Which landscape size best predicts the influence of forest cover on restoration success? A global meta-analysis on the scale of effect
Which landscape size best predicts the influence of forest cover on restoration success? A global meta-analysis on the scale of effect
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/1365-2664.12590
复制
发表时间：
2016-04-01
影响因子：
5.7
通讯作者：
Curran, Michael
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Crouzeilles, Renato;Curran, Michael
景观环境对物种的持久性、丰富性和分布性有很强的预测作用，但其对生态恢复成功与否的影响尚不清楚。因此，出现了一个主要问题：哪种景观规模最能预测森林覆盖对恢复成功的影响？为了回答这个问题，我们对生物多样性(哺乳动物、鸟类、无脊椎动物、两栖动物和植物)和植被结构(盖度、密度、高度、生物量和凋落物)进行了全球荟萃分析。为比较参照物(如老树林)和受干扰地点(退化或恢复的)，计算了反应比率。利用信息论方法，将每个研究景观内的平均响应率(恢复成功)和响应率方差(恢复可预测性)与半径为5-200公里(1公里分辨率)的8个不同缓冲区大小内的总森林(总森林复盖率)和邻接林(60%森林复盖率的总像素)的百分比进行回归。我们包括247项研究，包括196项研究景观和4360项量化比较。最佳缓冲区(景观)大小因下列因素而异：(I)整体和毗连的森林覆盖率；(Ii)生物多样性和植被结构；(Iii)平均响应率和响应率方差。只有植物生物多样性受森林总覆盖(5、10和200公里半径)的影响，而植物(10和200公里半径)、哺乳动物(5、10和50-200公里半径)、无脊椎动物(5和10公里半径)、盖度(5公里半径)、高度(5公里半径)和枯枝落叶层(100公里半径)受到邻近森林覆盖的影响。总体而言，平均响应率和响应率方差分别与总体森林覆盖率和邻近森林覆盖率呈正相关和负非线性相关。我们首次揭示了一个清晰的模式，即随着毗连森林复盖率的增加，恢复成功率增加，不确定性减少。我们还提出了初步建议的缓冲区大小，用于调查景观恢复对生物多样性和植被结构的影响。然而，数据的粗粒度和可变性意味着可能没有检测到最佳的景观大小，因此，需要进一步的研究。综合和应用。在制定生态恢复目标时，政策制定者和恢复实践者应考虑以下因素：(I)景观背景，特别是受干扰地点周围长达10公里的连续栖息地的数量；(Ii)恢复成功的不确定性，当连续森林覆盖率低于约50%时，其不确定性增加。在制定生态恢复目标时，政策制定者和恢复实践者应考虑以下因素：(I)景观背景，特别是受干扰地点周围长达10公里的连续栖息地的数量；(Ii)恢复成功的不确定性，因为当连续森林覆盖率低于约50%时，其不确定性增加。
Landscape context is a strong predictor of species persistence, abundance and distribution, yet its influence on the success of ecological restoration remains unclear. Thus, a primary question arises: which landscape size best predicts the effects of forest cover on restoration success? To answer this question, we conducted a global meta-analysis for biodiversity (mammals, birds, invertebrates, herpetofauna and plants) and measures of vegetation structure (cover, density, height, biomass and litter). Response ratios were calculated for comparisons between reference (e.g. old-growth forest) and disturbed sites (degraded or restored). Using an information-theoretic approach, mean response ratio (restoration success) and response ratio variance (restoration predictability) within each study landscape were regressed against the percentage of overall (summed forest cover) and contiguous (summed pixels of 60% forest cover) forest within eight different buffer sizes of radius 5-200km (at 1-km resolution). We included 247 studies encompassing 196 study landscapes and 4360 quantitative comparisons. The best buffer (landscape) size varied for the following: (i) overall and contiguous forest cover, (ii) biodiversity and vegetation structure and (iii) mean response ratio and response ratio variance. Only plant biodiversity was influenced by overall forest cover (buffer size of 5, 10 and 200km radii), while plants (10 and 200km radii), mammals (5, 10 and 50-200km radii), invertebrates (5 and 10km radii), cover (5km radii), height (5km radii) and litter (100km radii) were influenced by contiguous forest cover. Overall, mean response ratio and response ratio variance were positively and negatively nonlinearly related with both overall and contiguous forest cover, respectively. We reveal for the first time a clear pattern of increasing restoration success and decreasing uncertainty as contiguous forest cover increases. We also indicate preliminary recommended buffer sizes for investigating landscape restoration effects on biodiversity and vegetation structure. However, the coarse grain and variability in the data mean the optimal landscape size may not have been detected; thus, further research is needed.Synthesis and applications. When setting targets for ecological restoration, policymakers and restoration practitioners should account for the following: (i) the landscape context, particularly the amount of contiguous habitat up to 10km around a disturbed site, and (ii) the uncertainty in restoration success, as it increases when contiguous forest cover falls below about 50%.When setting targets for ecological restoration, policymakers and restoration practitioners should account for the following: (i) the landscape context, particularly the amount of contiguous habitat up to 10km around a disturbed site, and (ii) the uncertainty in restoration success, as it increases when contiguous forest cover falls below about 50%.