Abstract
Context
Forest cover change analyses have revealed net forest gain in many tropical regions. While most analyses have focused solely on forest cover, trees outside forests are vital components of landscape integrity. Quantifying regional-scale patterns of tree cover change, including non-forest trees, could benefit forest and landscape restoration (FLR) efforts.
Objectives
We analyzed tree cover change in Southwestern Panama to quantify: (1) patterns of change from 1998 to 2014, (2) differences in rates of change between forest and non-forest classes, and (3) the relative importance of social-ecological predictors of tree cover change between classes.
Methods
We digitized tree cover classes, including dispersed trees, live fences, riparian forest, and forest, in very high resolution images from 1998 to 2014. We then applied hurdle models to relate social-ecological predictors to the probability and amount of tree cover gain.
Results
All tree cover classes increased in extent, but gains were highly variable between classes. Non-forest tree cover accounted for 21% of tree cover gains, while riparian trees constituted 31% of forest cover gains. Drivers of tree cover change varied widely between classes, with opposite impacts of some social-ecological predictors on non-forest and forest cover.
Conclusions
We demonstrate that key drivers of forest cover change, including topography, road distance and historical forest cover, do not explain rates of non-forest tree cover change. Consequently, predictions from medium-resolution forest cover change analyses may not apply to finer-scale patterns of tree cover. We highlight the opportunity for FLR projects to target tree cover classes adapted to local social and ecological conditions.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Calls for forest and landscape restoration (FLR) to recover ecosystem function across hundreds of millions of hectares of degraded landscapes are gaining global traction (Chazdon 2008; WRI 2012; Aronson and Alexander 2013; Pinto et al. 2014; Chazdon et al. 2015; Suding et al. 2015). These FLR projects seek to conserve biodiversity, mitigate climate change, increase social-ecological resiliency in the face of climate change (i.e., adaptation), and enhance the provision of a variety of ecosystem services (Chazdon 2008; Zhou et al. 2008; Alexander et al. 2011; Pramova et al. 2012; Barral et al. 2015; Latawiec et al. 2016; Omeja et al. 2016). Ambitious goals of restoring forest cover at regional scales are partly inspired by evidence that widespread increases in forest cover are already occurring across many tropical countries (Meyfroidt and Lambin 2011; Aide et al. 2013). Analyses of forest cover change over large spatial extents could promote FLR by informing policies that enable favorable socioeconomic conditions for reforestation (Sloan 2015), identifying biophysical factors that increase forest recovery rates (Poorter et al. 2016), and locating sites where natural regeneration may be sufficient to restore forest cover (Chazdon and Uriarte 2016). However, while FLR emphasizes the importance of a diverse range of tree cover in agricultural landscapes, from native secondary forest, to agroforestry, to pasture trees (Harvey et al. 2008; Chazdon et al. 2015), regional scale analyses of non-forest tree cover change are rare (Plieninger et al. 2012; Schnell et al. 2015).
Our limited understanding of trends in non-forest tree cover at regional scales is problematic because the ecological integrity of agricultural landscapes depends on heterogeneous, often non-forest, tree cover (Harvey et al. 2008; Perfecto and Vandermeer 2008). Non-forest tree cover enhances the provisioning of ecosystem services such as carbon storage, seed dispersal, pollination, pest control, soil stabilization and hydrological function, while also facilitating biodiversity conservation (Guevara et al. 2004; Ricketts 2004; Bianchi et al. 2006; Harvey et al. 2006; Ilstedt et al. 2007; Van Bael et al. 2008; Tscharntke et al. 2011; Mendoza et al. 2014; Zomer et al. 2016). Dispersed (or ‘scattered’) trees in pastures and agricultural fields are a keystone ecological feature that provide ecological functions and services disproportionately greater than the space they occupy in the landscape (e.g., biodiversity maintenance, nutrient cycling; Manning et al. 2006; Fischer et al. 2010). Live fences increase connectivity between otherwise isolated forest fragments, reducing the likelihood of local extirpations (Harvey et al. 2005; Francesconi 2006; Pulido-Santacruz and Renjifo 2011). A variety of agroforestry systems (e.g., silvopastures, shade coffee, cocoa and cardamom) provide habitat for a greater diversity of species in the agricultural matrix than conventional agricultural and pastoral systems, with some agroforestry systems nearing the species richness and composition of forests (Saenz et al. 2007; Perfecto and Vandermeer 2010; Buechley et al. 2015). Non-forest tree cover also has the potential to balance food production and conservation (e.g., “land-sharing”; Perfecto and Vandermeer 2010; Tscharntke et al. 2012). Because non-forest tree cover is critical for both human livelihoods and ecosystem services, changes in agricultural tree cover could have large impacts on the success of FLR projects (Harvey et al. 2008).
Challenges to measuring changes in tree cover in agricultural landscapes at regional scales are related to limitations of remotely sensed and field data. Medium-resolution satellite imagery used to analyze forest cover change is often classified as either “forest” or “non-forest” (e.g., Aide et al. 2013; Hansen et al. 2013), broad categories that overlook continuous variation in tree cover on agricultural land. A recent study in a Panamanian landscape dominated by cattle production found that discrete forest categories may substantially underestimate total tree cover increases, possibly because discrete categories overlook increases in agricultural tree cover (Caughlin et al. 2016b). Scaling up field sampling to the extent required to measure agricultural tree cover is a considerable challenge (Schnell et al. 2015). Field plots are often limited to a small spatial extent, thus while several field studies in pastoral systems have predicted declines in tree cover based on limited regeneration at the seedling or sapling stage (Lathrop et al. 1991; Plieninger et al. 2004; Fischer et al. 2009), whether these predicted declines are occurring at regional scales remains unknown. High-resolution imagery enables broader scale measurement of sparse and highly variable tree cover such as live fences and dispersed pasture trees (Platt and Schoennagel 2009; Aksoy et al. 2010), but historical imagery necessary for change analysis is often unavailable, particularly for tropical regions. A final challenge is accounting for differences in tree cover classes, (e.g. live fence vs. dispersed trees) over large areas. Different classes of tree cover provide different ecosystem services (Harvey et al. 2006; Ibrahim et al. 2007) and trends in tree cover change can vary dramatically between tree cover classes (Plieninger et al. 2012). To restore and reforest vast expanses of degraded agricultural land it will be necessary to accurately assess the state of tree cover in agricultural landscapes, including both forest and non-forest tree cover.
