• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Adaptive management can increase ecological, social and economic resilience from restored areas in Atlantic Forest, Brazil
 

Adaptive management can increase ecological, social and economic resilience from restored areas in Atlantic Forest, Brazil

on

  • 688 views

Presentation by Vera Lex Engel on adaptive management in Atlantic Forest in Brazil. This was presented at the SER Conference Mexico, August 2011

Presentation by Vera Lex Engel on adaptive management in Atlantic Forest in Brazil. This was presented at the SER Conference Mexico, August 2011

Statistics

Views

Total Views
688
Views on SlideShare
680
Embed Views
8

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0

2 Embeds 8

http://www.forestlandscaperestoration.org 6
http://www.ideastransformlandscapes.wageningenportals.nl 2

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Adaptive management can increase ecological, social and economic resilience from restored areas in Atlantic Forest, Brazil Adaptive management can increase ecological, social and economic resilience from restored areas in Atlantic Forest, Brazil Presentation Transcript

    • Adaptive management can increase ecological, social and economic resilience from restored areas in Atlantic Forest, Brazil Vera Lex Engel veralex@fca.unesp.br Colaborators: John A. Parrotta; Danilo S. Ré; Lauro R. Nogueira Jr.; Diego Soto Podadera; Liz Mio Otta; Rodrigo Minici de Oliveira
    • In many situations, socio-economical and culturalconstraints are more relevant for forest restoration than theecological ones! According to our forest legislation, in properties were the native vegetation (besides the riparian buffers and other permanent protection areas) is under 20%, the legal reserve must be restored Legal deadline: 30 years, starting in 2001 But Brazilian landowners • Aim at short term benefits • Lack a forest tradition • See the forest as a barrier to development • Believe that the way they the land today is a consequence of past governmental contradictory policies and resist to adequate themselves to current legislation •Are not willing to pay for “loosing” part of their land
    • Social constraints Around 71% Factors hampering restoration of legal reserves and permanent of protection areas landowners are “outlaw” Manutenção Informação Custo Falta de Interesse and have Lack of maintenance erosion concern 23% 23% problems in their 8% Lack of properties costs information 46%
    • How are can we overcome barriers to forest restoration? Most degradation is resulting from human interference in the ecosystems; We are concerned to restore not only ecosystems, but Social Ecological Systems (SES, Bryian & Meyers, 2004); SESs resilience needs to incorporate all three dimensions (Lamb, this conference)
    • Understanding and managing resilienceJohn A. Parrotta A research project conceived since 1995 to test alternatives to concealing biodiversity restoration with provisioning stakeholders goods and services .
    • Edgardia Experimental Farm, UNESP campus
    • Treatments (plantation models) -after 10 years Control Mixed comercial species planting (25), (T1) divided in 2 growth groups Direct seeding of five fast growing species (T2)Agroforestry systems with 20 High diversity (41 sp.)tree sp: annual crop planting using differentproduction + medicinal and functional and silviculturalfruit trees (T3) groups (T5) Neighbor forest fragments (references)
    • Reference sites: seasonal semideciduostropical forest. Reference sites: Basal Area = 20.8 to 38.4 m2. ha-1 Seed rain :46 (site 1). 56 and 82 sp. (site 1) (33 families). Tree species richnees76 . 82 and 112 Seedling density: 20.453 ind./ha (Pires& Engel. 2009). Seed bank density: 482.16; 588.6 and 800.3 seeds.m-² ) ; Nakayama (2009); Martins & Engel (2007 ). Seed deposition density :126.27 ( site 1);155.2 seeds. m-² (site 3); 256.48 seeds.m-² (Site 2)
    • Are these models liable to beacepted by small and medium landholders?•Must be as simple and easy as possible•Money input as low as possible•Maximum direct and indirect benefis: high opportunity cost of land in developed parts of country; low land tenure in less developed regions
    • Are these restoration systems ecologically resilient? In some aspects, yes:  Trees over passing early filters are doing well (around 50% in all treatments);  Structure (including canopy stratification in the more complex systems) and physiognomy are forest like;  Natural regeneration of more than 100 tree species, most by zoochory;  Other life forms are beginning to colonize the plots: epiphytes; lianas; forbs, understory trees;  Invasive grasses have disappeared in some plots;  A litter layer is overspread  Functioning seems to follow normal trajectories
    • But some ecological surprises arise Direct seeding untill two years ago Canopy stratification, colonization by other life forms than trees
