Participatory forest restoration for sustainable livelihood: A case study from Himalaya

Participatory forest restoration for sustainable livelihood: A case study from Himalaya | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Participatory forest restoration for sustainable livelihood: A case study from Himalaya Kottapalli Sreenivasa Rao, Rajeev Lochan Semwal, Ajay Maletha, and 3 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-3975272/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Forest restoration based on the concepts of integrated, adaptive and co-management with active community participation was attempted in a village in the temperate region of Indian Himalayan region. Mixed plantation of multipurpose broad-leaved trees, bamboo and medicinal herbs selected by the inhabitants based on pooled traditional and scientific knowledge was established, with an understanding that funding will be limited to inputs unaffordable by people and will be terminated after economic benefit/cost ratio is > 1. Stakeholders would voluntarily maintain and upscale/outscale it thereafter and analysis of socio-ecological outcomes would continue for at least next 20 years. Accordingly, the funding was terminated after 7 years when economic benefit/cost ratio crossed the mark of one. Voluntary planting of Alnus nepalensis in gaps arising from gregarious flowering induced mass mortality of bamboo two years after cessation of funding maintained progression of recovery. After 20 years, the restored area had 17% of aboveground and 75% of belowground carbon stocks, and 39% of flowering species as compared to intact forests. Further, restored forest after 20 years was monetarily the most efficient land use even though there were no payments for its regulating ecosystem services. People maintained but did not upscale/outscale the forest restoration trial as also cultivation of medicinal herbs having high biodiversity conservation on farm land triggered by it. In the study village abandonment of cropping in 39% of private farm area and leasing 24% of it to a pharmaceutical company were the land use changes between 8 th and 20 th year of restoration. Nullification of carbon sequestration by forest restoration by emission from agricultural abandonment resulted in no net sequestration at landscape (village) scale. Land use/cover changes resulted in change in flowering plant species diversity at ecosystem but not at village landscape scale. There is a need of tailoring forest restoration as an activity enhancing traditional knowledge, culture and income of people, ensuring its synergy with other land uses/non-land activities and determining financial support for contribution of farm-forest cultural landscape mosaics to biodiversity conservation and climate change mitigation around biodiversity hotspots in developing countries Adaptive management Bamboo Benefit/cost ratio Biodiversity Carbon sequestration Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 1 Introduction Dealt explicitly in Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 15, land restoration renders significant co-benefits for all SDGs (Arneth et al., 2021). Forest restoration became a frontline global agenda with articulation of Clean Development Mechanisms in 1997, REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries) Programme in 2008, Nature-based Solutions to climate change in 2016 and of 2021-2030 as the Decade on Ecosystem Restoration by the United Nations (Anonymous, 2021a). Nonetheless, 2020-restoration targets (Aichi Target 15, Bonn Challenge and New York Declaration) have been missed, while stagnation/regression is discernable in 2030-Targets stipulated in the Agenda of Sustainable Development. Accelerated and extensive restoration of multi-functionality of degraded ecosystems and landscapes remains a global challenge, more so in developing countries (Mansourian et al., 2022; Edwards et al. 2021; Jinger et al., 2023; Anonymous, 2023). Researchers have elaborated the scope of integration across knowledge systems, disciplines, institutions, stakeholders and land uses/non-land activities (Reed et al., 2016; Reyes-Garcia et al., 2019; Fremout et al., 2021) and long term adaptive co-management in accomplishing cost-effective restoration (Speldewinde et al., 2015; Crossland et al., 2018; Guariguata & Evans 2020). However, empirical attempts to turn the concepts into sustainable practices are only a few (Chazdon et al., 2016; Rohr et al., 2018; Stanturf, 2021; Kindt et al., 2023), more so the ones using non-timber species which have higher conservation and social values as well than timber species in many developing regions (Guariguata et al., 2010; Ashton