Extraído por máquina, não revisadoBase de evidências do MAGI
A meta-analysis contrasting active versus passive restoration practices in dryland agricultural ecosystems
M. Florencia Miguel e outros, 2020 · PeerJ
Active restoration practices in dryland agricultural ecosystems significantly improved overall ecological restoration outcomes compared to control conditions.
Estimativa · log response ratio
0,340 [0,270; 0,420]
log response ratio
- Desenho
- Meta-análise. Random-effects meta-analysis of 42 studies and 1,427 independent observations
- População
- Dryland farmlands and grazing lands across 16 countries evaluated for ecological restoration
- Amostra
- 1.427 · independent observations from 42 studies
Onde está o número
Table 4, panel (A), row 'Active practices'
Active practices | 0.34 | [0.27–0.42]
Contexto
What changed: Implementation of active restoration practices including seeding, planting, soil remediation, and water supplementation on retired agricultural drylands. Comparison: Minimally disturbed or unrestored reference conditions across 42 studies. Limits: Invertebrate animal responses did not improve, and results varied by local aridity and implementation duration.
Caminho no grafo
- FamíliaProvisão direta
- TipoRestauração e manejo de ecossistemas
- EixoPerda de biodiversidade
MAGI só cita evidência deste instrumento
Lugares do estudo
- Argentina · País · AR
- Australia · País · AU
- Canada · País · CA
- China · País · CN
- Egypt · País · EG
- Ethiopia · País · ET
- Hungary · País · HU
- Iran · País · IR
- Kenya · País · KE
- Kuwait · País · KW
- Mongolia · País · MN
- Portugal · País · PT
- Russia · País · RU
- South Africa · País · ZA
- Spain · País · ES
- United States · País · US
- Licença
- CC-BY
- Revisão
- Extraído por máquina, não revisadoExtraído por: gemini-3.8-flash, 2026-10-23