Show simple item record

resumen

Abstract
Landscape transformation due to agriculture affects more than 40% of the planet’s land area and is the most important driver of losses of biodiversity and ecosystem services (ES) worldwide. Ecological restoration may significantly reduce these losses, but its effectiveness has not been systematically assessed in agroecosystems at the global level. We quantitatively meta-analyzed the results of 54 studies of how restoration actions reflecting the two [ver mas...]
dc.contributor.authorBarral, Maria Paula
dc.contributor.authorRey Benayas, José María
dc.contributor.authorMeli, Paula
dc.contributor.authorMaceira, Nestor Oscar
dc.date.accessioned2019-01-08T13:03:42Z
dc.date.available2019-01-08T13:03:42Z
dc.date.issued2015-04
dc.identifier.issn0167-8809
dc.identifier.otherhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2015.01.009
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167880915000109
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12123/4226
dc.description.abstractLandscape transformation due to agriculture affects more than 40% of the planet’s land area and is the most important driver of losses of biodiversity and ecosystem services (ES) worldwide. Ecological restoration may significantly reduce these losses, but its effectiveness has not been systematically assessed in agroecosystems at the global level. We quantitatively meta-analyzed the results of 54 studies of how restoration actions reflecting the two contrasting strategies of land sparing and land sharing affect levels of biodiversity and ES in a wide variety of agroecosystems in 20 countries. Restoration increased overall biodiversity of all organism types by an average of 68%. It also increased the supply of many ES, in particular the levels of supporting ES by an average of 42% and levels of regulating ES by an average of 120% relative to levels in the pre-restoration agroecosystem. In fact, restored agroecosystems showed levels of biodiversity and supporting and regulating ES similar to those of reference ecosystems. Recovery levels did not correlate with the time since the last restoration action. Comparison of land sparing and land sharing as restoration strategies showed that while both were associated with similar biodiversity recovery, land sparing led to higher median ES response ratios. Passive and active restoration actions did not differ significantly in the levels of biodiversity or ES recovery. Biodiversity recovery positively correlated with ES recovery. We conclude that ecological restoration of agroecosystems is generally effective and can be recommended as a way to enhance biodiversity and supply of supporting and regulating ES in agricultural landscapes. Whether a land sharing or land sparing strategy is preferable remains an open question, and might be case dependent. Moreover, it is unclear whether crop production on restored land can meet future food production needs.eng
dc.formatapplication/pdfes_AR
dc.language.isoenges_AR
dc.publisherElsevieres_AR
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccesses_AR
dc.sourceAgriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 202 : 223-231 (April 2015)es_AR
dc.subjectAgroecosistemases_AR
dc.subjectAgroecosystemseng
dc.subjectServicios de los Ecosistemases_AR
dc.subjectEcosystem Serviceseng
dc.subjectEcologíaes_AR
dc.subjectEcologyeng
dc.subjectOrdenación Territoriales_AR
dc.subjectLand Use Planningeng
dc.subjectBiodiversidades_AR
dc.subjectBiodiversityeng
dc.titleQuantifying the impacts of ecological restoration on biodiversity and ecosystem services in agroecosystems: A global meta-analysises_AR
dc.typeinfo:ar-repo/semantics/artículoes_AR
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlees_AR
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiones_AR
dc.description.origenEEA Balcarcees_AR
dc.description.filFil: Barral, Maria Paula. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Balcarce; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata. Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentinaes_AR
dc.description.filFil: Rey Benayas, José María. Universidad de Alcalá. Departamento de Ciencias de la Vida-UD Ecología; España. Universidad de Alcalá. Fundación Internacional para la Restauración de Ecosistemas; Españaes_AR
dc.description.filFil: Meli, Paula. Universidad de Alcalá. Fundación Internacional para la Restauración de Ecosistemas; España. Natura y Ecosistemas Mexicanos A.C.; Méxicoes_AR
dc.description.filFil: Maceira, Nestor Oscar. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Balcarce; Argentinaes_AR
dc.subtypecientifico


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

common

Show simple item record