A recent state provision allows quarzitic campo rupestre (QCR) set-asides as in-kind compensation for ironstone campo rupestre (ICR) suppression in the Atlantic Forest, which induces out-of-kind compensation. However, the recently published state provision defines no clear parameters to demonstrate “ecological equivalence” as an in-kind compensation. We evaluated whether there is ecological equivalence between and ICR and QCR in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. We show marked geological, pedological, floristic, structural, and functional differences between ICR and QCR. There is evidence that the new compensation rules only partially offset loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services hosted by ICR, determining limited effectiveness of the legislation for ICR conservation in the Atlantic Forest. We conclude that the development of clear compensation parameters based on scientific evidence and quantitative indicators is a priority gap for the conservation of ICR under increasing mining pressure.

最近国家规定允许quarzitic坎普rupestre（QCR）设置旁白为实物的铁矿石补偿坎普rupestre（ICR）压抑在大西洋森林中，从而导致补偿过高。但是，最近发布的州规定没有明确的参数来表明“生态等效”作为实物补偿。我们评估了巴西大西洋森林与ICR和QCR之间是否存在生态等效性。我们显示了ICR和QCR之间明显的地质，土壤学，植物学，结构和功能差异。有证据表明，新的补偿规则仅部分抵消了ICR托管的生物多样性和生态系统服务的丧失，从而决定了ICR保护大西洋森林中立法的有效性有限。