ArticlePDF Available
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Open letter: There are more than just trees and forests to be
conserved and restored
OPEN LETTER TO POLICYMAKERS AT THE
16TH MEETING OF THE CONFERENCE OF
THE PARTIES TO THE CONVENTION ON
BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY (COP 16, CALI,
COLOMBIA, 2024)
Tropical and subtropical grasslands and savannas have historically
been neglected in global and local conservation policies. As a result,
nearly half of their coverage has been lost. In 2023, the world's most
biodiverse savanna (Brazilian Cerrado) lost 1.110.326 ha, increasing
the rate of land conversion by 67.7% (MapBiomas, 2024). The result-
ing biodiversity and ecosystem service losses, including the ability to
mitigate climate change, are profound and irreversible.
As scientists specialized in ecology, conservation, and restoration,
from around the world, we call on policymakers at COP 16 to act deci-
sively: Tropical and subtropical grasslands and savannas matter for biodi-
versity protection, and the future of this planet relies on these ecosystems
to the same extent it relies on forests.
We urge the following commitments:
Prioritize conservation and adequate management of grasslands
and savannas.
Establish mechanisms to reduce and halt land conversion in these
ecosystems immediately.
Promote conservation aligned with local economic activities, such
as ecotourism and sustainable bioeconomic initiatives.
Reject afforestation initiatives disguised as restoration efforts that
harm these unique ecosystems.
Grasslands and savannas harbor an extraordinary biodiversity of
light-loving fauna and flora, with up to 60 plants per square meter in
some regions (Silva Menezes et al., 2018; Wilson et al., 2012). Many
of these species are endemic and at risk of extinction. These ancient
ecosystems are home to an astonishing cultural legacy and diversity.
They are not only crucial for species conservation but also water secu-
rity and carbon storage. For example, most of the major rivers in the
Amazon originate in montane grasslands in the Andes, the Cerrado,
and the Guyana Plateau. Peat soils in South American savannas store
more carbon belowground than tropical forests do aboveground.
These carbon stocks, some dating back 40,000 years, are at risk if
inappropriate land use practices like soil drainage or large-scale tree
planting disrupt natural water cycles.
Once open ecosystems are degraded, they rarely regain their
original biodiversity and function. Effective restoration remains a
challenge, while promising, restored open ecosystems rarely fully
recover the complexity, diversity, or resilience of pristine ecosystems
(Nerlekar & Veldman, 2020; Pilon et al., 2023; Zaloumis &
Bond, 2011). This makes immediate conservation the most effective
tool in mitigating biodiversity loss and maintaining ecosystem
services.
The UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration is meaningless with-
out a solid policy to reduce and stop land conversion. Conserving the
remaining tropical and subtropical grasslands and savannas is the only
assurance that future generations will benefit from the services these
ecosystems provide. We believe in the potential of restoration, but it
cannot replace effective biodiversity protection. Robust environmen-
tal policies must be grounded in scientific evidence and prioritize both
present and future societal well-being. As scientists and citizens, we
emphasize the critical need to conserve what remains of these eco-
systems. While science works toward restoring what has been lost,
conservation is our best defense against the biodiversity crisis and
the loss of essential ecosystem services.
KEYWORDS
biodiversity crises, conservation, COP 16, ecological restoration, open
ecosystems
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Natashi Pilon, Franciele Peixoto, Rafael S. Oliveira, Ana Carolina
C. Oliveira, and Giselda Durigan led the initiative and wrote the
letter; all the 137 authors read and agreed with all the content of
the letter.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT
We declare no conflict of interest.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
There are no data associated with the paper.
Received: 16 December 2024 Accepted: 19 December 2024
DOI: 10.1002/ppp3.10635
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
© 2025 The Author(s). Plants, People, Planet published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of New Phytologist Foundation.
