Quantifying the impacts of ecological restoration on biodiversity and ecosystem services in agroecosystems: A global meta-analysis

Autores
Barral, Maria Paula; Rey Benayas, José María; Meli, Paula; Maceira, Nestor Oscar
Año de publicación
2015
Idioma
inglés
Tipo de recurso
artículo
Estado
versión publicada
Descripción
Landscape transformation due to agriculture affects more than 40% of the planet’s land area and is the most important driver of losses of biodiversity and ecosystem services (ES) worldwide. Ecological restoration may significantly reduce these losses, but its effectiveness has not been systematically assessed in agroecosystems at the global level. We quantitatively meta-analyzed the results of 54 studies of how restoration actions reflecting the two contrasting strategies of land sparing and land sharing affect levels of biodiversity and ES in a wide variety of agroecosystems in 20 countries. Restoration increased overall biodiversity of all organism types by an average of 68%. It also increased the supply of many ES, in particular the levels of supporting ES by an average of 42% and levels of regulating ES by an average of 120% relative to levels in the pre-restoration agroecosystem. In fact, restored agroecosystems showed levels of biodiversity and supporting and regulating ES similar to those of reference ecosystems. Recovery levels did not correlate with the time since the last restoration action. Comparison of land sparing and land sharing as restoration strategies showed that while both were associated with similar biodiversity recovery, land sparing led to higher median ES response ratios. Passive and active restoration actions did not differ significantly in the levels of biodiversity or ES recovery. Biodiversity recovery positively correlated with ES recovery. We conclude that ecological restoration of agroecosystems is generally effective and can be recommended as a way to enhance biodiversity and supply of supporting and regulating ES in agricultural landscapes. Whether a land sharing or land sparing strategy is preferable remains an open question, and might be case dependent. Moreover, it is unclear whether crop production on restored land can meet future food production needs.
EEA Balcarce
Fil: Barral, Maria Paula. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Balcarce; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata. Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina
Fil: Rey Benayas, José María. Universidad de Alcalá. Departamento de Ciencias de la Vida-UD Ecología; España. Universidad de Alcalá. Fundación Internacional para la Restauración de Ecosistemas; España
Fil: Meli, Paula. Universidad de Alcalá. Fundación Internacional para la Restauración de Ecosistemas; España. Natura y Ecosistemas Mexicanos A.C.; México
Fil: Maceira, Nestor Oscar. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Balcarce; Argentina
Fuente
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 202 : 223-231 (April 2015)
Materia
Agroecosistemas
Servicios de los Ecosistemas
Ecología
Ordenación Territorial
Biodiversidad
Agroecosystems
Ecosystem Services
Ecology
Land Use Planning
Biodiversity
Nivel de accesibilidad
acceso restringido
Condiciones de uso
Repositorio
INTA Digital (INTA)
Institución
Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria
OAI Identificador
oai:localhost:20.500.12123/4226

id INTADig_c703dad4753788e779293941c7fde5f4
oai_identifier_str oai:localhost:20.500.12123/4226
network_acronym_str INTADig
repository_id_str l
network_name_str INTA Digital (INTA)
spelling Quantifying the impacts of ecological restoration on biodiversity and ecosystem services in agroecosystems: A global meta-analysisBarral, Maria PaulaRey Benayas, José MaríaMeli, PaulaMaceira, Nestor OscarAgroecosistemasServicios de los EcosistemasEcologíaOrdenación TerritorialBiodiversidadAgroecosystemsEcosystem ServicesEcologyLand Use PlanningBiodiversityLandscape transformation due to agriculture affects more than 40% of the planet’s land area and is the most important driver of losses of biodiversity and ecosystem services (ES) worldwide. Ecological restoration may significantly reduce these losses, but its effectiveness has not been systematically assessed in agroecosystems at the global level. We quantitatively meta-analyzed the results of 54 studies of how restoration actions reflecting the two contrasting strategies of land sparing and land sharing affect levels of biodiversity and ES in a wide variety of agroecosystems in 20 countries. Restoration increased overall biodiversity of all organism types by an average of 68%. It also increased the supply of many ES, in particular the levels of supporting ES by an average of 42% and levels of regulating ES by an average of 120% relative to levels in the pre-restoration agroecosystem. In fact, restored agroecosystems showed levels of biodiversity and supporting and regulating ES similar to those of reference ecosystems. Recovery levels did not correlate with the time since the last restoration action. Comparison of land sparing and land sharing as restoration strategies showed that while both were associated with similar biodiversity recovery, land sparing led to higher median ES response ratios. Passive and active restoration actions did not differ significantly in the levels of biodiversity or ES recovery. Biodiversity recovery positively correlated with ES recovery. We conclude that ecological restoration of agroecosystems is generally effective and can be recommended as a way to enhance biodiversity and supply of supporting and regulating ES in agricultural landscapes. Whether a land sharing or land sparing strategy is preferable remains an open question, and might be case dependent. Moreover, it is unclear whether crop production on restored land can meet future food production needs.EEA BalcarceFil: Barral, Maria Paula. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Balcarce; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata. Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Rey Benayas, José María. Universidad de Alcalá. Departamento de Ciencias de la Vida-UD Ecología; España. Universidad de Alcalá. Fundación Internacional para la Restauración de Ecosistemas; EspañaFil: Meli, Paula. Universidad de Alcalá. Fundación Internacional para la Restauración de Ecosistemas; España. Natura y Ecosistemas Mexicanos A.C.; MéxicoFil: Maceira, Nestor Oscar. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Balcarce; ArgentinaElsevier2019-01-08T13:03:42Z2019-01-08T13:03:42Z2015-04info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167880915000109http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12123/42260167-8809https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2015.01.009Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 202 : 223-231 (April 2015)reponame:INTA Digital (INTA)instname:Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuariaenginfo:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess2025-09-18T10:07:26Zoai:localhost:20.500.12123/4226instacron:INTAInstitucionalhttp://repositorio.inta.gob.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://repositorio.inta.gob.ar/oai/requesttripaldi.nicolas@inta.gob.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:l2025-09-18 10:07:26.717INTA Digital (INTA) - Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuariafalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Quantifying the impacts of ecological restoration on biodiversity and ecosystem services in agroecosystems: A global meta-analysis
title Quantifying the impacts of ecological restoration on biodiversity and ecosystem services in agroecosystems: A global meta-analysis
spellingShingle Quantifying the impacts of ecological restoration on biodiversity and ecosystem services in agroecosystems: A global meta-analysis
Barral, Maria Paula
Agroecosistemas
Servicios de los Ecosistemas
Ecología
Ordenación Territorial
Biodiversidad
Agroecosystems
Ecosystem Services
Ecology
Land Use Planning
Biodiversity
title_short Quantifying the impacts of ecological restoration on biodiversity and ecosystem services in agroecosystems: A global meta-analysis
title_full Quantifying the impacts of ecological restoration on biodiversity and ecosystem services in agroecosystems: A global meta-analysis
title_fullStr Quantifying the impacts of ecological restoration on biodiversity and ecosystem services in agroecosystems: A global meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Quantifying the impacts of ecological restoration on biodiversity and ecosystem services in agroecosystems: A global meta-analysis
title_sort Quantifying the impacts of ecological restoration on biodiversity and ecosystem services in agroecosystems: A global meta-analysis
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Barral, Maria Paula
Rey Benayas, José María
Meli, Paula
Maceira, Nestor Oscar
author Barral, Maria Paula
author_facet Barral, Maria Paula
Rey Benayas, José María
Meli, Paula
Maceira, Nestor Oscar
author_role author
author2 Rey Benayas, José María
Meli, Paula
Maceira, Nestor Oscar
author2_role author
author
author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv Agroecosistemas
Servicios de los Ecosistemas
Ecología
Ordenación Territorial
Biodiversidad
Agroecosystems
Ecosystem Services
Ecology
Land Use Planning
Biodiversity
topic Agroecosistemas
Servicios de los Ecosistemas
Ecología
Ordenación Territorial
Biodiversidad
Agroecosystems
Ecosystem Services
Ecology
Land Use Planning
Biodiversity
