Tropical secondary forest regeneration conserves high levels of avian phylogenetic diversity

Edwards, David P.; Massam, Mike R.; Haugaasen, Torbjørn; Gilroy, James J.

doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2017.03.006

Cited by 49 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…After correcting the correlation between species richness and PD (sesPD) and FD (sesFD), SFs had greater phylogenetic and functional dispersion than that found in PFs (Figure e,i). Higher sesPD in SFs thus suggests an increase of PD due to shifts in species composition towards, on average, less related species via losses of phylogenetically related species and/or gains of phylogenetically distant species, regardless of species richness (Edwards et al, ). The higher sesFD in SFs indicates lower levels of functional redundancy than that observed for PFs (Laliberté et al, ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Secondary forest fragments offer important carbon and biodiversity cobenefits

Matos

Magnago

Miranda

et al. 2019

Global Change Biology

Self Cite

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tropical forests store large amounts of carbon and high biodiversity, but are being degraded at alarming rates. The emerging global Forest and Landscape Restoration (FLR) agenda seeks to limit global climate change by removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through the growth of trees. In doing so, it may also protect biodiversity as a free cobenefit, which is vital given the massive shortfall in funding for biodiversity conservation. We investigated whether natural forest regeneration on abandoned pastureland offers such cobenefits, focusing for the first time on the recovery of taxonomic diversity (TD), phylogenetic diversity (PD) and functional diversity (FD) of trees, including the recovery of threatened and endemic species richness, within isolated secondary forest (SF) fragments. We focused on the globally threatened Brazilian Atlantic Forest, where commitments have been made to restore 1 million hectares under FLR. Three decades after land abandonment, regenerating forests had recovered ~20% (72 Mg/ha) of the above‐ground carbon stocks of a primary forest (PF), with cattle pasture containing just 3% of stocks relative to PFs. Over this period, SF recovered ~76% of TD, 84% of PD and 96% of FD found within PFs. In addition, SFs had on average recovered 65% of threatened and ~30% of endemic species richness of primary Atlantic forest. Finally, we find positive relationships between carbon stock and tree diversity recovery. Our results emphasize that SF fragments offer cobenefits under FLR and other carbon‐based payments for ecosystem service schemes (e.g. carbon enhancements under REDD+). They also indicate that even isolated patches of SF could help to mitigate climate change and the biodiversity extinction crisis by recovering species of high conservation concern and improving landscape connectivity.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, multiple taxa recovered high TD in the Brazilian Amazon (Barlow et al, 2007). Additionally, Edwards, Massam, Haugaasen, and Gilroy (2017) found high recovery of PD for bird communities in the tropical Andes, while Lohbeck et al (2012) found high recovery of FD for tree communities in Mexico.…”

Section: Biodiversity Recoverymentioning

confidence: 94%

Secondary forest fragments offer important carbon and biodiversity cobenefits

Matos

Magnago

Miranda

et al. 2019

Global Change Biology

Self Cite

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One study found that the null model was the best-fitting model in two of four cases (Major, Buxton, Schacter, Conners, & Jones, 2017), suggesting little support for the ecological hypotheses of interest. Several papers examined the match between observed and fitted values for an averaged model (Edwards, Massam, Haugaasen, & Gilroy, 2017;Mitchell, Bakker, Vincent, & Davies, 2017), while another undertook cross-validation on a model-averaged result (Cavada et al, 2017). The other 64 papers did not evaluate model goodness-of-fit in an absolute sense.…”

Section: The Best Models Frequently Are Not Assessedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Model selection using information criteria, but is the “best” model any good?

