Next Article in Journal
An Approach for Modeling and Quantifying Traffic-Induced Processes and Changes in Forest Road Aggregate Particle-Size Distributions
Previous Article in Journal
Differential Responses to Climate and Land-Use Changes in Threatened Chinese Taxus Species
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Forests
Volume 10
Issue 9
10.3390/f10090768
forests-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Monitoring of a Seedling Planting Restoration in a Permanent Preservation Area of the Southeast Atlantic Forest Biome, Brazil

by
Nathalia V. Fiore
1,
Carolina C. Ferreira
2,
Maíra Dzedzej
1 and
Klécia G. Massi
1,*
1
Institute of Science and Technology, São José dos Campos, Environmental Engineering Department, São Paulo State University (Unesp), Rodovia Presidente Dutra, Km 137.8, Eugênio de Melo, São José dos Campos SP 12247-004, Brazil
2
Associação Corredor Ecológico Vale do Paraíba, Avenida Shishima Hifumi, 2911 Urbanova, São José Dos Campos SP 12244-390, Brazil
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Forests 2019, 10(9), 768; https://doi.org/10.3390/f10090768
Submission received: 13 August 2019 / Revised: 31 August 2019 / Accepted: 2 September 2019 / Published: 4 September 2019
(This article belongs to the Section Forest Ecophysiology and Biology)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The Atlantic Forest biome is a biodiversity hotspot with only 13% of its native vegetation cover remaining in Brazil. Forest restoration is an important process for the re-establishment of biodiversity and the preservation of water resources in degraded areas, like riparian forests. Monitoring is an essential step of restoration, because the periodic evaluation of indicators allows researchers to analyze the effectiveness of applied techniques. This study aimed to evaluate the environmental quality of a seedling planting (active restoration) in a Permanent Preservation Area (PPA) of the Southeast Atlantic Forest biome, through a monitoring protocol, within a year. More specifically, we aimed to investigate the following questions: (1) do some ecological groups or families grow more than others? and (2) is the cover of exotic grasses negatively influencing forest regeneration? Data were collected during November 2017 and April (interval represents five months of wet season) and October 2018 (six months of dry season). Eight plots of 9 × 18 m were established and all individuals were identified and measured (diameter at ground level (DGL), height (H), and canopy diameter (CD)). Exotic grass cover and richness of regenerating species were also recorded. We registered 119 individuals during the three inventories, distributed in 35 species and 14 families. Results indicate an inverse association between exotic grasses and the presence of recruits in the area. Thus, exotic grass control may be needed while the forest canopy is not closed. A significant growth of individuals in the whole study period, especially during the wet season, was detected. Legumes grew more in trunk and canopy diameter (Anadenanthera colubrina (Vell.) Brenan and Inga vera Willd. subsp. affinis (DC.) T. D. Penn. had the biggest growth, respectively) than non-legumes during wetter months and within a year. Pioneers had greater height increase compared to non-pioneers only during wetter months. Legumes may be important species to be used in other young tropical forest restoration areas.

1. Introduction

The Atlantic Forest biome is a biodiversity hotspot [1], and only 13% of its native vegetation cover remains in Brazil [2] due to intense deforestation and human disturbance that occurred mostly in the first half of the 19th century [3]. Nature reserves protect only 9% of the remaining forest [4]. Recent (last five decades) demographic and market shifts have resulted in rural land abandonment, which in turn has transitioned some portions of the biome back to forest [5]. In Southeast Atlantic Forest sites, the forest transition tends to occur in degraded pasture areas that are less suitable for agriculture. The Atlantic Forest biome has become an important global conservation and restoration focus [6]. Intense efforts by non-governmental organizations to recover native Brazilian ecosystems are occurring [7] and, locally, many isolated restoration initiatives are taking place.
In the last decade, forest restoration has grown rapidly in Brazil, mainly due to the increasing demand for legal environmental regularization of agricultural properties (due to the Rural Environmental Registry [8,9]); the mitigation and compensation of environmental impacts; and the intense efforts of governments and non-governmental organizations in the recovery of native ecosystems through, for example, the National Policy for the Recovery of Native Vegetation of 2017 [10], which articulates, integrates, and promotes actions for the recovery of forests and other forms of native vegetation. One of these efforts, the Atlantic Forest Restoration Pact in Brazil, is a national coalition with the goal of promoting the restoration of 15 million ha of the Atlantic Forest by 2050 [11,12]. Some of the main initiatives of Atlantic Forest restoration are carried out in Permanent Preservation Areas (PPAs), like riparian forests, with the environmental function of preserving water resources [13].
Active and passive restoration are two important strategies to aid the recovery of large areas of deforested and degraded tropical lands [14], and they respond to the legal needs of PPA recomposition (see article 19 in [10]). In general, the presence of nearby old-growth forest remnants and high levels of seed dispersal make recovery (passive restoration) possible [15]; however, under high disturbance conditions and with an absence of forest remnants a site may never return to a state similar to the original, and active restoration is needed [16]. The planting of tree seedlings is one of the most used techniques for active forest restoration in Atlantic forests and in the studied region [17,18,19]. This practice commonly uses two functional groups—filling and diversity. The first one corresponds to species that grow fast and have good canopy cover, causing a quick closing of the restored area. On the other hand, the second one refers to species that do not have rapid growth or good cover, but are essential for the perpetuation of a forest, including species that occupy distinct successional stages (pioneers, secondary, and climax) [20].
There are few works analyzing the restoration of tropical (Atlantic, in this case) forests in the world. These studies mainly show that past restoration projects have not produced high diversity self-perpetuating forests in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest [21,22], and that planting trees alone is insufficient to drive the rapid recovery of the rain forest plant community [23,24]. Despite that, planting seedlings is expected to accelerate and increase the predictability of a degraded site to become a rain forest physiognomy [25], because they reconcile high species richness and diversity with good wood volume yields and tree biomass [26], being then preferred over cheaper restoration approaches as passive restoration. Additionally, older (five years) actively restored areas in the neotropical rain forest had a lower probability of being covered by invasive grasses and a higher probability (57%) of having a closed canopy than passive restoration sites [19].
The assessment and monitoring of restored forests are essential for correcting and improving restoration techniques, especially in tropical ecosystems [27]. Monitoring is possibly the most important step in a restoration project, since it allows researchers to evaluate, through indicators, the responses of a degraded area to treatments. Some studies made in a tropical environment highlight the importance of monitoring to restoration [22,23]. However, the difficulty in carrying out these studies relates to the fact that monitoring is performed mostly to fulfill legal commitments [27]. In addition, the lack of consensus in scientific literature on the most appropriate indicators for assessing the success of tropical forest restoration and, consequently, the associated environmental gains and high costs of implementation is an important obstacle for monitoring neotropical rain forest restoration [27]. Most studies argue that these indicators are influenced by restoration ages [19,22,28], and that studies should focus on the composition, structure, and functioning [27] and defend the establishment of a monitoring protocol for all tropical regions [12,29,30,31].
Restoration plantings carried out in the Atlantic Forest of southeastern Brazil have shown predictable trajectories in terms of vegetation structure and species richness [32], but they were based in old restoration sites that had already enough canopy cover to support succession. Many younger restoration projects may not reach this stage, and be lost before the canopy is close enough to shade invasive grasses and support the recolonization of woody native species in the understory [19], but studies about these young sites are scarce. It is highly important early on to evaluate restored area success with respect to the invasion of exotic grasses and the increase of canopy cover. In the Atlantic Forest, it is widely known that native species richness increases while excluding invasive grasses [33]. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate the environmental quality of a seedling planting (active restoration) in a permanent preservation area (watercourse marginal strip) of the Southeast Atlantic Forest biome, through a monitoring protocol [12], within a year. More specifically, we aimed to investigate the following questions: (1) do some ecological groups or families grow more than others? and (2) is the cover of exotic grasses negatively influencing forest regeneration? We expected the following: (i) pioneers and legumes would grow more than other species during the study period; (ii) exotic grass cover would be low; and (iii) the number of regenerating species (recruits) would be high and increase with time in the site. Despite the short time between inventories, this study is important to better understand restoration in the Atlantic Forest, especially in the early stage.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

