| |
|
|
 | Acesso ao texto completo restrito à biblioteca da Embrapa Agrobiologia. Para informações adicionais entre em contato com cnpab.biblioteca@embrapa.br. |
|
Registro Completo |
|
Biblioteca(s): |
Embrapa Agrobiologia. |
|
Data corrente: |
09/06/2021 |
|
Data da última atualização: |
09/06/2021 |
|
Tipo da produção científica: |
Artigo em Periódico Indexado |
|
Autoria: |
OLIVEIRA, R. E. de; ENGEL, V. L.; LOIOLA, P. de P.; MORAES, L. F. D. de; VISMARA, E. de S. |
|
Afiliação: |
RENATAE VANGELISTA DE OLIVEIRA, UFSCAR; VERA LEX ENGEL, UNESP BOTUCATU; PRISCILLA DE PAULA LOIOLA, UNESP RIO CLARO; LUIZ FERNANDO DUARTE DE MORAES, CNPAB; EDGAR DE SOUZA VISMARA, UFPR. |
|
Título: |
Top 10 indicators for evaluating restoration trajectories in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest . |
|
Ano de publicação: |
2021 |
|
Fonte/Imprenta: |
Ecological Indicators, v 127, 107652, 2021. |
|
ISSN: |
1470-160X |
|
DOI: |
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.107652 |
|
Idioma: |
Inglês |
|
Conteúdo: |
Considering that ecosystem restoration is a long-term process, the evaluation of each stage of its trajectory may allow us to predict the success of the restoration goals. Given that there are plenty of indicators in the scientific literature for measuring restoration success, and there are stakeholders which are the key actors of restoration, our aim was to determine a common and simple set of indicators ranked by stakeholders for evaluating the restoration trajectory. We selected 52 indicators for monitoring high-diversity forest restoration projects in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest and organized them into six categories: (1) physical and structural, (2) composition/biodiversity, (3) environmental services, (4) ecological processes, (5) economic and (6) social. We sent questionnaires to stakeholders from five Brazilian states, who evaluated these indicators (with rates ranging from 0 to 3, where 0 = not important or should not be considered; 1 = low importance; 2 = important; and 3 = very important, considering four time-stages throughout the process (2?3, 3?10, 10?50 and > 50 years). Based on this assessment, we ranked the indicators and tested whether the importance of the categories changed between them and over time. We present the ?top ten? indicators (with the ten highest grades) for each stage, selected, and ranked by practitioners, that can be used to evaluate restoration projects and provide guidance for restoration policies. In the initial stage, from 2 to 3 years, social attributes were highly important, related to the degree of acceptance by the community. Economic indicators were also important at the initial stage, when the costs of developing, deploying, and maintaining restoration actions are high. Physical and structural indicators were more important in the short-term stage, from 3 to 10 years. Ecological indicators related to composition/biodiversity and ecological processes became relevant after 3 years and kept so onwards. Only in the long-term, addressing ecosystem services became an important indicator of the restoration success, to stakeholders. Overall, stakeholders care for forest structure and establishment of plants in all stages, while composition/biodiversity and richness gain importance in more advanced phases of restoration trajectory. MenosConsidering that ecosystem restoration is a long-term process, the evaluation of each stage of its trajectory may allow us to predict the success of the restoration goals. Given that there are plenty of indicators in the scientific literature for measuring restoration success, and there are stakeholders which are the key actors of restoration, our aim was to determine a common and simple set of indicators ranked by stakeholders for evaluating the restoration trajectory. We selected 52 indicators for monitoring high-diversity forest restoration projects in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest and organized them into six categories: (1) physical and structural, (2) composition/biodiversity, (3) environmental services, (4) ecological processes, (5) economic and (6) social. We sent questionnaires to stakeholders from five Brazilian states, who evaluated these indicators (with rates ranging from 0 to 3, where 0 = not important or should not be considered; 1 = low importance; 2 = important; and 3 = very important, considering four time-stages throughout the process (2?3, 3?10, 10?50 and > 50 years). Based on this assessment, we ranked the indicators and tested whether the importance of the categories changed between them and over time. We present the ?top ten? indicators (with the ten highest grades) for each stage, selected, and ranked by practitioners, that can be used to evaluate restoration projects and provide guidance for restoration policies. In the initial stage, from 2 to 3 year... Mostrar Tudo |