et al., 2014). Moreover, the available studies (Hertog & Weirsum, 2000; Murgueito et al., 2011; Jing et al., 2014; He et al., 2009, 2015; Negi et al., 2022; Sacande & Muir, 2022) suffer from several limitations. First, they neglected multi-functionality of ecosystems/landscapes so crucial for mitigating contemporary intertwined social-ecological challenges. Second, off-site and post-project outcomes of restoration attempted as sponsored projects were not analysed (Moreno et al., 2017; Mackinnon et al. 2018; Moreno-Mateos et al., 2020). Assessment of restoration of ecosystem functions over a time scale > 10 years so important for harnessing the payments for ecosystem services for socio-economic upliftment (Rakatama et al., 2017; Mackinnon et al., 2018) are rare (Semwal et al., 2013; Wheeler et al., 2016; Andrade et al., 2023). Third, precision of on-site impacts of restoration inferred from chronosequences attempted in most endeavours is questionable unlike the ones drawn from repeated long term measurements in the same sites (Walker et al., 2010; Qiu et al., 2022). Fourth, severely degraded lands responding only to expensive treatments have been neglected (Li et al., 2023). Lastly, integrated assessment of ecological, economic and social benefits and costs of restoration is missing (Singh et al., 2022). Given high costs, uncertain returns and almost half of earth’s land surface suffering from degradation, land restoration demands prioritization (Speldewinde et al., 2015; Rayden et al., 2023). Biodiversity Hotspots deserve priority as restoration in just 2.5% land area they cover can check extinction of 50% endemic flowering plant and vertebrate animal species while mitigating climate change and enhancing livelihood of countless marginal people (Costello et al., 2022). Himalayan mountain system is hotspot partly/fully covering eight Asian countries (viz., Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, India, Myanmar, Nepal and Pakistan). It is distinguished for harboring immense wild as well as domesticated biodiversity. Being highly sensitive to climate change and rendering ecosystem services securing not only livelihood of half a billion people living within but also over one billion in catchments/delta its rivers. All across, local communities view forests as sources of free tangible (fodder, manure, fuelwood, timber, supplementary nutritional/health care products, raw material for cottage industries) and intangible (hydrological balance, protection from wildlife and wind, aesthetics, rituals and spiritual strength) benefits. Agriculture is a minor land use in terms of spatial extent but the mainstay of local economy fostering conservation or degradation of natural ecosystems depending on policy, socio-economic and ecological conditions. Extensive human induced ecological degradation became apparent after 19 th century with enormous variation in their nature, rates and drivers (Rao et al., 2016; Bajracharya et al., 2021). In Indian Himalayan Region, villages are farm-forest landscape mosaics managed by local communities. Covering in all 30% area, these landscapes impact and are impacted by the remaining 70% area of government managed forest, alpine and aquatic ecosystems. Deforestation/forest degradation outweigh forest restoration/protection despite huge investment and current forest cover and ecosystem functions lag far behind the goals set in 1952 (Anonymous, 2021b). We launched participatory community forest restoration trials in the early 1990s on a pilot basis (Maikhuri et al., 1995, 1997; Rao et al., 1999, 2003, 2022; Bhadauria et al., 2012; Semwal et al., 2013). The generic approach was to promote restoration harmonizing people’s interest in livelihood enhancement with the global ones in biodiversity conservation and climate change mitigation. This harmonization was attempted by (i) expanding people’s vision and perspective confined by informing them national/global perspectives, status of traditional knowledge/ institutions vis-a-vis formal (scientific) knowledge/institutions, and the concepts underpinning collaborative, adaptive and integrated landscape management and (ii) securing financial support until restoration became an additional source of income irrespective of any time limit but limited to inputs people could not afford. A generic anticipation was that successful trials would entail voluntary maintenance/upscaling/outscaling and policies favouring them. Extending our previous work in temperate Himalaya (Rao et al., 1999, 2003, 2022), the present study provides an account of on-site, off-site and village landscape scale ecological (viz., vegetation structure, flowering plant diversity and carbon stocks), economic (viz., yields and income) and social (viz., equity and solidarity) outcomes over a period of 13 years after 7-year-long funding phase in a remote temperate village landscape. 