当前位置: X-MOL 学术PeerJ › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
A meta-analysis contrasting active versus passive restoration practices in dryland agricultural ecosystems
PeerJ ( IF 2.7 ) Pub Date : 2020-11-23 , DOI: 10.7717/peerj.10428
M. Florencia Miguel 1 , H. Scott Butterfield 2 , Christopher J. Lortie 3, 4
Affiliation  

Restoration of agricultural drylands globally, here farmlands and grazing lands, is a priority for ecosystem function and biodiversity preservation. Natural areas in drylands are recognized as biodiversity hotspots and face continued human impacts. Global water shortages are driving increased agricultural land retirement providing the opportunity to reclaim some of these lands for natural habitat. We used meta-analysis to contrast different classes of dryland restoration practices. All interventions were categorized as active and passive for the analyses of efficacy in dryland agricultural ecosystems. We evaluated the impact of 19 specific restoration practices from 42 studies on soil, plant, animal, and general habitat targets across 16 countries, for a total of 1,427 independent observations. Passive vegetation restoration and grazing exclusion led to net positive restoration outcomes. Passive restoration practices were more variable and less effective than active restoration practices. Furthermore, passive soil restoration led to net negative restoration outcomes. Active restoration practices consistently led to positive outcomes for soil, plant, and habitat targets. Water supplementation was the most effective restoration practice. These findings suggest that active interventions are necessary and critical in most instances for dryland agricultural ecosystems likely because of severe anthropogenic pressures and concurrent environmental stressors—both past and present.

中文翻译:

对比旱地农业生态系统主动与被动恢复实践的荟萃分析

在全球范围内恢复农业旱地,这里是农田和牧场,是生态系统功能和生物多样性保护的优先事项。旱地的自然区域被认为是生物多样性热点,并面临着持续的人类影响。全球水资源短缺正在推动越来越多的农业用地退休,这为将其中一些土地开垦为自然栖息地提供了机会。我们使用荟萃分析来对比不同类别的旱地恢复实践。为了分析旱地农业生态系统的功效,所有干预措施都被归类为主动和被动。我们评估了来自 16 个国家/地区的土壤、植物、动物和一般栖息地目标的 42 项研究中的 19 项具体恢复实践的影响,总共进行了 1,427 次独立观察。被动植被恢复和放牧排除导致净积极恢复结果。被动修复实践比主动修复实践更易变且效率更低。此外,被动土壤恢复导致净负面恢复结果。积极的恢复实践始终为土壤、植物和栖息地目标带来积极成果。补水是最有效的恢复措施。这些发现表明,在大多数情况下,由于严重的人为压力和同时存在的环境压力因素(过去和现在),积极干预对于旱地农业生态系统来说是必要和关键的。被动土壤修复导致净负修复结果。积极的恢复实践始终为土壤、植物和栖息地目标带来积极成果。补水是最有效的恢复措施。这些发现表明,在大多数情况下,由于严重的人为压力和同时存在的环境压力因素(过去和现在),积极干预对于旱地农业生态系统来说是必要和关键的。被动土壤修复导致净负修复结果。积极的恢复实践始终为土壤、植物和栖息地目标带来积极成果。补水是最有效的恢复措施。这些发现表明,在大多数情况下,由于严重的人为压力和同时存在的环境压力因素(过去和现在),积极干预对于旱地农业生态系统来说是必要和关键的。
更新日期:2020-11-23
down
wechat
bug