1
|
Bergamo PJ, Rito KF, Viana BF, Garcia E, Lughadha EN, Maués MM, Rech AR, Silva FD, Varassin IG, Agostini K, Marques MC, Maruyama PK, Ravena N, Garibaldi LA, Knight TM, Oliveira PEM, Oppata AK, Saraiva AM, Tambosi LR, Tsukahara RY, Freitas L, Wolowski M. Integrating public engagement to intensify pollination services through ecological restoration. iScience 2023; 26:107276. [PMID: 37559905 PMCID: PMC10407755 DOI: 10.1016/j.isci.2023.107276] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 08/11/2023] Open
Abstract
Globally, human activities impose threats to nature and the provision of ecosystem services, such as pollination. In this context, ecological restoration provides opportunities to create managed landscapes that maximize biodiversity conservation and sustainable agriculture, e.g., via provision of pollination services. Managing pollination services and restoration opportunities requires the engagement of distinct stakeholders embedded in diverse social institutions. Nevertheless, frameworks toward sustainable agriculture often overlook how stakeholders interact and access power in social arenas. We present a perspective integrating pollination services, ecological restoration, and public engagement for biodiversity conservation and agricultural production. We highlight the importance of a comprehensive assessment of pollination services, restoration opportunities identification, and a public engagement strategy anchored in institutional analysis of the social arenas involved in restoration efforts. Our perspective can therefore guide the implementation of practices from local to country scales to enhance biodiversity conservation and sustainable agriculture.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pedro J. Bergamo
- Rio de Janeiro Botanical Garden, Rio de Janeiro 22460-030, Brazil
| | - Kátia F. Rito
- Rio de Janeiro Botanical Garden, Rio de Janeiro 22460-030, Brazil
| | - Blandina F. Viana
- National Institute of Science and Technology in Interdisciplinary and Transdisciplinary Studies in Ecology and Evolution, Institute of Biology, Federal University of Bahia, Salvador 40170-210, Brazil
| | - Edenise Garcia
- Instituto de Conservação Ambiental the Nature Conservancy Brasil, São Paulo 01311-936, Brazil
| | - Eimear Nic Lughadha
- Conservation Science Department, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond TW9 9AE, UK
| | - Márcia M. Maués
- Laboratory of Entomology, Embrapa Eastern Amazon, Belém 66095-903, Brazil
| | - André R. Rech
- Centre of Advanced Studies on Functioning of Ecological Systems and Interactions (CAFESIN-MULTIFLOR), Federal University of the Jequitinhonha and Mucuri Valleys, Diamantina 39100-000, Brazil
| | | | - Isabela G. Varassin
- Laboratório de Interações e Biologia Reprodutiva, Federal University of Paraná, Curitiba 81531-980, Brazil
| | - Kayna Agostini
- Department of Natural Science, Mathematics and Education, Federal University of São Carlos, Araras 13600-970, Brazil
| | | | - Pietro K. Maruyama
- Centre for Ecological Synthesis and Conservation, Department of Genetics, Ecology and Evolution, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte 31270-901, Brazil
| | - Nirvia Ravena
- Centre of Amazonian Studies, Federal University of Pará, de Altos Estudos Amazônicos, Belém 66075-110, Brazil
| | - Lucas A. Garibaldi
- Instituto de Investigaciones en Recursos Naturales, Agroecología y Desarrollo Rural, Universidad Nacional de Río Negro, San Carlos de Bariloche 8400, Argentina
- Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas, Instituto de Investigaciones em Recursos Naturales, Agroecología y Desarrollo Rural, San Carlos de Bariloche 8400, Argentina
| | - Tiffany M. Knight
- German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv), Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Leipzig 04103 Germany
- Community Ecology Department, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, UFZ, Halle 06120, Germany
- Institute of Biology, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle 06099, Germany
| | | | | | - Antônio M. Saraiva
- Polythecnic School, University of São Paulo, São Paulo 05508-010, Brazil
| | | | | | - Leandro Freitas
- Rio de Janeiro Botanical Garden, Rio de Janeiro 22460-030, Brazil
| | - Marina Wolowski
- Institute of Natural Sciences, Federal University of Alfenas, Alfenas 37130-001, Brazil
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Rother DC, Sousa ILF, Gressler E, Liboni AP, Souza VC, Rodrigues RR, Morellato LP. Comparing the potential reproductive phenology between restored areas and native tropical forest fragments in Southeastern Brazil. Restor Ecol 2022. [DOI: 10.1111/rec.13529] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Débora C. Rother
- Departamento de Ecologia Universidade de São Paulo – USP, Instituto de Biociências São Paulo São Paulo Brazil
- Laboratório de Ecologia e Restauração Florestal Universidade de São Paulo, Escola Superior de Agricultura “Luiz de Queiroz” – ESALQ, Universidade de São Paulo Piracicaba São Paulo Brazil
| | - Igor L. F. Sousa