2 Material and methods This Section summarizes details in previous studies in the same sites (Rao et al., 1999, 2022) 2.1 Study village Khaljhuni (30 0 13’5’’ N latitude, 80 0 6’ 35’’ E longitude) is a typical of remote village around UNESCO World Heritage Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve in the State of Uttarakhand, India (Fig. 1). The village territory encompassed settled terraced farms (68 ha), intact community forests (305 ha) and degraded community forests (131 ha) on 35-45 0 slopes at elevation of 2200-2600 m above mean sea level. Khaljhuni had 268 people and 631 livestock (cattle, buffalo, sheep and goats) in 38 households. Livestock bedding was made of forest leaf litter and litter-excreta mixture incorporated as manure in terraced farms. Village Forest Council and Development Council (locally called Van Panchayat and Gram Sabha, respectively; each comprising six elected individuals and government official) regulated forest resource uses and social/economic development schemes, respectively. 2.2 Restoration framework Trial was designed in three steps: (i) analysis of people’s knowledge, perceptions and imperatives vis-a-vis scientific knowledge and national/global imperatives, (ii) facilitation of people to plan restoration harmonizing local and global imperatives and (iii) elaboration of co-management. 2.2.1 Analysis of people’s knowledge, perceptions and imperatives vis-a-vis scientific knowledge and global imperatives All households (i) demanded support for planting bamboo and medicinal herbs anticipating early and high income and had reservations for planting trees for their long gestation periods, lack of scarcity of tree-based domestic products and cultural values prohibiting income from timber, (ii) considered amelioration of soil stresses and weeding for successful restoration, (iii) dismissed voluntary labor, cash contribution and employing outside labor, (iii) offered free surplus physical resources, logistics, traditional knowledge, extension of traditional management practices in intact forests to restored area and voluntary maintenance/upscaling/outscaling after restoration became an additional source of material benefits. People were ignorant of IUCN criteria of threatened species, premier prices for wild walnut and honey qualifying as organic food and likely facilitation of medicinal herbs/ bamboo by trees and payments for carbon sequestered by them. They misconceived that scientific knowledge of medicinal herb cultivation and checking gregarious flowering induced mass mortality of bamboo existed but forest managers did not apply it as they served their vested interests from industrial timber species. Selection of species for planting reflected characterization of species in terms of its economic uses and also many ecological attributes (Supplementary Table S1). 2.2.2 Facilitation of people to plan restoration harmonizing local and global imperatives A series of free and reflexive participatory discussions were held to clear misconceptions of people and to motivate them. Motivation was attempted by explaining (i) convergence between scientific and traditional knowledge on leaf litter/timber quality, keystone species, impact of disturbance, competition and stress on forest structure and ecosystem functions, (ii) cultural heritage (social sanction of income from wild non-timber products, nomadic pastoralism, carpentry, leather works only to small farm holders and decision making by community consensus) favouring environmental sustainability, equity and social integration, (iii) cultural heritage fetching the region a recognition of biodiversity hotspot and (iv) operational constraints of forest managers and other players in conservation and development. Motivation and knowledge enrichment led people to articulate the ideas: (i) establishing mixed plantation of multipurpose trees, bamboo and medicinal herbs yielding both domestic and marketable products, (ii) saving expenditure on developing nursery by transplanting wild tree saplings/bamboo offsets abundant around village territory and on physical fencing/patrolling by extending self-imposed rules of checking fire, livestock grazing, over-exploitation and poaching in intact forests to the restored forest, (iii) developing nursery of rare and tender medicinal herbs in farm land and transplanting them after tree/bamboo canopy suppressed grasses, (iv) locating the trial area close to dwellings to enhance labor productivity, (v) determination of size of treatment area by surplus labour, farm yard manure, wild propagules and funds available to support inputs they could not afford and (vi) voluntary maintenance and expansion after monetary benefit/cost ratio turned > 1. 