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...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
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 |