Limits...
Afforestation or intense pasturing improve the ecological and economic value of abandoned tropical farmlands.

Knoke T, Bendix J, Pohle P, Hamer U, Hildebrandt P, Roos K, Gerique A, Sandoval ML, Breuer L, Tischer A, Silva B, Calvas B, Aguirre N, Castro LM, Windhorst D, Weber M, Stimm B, Günter S, Palomeque X, Mora J, Mosandl R, Beck E - Nat Commun (2014)

Bottom Line: However, as aims and modes of restoration differ in their ecological and socio-economic value, the assessment of achievable ecosystem functions and benefits requires holistic investigation.A comparison of the outcomes among afforestation with native alder or exotic pine, pasture restoration with either low-input or intense management and the abandoned status quo shows that both variants of afforestation and intense pasture use improve the ecological value, but low-input pasture does not.Both Mestizo and indigenous Saraguro settlers are more inclined to opt for afforestation.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: TUM School of Life Sciences Weihenstephan, Technische Universität München, 85354 Freising, Germany.

ABSTRACT
Increasing demands for livelihood resources in tropical rural areas have led to progressive clearing of biodiverse natural forests. Restoration of abandoned farmlands could counter this process. However, as aims and modes of restoration differ in their ecological and socio-economic value, the assessment of achievable ecosystem functions and benefits requires holistic investigation. Here we combine the results from multidisciplinary research for a unique assessment based on a normalization of 23 ecological, economic and social indicators for four restoration options in the tropical Andes of Ecuador. A comparison of the outcomes among afforestation with native alder or exotic pine, pasture restoration with either low-input or intense management and the abandoned status quo shows that both variants of afforestation and intense pasture use improve the ecological value, but low-input pasture does not. Economic indicators favour either afforestation or intense pasturing. Both Mestizo and indigenous Saraguro settlers are more inclined to opt for afforestation.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

Ecological versus socio-economic index values.Average of key element—Pk—indices of the five investigated options of land use if water retention is considered positive. Error bars (whiskers) indicate±s.e.m., coefficient of correlation is ρ=0.99 (tρ=11.77; pt<0.001); the statistic of a Kruskal–Wallis one-way analysis of variance is H=13.4 (pH<0.01) for differences between overall average index values (n=8 key elements for each land-use option). A priori hypotheses about differences between single land-use options or groups of land-use options are tested as statistical contrasts using rank transformed data with: Ab, abandoned pastures; A, Alnus; P, Pinus; L, low-input pastures; I, intense pastures. Contrast 1, associated with the hypothesis (A+P+L+I)/4>Ab, tests if restoration options on average improve ecological and socio-economic values, and results in a significant tc1=2.3 (pc1<0.025). Contrast 2, associated with the hypothesis (A+P)/2>(I+L)/2, tests if afforestations perform better than pasture, and results in a significant tc2=3.1 (pc2<0.025). Contrast 3 focuses on the hypothesis A>P and tests if Alnus outperforms Pinus, and results in a nonsignificant tc3=0.9. Contrast 4, associated with the hypothesis I>L, tests if intense pastures perform better than low-input pastures, and results in a weakly significant tc4=1.6 (pc4<0.100) (Supplementary Table 22).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4263169&req=5

f1: Ecological versus socio-economic index values.Average of key element—Pk—indices of the five investigated options of land use if water retention is considered positive. Error bars (whiskers) indicate±s.e.m., coefficient of correlation is ρ=0.99 (tρ=11.77; pt<0.001); the statistic of a Kruskal–Wallis one-way analysis of variance is H=13.4 (pH<0.01) for differences between overall average index values (n=8 key elements for each land-use option). A priori hypotheses about differences between single land-use options or groups of land-use options are tested as statistical contrasts using rank transformed data with: Ab, abandoned pastures; A, Alnus; P, Pinus; L, low-input pastures; I, intense pastures. Contrast 1, associated with the hypothesis (A+P+L+I)/4>Ab, tests if restoration options on average improve ecological and socio-economic values, and results in a significant tc1=2.3 (pc1<0.025). Contrast 2, associated with the hypothesis (A+P)/2>(I+L)/2, tests if afforestations perform better than pasture, and results in a significant tc2=3.1 (pc2<0.025). Contrast 3 focuses on the hypothesis A>P and tests if Alnus outperforms Pinus, and results in a nonsignificant tc3=0.9. Contrast 4, associated with the hypothesis I>L, tests if intense pastures perform better than low-input pastures, and results in a weakly significant tc4=1.6 (pc4<0.100) (Supplementary Table 22).

Mentions: To gain more insight into the possible trade-offs between ecological and socio-economic ecosystem indices, and to support science-based decision making, we analyse the correlation between the average ecological and socio-economic key elements (Fig. 1).