2.2.3 Elaboration of co-management With government officials in Khaljhuni village expressing inability to participate formally, there were only two stakeholders in field: Khaljhuni village community and the researchers from the G.B. Pant Institute of Himalayan Environment and Development (now G.B. Pant National Institute of Himalayan Environment, an autonomous set up of the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change). Establishing treatments, protection and resource utilization were agreed as the exclusive tasks of the community, securing funds and updating people with scientific knowledge and national/global developments of scientists and monitoring and mid-terms corrections as joint-tasks. 2.2.4 Implementation and monitoring Wild ringal bamboo ( Thamnocalamus spathiflorus) offsets and saplings of horse chestnut ( Aesculus indica ), walnut ( Juglans regia ) and oak ( Quercus leuctrichophora ) were transplanted at 1 m spacing in 40 × 40 × 40 cm size pits after removal of gravels and incorporation of 500 g of farm yard manure in each pit in a 8 ha plot close to the dwellings. Nursery of four medicinal herbs ( Aconitum heterophyllum , Angelica glauca , Pikrorhiza kurrooa listed as ‘Endangered’ in IUCN Redlist and Rheum australe ) was developed in farmland and transplanted four years after grasses were shaded out by tree/bamboo. Surviving transplants and naturally regenerated individuals were enumerated and belowground biomass, soil (full profile), litter and aboveground biomass carbon stocks, and economic inputs/outputs estimated in in five random plots (40 × 20 m) in the restored area just before and 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10 and 20 years after planting (data of 8 th , 10 th and 20 th year presented here). Tree/bamboo individuals were classified into three height classes, three random individuals of each species from each class harvested from each plot, aboveground biomass separated into main stem (bole), branches and leaves, and fresh weight obtained in field on each sampling time. Aboveground biomass of naturally established shrubs/bushes was estimated in one 10 × 5 m quadrat nested in the centre, herbs in five 2 × 1 m quadrats, one each at the centre and the corners, and surface leaf/wood litter in ten 1 × 0.5 m quadrats, two each at centre and corners, of each 40 × 20 m plot. Soil in 50 × 50 cm area in the centre of each litter quadrat was dug out from the entire profile and samples taken from 0-15, 15-30 and > 30 cm layers after hand-picking roots. Soil organic carbon concentration was determined by the Walkley-Black dichromate oxidation method and converted to Mg C/ha using bulk density. Similar data were collected in other land uses in Khaljhuni village landscape except that (i) untreated degraded forest was sampled at only two points of time: before and 20 years after treatment and intact forest/agricultural lands at only one point of time: 20 years after treatment and (ii) aboveground tree biomass in intact forests/agricultural land, where harvesting was not feasible, was estimated from volume equations and biomass expansion factors. A plot was treated as a replicate in statistical analysis. Village records were compiled, all households surveyed and regular participatory discussions/transect walks organized to assess changes in human/livestock population, land uses, resource utilization, monetary values, socio-ecological changes, driving factors and implications. Significance of differences between restored area and other land uses was assessed by least significant difference (LSD; P = 0.05) after ascertaining significance of F value obtained from One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and in socio-ecological attributes of village landscape between the 8 th and 20 th year by Mann-Whitney test. 2.2.5 Funding phase Labour was the sole paid input. Funding was terminated after 7 years when monetary benefit/cost ratio crossed the mark of one, with bamboo contributing 60% of aboveground biomass and 70% of economic output. Off-site impacts of the trial included: (i) cultivation of medicinal herbs (the four used in restoration and Allium stracheyi Baker (Amaryllidaceae), Carum carvi L. (Apiaceae), Tanacetum tomentosum DC. (Asteraceae), Swertia chirayita (Roxb.) H. Karst. (Gentianaceae) and Saussurea costus (Falc.) Lipsch (Asteraceae) in private farms, (ii) increase in returns to labor and decline in pressure on intact forests from availability of products from restored vegetation collected otherwise from the former (details in Rao et al., 1999, 2022). 