Understanding the causal pathways that lead to tree cover change in agricultural landscapes will also aid plans for FLR (Uriarte and Chazdon 2016). Analyses of forest cover change at landscape to regional scales have revealed several biophysical and socioeconomic drivers of reforestation, including topography, population density, distance to markets and historical forest cover (Yackulic et al. 2011; Bonilla-Moheno et al. 2012; Newman et al. 2014; Call et al. 2017). In Latin America, economic development, leading to abandonment of agriculturally marginal land and/or insufficient labor to clear encroaching trees off pasture, has emerged as a causal pathway that can explain national-scale forest transitions (i.e., a shift from net forest cover loss, to net forest cover gain; Rudel et al. 2002; Wright and Samaniego 2008; Redo et al. 2012; Sloan 2015). However, whether national-scale predictors of forest cover change are related to the dynamics of non-forest tree cover remains unclear. In part, this knowledge gap relates to the disparate scales at which forest versus non-forest tree cover is measured. Because most studies of non-forest tree cover take place at the farm or plot scale, explanations for why farmers allow trees in pastures often involve data on households, such as survey data (Barrance et al. 2003; Calle et al. 2009; Garen et al. 2011; Metzel and Montagnini 2014), rather than larger-scale, spatial variables, such as distance to market. Bridging the gap between forest cover change at regional scales and landholder decision-making at the household scale could enable better predictions for where and how to promote trees outside forests in working landscapes.
In Panama, the Azuero peninsula provides an ideal case study for quantifying the amount and drivers of agricultural tree cover change. Continental, national, and regional-scale studies have all found net increases of forest cover in the Azuero peninsula, suggesting that a forest transition is occurring (Wright and Samaniego 2008; Metzel 2010; Aide et al. 2013; Bauman 2015; Sloan 2015). Yet while estimates of forest cover change are similar across studies (approximately + 4% from 1990 to 2009), estimates of total forest cover vary dramatically (e.g., from 7 to 34%) due, in part, to differences in how forest cover is defined (Metzel 2010; Sloan 2015). One explanation for these divergent estimates of regional forest cover is that some studies include small scale (< 4 ha) patches of tree cover, while others do not (Caughlin et al. 2016b). To identify trends and drivers of tree cover, we used high-resolution imagery to digitize tree cover—often accounting for individual tree crowns—and classify tree cover into classes with varying ecological functions in the landscape. Our study is unique because we quantify patterns of fine-scale tree cover change at a broad spatial extent, encompassing 1589 km2. Furthermore, by linking imagery to individual parcels, we are able to relate patterns of tree cover change to social-ecological predictors that reflect regional trends, landscape context, and landholder decision-making. We use this approach to answer three questions: (1) what are the patterns of agricultural tree cover change from 1998 to 2014, (2) how do changes in tree cover differ between forest and non-forest tree cover, and (3) how do social-ecological predictors of tree cover change vary between tree cover classes?
Methods
Study region
Our study takes place in Los Santos province, located in the southeast corner of the Azuero peninsula in southwestern Panama (< 2% of our plots are in the neighboring Herrera province; Fig. 1a). The region is classified as tropical dry forest, with an average annual precipitation of 1,700 mm, an average annual temperature of 25 °C, and a 5-month dry season. Regional deforestation peaked during the first half of the 20th century, as forest was cleared for cattle production. Currently, the landscape is dominated by pasture, but also includes annual crops, riparian forest buffers, various stages of fallow, secondary forest fragments, and a small number of teak (Tectona grandis) plantations (Heckadon-Moreno 2009; Griscom et al. 2011). More recently, there has been a shift towards tourism and other industries, as well as environmental restoration projects (Bauman 2015). Altogether, rural economic development has likely caused an increase in regional forest cover (Sloan 2015).
Tree cover classification and change analysis
Our tree cover classification was derived from a combination of aerial photographs, taken in 1998 and obtained from the Tommy Guardia National Geographic Institute of the Republic of Panama, and Google Earth images, taken in 2014 (Google 2014). Both datasets offer very high resolutions (≤ 0.5 m) that allow small patches of tree cover (often including individual tree crowns) to be mapped. Because results of land cover change studies vary depending on spatial scale (Evans et al. 2002; Call et al. 2017), choosing an appropriate unit of analysis is critical. In Los Santos Province, most land (> 95%) is privately-owned property used for cattle ranching (ANATI 2000). In the province, property boundaries create discrete units (parcels) that explain variability in tree cover in the landscape and reflect landholder decision-making (Caughlin et al. 2016b). Thus, we chose parcels as our unit of analysis. We began with a cadastral dataset of property boundaries in 2000 (ANATI 2000). From the 4343 parcels located within coverage of aerial photos, we randomly selected 438 parcels for our study. In each of these parcels, we randomly placed one 2.25 ha square plot (excluding parcels too small or narrow to accommodate a 150 m × 150 m plot; Fig. 1b). Within these squares, tree cover was hand digitized in Google Earth Pro (Google 2014).
Digitization was conducted by research assistants at an altitude of 350 ± 50 m with terrain and tilting turned off. While automated methods for segmentation and object-oriented classification show great promise for assessing fine-scale patterns of woody vegetation cover (Fauvel et al. 2013; Meneguzzo et al. 2013; Adhikari et al. 2017), the capacity of machine learning techniques to distinguish between functionally-different tree cover types (e.g. live fence vs. riparian corridor) remains unknown. Because our main objective was to identify these tree cover types, we used hand digitization by research assistants with on-the-ground experience in Latin American cattle pastures. We envision that our extensive set of digitized polygons could serve as training data for an algorithm to classify tree cover type from high resolution imagery. To that end, we have deposited all digitized polygons in the Dryad Digital Repository where they are freely reusable (https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.q5r472k).
We classified each polygon as dispersed tree(s), fallow, forest, live fence, riparian forest or teak plantation (Fig. 1). We chose these classes because they were the most dominant forms of tree cover on the landscape and are known to provide important ecological and economic services. Together, dispersed trees, live fences and teak plantations constituted non-forest tree cover. These non-forest tree cover classes are more directly linked to landholder decision-making, while forest and riparian forest classes represent more natural types of tree cover. Because fallow cover does not necessarily represent full-grown trees and is likely to be cleared, we did not include fallow under measures of total tree cover, or as a response variable in our models. Instead, we used percent fallow as a predictor of change in other cover classes. The remainder of undigitized area in our sample was predominately pasture, and is hereafter referred to as such. Dispersed trees included isolated trees in open fields and pastures, more densely occurring trees in silvopastures, and trees that were cultivated in near-home gardens. Dispersed trees with a canopy < 6 m in diameter were not digitized. A similar threshold was used to help distinguish between fallow and (riparian) forest, with the presence of many tree crowns > 6 m diameter and at least 80% canopy closure required for classification as (riparian) forest. Riparian forest was differentiated from forest by proximity to a waterway and a width < 50 m. Live fences consisted of rows of 5 or more trees, with at least 3 canopies exceeding a 6 m diameter. Teak plantations were identified by a combination of a streaked appearance (resulting from row plantings), small and uniform crown sizes and distinct borders. Most tree cover polygons represented groups of trees (i.e., tree cover patches), although dispersed tree and live fence polygons often consisted of individual trees. As such, we did not account for overlap between individual tree crowns, and could not calculate tree density. Deciduous trees were frequently visible on the landscape in both time periods, and were included in our analyses. We verified the accuracy of our tree cover classifications by visiting randomly-assigned points in July 2015 (n = 43) and assigning a class (e.g., live fence, riparian forest) to these points in the field. Three people then independently classified these ground-truthed points using the previously described image classification methodology with a mean accuracy of 86%. After the initial digitization, the lead author reviewed and revised the initial set of polygons, with input from the other authors on questionable polygons.