Afforestation or intense pasturing improve the ecological and economic value of abandoned tropical farmlands.

Knoke T, Bendix J, Pohle P, Hamer U, Hildebrandt P, Roos K, Gerique A, Sandoval ML, Breuer L, Tischer A, Silva B, Calvas B, Aguirre N, Castro LM, Windhorst D, Weber M, Stimm B, Günter S, Palomeque X, Mora J, Mosandl R, Beck E - Nat Commun (2014)

Ecological versus socio-economic index values.Average of key element—Pk—indices of the five investigated options of land use if water retention is considered positive. Error bars (whiskers) indicate±s.e.m., coefficient of correlation is ρ=0.99 (tρ=11.77; pt<0.001); the statistic of a Kruskal–Wallis one-way analysis of variance is H=13.4 (pH<0.01) for differences between overall average index values (n=8 key elements for each land-use option). A priori hypotheses about differences between single land-use options or groups of land-use options are tested as statistical contrasts using rank transformed data with: Ab, abandoned pastures; A, Alnus; P, Pinus; L, low-input pastures; I, intense pastures. Contrast 1, associated with the hypothesis (A+P+L+I)/4>Ab, tests if restoration options on average improve ecological and socio-economic values, and results in a significant tc1=2.3 (pc1<0.025). Contrast 2, associated with the hypothesis (A+P)/2>(I+L)/2, tests if afforestations perform better than pasture, and results in a significant tc2=3.1 (pc2<0.025). Contrast 3 focuses on the hypothesis A>P and tests if Alnus outperforms Pinus, and results in a nonsignificant tc3=0.9. Contrast 4, associated with the hypothesis I>L, tests if intense pastures perform better than low-input pastures, and results in a weakly significant tc4=1.6 (pc4<0.100) (Supplementary Table 22).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4263169&req=5

f1: Ecological versus socio-economic index values.Average of key element—Pk—indices of the five investigated options of land use if water retention is considered positive. Error bars (whiskers) indicate±s.e.m., coefficient of correlation is ρ=0.99 (tρ=11.77; pt<0.001); the statistic of a Kruskal–Wallis one-way analysis of variance is H=13.4 (pH<0.01) for differences between overall average index values (n=8 key elements for each land-use option). A priori hypotheses about differences between single land-use options or groups of land-use options are tested as statistical contrasts using rank transformed data with: Ab, abandoned pastures; A, Alnus; P, Pinus; L, low-input pastures; I, intense pastures. Contrast 1, associated with the hypothesis (A+P+L+I)/4>Ab, tests if restoration options on average improve ecological and socio-economic values, and results in a significant tc1=2.3 (pc1<0.025). Contrast 2, associated with the hypothesis (A+P)/2>(I+L)/2, tests if afforestations perform better than pasture, and results in a significant tc2=3.1 (pc2<0.025). Contrast 3 focuses on the hypothesis A>P and tests if Alnus outperforms Pinus, and results in a nonsignificant tc3=0.9. Contrast 4, associated with the hypothesis I>L, tests if intense pastures perform better than low-input pastures, and results in a weakly significant tc4=1.6 (pc4<0.100) (Supplementary Table 22).
Mentions: To gain more insight into the possible trade-offs between ecological and socio-economic ecosystem indices, and to support science-based decision making, we analyse the correlation between the average ecological and socio-economic key elements (Fig. 1).

Bottom Line: However, as aims and modes of restoration differ in their ecological and socio-economic value, the assessment of achievable ecosystem functions and benefits requires holistic investigation.A comparison of the outcomes among afforestation with native alder or exotic pine, pasture restoration with either low-input or intense management and the abandoned status quo shows that both variants of afforestation and intense pasture use improve the ecological value, but low-input pasture does not.Both Mestizo and indigenous Saraguro settlers are more inclined to opt for afforestation.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: TUM School of Life Sciences Weihenstephan, Technische Universität München, 85354 Freising, Germany.

ABSTRACT
Increasing demands for livelihood resources in tropical rural areas have led to progressive clearing of biodiverse natural forests. Restoration of abandoned farmlands could counter this process. However, as aims and modes of restoration differ in their ecological and socio-economic value, the assessment of achievable ecosystem functions and benefits requires holistic investigation. Here we combine the results from multidisciplinary research for a unique assessment based on a normalization of 23 ecological, economic and social indicators for four restoration options in the tropical Andes of Ecuador. A comparison of the outcomes among afforestation with native alder or exotic pine, pasture restoration with either low-input or intense management and the abandoned status quo shows that both variants of afforestation and intense pasture use improve the ecological value, but low-input pasture does not. Economic indicators favour either afforestation or intense pasturing. Both Mestizo and indigenous Saraguro settlers are more inclined to opt for afforestation.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus