ArticleEnvironmental management2026
Restoration Contexts and Trends in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest: Evidence from Science and Practice.
Article in Environmental management, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Large-scale restoration in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest is expected to recover biodiversity, carbon stocks, and other ecosystem functions while also supporting rural livelihoods. Yet the evidence supporting these claimed outcomes remains uneven, especially when distinguishing reported outcomes from causal evidence based on baselines, controls, counterfactuals, or long-term monitoring. We assessed peer-reviewed studies and a contextual set of documented initiatives to synthesize reported environmental, social, and economic findings together with governance and financing conditions associated with restoration in the biome. We also distinguished between direct field measurements, model-based estimates, descriptive reporting, and perception-based evidence. Across the reviewed sample, direct evidence was strongest for carbon and biodiversity, weaker for soil, and much more limited for hydrological and social effects. On-site studies often reported partial recovery relative to mature forests, especially in naturally regenerated areas, while model-based studies were more common in identifying where restoration might deliver multiple gains or lower opportunity costs. Social and financial evidence focused mainly on jobs, income, participation, opportunity costs, and implementation costs, but remained heterogeneous and rarely relied on standardized indicators. Governance was reported mainly through implementation conditions, including technical support, incentives, local participation, and coordination across actors and scales. The reviewed literature now covers more topics, but evidence remains uneven across ecological, social, financial, and governance dimensions. These gaps still limit comparison across cases and complicate restoration planning, monitoring, and policy alignment in the Atlantic Forest.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.