To determine where gains and losses of different tree cover classes occurred, we analyzed tree cover transitions from one class (in 1998) to another (in 2014). We used the union function in QGIS (QGIS Development Team 2016) to combine tree cover class of polygons created from 2014 imagery to polygons created from 1998 imagery. We used the resulting attribute table to calculate what percent of each tree cover class remained the same, or transitioned into other classes, by 2014. Mean patch area was determined by calculating the area of each polygon in QGIS (QGIS Development Team 2016) and deriving a mean for each tree cover class. Number of patches is synonymous with number of polygons. Including the number of patches enabled us to quantify both the total area within a sample unit that had undergone a change in tree cover as well as change in the number of discrete patch units.
Predictor variables
To determine whether drivers of tree cover change vary between tree cover classes we selected a set of eight predictor variables that previous studies had identified as important for regional forest cover change (Online Appendix 1). Slope was calculated in R using the package ‘raster’ (Hijmans et al. 2015) and 30 m x 30 m resolution data from the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM). Mean annual precipitation from 2000 to 2014 was obtained from Climate Hazards Group Infrared Precipitation with Stations (Funk et al. 2014). Distance to highway was the Euclidean distance to the nearest highway. Percent off-site residences in 2000 and change in population density from 2000 to 2010 were acquired from the 2000 Panama National Population Census and interpolated to each square (Online Appendix 2). Surrounding forest refers to the percent of forest cover within a 500 m radius of each plot, based off of a 2008 national forest cover classification (ANAM 2009). Parcel size was obtained from the ANATI cadastral dataset. Percent fallow was calculated as the percent cover of fallow within each plot in 1998.
Statistical analysis
We employed a hurdle model approach to analyze the predictors of tree cover change in our study (Mullahy 1986; Neelon et al. 2013). Hurdle models partition a response variable into two types of data, first, a binary variable (in our case, whether tree cover increased or not), and second, a continuous non-zero variable (in our case, how much tree cover increased). We chose this analytical method because it accounts for the fact that two separate decision-making processes—possibly driven by dissimilar factors—are occurring. First, landholders are either allowing tree cover to regenerate or not, and second, they are deciding how much area to allow to revegetate. Whether or not tree cover gain occurred was analyzed with generalized linear models (GLM) using a binomial distribution and a logit-link function, while the magnitude of tree cover gain, if it did occur, was analyzed with GLMs using a gamma distribution and a log-link function (Gelman and Hill 2006). The hurdle model required grouping tree cover loss and no change in tree cover into the same category (i.e., no gain in tree cover). We believe this is acceptable because in our study system trees are constantly recruiting naturally, meaning that a lack of change in tree cover in a plot can only result if newly recruited saplings are cleared from the field; thus, no change in tree cover represents a variety of tree cover loss (Metzel 2010). To assess spatial autocorrelation in model residuals, we used the pgirmess package in R (Giraudoux 2017) to generate correlograms for Moran’s I statistic. We found minimal evidence for spatial autocorrelation in model residuals (Online Appendix 3). We excluded teak plantations from our models because they were so rare that drivers of change in this class could not be analyzed. To interpret coefficients relative to one another, we standardized all predictor variables by centering around the mean and dividing by two standard deviations (Gelman 2008). To assess model fit, we calculated R2 values as R2 sum of squares (Hardin and Hilbe 2007).
Results
Tree cover change
Total tree cover increased from 15.1 ± 20.0% (mean ± SD) in 1998 to 19.3 ± 22.3% in 2014. All tree cover classes increased in cover, with the largest gains from forest and smallest gains from dispersed trees (Fig. 2). Mean percent change was positive for all tree cover classes, but was highly variable, with SDs ranging from 2.1 to 18.7% (Fig. 2). Riparian forest and forest were the most prevalent tree cover classes throughout the study period, from 1998 to 2014 (7.2 ± 11.5%, and 6.3 ± 20.1%, respectively), while dispersed trees, live fences and teak plantations covered the least area (3.0 ± 3.7%, 0.5 ± 1.7% and 0.3 ± 3.5%, respectively). Fallow covered more area than any tree cover class throughout the study period (11.5 ± 22.7% cover). Mean patch area increased for riparian forest (+ 15%), dispersed trees (+ 27%) and teak plantation (+ 314%), decreased for fallow (− 11%) and live fence (− 10%), and did not change for forest. The total number of patches increased for forest (+ 40%), riparian forest (+3%), live fence (+ 46%) and teak plantation (+ 60%), and decreased for fallow (− 2%) and dispersed trees (− 17%; Online Appendix 4). By far the most dominant net transitions in tree cover were from fallow to forest, and from pasture to riparian forest. These two changes accounted for 2.7% of the entire study area (Fig. 3). Net transitions from riparian forest to forest, pasture to fallow, and fallow to riparian forest were the next most common, accounting for another 1.2% of the study area. The geographic distribution of tree cover change varied widely from class to class (Fig. 4). Change in forest cover mostly occurred within hilly regions along the Rio Oria. While riparian forest cover change was also most prevalent in this region, compared to forest cover, riparian cover was more evenly distributed across the study area. Live fences mostly occurred in the area surrounding Las Tablas, and dispersed tree cover change was the most evenly and widely distributed type of tree cover change.
Social-ecological predictors of tree cover change
The results of the binomial and gamma models varied substantially both within and between tree cover classes (Fig. 5). The probability of gains in forest cover occurring was positively influenced by percent fallow, slope, and surrounding forest cover (p < 0.001 for each), and negatively influenced by distance to highway (p = 0.03; Online Appendix 5). The magnitude of gains in forest cover was positively influenced by percent fallow and surrounding forest cover (p < 0.001 and p = 0.03, respectively). Surrounding forest cover and slope had a negative, though marginally significant, influence on probability of gains in riparian forest (p = 0.06 for both; Online Appendix 5), while the magnitude of riparian forest gain was positively influenced by percent fallow (p < 0.001), and negatively influenced by percent off-site residences and parcel size (p = 0.004 and 0.008, respectively). The probability of increase in live fence cover was positively associated with population density, but the relationship was not statistically significant (p = 0.08). The gamma model for live fences did not converge due to limited instances of increases in live fence cover. The probability of gains in dispersed tree cover occurring was positively influenced by parcel size and distance to highway (p = 0.002 and 0.02, respectively; Online Appendix 5) and negatively influenced by surrounding forest cover (p = 0.02). The magnitude of gain in dispersed tree cover was positively influenced by percent fallow (p = 0.001). The probability of gain in total tree cover was negatively influenced by percent fallow (p < 0.001). The magnitude of gain in total tree cover was positively influenced by percent fallow (p < 0.001) and slope (p = 0.02; Online Appendix 5). R2 was highly variable between tree cover classes and models, ranging from nearly zero variance explained (total tree cover gamma model) to 36% (forest cover binomial model; Fig. 5).
