Data from: Assessing the recovery gap in forest restoration within the Brazilian Atlantic Forest

Biodiversity serves as a proxy for numerous ecosystem services that can be
realized through forest restoration, benefitting both people and the
environment. We investigated the magnitude of biodiversity recovery
incompleteness (i.e., the recovery gap) in forest restoration within the
Brazilian Atlantic Forest, hereafter referred to as the Atlantic Forest.
We conducted meta-analysis to analyze how species richness and species
abundance of soil microorganisms, invertebrates and vascular plants, as
well as the vegetation structure, recover across major gradients in
environmental conditions and human-caused disturbances. Our study shows
that forest restoration in the Atlantic Forest faces a notable
biodiversity gap in species richness across both passive and active
restoration areas. However, the vegetation structure could potentially
reach reference levels within 25 to 50 years. Forest type influenced the
recovery of species abundance in active restoration areas, with dense
forests displaying the largest gaps. Likewise, taxonomic group influenced
species richness gaps in passive restoration areas, with invertebrates
showing the largest gap. Reference forest age and past land use did not
significantly affect biodiversity outcomes in either restoration approach.
However, biodiversity levels were lower than those of the reference forest
at various levels of the moderating factors analyzed. 4. Synthesis and
applications: The study shows that after 25–50 years, restoration sites
develop a vegetation structure similar to that of reference forests,
regardless of the restoration approach. Species richness also tends to
recover over time, but the rate and pattern of recovery differ between
approaches. Passive restoration follows a gradual, long-term decline in
the recovery gap, while active restoration exhibits a less clear
trajectory. Past land use is the strongest predictor of biodiversity
recovery, particularly for vegetation structure. The restoration age,
forest type, and taxonomic group play more moderate roles but explain
significant variation within particular categories of each variable. These
findings highlight the importance of targeted interventions to enhance
restoration outcomes and the need to prioritize efforts based on specific
restoration objectives. Our results emphasize the importance of setting
realistic, taxon-specific goals and provide metrics to guide resource
allocation based on recovery gaps and timelines.