Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMeli, Paula
dc.contributor.authorHoll, Karen
dc.contributor.authorRey Benayas, José María 
dc.contributor.authorJones, Holly P.
dc.contributor.authorJones, Peter C.
dc.contributor.authorMontoya Terán, Javier Daniel 
dc.contributor.authorMoreno Mateos, David 
dc.date.accessioned2019-05-15T14:32:09Z
dc.date.available2019-05-15T14:32:09Z
dc.date.issued2017
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitationPLoS ONE, 2017, v. 12, n. 2, p. E0171368-en
dc.identifier.issn1932-6203
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10017/37530
dc.description.abstractGlobal forest restoration targets have been set, yet policy makers and land managers lack guiding principles on how to invest limited resources to achieve them. We conducted a meta-analysis of 166 studies in naturally regenerating and actively restored forests worldwide to answer: (1) To what extent do floral and faunal abundance and diversity and biogeochemical functions recover? (2) Does recovery vary as a function of past land use, time since restoration, forest region, or precipitation? (3) Does active restoration result in more complete or faster recovery than passive restoration? Overall, forests showed a high level of recovery, but the time to recovery depended on the metric type measured, past land use, and region. Abundance recovered quickly and completely, whereas diversity recovered slower in tropical than in temperate forests. Biogeochemical functions recovered more slowly after agriculture than after logging or mining. Formerly logged sites were mostly passively restored and generally recovered quickly. Mined sites were nearly always actively restored using a combination of planting and either soil amendments or recontouring topography, which resulted in rapid recovery of the metrics evaluated. Actively restoring former agricultural land, primarily by planting trees, did not result in consistently faster or more complete recovery than passively restored sites. Our results suggest that simply ending the land use is sufficient for forests to recover in many cases, but more studies are needed that directly compare the value added of active versus passive restoration strategies in the same system. Investments in active restoration should be evaluated relative to the past land use, the natural resilience of the system, and the specific objectives of each project.en
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfen
dc.language.isoengen
dc.rightsAttribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)en
dc.rights© 2017 The Author(s)en
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en
dc.subjectForestsen
dc.subjectBiogeochemistryen
dc.subjectForest ecologyen
dc.subjectLand useen
dc.subjectBiodiversityen
dc.subjectTemperate forestsen
dc.subjectPlantingen
dc.subjectMeta-analysisen
dc.titleA global review of past land-use, climate, and active vs. passive restoration effects on forest recoveryen
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleen
dc.subject.ecienciaMedio Ambientees_ES
dc.subject.ecienciaEnvironmental scienceen
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversidad de Alcalá. Departamento de Ciencias de la Vidaes_ES
dc.date.updated2019-05-15T14:29:03Z
dc.type.versioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionen
dc.identifier.doi10.1371/journal.pone.0171368
dc.rights.accessRightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen
dc.identifier.uxxiAR/0000026764
dc.identifier.publicationtitlePLoS ONEen
dc.identifier.publicationvolume12
dc.identifier.publicationissue2
dc.identifier.publicationfirstpagee0171368


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
Este ítem está sujeto a una licencia Creative Commons.