- Departamento de Biodiversidade, Laboratório de Fenologia Universidade Estadual Paulista – UNESP, Instituto de Biociências Rio Claro São Paulo Brazil
| | - Eliana Gressler
- Departamento de Biodiversidade, Laboratório de Fenologia Universidade Estadual Paulista – UNESP, Instituto de Biociências Rio Claro São Paulo Brazil
| | - Ana P. Liboni
- Laboratório de Ecologia e Restauração Florestal Universidade de São Paulo, Escola Superior de Agricultura “Luiz de Queiroz” – ESALQ, Universidade de São Paulo Piracicaba São Paulo Brazil
- Departamento de Botânica Universidade Estadual de Campinas – UNICAMP Campinas São Paulo Brazil
| | - Vinícius C. Souza
- Laboratório de Ecologia e Restauração Florestal Universidade de São Paulo, Escola Superior de Agricultura “Luiz de Queiroz” – ESALQ, Universidade de São Paulo Piracicaba São Paulo Brazil
| | - Ricardo R. Rodrigues
- Laboratório de Ecologia e Restauração Florestal Universidade de São Paulo, Escola Superior de Agricultura “Luiz de Queiroz” – ESALQ, Universidade de São Paulo Piracicaba São Paulo Brazil
| | - L. Patrícia Morellato
- Departamento de Biodiversidade, Laboratório de Fenologia Universidade Estadual Paulista – UNESP, Instituto de Biociências Rio Claro São Paulo Brazil
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Oliveira ACC, Forti VA, Viani RAG. Fertility responses of a native grass: technology supporting native plant production for restoration in Brazil. Restor Ecol 2022. [DOI: 10.1111/rec.13534] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Ana C. C. Oliveira
- Escola Superior de Agricultura “Luiz de Queiroz” Universidade de São Paulo Piracicaba Brazil
| | - Victor A. Forti
- Centro de Ciências Agrárias Universidade Federal de São Carlos São Carlos Brazil
| | - Ricardo A. G. Viani
- Centro de Ciências Agrárias Universidade Federal de São Carlos São Carlos Brazil
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Suganuma MS, Durigan G. Build it and they will come, but not all of them in fragmented Atlantic Forest landscapes. Restor Ecol 2021. [DOI: 10.1111/rec.13537] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/03/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Marcio S. Suganuma
- Laboratório de Biodiversidade e Restauração de Ecossistemas Universidade Estadual de Londrina Londrina Brazil
- Centro de Ciências Humanas e da Educação Universidade Estadual do Norte do Paraná Cornélio Procópio Brazil
| | - Giselda Durigan
- Laboratório de Ecologia e Hidrologia Florestal Floresta Estadual de Assis, Instituto Florestal Assis Brazil
- Instituto de Biologia Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) Campinas Brazil
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
McCormick ML, Carr AN, Massatti R, Winkler DE, De Angelis P, Olwell P. How to increase the supply of native seed to improve restoration success: the US native seed development process. Restor Ecol 2021. [DOI: 10.1111/rec.13499] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Molly L. McCormick
- Southwest Biological Science Center U.S. Geological Survey 2255 N Gemini Dr Flagstaff Arizona 86001 U.S.A
| | - Amanda N. Carr
- Negaunee Institute for Plant Conservation Science and Action Chicago Botanic Garden 1000 Lake Cook Road Glencoe Illinois 60022 U.S.A
| | - Rob Massatti
- Southwest Biological Science Center U.S. Geological Survey 2255 N Gemini Dr Flagstaff Arizona 86001 U.S.A
| | - Daniel E. Winkler
- Southwest Biological Science Center U.S. Geological Survey 2290 S West Resource Blvd Moab Utah 84532 U.S.A
| | - Patricia De Angelis
- Division of Scientific Authority U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, International Affairs 5275 Leesburg Pike Falls Church Virginia 22041‐3803 U.S.A
| | - Peggy Olwell
- Plant Conservation and Restoration Program Bureau of Land Management 1387 S Vinnell Way Boise Idaho 83709 U.S.A
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Seeding Resilient Restoration: An Indicator System for the Analysis of Tree Seed Systems. DIVERSITY 2021. [DOI: 10.3390/d13080367] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/06/2023]
Abstract
Achieving multi-million-hectare commitments from countries around the world to restore degraded lands in resilient and sustainable ways requires, among other things, huge volumes of tree planting material. Seed systems encompassing all forest reproductive material (e.g., seeds, cuttings, stakes, and wildings), are key to ensuring that sufficient planting material with a diverse range of suitable species, adapted to local conditions and capable of persisting under a changing climate, is available for restoration projects. The ideal structure of a seed system integrates five components: seed selection and innovation, seed harvesting and production, market access, supply and demand, quality control, and an enabling environment. We propose 15 indicators to evaluate these key components and trial them by assessing national seed systems in 7 Latin American countries. We conclude that the indicators enable a straightforward assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of national seed systems, thus assisting governments to identify key areas for improvement and opportunities for horizontal learning.
