Simple indicators are good proxies for ecological complexity when assessing Atlantic Forest restoration success
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2022 |
Outros Autores: | , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Repositório Institucional da UNESP |
DOI: | 10.1111/rec.13520 |
Texto Completo: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/rec.13520 http://hdl.handle.net/11449/223238 |
Resumo: | Legal regulation related to restoration monitoring should be supported and validated by studies that evaluate the performance of indicators. In Brazil, a specific state regulation uses three indicators to attest recovery: ground cover with native vegetation (i.e. canopy cover, for tropical forest restoration projects) and density and richness of native plants spontaneously regenerating. Thus, we adopted other three ecological parameters: richness of zoochorous regenerant species (a functioning indicator linked to seed dispersal), the density of non-pioneer regenerants (a composition indicator), and dominance (a structure indicator), to test whether the indicators of the legal state monitoring protocol were associated to these more qualified indicators and we discussed the state protocol effectiveness. We evaluated 10 sites under restoration in the Atlantic Forest ranging from 9 to 45 years old and a reference area. Our results showed that the three indicators of the state monitoring protocol were associated to more qualified indicators in different restored sites and they can be considered proxies of ecological parameters to monitor and attest restoration success of tropical rainforest. In addition, dominance was strongly associated with richness of regenerants, but it was not associated to density, implying that richness and density of regenerants are not redundant and both should be monitored in the field. This kind of analysis could be usefully applied to define powerful and integrative indicators elsewhere, simplifying them without losing effectiveness as a means to stimulate wide adoption of monitoring protocols in the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. |
id |
UNSP_75255c2f863d471e4834f6f312e41766 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/223238 |
network_acronym_str |
UNSP |
network_name_str |
Repositório Institucional da UNESP |
repository_id_str |
2946 |
spelling |
Simple indicators are good proxies for ecological complexity when assessing Atlantic Forest restoration successecological restorationindicatorsmonitoring protocolnatural regenerationpassive restorationpolicytropical forestLegal regulation related to restoration monitoring should be supported and validated by studies that evaluate the performance of indicators. In Brazil, a specific state regulation uses three indicators to attest recovery: ground cover with native vegetation (i.e. canopy cover, for tropical forest restoration projects) and density and richness of native plants spontaneously regenerating. Thus, we adopted other three ecological parameters: richness of zoochorous regenerant species (a functioning indicator linked to seed dispersal), the density of non-pioneer regenerants (a composition indicator), and dominance (a structure indicator), to test whether the indicators of the legal state monitoring protocol were associated to these more qualified indicators and we discussed the state protocol effectiveness. We evaluated 10 sites under restoration in the Atlantic Forest ranging from 9 to 45 years old and a reference area. Our results showed that the three indicators of the state monitoring protocol were associated to more qualified indicators in different restored sites and they can be considered proxies of ecological parameters to monitor and attest restoration success of tropical rainforest. In addition, dominance was strongly associated with richness of regenerants, but it was not associated to density, implying that richness and density of regenerants are not redundant and both should be monitored in the field. This kind of analysis could be usefully applied to define powerful and integrative indicators elsewhere, simplifying them without losing effectiveness as a means to stimulate wide adoption of monitoring protocols in the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration.Departamento de Engenharia Ambiental Instituto de Ciência e Tecnologia Universidade Estadual Paulista “Júlio de Mesquita Filho”, SPDepartamento de Ecologia Instituto de Biociências Universidade de São Paulo, SPSecretaria de Infraestrutura e Meio Ambiente, SPSociedade Brasileira de Restauração Ecológica, PRCentro de Engenharia Modelagem e Ciências Sociais Aplicadas Universidade Federal do ABC, SPDepartamento de Engenharia Ambiental Instituto de Ciência e Tecnologia Universidade Estadual Paulista “Júlio de Mesquita Filho”, SPUniversidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)Universidade de São Paulo (USP)Secretaria de Infraestrutura e Meio AmbienteSociedade Brasileira de Restauração EcológicaUniversidade Federal do ABC (UFABC)Massi, Klécia G. [UNESP]Chaves, Rafael B.Tambosi, Leandro R.2022-04-28T19:49:31Z2022-04-28T19:49:31Z2022-03-01info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlehttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/rec.13520Restoration Ecology, v. 30, n. 3, 2022.1526-100X1061-2971http://hdl.handle.net/11449/22323810.1111/rec.135202-s2.0-85122727455Scopusreponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESPinstname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)instacron:UNESPengRestoration Ecologyinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2022-04-28T19:49:31Zoai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/223238Repositório InstitucionalPUBhttp://repositorio.unesp.br/oai/requestopendoar:29462024-08-05T17:12:06.741181Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Simple indicators are good proxies for ecological complexity when assessing Atlantic Forest restoration success |
