Search

Background: Forest disturbances are projected to increase in intensity and frequency in the upcoming decades. The projected change in disturbance regimes is expected to alter the provision of ecosystem services and affect biodiversity. Both are critical for forest ecosystems to provide livelihoods for human societies. Forest management after natural disturbances shapes successional pathways of forest ecosystems. Therefore, the management of post-disturbance sites deserves critical attention to avoid negative effects of management interventions on ecosystem services and biodiversity. The two most common management interventions after natural disturbances are salvage logging (comparator: no salvage logging) and tree planting (comparator: natural regeneration). This planned systematic map of reviews aims to aggregate the existing evidence syntheses on the implications of common forest management interventions after natural disturbances on successional trajectories with regard to selected ecosystem services and biodiversity. Evidence-based post-disturbance management is highly relevant for protected area management as well as for the management of commercial forests. Methods: We will systematically search the databases Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection and the Forest Science Collection of the CABI Digital Library for reviews and meta-analyses (after 2003). We will apply eligibility criteria for review selection and assess the evidence synthesis validity of selected reviews using the most recent version of CEESAT (Collaboration for Environmental Evidence Synthesis Assessment Tool). The results will be displayed in topic subgroups in summary of scope and summary of findings tables. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Agroforestry is often seen as a panacea that offers multiple environmental, economic, and social benefits. However, the validity of generalized statements on agroforestry outcomes is doubtful because the evidence base is unclear. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses exist on the topic in addition to many case studies that address specific outcomes of individual agroforestry practices at different sites. However, the overall picture of available scientific evidence on agroforestry outcomes remains opaque due to the wide diversity of existing agroforestry practices, outcome indicators, and spatial locations. To clarify whether and in which areas the research landscape allows conclusions to be drawn about the potential benefits or drawbacks of agroforestry compared to other land uses, an evidence review map was created for the purpose of this study. Based on a systematic literature search and screening, 64 systematic review articles were finally identified that summarize ecological, economic, or social outcomes of at least one agroforestry practice compared to another land use as control. The thematic and spatial coverage of the systematic reviews on agroforestry outcomes is mapped to identify density and research gaps in the evidence base. Moreover, the comprehensibility of the study selection for each identified systematic review is critically assessed. The resulting evidence review map discloses a solid evidence base for environmental outcomes and productivity aspects of individual agrisilvicultural practices, as well as for agroforestry systems when considering an aggregate level. However, the outcomes of individual silvopastoral and agrosilvopastoral practices have been less studied in the literature. A global coverage at the level of individual agroforestry practices is only available for impacts on climate change mitigation. Major research gaps were identified for systematic analysis of social outcomes of all agroforestry types. The results of the evidence mapping highlight further research needs, but also urge for caution in making generalized statements about the benefits of agroforestry.

Abstract Evidence reviews are a key mechanism for incorporating extensive, complex and specialised evidence into policy and practice, and in guiding future research. However, evidence reviews vary in scope and methodological rigour, creating several risks for decision-makers: decisions may be informed by less reliable reviews; apparently conflicting interpretations of evidence may obfuscate decisions; and low quality reviews may create the perception that a topic has been adequately addressed, deterring new syntheses (cryptic evidence gaps). We present a new approach, evidence review mapping, designed to produce a visual representation and critical assessment of the review landscape for a particular environmental topic or question. By systematically selecting and describing the scope and rigour of each review, this helps guide non-specialists to the most relevant and methodologically reliable reviews. The map can also direct future research through the identification of evidence gaps (whether cryptic or otherwise) and redundancy (multiple reviews on similar questions). We consider evidence review mapping a complementary approach to systematic reviews and systematic maps of primary literature and an important tool for facilitating evidence-based decision-making and research efficiency.