Plants People Planet. 2025;15. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ppp3 1
Natashi Pilon
1
Franciele Peixoto
2
Rafael S. Oliveira
1
Ana Carolina C. Oliveira
1
Julio Alquéres
3
Swanni Alvarado
4
Jose G. M. Angelo
5
Sally Archibald
6
Mohammed Armani
7
Ludwig Baldaszti
8,9
Sébastien Barot
10
Fernanda de V. Barros
11
Mario Barroso
12
Alessandra Bassani
1
Mariska te Beest
13,14,15
Juan Benavides-Tocarruncho
11
Lorena M. Benitez
9
Paulo N. Bernardino
1,16
William J. Bond
17
Bowy den Braber
18
Nina Buchmann
19
Elise Buisson
20
Bruna H. Campos
21
Claudia Campos
5
Josep Canadell (Pep)
22
Tristan Charles-Dominique
23
Rachel Cohen
24
Anya Courtenay
9
Joris P. G. M. Cromsigt
13,14,25
Gabriella Damasceno
26,27
Vinicius L. Dantas
28
Balázs Deák
29
Michele Dechoum
30
Adam J. M. Devenish
31
Milton H. Diaz-Toribio
32
Brice Yannick Djiofack
33,34
Jason E. Donaldson
35
Larissa Doria
1
Natalie Dudinszky
36,37
Lucas Dur˜aes
5
Susan E. Eshelman
38
Marcos de Fialho
5
Manfred Finckh
39
Jennifer L. Funk
40
Rachael Gallagher
41
T. Ganesh
42
Jacques Gignoux
43
Luiz Gustavo Gonçalves
5
Michelle Greve
44
Daniel Mark Griffith
45
Natalia Guerin
24
Kenny Helsen
24
Gareth P. Hempson
46
Ankila Hiremath
42
William A. Hoffmann
47
Sheila M. Holmes
25
Lindsay B. Hutley
48
Debbie Jewitt
49
Arjun Kannan
42
Marie Noelle Keijzer
24
David A. Keith
50
Sarala Khaling
42
Kevin Kirkman
51
Rosana M. Kolb
52
Foundiéré Koné
53
Alessandra R. Kozovits
54
Christian Kull
55
Frank van Langevelde
56
R. Sedricke Lapuz
57
Jean-Christophe Lata
58
Soizig Le Stradic
59
Caroline E. R. Lehmann
8,9
Naíssa Luz
60
M. D. Madhusudan
61
Soro Nounfro Madjima
62
Iravatee Majgaonkar
42
Onildo J. Marini-Filho
5
Aklilu Negussie Mekuria
24
Paulina Meller
63
Máximo M. Costa
5
Raoni Merisse
5
Cássia B. R. Munhoz
64
Brett P. Murphy
65
Leena Naftal
66
Olinirina Prisca Nanjarisoa
31
Aya B. N'Dri
67
Ashish N. Nerlekar
68
Aristides S. G. Neto
5
Jesse B. Nippert
69
Sindiso Nkuna
70
Reed Noss
71
Imma Oliveras Menor
72,73
Colin P. Osborne
74
Gerhard E. Overbeck
75
Giovanna Palazzi
5
Catherine Parr
76
Juli G. Pausas
77
R. Toby Pennington
11
Valério D. Pillar
75
Francis E. Putz
78,79
Fitiavana Rasaminirina
80,81
Jayashree Ratnam
82
Diego Raymundo
83
Ana Ribeiro
84
Jess Rickenback
8,9
Lucy Rowland
11
2LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Alexandre Bonesso Sampaio
85
Mahesh Sankaran
82
Naomi B. Schwartz
86
Seshadri Kadaba Shamanna
42
Stefan Siebert
87
Frances Siebert
87
Desireé Cristiane Barbosa Silva
5
Suelma Ribeiro-Silva
5,88
Domingos Fortunato P. F. Silva
89
Julliene S. G. Monteiro Silva
90
Fernando A. O. Silveira
91
Kimberley Simpson
92
A. Carla Staver
93
Bethina Stein
94
Nicola Stevens
6,95
Chris Still
96
Caroline A. E. Strömberg
97
Rima Mekdaschi Studer
98
Anthony Swemmer
99
Kyle Warwick Tomlinson
100
Orsolya Valkó
29
Renato Vanderlei
101
Joseph W. Veldman
102
Larissa Verona
1
Susanne Vetter
103
Ricardo A. G. Viani
104
Maria S. Vorontsova
105
Jakub D. Wieczorkowski
8,9
Benjamin Wigley
106,107
Amy Zanne
16
Giselda Durigan
21
1
Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Departamento de Biologia Vegetal,
Instituto de Biologia, Centro de Ecologia Integrativa, Campinas, Brazil
2
Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Centro de Ecologia Integrativa,
Campinas, Brazil
3
Carbon4412, S˜ao Paulo, Brazil
4
Departamento de Biología, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogota,
Colombia
5
Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservacao da Biodiversidade, Brasilia,
Brazil
6
School of Animal, Plant and Environmental Sciences, University of the
Witwatersrand Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa
7
Institute for Biospheric Studies, Yale University, New Haven,
Connecticut, USA
8
Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh, Taxonomy and Macroecology,
Edinburgh, UK
9
School of Geosciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
10
IEES-Paris, IRD, Sorbonne Université, Paris, France
11
Department of Geography, Faculty of Environment, Science and
Economy, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
12
The Nature Conservancy, Brasília, Brazil
13
Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University,
Utrecht, the Netherlands
14
Centre for African Conservation Ecology, Nelson Mandela University,
Gqeberha, ZA, South Africa
15
South African Environmental Observation Network, Grasslands-
Forests-Wetlands Node, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa
16
Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, New York, USA
17
Botany, Botany Department, UCT, Private Bag, Rondebosch, University
