气候变化领域集成服务门户(CCPortal): Ecological restoration in Brazilian biomes: Identifying advances and gaps

CCPortal

DOI	10.1016/j.foreco.2019.117802
	Ecological restoration in Brazilian biomes: Identifying advances and gaps
	Guerra A.; Reis L.K.; Borges F.L.G.; Ojeda P.T.A.; Pineda D.A.M.; Miranda C.O.; Maidana D.P.F.D.L.; Santos T.M.R.D.; Shibuya P.S.; Marques M.C.M.; Laurance S.G.W.; Garcia L.C.
发表日期	2020
ISSN	0378-1127
卷号	458
英文摘要	The Bonn challenge aims at the restoration of 350 million hectares of degraded ladscapes by 2030. In Brazil, the restoration goal for 2030 is 12 million hectares. Despite the great demand for ecological restoration across the whole of Brazil, there have been no analyses of the studies carried out in different biomes. In addition, conservation efforts must cover all biomes, so that different regions can take advantage of the many benefits of restoration. Our aim was to identify advances and gaps in current restoration knowledge in order to guide future efforts in Brazil. Our bibliometric survey in the Web of Science using 23 keywords related to restoration generated a total of 530 papers, of which 291 were included in the analysis. The papers were published in 121 scientific journals between 1988 and 2018, with the largest number of papers in 2016. The Atlantic Forest was the biome with the highest number of studies, as it is one of the most threatened tropical forest regions in the world and maintains the largest number of research institutions and receives the highest level of funding support in the country. Regarding the types of studies, temporal monitoring was more frequent in the Amazon, Cerrado, Caatinga, and Pampa, while the monitoring at one point in time was more frequent in the Atlantic Forest. From the studies examined, 31% used a reference area for comparing restoration success. The most studied organisms were plants (81%), and among them, trees were the most frequent, followed by fungi, birds, invertebrates, mammals, and reptiles. The pre-restoration degradation differed among biomes, with deforestation for logging the most cited in the Amazon, agriculture, and livestock in the Atlantic Forest and Cerrado, logging and cattle ranching in Caatinga, and livestock in the Pampa and Pantanal. In general, active/assisted natural succession was the most frequent restoration process: planting seedlings more readily occurred in the Amazon, Atlantic Forest, and Caatinga, whereas natural regeneration in the Cerrado and Pantanal and sowing in Pampa. The studies varied among the age of restoration (>1 to 67 years for active restoration and >1 to 120 years for passive/unassisted natural succession), and the number of species planted (1 to 121 species). We identified an important regional knowledge gap for the Pantanal, Caatinga, and Pampa, as well as the need to include reference areas, evaluate different restoration techniques (besides planting seedlings), and the inclusion of other taxa and life forms in biodiversity studies apart from trees. We also identified the need to expand research to assess landscape metrics, prioritization, legislation, and public policies. © 2019 Elsevier B.V.
英文关键词	Bibliometrics; Fauna restoration; Restoration ecology; Restoration history; Scientific publications
语种	英语
scopus关键词	Biodiversity; Deforestation; Ecology; Mammals; Plants (botany); Reforestation; Restoration; Seed; Bibliometrics; Ecological restoration; Natural regeneration; Research institutions; Restoration ecology; Restoration techniques; Scientific journals; Scientific publications; Conservation; bibliography; biodiversity; biome; conservation planning; deforestation; environmental restoration; identification method; knowledge; land degradation; prioritization; seedling; tropical forest; Biodiversity; Deforestation; Ecology; Mammals; Reforestation; Restoration; Amazonas [Brazil]; Argentina; Atlantic Forest; Brazil; Pampas; Pampas; Aves; Bos; Fungi; Invertebrata; Mammalia; Reptilia
来源期刊	Forest Ecology and Management
文献类型	期刊论文
条目标识符	http://gcip.llas.ac.cn/handle/2XKMVOVA/155524
作者单位	Laboratório de Ecologia da Intervenção – LEI, Instituto de Biociências, Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso do Sul, Avenida Costa e Silva, s/n°, Bairro Universitário, Campo Grande, Mato Grosso do Sul 79.070-900, Brazil; Programa de Pós-Graduação em Biologia Vegetal, Instituto de Biociências, Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso do Sul, Avenida Costa e Silva, s/n°, Bairro Universitário, Campo Grande, Mato Grosso do Sul 79.070-900, Brazil; Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ecologia e Conservação, Instituto de Biociências, Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso do Sul, Avenida Costa e Silva, s/n°, Bairro Universitário, Campo Grande, Mato Grosso do Sul 79.070-900, Brazil; Laboratório de Ecologia Vegetal, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Setor de Ciências Biológicas, Curitiba, PR, Brazil; Centre for Tropical Environmental and Sustainability Science, and College of Science and Engineering, James Cook University, P.O. Box 6811, Cairns, Qld 4870, Australia
推荐引用方式 GB/T 7714	Guerra A.,Reis L.K.,Borges F.L.G.,et al. Ecological restoration in Brazilian biomes: Identifying advances and gaps[J],2020,458.
APA	Guerra A..,Reis L.K..,Borges F.L.G..,Ojeda P.T.A..,Pineda D.A.M..,...&Garcia L.C..(2020).Ecological restoration in Brazilian biomes: Identifying advances and gaps.Forest Ecology and Management,458.
MLA	Guerra A.,et al."Ecological restoration in Brazilian biomes: Identifying advances and gaps".Forest Ecology and Management 458(2020).