4.4 Article

Active or Passive Forest Restoration? Assessing Restoration Alternatives with Avian Foraging Behavior

期刊

RESTORATION ECOLOGY
卷 19, 期 -, 页码 170-177

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1526-100X.2010.00725.x

关键词

attack rate; neotropical birds; restoration ecology; search effort

类别

资金

  1. Organization for Tropical Studies
  2. Animal Behavior Society
  3. American Ornithologists' Union
  4. Michigan State University College of Natural Science, Department of Zoology
  5. National Science Foundation [DEB 0515577]
  6. Direct For Biological Sciences
  7. Division Of Environmental Biology [0918112] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Active and passive restoration are two important strategies to aid the recovery of large areas of deforested and degraded tropical lands. Active restoration is where management techniques such as planting seeds or seedlings are implemented, and passive restoration is when no action is taken except to cease environmental stressors such as agriculture or grazing. We compared the habitat quality of active and passive restoration sites with similar land-use histories and times since abandonment for insectivorous birds by measuring vegetation structure, arthropod biomass, and the foraging behavior of three resident bird species in southern Costa Rica. Although vegetation measures such as amount of understory cover and tree species richness and density differed between the two restoration strategies, arthropod biomass and foraging behavioral measures were similar. Our results suggest that while active and passive restoration strategies may lead to different vegetation structures, they may support similar biomass of foliage-dwelling arthropods and be similarly used by foraging insectivorous birds. Passive restoration is generally less costlier than active restoration and, if local and landscape characteristics do not impede recovery, may be a viable alternative from the perspective of birds using the sites.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据