Presentation by Vera Lex Engel on adaptive management in Atlantic Forest in Brazil. This was presented at the SER Conference Mexico, August 2011

1. Adaptive management can increase ecological, social
and economic resilience from restored areas in
Atlantic Forest, Brazil
Vera Lex Engel
veralex@fca.unesp.br
Colaborators:
John A. Parrotta; Danilo S. Ré; Lauro R. Nogueira Jr.;
Diego Soto Podadera; Liz Mio Otta; Rodrigo Minici de
Oliveira

2. In many situations, socio-economical and cultural
constraints are more relevant for forest restoration than the
ecological ones!
 According to our forest legislation, in properties
were the native vegetation (besides the riparian
buffers and other permanent protection areas) is
under 20%, the legal reserve must be restored
 Legal deadline: 30 years, starting in 2001
But Brazilian landowners
• Aim at short term benefits
• Lack a forest tradition
• See the forest as a barrier to development
• Believe that the way they the land today is a consequence of past
governmental contradictory policies and resist to adequate themselves to
current legislation
•Are not willing to pay for “loosing” part of their land

3. Social constraints
 Around 71% Factors hampering restoration of
legal reserves and permanent
of protection areas
landowners
are “outlaw” Manutenção Informação Custo Falta de Interesse
and have Lack of maintenance
erosion concern 23% 23%
problems in
their 8%
Lack of
properties costs information
46%

4. How are can we overcome
barriers to forest restoration?
 Most degradation is resulting from human
interference in the ecosystems;
 We are concerned to restore not only
ecosystems, but Social Ecological Systems
(SES, Bryian & Meyers, 2004);
 SESs resilience needs to incorporate all
three dimensions (Lamb, this conference)

5. Understanding and managing resilience
John A. Parrotta
A research project conceived since 1995 to test alternatives to concealing
biodiversity restoration with provisioning stakeholders goods and services
.

6. Edgardia Experimental Farm, UNESP campus

7. Treatments (plantation models) -after 10 years
Control Mixed comercial
species planting (25),
(T1)
divided in 2 growth
groups
Direct seeding of five fast
growing species (T2)
Agroforestry systems with 20 High diversity (41 sp.)
tree sp: annual crop planting using different
production + medicinal and functional and silvicultural
fruit trees (T3) groups (T5) Neighbor forest
fragments (references)

8. Reference sites: seasonal semideciduos
tropical forest.
Reference sites:
Basal Area = 20.8 to 38.4 m2. ha-1
Seed rain :46 (site 1). 56 and 82 sp. (site 1) (33 families).
Tree species richnees76 . 82 and 112
Seedling density: 20.453 ind./ha (Pires& Engel. 2009).
Seed bank density: 482.16; 588.6 and 800.3 seeds.m-² ) ; Nakayama
(2009); Martins & Engel (2007 ).
Seed deposition density :126.27 ( site 1);155.2 seeds. m-² (site 3);
256.48 seeds.m-² (Site 2)

11. Are these models liable to be
acepted by small and medium
landholders?
•Must be as simple and easy as possible
•Money input as low as possible
•Maximum direct and indirect benefis:
high opportunity cost of land in developed
parts of country;
low land tenure in less developed regions

12. Are these restoration systems
ecologically resilient?
 In some aspects, yes:
 Trees over passing early filters are doing well (around 50%
in all treatments);
 Structure (including canopy stratification in the more
complex systems) and physiognomy are forest like;
 Natural regeneration of more than 100 tree species, most by
zoochory;
 Other life forms are beginning to colonize the plots:
epiphytes; lianas; forbs, understory trees;
 Invasive grasses have disappeared in some plots;
 A litter layer is overspread
 Functioning seems to follow normal trajectories

13. But some ecological surprises arise
Direct seeding untill two years ago
Canopy stratification, colonization by other life forms than trees

14. Nowadays: high mortality of Enterolobium trees due to fungal disease;
Schizolobium monodominance: necessity of adaptive management: thinings +
enrichment plantings?

15. And grasses are still there!
(edge effect)
120
100
80
60 other
grasses
40
20
0
Control DirS AfS Mix A Mix B HDiv A HDiv B Forest

16. “Field of dreams” hypothesis
(Palmer et al., 1997)
 76 bird species after 5 years(15 families)– 11 % strictly
frugivores;
 Responsible for bringing 9.111 seeds/ha at DirS treatment
and ; 37.889 seeds/ha at Hdiv system (only 12%
autoctonous). (Rosa, 2003)
 10 medium and large mammal species are using the restored
areas (Caes, 2009) against 3 in the pastures

17. Medium and large mammals similarity between restored
sites, native forest and passive restoration (Caes, 2009)
Restored areas:
+ similar to reference ecosystems in
composition;
+ similar to pastures in density (low)
densidade;
-mammals foraging and sheltering
habitats, but they still don’t support
resident populations

18. Frugivore butterflies associated to restored
areas (Furlanetti, 2010)
45 450 H’= 2.776
H’ = 2.807
Number of Species
40 400 Fisher’s α- = 10.11
Fisher’s α = 13.08
35
30
350 a H’= 2.34
a
Abundance
25 300 Fisher’s α = 6.773
20 250
15
200
b
10
5 150
0 100
50
Frag Pasto Rest
0
Treatments
RES FRG PAS
n° species observed
Treatm ents
n° expectded richeness for 100 individuals sampling

19. “If you build it, they will come” Big fish!

