Abstract
ABSTRACT Agroforestry systems and restoration models were compared with native forests by examining the restoration of ecological processes that generate stability, resilience and reliability. The stability assessment was obtained using indicators of diversity, structure and functionality. Indicators of soil protection and nutrient cycling were also used to estimate the resilience. The reliability was assessed by management and protection indicators, anthropic impact and canopy (percentage of light). Agroforestry systems did not promote the restoration of ecological functions due mainly to structural factors than management. The production of biomass and carbon storage were higher in the agroforestry system considering the association of trees with short cycle crops (3.2 t ha-1 yr-1; 39.81 t C ha-1) than trees with green manure system (2.4 ha-1 yr-1; 34.09 t C ha-1). After 36 months, the restoration methods and agroforestry systems did not provide resilience and stability for the riparian forests protection.
Highlights
AND OBJECTIVESAgroforestry systems have been one of the alternatives for ecological restoration because reconcile environmental recovery and the diversified production (Oliveira et al, 2016)
These systems gained prominence in Brazil with the publication of the National Plan for the Recovery of Native Vegetation, Decree no. 8.972 (Brasil, 2017) which imposes the recomposition of 12 million hectares in 20 years, being part of those with agroforestry systems (AFS) established in legally protected areas
AR1 presented higher diversity (H’ = 1.671 nat.ind.-1) than AR2 (H’ = 1.368 nat.ind-1), there was no significant difference between them related to plant density, and on diversity and species composition indicators (SR, J and H’) (c2 = 0.09818; p > 0.01). Both showed a lower diversity index than other seasonal forests areas in the state of São Paulo, which diversity ranges from 3.0 nat.ind.-1 to 3.45 nat.ind.-1 (Filho & Santin, 2002)
Summary
Agroforestry systems have been one of the alternatives for ecological restoration because reconcile environmental recovery and the diversified production (Oliveira et al, 2016). AFSs can promote environmental sustainability (Seoane et al, 2014), it is still necessary to assess and monitor their ability to restore the ecological functions previously performed by forest cover. These ecological functions are associated with the structure and the forests composition (Srivastava & Vellend, 2005), and they contribute to the system’s diversity, stability and resilience (Astier et al, 2011). For the AFSs differences, among the models used, their unique composition, management forms, density and arrangement of plants make it difficult to extrapolate and compare one system to another (Nair, 2012)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
