Effects of restoration on tree communities and carbon storage in rainforest fragments of the Western Ghats, India

Abstract

Ecological restoration is a leading strategy for reversing biodiversity losses and enhancing terrestrial carbon sequestration in degraded tropical forests. There have been few comprehensive assessments of recovery following restoration in fragmented forest landscapes, and the efficacy of active versus passive (i.e., natural regeneration) restoration remains unclear. We examined 11 indicators of forest structure, tree diversity and composition (adult and sapling), and aboveground carbon storage in 25 pairs of actively restored (AR; 7–15 yr after weed removal and mixed‐native tree species planting) and naturally regenerating (NR) plots within degraded rainforest fragments, and in 17 less‐disturbed benchmark (BM) rainforest plots in the Western Ghats, India. We assessed the effects of active restoration on the 11 indicators and tested the hypothesis that the effects of active restoration increase with isolation from contiguous and relatively intact rainforests. Active restoration significantly increased canopy cover, adult tree and sapling density, adult and sapling species density (overall and late‐successional), compositional similarity to benchmarks, and aboveground carbon storage, which recovered 14–82% toward BM targets relative to NR baselines. By contrast, tree height–diameter ratios and the proportion of native saplings did not recover consistently in actively restored forests. The effects of active restoration on canopy cover, species density (adult), late‐successional species density (adult and sapling), and species composition, but not carbon storage, increased with isolation across the fragmented landscape. Our findings show that active restoration can promote recovery of forest structure, composition, and carbon storage within 7–15 yr of restoration in degraded tropical rainforest fragments, although the benefits of active over passive restoration across fragmented landscapes would depend on indicator type and may increase with site isolation. These findings on early stages of recovery suggest that active restoration in ubiquitous fragmented landscapes of the tropics could complement passive restoration of degraded forests in less fragmented landscapes, and protection of intact forests, as a key strategy for conserving biodiversity and mitigating climate change.

Tree Diversity and Soil Characteristics in a Tea–Forest Interface in Southwest Sri Lanka

“…When compared with the tropical rainforests in the same region (Sinharaja undisturbed primary forest: 357.9 Mg ha −1 ), there is a high potential to sequester more carbon in our study site [43]. Likewise, an evaluation of the change in forest structure and AGB in forest restoration sites in Western Ghats, India found that forest restoration sites had 49.0-89.8 Mg ha −1 in comparison to the 287.6 Mg ha −1 reported from contiguous forests in the region [44].…”

Tree diversity and carbon storage cobenefits in tropical human‐dominated landscapes

“…For example, incentive programs geared towards securing forest carbon stocks from deforestation and degradation are likely to extend protection for species‐rich remnants of mature forests, which are crucial for conservation in heavily fragmented and human‐dominated biodiversity hotspots such as the Atlantic Forest (Magnago et al., ) and the Western Ghats. Restoration of presently degraded forests for future carbon and biodiversity benefits by, for example, promoting spontaneous natural recovery (Matos et al., ), or active restoration of degraded forests (Osuri, Kasinathan, Siddhartha, Mudappa, & Raman, ), could also offer synergies for conservation and climate change mitigation in HDLs.…”

Active restoration fosters better recovery of tropical rainforest birds than natural regeneration in degraded forest fragments

“…A previous study in degraded rainforests in this landscape revealed that AR led to significantly better recovery in forest structure and carbon storage than through NR (Osuri et al, 2019). Correspondingly, we assess here whether rainforest birds respond better to AR than to NR (or passive restoration) when compared to bird communities…”

“…Naturally regenerating degraded tropical forests may, however, remain floristically species-poor (Tabarelli et al, 2008) or show poorer recovery, particularly when located in isolated forest fragments (Osuri et al, 2019). This may consequently affect recolonisation by fauna, an indicator of restoration success (Cross et al, 2020;Wortley et al, 2013), which can further affect vegetation recovery, such as through changes in seed dispersal by faunal vectors (Fraser et al, 2015).…”