Forest restoration requires strategies such as passive restoration to balance financial investments and ecological outcomes. However, the ecological outcomes of passive restoration are traditionally regarded as uncertain. We evaluated technical and legal strategies for balancing economic costs and ecological outcomes of passive versus active restoration in agricultural landscapes. We focused in the case of Brazil, where we assessed the factors driving the proportion of land allocated to passive and active restoration in 42 programs covering 698,398 hectares of farms in the Atlantic Forest, Atlantic Forest/cerrado ecotone and Amazon; the ecological outcomes of passive and active restoration in 2955 monitoring plots placed in six restoration programs; and the legal framework developed by some Brazilian states to balance the different restoration approaches and comply with legal commitments. Active restoration had the highest proportion of land allocated to it (78.4%), followed by passive (14.2%) and mixed restoration (7.4%). Passive restoration was higher in the Amazon, in silviculture, and when remaining forest cover was over 50 percent. Overall, both restoration approaches showed high levels of variation in the ecological outcomes; nevertheless, passively restored areas had a smaller percentage canopy cover, lower species density, and less shrubs and trees (dbh > 5 cm). The studied legal frameworks considered land abandonment for up to 4 years before deciding on a restoration approach, to favor the use of passive restoration. A better understanding of the biophysical and socioeconomic features of areas targeted for restoration is needed to take a better advantage of their natural regeneration potential.Abstract in Portuguese is available with online material.

Recent global commitments have placed forest and landscape restoration at the forefront of countries' efforts to recover ecosystem services, conserve biodiversity, and mitigate the effects of climate change. However, it needs to be asked if current native tree seedling supply meets an increase in demand for forest restoration? This study assessed the current configuration, distribution, and production capacity of forest nurseries producing native trees in Brazil. Brazil provides an interesting example of how global agreements aligned with national policies can lead to the proliferation of native seedling nurseries, and the challenges faced to restore species‐rich native forest ecosystems. We found that the nurseries in the Atlantic Forest region can still meet an increase in demand—both in terms of seedling quantity and diversity—because most of their production capacity is not currently used. However, not all Brazilian biomes have sufficient nurseries to meet restoration demands, thus there is a risk of using native species from a few biogeographical regions in a much spatially wider and ecologically diverse area. In addition, lack of seed supply and qualified labor can hamper the growth of the market. Barriers to seed supply may also lead to low levels of genetic variability and floristic representation in the populations and ecosystems to be restored. We conclude that restoration of high‐diversity forest ecosystems requires policies and supportive programs, with emphasis on private nurseries, to guarantee adequate supply of native tree seedlings and provide the necessary incentives to develop the emergent economy of forest restoration.

Livestock animals play a key role in organic farming systems by providing nutrients for croplands through manure production and nutrient-dense food for human consumption. However, we lack global, synthetic view about livestock productivity in organic farming and about its differences with conventional farming. Here we fill this important gap of knowledge by providing a first global comparison highlighting differences between organic and conventional farming on animal productivity, feeding strategy and feed use efficiency in dairy cattle, pigs and poultry (both layers and broilers). We found (a) a 12% lower animal productivity under organic treatment, (b) significant differences in feeding strategy, especially for organic dairy cattle fed with a lower proportion of concentrate and food-competing feed than in conventional systems, (c) an overall 14% lower feed-use efficiency under organic treatment (−11% and −47% for organic dairy cattle and poultry broilers, respectively) compensated by (d) a 46% lower human-food vs animal-feed competition in organic dairy cattle. These results provide critical information on the sustainability of organic livestock management. They are also key for modelling global organic farming expansion while avoiding overestimation of organic farming production in upscaling scenarios.