Javascript must be enabled to continue!
Cerrado: biodiversity and ecosystem services under severe threat by misguided restoration
View through CrossRef
Abstract
Background
The UN-Decade on Restoration declared that ‘invest in research’ is a critical strategy, as restoration is complex and practices that work in one ecosystem may have adverse impacts in another. However, large-scale restoration has been implemented quickly across the neglected and misunderstood tropical savannas without a corresponding advance in evidence-based guidelines. In other words, we do not know what we are doing.
Scope
Savannas are not degraded forests. They are mosaics of more-or-less-open pristine ecosystems, maintained by natural disturbances (fire, herbivory). Restoring savannas is fundamentally different from restoring forests. Misunderstandings have led to mistakes that start when mapping degraded land, predicting resilience, prioritizing restoration, and setting target ecosystems and restoration goals. Afterwards, there comes a plethora of inadequate ‘restoration’ techniques that either fail or follow unexpected trajectories. Even worse, these ‘Frankenstein ecosystems’ have inadvertently replaced valuable secondary savannas and pristine grasslands. Eventually, the wrong indicators (e.g. tree cover and carbon storage) applied to assess Cerrado restoration success lead to incorrect conclusions. Restoration has therefore not provided the expected ecosystem services, and neither has it increased the habitat suitable for Cerrado-endemic plants and animals.
Conclusions
Cerrado restoration urges caution. ‘If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!’ When mapping, we must clearly separate at different scales: pristine savannas/grasslands, secondary savannas (naturally regenerating), and both from effectively degraded land. Prioritization of restoration should aim to: (1) increase ecosystem services and biodiversity, (2) reduce inequalities in native vegetation cover between regions, and (3) directly benefit the larger human population. Because re-creating fire-resilient Cerrado vegetation with its dynamic structure and huge biodiversity of species and plant forms is still a mirage, finding a way to pause land conversion is urgent. For effectively degraded areas, where restoration is needed, the major restoration goal should be re-establishing savanna vegetation structure and critical ecosystem services.
Title: Cerrado: biodiversity and ecosystem services under severe threat by misguided restoration
Description:
Abstract
Background
The UN-Decade on Restoration declared that ‘invest in research’ is a critical strategy, as restoration is complex and practices that work in one ecosystem may have adverse impacts in another.
However, large-scale restoration has been implemented quickly across the neglected and misunderstood tropical savannas without a corresponding advance in evidence-based guidelines.
In other words, we do not know what we are doing.
Scope
Savannas are not degraded forests.
They are mosaics of more-or-less-open pristine ecosystems, maintained by natural disturbances (fire, herbivory).
Restoring savannas is fundamentally different from restoring forests.
Misunderstandings have led to mistakes that start when mapping degraded land, predicting resilience, prioritizing restoration, and setting target ecosystems and restoration goals.
Afterwards, there comes a plethora of inadequate ‘restoration’ techniques that either fail or follow unexpected trajectories.
Even worse, these ‘Frankenstein ecosystems’ have inadvertently replaced valuable secondary savannas and pristine grasslands.
Eventually, the wrong indicators (e.
g.
tree cover and carbon storage) applied to assess Cerrado restoration success lead to incorrect conclusions.
Restoration has therefore not provided the expected ecosystem services, and neither has it increased the habitat suitable for Cerrado-endemic plants and animals.
Conclusions
Cerrado restoration urges caution.
‘If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!’ When mapping, we must clearly separate at different scales: pristine savannas/grasslands, secondary savannas (naturally regenerating), and both from effectively degraded land.
Prioritization of restoration should aim to: (1) increase ecosystem services and biodiversity, (2) reduce inequalities in native vegetation cover between regions, and (3) directly benefit the larger human population.
Because re-creating fire-resilient Cerrado vegetation with its dynamic structure and huge biodiversity of species and plant forms is still a mirage, finding a way to pause land conversion is urgent.
For effectively degraded areas, where restoration is needed, the major restoration goal should be re-establishing savanna vegetation structure and critical ecosystem services.
Related Results
Valuation of Ecosystem Services, Karnataka State, India
Valuation of Ecosystem Services, Karnataka State, India
Humans depend on the environment for their basic needs, such as food, fuel, minerals, water, air, etc. Burgeoning unplanned development activities to cater to the demands of the in...
Effects of Deforestation over the Cerrado Landscape: A Study in the Bahia Frontier
Effects of Deforestation over the Cerrado Landscape: A Study in the Bahia Frontier
The losses in the Brazilian Cerrado raise the need to understand the border regions between human activities and Cerrado remnants. This work aims to answer the questions: How does ...
Ecological restoration in rights‐of‐nature laws and restoration as a substantive right of nature: challenges and opportunities
Ecological restoration in rights‐of‐nature laws and restoration as a substantive right of nature: challenges and opportunities
Introduction
A growing number of countries have adopted legislation that recognizes nature as a subject of rights. The purpose of many rights‐of‐nature laws is ...
Impact of local industry expansion on farmland ecosystem services: A case study of farmland-factories in Changhua County, Taiwan
Impact of local industry expansion on farmland ecosystem services: A case study of farmland-factories in Changhua County, Taiwan
<p>As is known to everyone, the preservation of agricultural landscape plays a crucial role in productivity, sustainability and other ecosystem services of agricultur...
Global Open Biodiversity Data: Future Vision of FAIR Biodiversity Data Access, Management, Use and Stewardship
Global Open Biodiversity Data: Future Vision of FAIR Biodiversity Data Access, Management, Use and Stewardship
Major environmental–biodiversity changes and new developments in technology have changed the way we live, work and how we create our future. The main attention of biodiversity rese...
One cannot have it all: trading-off ecosystem services and biodiversity bundles in landscape connectivity restoration
One cannot have it all: trading-off ecosystem services and biodiversity bundles in landscape connectivity restoration
Abstract
Countering the impacts of habitat loss and fragmentation on ecosystems requires complementing conservation areas with Other Effective area-based Conservati...
BioLink: Linking belowground biodiversity and ecosystem function in European forests
BioLink: Linking belowground biodiversity and ecosystem function in European forests
<p>Biodiversity of ecosystems is an important driver for the supply of ecosystem services to people. Soils often have a larger biodiversity per unit surface area than...
Ecosystem service assessment of green roofs in Bangkok
Ecosystem service assessment of green roofs in Bangkok
Green roofs are constructed ecosystems that can provide four main types of ecosystem services (regulating, provisioning, cultural, and supporting services). However, most green roo...