This study was conducted in a 1 ha restored permanent preservation area (PPA) within a cattle ranch (12.45 ha), located between the coordinates 23°5′59.02′′ S and 45°57′29.07′′ W, in São José dos Campos, Southeast Atlantic Forest biome, São Paulo state, Brazil (Figure 1). The region has a strong hilly relief, with a 20% to 45% slope [34], and the soil is red-yellow latosol [35]. The climate is classified as dry-winter subtropical (Cwa), according to Köppen [36], with an annual mean temperature of 20.9 °C, an average annual precipitation of 1088.5 mm, and a dry season between April and September (data collected at the Meteorological Station of Centro de Treinamento da Aeronáutica in São José dos Campos). The ranch is in the Atlantic Forest biome (transition between evergreen and deciduous forest).
The 1 ha area was a low-intensity cattle pasture until 2014, when it was fenced. Exotic grass was controlled and seedlings of woody species were planted in 2015, by a non-governmental organization called Associação Corredor Ecológico Vale do Paraíba. Planted seedling species were mostly from native species of the Atlantic Forest biome. They were planted in a 3 × 2 m spacing design and only in areas without old trees and shrubs. Total planted seedlings were about 1000 per hectare.

2.2. Plant Measurements

In November 2017 we randomly established eight 9 × 18 m plots, according to the monitoring protocol of the Mata Atlântica Restoration Pact [20]. All planted individuals (>3 cm of circumference at ground level) inside the plots were tagged, identified, and measured. Plant material was identified using botanical identification keys [37,38]. For plant family classification, we used the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group IV [39] and the Brazil Flora List [40]. Some seedlings had only a few or damaged leaves that made the identification difficult. Both the non-governmental organization and the ranch owner lost track of the species initially planted.
Inventories were carried out in November 2017 (survey 1 (S1), wet season), April 2018 (S2, dry season), and October 2018 (S3, wet season) to understand growth differences between seasons. Additionally, forest restoration projects of 1 to 3 years (post-implantation), like the studied site, require biannual monitoring because they may still need corrections [20]. Measurements of seedlings and young trees were the circumference at ground level (transformed into diameter at ground level (DGL) as circumference/π), the plant height (H), and the canopy diameter (CD). Each plot had four 1 × 1 m subplots, one in each plot vertex, where regenerating seedling species (identified by morphospecies) and the percentual cover of exotic grasses were quantified in November 2017 and April 2018. In October 2018, exotic grasses were suppressed with herbicides, making the third survey impossible. Species were classified into two family groups (legumes and non-legumes) and according to the ecological group into pioneers and non-pioneers classified using the studies [41,42], the dispersal syndrome (zoo, auto, and anemochory) using [41,42], and the leaf deciduousness (deciduous, semi-deciduous, and evergreen) using [43]. All functional groups were mutually exclusive.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

All individuals were registered in the three inventories; thus, we compared H, DGL, and CD at individual levels between inventories (S1, S2, and S3) and we used nonparametric tests, because data distribution was not normal (Shapiro–Wilk tests, p < 0.05 for all variables). Nonparametric estimation is a safe strategy in restoration sites, with multiple young individuals and left skewed data distribution. We used the Wilcoxon signed-rank test for paired samples of H, DGL, and CD to observe variations in plant measurements between inventories. We also compared H, DGL, and CD by family and ecological group using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Additionally, the Pearson correlation test was used to evaluate the association between the number of regenerating species and the percentual cover of exotic grasses. Statistical analyses were performed in R software version 3.5.0 (R Core Team, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) [44]. Data are shown as median (with first and third quartiles).

