Integrated analysis of aboveground and belowground indicators support a comprehensive evaluation of ecosystem recovery

Author:

Dorrough Josh12ORCID,Val James3,Travers Samantha K.45ORCID,Wilson Brian6,Eldridge David J.45ORCID,Carrillo Yolima7,Nielsen Uffe N.7ORCID,Powell Jeff R.7ORCID,Wilks Gabriel8,McPherson Paul9,Oliver Ian47ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Conservation and Restoration Science, Department of Planning and Environment Merimbula 2548 NSW Australia

2. Fenner School of Environment & Society, ANU College of Science The Australian National University Canberra 2601 ACT Australia

3. Conservation and Restoration Science, Department of Planning and Environment Buronga 2739 NSW Australia

4. Conservation and Restoration Science, Department of Planning and Environment Gosford 2250 NSW Australia

5. Centre for Ecosystem Science, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences University of New South Wales Sydney 2052 NSW Australia

6. School of Environmental and Rural Science University of New England Armidale 2351 NSW Australia

7. Hawkesbury Institute for the Environment Western Sydney University Penrith 2751 NSW Australia

8. National Parks and Wildlife Service Tumut 2720 NSW Australia

9. Burragate 2550 NSW Australia

Abstract

Analyses of diverse aboveground and belowground indicators should underpin assessments of ecosystem recovery, yet monitoring many indicators is costly and their integration is challenging. Our objective was to combine indicators through a Bayesian hierarchical model to provide a comprehensive assessment of ecosystem status and identify a cost‐effective subset of indicators to provide an accurate estimate of ecosystem recovery. We assessed 59 aboveground–belowground indicators, classified into nine components of composition, structure, and function, to estimate the ecosystem status of restored rock spoils and reference forests in south‐eastern Australia. Overall ecosystem status, which integrates across ecosystem components and supporting indicators, was lower within restored forests but positively correlated with forest age. Reference forests had greater aboveground and belowground biotic structure, organic matter supply, and soil carbon stability, and trends were consistent among all of their supporting indicators. A subset of organic matter quality and nutrient cycling indicators were greater within restored forests, suggesting high ecosystem process rates, but that soil carbon may be more vulnerable to loss. Aboveground biotic structure was correlated with organic matter supply and quality, stability of soil carbon, the cycling of nutrients, and belowground biotic structure, providing evidence of aboveground–belowground coupling. A combination of four indicators representing belowground biotic structure, soil carbon stability, organic matter supply, and aboveground composition, provided a good estimate of ecosystem status at a third of the cost. Although ecosystem status can be monitored with a small set of indicators, a diversity of aboveground–belowground indicators provide a robust and comprehensive assessment of recovery.

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

Nature and Landscape Conservation,Ecology,Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3