Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Terrestrial ecosystem restoration increases biodiversity and reduces its variability, but not to reference levels: A global meta-analysis.
Atkinson, Joe; Brudvig, Lars A; Mallen-Cooper, Max; Nakagawa, Shinichi; Moles, Angela T; Bonser, Stephen P.
Afiliação
  • Atkinson J; Evolution & Ecology Research Centre, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, UNSW Sydney, Kensington, New South Wales, Australia.
  • Brudvig LA; Department of Plant Biology and Program in Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA.
  • Mallen-Cooper M; Evolution & Ecology Research Centre, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, UNSW Sydney, Kensington, New South Wales, Australia.
  • Nakagawa S; Evolution & Ecology Research Centre, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, UNSW Sydney, Kensington, New South Wales, Australia.
  • Moles AT; Evolution & Ecology Research Centre, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, UNSW Sydney, Kensington, New South Wales, Australia.
  • Bonser SP; Evolution & Ecology Research Centre, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, UNSW Sydney, Kensington, New South Wales, Australia.
Ecol Lett ; 25(7): 1725-1737, 2022 Jul.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35559594
ABSTRACT
Ecological restoration projects often have variable and unpredictable outcomes, and these can limit the overall impact on biodiversity. Previous syntheses have investigated restoration effectiveness by comparing average restored conditions to average conditions in unrestored or reference systems. Here, we provide the first quantification of the extent to which restoration affects both the mean and variability of biodiversity outcomes, through a global meta-analysis of 83 terrestrial restoration studies. We found that, relative to unrestored (degraded) sites, restoration actions increased biodiversity by an average of 20%, while decreasing the variability of biodiversity (quantified by the coefficient of variation) by an average of 14%. As restorations aged, mean biodiversity increased and variability decreased relative to unrestored sites. However, restoration sites remained, on average, 13% below the biodiversity of reference (target) ecosystems, and were characterised by higher (20%) variability. The lower mean and higher variability in biodiversity at restored sites relative to reference sites remained consistent over time, suggesting that sources of variation (e.g. prior land use, restoration practices) have an enduring influence on restoration outcomes. Our results point to the need for new research confronting the causes of variability in restoration outcomes, and close variability and biodiversity gaps between restored and reference conditions.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Ecossistema / Biodiversidade Tipo de estudo: Systematic_reviews Idioma: En Revista: Ecol Lett Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Austrália

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Ecossistema / Biodiversidade Tipo de estudo: Systematic_reviews Idioma: En Revista: Ecol Lett Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Austrália