3. Results

We registered 119 individuals during the three inventories, distributed in 35 species and 14 families (Table 1). The most abundant families were Fabaceae and Myrtaceae (each with nine and five species, respectively), followed by Bignoniaceae and Anacardiaceae (with four and two species, respectively, see Table 1). Inga vera Willd. subsp. affinis (DC.) T. D. Penn. (15) and Cecropia hololeuca Miq. (13) were the most abundant species (Table 1). Plots had an average of 15 individuals each and the total density was 926 individuals/ha.
Pioneers were the most abundant ecological group (66 individuals), but not the most frequent (11 species, see Table 1). Non-pioneers had 14 species and 34 individuals (Table 1). Zoochory predominated (18 species, 72 individuals), followed by autochory (6 species, 27 individuals) and anemochory (6 species, 12 individuals, see Table 1). Deciduous species were most frequent and abundant (9 species, 38 individuals), followed by semi-deciduous (8 species, 34 individuals) and evergreen (8 species, 28 individuals, see Table 1). Anadenanthera colubrina (Vell.) Brenan, Inga laurina (Sw.) Willd., Inga marginata Willd., and Poincianella pluviosa (DC.) L.P. Queiroz were Fabaceae and non-pioneers (Table 1).
Between S1 and S2, Anadenanthera colubrina (Vell.) Brenan, Unknown 4, and Connarus regnellii G. Schellenb grew more in DGL, H, and CD, respectively. Between S2 and S3, Dalbergia nigra (Vell.) Allemão ex Benth. grew more in DGL and CD and Cupania vernalis Cambess. had higher H growth. Between S1 and S3, Anadenanthera colubrina (Vell.) Brenan, Unknown 4, and Inga vera Willd. subsp. affinis (DC.) T. D. Penn. grew more in DGL, H, and CD, respectively.
All 119 individuals had significant growth between S1 and S2 for DGL (1.3 cm; W = 71.5; p < 0.001), H (0.5 m; W = 75.5; p < 0.001), and CD (0.3 m; W = 749.5; p < 0.001). Between S2 and S3, all 119 individuals grew significantly for DGL (0.3 cm; W = 1012.5; p < 0.001) and H (0.1 m; W = 1259.0; p < 0.001), but not for CD (0 m; W = 2831.0; p = 0.989). Comparing the whole experiment period, all individuals had significant growth between S1 and S3 for DGL (1.75 cm; W = 118.0; p < 0.001), H (0.7 m; W = 200.5; p < 0.001), and CD (0.4 m; W = 1169.0; p < 0.001).
Legumes grew more in DGL, H, and CD than non-legumes, between S1 and S2, and in DGL and CD between S1 and S3 (n = 111; Table 2). There were no differences in DGL, H, and CD by family between S2 and S3 (Table 2). Pioneers did not differ from non-pioneers in DGL, H, and CD for all periods; the exception was a higher height increment of pioneers between S1 and S2 than of non-pioneers (n = 100; Table 3).
Grass cover increased between S1 and S2 (from 25% to 80%; W = 113.0; p < 0.001), but the number of regenerating morphospecies did not (from 3 to 3; W = 601.0; p = 0.226). On S1, grass cover did not affect the number of regenerating morphospecies (ρ = 0.146; p = 0.424; Figure 2A); however, on S2, there was an inverse association between grass cover and regenerating morphospecies richness (ρ = −0.443; p = 0.011; Figure 2B).