3 Results 3.1 Unforeseen problems and responses in the trial area Bamboo suffered gregarious flowering mass mortality in the 10 th year of restoration (i.e., 3 years after cessation of funding). People knew this phenomenon but did not expect its occurrence at peak of bamboo growth. The monetary benefit from edible bamboo seeds and flowered shoots used as fuelwood was insignificant compared to the loss from handicrafts made from only vegetative shoots and deployment of labor in cleaning the site from huge dead bamboo mass to check pests and fill gaps to maintain recovery. This unintended outcome triggered contemplation of upcoming problems (viz., depredation of crops/beehives by porcupine/bear and degradation of intact forests from rising demand of domestic timber due to increase in population growth, household fragmentation and cultural values allowing neighbouring communities losing their forests due to expansion of common facilities viz., road and electricity) and choosing species for gap filling which are efficient in mitigating them as well as progression of the recovery processes. People decided to fill gaps with Nepalese alder ( Alnus nepalensis : for its fast growth, negative association with porcupine/bear and timber, albeit of moderate quality, uses) which they dismissed for its positive association with crop pests and poor quality fodder/fuelwood in the initial planting when the area is experiencing extreme inaccessibility for implementation of policy of supplying subsidized food grains, cooking gas/kerosene and feed concentrates. 3.2 Recovery of forest ecosystem structure and functions 3.2.1 Species performance and vegetation structure Initial offset borne bamboo survived and grew better than horse chestnut, walnut and oak planted along with it unlike natural seed-borne bamboo post-flowering growing slower than alder planted at the same time. Alder after 10 years of growth was taller than horse chestnut, walnut and oak after 20 years. Naturally regenerated trees were less numerous and shorter as well than the transplanted ones (Table 1). Medicinal herbs were more numerous than the transplanted ones after 20 years. Among transplanted species, only bamboo regenerated naturally (Tables 1, 2). After 20 years restored vegetation had three strata as also intact forest. However, trees constituting top and middle layers in intact forest (data not presented) were > 5 times taller than restored forest after 20 years (top layer : > 3 m tall planted trees; middle layer: 1.4-2 m tall naturally regenerated trees) while height of understory in the two sites did not differ much (1-1.5 m). Vegetation structure in the untreated degraded forest did not change over the 20-year period. 3.2.2 Carbon stock and biodiversity Decline in aboveground C stock between the 8 th and the 10 th year due to bamboo flowering was recovered largely by tree growth between the 11 th and 20 th year. Total C in harvested products did not differ between 20-year old restored and intact forests, though domestic timber, lichens and leaf litter were utilized only from the latter. Soil C stock recovered faster than biomass C stock. Restored forest after 20 years had total C stock just 39% of the intact forest stock. Standing aboveground and belowground stocks increased at a rate of 0.86 Mg C ha -1 yr -1 and 2.80 Mg C ha -1 year -1 , respectively. If biomass removals (all aboveground) were included, aboveground C and total C increased by 2.85 and 5.65 Mg C ha -1 yr -1 , respectively. Conversion of intact forests to terraced farms by local people centuries ago resulted in 72% decline, degradation from logging after 1920 by government agencies 84% and abandonment of cropping a decade ago 53% decline in total C stock. Forest degradation depleted more of aboveground and agricultural abandonment more of belowground C stocks. Carbon stocks in untreated degraded forest did not differ significantly (P>0.05) over the 20-year period (Figs. 2 a,b) Naturally regenerated trees/bamboo made up hardly 5% of aboveground C stock (data not shown). Changes in species richness during progression of restoration were less prominent than C stock. Agricultural land had the lowest richness of wild species. However, if crops (10 food and 9 medicinal species) were taken in account, it was the second most-species rich land use after intact forest. The 20-year-old restored forest had eight of 17 tree, five of 15 bamboo/shrub, and 10 of 32 herbaceous flowering species of the intact forest. Intact forest had eight species with high conservation value (Near threatened: Thamnocalamus spathiflorus ; Vulnerable: Ulmus wallichiana , Podophyllum hexandrum ; Endangered: Acontium heterophyllum , Angelica glauca, Dactylis hatagirea and Picrorhiza kurrooa ; Critical: Nardostachys grandiflora ) of 70 species present compared to four (all transplanted) and 42, respectively, in the restored forest. Agroforestry trees complimented forest biodiversity. Deforestation and forest degradation extirpated all threatened/near-threatened species and decimated total species richness by 40%. Restored forest, degraded forest and abandoned agricultural land differed more in species composition than richness (Fig. 3, Supplementary Table S2). 