of Cape Town, Western Cape, South Africa
18
Geosciences and Natural Resource Management, University of
Copenhagen, Kobenhavn, Denmark
19
ETH Zurich Department of Environmental Systems Science, Zurich,
Switzerland
20
Avignon Universite, Institut Méditerranéen de Biodiversité et d'Ecologie
IMBE, CNRS, IRD, Aix-Marseille Université, Avignon, France
21
Instituto de Pesquisas Ambientais, S˜ao Paulo, Brazil
22
Global Carbon Project of Future Earth, Australia
23
CNRS, Paris, France
24
WeForest, Brussels, Belgium
25
Department of Wildlife, Fish and Environmental Studies, Swedish
University of Agricultural Sciences, Umeå, Sweden
26
German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-
Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany
27
Institute of Biology, Geobotany and Botanical Garden, Martin Luther
University Halle Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Germany
28
Institute of Geography, Federal University of Uberlandia, Uberlandia,
Brazil
29
HUN-REN Centre for Ecological Research Institute of Ecology and
Botany, Lendület Seed Ecology Research Group, Vácrátót, Hungary
30
Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianopolis, Brazil
31
Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, London, UK
32
Jardin Botanico Francisco Javier Clavijero, Institute of Ecology, Xalapa,
Mexico
33
Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Department of Environment,
Laboratory of Wood Technology (UGent-Woodlab), Ghent University,
Ghent, Belgium
34
Royal Museum for Central Africa, Service of Wood Biology, Tervuren,
Belgium
35
Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Durham, North
Carolina, USA
36
BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK
37
Universidad Nacional del Comahue-CONICET, Grupo de Biología y
Ecología de Animales Patagónicos, INIBIOMA, San Carlos de Bariloche,
Argentina
38
School of Biological Science, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
39
Institute of Plant Science and Microbiology (IPM), University of
Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
40
University of California Davis, Davis, California, USA
41
Hawkesbury Institute for the Environment, Richmond, Western
Sydney University Hawkesbury Institute for the Environment, Penrith,
Australia
LETTER TO THE EDITOR 3
42
Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment, Bengaluru,
India
43
Institute of Ecology and Environmental Sciences (iEESParis), CNRS,
Paris, France
44
Natural and Agricultural Sciences, University of Pretoria, Pretoria,
South Africa
45
Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USA
46
School of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine,
University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
47
PMB, Dept. Plant Biology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh,
North Carolina, USA
48
Research Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods, Faculty of
Science & Technology, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Australia
49
Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa
50
Centre for Ecosystem Science, University of New South Wales, Sydney,
Australia
51
University of KwaZulu-Natal - Pietermaritzburg Campus,
Pietermaritzburg, South Africa
52
Faculdade de Ciências e Letras, Universidade Estadual Paulista Julio de
Mesquita Filho, Assis, Brazil
53
Centre de Recherche en
Ecologie, Université Nangui Abrogoua, Abidjan
Autonomous District, Côte d'Ivoire
54
Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto, Ouro Preto, Brazil
55
University of Lausanne, Institute of Geography and Sustainability,
Lausanne, Switzerland
56
Wageningen Universiteit en Research, Wageningen, the Netherlands
57
School of Biological Sciences, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam,
Hong Kong
58
Institute of Ecology and Environmental Sciences (iEESParis), Sorbonne
Universite, Paris, France
59
UMR BIOGECO, INRAE and Université de Bordeaux, Paris, France
60
Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil
61
National Centre for Biological Sciences, GKVK Campus, Bangalore,
India
62
Laboratoire D'ecologie et de Developpement Durable, Abidjan, Côte
d'Ivoire
63
Landesamt für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Geologie M-V, Güstrow,
Germany
64
Universidade de Brasília, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Brasília, Brazil
65
Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Australia
66
Namibia University of Science and Technology (NUST), Windhoek,
Namibia
67
Department of Natural Sciences (UFR SN), Laboratory of Ecology and
Sustainable Development (LEDD) and Laboratory of Botany and