4. Discussion

Our results showed significant growth of individuals in the whole study period, especially during the wet season, that legumes grew more in diameter and canopy than non-legumes, and that pioneers had greater height increase compared to non-pioneers. These results indicate precipitation as an abiotic factor promoting growing of young seedlings in restoration sites of the Atlantic Forest. They also point to the conclusion that pioneers grow taller, but legumes spread laterally and may close the forest floor. These two different plant strategies may be used solely or in combination to improve the occupation in restored areas. Additionally, an inverse relationship between exotic grasses and the presence of recruits in the area was detected, proving the importance of monitoring and taking actions to control invasive species in the ecological restoration of neotropics.
We found Fabaceae and Myrtaceae as the most abundant families in the restored area. Fabaceae and Myrtaceae have been registered as two of the most important woody families in tropical forests in Brazil (evergreen in [45,46] and deciduous forest in [47,48]), hence their great use in forest restoration projects. It is also well known that Fabaceae plants grow faster than other families and produce great amounts of aboveground organic material, promoting soil chemical, physical and biological recuperation, particularly if used as green manure crops when the whole plant is plowed down into the soil [49,50]. Moreover, some legumes are capable of biological N2 fixation [51]. Additionally, fleshy fruits of Myrtaceae plants feed fauna, promoting ecological interactions and seed dispersal in the restored area [52,53] and may encourage the economical use of native fruit, ornamentation, and medicinal species by the local farmers in restoration projects.
Pioneer, zoochorous, and deciduous species were the most abundant species in the restored area. Vegetation dynamics processes in tropical forests include colonization by shade-intolerant and shade-tolerant pioneer trees as one of the first phases of succession [54]. Thus, a high abundance of pioneers contributes to the initial recovering of restoring areas [20]. However, a few abundant pioneer species do not sustain restoration in the long term [27]. Zoochory predominates in tropical rainforests [55] and the seed–disperser interaction plays an important role in the natural regeneration dynamics of secondary and restoring forests [14]. Leaf deciduousness is more frequent in dry and deciduous forests and savannas in the tropics [56], but the restored area region is in a transition zone between evergreen and semi-deciduous forests. Leaf deciduousness brings seasonal clearings in the vegetation and consequently light level changes to the forest ground, which may favor seed germination and colonization of pioneer species [57]. On the other hand, the increase in light level and temperature inside a forest environment may cause seed drying and death, decreased seedling establishment, invasion by exotic grasses, and ultimately damage to the restoration project progress [27,58].
Plants grew during all study intervals, but growth was higher between S1 and S2 (five months of wet season) than between S2 and S3 (six months of dry season). Other studies with Atlantic Forest species have shown greater tree growing during the rainy season than during the drought period [59,60]. Water deficit reduces plant metabolism and growing [61]. The significant plant growing during the one-year study period is attributed to the restored area age (three years old); for example, individuals grow more in the beginning of a forest development and generally growth rate decreases with tree age [62]. Fast-growing tree species, as well as legumes of this study, contributed significantly to the carbon stock during the early years (approximately 37 years) of restoration in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest [63]. In addition, canopy cover, basal area, and tree height significantly increased in other restoration areas (site between 12 and 55 years) in the Atlantic Forest [24].
In general, legumes had higher diameter and canopy growing than non-legumes (in the dry season, differences were not significant and height was also similar along the whole study, between legumes and non-legumes). Anadenanthera colubrina (Vell.) Brenan, Dalbergia nigra (Vell.) Allemão ex Benth., and Inga vera Willd. subsp. affinis (DC.) T. D. Penn. were the species that grew more during the study time. Fabaceae plants can grow faster than others [47,48]. This fast growth is influenced by Rhizobia (bacteria that fix nitrogen after becoming established inside root nodules), which produces biological N2 fixation and stimulates root hair spread, where most water and nutrient absorption occurs [64]. When pioneers were compared to non-pioneer species (secondary and climax), most of the three evaluated size-related parameters were not different between them, indicating that the use of legumes in the beginning of a forest restoration project may be more recommended to promote a forest environment. Organizing species from different successional groups into functional groups for purposes of restoration has been previously suggested [20]. In fact, the use of Fabaceae species, as green manure or not, is increasing in tropical forests. Campoe et al. (2010) have shown that a higher proportion of pioneer species did not significantly alter the rate of biomass accumulation throughout a restoration site in the Atlantic Forest, but the inclusion of nitrogen-fixing species (Leguminosae) did [65].
There was a significant increase in exotic grass cover between S1 and S2 (five months of wet season), probably due to exotic grass phenology, which is usually influenced by rainfall [66]. Exotic invasion is one of the main reasons for the failure of tropical forest restoration [67], therefore, weed control is being recommended to reduce environmental stress, resulting in growth and survival of rainforest planted trees [65] and increasing the carbon stock [68]. Indeed, we noticed a negative effect of exotic grasses (especially Brachiaria decumbens) in regeneration, indicated by the richness of morphospecies. This result was also demonstrated in other studies [66,69]. Despite the grass cover influence, regeneration did not change in the same period of time. The landscape of the studied restored area comprises small patches of forest and great pasture areas; thus, long-distance seed dispersal may not be effectively happening. However, even if seeds of different species did arrive in the studied plots, the increase in exotic grass cover between S1 and S2 would suffocate and inhibit regeneration, which is indicated by the unchanged morphospecies richness.

5. Conclusions

In a restored permanent preservation area of the Southeast Atlantic Forest biome, we found the following: (i) legumes had a higher growth in trunk and canopy diameter than non-legumes within a year, so the former may be important species to be used in other young tropical forest restoration areas and (ii) high exotic grass cover is preventing natural regeneration in the site, indicated by the richness of morphospecies. The monitoring of restored forests is essential for correcting and improving restoration techniques, especially in tropical ecosystems. Thus, exotic grass control may be needed while the forest canopy is not closed. It is also important to keep monitoring the area for a longer period, because the restoration of a PPA in a hilly relief with a steep slope is very sensitive to water erosion. As has been recently found, fostering the establishment and maintenance of seedling planting restoration can be an effective strategy for biodiversity recovery and biomass accumulation in restored forests [70].

