Positive site selection bias in meta-analyses comparing natural regeneration to active forest restoration
Loading...
Links to Files
Permanent Link
Author/Creator
Author/Creator ORCID
Date
2018
Type of Work
Department
Program
Citation of Original Publication
Positive site selection bias in meta-analyses comparing natural regeneration to active forest restoration BY J. LEIGHTON REID, MATTHEW E. FAGAN, RAKAN A. ZAHAWI SCIENCE ADVANCES16 MAY 2018 : EAAS9143
Rights
This item may be protected under Title 17 of the U.S. Copyright Law. It is made available by UMBC for non-commercial research and education. For permission to publish or reproduce, please contact the author.
Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0)
Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0)
Abstract
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 ab-sence 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.