title |
Simple indicators are good proxies for ecological complexity when assessing Atlantic Forest restoration success |
spellingShingle |
Simple indicators are good proxies for ecological complexity when assessing Atlantic Forest restoration success Simple indicators are good proxies for ecological complexity when assessing Atlantic Forest restoration success Massi, Klécia G. [UNESP] ecological restoration indicators monitoring protocol natural regeneration passive restoration policy tropical forest Massi, Klécia G. [UNESP] ecological restoration indicators monitoring protocol natural regeneration passive restoration policy tropical forest |
title_short |
Simple indicators are good proxies for ecological complexity when assessing Atlantic Forest restoration success |
title_full |
Simple indicators are good proxies for ecological complexity when assessing Atlantic Forest restoration success |
title_fullStr |
Simple indicators are good proxies for ecological complexity when assessing Atlantic Forest restoration success Simple indicators are good proxies for ecological complexity when assessing Atlantic Forest restoration success |
title_full_unstemmed |
Simple indicators are good proxies for ecological complexity when assessing Atlantic Forest restoration success Simple indicators are good proxies for ecological complexity when assessing Atlantic Forest restoration success |
title_sort |
Simple indicators are good proxies for ecological complexity when assessing Atlantic Forest restoration success |
author |
Massi, Klécia G. [UNESP] |
author_facet |
Massi, Klécia G. [UNESP] Massi, Klécia G. [UNESP] Chaves, Rafael B. Tambosi, Leandro R. Chaves, Rafael B. Tambosi, Leandro R. |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Chaves, Rafael B. Tambosi, Leandro R. |
author2_role |
author author |
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP) Universidade de São Paulo (USP) Secretaria de Infraestrutura e Meio Ambiente Sociedade Brasileira de Restauração Ecológica Universidade Federal do ABC (UFABC) |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Massi, Klécia G. [UNESP] Chaves, Rafael B. Tambosi, Leandro R. |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
ecological restoration indicators monitoring protocol natural regeneration passive restoration policy tropical forest |
topic |
ecological restoration indicators monitoring protocol natural regeneration passive restoration policy tropical forest |
description |
Legal regulation related to restoration monitoring should be supported and validated by studies that evaluate the performance of indicators. In Brazil, a specific state regulation uses three indicators to attest recovery: ground cover with native vegetation (i.e. canopy cover, for tropical forest restoration projects) and density and richness of native plants spontaneously regenerating. Thus, we adopted other three ecological parameters: richness of zoochorous regenerant species (a functioning indicator linked to seed dispersal), the density of non-pioneer regenerants (a composition indicator), and dominance (a structure indicator), to test whether the indicators of the legal state monitoring protocol were associated to these more qualified indicators and we discussed the state protocol effectiveness. We evaluated 10 sites under restoration in the Atlantic Forest ranging from 9 to 45 years old and a reference area. Our results showed that the three indicators of the state monitoring protocol were associated to more qualified indicators in different restored sites and they can be considered proxies of ecological parameters to monitor and attest restoration success of tropical rainforest. In addition, dominance was strongly associated with richness of regenerants, but it was not associated to density, implying that richness and density of regenerants are not redundant and both should be monitored in the field. This kind of analysis could be usefully applied to define powerful and integrative indicators elsewhere, simplifying them without losing effectiveness as a means to stimulate wide adoption of monitoring protocols in the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. |
publishDate |
2022 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2022-04-28T19:49:31Z 2022-04-28T19:49:31Z 2022-03-01 |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/rec.13520 Restoration Ecology, v. 30, n. 3, 2022. 1526-100X 1061-2971 http://hdl.handle.net/11449/223238 10.1111/rec.13520 2-s2.0-85122727455 |
url |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/rec.13520 http://hdl.handle.net/11449/223238 |
identifier_str_mv |
Restoration Ecology, v. 30, n. 3, 2022. 1526-100X 1061-2971 10.1111/rec.13520 2-s2.0-85122727455 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
Restoration Ecology |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Scopus reponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESP instname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP) instacron:UNESP |
instname_str |
Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP) |
instacron_str |
UNESP |
institution |
UNESP |
reponame_str |
Repositório Institucional da UNESP |
collection |
Repositório Institucional da UNESP |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
|
_version_ |
1822182412046565376 |
dc.identifier.doi.none.fl_str_mv |
10.1111/rec.13520 |