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.G.M., C.C.F.; Methodology, all authors; Formal Analysis, K.G.M., M.D., and N.V.F.; Investigation, all authors; Resources, K.G.M.; Data Curation, K.G.M. and N.V.F.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, K.G.M., M.D., and N.V.F.; Writing—Review and Editing, all authors; Supervision, K.G.M.; Project Administration, N.V.F. and K.G.M.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Associação Corredor Ecológico Vale do Paraíba for permission to monitor the site.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Myers, N.; Mittermeier, R.A.; Mittermeier, C.G.; Da Fonseca, G.A.B.; Kent, J. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 2000, 403, 853–858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Fundação SOS Mata Atlântica; INPE. Atlas Dos Remanescentes Florestais da Mata Atlântica, Período 2015–2016; Fundação SOS Mata Atlântica e Inpe: São Paulo, Brazil, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  3. Dean, W. A Ferro e Fogo: A História e a Devastação da Mata Atlântica Brasileira; Companhia das Letras: São Paulo, Brazil, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  4. Ribeiro, M.C.; Metzger, J.P.; Martensen, A.C.; Ponzoni, F.J.; Hirota, M.M. The Brazilian Atlantic Forest: How much is left, and how is the remaining forest distributed? Implications for conservation. Biol. Conserv. 2009, 142, 1141–1153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Silva, R.F.B.D.; Batistella, M.; Moran, E.F.; Lu, D. Land changes fostering Atlantic Forest transition in Brazil: Evidences from the Paraíba Valley. Prof. Geographer. 2017, 69, 80–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Brancalion, P.H.S.; Niamir, A.; Broadbent, E.; Crouzeilles, R.; Barros, F.S.M.; Zambrano, A.M.A.; Baccini, A.; Aronson, J.; Goetz, S.; Reid, J.L.; et al. Global restoration opportunities in tropical rainforest landscapes. Sci. Adv. 2019, 5, eaav3223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  7. WRI (World Resources Institute). Restoration Commitments. Initiative 20 × 20. 2018. Available online: https://www.wri.org/our-work/project/initiative-20x20/ restoration-commitments (accessed on 11 July 2019).
  8. Brasil. Lei no 12.651 of 2012b. Available online: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2011-2014/2012/lei/L12651compilado.htm (accessed on 10 March 2019).
  9. Brasil. Decreto no 7.830 of 2012a. Available online: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2011-2014/2012/decreto/d7830.htm (accessed on 10 March 2019).
  10. Brasil. Decreto no 8.972 of 2017. Available online: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2015-2018/2017/decreto/D8972.htm (accessed on 10 March 2019).
  11. Soares-Filho, B.; Rajão, R.; Macedo, M.; Carneiro, A.; Costa, W.; Coe, M.; Rodrigues, H.; Alencar, A. Cracking Brazil’s Forest Code. Science 2014, 344, 363–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Pinto, S.; Melo, F.; Tabarelli, M.; Padovesi, A.; Mesquita, A.; Scaramuzza, C.A.; Castro, P.; Carrascosa, H.; Calmon, M.; Rodrigues, R.R.; et al. Governing and delivering a biome-wide restoration initiative: The case of Atlantic Forest Restoration Pact in Brazil. Forests 2014, 5, 2212–2229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Rodrigues, R.R.; Leitão-Filho, H.F. Matas Ciliares: Conservação e Recuperação; Edusp: São Paulo, Brazil, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  14. Morrison, E.B.; Lindell, C.A. Active or Passive Forest Restoration? Assessing Restoration Alternatives with Avian Foraging Behavior. Restor. Ecol. 2010, 19, 170–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Norden, N.; Chazdon, R.L.; Chao, A.; Jiang, Y.J.; Vilchez-Alvarado, B. Resilience of tropical rain forests: Tree community reassem- bly in secondary forests. Ecol. Lett. 2009, 12, 385–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Gómez-Pompa, A.; Vazquez-Yanes, C.; Guevara, S. The Tropical Rain Forest: A Nonrenewable Resource. Science 1972, 177, 762–765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Ruiz-Jaen, M.C.; Aide, T.M. Restoration success: How is it being measured? Restor. Ecol. 2005, 13, 569–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Lamb, D.; Erskine, P.D.; Parrotta, J.A. Restoration of Degraded Tropical Forest Landscapes. Science 2005, 310, 1628–1632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  19. Brancalion, P.H.S.; Schweizer, D.; Gaudare, U.; Mangueira, J.R.; Lamonato, F.; Farah, F.T.; Nave, A.G.; Rodrigues, R.R. Balancing economic costs and ecological outcomes of passive and active restoration in agricultural landscapes: The case of Brazil. Biotropica 2016, 48, 856–867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Rodrigues, R.R.; Brancalion, P.H.S.; Isernhagen, I. Pacto Para a Restauração Ecológica da Mata Atlântica: Referencial dos Conceitos e Ações de Restauração Florestal; Instituto BioAtlântica: São Paulo, Brazil, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  21. Souza, F.M.; Batista, J.L.F. Restoration of seasonal semideciduous forests in Brazil: Influence of age and restoration design on forest structure. For. Ecol. Manag. 2004, 191, 185–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Rodrigues, R.R.; Lima, R.A.; Gandolfi, S.; Nave, A.G. On the restoration of high diversity forests: 30 years of experience in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Biol. Conserv. 2009, 142, 1242–1251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Rodrigues, R.R.; Gandolfi, S.; Nave, A.G.; Aronson, J.; Barreto, T.E.; Vidal, C.Y.; Brancalion, P.H. Large-scale ecological restoration of high-diversity tropical forests in SE Brazil. For. Ecol. Manag. 