Quantifying the impacts of ecological restoration on biodiversity and ecosystem services in agroecosystems: A global meta-analysis

Barral, María Paula; Benayas, José M. Rey; Maceira, Néstor Oscar

doi:10.1016/j.agee.2015.01.009

Cited by 220 publications

(151 citation statements)

References 52 publications

(51 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

115

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…An increasing amount of ES research focuses on agroecosystems (e.g., Sandhu et al 2010, Barral et al 2015, Fan et al 2016. Interestingly, these remain restricted to the assessment of ES delivery under distinct agricultural scenarios, but lack any discussion on how to reach them, i.e., how to implement an agroecological transition on the ground.…”

Section: Integrated Ecosystem Services Valuation As a Transition Toolmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A large body of literature investigates how this concept can be used in an agricultural context (Zhang et al 2007, Power 2010, Duru and Thérond 2015, Landis 2017. Several studies have used the concept to assess impacts of different agricultural practices (e.g., Sandhu et al 2010, Barral et al 2015, Rapidel et al 2015. Although these provide information on which practice optimizes best ES delivery, they do not address how to implement these practices on the ground.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How can integrated valuation of ecosystem services help understanding and steering agroecological transitions?

Dendoncker¹,

Boeraeve²,

Crouzat³

et al. 2018

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Integrated Ecosystem Services Valuation As a Transition Toolmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How can integrated valuation of ecosystem services help understanding and steering agroecological transitions?

Dendoncker¹,

Boeraeve²,

Crouzat³

et al. 2018

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The topics of ecosystem restoration and ecological restoration have thus received increasing attention worldwide (e.g., Erwin 2009, Schmutz et al 2014, Barral et al 2015. For the last two decades the Web of Science (WoS) reports 2876 scientific papers on "ecological restoration" by 7 December 2015, but only 36 papers before that time.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the process of ecological restoration

Nilsson¹,

Aradóttir²,

Hagen³

et al. 2016

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. We developed a conceptual framework for evaluating the process of ecological restoration and applied it to 10 examples of restoration projects in the northern hemisphere. We identified three major phases, planning, implementation, and monitoring, in the restoration process. We found that evaluation occurred both within and between the three phases, that it included both formal and informal components, and that it often had an impact on the performance of the projects. Most evaluations were short-term and only some parts of them were properly documented. Poor or short-term evaluation of the restoration process creates a risk that inefficient methods will continue to be used, which reduces the efficiency and effectiveness of restoration. To improve the restoration process and to transfer the knowledge to future projects, we argue for more formal, sustained evaluation procedures, involving all relevant stakeholders, and increased and improved documentation and dissemination of the results.

show abstract

“…El objetivo de este trabajo es presentar una síntesis de los resultados de cuatro meta-análisis previos e independientes de estudios de restauración de ecosistemas a escala global: Rey Benayas et al (2009) relacionado con una amplia gama de ecosistemas, Meli et al (2014) enfocado en humedales, Barral et al (2015) enfocado en agroecosistemas y Meli et al (en revisión) enfocado en bosques. Nuestra hipótesis de partida es que la restauración es capaz de aumentar la provisión de biodiversidad y SE.…”

Section: Jm Rey Benayas Et Alunclassified

Lecciones de cuatro meta-análisis globales sobre la restauración de la biodiversidad y los servicios ecosistémicos

Benayas

Barral²,

Meli³

2017

Ecol. Austral

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

RESUMEN.La restauración ecológica se utiliza a menudo para recuperar los niveles de biodiversidad y de servicios ecosistémicos (SE) en ecosistemas degradados. En general, los resultados de la restauración ecológica se pueden estimar como el progreso o la compleción de la recuperación de indicadores de la integridad ecológica en el estado restaurado respecto al estado degradado o de referencia, respectivamente. Presentamos una síntesis de estos resultados según cuatro meta-análisis globales independientes, obtenidos en una amplia gama de ecosistemas, con énfasis en humedales, agroecosistemas y bosques. La restauración ecológica aumentó la biodiversidad y los SE en 58 y 99%, respectivamente. Sin embargo, estos niveles fueron inferiores a los de los ecosistemas de referencia (-10 y -8%, respectivamente). La recuperación varió entre tipos de ecosistema. Los humedales restaurados tuvieron niveles más altos de biodiversidad y de SE (19 y 43%, respectivamente) en relación a los degradados, aunque los niveles de los SE fueron inferiores (-13%) a los de referencia. La restauración aumentó los niveles de biodiversidad, SE de soporte y SE de regulación de los agroecosistemas en 68, 42 y 120%, respectivamente, y los agroecosistemas restaurados tuvieron niveles de biodiversidad y de estos SE similares a los ecosistemas de referencia. En el caso de los bosques, la recuperación fue completa para todos los SE, mientras que la biodiversidad, aunque aumentó 106% después de la restauración, fue 21% inferior a los niveles de referencia. Existe un hueco en la literatura científica sobre la evaluación cuantitativa de los SE culturales en ecosistemas restaurados. La recuperación de la biodiversidad y de los SE se correlacionaron de forma positiva en las comparaciones de ecosistemas degradados y restaurados en todos los meta-análisis. Concluimos que la restauración ecológica aumenta de forma notable la biodiversidad y los SE, aunque no se alcanzan los niveles de los ecosistemas de referencia, y que la efectividad depende, en gran medida, del contexto.[Palabras clave: agroecosistemas, bosques, degradación, humedales, recuperación] ABSTRACT. Lessons from four global meta-analysis on biodiversity and ecosystem services restoration.Ecological restoration is often carried out to recover biodiversity and ecosystem services (ES) of degraded ecosystems. In general, the outcomes of ecological restoration can be assessed as the recovery progress or the recovery completeness of indicators of ecological integrity in the restored state against the degraded or reference states, respectively. Here we present the results of four global meta-analyses previously published to assess these outcomes in a wide range of ecosystem types, wetlands, agroecosystems, and forests. For all ecosystem types, ecological restoration increased provision of biodiversity and ES by 58 and 59%, respectively; however, values of both remained lower in restored versus intact reference ecosystems (-10 and -8%, respectively). Levels of recovery varied among ecosystem types. Rest...

show abstract

Quantifying the impacts of ecological restoration on biodiversity and ecosystem services in agroecosystems: A global meta-analysis

Cited by 220 publications

References 52 publications

How can integrated valuation of ecosystem services help understanding and steering agroecological transitions?

How can integrated valuation of ecosystem services help understanding and steering agroecological transitions?

Evaluating the process of ecological restoration

Lecciones de cuatro meta-análisis globales sobre la restauración de la biodiversidad y los servicios ecosistémicos

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About