Collapse
|
7
|
Marques de Abreu AH, Makhlouta Alonso J, da Silva Abel EL, Lima Filho P, Pereira Reis PH, dos Santos Leles PS. Replanting life: ecological and human restoration. Restor Ecol 2021. [DOI: 10.1111/rec.13493] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Alan Henrique Marques de Abreu
- ETA Guandu, Companhia Estadual de Água e Esgotos do Rio de Janeiro (CEDAE) BR 465, Km 19.5 Nova Iguaçu RJ 26298‐000 Brazil
| | - Jorge Makhlouta Alonso
- Instituto de Florestas – IF Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro (UFRRJ) BR 465, Km 07 Seropédica RJ 23890‐000 Brazil
| | - Elton Luis da Silva Abel
- ETA Guandu, Companhia Estadual de Água e Esgotos do Rio de Janeiro (CEDAE) BR 465, Km 19.5 Nova Iguaçu RJ 26298‐000 Brazil
| | - Pedro Lima Filho
- Polícia Civil do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (PCERJ) Av. Aluísio da Silva Gomes, 100 Macaé RJ 27930‐560 Brazil
| | - Paulo Henrique Pereira Reis
- Companhia Estadual de Água e Esgotos do Rio de Janeiro (CEDAE) Av. Presidente Vargas, 2655, 7° andar Rio de Janeiro RJ 20210‐030 Brazil
| | - Paulo Sérgio dos Santos Leles
- Instituto de Florestas – IF Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro (UFRRJ) BR 465, Km 07 Seropédica RJ 23890‐000 Brazil
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Mendes LM, César RG, Uezu A, Beltrame TP, Rodriguez LCE, Gomes HB, Cullen L. Large canopy and animal‐dispersed species facilitate natural regeneration in tropical forest restoration. Restor Ecol 2021. [DOI: 10.1111/rec.13406] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Lara M. Mendes
- Ecological Research Institute (IPE) Dom Pedro I Highway, km 47, 12960‐000 Nazaré Paulista SP Brazil
| | - Ricardo G. César
- Department of Forestry Sciences University of São Paulo, ESALQ Av. Pádua Dias, 11, 13418‐900 Piracicaba SP Brazil
| | - Alexandre Uezu
- Ecological Research Institute (IPE) Dom Pedro I Highway, km 47, 12960‐000 Nazaré Paulista SP Brazil
| | - Tiago P. Beltrame
- Ecological Research Institute (IPE) Dom Pedro I Highway, km 47, 12960‐000 Nazaré Paulista SP Brazil
| | - Luiz C. E. Rodriguez
- Department of Forestry Sciences University of São Paulo, ESALQ Av. Pádua Dias, 11, 13418‐900 Piracicaba SP Brazil
| | - Haroldo B. Gomes
- Ecological Research Institute (IPE) Dom Pedro I Highway, km 47, 12960‐000 Nazaré Paulista SP Brazil
| | - Laury Cullen
- Ecological Research Institute (IPE) Dom Pedro I Highway, km 47, 12960‐000 Nazaré Paulista SP Brazil
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Challenges during the execution, results, and monitoring phases of ecological restoration: Learning from a country-wide assessment. PLoS One 2021; 16:e0249573. [PMID: 33822816 PMCID: PMC8023452 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249573] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/22/2020] [Accepted: 03/21/2021] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
Abstract
Outcomes from restoration projects are often difficult for policymakers and stakeholders to assess, but this information is fundamental for scaling up ecological restoration actions. We evaluated technical aspects of the interventions, results (ecological and socio-economic) and monitoring practices in 75 restoration projects in Mexico using a digital survey composed of 137 questions. We found that restoration projects in terrestrial ecosystems generally relied on actions included in minimal (97%) and maximal (86%) intervention, while in wetlands, the preferred restoration strategies were intermediate (75%) and minimal intervention (63%). Only a third of the projects (38%) relied on collective learning as a source of knowledge to generate techniques (traditional management). In most of the projects (73%), multiple criteria (>2) were considered when selecting plant species for plantings; the most frequently used criterion was that plant species were found within the restoration area, native or naturalized (i.e., a circa situm criterion; 88%). In 48% of the projects, the biological material required for restoration (e.g., seeds and seedlings) were gathered or propagated by project implementers rather than purchased commercially. Only a few projects (between 33 and 34%) reached a high level of biodiversity recovery (>75%). Most of the projects (between 69 to71%) recovered less than 50% of the ecological services. Most of the projects (82%) led to improved individual relationships. The analysis revealed a need to implement strategies that are cost-effective, the application of traditional ecological knowledge and the inclusion of indigenous people and local communities in restoration programs at all stages—from planning to implementation, through monitoring. We also identified the need to expand research to develop effective tools to assess ecosystems’ regeneration potential and develop theoretical frameworks to move beyond short-term markers to set and achieve medium- and long-term goals. Cautious and comprehensive planning of national strategies must consider the abovementioned identified gaps.
Collapse
|