Valorisation of Plant Diversity (LaBVDiV), Nangui Abrogoua University,
Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire
68
Department of Plant Biology, Michigan State University, East Lansing,
Michigan, USA
69
Division of Biology Manhattan, Kansas State University, Manhattan,
Kansas, USA
70
School of Life Sciences, Scottsville, University of KwaZulu-Natal,
Pietermaritzburg, South Africa
71
Southeastern Grasslands Institute, Southeastern Grasslands Institute,
Melrose, Florida, USA
72
Universite de Montpellier, AMAP (Botanique et Modélisation de
l'Architecture des Plantes et des Vegetations), CIRAD, CNRS, INRA, IRD,
Montpellier, France
73
School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford,
Oxford, UK
74
School of Biosciences, Alfred Denny Building, Western Bank, University
of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
75
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Instituto de Biociências,
Porto Alegre, Brazil
76
University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
77
Centro de Investigaciones sobre Desertificación, Consejo Superior de
Investigaciones Científicas, Universitat de València, Generalitat
Valenciana (CIDE, CSIC-UV-GV), Valencia, Spain
78
Department of Biology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA
79
University of the Sunshine Coast, Forest Research Institute,
Maroochydore, Australia
80
Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, Richmond, UK
81
University of Antananarivo, Antananarivo, Antananarivo Province,
Madagascar
82
National Centre for Biological Sciences, Bangalore, India
83
Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora, Juiz de Fora, Brazil
84
Forest Research Center, Associate Laboratory TERRA, School of
Agriculture, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal
85
Centro Nacional de Pesquisa e Conservaç˜ao em Biodiversidade e
Restauraç˜ao Ecológica - CBC/ICMBio, Brasília, Brazil
86
Department of Geography, The University of British Columbia,
Vancouver, Canada
87
Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management, North-West
University, Potchefstroom, South Africa
88
Jardim Botanico do Rio de Janeiro, National School of Tropical Botany,
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
89
SEOSAW - Socio-Ecological Observatory for Studying African
Woodlands, Angola
90
Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Instituto de Biologia, Programa de
Pós-Graduaç˜ao em Ecologia Campinas, Campinas, Brazil
91
Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil
92
School of Biosciences, Alfred Denny Building, Western Bank, The
University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
93
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Yale University, New
Haven, Connecticut, USA
94
Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Instituto de Biologia, Programa de
Pós-graduaç˜ao de Biologia Vegetal, Campinas, Brazil
95
School of Geography, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
96
Forest Ecosystems and Society, Oregon State University, Corvallis,
Oregon, USA
97
Department of Biology, Burke Museum of Natural History & Culture,
University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
98
Centre for Development and Environment (CDE), University of Bern,
Bern, Switzerland
99
National Research Foundation, Pretoria, South Africa
4LETTER TO THE EDITOR
100
Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of
Sciences, Mengla, Yunnan, China
101
Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, Brazil
102
Department of Ecology and Conservation Biology, Texas A&M
University, College Station, Texas, USA
103
Botany Department, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa
104
Universidade Federal de S˜ao Carlos, Araras, Brazil
105
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Herbarium, Library, Art and Archives,
Richmond, UK
106
Nelson Mandela University School of Natural Resource Management,
George Campus, George, South Africa
107
Savanna Node, Scientific Services, SANParks, Skukuza, South Africa
Correspondence
Pilon, Natashi, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Instituto de
Biologia, Departamento de Biologia Vegetal, Campinas, SP, Brazil.
Email: npilon@unicamp.br
ORCID
Natashi Pilon https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7985-5842
Rafael S. Oliveira https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6392-2526
Sally Archibald https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2786-3976
Ludwig Baldaszti https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0548-8503