Discussion
Forest and landscape restoration (FLR) will require promoting a variety of tree cover types in agricultural landscapes, including trees outside forests that provide critical ecosystem services. However, studies that quantify reforestation at landscape to regional scales have almost all focused on change within a single forest cover class and have not investigated change in non-forest tree cover. We demonstrate that this land cover simplification overlooks major differences in rates and drivers of change between tree cover types. We found an increase in total tree cover from 1998 to 2014, similar to previous studies in southwestern Panama that have revealed net forest gain over the past decade (Wright and Samaniego 2008; Metzel 2010; Aide et al. 2013; Bauman 2015; Sloan 2015; Caughlin et al. 2016b). Unlike these previous studies, we disentangled the contributions of forest and non-forest tree cover classes to this ongoing forest transition. While largest overall gains in forest cover occurred for forest fragments, the biggest proportionate gains in forest cover came from thin riparian corridors (i.e., riparian forest), ecologically-critical landscape features that may be excluded from land cover change studies at coarser spatial resolutions. In contrast, live fences remained stable over time, while gains in dispersed tree cover in some areas were counterbalanced by losses in other areas. The social-ecological predictors of tree cover change varied widely between tree cover classes, including opposite effects on forest versus non-forest tree cover for some predictors. While additional study will be required to understand the causal pathways behind the patterns we observed, our results suggest that there will be no “one size fits all” explanation for change in different classes of tree cover.
Tree cover change
Forest and riparian forest together constituted 78% of all tree cover throughout our study, and delivered 79% of net gains in tree cover during our study period. Increases in forest cover outpaced increases in riparian forest by a factor of 2:1, yet riparian forest remained slightly more prevalent than forest across our study in 2014. While thin riparian forests may provide fewer benefits in terms of biodiversity conservation than larger blocks of forest (Greenler and Ebersole 2015), in agricultural landscapes the richness and abundance of forest species is sometimes nearly indistinguishable between riparian forests and larger tracts of secondary forest (Harvey et al. 2006; Fajardo et al. 2009; Mendoza et al. 2014). In Los Santos province, where water scarcity limits agricultural productivity, restoring riparian forest cover may protect water resources and prevent soil erosion (Metzel and Montagnini 2014). With half of all forest cover and a third of all gains in forest cover deriving from riparian forest, we suggest that riparian corridors should be a focus of both land cover change research and ongoing reforestation efforts in southwestern Panama.
Non-forest tree cover classes composed a significant portion of total regional tree cover, and contributed 21% of net gains in tree cover from 1998 to 2014. Despite the inherently isolated nature and small individual spatial extent of dispersed trees, this tree cover class comprised 16% of all tree cover in 2014. While 9.9 ha of dispersed tree cover was lost from 1998 to 2014, 11.8 hectares were gained, resulting in a net (though dynamic) stability that appears to counter field-based studies that predict a lack of regeneration potential for dispersed agricultural trees (Lathrop et al. 1991; Plieninger et al. 2004; Fischer et al. 2009). However, the time span of our study may not have been long enough to detect declines in tree cover driven by limited regeneration. Moreover, we did not distinguish between different tree species, meaning that losses of tree diversity could be occurring without detection (Esquivel et al. 2008; Harvey et al. 2011). Nonetheless, the apparent stability of this keystone class of tree cover is promising for efforts aimed at FLR and biodiversity conservation (Manning et al. 2006; Gibbons et al. 2008; Fischer et al. 2010; Harvey et al. 2011). Relative to total area of other tree cover classes, live fences played an inconsequential role in tree cover dynamics in our study; however, live fence cover nearly doubled from 1998 to 2014. This large relative increase points to the potential for live fences to contribute to regional tree cover and landscape connectivity, if efforts to promote their establishment are intensified (Harvey et al. 2005; Metzel 2010).
Social-ecological predictors of tree cover change
The effect of social-ecological predictors of tree cover change depended both on tree cover class and on how tree cover change was quantified. Many studies of land cover change have quantified reforestation as a discrete transition between non-forest and forest pixels (Meyfroidt and Lambin 2008; Aide et al. 2013; Hansen et al. 2013; Sloan 2015). The closest analogue to these previous analyses in our study was a binomial model that predicted whether the forest cover class increased within a sampling unit. We found that three of the strongest predictors of forest cover gain were steeper slopes, proximity to the highway, and landscape-scale forest cover. The explanatory power of these variables closely matches previous studies on binary forest cover change in the region, which have shown increased reforestation on steep slopes (Yackulic et al. 2011; Bauman 2015), with proximity to forest fragments (Crk et al. 2009; Newman et al. 2014), and near major roads (Rudel et al. 2002). Rural economic development, including infrastructure development, has been proposed as a causal pathway to explain why these predictors are correlated with reforestation: as non-agricultural jobs become available, there is less labor to clear trees off pastures (Sloan 2015). However, our results also complicate this narrative: for different metrics of tree cover, we found divergent, and even opposite, effects of the same socio-ecological variables.
The effects of surrounding forest cover offer a prime example of how social-ecological predictors vary between tree cover classes. We predicted that surrounding forest cover would have a positive impact on tree cover gain across classes, due to the increased seed rain provided by adjacent forests (Holl 1999; Hooper et al. 2005; Martinez-Garza et al. 2009). For our forest cover class, gain in forest cover was strongly and positively influenced by surrounding forest cover. In contrast, riparian forest and dispersed tree cover gain was negatively related to surrounding forest cover. The negative relationship between surrounding forest cover and increases in riparian and dispersed tree cover may indicate the importance of forest scarcity for dictating trends in some classes of deliberately maintained tree cover. The lack of available tree products (e.g., firewood, lumber, fence posts, fruits, etc.) near parcels far from forests may compel landholders to allow natural recruitment of trees in pastures, while landholders located near forests may be less motivated to allow new trees to grow (Eilu et al. 2007; Garen et al. 2009, 2011; Ordonez et al. 2014). The unexpected negative relationship between surrounding forest cover and some types of tree cover is a reminder that the ecological processes that normally dictate forest regeneration can be overridden by landholder decision-making in agricultural landscapes.