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv Landscape transformation due to agriculture affects more than 40% of the planet’s land area and is the most important driver of losses of biodiversity and ecosystem services (ES) worldwide. Ecological restoration may significantly reduce these losses, but its effectiveness has not been systematically assessed in agroecosystems at the global level. We quantitatively meta-analyzed the results of 54 studies of how restoration actions reflecting the two contrasting strategies of land sparing and land sharing affect levels of biodiversity and ES in a wide variety of agroecosystems in 20 countries. Restoration increased overall biodiversity of all organism types by an average of 68%. It also increased the supply of many ES, in particular the levels of supporting ES by an average of 42% and levels of regulating ES by an average of 120% relative to levels in the pre-restoration agroecosystem. In fact, restored agroecosystems showed levels of biodiversity and supporting and regulating ES similar to those of reference ecosystems. Recovery levels did not correlate with the time since the last restoration action. Comparison of land sparing and land sharing as restoration strategies showed that while both were associated with similar biodiversity recovery, land sparing led to higher median ES response ratios. Passive and active restoration actions did not differ significantly in the levels of biodiversity or ES recovery. Biodiversity recovery positively correlated with ES recovery. We conclude that ecological restoration of agroecosystems is generally effective and can be recommended as a way to enhance biodiversity and supply of supporting and regulating ES in agricultural landscapes. Whether a land sharing or land sparing strategy is preferable remains an open question, and might be case dependent. Moreover, it is unclear whether crop production on restored land can meet future food production needs.
EEA Balcarce
Fil: Barral, Maria Paula. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Balcarce; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata. Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina
Fil: Rey Benayas, José María. Universidad de Alcalá. Departamento de Ciencias de la Vida-UD Ecología; España. Universidad de Alcalá. Fundación Internacional para la Restauración de Ecosistemas; España
Fil: Meli, Paula. Universidad de Alcalá. Fundación Internacional para la Restauración de Ecosistemas; España. Natura y Ecosistemas Mexicanos A.C.; México
Fil: Maceira, Nestor Oscar. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Balcarce; Argentina
description Landscape transformation due to agriculture affects more than 40% of the planet’s land area and is the most important driver of losses of biodiversity and ecosystem services (ES) worldwide. Ecological restoration may significantly reduce these losses, but its effectiveness has not been systematically assessed in agroecosystems at the global level. We quantitatively meta-analyzed the results of 54 studies of how restoration actions reflecting the two contrasting strategies of land sparing and land sharing affect levels of biodiversity and ES in a wide variety of agroecosystems in 20 countries. Restoration increased overall biodiversity of all organism types by an average of 68%. It also increased the supply of many ES, in particular the levels of supporting ES by an average of 42% and levels of regulating ES by an average of 120% relative to levels in the pre-restoration agroecosystem. In fact, restored agroecosystems showed levels of biodiversity and supporting and regulating ES similar to those of reference ecosystems. Recovery levels did not correlate with the time since the last restoration action. Comparison of land sparing and land sharing as restoration strategies showed that while both were associated with similar biodiversity recovery, land sparing led to higher median ES response ratios. Passive and active restoration actions did not differ significantly in the levels of biodiversity or ES recovery. Biodiversity recovery positively correlated with ES recovery. We conclude that ecological restoration of agroecosystems is generally effective and can be recommended as a way to enhance biodiversity and supply of supporting and regulating ES in agricultural landscapes. Whether a land sharing or land sparing strategy is preferable remains an open question, and might be case dependent. Moreover, it is unclear whether crop production on restored land can meet future food production needs.
publishDate 2015
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2015-04
2019-01-08T13:03:42Z
2019-01-08T13:03:42Z
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167880915000109
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12123/4226
0167-8809
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2015.01.009
url https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167880915000109
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12123/4226
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2015.01.009
identifier_str_mv 0167-8809
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess
eu_rights_str_mv restrictedAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Elsevier
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Elsevier
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 202 : 223-231 (April 2015)
reponame:INTA Digital (INTA)
instname:Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria
reponame_str INTA Digital (INTA)
collection INTA Digital (INTA)
instname_str Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria
repository.name.fl_str_mv INTA Digital (INTA) - Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria
repository.mail.fl_str_mv tripaldi.nicolas@inta.gob.ar
_version_ 1843609174723788800
score 13.000565