied restored peatlands with respect to plant diversity, water table, peat decomposition, water holding capacity, and nutrient level using a chronosequence of 0-18 yr after restoration. We analyzed the development of individual properties and of a combined index. We further compared the recovery of restored sites at different ages to an intact reference peatland and to a theoretical optimum value, defined as the mean of the eleven most desirable values observed. Eleven out of 13 peatland properties and the combined index significantly evolved with time since restoration. Nevertheless, we could not observe a consistent trend of multiple properties if aiming at highest levels of functioning, whereas there was progress with time if low or intermediate functioning is targeted. Our results show that not all functions of restored peatlands can recover to the most desirable extent within 18 yr. However, the average functionality and some individual properties achieved levels comparable to the reference site, highlighting that improvement is possible. While the integrated assessment informs about the degree of ecosystem recovery, an additional analysis of individual properties helps understanding ecosystem-specific dynamics, which are needed for making decisions on potential future management.

show abstract

“…Recent research has pointed out a number of cases in which natural regeneration and recovery following disturbance can be more successful than active restoration, such as planting (Crouzeilles et al, 2017;Jones et al, 2018). Recent research has pointed out a number of cases in which natural regeneration and recovery following disturbance can be more successful than active restoration, such as planting (Crouzeilles et al, 2017;Jones et al, 2018).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Carbon sequestration in riparian forests: A global synthesis and meta‐analysis

Dybala

Matzek

Gardali

et al. 2018

Global Change Biology

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Restoration of deforested and degraded landscapes is a globally recognized strategy to sequester carbon, improve ecological integrity, conserve biodiversity, and provide additional benefits to human health and well‐being. Investment in riparian forest restoration has received relatively little attention, in part due to their relatively small spatial extent. Yet, riparian forest restoration may be a particularly valuable strategy because riparian forests have the potential for rapid carbon sequestration, are hotspots of biodiversity, and provide numerous valuable ecosystem services. To inform this strategy, we conducted a global synthesis and meta‐analysis to identify general patterns of carbon stock accumulation in riparian forests. We compiled riparian biomass and soil carbon stock data from 117 publications, reports, and unpublished data sets. We then modeled the change in carbon stock as a function of vegetation age, considering effects of climate and whether or not the riparian forest had been actively planted. On average, our models predicted that the establishment of riparian forest will more than triple the baseline, unforested soil carbon stock, and that riparian forests hold on average 68–158 Mg C/ha in biomass at maturity, with the highest values in relatively warm and wet climates. We also found that actively planting riparian forest substantially jump‐starts the biomass carbon accumulation, with initial growth rates more than double those of naturally regenerating riparian forest. Our results demonstrate that carbon sequestration should be considered a strong co‐benefit of riparian restoration, and that increasing the pace and scale of riparian forest restoration may be a valuable investment providing both immediate carbon sequestration value and long‐term ecosystem service returns.

show abstract

Restoration and repair of Earth's damaged ecosystems

Cited by 256 publications

References 45 publications

Comparing the recovery of richness, structure, and biomass in naturally regrowing and planted reforestation

Comparing the recovery of richness, structure, and biomass in naturally regrowing and planted reforestation

Integrated assessment of ecosystem recovery using a multifunctionality approach

Carbon sequestration in riparian forests: A global synthesis and meta‐analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About