#STEB2014 andy_manu_peru andy@crees-man.org

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?

Photo by Marcus Brent-Smith (crees Rainforest Journalist)

Amphibians

Mammals

Photo by Charlie Hamilton James

Reptiles

Photos by Marcus Brent-Smith (crees Rainforest Journalist)

Vicious birds

Photo by Marcus Brent-Smith (crees Rainforest Journalist)

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.