A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Meta-analysis of carbon stocks and biodiversity outcomes across Brazilian restored biomes. | LitMetric

Meta-analysis of carbon stocks and biodiversity outcomes across Brazilian restored biomes.

Sci Total Environ

International Institute for Sustainability, R. Dona Castorina 124, Jardim Botânico, Rio de Janeiro 22460-320, Brazil; Departament of Geography and Environment - Rio Conservation and Sustainability Science Centre, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro, R. Marquês de São Vicente, 225, Gávea, Rio de Janeiro 22451-000, Brazil; Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Opole University of Technology, Mikołajczyka 5, 45-271 Opole, Poland; School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich Research Park, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK. Electronic address:

Published: January 2024

Ecosystem restoration strategies vary widely in the techniques applied and ecological contexts. We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate how restoration success varies across socio-ecological contexts, taxonomic groups and biomes. Restoration success is quantified as the percentage of each ecological metric value attained in the restoration site compared to the reference systems. We show that restoration success is different for plants, animals, and soils and across ecological indicators. Abundance of individuals is easier to restore than carbon stocks, which are easier than species diversity. However, abundance may be a poor indicator of ecosystem recovery because there is no unidirectional trend over time, and abundance often fails to distinguish restored from degraded areas. We also found that carbon stocks in the soil and in the vegetation are restored at analogous paces, but the recovery of soil carbon stocks is less variable than plant stocks across sites. Our results demonstrate that different restoration techniques are effective in recovering diversity and carbon stocks, but assisted natural regeneration showed a slightly higher success compared to other strategies. However, there is a considerable difficulty in restoring converted and degraded areas to achieve conditions similar to the original ecosystems. It is critical and timely to investigate benefits and effectiveness of ecosystem restoration techniques to biodiversity and carbon recovery different ecosystem types to improve the restoration effectiveness.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.167558DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

carbon stocks
20
restoration success
12
restoration
8
ecosystem restoration
8
degraded areas
8
restoration techniques
8
stocks
6
carbon
5
meta-analysis carbon
4
stocks biodiversity
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!