Upload
crees-foundation
View
111
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
#STEB2014 andy_manu_peru [email protected]
A second chance to conserve?
Assessing the potential biodiversity and conservation value of regenerating
rainforest.
Andrew Whitworth, Prof. Roger Downie, Dr Rudolf Von May & Dr Ross MacLeod
Photo by Luke Massey
The problem
The majority of the world’s remaining tropical forests have had their structure and underlying functions disrupted by human impacts.
The potential conservation value of these regenerating forests remains controversial.
Reference Priority for the future of tropical forests
(1 – primary priority, 2 – secondary importance)
Anand et al. 2010 1 - Conservation of remnant forests.
Barlow et al. 2007 1 - Primary forests hold irreplaceable value.
Norris et al. 2010 1 - Primary forests hold irreplaceable value.
Gibson et al. 2011 1 - Primary forests hold irreplaceable value.
Sodhi et al. 2010 1 - Primary forests hold irreplaceable value along with improved connectivity.
Irwin et al. 2010 2 - Buffer zones and secondary habitat are necessary.
Letcher & Chazdon 2009 2 - Secondary forests hold high conservation value.
Chazdon et al. 2009 2 - Both primary forest and secondary forests of importance.
Tabarelli et al. 2010 2 - Extend the overall coverage of the protected area system; incorporate regenerating
forest patches into conservation landscapes.
Thus creating doubt about whether there could be a realistic second chance to conserve biodiversity with rainforest regeneration.
Why?
Reference Description of forest types
(1 – primary priority, 2 – secondary importance)
Anand et al. 2010 7 plantations, 10 forest fragments, 2 logged forests, 3 monocultures
Barlow et al. 2007 Primary, secondary (20yr old), plantation (6 yr old)
Norris et al. 2010 35 studies in total but consisting of many other disturbance types, some of them current
regimes.
Gibson et al. 2011 83.6% had a time since disturbance of less than or equal to 12 yr
Sodhi et al. 2010 Not really an assessment of regenerating/secondary areas, more of logging and
fragmentation
Irwin et al. 2010 19 studies looking at various forest/non-forest systems
Letcher & Chazdon 2009
30 sites, including seven old-growth forests and 23 secondary forests on former pastures,
ranging from 10 to 42 yr. The secondary forest sites were formerly pasture for intervals of
<1–25 yr.
Chazdon et al. 2009 12 of the 30 studies assessed studied regenerating forest 30 yr or older
Tabarelli et al. 2010 Mostly current agricultural land and young successional secondary forests. Secondary re-
growth forest only mentioned in 2 of the 22 studies, reviewed.
A best-case scenario… •Close to the core Manu National Park – a source population. •Under current protection for over 10 years – no logging and hunting (no current impacts) •Forest which has had 30-40 years of regeneration time.
What did we do with our information?
1. Compared the observed richness from the regenerating rainforest of the Manu Learning Centre (Mascoitania Reserve) with other nearby primary forest sites.
2. Predicted what would have existed at the MLC prior to disturbance based upon known ecological information and compare this with the observed richness.
Results - part 1
Taxa Primary forest sites used to determine average richness Observed richness
at the MLC
CC CC-PA LA MWC PA
Amphibians 78 (77%) - 63 (95%) - 82 (73%) 60
Birds 454 (89%) - 499 (81%) 501 (81) - 406
Mammals - 47 (81%) 48 (79%) - - 38
Reptiles 64 (103%) - 75 (88%) - 60 (110%) 66
We also looked at key indicator groups and species of conservation concern to
really understand the conservation value and look deeper than simple overall
richness patterns.
Results – part 2
Taxa
Observed richness at MLC
(% of those predicted) Predicted richness at MLC
Average
richness from
primary
forest sites
Observed
richness of
MLC as a %
of richness
at primary
forest sites
Total Indicators Conservation
concern Total Indicators
Conservation
concern
Amphibians 60 (81%) 13 (72%) - 74 18 - 74 81%
Birds 406 (72%) 30 (86%) 27 (87%) 561 35 31 485 84%
Mammals 38 (95%) - 12 (92%) 40 - 13 48 80%
Reptiles 66 - - - - - 66 100%
In summary… 1. Regenerating forest has the potential to be awesome.
2. It can hold very high levels of biodiversity.
3. These levels are not necesarily dominated by habitat
generalists but also by species of key conservation concern and key indicator species.
4. So lets protect more areas of secondary rainforest and allow them to regenerate – we have a second chance!
Photo by Charlie Hamilton James Photo by Marcus (crees Rainforest Journalist)
Thanks to
The Louise Hiom Fund,
Glasgow Natural History Society
&
Chicago Herpetological Society
for helping to fund herpetological field equipment
Thanks to Glagows wonderful
Expeditions Society and especially the
Peru teams that have visited over the
past three years
A huge thanks to all those who have helped, especially Dr Ross MacLeod,
Prof. Roger Downie and crees.