3.2.3 Economic yields With walnut fruiting beginning in the year of bamboo flowering, total economic benefits consistently increased with progression of restoration. Restored forest was economically 7-fold more efficient than the intact forest as a result of higher bamboo/walnut density/growth in the former and cultural heritage limiting utilization of resources abundant in the intact forest (timber only for domestic uses, collection of fodder, fuelwood and bamboo for sale only by small farm holders and rare medicinal herbs only by local healers) (Fig. 4). 3.3 People, landscape and livelihoods Human population increased by 2.2% and households by 2.6% while livestock population a decreased of 3.55% annually over the 13-year-period (1999-2011). Expanse of the village territory remained unchanged. Cultivation of medicinal herbs in private farms did not expand as also the area of restored forest. Traditions favouring equity, environmental sustainability and social integrity (income from ploughing, herding, milling, leather working, metal/wood working, therapy, non-timber forest products used in cottage industry only to families with small landholdings) and division of responsibilities between genders (men performing more labour-intensive and risky tasks, e.g., ploughing, nomadic pastoralism, cutting/processing/transporting bamboo/timber, collecting lichens from tree canopies, portering, and trading outside the village, and women accomplishing less labour-intensive and low-risk ones, e.g. sowing, weeding, grass-cutting, fuelwood/fodder collection, and farmyard manure preparation persisted. However, the cultural value of households unable to cultivate to invite other(s) to cultivate their lands eroded. Food crop cultivation was abandoned in 38% area and 24% of it was leased to pharmaceutical company which established monoculture of Taxus baccata for production of anticarcinogenic taxol. Production of food grains, milk/milk products and wool production declined by 70%, 23% and 52%, respectively and fuelwood and fodder increased by 308% and 208%, respectively from agricultural land. Utilization of timber and leaf litter from forests remained the same, walnut increased by 163% and of fuelwood, fodder, bamboo, lichens, medicinal herbs and honey declined by 14%, 13%, 80%, 62%, 27% and 92%, respectively. Intensity of timber utilization from intact forest (computed from removals and intact forest area) increased by 30% to 0.2 m 3 /ha/year, fuelwood by 13% to 1994 kg/ha/year, fodder by 15% to 281 kg/ha/year, leaf litter by 8% to 232 kg/ha/year and wild edibles by 38% to 1.5 kg/ha/year while that of medicinal products decreased by 4% to 0.33 kg/ha/year, bamboo by 73% to kg/ha/year and lichens by 50% to 1.8 kg kg/ha/year, Annual household income increased 3.8-times in absolute terms and only 1.2 times if normalized with respect to consumer price index or 9% discount rate, with forest products, farm products and wages fetching 18%, 75% and 7%, respectively, in 1998 and 10%, 20% and 70%, respectively, in 2011. A quantum jump in income from wages resulted from 100 person days of guaranteed employment to a family in government works available from 2006 onwards. Among forest products, bamboo shared > 70% of income from forest products in 1998 and walnut in in 2011 (Table 3). With emission from agricultural abandonment offsetting restoration mediated carbon sequestration, slow growth of Taxus baccata planted in the leased abandoned agricultural land, lack of deforestation/forest degradation and failure of upscaling/outscaling of the trial or natural succession in abandoned crop fields, village landscape carbon stock remained the same (204-206 Mg ha -1 ) as also total species richness (89 wild species and 10 food crops). Government programmes impacting land use and livelihood over this period included: (i) infrastructure improvement: distance to motorable road reduced from 14 km to 5 km and electrification at no cost to people, (ii) financial support to Village Forest Council: one-time grant for tree planting as directed by the Forest Department, (iii) guaranteed employment: 100 person-days of wage employment in a year to each family in government projects, (iv) financial support for agricultural development: one-time grant for growing medicinal herbs in farm, microirrigation and vermicomposting to two households and (v) supply of a quota of subsidized food, fuel and modern medicine. 