One variable with a consistently strong effect on magnitude of tree cover gain across tree cover classes was the area of fallow land at a site in 1998. Fallow land indicates “rough pasture,” including tall grasses, weeds, and shrubs. In our landscape, fallow land can indicate rotational grazing, pasture abandonment, or inadequate labor to clear regenerating woody vegetation (Griscom et al. 2009). Fallow land is another casualty of the “forest” vs. “non-forest” dichotomy in many remote sensing studies of forest cover change, and is often classed as “non-forest” (Sloan 2015). Our results indicate that, at least for tree cover dynamics, fallow land is not equivalent to active pasture. Instead, fallow land may either represent the first step in a successional trajectory towards increased forest cover (Caughlin et al. 2016a) or a land management regime that promotes non-forest tree cover (Garen et al. 2011). For example, we found that fallow land was often converted to dispersed tree cover, suggesting that farmers may utilize fallow land to enable natural-recruitment of selected tree species that become isolated pasture trees (Lerner et al. 2015). An exception to the relationship between tree cover gain and fallow land was live fence cover, which did not show a strong relationship with percent fallow land. A possible explanation is that live fences require active maintenance to maintain the fence as a linear boundary and prevent trees from shading grass (Harvey et al. 2005). Field-based studies have demonstrated the importance of pasture management in determining reforestation rates, including spatial patterns of tree recruitment (Seifan and Kadmon 2006) and tree community composition (Uhl et al. 1988; Esquivel et al. 2008). As a step towards more ecologically-meaningful remote sensing of tropical reforestation, we recommend including a fallow class in land cover classifications.
Overall, our results point to the importance of landholder decision-making for tree cover gain. Differences in rates of change and social-ecological predictors of change between tree cover classes indicate that farmers are choosing to manage some types of tree cover differently than others. In addition, the differences between our gamma and binomial models suggest that whether tree cover gain occurs, and the amount of tree cover gain, are two separate processes, influenced by different social-ecological predictors. This result suggests that landholders make two separate decisions: (1) whether to allow any tree recruitment in pastures and (2) how much tree cover gain to allow. Parcel size is one predictor variable that is closely related to individual landholder characteristics (Manson et al. 2009) and that had a negative effect on magnitude of gain for riparian trees. One potential explanation for this result is that farmers with more land may tend to favor tree cover types with more immediate benefits for agricultural production. Future research that links individual decision-making with land cover change will play a critical role in understanding these fine-scale tree cover dynamics.
Scope and limitations
Our research demonstrates how very high resolution imagery can be applied to understand fine-scale patterns of tree cover change in an agricultural landscape. While our primary focus in this paper was to determine patterns of change between tree cover types, we anticipate that new developments in remote sensing and machine learning will increase our ability to quantify fine-scale patterns of woody vegetation change. In our landscape, the fusion of hyperspectral and LiDAR data has enabled species-level classification of dispersed pasture trees (Graves et al. 2016). While applying species classification algorithms to trees with overlapping canopies remains a challenge, analyzing tree species composition in agricultural land at regional scales is a clear next step. In addition, segmentation algorithms have demonstrated the ability to measure woody vegetation change with a high level of resolution that can be related to biomass and individual tree canopies with implications for restoration and other conservation issues (Laliberte et al. 2004; Platt and Schoennagel 2009; Adhikari et al. 2017). Object-oriented classification has demonstrated potential to map hedgerows in agricultural landscapes (Vannier and Hubert-Moy 2008; Aksoy et al. 2010). Applying these algorithms to distinguish between functional tree cover types could enable far greater spatial coverage than manual digitization.
Implications for management and conservation
Forest and landscape restoration in pastoral landscapes will depend on understanding tree cover dynamics, including trees outside forests that provide important ecosystem services (Harvey et al. 2008; Chazdon et al. 2015). Our study highlights the diversity of tree cover in a Panamanian landscape undergoing a forest transition and suggests multiple explanatory pathways for tree cover gain. Although the social-ecological variables that correlate with probability of forest cover gain are typical of a labor scarcity pathway, as loss of farm labor leads to pasture abandonment in marginal land (Rudel et al. 2005; Wright and Samaniego 2008), gain in non-forest tree cover may be more closely linked to deliberate maintenance of these trees by farmers, reflecting “forest scarcity” or “smallholder stewardship” (Rudel et al. 2005; Meyfroidt and Lambin 2008; Lambin and Meyfroidt 2010; Plieninger et al. 2012; Lerner et al. 2015; Sloan 2015). Our results demonstrate the value of including non-forest tree cover types in land cover change analyses of agricultural landscapes (Plieninger et al. 2012). Furthermore, our results provide insights into the effectiveness of targeting different classes of tree cover depending on the social-ecological context and scale of influence. FLR projects will be most successful if they tailor restoration objectives to the given social-ecological conditions of particular landscapes by taking advantage of the disparate factors that drive increases in different classes of tree cover.
References
Adhikari A, Yao J, Sternberg M, McDowell K, White JD (2017) Aboveground biomass of naturally regenerated and replanted semi-tropical shrublands derived from aerial imagery. Landscape Ecol Eng 13(1):145–156
Aide TM, Clark ML, Grau HR, Lopez-Carr D, Levy MA, Redo D, Bonilla-Moheno M, Riner G, Andrade-Nunez M, Muniz M (2013) Deforestation and reforestation of latin America and the Caribbean (2001–2010). Biotropica 45(2):262–271
Aksoy S, Akcay HG, Wassenaar T (2010) Automatic mapping of linear woody vegetation features in agricultural landscapes using very high resolution imagery. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 48(1):511–522
