Passive Restoration in Biodiversity Hotspots: Consequences for an Atlantic Rainforest Lizard Taxocene

Camacho, Agustín; Rocha, Pedro Luís Bernardo da

doi:10.1111/j.1744-7429.2009.00584.x

Cited by 13 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although restoration speed may not be a concern for some stakeholders, local landowners can sometimes interpret slow recovery as a failed effort. It may be the case that passive restoration will catch up with active restoration over time and may ultimately develop an ecosystem that better resembles reference communities (Guerrero & da Rocha ), as active restoration may affect the successional trajectory and shift a system to a different endpoint (Carnevale & Montagnini ; Jones et al ). But private landowners do not necessarily perceive this end result and are more focused on the short term.…”

Section: Cost 1: Slow Recovery Can Be Perceived As Project Failurementioning

confidence: 99%

Hidden Costs of Passive Restoration

Zahawi

Reid

Holl

2014

Restoration Ecology

155

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The first few years of tropical forest restoration can be expensive, especially when applied to expansive areas. In light of this, passive restoration has been recommended as a considerably cheaper or even free alternative. There are, however, both direct and indirect costs associated with passive restoration. First, the longer recovery time that is typically required in passive restoration can be perceived as project failure, especially when compared with nearby active restoration efforts. In the worst-case scenario, this can lead to the premature termination of a project by a landowner who would like to see more rapid or visible results. Second, passive restoration may be viewed as land abandonment, and in developing nations where land tenure is not always strictly enforced this may invite unanticipated uses, such as ranchers who may unintentionally or intentionally allow livestock to take advantage of the "unused" forage grass, thus setting back recovery efforts. Lastly, passive restoration does have direct financial costs, including material costs for establishing fences and repairing them, and labor costs for site vigilance. These upfront investments may need to be made repeatedly in passive restoration efforts, and for a longer time period than for an active restoration project. Both the direct and indirect costs should be considered prior to choosing passive restoration as a strategy in a particular restoration project.

show abstract

Section: Cost 1: Slow Recovery Can Be Perceived As Project Failurementioning

confidence: 99%

Hidden Costs of Passive Restoration

Zahawi

Reid

Holl

2014

Restoration Ecology

155

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Even in those cases, most restoration actions were performed at a local scale and landscape characteristics were considered only when evaluating the results (LA studies; e.g. Guerrero & Rocha 2010). This type of landscape assessment became more frequent after the year 2002 with a total of 43 articles, while landscape restoration studies (LR; e.g.…”

Section: General Patternsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Landscape Ecology Perspective in Restoration Projects for Biodiversity Conservation: a Review

Leite¹,

Tambosi²,

Romitelli³

et al. 2013

NatCon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is good evidence that the results of a restoration program depend largely on the landscape context such as habitat cover, connectivity and isolation. Such evidence, however, is not coherently presented in the scientific literature. This review aims to provide an overview of how landscape ecology has been used in restoration projects in the last 15 years. We found only 54 empirical restoration studies published in international journals from 1997 to 2011 that used a landscape approach, mostly published between 2009 and 2011. The majority of the studies were carried out in temperate zones and forests, with habitat loss and fragmentation as the major disturbance factor (77%). Biotic manipulation was the most common management protocol (39%), followed by abiotic manipulation, land abandonment, and control of disturbance sources. Most of the studies (84%) demonstrate that the landscape context plays an important role in restoration processes. Particularly, a positive influence of the landscape context on restoration effectiveness was observed for restored areas in close proximity to neighboring patches and in landscapes with high habitat cover. However, we found that the effect of landscape characteristics on restoration outcomes may vary with species characteristics, and differ according to the population or community parameters (e.g. abundance, richness, composition) considered. In addition, different landscape aspects mediated the effects of restoration on biological communities, and thus there is not a unique set of landscape indices that can be universally used for restoration planning and monitoring. Although the literature has important gaps, since most studies are restricted to few habitat and disturbance types and consider only a limited set of landscape attributes, our findings demonstrate that landscape characteristics can be as important as local factors in influencing restoration outcomes and should be incorporated in restoration projects and programmes. By considering a wide range of landscape resilience and disturbance condition since the beginning of future restoration plans, we expect that the main gaps of knowledge identified here can be filled in the near future, helping then to reveal a more general pattern relating landscape structure to restoration outcomes.

show abstract

“…Whilst the spatial extent of active restoration is limited by costs and logistics, passive regrowth can provide important restoration and biodiversity benefits for large areas at minimal cost (Geddes et al 2011;Guerrero 2010;Prach and Hobbs 2008). Passive regrowth is prominent in subtropical woodlands that have been cleared for agriculture, particularly in the most extensively deforested woodland areas of the world such as the Chaco in South America (Dinerstein et al 1995;Grau et al 2005) and the Brigalow Belt and Mulga Lands in Australia (Australian State of the Environment Committee 2001).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Regrowth woodlands are valuable habitat for reptile communities

Bruton

McAlpine

Maron

2013

Biological Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Protection of passive regrowth, or secondary vegetation, offers the potential to cost-effectively alleviate biodiversity declines caused by deforestation. This potential often goes unrealised because the habitat value of regrowth is generally considered marginal. However, the habitat value of regrowth varies among taxa. Disturbed subtropical woodland landscapes provide large-scale passive restoration opportunities. Subtropical woodlands are also rich in reptile diversity. We addressed the question: 'What is the habitat value of subtropical regrowth woodlands for reptile communities?' We identified five commonly-observed models of regrowth habitat value and then surveyed reptile communities in 43 cleared, regrowth and remnant Acaciaand Eucalyptus-dominated woodland sites in subtropical Queensland, Australia. Reptile species richness, diversity, dominance and community composition followed the "regrowth = remnant" model of high regrowth value, where the habitat values of regrowth and remnant woodlands were similar, and higher than that of cleared land. Unexpectedly, the proportion of juveniles was highest in cleared sites and lower in both regrowth and remnant sites. Our findings challenge the view that the habitat value of regrowth is limited. Consistency in findings between contrasting woodland types suggest that our results may apply in other similarly disturbed woodlands. We conclude that although remnant woodlands are irreplaceable, regrowth woodlands provide valuable habitat for reptile communities and the protection of such regrowth should be a high priority in disturbed subtropical woodland systems.

show abstract

Passive Restoration in Biodiversity Hotspots: Consequences for an Atlantic Rainforest Lizard Taxocene

Cited by 13 publications

References 32 publications

Hidden Costs of Passive Restoration

Hidden Costs of Passive Restoration

Landscape Ecology Perspective in Restoration Projects for Biodiversity Conservation: a Review

Regrowth woodlands are valuable habitat for reptile communities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About