Department of Forest Sciences, "Luiz de Queiroz" College of Agriculture, University of São Paulo, Pádua Dias Avenida 11, Piracicaba, SP, 13400-970, Brazil.
Institute of Biology, University of Campinas - UNICAMP, Cidade Universitária Zeferino Vaz - Barão Geraldo, Campinas, SP, 13083-970, Brazil.
Ecol Appl. 2018 Mar;28(2):373-384. doi: 10.1002/eap.1653. Epub 2018 Jan 22.
Mixed tree plantings and natural regeneration are the main restoration approaches for recovering tropical forests worldwide. Despite substantial differences in implementation costs between these methods, little is known regarding how they differ in terms of ecological outcomes, which is key information for guiding decision making and cost-effective restoration planning. Here, we compared the early ecological outcomes of natural regeneration and tree plantations for restoring the Brazilian Atlantic Forest in agricultural landscapes. We assessed and compared vegetation structure and composition in young (7-20 yr old) mixed tree plantings (PL), second-growth tropical forests established on former pastures (SGp), on former Eucalyptus spp. plantations (SGe), and in old-growth reference forests (Ref). We sampled trees with diameter at breast height (DBH) 1-5 cm (saplings) and trees at DBH > 5 cm (trees) in a total of 32 20 × 45 m plots established in these landscapes. Overall, the ecological outcomes of natural regeneration and restoration plantations were markedly different. SGe forests showed higher abundance of large (DBH > 20 cm) nonnative species, of which 98% were resprouting Eucalyptus trees, than SGp and PL, and higher total aboveground biomass; however, aboveground biomass of native species was higher in PL than in SGe. PL forests had lower abundance of native saplings and lianas than both naturally established second-growth forests, and lower proportion of animal dispersed saplings than SGe, probably due to higher isolation from native forest remnants. Rarefied species richness of trees was lower in SGp, intermediate in SGe and Ref and higher in PL, whereas rarefied species richness of saplings was higher in SG than in Ref. Species composition differed considerably among regeneration types. Although these forests are inevitably bound to specific landscape contexts and may present varying outcomes as they develop through longer time frames, the ecological particularities of forests established through different restoration approaches indicate that naturally established forests may not show similar outcomes to mixed tree plantings. The results of this study underscore the importance that restoration decisions need to be based on more robust expectations of outcomes that allow for a better analysis of the cost-effectiveness of different restoration approaches before scaling-up forest restoration in the tropics.
混合树木种植和自然再生是全球恢复热带森林的主要方法。尽管这些方法在实施成本上存在很大差异,但对于它们在生态结果方面的差异却知之甚少,而这是指导决策和具有成本效益的恢复规划的关键信息。在这里,我们比较了自然再生和树木种植在恢复巴西大西洋森林方面的早期生态结果。我们评估和比较了在农业景观中年轻(7-20 年)的混合树木种植(PL)、建在以前牧场的次生热带森林(SGp)、以前的桉树种植园(SGe)和古老的参考森林(Ref)中的植被结构和组成。我们在这些景观中总共设置了 32 个 20×45 米的样地,在这些样地中,我们对胸径(DBH)为 1-5 厘米的树木(幼树)和 DBH 大于 5 厘米的树木(大树)进行了采样。总的来说,自然再生和人工造林的生态结果有明显的不同。SGe 森林的非本地大物种(DBH>20cm)的丰度较高,其中 98%为萌芽的桉树,而 SGp 和 PL 的丰度较高,总地上生物量也较高;然而,PL 中的本地物种的地上生物量高于 SGe。PL 森林的本地幼树和藤本植物的丰度低于自然建立的次生林,而且与 SGe 相比,动物传播的幼树比例也较低,这可能是由于与原生林残体的隔离程度较高所致。树木的稀疏种丰富度在 SGp 中较低,在 SGe 和 Ref 中中等,在 PL 中较高,而在 SG 中幼树的稀疏种丰富度较高。不同再生类型的物种组成差异很大。尽管这些森林不可避免地与特定的景观背景有关,并且随着时间的推移可能会呈现出不同的结果,但不同恢复方法建立的森林的生态特殊性表明,自然建立的森林可能不会与混合树木种植产生类似的结果。本研究的结果强调了恢复决策需要基于对结果的更稳健的预期,以便在热带地区扩大森林恢复规模之前,对不同恢复方法的成本效益进行更好的分析。