    • Nowadays: high mortality of Enterolobium trees due to fungal disease;Schizolobium monodominance: necessity of adaptive management: thinings +enrichment plantings?
    • And grasses are still there! (edge effect) 120 100 80 60 other grasses 40 20 0 Control DirS AfS Mix A Mix B HDiv A HDiv B Forest
    • “Field of dreams” hypothesis (Palmer et al., 1997) 76 bird species after 5 years(15 families)– 11 % strictly frugivores; Responsible for bringing 9.111 seeds/ha at DirS treatment and ; 37.889 seeds/ha at Hdiv system (only 12% autoctonous). (Rosa, 2003) 10 medium and large mammal species are using the restored areas (Caes, 2009) against 3 in the pastures
    • Medium and large mammals similarity between restoredsites, native forest and passive restoration (Caes, 2009) Restored areas: + similar to reference ecosystems in composition; + similar to pastures in density (low) densidade; -mammals foraging and sheltering habitats, but they still don’t support resident populations
    • Frugivore butterflies associated to restored areas (Furlanetti, 2010) 45 450 H’= 2.776 H’ = 2.807Number of Species 40 400 Fisher’s α- = 10.11 Fisher’s α = 13.08 35 30 350 a H’= 2.34 a Abundance 25 300 Fisher’s α = 6.773 20 250 15 200 b 10 5 150 0 100 50 Frag Pasto Rest 0 Treatments RES FRG PAS n° species observed Treatm ents n° expectded richeness for 100 individuals sampling
    • “If you build it, they will come” Big fish!
    • Are the systems economically resilient?In some of the models the implantation andearly maintenance costs may be supported; Later additional incomes from firewood, timber and NTFP (medicinal plants, food, honey, seeds) Implantation costs between US$800.00 and US$2,600.00/ha
    • Agroforestry System “Taungya” modified �        2m  �  � � � � � � � � �� 2m10 m          1,5 m   Annual crops  5m             Firewood species(10)  � � � � � � � � � � Timber and fruit trees           (10)
    • Afs Phase 1: annual crops, one –two cicles/yearImplantation and initial maintenance costs were paid within 4,5years.Other incomes: firewood from thinings, NTFP beans corn Sweet-potato pumpkin
    • Phase 2: Enrichment plantings with fruit trees (site 1),native medicinal trees + heart-of-palm trees (Euterpe edulis, Arecaceae) in site 2
    • Mixed commercial plantings using two different groups of species according to growth rythms ( 12 anos)Selective harvesting in two cycles: 15-20 andaround 30 years with intermediate thinings 114-135 s.m.ha-1 from thinings at seven years, US$ Plywood and sawmill timber by 20-25.00/s. m. reduced impact felling techniques
    • Currente challenge question: how to manage mixed plantings for firewwod and timber preserving natural regeneration?Volume equations for every plantation model andsite; for groups of homogeneous species: definingthinning and harvesting regimes
    • Timber stock per treatment after 12 years 110 220 105 200 100 180 Wilks lambda=,79235, F(2, 26)=3,4069, p=,04852 95 Wilks lambda=,10927, F(10, 52)=10,531, p=,00000 Vertical bars denote 0,95 confidence intervals 160 Vertical bars denote 0,95 confidence intervals 90 ) -1) -1 .ha 140 85 .ha 3 80 3 120 75 100 70 80 Timber stock (m 65 Timber stock (m 60 60 40 55 20 50 45 0 Dark Red Oxisol Ultisol DirS AfS Mix A Mix B HDiv A HDiv B Treatment Site (Volume estimation equations developed by D. S. Ré (this conference))
    • Timber annual mean yield (m3.ha-1. year-2) 18 9,5 Wilks lambda=,10927, F(10, 52)=10,531, p=,00000 9,0 16 Vertical bars denote 0,95 confidence intervals 8,5 14 Wilks lambda=,79235, F(2, 26)=3,4069, p=,04852 8,0 ) .y ) .y Vertical bars denote 0,95 confidence intervals -2 -1-2 -1 12 7,5 .ha .ha 33 10 7,0 8 6,5 6,0 6 5,5 Mean anual yield (m Mean growth rate (m 4 5,0 2 4,5 0 4,0 DirS AFs Mix A Mix B HDiv A HDiv B Dark Red Oxisol Ultisol Treatment Site
    • Adaptive management Mimosa caesalpiniaefolia, exotic nitrogen-fixing tree, facilitating or inhibiting?Effect of eradicating this tree:growth, natural regeneration andgrass invasion potential.Incomes as firewood
    • Other possible incomes
    • Brazilian pepper (Schinus therebintifolius )  5-8 kg of fruits/tree after 3 years  US$ 30.00/kg  Market value as a spice, for cosmetic and pharmacy industry
    • Euterpe oleracea, “palmito” tree, an Atlantic Forest keystone species Non-timber forest products Heart of palm, 0.7 kg/tree, U$ 6-8/kg Fruits with high nutritional value;500 ind./ha were planted in the AFS consumption of 850 ton/year in natura only in São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro States, 4.5-6 kg/tree/year (1.8-2.4 kg of fruit pulp)
    • Future challenges Adaptive management to increase ecological and economical resilience  Phenological patterns and keystone species concept to guide enrichment plantings  Thinings and felling regimes for mixed plantings Social resilience remains to be tested: gap of knowlegde
    • ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
    • FINANCIADORES USDA-FOREST SERVICE FUNDUNESP CAPESAPOIO: FCA SEMENTES PIRAÍ ADUBOS VERDES VIVEIRO BIOVERDE (LIMEIRA)