4 Discussion Legitimization of free customary utilization of timber only for domestic consumption and non-timber products for cash income as well by local people in the Indian Himalaya in the 19 th century has been an effective way of conserving intact forests vast enough to recover removals passively at no cost to the government. On the other hand, it failed in protection of intact forest patches too small to meet local needs and restoration of severely degraded lands responding favourably only to expensive active restoration (Semwal et al., 2004; Wakeel et al., 2005; Buffum et al., 2008). Failure of top down restorative plantations engaging people merely as wage earners, denying them usufruct rights and treating achievement of planting/employment targets as indicators of their long term social and ecological success reported here is widespread in developing countries (de Jong et al., 2021; Rana et al., 2022; Ahammad et al., 2023; Kindt et al., 2023). A few examples of successful forest plantations in degraded forest lands outside legally protected areas do exist but in socio-ecological scenarios distinguished by lack of cultural/legal barriers to timber trade unlike Indian Himalaya. Plantations or natural forests managed for timber production (Pandey et al., 2014; Rajput et al., 2017; Mir et al., 2022) are not as rich in biodiversity and ecosystem functions as restored or intact community forests in Khaljhuni and many other remote villages in Indian Himalaya (Maikhuri et al., 2000; Saxena et al., 2024). Forest restoration harmonizing local concerns for early-high income from non-timber products and the global ones for biodiversity conservation and climate change mitigation attempted here was more expensive than conventional tree planting (Rao et al. 2005). However, restoration costs could be reduced and investment secured by harnessing the strengths of traditional knowledge, culture and institutions and making people a party in planning and monitoring while acknowledging their exclusive rights over all economic benefits 4.1 Traditional vis-à-vis scientific knowledge The present study unleashes potential of traditional knowledge as the starting point for screening non-timber species neglected in timber-centric organized forestry (Ashton et al., 2014; Hending et al., 2021). This knowledge may enormously vary in space and time as a result of geographical, linguistic and cultural barriers in exchange of knowledge among local communities. Knowledge of maintaining dominance of walnut in natural forests (Shigaeva & Darr, 2020), growing many economic woody species in canopy gaps in natural forests (Rao et al., 2016), walnut-food crop intercropping (Jia et al., 2021), growing medicinal herbs as understory crops (Zhou, 1993) and of withstanding market competition and uncertainties (Maikhuri et al., 2015) observed elsewhere in Himalaya/resembling biophysical regions was altogether missing in Khaljhuni. Characterization of species in terms of probabilities of their extinction articulated in the IUCN Red List and potential of climate change mitigation through carbon sequestration was altogether lacking in traditional knowledge. Nonetheless, medicinal herbs and bamboo selected for planting by people for early-high income rendered co-benefits of biodiversity conservation and climate change mitigation (Singh et al., 2008; Salick et al., 2014; Laishram et al., 2020; Reang et al., 2022). Likewise, oak selected by people for its products (viz. high quality fodder, fuelwood, domestic timber, livestock bedding and farm yard manure, marketable epiphytic lichens and understory medicinal herbs, common theme in folklores) as well as ecological functions (positive association with economic epiphytes and understory herbs, fire/flood control and recharge of springs) (Rao et al., 2003, 2022). Understanding of bamboo and A. nepalensis as fast growing species, gregarious flowering induced mass mortality of bamboo and ensuing pest problems, competitive dominance of mat forming grasses, accelerated recovery following amelioration of soil stresses, multifunctionality and resilience of mixed species plantations and feedbacks between different land uses constituting cultural landscapes in traditional knowledge are substantiated by scientific