2011, 261, 1605–1613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Garcia, L.C.; Hobbs, R.J.; Ribeiro, D.B.; Tamashiro, J.Y.; Santos, F.A.M.; Rodriues, R.R. Restoration over time: Is it possible to restore trees and non-trees in high-diversity for- ests? Appl. Veg. Sci. 2016, 19, 655–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Chaves, R.B.; Durigan, G.; Brancalion, P.H.S.; Aronson, J. On the need of legal frameworks for assessing restoration projects success: New perspectives from So Paulo state (Brazil). Restor. Ecol. 2015, 23, 754–759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Pontes, D.M.F.; Engel, V.L.; Parrotta, J.A. Forest Structure, Wood Standing Stock, and Tree Biomass in Diferent Restoration Systems in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Forests 2019, 10, 588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Rodrigues, R.R.; Lima, R.A.F.; Gandolfi, S.; Brancalion, P.H.S. Restauração Florestal; Oficina de Textos: São Paulo, Brazil, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  28. Melo, F.P.; Tabarelli, M.; Rodrigues, R.R.; Brancalion, P.H.S. Biodiversity Persistence in Highly Human-Modified Tropical Landscapes Depends on Ecological Restoration. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 2013, 6, 705–710. [Google Scholar] [Green Version]
  29. Brancalion, P.H.S.; Viani, R.A.G.; Calmon, M.; Carrascosa, H.; Rodrigues, R.R. How to Organize a Large-Scale Ecological Restoration Program? The Framework Developed by the Atlantic Forest Restoration Pact in Brazil. J. Sustain. For. 2013, 32, 728–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Viani, R.A.G.; Barreto, T.E.; Farah, F.T.; Rodrigues, R.R.; Brancalion, P.H.S. Monitoring Young Tropical Forest Restoration Sites: How Much to Measure? Trop. Conserv. Sci. 2018, 11, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Viani, R.A.G.; Holl, K.D.; Padovezi, A.; Strassburg, B.B.N.; Farah, F.T.; Garcia, L.C.; Chaves, R.B.; Rodrigues, R.R.; Brancalion, P.H.S. Protocol for Monitoring Tropical Forest Restoration: Perspectives from the Atlantic Forest Restoration Pact in Brazil. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 2017, 10, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Suganuma, M.S.; Durigan, G. Indicators of restoration success in riparian tropical forests using multiple reference ecosystems. Restor. Ecol. 2015, 23, 238–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Mantoani, M.C.; Torezan, J.M.D. Regeneration response of Brazilian Atlantic Forest woody species to four years of Megathyrsus maximus removal. For. Ecol. Manag. 2016, 359, 141–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Embrapa (Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária). Súmula da X Reunião Técnica de Levantamento de Solos; Serviço Nacional de Levantamento e Conservação dos Solos: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 1979. [Google Scholar]
  35. Brasil Ministério da Agricultura. Levantamento de Reconhecimento dos Solos do Estado de São Paulo; Serviço Nacional de Pesquisas Agronomicas: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 1960.
  36. Köppen, W. Climatologia: Con un Estudio de los Climas de la Tierra; Fundo de Cultura Econômica: Mexico City, Mexico, 1948. [Google Scholar]
  37. Urbanetz, C.; Tamashiro, J.Y.; Kinoshita, L.S. Chave de identificação de espécies lenhosas de um trecho de Floresta Ombrófila Densa Atlântica, no Sudeste do Brasil, baseada em caracteres vegetativos. Biota Neotropica 2010, 10, 349–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Eltink, M.; Ramos, E.; Torres, R.B.; Tamashiro, J.Y.; Galembeck, E.; Kimura, E. Chave de identificação de espécies do estrato arbóreo da Mata Atlântica em Ubatuba (SP), com base em caracteres vegetativos. Biota Neotropica 2011, 11, 393–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. APG IV (Angiosperm Phylogeny Group IV). An update of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classification for the orders and families of flowering plants: APG IV. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 2016, 181, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Flora do Brasil 2020 em construção. Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro. Available online: http://www.floradobrasil.jbrj.gov.br (accessed on 03 March 2019).
  41. São Paulo (Estado). Listagem das Espécies Arbóreas e Indicação de sua Ocorrência Natural nos Biomas/Ecossistemas e Regiões Ecológicas do Estado de São Paulo, com a Classificação Sucessional e a Categoria de Ameaça de Extinção; Secretaria do Meio Ambiente: São Paulo, Brazil, 2008.
  42. Barbosa, L.M.; Shirasuna, R.T.; Lima, F.C.; De Ortiz, P.R.T. Lista de Espécies Indicadas Para Restauração Ecológica Para Diversas Regiões do Estado de São Paulo. Instituto de Botânica: São Paulo; Instituto de Botânica: São Paulo, Brazil, 2016. Available online: http://botanica.sp.gov.br/files/2016/01/Lista_de_especies_de_SP_CERAD-IBTSMA_2015.pdf (accessed on 10 March 2019).
  43. Lorenzi, H. Árvores Brasileiras: Manual de Identificação e Cultivo de Plantas Arbóreas Nativas do Brasil; Instituto Plantarum: Nova Odessa, Brazil, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  44. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Available online: https://www.R-project.org/ (accessed on 03 March 2019).
