Cargando…

A meta-analysis contrasting active versus passive restoration practices in dryland agricultural ecosystems

Restoration of agricultural drylands globally, here farmlands and grazing lands, is a priority for ecosystem function and biodiversity preservation. Natural areas in drylands are recognized as biodiversity hotspots and face continued human impacts. Global water shortages are driving increased agricu...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Miguel, M. Florencia, Butterfield, H. Scott, Lortie, Christopher J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: PeerJ Inc. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7690292/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33282566
http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.10428
_version_ 1783614040663130112
author Miguel, M. Florencia
Butterfield, H. Scott
Lortie, Christopher J.
author_facet Miguel, M. Florencia
Butterfield, H. Scott
Lortie, Christopher J.
author_sort Miguel, M. Florencia
collection PubMed
description Restoration of agricultural drylands globally, here farmlands and grazing lands, is a priority for ecosystem function and biodiversity preservation. Natural areas in drylands are recognized as biodiversity hotspots and face continued human impacts. Global water shortages are driving increased agricultural land retirement providing the opportunity to reclaim some of these lands for natural habitat. We used meta-analysis to contrast different classes of dryland restoration practices. All interventions were categorized as active and passive for the analyses of efficacy in dryland agricultural ecosystems. We evaluated the impact of 19 specific restoration practices from 42 studies on soil, plant, animal, and general habitat targets across 16 countries, for a total of 1,427 independent observations. Passive vegetation restoration and grazing exclusion led to net positive restoration outcomes. Passive restoration practices were more variable and less effective than active restoration practices. Furthermore, passive soil restoration led to net negative restoration outcomes. Active restoration practices consistently led to positive outcomes for soil, plant, and habitat targets. Water supplementation was the most effective restoration practice. These findings suggest that active interventions are necessary and critical in most instances for dryland agricultural ecosystems likely because of severe anthropogenic pressures and concurrent environmental stressors—both past and present.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7690292
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher PeerJ Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-76902922020-12-04 A meta-analysis contrasting active versus passive restoration practices in dryland agricultural ecosystems Miguel, M. Florencia Butterfield, H. Scott Lortie, Christopher J. PeerJ Conservation Biology Restoration of agricultural drylands globally, here farmlands and grazing lands, is a priority for ecosystem function and biodiversity preservation. Natural areas in drylands are recognized as biodiversity hotspots and face continued human impacts. Global water shortages are driving increased agricultural land retirement providing the opportunity to reclaim some of these lands for natural habitat. We used meta-analysis to contrast different classes of dryland restoration practices. All interventions were categorized as active and passive for the analyses of efficacy in dryland agricultural ecosystems. We evaluated the impact of 19 specific restoration practices from 42 studies on soil, plant, animal, and general habitat targets across 16 countries, for a total of 1,427 independent observations. Passive vegetation restoration and grazing exclusion led to net positive restoration outcomes. Passive restoration practices were more variable and less effective than active restoration practices. Furthermore, passive soil restoration led to net negative restoration outcomes. Active restoration practices consistently led to positive outcomes for soil, plant, and habitat targets. Water supplementation was the most effective restoration practice. These findings suggest that active interventions are necessary and critical in most instances for dryland agricultural ecosystems likely because of severe anthropogenic pressures and concurrent environmental stressors—both past and present. PeerJ Inc. 2020-11-23 /pmc/articles/PMC7690292/ /pubmed/33282566 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.10428 Text en © 2020 Miguel et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. For attribution, the original author(s), title, publication source (PeerJ) and either DOI or URL of the article must be cited.
spellingShingle Conservation Biology
Miguel, M. Florencia
Butterfield, H. Scott
Lortie, Christopher J.
A meta-analysis contrasting active versus passive restoration practices in dryland agricultural ecosystems
title A meta-analysis contrasting active versus passive restoration practices in dryland agricultural ecosystems
title_full A meta-analysis contrasting active versus passive restoration practices in dryland agricultural ecosystems
title_fullStr A meta-analysis contrasting active versus passive restoration practices in dryland agricultural ecosystems
title_full_unstemmed A meta-analysis contrasting active versus passive restoration practices in dryland agricultural ecosystems
title_short A meta-analysis contrasting active versus passive restoration practices in dryland agricultural ecosystems
title_sort meta-analysis contrasting active versus passive restoration practices in dryland agricultural ecosystems
topic Conservation Biology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7690292/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33282566
http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.10428
work_keys_str_mv AT miguelmflorencia ametaanalysiscontrastingactiveversuspassiverestorationpracticesindrylandagriculturalecosystems
AT butterfieldhscott ametaanalysiscontrastingactiveversuspassiverestorationpracticesindrylandagriculturalecosystems
AT lortiechristopherj ametaanalysiscontrastingactiveversuspassiverestorationpracticesindrylandagriculturalecosystems
AT miguelmflorencia metaanalysiscontrastingactiveversuspassiverestorationpracticesindrylandagriculturalecosystems
AT butterfieldhscott metaanalysiscontrastingactiveversuspassiverestorationpracticesindrylandagriculturalecosystems
AT lortiechristopherj metaanalysiscontrastingactiveversuspassiverestorationpracticesindrylandagriculturalecosystems