Nally

Duncan

Thomson

et al. 2017

Journal of Applied Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Information criteria (ICs) are used widely for data summary and model building in ecology, especially in applied ecology and wildlife management. Although ICs are useful for distinguishing among rival candidate models, ICs do not necessarily indicate whether the “best” model (or a model‐averaged version) is a good representation of the data or whether the model has useful “explanatory” or “predictive” ability. As editors and reviewers, we have seen many submissions that did not evaluate whether the nominal “best” model(s) found using IC is a useful model in the above sense. We scrutinized six leading ecological journals for papers that used IC to compare models. More than half of papers using IC for model comparison did not evaluate the adequacy of the best model(s) in either “explaining” or “predicting” the data. Synthesis and applications. Authors need to evaluate the adequacy of the model identified as the “best” model by using information criteria methods to provide convincing evidence to readers and users that inferences from the best models are useful and reliable.

show abstract

“…Although ecologists and conservationists have focused on deforestation, extensive areas of the tropics are naturally regenerated forest and their importance for biodiversity has not been fully explored (Achard et al 2002, Aide et al 2013, Chazdon et al 2016, Reid et al 2018. While most secondary forest studies have focused on vegetation, recent studies have analysed the recovery patterns of vertebrates during secondary forest succession (Andrade and Rubio-Torgler 1994, Medellin and Equihua 1998, Blake and Loiselle 2001, Crouzeilles et al 2017, or have evaluated the functional (Sayer et al 2017) and phylogenetic diversity (Edwards et al 2017) of vertebrates in tropical secondary forest. Understanding these dynamics is essential for generating management plans and conservation strategies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, it is important to account for the variation in the recovery of different functional groups (Cadotte et al 2011). In secondary forest, the recovery of bird forest specialists can take more than 100 years (Sayer et al 2017), while bird phylogenetic recovery can occur in only 30 years (Edwards et al 2017). The inconclusive and contrasting patterns of vertebrate diversity recovery is due to relatively few studies, grouping species with different natural histories such as forest specialists and habitat generalists, not controlling for different habitats, biomes or biotic and abiotic factors (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recovery of amphibian, reptile, bird and mammal diversity during secondary forest succession in the tropics

Acevedo‐Charry

Aide

2019

Oikos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In tropical regions, many studies have focused on how vegetation and ecosystem processes recover following the abandonment of anthropogenic activities, but less attention has been given to the recovery patterns of vertebrates. Here we conduct a meta‐analysis (n = 147 studies) of amphibian, reptile, bird and mammal recovery during tropical secondary forest succession (i.e. natural regeneration). For each taxonomic group, we compared changes in species richness and compositional similarity during natural secondary succession to reference forests (mature or old growth forest). In addition, we evaluated the response of forest specialists and the change in bird and mammal functional groups during natural secondary succession in the tropical moist forest biome. Overall, species richness of all groups reached levels of the reference forests during natural secondary succession, but this was not the case for species compositional similarity. The delay in recovery of forest specialists may be the reason for the delay in recovery of species compositional similarity. Overall, vertebrate recovery increased with successional stage, but other potential predictors of diversity recovery, such as, the geographical setting (amphibian and reptile species compositional similarity recovered more rapidly on islands), rainfall (mammal species richness and compositional similarity recovered faster in regions of low rainfall), and the landscape context (amphibian, reptile and mammal species compositional similarity recovered faster in regions with more forest patches) influenced vertebrate recovery. These results demonstrate the important role of secondary forests in providing habitat for many vertebrates, but the slow recovery of species compositional similarity, forest specialists and some functional groups (e.g. insectivorous birds) highlighted the challenge of secondary forest persistence, and strongly argues for the continued protection of old growth/mature forest as habitat for forest specialists and as sources for secondary forest sites.

show abstract

Tropical secondary forest regeneration conserves high levels of avian phylogenetic diversity

Cited by 49 publications

References 51 publications

Secondary forest fragments offer important carbon and biodiversity cobenefits

Secondary forest fragments offer important carbon and biodiversity cobenefits

Model selection using information criteria, but is the “best” model any good?

Recovery of amphibian, reptile, bird and mammal diversity during secondary forest succession in the tropics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About