  45. Lima, H.C.; Guedes-Bruni, R.R. Serra de Macaé de Cima: Diversidade florística e conservação em Mata Atlântica; Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  46. Marques, M.C.M.; Silva, S.M.; Liebsch, D. Coastal plain forests in southern and southeastern Brazil: Ecological drivers, floristic patterns and conservation status. Braz. J. Bot. 2015, 38, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Oliveira-Filho, A.T.; Machado, J.N.M. Composição florística de uma floresta semidecídua montana, na Serra de São José, Tiradentes, MG. Acta Bot. Bras. 1993, 7, 71–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Sartori, R.A.; Carvalho, D.A.; Berg, E.V.D.; Marques, J.J.; Dos Santos, R.M. Variações florísticas e estruturais do componente arbóreo de uma floresta estacional semidecidual montana em Socorro, SP. Rodriguésia 2015, 66, 33–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Stopes, C.; Millington, S.; Woodward, L. Dry matter and nitrogen accumulation by three leguminous green manure species and the yield of a following wheat crop in an organic production system. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 1996, 57, 189–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Sultani, M.I.; Gill, M.A.; Anwar, M.M.; Athar, M. Evaluation of soil physical properties as influenced by various green manuring legumes and phosphorus fertilization under rain fed conditions. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2007, 4, 109–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Engel, V.L.; Parrotta, J.A.; Lamb, D.; Nardoto, G.B.; Ometto, J.P.H.B.; Martinelli, L.A.; Schmidt, S.; Siddique, I.; Siddique, I. Dominance of legume trees alters nutrient relations in mixed species forest restoration plantings within seven years. Biogeochemistry 2008, 88, 89–101. [Google Scholar]
  52. Howe, H.F.; Smallwood, J. Ecology of Seed Dispersal. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. S 1982, 13, 201–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Da Silva, F.R.; Montoya, D.; Furtado, R.; Memmott, J.; Pizo, M.A.; Rodrigues, R.R. The restoration of tropical seed dispersal networks. Restor. Ecol. 2015, 23, 852–860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Carson, W.P.; Schnitzer, S.A. Tropical Forest Community Ecology; Wiley-Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  55. Janzen, D.H. Synchronization of sexual reproduction of trees within the dry season in central America. Evolution 1967, 21, 620–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Murphy, P.G.; Lugo, A.E. Ecology of tropical dry forest. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. S 1986, 17, 67–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Derroire, G.; Tigabu, M.; Odén, P.C.; Healey, J.R. The Effects of Established Trees on Woody Regeneration during Secondary Succession in Tropical Dry Forests. Biotropica 2016, 48, 290–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Vieira, D.L.M.; Scariot, A. Principles of Natural Regeneration of Tropical Dry Forests for Restoration. Restor. Ecol. 2006, 14, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Moraes, V.H.F. Periodicidade de crescimento do tronco em árvores da floresta amazônica. Pesqui. Agropecu. Bras. 1970, 5, 315–320. [Google Scholar]
  60. Melotto, A.; Nicodemo, M.L.; Laura, V.A.; Schleder, D.D.; Pott, A.; Da Silva, V.P.; Bocchese, R.A.; Neto, M.M.G. Sobrevivência e crescimento inicial em campo de espécies florestais nativas do Brasil Central indicadas para sistemas silvipastoris. Revista Árvore 2009, 33, 425–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Bray, E.A. Encyclopedia of Life Sciences; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 2007; pp. 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  62. Pretzsch, H. Forest Dynamics, Growth and Yield; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2009; pp. 1–39. [Google Scholar]
  63. Shimamoto, C.Y.; Botosso, P.C.; Marques, M.C. How much carbon is sequestered during the restoration of tropical forests? Estimates from tree species in the Brazilian Atlantic forest. For. Ecol. Manag. 2014, 329, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Zahran, H.H. Rhizobium-Legume Symbiosis and Nitrogen Fixation under Severe Conditions and in an Arid Climate. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 1999, 63, 968–989. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  65. Campoe, O.C.; Stape, J.L.; Mendes, J.C.T. Can intensive management accelerate the restoration of Brazil’s Atlantic forests? For. Ecol. Manag. 2010, 259, 1808–1814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. D’Antonio, C.M.; Vitousek, P.M. Biological Invasions by Exotic Grasses, the Grass/Fire Cycle, and Global Change. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1992, 23, 63–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Leger, E.A.; Espeland, E.K. Coevolution between native and invasive plant competitors: Implications for invasive species management. Evol. Appl. 2010, 3, 169–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Ferez, A.P.C.; Campoe, O.C.; Mendes, J.C.T.; Stape, J.L. Silvicultural opportunities for increasing carbon stock in restoration of Atlantic forests in Brazil. For. Ecol. Manag. 2015, 350, 40–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Elgar, A.T.; Freebody, K.; Pohlman, C.L.; Shoo, L.P.; Catterall, C.P. Overcoming barriers to seedling regeneration during forest restoration on tropical pasture land and the potential value of woody weeds. Front. Plant Sci. 2014, 5, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Brancalion, P.H.S.; Campoe, O.; Mendes, J.C.T.; Noel, C.; Moreira, G.G.; Van Melis, J.; Stape, J.L.; Guillemot, J. Intensive silviculture enhances biomass accumulation and tree diversity recovery in tropical forest restoration. Ecol. Appl. 2019, 29, e01847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Forests 10 00768 g001 550
Figure 1. Satellite image of the study site, inside São José dos Campos municipality, São Paulo state, Brazil.
Figure 1. Satellite image of the study site, inside São José dos Campos municipality, São Paulo state, Brazil.
