MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Biodiversity responses to restoration across the Brazilian Atlantic Forest

2022· review· en· W4210712526 on OpenAlexaff
João Paulo Romanelli, Paula Meli, João Paulo Bispo Santos, Igor Nogueira Jacob, Lukas Rodrigues Souza, André Vieira Rodrigues, Diego Peruchi Trevisan, Chunbo Huang, Danilo Roberti Alves de Almeida, Luiz G. M. Silva, Maria Leonor Ribeiro Casimiro Lopes Assad, Marc W. Cadotte, Ricardo Ribeiro Rodrigues

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Science of The Total Environment · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Conservation and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo
KeywordsAtlantic forestBiodiversityGeographyForest restorationAgroforestryEnvironmental scienceEcologyFisheryForest ecologyBiologyEcosystem

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration is focussing attention and resources on restoration globally. Nowhere is this more crucial than in tropical forests that harbor immense biodiversity, but have also undergone widespread deforestation over the past few decades. We performed a meta-analysis to investigate how biodiversity features respond to forest restoration across the Brazilian Atlantic Forest (BAF), one of the most threatened biodiversity hotspots in the world. We assembled biodiversity in different metrics of structure and diversity features of three taxonomic groups (vascular plants, soil microorganisms, and invertebrates), generating a dataset with 2370 observations from 76 primary studies. We quantified the incomplete recovery of biodiversity (i.e., the rate of recovery to a pre-disturbance state) occurring during the restoration process, which we called the 'recovery gap'. Our results revealed that forests undergoing restoration in the BAF show a recovery gap of 34% for structure features and 22% for diversity features in comparison to reference reforests, considering all taxonomic groups investigated. For vascular plants, soil microorganisms, and invertebrates the recovery gap ranged between 46 and 47%, 16-26%, and 4-7%, respectively. Overall, the recovery gap was influenced by the interaction of restoration actions (i.e., the past land use, restoration age and restoration approach - active and passive restoration), however, structure features responded more sensitively to the time elapsed since restoration started, while the recovery gap for diversity features depended more on the past land-use. Our study can help guide the prioritization of the aforenamed taxonomic groups in restoration, the regulation of potential biodiversity offsetting policies in the BAF, and understanding how coupled biodiversity features respond to the interaction of environmental conditions and restoration actions in a high fragmented tropical landscape.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations53
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueThe Science of The Total EnvironmentSame topicEnvironmental Conservation and ManagementFrench-language works237,207