|
Palavras-Chave: |
Ranking Monitoring; Success. |
|
Thesaurus Nal: |
Forest restoration; Stakeholders. |
|
Categoria do assunto: |
K Ciência Florestal e Produtos de Origem Vegetal |
|
Marc: |
LEADER 03046naa a2200241 a 4500
001 2132257
005 2021-06-09
008 2021 bl uuuu u00u1 u #d
022 $a1470-160X
024 7 $ahttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.107652$2DOI
100 1 $aOLIVEIRA, R. E. de
245 $aTop 10 indicators for evaluating restoration trajectories in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest .$h[electronic resource]
260 $c2021
520 $aConsidering that ecosystem restoration is a long-term process, the evaluation of each stage of its trajectory may allow us to predict the success of the restoration goals. Given that there are plenty of indicators in the scientific literature for measuring restoration success, and there are stakeholders which are the key actors of restoration, our aim was to determine a common and simple set of indicators ranked by stakeholders for evaluating the restoration trajectory. We selected 52 indicators for monitoring high-diversity forest restoration projects in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest and organized them into six categories: (1) physical and structural, (2) composition/biodiversity, (3) environmental services, (4) ecological processes, (5) economic and (6) social. We sent questionnaires to stakeholders from five Brazilian states, who evaluated these indicators (with rates ranging from 0 to 3, where 0 = not important or should not be considered; 1 = low importance; 2 = important; and 3 = very important, considering four time-stages throughout the process (2?3, 3?10, 10?50 and > 50 years). Based on this assessment, we ranked the indicators and tested whether the importance of the categories changed between them and over time. We present the ?top ten? indicators (with the ten highest grades) for each stage, selected, and ranked by practitioners, that can be used to evaluate restoration projects and provide guidance for restoration policies. In the initial stage, from 2 to 3 years, social attributes were highly important, related to the degree of acceptance by the community. Economic indicators were also important at the initial stage, when the costs of developing, deploying, and maintaining restoration actions are high. Physical and structural indicators were more important in the short-term stage, from 3 to 10 years. Ecological indicators related to composition/biodiversity and ecological processes became relevant after 3 years and kept so onwards. Only in the long-term, addressing ecosystem services became an important indicator of the restoration success, to stakeholders. Overall, stakeholders care for forest structure and establishment of plants in all stages, while composition/biodiversity and richness gain importance in more advanced phases of restoration trajectory.
650 $aForest restoration
650 $aStakeholders
653 $aRanking Monitoring
653 $aSuccess
700 1 $aENGEL, V. L.
700 1 $aLOIOLA, P. de P.
700 1 $aMORAES, L. F. D. de
700 1 $aVISMARA, E. de S.
773 $tEcological Indicators, v 127, 107652, 2021.
Download
Esconder MarcMostrar Marc Completo |
|
Registro original: |
Embrapa Agrobiologia (CNPAB) |
|
|
Biblioteca |
ID |
Origem |
Tipo/Formato |
Classificação |
Cutter |
Registro |
Volume |
Status |
URL |
Voltar
|
|
|
| Registros recuperados : 12 | |
| 2. |  | KUROZAWA, L. E.; EL-AOUAR, A. A.; SIMÕES, M. R.; AZOUBEL, P. M.; MURR, F. E. X. Determination of thermal conductivity and thermal diffusivity of papaya (Carica papaya L.) as a function of temperature. In: MERCOSUR CONGRESS ON CHEMICAL ENGINEERING, 2.; MERCOSUR CONGRESS ON PROCESS SYSTEMS ENGINEERING, 4., 2005, Rio de Janeiro. Proceedings... Rio de Janeiro: UFRJ, 2005. 1 CD-ROM.| Tipo: Artigo em Anais de Congresso |
| Biblioteca(s): Embrapa Semiárido. |