Alexander S, Nelson CR, Aronson J, Lamb D, Cliquet A, Erwin KL, Finlayson CM, de Groot RS, Harris JA, Higgs ES, Hobbs RJ, Lewis RRR, Martinez D, Murcia C (2011) Opportunities and challenges for ecological restoration within REDD+. Restor Ecol 19(6):683–689
ANAM (2009) Cuadro de Registros Forestales en la provincia de Los Santos de 1990 a 2009. Autoridad Nacional del Ambiente de Panamá, Ciudad de Panamá
ANATI (2000). Autoridad Nacional de Administración de Tierras,
Aronson J, Alexander S (2013) Ecosystem restoration is now a global priority: time to roll up our sleeves. Restor Ecol 21(3):293–296
Barral MP, Benayas JMR, Meli P, Maceira NO (2015) Quantifying the impacts of ecological restoration on biodiversity and ecosystem services in agroecosystems: a global meta-analysis. Agr Ecosyst Environ 202:223–231
Barrance AJ, Flores L, Padilla E, Gordon JE, Schreckenberg K (2003) Trees and farming in the dry zone of southern Honduras I: campesino tree husbandry practices. Agrofor Syst 59(2):97–106
Bauman ML (2015) Assessing conservation priorities and opportunities in Los Santos, Panama: a methodology for spatially-explicit, socioecological forest conservation planning. University of Florida, Gainesville
Bianchi F, Booij CJH, Tscharntke T (2006) Sustainable pest regulation in agricultural landscapes: a review on landscape composition, biodiversity and natural pest control. Proc Royal Soc B-Biol Sci 273(1595):1715–1727
Bonilla-Moheno M, Aide TM, Clark ML (2012) The influence of socioeconomic, environmental, and demographic factors on municipality-scale land-cover change in Mexico. Reg Environ Change 12(3):543–557
Buechley ER, Sekercioglu CH, Atickem A, Gebremichael G, Ndungu JK, Mahamued BA, Beyene T, Mekonnen T, Lens L (2015) Importance of Ethiopian shade coffee farms for forest bird conservation. Biol Conserv 188:50–60
Call M, Mayer T, Sellers S, Ebanks D, Bertalan M, Nebie E, Gray C (2017) Socio-environmental drivers of forest change in rural Uganda. Land Use Policy 62:49–58
Calle A, Montagnini F, Zuluaga A (2009) Farmer’s perceptions of silvopastoral system promotion in Quindio, Colombia. Bois Et Forets Des Tropiques 300:79–94
Caughlin TT, Elliott S, Lichstein JW (2016a) When does seed limitation matter for scaling up reforestation from patches to landscapes? Ecol Appl 26(8):2437–2448
Caughlin TT, Rifai SW, Graves SJ, Asner GP, Bohlman SA (2016b) Integrating LiDAR-derived tree height and Landsat satellite reflectance to estimate forest regrowth in a tropical agricultural landscape. Remote Sens Ecol Conserv 2:1–14
Chazdon RL (2008) Beyond deforestation: restoring forests and ecosystem services on degraded lands. Science 320(5882):1458–1460
Chazdon RL, Brancalion PHS, Lamb D, Laestadius L, Calmon M, Kumar C (2015) A policy-driven knowledge Agenda for global forest and landscape restoration. Conserv Lett 00:1–8
Chazdon RL, Uriarte M (2016) Natural regeneration in the context of large-scale forest and landscape restoration in the tropics. Biotropica 48(6):709–715
Crk T, Uriarte M, Corsi F, Flynn D (2009) Forest recovery in a tropical landscape: what is the relative importance of biophysical, socioeconomic, and landscape variables? Landscape Ecol 24(5):629–642
Eilu G, Oriekot J, Tushabe H (2007) Conservation of indigenous plants outside protected areas in Tororo District, eastern Uganda. Afr J Ecol 45:73–78
Esquivel MJ, Harvey CA, Finegan B, Casanoves F, Skarpe C (2008) Effects of pasture management on the natural regeneration of neotropical trees. J Appl Ecol 45(1):371–380
Evans TP, Ostrom E, Gibson C (2002) Scaling issues with social data in integrated assessment modeling. Integr Assess 3(2–3):135–150
Fajardo D, Johnston-Gonzalez R, Neira L, Chara J, Murgueitio E (2009) Influence of silvopastoral systems on bird diversity in La Vieja watershed, Colombia Influencia de sistemas silvopastoriles en la diversidad de aves en la cuenca del rio La Vieja, Colombia. Recursos Nat y Ambient 58:9–16
Fauvel M, Arbelot B, Benediktsson JA, Sheeren D, Chanussot J (2013) Detection of hedges in a rural landscape using a local orientation feature: from linear opening to path opening. IEEE J Sel Topics Appl Earth Observ Remote Sens 6(1):15–26
Fischer J, Stott J, Law BS (2010) The disproportionate value of scattered trees. Biol Conserv 143(6):1564–1567
Fischer J, Stott J, Zerger A, Warren G, Sherren K, Forrester RI (2009) Reversing a tree regeneration crisis in an endangered ecoregion. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106(25):10386–10391
Francesconi W (2006) Bird composition in living fences: potential of living fences to connect the fragmented landscape in Esparza, Costa Rica. Trop Res: Bull Yale Trop Res Inst 25:38–44
Funk CC, Peterson PJ, Landsfeld MF, Pedreros PH, Verdin JP, Rowland JD, Romero BE, Husak GJ, Michaelsen JC, Verdin AP (2014) A Quasi-Global Precipitation Time Series for Drought Monitoring. Data Series 832. U.S. Geological Survey, p. 4
Garen E, Saltonstall K, Ashton M, Slusser J, Mathias S, Hall J (2011) The tree planting and protecting culture of cattle ranchers and small-scale agriculturalists in rural Panama: opportunities for reforestation and land restoration. For Ecol Manage 261(10):1684–1695
Garen EJ, Saltonstall K, Slusser JL, Mathias S, Ashton MS, Hall JS (2009) An evaluation of farmers’ experiences planting native trees in rural Panama: implications for reforestation with native species in agricultural landscapes. Agrofor Syst 76(1):219–236
Gelman A (2008) Scaling regression inputs by dividing by two standard deviations. Stat Med 27(15):2865–2873
Gelman A, Hill J (2006) Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. Cambridge University Press, New York
Gibbons P, Lindenmayer DB, Fischer J, Manning AD, Weinberg A, Seddon J, Ryan P, Barrett G (2008) The future of scattered trees in agricultural landscapes. Conserv Biol 22(5):1309–1319
Giraudoux P (2017) Package pgirmess: data analysis in ecology
Google (2014) Google Earth Pro version 7.1.7.2600
Graves SJ, Asner GP, Martin RE, Anderson CB, Colgan MS, Kalantari L, Bohlman SA (2016) Tree species abundance predictions in a tropical agricultural landscape with a supervised classification model and imbalanced data. Remote Sens 8(2):161
Greenler SM, Ebersole JJ (2015) Bird communities in tropical agroforestry ecosystems: an underappreciated conservation resource. Agrofor Syst 89(4):691–704
Griscom HP, Connelly AB, Ashton MS, Wishnie MH, Deago J (2011) The structure and composition of a tropical dry forest landscape after land clearance; Azuero Peninsula, Panama. J Sustain For 30(8):756–774
Griscom HP, Griscom BW, Ashton MS (2009) Forest regeneration from pasture in the dry tropics of Panama: effects of cattle, exotic grass, and forested Riparia. Restor Ecol 17(1):117–126