Paulo N. Bernardino https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9226-3160
Nina Buchmann https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0826-2980
Elise Buisson https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3640-8134
Bruna H. Campos https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4028-539X
Tristan Charles-Dominique https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5767-
0406
Joris P. G. M. Cromsigt https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8632-9469
Gabriella Damasceno https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5103-484X
Larissa Doria https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3479-211X
Susan E. Eshelman https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0883-2392
Manfred Finckh https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2186-0854
Jennifer L. Funk https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1916-5513
Rachael Gallagher https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4680-8115
Natalia Guerin https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9545-7729
Gareth P. Hempson https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8055-4895
Debbie Jewitt https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0964-692X
Rosana M. Kolb https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3841-5597
Alessandra R. Kozovits https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7312-0076
R. Sedricke Lapuz https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5072-2306
Jean-Christophe Lata https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1094-4625
Soizig Le Stradic https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2643-3544
Caroline E. R. Lehmann https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6825-124X
Paulina Meller https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6711-4385
Cássia B. R. Munhoz https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7990-6715
Aya B. N'Dri https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6333-6279
Ashish N. Nerlekar https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3737-882X
Imma Oliveras Menor https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5345-2236
Colin P. Osborne https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7423-3718
Gerhard E. Overbeck https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8716-5136
Catherine Parr https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1627-763X
Juli G. Pausas https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3533-5786
R. Toby Pennington https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8196-288X
Valério D. Pillar https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6408-2891
Francis E. Putz https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0051-6675
Jess Rickenback https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5803-7728
Lucy Rowland https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0774-3216
Alexandre Bonesso Sampaio https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3010-
4607
Naomi B. Schwartz https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3439-2888
Fernando A. O. Silveira https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9700-7521
Kimberley Simpson https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6673-227X
A. Carla Staver https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2384-675X
Bethina Stein https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9749-2739
Nicola Stevens https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0693-8409
Caroline A. E. Strömberg https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0612-0305
Rima Mekdaschi Studer https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5098-0241
Larissa Verona https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3476-9868
Susanne Vetter https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2063-5615
Maria S. Vorontsova https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0899-1120
Jakub D. Wieczorkowski https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2128-5925
Amy Zanne https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6379-9452
Giselda Durigan https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0693-3154
REFERENCES
MapBiomas. (2024). RAD2023: Relatório Anual do Desmatamento no Brasil
2023. MapBiomas.
Nerlekar, A. N., & Veldman, J. W. (2020). High plant diversity and slow
assembly of old-growth grasslands. Proceedings of the National Acad-
emy of Sciences,117, 1855018556. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.
