Positive site selection bias in meta-analyses comparing natural regeneration to active forest restoration.
Positive site selection bias in meta-analyses comparing natural regeneration to active forest restoration.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1126/sciadv.aas9143
复制
发表时间：
2018-05
期刊：
影响因子：
13.6
通讯作者：
Zahawi RA
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Reid JL;Fagan ME;Zahawi RA
选择偏差提出了一个问题，即自然更新是否真的比积极的热带森林恢复更成功。最近的几项荟萃分析旨在确定自然再生在恢复热带森林方面是否比积极恢复（例如植树）更有效。我们回顾了这篇文献，发现策略之间的比较是有偏见的积极的网站选择。天然林再生研究一般是在已经有次生林的地点进行的，而植树研究是在广泛的地点条件下进行的，包括在没有植树的情况下可能不会再生的非森林地点。因此，许多代表自然再生的研究在一定程度上保证了森林再生的成功，但那些代表积极恢复的研究则不然。优化森林恢复的复杂性最好通过在同一地点进行配对实验来解决，在不同景观中复制。采用这种方法的研究得出了与荟萃分析不同的结论;配对实验比较的结果强调，自然再生是一个高度可变的过程，主动恢复和自然再生是互补的策略。
Selection bias calls into question whether natural regeneration is really more successful than active tropical forest restoration. Several recent meta-analyses have aimed to determine whether natural regeneration is more effective at recovering tropical forests than active restoration (for example, tree planting). We reviewed this literature and found that comparisons between strategies are biased by positive site selection. Studies of natural forest regeneration are generally conducted at sites where a secondary forest was already present, whereas tree planting studies are done in a broad range of site conditions, including non-forested sites that may not have regenerated in the absence of planting. Thus, a level of success in forest regeneration is guaranteed for many studies representing natural regeneration, but not for those representing active restoration. The complexity of optimizing forest restoration is best addressed by paired experimentation at the same site, replicated across landscapes. Studies that have taken this approach reach different conclusions than those arising from meta-analyses; the results of paired experimental comparisons emphasize that natural regeneration is a highly variable process and that active restoration and natural regeneration are complementary strategies.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
3.2
作者：
Parrotta, JA;Knowles, OH
通讯作者：
Knowles, OH
影响因子：
13.6
作者：
Crouzeilles R;Ferreira MS;Chazdon RL;Lindenmayer DB;Sansevero JBB;Monteiro L;Iribarrem A;Latawiec AE;Strassburg BBN
通讯作者：
Strassburg BBN
影响因子：
3.2
作者：
Aide, TM;Zimmerman, JK;Marcano-Vega, H
通讯作者：
Marcano-Vega, H
影响因子：
10
作者：
Arroyo-Rodriguez, Victor;Melo, Felipe P. L.;Tabarelli, Marcelo
通讯作者：
Tabarelli, Marcelo
影响因子：
3.7
作者：
Holl, K. D.;Aide, T. M.
通讯作者：
Aide, T. M.