While native species plantations were 51% (±8%) more species rich than paired secondary forests, exotic species plantations were 29% (±6%) less species rich than paired secondary forests (Fig. 4). #selleck kinase inhibitor randurls[1|1|,|CHEM1|]# It should be noted here, however, that 29 of the 43 native species plantation cases were from a single study (Nagaike et al. 2006) with a total of four studies providing data for native plantations compared with naturally regenerating forests, indicating the need for more studies from more diverse

regions (Fig. 1). We found a similar trend in primary forest to plantation transitions where plantations using exotic species tended to experience somewhat greater declines in species richness (–42% ± 9%) than those using native species (–30% ± 9%), but this difference was not significant (P = 0.353; Fig. 5). Native species plantations (n = 14) established on exotic or degraded pastures were also significantly (P < 0.05) more effective in restoring species richness (45% ± 20% increase) compared to exotic species plantations (n = 8; –12% ± 14%), however, the number

of observations was small with substantial variation among them. Fig. 4 Change in plant species richness with plantations using native versus those using exotic species in secondary forest to plantation transitions (P < 0.001). •Boxplot outliers Fig. 5 Change in plant species richness with plantations using native SCH727965 cell line versus those using exotic species in primary forest to plantation transitions. •Boxplot outliers We found no significant differences between plantations using single or mixed species; there were, however, few cases using mixed species, making this relationship

difficult to assess. All plantations in shrubland were conifers (and thus, evergreen), making a comparison these of plantations with conifers versus broadleaf impossible in this category. Seven of ten plantations used conifers in grassland to plantation transitions, which resulted in a decrease in species richness of 40% (±8%) versus 19% (±10%) in broadleaf plantations, but sample sizes were too small to run statistical comparisons in this category. There was no significant difference in the primary forest to plantation category with conifers (n = 14) and broadleaf trees (n = 13) decreasing species richness by 33% (±9%) and 36% (±8%), respectively. In the secondary forest to plantation category, conifer plantations (n = 48) were significantly more species rich (43% ± 8%, P < 0.001) than paired secondary forests while broadleaf plantations (n = 6) supported significantly fewer species 30% (±5) than paired secondary forests (P < 0.05). Due to small sample size of the broadleaf plantations, conifer and broadleaf plantations were not statistically compared directly to each other.