1922266117
Pilon, N., Campos, B. H., Durigan, G., Cava, M. G., Rowland, L., Schmidt, I.,
Sampaio, A., & Oliveira, R. S. (2023). Challenges and directions for
open ecosystems biodiversity restoration: An overview of the tech-
niques applied for Cerrado. Journal of Applied Ecology,60, 849858.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.14368
Silva Menezes, L., Vogel Ely, C., Lucas, D. B., Minervini Silva, G. H.,
Boldrini, I. I., & Overbeck, G. E. (2018). Plant species richness record in
Brazilian Pampa grasslands and implications. Brazilian Journal of Bot-
any,41, 817823. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40415-018-0492-6
Wilson, J. B., Peet, R. K., Dengler, J., & Pärtel, M. (2012). Plant species rich-
ness: The world records. Journal of Vegetation Science,23, 796802.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1654-1103.2012.01400.x
Zaloumis, N. P., & Bond, W. J. (2011). Grassland restoration after affores-
tation: No direction home? Austral Ecology,36, 357366. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1442-9993.2010.02158.x
LETTER TO THE EDITOR 5
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
Ecological restoration of tropical open ecosystems remains challenging for both science and practice. Over the last decade, innovative techniques have been developed, but whether they have been successful or not remains to be demonstrated. Assessing the outcomes of these initiatives is crucial to drive the following steps to improve tropical grasslands and savanna restoration. Analysing 82 data sets from the literature and primary data collection, we assessed the effectiveness of passive and active restoration techniques applied in Cerrado open ecosystems. We used plant diversity variables (species and growth forms) as indicators, considering ruderals and exotics as non‐target species. Specifically, we aimed to answer: (i) How does the diversity of target species change through time in areas subject to passive restoration? (ii) Are active and passive restoration techniques effective in restoring the proportion of target species found in old‐growth reference ecosystems? (iii) Have the current techniques been successful in recovering the proportions of growth forms of reference ecosystems? We found that target species proportions do not increase with time, suggesting limitations of typical species to colonise degraded sites. Hence, passive restoration will promote the conservation of a limited and constant number of target species. This number will depend on the magnitude of degradation and previous land use. The restoration techniques currently applied to restore the biodiversity of Cerrado open ecosystems are not reaching the reference standards, with distinct techniques driving plant communities to different sets of growth forms. Active restoration based on propagules obtained from pristine donor sites (topsoil translocation, plant material transplant, and seeding) performed better than passive restoration for most of the growth forms analysed. Synthesis and applications: Different growth forms have different roles in determining the structure and functioning of Cerrado vegetation. A mix of techniques can better approximate plant diversity and the proportionality of target species of pristine ecosystems. Singular restoration approaches are insufficient for restoring Cerrado open ecosystem biodiversity. Mixed efforts encompassing various techniques are required instead. Furthermore, it is likely restoration success can be improved with greater investment in improving our understanding of, and developing existing restoration techniques.
Article
Full-text available
Significance The idea that grasslands can be ancient, particularly in climates that also support forests, is not widely recognized. Consequently, scientists and conservation planners often misinterpret old-growth grasslands to be low-diversity, successional vegetation, from which little is lost through conversion to tillage agriculture or tree plantations. We used a global analysis of herbaceous plant communities to show that after old-growth grasslands are destroyed, the recovery of plant diversity requires hundreds to thousands of years. Such slow rates of recovery underscore the need to replace outdated models of forest succession with models that emphasize the importance of fire, herbivory, and long periods of time to grassland biodiversity. This study offers evidence that old-growth grasslands, like old-growth forests, should be prioritized for conservation.
