Neoliberalization of Conservation
Neoliberalization of Conservation
复制标题
保护的新自由主义
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2008
影响因子：
6.3
通讯作者：
D. Ehrenfeld
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
D. Ehrenfeld
我怀着极大的兴趣阅读了凯尔姆等人的文章。(2008)提议将蝙蝠栖息地作为促进热带森林恢复的一种方法，因为迫切需要新的战略来促进热带大片退化农地的森林更新。作者提供了令人信服的数据，证明人工蝙蝠栖息地成功地吸引了几种蝙蝠，并显著增加了残存和完好的热带森林的种子雨。然而，Kelm等人围绕蝙蝠栖息地是否有助于退化土地上的热带森林恢复这一问题构建了这篇文章，并得出了强有力的结论来支持这一前提，这些结论没有得到他们的数据的很好证实。首先，作者提出，“人工栖息地可以作为恢复的核心，类似于废弃牧场中孤立的树木”，但他们没有将孤立的蝙蝠栖息地放置在废弃牧场或其他树木结构最小的农田中。相反，他们将栖息地放在“小森林碎片(3公顷)或农业栖息地的树木林中”。开放牧场的小气候、食物资源和捕食风险在小森林残留物中有很大的不同，开放牧场的特征很可能会对蝙蝠栖息地的定殖化(例如，Evelyn&Styles 2003)和相关的种子传播产生重大影响。其次，考虑到凯尔姆等人的观点，蝙蝠在不同小碎片的栖息地之间飞行很可能会增加附近开阔牧场地区的种子雨。(2008年)记录了蝙蝠在碎片中的广泛移动，蝙蝠在飞行过程中经常排泄(2007年在Muscarella&Fleming中回顾)。然而，作者没有提供数据表明蝙蝠栖息地增加了邻近牧场的种子雨，或者这种增加的幅度足以促进邻近牧场的森林更新。开阔农田的种子雨比森林残留地或树丛中的种子雨少得多(2002年全年回顾)；因此，开阔牧场是增加种子雨对促进森林恢复最关键的地方，而不是放置蝙蝠根的地方。最后，Kelm等人。假设种子雨越大，木本植物的数量越多。缺乏种子传播只是退化生境中热带森林恢复的众多障碍之一(2002年12月审查)，因此，如果不衡量森林再生(即幼苗的建立和存活)，就不可能断定增强的种子雨是否会促进森林恢复。事实上，我自己的研究测试了利用鸟类栖息来促进废弃牧场上热带森林的恢复，结果表明，种子雨的增加并没有转化为更高的木本幼苗建立，这可能是因为种子被捕食和与牧草的幼苗竞争(Holl 1998)。种子小、对光要求高的物种Kelm等人。主要记录在栖息地下方的种子陷阱中，在废弃牧场建立的可能性极低(Hooper等人。2002年)。我同意蝙蝠栖息地可能是热带森林恢复的一种有前途的工具，但栖息地需要在这一背景下进行测试，并且必须在提出这一主张之前对森林再生进行测量。因为使用蝙蝠栖息地是一个新颖而诱人的恢复想法，本文的要点已经通过国际生态恢复协会(4月9日恢复电子通讯；http://archive.constantcontact.)传播到恢复社区Com/fs052/1101952074862/ARCHIVE/1102052428807.html)。我担心的是，从业者会认为这一在废弃农田恢复热带森林的战略已经过测试，而实际上它还没有。
I read with great interest the article by Kelm et al. (2008) proposing bat roosts as a method to enhance recovery of tropical forests because new strategies to facilitate forest regeneration in the vast areas of degraded agricultural lands in the tropics are urgently needed. The authors present convincing data that artificial bat roosts successfully attract several bat species and significantly enhance seed rain in remnant and intact tropical forest. Kelm et al., however, frame the article around the question of whether bat roosts facilitate tropical forest recovery in degraded lands and make strong conclusions in support of this premise, conclusions that are not well substantiated by their data. First, the authors suggest that “artificial roosts may act as nuclei for recovery in a similar fashion to isolated trees in abandoned pastures,” but they did not put isolated bat roosts in abandoned pastures or other agricultural lands that have minimal tree structure. Rather they put the roosts in “small forest fragments (<3 ha) or tree stands in agricultural habitat.” Microclimate, food resources, and predation risk in open pasture are quite different in small forest remnants, and the characteristics of open pasture would likely substantially affect bat colonization of roosts (e.g., Evelyn & Styles 2003) and associated seed dispersal. Second, it is likely that bats flying between roosts in different small fragments would enhance seed rain in the nearby areas of open pasture, given that Kelm et al. (2008) recorded extensive bat movement among fragments and bats often defecate during flight (reviewed in Muscarella & Fleming 2007). Nonetheless, the authors presented no data demonstrating that bat roosts increased seed rain in the adjacent pasture or that such an increase would be of a sufficient magnitude to enhance forest regeneration in the adjacent pastures. Seed rain in open agricultural lands is much lower than in forest remnants or tree clusters (reviewed in Holl 2002); therefore, open pastures are where augmented seed rain is most critical to facilitation of forest recovery, rather than where bat roots were placed. Finally, Kelm et al. assume elevated seed rain will result in higher establishment of woody species. Lack of seed dispersal is only one of many obstacles to tropical forest recovery in degraded habitats (reviewed in Holl 2002), so it is impossible to conclude whether enhanced seed rain will facilitate forest recovery without measuring forest regeneration (i.e., seedling establishment and survival). Indeed, my own research testing the use of bird perches to facilitate tropical forest recovery in abandoned pasture shows that increased seed rain does not translate into higher woody seedling establishment, likely because of seed predation and seedling competition with pasture grasses (Holl 1998). The small-seeded, lightdemanding species Kelm et al. primarily recorded in seed traps below roosts have extremely low probabilities of establishment in abandoned pastures (Hooper et al. 2002). I agree that bat roosts may be a promising tool for tropical forest restoration, but roosts need to be tested in that context and forest regeneration must be measured before this claim can be made. Because the use of bat roosts is a novel and enticing restoration idea, the take-home points of this article have already been disseminated to the restoration community through the Society for Ecological Restoration International (9 April RESTORE electronic newsletter; http://archive.constantcontact. com/fs052/1101952074862/archive/ 1102052428807.html). My concern is that practitioners will assume this strategy for tropical forest restoration in abandoned agricultural lands has been tested, when it has not.