Guevara S, Laborde J, Sanchez-Rios G (2004) Rain forest regeneration beneath the canopy of fig trees isolated in pastures of Los Tuxtlas, Mexico. Biotropica 36(1):99–108
Hansen MC, Potapov PV, Moore R, Hancher M, Turubanova SA, Tyukavina A, Thau D, Stehman S, Goetz SJ, Loveland TR, Kommareddy A, Egorov A, Chini L, Justice CO, Townshend JRG (2013) High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science 342(6160):850–853
Hardin JW, Hilbe JH (2007) Generalized linear models and extensions. Stata Press, College Station
Harvey CA, Komar O, Chazdon R, Ferguson BG, Finegan B, Griffith DM, Martinez-Ramos M, Morales H, Nigh R, Soto-Pinto L, van Breugel M, Wishnie M (2008) Integrating agricultural landscapes with biodiversity conservation in the Mesoamerican hotspot. Conserv Biol 22(1):8–15
Harvey CA, Medina A, Sanchez DM, Vilchez S, Hernandez B, Saenz JC, Maes JM, Casanoves F, Sinclair FL (2006) Patterns of animal diversity in different forms of tree cover in agricultural landscapes. Ecol Appl 16(5):1986–1999
Harvey C, Villanueva C, Esquivel H, Gomez R, Ibrahim M, Lopez M, Martinez J, Munoz D, Restrepo C, Saenz JC, Villacis J, Sinclair FL (2011) Conservation value of dispersed tree cover threatened by pasture management. For Ecol Manage 261(10):1664–1674
Harvey CA, Villanueva C, Villacis J, Chacon M, Munoz D, Lopez M, Ibrahim M, Gomez R, Taylor R, Martinez J, Navas A, Saenz J, Sanchez D, Medina A, Vilchez S, Hernandez B, Perez A, Ruiz E, Lopez F, Lang I, Sinclair FL (2005) Contribution of live fences to the ecological integrity of agricultural landscapes. Agr Ecosyst Environ 111(1–4):200–230
Heckadon-Moreno S (2009) De selvas a potreros: la colonización santeña en Panamá, 1850–1980. Exedra Books, Panamá
Hijmans RJ, van Etten J, Cheng J, Mattiuzzi M, Sumner M, Greenberg JA, Lamigueiro OP, Bevan A, Racine EB, Shortridge A (2015) Package raster: geographic data analysis and modeling
Holl KD (1999) Factors limiting tropical rain forest regeneration in abandoned pasture: seed rain, seed germination, microclimate, and soil. Biotropica 31(2):229–242
Hooper E, Legendre P, Condit R (2005) Barriers to forest regeneration of deforested and abandoned land in Panama. J Appl Ecol 42(6):1165–1174
Ibrahim M, Chacon M, Cuartas C, Naranjo J, Ponce G, Vega P, Casasola F, Rojas J (2007) Almacenamiento de carbono en el suelo y la biomasa arborea en sistemas de usos de la tierra en paisajes ganaderos de Colombia, Costa Rica y Nicaragua. Agrofor en las Am 45:27–36
Ilstedt U, Malmer A, Elke V, Murdiyarso D (2007) The effect of afforestation on water infiltration in the tropics: a systematic review and meta-analysis. For Ecol Manage 251(1–2):45–51
Kahle D, Wickham H (2013) ggmap: spatial visualization with ggplot2. R J 5(1):144–161
Laliberte AS, Rango A, Havstad KM, Paris JF, Beck RF, McNeely R, Gonzalez AL (2004) Object-oriented image analysis for mapping shrub encroachment from 1937 to 2003 in southern New Mexico. Remote Sens Environ 93(1–2):198–210
Lambin EF, Meyfroidt P (2010) Land use transitions: socio-ecological feedback versus socio-economic change. Land Use Policy 27(2):108–118
Latawiec AE, Crouzeilles R, Brancalion PHS, Rodrigues RR, Sansevero JB, dos Santos JS, Mills M, Nave AG, Strassburg BB (2016) Natural regeneration and biodiversity: a global meta-analysis and implications for spatial planning. Biotropica 48(6):844–855
Lathrop EW, Osborne C, Rochester A, Yeung K, Soret S, Hopper R (1991) Size class distribution of Quercus engelmannii (Engelmann Oak) on the Santa Rosa Plateau, Riverside County, California. In: Standiford RB (ed) Symposium on oak woodlands and hardwood rangeland management. USDA Forest Service, Davis, pp 371–376
Lerner AM, Rudel TK, Schneider LC, McGroddy M, Burbano DV, Mena CF (2015) The spontaneous emergence of silvo-pastoral landscapes in the Ecuadorian Amazon: patterns and processes. Reg Environ Change 15(7):1421–1431
Manning AD, Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB (2006) Scattered trees are keystone structures—implications for conservation. Biol Conserv 132(3):311–321
Manson MS, Sander HA, Ghosh D, Oakes JM, Myron J, Orfield W, Craig WJ, Thomas J, Luce F, Myott E, Sun S (2009) Parcel data for research and policy. Geogr Compass 3:698–726
Martinez-Garza C, Flores-Palacios A, De La Pena-Domene M, Howe HF (2009) Seed rain in a tropical agricultural landscape. J Trop Ecol 25:541–550
Mendoza SV, Harvey CA, Saenz JC, Casanoves F, Carvajal JP, Villalobos JG, Hernandez B, Medina A, Montero J, Merlo DS, Sinclair FL (2014) Consistency in bird use of tree cover across tropical agricultural landscapes. Ecol Appl 24(1):158–168
Meneguzzo DM, Liknes GC, Nelson MD (2013) Mapping trees outside forests using high-resolution aerial imagery: a comparison of pixel- and object-based classification approaches. Environ Monit Assess 185(8):6261–6275
Metzel R (2010) From “Finca” to forest: forest cover change and land management in Los Santos. Princeton University, Panama
Metzel R, Montagnini F (2014) From farm to forest: factors associated with protecting and planting trees in a Panamanian agricultural landscape. Bois Et For Des Trop 322:3–15
Meyfroidt P, Lambin EF (2008) The causes of the reforestation in Vietnam. Land Use Policy 25(2):182–197
Meyfroidt P, Lambin EF (2011) Global forest transition: prospects for an end to deforestation. In: Gadgil A. and Liverman D. M. (eds) Annual review of environment and resources, Vol 36, annual review of environment and resources. Annual reviews, Palo Alto, pp. 343–371
Mullahy J (1986) Specification and testing of some modified count data models. J Econom 33(3):341–365
Neelon B, Ghosh P, Loebs PF (2013) A spatial Poisson hurdle model for exploring geographic variation in emergency department visits. J Royal Stat Soc Ser A 176(2):389–413
Newman ME, McLaren KP, Wilson BS (2014) Long-term socio-economic and spatial pattern drivers of land cover change in a Caribbean tropical moist forest, the Cockpit Country, Jamaica. Agr Ecosyst Environ 186:185–200
Omeja PA, Lawes MJ, Corriveau A, Valenta K, Sarkar D, Paim FP, Chapman CA (2016) Recovery of tree and mammal communities during large-scale forest regeneration in Kibale National Park, Uganda. Biotropica 48(6):770–779
Ordonez JC, Luedeling E, Kindt R, Tata HL, Harja D, Jamnadass R, van Noordwijk M (2014) Constraints and opportunities for tree diversity management along the forest transition curve to achieve multifunctional agriculture. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 6:54–60
Perfecto I, Vandermeer J (2008) Biodiversity conservation in tropical agroecosystems—a new conservation paradigm. Year Ecol Conserv Biol 1134:173–200
Perfecto I, Vandermeer J (2010) The agroecological matrix as alternative to the land-sparing/agriculture intensification model. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107(13):5786–5791