Forests 10 00768 g001
Forests 10 00768 g002 550
Figure 2. Number of regenerating morphospecies related to the cover of exotic grasses in (A) November 2017 and (B) April 2018.
Figure 2. Number of regenerating morphospecies related to the cover of exotic grasses in (A) November 2017 and (B) April 2018.
Forests 10 00768 g002
Table
Table 1. List of the studied species, containing the number of sampled individuals (N); the ecological group (EG)—pioneers (P) and non-pioneers (NP); the dispersal syndrome (SD)—anemochoric (ANE), autochoric (AUTO), and zoochoric (ZOO); and the leaf deciduousness (LD)—deciduous (D), evergreen (E), and semi-deciduous (S).
Table 1. List of the studied species, containing the number of sampled individuals (N); the ecological group (EG)—pioneers (P) and non-pioneers (NP); the dispersal syndrome (SD)—anemochoric (ANE), autochoric (AUTO), and zoochoric (ZOO); and the leaf deciduousness (LD)—deciduous (D), evergreen (E), and semi-deciduous (S).
FamilySpeciesNEGSDLD
AnacardiaceaeSchinus molle L.1PZOOE
Schinus terebinthifolia Raddi4PZOOE
BignoniaceaeHandroanthus chrysotrichus (Mart. ex D.C.) Mattos3NPANED
Handroanthus impetiginosus (Mart. ex D.C). Mattos2NPANED
Handroanthus sp.1-ANE-
Handroanthus umbellatus (Sond.) Mattos1NPANED
ConnaraceaeConnarus regnellii G. Schellenb.2NPZOOE
EuphorbiaceaeCroton sp.1-AUTO-
FabaceaeAnadenanthera colubrina (Vell.) Brenan8NPAUTOD
Dalbergia nigra (Vell.) Allemão ex Benth.2PAUTOD
Inga laurina (Sw.) Willd.1NPZOOE
Inga marginata Willd.1NPZOOS
Inga sp.7-ZOO-
Inga vera Willd. subsp. affinis (DC.) T. D. Penn.15PZOOS
Piptadenia gonoacantha (Mart.) J.F. Macbr.5PAUTOS
Poincianella pluviosa (DC.) L.P. Queiroz1NPAUTOS
Schizolobium parahyba (Vell.) Blake10PAUTOD
LauraceaeOcotea sp.1-ZOO-
MalpighiaceaeByrsonima crassifolia (L.) Kunth1PZOOS
MalvaceaeCeiba speciosa (A.St.-Hil.) Ravenna1NPANED
MelastomataceaeTibouchina granulosa (Desr.) Cogn.4PANES
MyrtaceaeCampomanesia guazumifolia (Cambess.) O. Berg1PZOOD
Eugenia stipitata Mc Vaugh1NPZOOE
Plinia edulis (Vell.) Sobral4NPZOOE
Psidium guajava L.6NPZOOS
Psidium guineense Sw.2NPZOOE
PrimulaceaeMyrsine sp.1-ZOO-
SapindaceaeCupania vernalis Cambess.1NPZOOS
UrticaceaeCecropia hololeuca Miq.13PZOOE
VerbenaceaeCitharexylum myrianthum Cham.10PZOOD
UnknownUnknown 11---
Unknown 21---
Unknown 31---
Unknown 41---
Unknown 54---
119
Table
Table 2. Growth in diameter at ground level (DGL), plant height (H), and canopy diameter (CD) of all individuals (n = 111) by family (legumes and non-legumes), among the three surveys (S1, November 2017; S2, April 2018; and S3, October 2018). Significant differences (p < 0.05) are in bold. Data are shown as median (with first and third quartiles).
Table 2. Growth in diameter at ground level (DGL), plant height (H), and canopy diameter (CD) of all individuals (n = 111) by family (legumes and non-legumes), among the three surveys (S1, November 2017; S2, April 2018; and S3, October 2018). Significant differences (p < 0.05) are in bold. Data are shown as median (with first and third quartiles).
IntervalParametersLegumesNon-Legumesp-ValueTest
S1–S2DGL (cm)1.6 (0.8; 2.5)1.1 (0.5; 1.6)0.005W = 1780.5
H (m)0.6 (0.4; 1.0)0.4 (0.2; 0.8)0.024W = 1695.5
CD (m)0.6 (0.1; 0.9)0.2 (0; 0.5)0.028W = 1685.5
S2–S3DGL (cm)0.4 (0; 1.0)0.3 (0; 0.6)0.421W = 1416.0
H (m)0.1 (0; 0.4)0.1 (0; 0.4)0.321W = 1147.5
CD (m)0.1 (0; 0.7)0 (0; 0.1)0.122W = 1527.0
DGL (cm)2.3 (1.4; 3.3)1.6 (0.6; 2.3)0.002W = 1972.5
S1–S3H (m)0.8 (0.4; 1.1)0.6 (0. 3;1)0.178W = 1697.0
CD (m)0.7 (0.4; 1.2)0.3 (0; 0.5)<0.001W = 2114.0
Table
Table 3. Growth in diameter at ground level (DGL), plant height (H), and canopy diameter (CD) of all individuals (n = 100) by ecological groups (pioneers and non-pioneers), among the three surveys (S1, November 2017; S2, April 2018; and S3, October 2018). Significant differences (p < 0.05) are in bold. Data are shown as median (with first and third quartiles).
Table 3. Growth in diameter at ground level (DGL), plant height (H), and canopy diameter (CD) of all individuals (n = 100) by ecological groups (pioneers and non-pioneers), among the three surveys (S1, November 2017; S2, April 2018; and S3, October 2018). Significant differences (p < 0.05) are in bold. Data are shown as median (with first and third quartiles).
IntervalParametersPioneersNon-Pioneersp-ValueTest
S1–S2DGL (cm)1.4 (0.8; 2.2)1.2 (0.6; 1.8)0.206W = 846.5
H (m)0.7 (0.3; 1)0.5 (0.2; 0.7)0.015W = 698.0
CD (m)0.4 (0; 0.7)0.2 (0; 0.9)0.843W = 981.0
S2–S3DGL (cm)0.5 (0; 0.9)0.3 (0; 0.6)0.481W = 887.0
H (m)0.2 (0; 0.4)0.1 (0; 0.4)0.295W = 1102.5
CD (m)0 (0; 0.5)0 (0; 0.2)0.435W = 877.0
DGL (cm)1.9 (1.3; 2.9)1.6 (0.6; 2.7)0.107W = 871.5
S1–S3H (m)0.8 (0.4; 1.2)0.6 (0.4; 1)0.433W = 982.5
CD (m)0.5 (0.1; 0.9)0.4 (0; 0.6)0.238W = 929.5

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Fiore, N.V.; Ferreira, C.C.; Dzedzej, M.; Massi, K.G. Monitoring of a Seedling Planting Restoration in a Permanent Preservation Area of the Southeast Atlantic Forest Biome, Brazil. Forests 2019, 10, 768. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10090768

AMA Style

Fiore NV, Ferreira CC, Dzedzej M, Massi KG. Monitoring of a Seedling Planting Restoration in a Permanent Preservation Area of the Southeast Atlantic Forest Biome, Brazil. Forests. 2019; 10(9):768. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10090768

Chicago/Turabian Style

Fiore, Nathalia V., Carolina C. Ferreira, Maíra Dzedzej, and Klécia G. Massi. 2019. "Monitoring of a Seedling Planting Restoration in a Permanent Preservation Area of the Southeast Atlantic Forest Biome, Brazil" Forests 10, no. 9: 768. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10090768

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop