Search for: All records

Natural regeneration is increasingly recognized as a potentially cost‐effective strategy to reach ambitious forest landscape restoration targets, but rates of recovery are notoriously variable. We asked how well initial habitat conditions after cessation of agriculture predict forest recovery after nearly a decade. We aimed to provide land managers with general rules of thumb to assess when it is necessary to invest resources in active restoration, such as tree planting, to accelerate forest recovery.

Coto Brus County, Puntarenas, Costa Rica.

We compiled data on initial vegetation structure, soil nutrients, prior land‐use history and surrounding forest cover at 13 sites. After 8.5 years, we measured vegetation indicators commonly used to assess forest recovery, namely amount of canopy closure and number and diversity of woody recruits.

Two variables, grass cover and canopy closure, measured 1.5 years after site abandonment, explained 47–87% of five of the six response variables after 8.5 years; recovery was faster in sites with lower grass cover and higher canopy closure initially. Waiting an additional year to measure initial vegetation variables did not improve model fit. Time since the original forest was cleared explained 62% of change in canopy cover, whereas percentage of surrounding forest cover, length of pasture use and soil variables explained minimal additional variation.

Our results suggest that two easily measurable vegetation variables can provide guidance to land managers and policy makers about where to invest scarce restoration resources to facilitate forest recovery.

Vascular epiphytes constitute a large proportion of tropical forest plant biodiversity, but are among the slowest plants to recolonize secondary forests. We asked whether tree planting for ecological restoration accelerates epiphyte community recovery. Does the spatial configuration of tree planting matter? What landscape contexts are most suitable for epiphyte restoration?

Restored pastures in premontane Coto Brus County, Puntarenas, Costa Rica.

We surveyed vascular epiphyte species growing on the lower trunks of 1083 trees in 13 experimental restoration sites. Each site contained three 0.25‐ha treatment plots: natural regeneration, trees planted in patches or ‘islands’ and tree plantations. Sites spanned elevational (1100–1430 m) and deforestation (4–94% forest cover within a 100‐m radius around each site) gradients.

Vascular epiphytes were twice as diverse in planted restoration plots (islands and plantations) as in natural regeneration; we observed this at the scale of individual host trees and within 0.25‐ha treatment plots. Contributing factors included that trees in planted restoration plots were larger, older, more abundant and composed of different species than trees in naturally regenerating plots. Epiphyte species richness increased with surrounding forest cover within 100–150 m of restoration plots. Epiphyte communities were also twice as diverse at higher (1330–1430 m) vs lower (1100–1290 m) elevation sites. Epiphyte groups responded differently to restoration treatments and landscape factors; ferns were responsible for higher species richness in planted restoration plots, whereas angiosperms drove elevation and forest cover effects.

Tree planting for ecological restoration enriched epiphyte communities compared to natural regeneration, likely because planted forests contained more, bigger and older trees. Tree island plantings were equally effective compared to larger and more expensive plantations. Restoration sites nearer to existing forests had richer epiphyte recolonization, likely because nearby forests provisioned restoration sites with angiosperm seeds. Collectively, results suggest that restoration practitioners can enrich epiphyte community development by planting trees in areas with higher surrounding forest cover, particularly at higher elevations.