Is applied nucleation a straightforward, cost‐effective forest restoration approach? Counter‐response to Holl and Zahawi (2018)

Holl and Zahawi (2018) agree on a number of approaches that we describe in a local case study of tropical montane cloud forest restoration in Mexico. However, they contend our argument that most applied nucleation projects have taken place in tropical lowlands as a mistake. They also provide data on...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Restoration ecology 2018-07, Vol.26 (4), p.620-621
Hauptverfasser: Ramírez‐Soto, Aníbal, Lucio‐Palacio, César R., Rodríguez‐Mesa, Rafael, Sheseña‐Hernández, Ixchel, Farhat, Fadi N., Villa‐Bonilla, Bernardino, Landa Libreros, Laura, Gutiérrez Sosa, Gabriela, Trujillo Santos, Omar, Gómez Sánchez, Israel, Ruelas Inzunza, Ernesto
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Holl and Zahawi (2018) agree on a number of approaches that we describe in a local case study of tropical montane cloud forest restoration in Mexico. However, they contend our argument that most applied nucleation projects have taken place in tropical lowlands as a mistake. They also provide data on the per‐hectare cost of restoration projects in Costa Rica and compare it to a higher cost figure of plantation‐style reforestation, a view contrary to ours. Last, Holl and Zahawi recognize that applied nucleation requires specialized personnel, but imply that the amount of training needed for this endeavor is not very different than what is required to implement other forest recovery projects. In this counter‐response, we provide some refinements to our original opinion and offer further information in support to our perspective.
ISSN:1061-2971
1526-100X
DOI:10.1111/rec.12823