Article
Full-text available
Questions The co‐existence of high numbers of species has always fascinated ecologists, but what and where are the communities with the world records for plant species richness? The species–area relationship is among the best‐known patterns in community ecology, but does it give a consistent global pattern for the most saturated communities, the global maxima? Location The world. Methods We assembled the maximum values recorded for vascular plant species richness for contiguous areas from 1 mm ² up to 1 ha. We applied the power function to relate maximal richness to area and to make extrapolations to the whole Earth. Results Only two community types contain global plant species maxima. The maxima at smaller spatial grain were from oligo‐ to meso‐trophic, managed, semi‐natural, temperate grasslands (e.g. 89 species on 1 m ² ), those at larger grains were from tropical rain forests (e.g. 942 species on 1 ha). The maximum richness values closely followed a power function with z = 0.250: close to Preston's ‘canonical’ value of 0.262. There was no discernable difference between maxima using rooted presence (i.e. including only plants rooted in the plot) vs shoot presence (i.e. including any plant with physical cover over the plot). However, shoot presence values must logically be greater, with the curves flattening out at very small grain, and there is evidence of this from point quadrats. Extrapolating the curve to the terrestrial surface of the Earth gave a prediction of 219 204 vascular plant species, surprisingly close to a recent estimate of 275 000 actual species. Conclusions Very high richness at any spatial grain is found only in two particular habitat/community types. Nevertheless, these high richness values form a very strong, consistent pattern, not greatly affected by the method of sampling, and this pattern extrapolates amazingly well. The records challenge ecologists to consider mechanisms of species co‐existence, answers to the ‘ P aradox of the P lankton’.
Article
Species richness remains one of the most valuable type of information for biodiversity conservation. Here, we report a plant richness record in the Brazilian Pampa. We found 56 vascular plant species in a single plot of 1 × 1 m in a privately owned grazed grassland in a region with shallow soils. This number is considerably higher than common species numbers in similar surveys and highlights the high plant diversity in South Brazilian grasslands. We take our record as an opportunity to reflect on some issues of high importance if we wish to reach conservation goals: much of the biodiversity is inside private lands, and these should be more in the focus of conservation efforts; field research, especially quantitative sampling, continues to be essential to improve knowledge on biodiversity and its distribution patterns; training biologists to be able to carry out biodiversity assessments and to interpret the results should be a key issue for universities. We hope that the communication of this record will encourage new scientific discoveries and raise social interest about the conservation of grasslands in South Brazil.
Article
The coastal grasslands in north-eastern South Africa are a severely threatened vegetation type rich in plant species, particularly forbs. Many of the forbs have underground storage organs which allow them to resprout rapidly after fires. A significant portion of this land was placed under commercial pine afforestation in the 1950s. The pine plantations have since been removed starting 17 years ago and restored to grasslands within a conservation area. We assessed the effects of plantations on grassland plant diversity and functional trait composition by sampling 64 circular quadrats of 5 m radius distributed equally in restored versus natural grasslands. The difference in plant diversity was dramatic with the natural grassland supporting 221 species of which 163 were forbs compared with 144 and only 73 forb species in restored grasslands. Major differences in species composition were recorded, especially for forb species. Natural grasslands were dominated by resprouters (130 species) but these were rare in the restored grasslands (36 species). Differences in plant species response to fire were also evident for the two grassland states. In contrast to coastal forest restoration studies in the same area which have shown near linear increases in woody species with time, restored grasslands showed no increase in forb species richness with increasing time since clear-felling of pines. Our results indicate that current methods for restoring these grasslands are inadequate and that restoring grasslands may be a lot harder than previously thought. Considerable effort should be made in conserving what is left of natural grasslands.
RAD2023: Relatório Anual do Desmatamento no Brasil 2023
  • Mapbiomas
MapBiomas. (2024). RAD2023: Relatório Anual do Desmatamento no Brasil 2023. MapBiomas.