|    |
| 3. | | EL-AOUAR, A. A.; AZOUBEL, P. M.; KUROZAWA, L. E.; SIMÕES, M. R.; ANTONIO, G. C.; MURR, F. E. X. Study of shrinkage phenomenon during convective drying of papaya (Carica papaya L.). In: MERCOSUR CONGRESS ON CHEMICAL ENGINEERING, 2.; MERCOSUR CONGRESS ON PROCESS SYSTEMS ENGINEERING, 4., 2005, Rio de Janeiro. Proceedings... Rio de Janeiro: UFRJ, 2005. 1 CD-ROM.| Tipo: Artigo em Anais de Congresso |
| Biblioteca(s): Embrapa Semiárido. |
| |
| 4. | | ANTONIO, G. C.; EL-AOUAR, A. A.; AZOUBEL, P. M.; SIMÕES, M. R.; MURR, F. E. X. Modeling of osmotic dehydration of sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas): determination of mass effective diffusivity coefficients. In: MERCOSUR CONGRESS ON CHEMICAL ENGINEERING, 2.; MERCOSUR CONGRESS ON PROCESS SYSTEMS ENGINEERING, 4., 2005, Rio de Janeiro. Proceedings... Rio de Janeiro: UFRJ, 2005. 1 CD-ROM.| Tipo: Artigo em Anais de Congresso |
| Biblioteca(s): Embrapa Semiárido. |
| |
| 6. | | CUNHA, T. J. F.; BASSOI, L. H.; RIBEIRO, P. R. de A.; SIMÕES, M. L.; MARTIN NETO, L.; PETRERE, V. G.; SANTANA, R. O. de. Características espectroscópicas de ácidos húmicos provenientes de fontes comerciais, em solo fertirrigado, no Vale do São Francisco. In: CONGRESSO BRASILEIRO DE CIÊNCIA DO SOLO, 31., 2007, Gramado. Conquistas e desafios da ciência do solo brasileira: anais. Porto Alegre: SBCS, 2007. 1 CD-ROM.| Tipo: Artigo em Anais de Congresso / Nota Técnica |
| Biblioteca(s): Embrapa Semiárido. |
| |
| 8. | | RIBEIRO, P. R. de A.; CUNHA, T. J. F.; BASSOI, L. H.; PETRERI, V. G.; SIMOES, M. L.; MARTIN NETO, L. Grau de humificação de ácidos húmicos extraídos de solo fertirrigado com diferentes fontes de fertilizantes. In: JORNADA DE INICIAÇÃO CIENTÍFICA DA EMBRAPA SEMI-ÁRIDO, 2., 2007, Petrolina. Anais... Petrolina: Embrapa Semi-Árido, 2007. (Embrapa Semi-Árido. Documentos 205)| Tipo: Artigo em Anais de Congresso / Nota Técnica |
| Biblioteca(s): Embrapa Semiárido. |
| |
| 9. | | STRALIOTTO, R.; PRADO, R. B.; FERRAZ, R. P. D.; SIMÕES, M.; FONTANA, A.; DENARDIN, J. E.; GIONGO, V.; AMARAL, A. J. do; BIANCHI, S. R.; BEDENDO, G. C. Intensificação da agricultura com sustentabilidade. In: TORRES, L. A.; CAMPOS, S. K. (ed.). Megatendências da Ciência do Solo 2030. Brasília, DF: Embrapa, 2022. E-book. cap. 5.| Tipo: Capítulo em Livro Técnico-Científico |
| Biblioteca(s): Embrapa Semiárido; Embrapa Solos; Embrapa Trigo. |
|  |
| 10. | | CUNHA, T. J. F.; MADARI, B. E.; MARTIN NETO, L.; CANELLAS, L. P.; NOVOTNY, E. H.; MELO, V. B.; SIMÕES, M.; SILVA, W. T. L. da; MILORI, D.; PETRERE, V. G.; SANTOS, G. de A. Terra preta de indio "Dark Earth Soils": chemical and spectroscopic characterization of humic acids. In: INTERNATIONAL AGRICHAR INITIATIVE (IAI) 2007 CONFERENCE, 2007, Terrigal, Australia. [Abstracts]. Terrigal: IAI, 2007. p. 38.| Tipo: Resumo em Anais de Congresso |
| Biblioteca(s): Embrapa Semiárido. |
| |
| 11. | | CUNHA, T. J. F.; MADARI, B. E.; MARTIN NETO, L.; CANELLAS, L. P.; SIMOES, M. L.; SILVA, W. T. L. da; MILORI, D. M. B. P.; RIBEIRO, L. P.; ANJOS, L. H. C.; SANTOS, G. de A. Humic Acids of the Amazonian Dark Earth Soils: Terra Preta De Índio. In: WORLD CONGRESS OF SOIL SCIENCE, 18., 2006, Philadelphia. Abstracts... Madison: ASA: CSSA: SSSA, 2006. 1 CD-ROM.| Tipo: Resumo em Anais de Congresso |
| Biblioteca(s): Embrapa Semiárido. |
| |
| 12. | | FIGUEIREDO, A. H. de; OLIVEIRA, A. S. de; ABRAHÃO, A. A.; LAMBERT, A. C. A.; MIGUEL, B. S. A. S.; MANZATTO, C. V.; ANDRADE, C. A. de; BANDEIRA, D. S.; BOLFE, E. L.; BRITTO, F. G. A. de; NISIYAMA, F. L.; CASTRO, F. F. de; DIAS, F. P.; SILVA, G. B. S. da; ERVILHA, I. C.; SA, I. B.; REZENDE, J. A.; NASCIMENTO, J. A. S. do; POLIDORO, J. C.; HERNANI, L. C.; MORANDI, M. A. B.; SIMÕES, M.; ENRIQUEZ, M. A. da S.; GREEN, M. P. L.; DANIEL, M. H. B.; BASTOS, M. M. T.; FREITAS, P. L. de; BARIZON, R. R. M.; CLEMENTE, R. F.; FERRAZ, R. P. D.; PEREIRA, S. E. M.; PEINADO, T. G.; CAVENDISH, T. A.; FERREIRA, V. de P.; SOARES, W. L. Terra. In: IBAMA. Relatório de qualidade do meio ambiente: RQMA: Brasil 2020. Brasília, DF, 2022. cap. 3, p. 166-231.| Tipo: Capítulo em Livro Técnico-Científico |
| Biblioteca(s): Embrapa Agricultura Digital; Embrapa Meio Ambiente; Embrapa Semiárido; Embrapa Solos. |
| |
| Registros recuperados : 12 | |
|
| Nenhum registro encontrado para a expressão de busca informada. |
|
|