20. Are the systems economically
resilient?
In some of the models the implantation and
early maintenance costs may be supported;
Later additional incomes from firewood,
timber and NTFP (medicinal plants, food,
honey, seeds)
Implantation costs between US$800.00 and US$2,600.00/ha

21. Agroforestry System “Taungya” modified
�       
2m
 �  � � �
� � � � � ��
2m
10 m         
1,5 m

 Annual crops
 5m



         Firewood species(10)
 � � � � �
� � � � � Timber and fruit trees
          (10)

22. Afs Phase 1: annual crops, one –two cicles/year
Implantation and initial maintenance costs were paid within 4,5
years.
Other incomes: firewood from thinings, NTFP
beans
corn
Sweet-potato pumpkin

23. Phase 2: Enrichment plantings with fruit trees (site 1),
native medicinal trees + heart-of-palm trees (Euterpe
edulis, Arecaceae) in site 2

24. Mixed commercial plantings using two different groups of
species according to growth rythms ( 12 anos)
Selective harvesting in two cycles: 15-20 and
around 30 years with intermediate thinings
114-135 s.m.ha-1
from thinings at
seven years, US$ Plywood and sawmill timber by
20-25.00/s. m. reduced impact felling techniques

25. Currente challenge question: how to manage mixed
plantings for firewwod and timber preserving natural
regeneration?
Volume equations for every plantation model and
site; for groups of homogeneous species: defining
thinning and harvesting regimes

26. Timber stock per treatment after 12 years
110
220
105
200
100
180 Wilks lambda=,79235, F(2, 26)=3,4069, p=,04852
95
Wilks lambda=,10927, F(10, 52)=10,531, p=,00000 Vertical bars denote 0,95 confidence intervals
160 Vertical bars denote 0,95 confidence intervals 90
)
-1
) -1 .ha
140 85
.ha
3
80
3
120
75
100
70
80
Timber stock (m
65
Timber stock (m
60
60
40 55
20 50
45
0
Dark Red Oxisol Ultisol
DirS AfS Mix A Mix B HDiv A HDiv B
Treatment Site
(Volume estimation equations developed by D. S. Ré (this
conference))

27. Timber annual mean yield
(m3.ha-1. year-2)
18 9,5
Wilks lambda=,10927, F(10, 52)=10,531, p=,00000
9,0
16
Vertical bars denote 0,95 confidence intervals
8,5
14
Wilks lambda=,79235, F(2, 26)=3,4069, p=,04852
8,0
) .y
) .y
Vertical bars denote 0,95 confidence intervals
-2 -1
-2 -1
12
7,5
.ha
.ha
3
3
10 7,0
8 6,5
6,0
6
5,5
Mean anual yield (m
Mean growth rate (m
4
5,0
2
4,5
0 4,0
DirS AFs Mix A Mix B HDiv A HDiv B Dark Red Oxisol Ultisol
Treatment Site

28. Adaptive management
Mimosa caesalpiniaefolia, exotic nitrogen-fixing
tree, facilitating or inhibiting?
Effect of eradicating this tree:
growth, natural regeneration and
grass invasion potential.
Incomes as firewood

29. Other possible incomes

30. Brazilian pepper (Schinus therebintifolius )
 5-8 kg of fruits/tree
after 3 years
 US$ 30.00/kg
 Market value as a
spice, for cosmetic
and pharmacy
industry

31. Euterpe oleracea, “palmito” tree, an
Atlantic Forest keystone species Non-timber forest products
Heart of palm, 0.7 kg/tree, U$ 6-8/kg
Fruits with high nutritional value;
500 ind./ha were planted in the AFS consumption of 850 ton/year in natura only in
São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro States,
4.5-6 kg/tree/year (1.8-2.4 kg of fruit pulp)

32. Future challenges
 Adaptive management to increase
ecological and economical resilience
 Phenological patterns and keystone species
concept to guide enrichment plantings
 Thinings and felling regimes for mixed
plantings
 Social resilience remains to be tested: gap
of knowlegde

33. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

35. FINANCIADORES
USDA-FOREST SERVICE
FUNDUNESP
CAPES
APOIO: FCA
SEMENTES PIRAÍ ADUBOS VERDES
VIVEIRO BIOVERDE (LIMEIRA)