Pinto SR, Melo F, Tabarelli M, Padovesi A, Mesquita CA, Scaramuzza CAD, Castro P, Carrascosa H, Calmon M, Rodrigues R, Cesar RG, Brancalion PHS (2014) Governing and delivering a biome-wide restoration initiative: the case of atlantic forest restoration pact in Brazil. Forests 5(9):2212–2229
Platt RV, Schoennagel T (2009) An object-oriented approach to assessing changes in tree cover in the Colorado Front Range 1938–1999. For Ecol Manage 258(7):1342–1349
Plieninger T, Pulido FJ, Schaich H (2004) Effects of land-use and landscape structure on holm oak recruitment and regeneration at farm level in Quercus ilex L. dehesas. J Arid Environ 57(3):345–364
Plieninger T, Schleyer C, Mantel M, Hostert P (2012) Is there a forest transition outside forests? Trajectories of farm trees and effects on ecosystem services in an agricultural landscape in Eastern Germany. Land Use Policy 29(1):233–243
Poorter L, Ongers FB, Aide TM, Zambrano AMA, Balvanera P, Becknell JM, Boukili V, Brancalion PHS, Broadbent EN, Chazdon RL, Craven D, de Almeida-Cortez JS, Cabral GAL, de Jong BHJ, Denslow JS, Dent DH, DeWalt SJ, Dupuy JM, Duran SM, Espirito-Santo MM, Fandino MC, Cesar RG, Hall JS, Hernandez-Stefanoni JL, Jakovac CC, Junqueira AB, Kennard D, Letcher SG, Licona JC, Lohbeck M, Marin-Spiotta E, Martinez-Ramos M, Massoca P, Meave JA, Mesquita R, Mora F, Munoz R, Muscarella R, Nunes YRF, Ochoa-Gaona S, de Oliveira AA, Orihuela-Belmonte E, Pena-Claros M, Perez-Garcia EA, Piotto D, Powers JS, Rodriguez-Velazquez J, Romero-Perez IE, Ruiz J, Saldarriaga JG, Sanchez-Azofeifa A, Schwartz NB, Steininger MK, Swenson NG, Toledo M, Uriarte M, van Breugel M, van der Wal H, Veloso MDM, Vester HFM, Vicentini A, Vieira ICG, Bentos TV, Williamson GB, Rozendaal DMA (2016) Biomass resilience of neotropical secondary forests. Nature 530(7589):211–225
Pramova E, Locatelli B, Djoudi H, Somorin OA (2012) Forests and trees for social adaptation to climate variability and change. Wiley Interdiscip Rev-Clim Change 3(6):581–596
Pulido-Santacruz P, Renjifo LM (2011) Live fences as tools for biodiversity conservation: a study case with birds and plants. Agrofor Syst 81(1):15–30
QGIS Development Team (2016) QGIS Geographic Information System. Open Source Geospatial Foundation Project
Redo DJ, Grau HR, Aide TM, Clark ML (2012) Asymmetric forest transition driven by the interaction of socioeconomic development and environmental heterogeneity in Central America. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109(23):8839–8844
Ricketts TH (2004) Tropical forest fragments enhance pollinator activity in nearby coffee crops. Conserv Biol 18(5):1262–1271
Rudel TK, Bates D, Machinguiashi R (2002) A tropical forest transition? Agricultural change, out-migration, and secondary forests in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 92(1):87–102
Rudel TK, Coomes OT, Moran E, Achard F, Angelsen A, Xu JC, Lambin E (2005) Forest transitions: towards a global understanding of land use change. Glob Environ Change-Hum Policy Dimens 15(1):23–31
Saenz JC, Villatoro F, Ibrahim M, Fajardo D, Pérez M (2007) Relacion entre las comunidades de aves y la vegetacion en agropaisajes dominados por la ganaderia en Costa Rica, Nicaragua y Colombia. Agrofor en las Am 45:37–48
Schnell S, Kleinn C, Stahl G (2015) Monitoring trees outside forests: a review. Environ Monit Assess 187(9):17
Seifan M, Kadmon R (2006) Indirect effects of cattle grazing on shrub spatial pattern in a mediterranean scrub community. Basic Appl Ecol 7(6):496–506
Sloan S (2015) The development-driven forest transition and its utility for REDD. Ecol Econ 116:1–11
Suding K, Higgs E, Palmer M, Callicott JB, Anderson CB, Baker M, Gutrich JJ, Hondula KL, LaFevor MC, Larson BMH, Randall A, Ruhl JB, Schwartz KZS (2015) Committing to ecological restoration. Science 348(6235):638–640
Tscharntke T, Clough Y, Bhagwat SA, Buchori D, Faust H, Hertel D, Hoelscher D, Juhrbandt J, Kessler M, Perfecto I, Scherber C, Schroth G, Veldkamp E, Wanger TC (2011) Multifunctional shade-tree management in tropical agroforestry landscapes—a review. J Appl Ecol 48(3):619–629
Tscharntke T, Clough Y, Wanger TC, Jackson L, Motzke I, Perfecto I, Vandermeer J, Whitbread A (2012) Global food security, biodiversity conservation and the future of agricultural intensification. Biol Conserv 151(1):53–59
Uhl C, Buschbacher R, Serrao EAS (1988) Abandoned pastures in eastern Amazonia. I. Patterns of plant succession. J Ecol 76(3):663–681
Uriarte M, Chazdon RL (2016) Incorporating natural regeneration in forest landscape restoration in tropical regions: synthesis and key research gaps. Biotropica 48(6):915–924
Van Bael SA, Philpott SM, Greenberg R, Bichier P, Barber NA, Mooney KA, Gruner DS (2008) Birds as predators in tropical agroforestry systems. Ecology 89(4):928–934
Vannier C, Hubert-Moy L (2008) Detection of wooded hedgerows in high resolution satellite images using an object-oriented method. In: 2008 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, Boston, MA, USA 2008. IGARSS, pp. IV-731–IV-734
WRI (2012) First Global Commitment to Forest Restoration Launched. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. https://www.wri.org/our-work/top-outcome/first-global-commitment-forest-restoration-launched. Accessed 18 Jan 2017
Wright SJ, Samaniego MJ (2008) Historical, demographic, and economic correlates of land-use change in the republic of panama. Ecol Soc 13(2):17
Yackulic CB, Fagan M, Jain M, Jina A, Lim Y, Marlier M, Muscarella R, Adame P, DeFries R, Uriarte M (2011) Biophysical and socioeconomic factors associated with forest transitions at multiple spatial and temporal scales. Ecol Soc. https://doi.org/10.7916/D8BZ64Q4
Zhou CY, Wei XH, Zhou GY, Yan JH, Wang X, Wang CL, Liu HG, Tang XY, Zhang QM (2008) Impacts of a large-scale reforestation program on carbon storage dynamics in Guangdong, China. For Ecol Manage 255(3–4):847–854
Zomer RJ, Neufeldt H, Xu JC, Ahrends A, Bossio D, Trabucco A, van Noordwijk M, Wang MC (2016) Global tree cover and biomass carbon on agricultural land: the contribution of agroforestry to global and national carbon budgets. Sci Rep 6:29987
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by National Science Foundation grant no. 1415297 in the Science, Engineering and Education for Sustainability Fellow program. Field support was provided by the Azuero Earth Project (http://azueroearthproject.org/). S.A. Bohlman and S.J. Graves provided valuable feedback on the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tarbox, B.C., Fiestas, C. & Caughlin, T.T. Divergent rates of change between tree cover types in a tropical pastoral region. Landscape Ecol 33, 2153–2167 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-018-0730-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-018-0730-0