knowledge (Murcia, 1997; Lamb et al., 2005; Semwal et al., 2013; Ashton et al., 2014; Chazdon et al., 2016; Rohr et al., 2018). Both traditional and scientific knowledge remain deficient in precise prediction of bamboo flowering and determination of optimal species composition and configuration in mixed plantations. Some loss of traditional knowledge is inevitable with loss of cultural values, norms and practices as the latter have emerged from the historical churning of the former. Agricultural abandonment is an outcome largely of erosion of cultural values fostering household(s) unable to cultivate or to invite other(s) to cultivate, planting of aromatic Perilla frutescens dispelling wildlife in all fields bordering forests and contribution of all households in patrolling and manual ways of dispelling harmful wildlife (Singh et al., 2014; Leptander, 2023). Long term ecological and social success of restoration can be thus achieved by capitalizing on the strengths of traditional local knowledge and overcoming its limitations (Ens et al., 2010; Salick et al., 2014; Rao et al., 2016; Ramprasad et al., 2020) rather than its outright dismissal still widespread in organized forestry. 4.2 Carbon stock and biodiversity recovery Assuming persistence of net biomass C accumulation rate of 0.75 Mg carbon ha -1 yr -1 observed in the 20 th year, it would take 210 years for accumulation of aboveground C stock in the restored site equal to the stock in intact forest in the present temperate Himalaya compared to < 100 years in tropical Himalaya (Semwal et al., 2013; Reang et al., 2021) and other regions (Spiotta-Marin et al., 2007; Wheeler et al., 2016; Lewis et al., 2019). Nonetheless, comparison of the present low input plantations to the high input ones (Jacobs et al., 2009) suggests scope of 2-fold increase in C sequestration rate. A smaller regional species pool, a fairly large number of planted species, less intensive weeding and suppression of dominance from systematic removal of aboveground biomass in the form of economic products resulted in faster recovery in species richness than aboveground carbon stock unlike opposite trends reported elsewhere (Martin et al., 2013; Wheeler et al., 2016; Reang et al., 2021). Natural regeneration solely of bamboo among planted species reflects propagule dispersal, soil bank and safe site limitations in shallow-gravelly soils on steep and dissected slopes with long histories of anthropogenic disturbances (Rao et al., 2022). Also, a 20-year-period may be too short to trigger passive restoration of economic species in temperate Himalaya unlike tropical Himalayan foothills (Sapkota and Stahl, 2018). Non-linear growth patterns and socio-ecological risks and uncertainties prohibit generalization of deductions on relative performance of species, carbon sequestration rates and recuperation of biodiversity from short term studies. 4.3 People’s participation A multipronged strategy was adopted to elicit active participation of people: (i) recognizing the strengths of traditional knowledge/culture, and making people to understand scope of their enhancements with scientific knowledge and formal institutions/funding mechanisms, (ii) acknowledging genuine needs and aspirations of people, (iii) tailoring restoration as an additional source of income and (iv) consistent motivation of people by updating them with new developments through reflexive participatory discussions and engaging them scientific data collection (Guariguata & Evans, 2020; Stanturf, 2021; Pereira et al., 2023). Voluntary maintenance of the trial after seven years, despite poor performance of planted medicinal herbs and huge economic loss from bamboo flowering suggests that people valued whole-hearted collaborative efforts more than their outcomes (Andrews & Mulder, 2018; Ramdani & Mustalahti, 2023). The stakeholders did not upscale/outscale the trial for reasons including: (i) too low income from the trial to plough back, (ii) lack of funding for people-led participatory restoration and government commitments on the share of people in Green Bonus (funds from Central to State Governments based on their forest cover and health)/other payments for restoration mediated ecosystem services (e.g., UN-REDD, Corporate Social Responsibility) and procurement of non-timber forest products at Minimum Support Price provided in the national policy, (iii) failure of the trial in checking economic losses due to wildlife and of protected area authorities to compensate them and (iv) higher/more secured income from new social/economic development programmes, and new markets of caterpillar fungus ( Ophiocordyceps sinensis ) growing naturally around alpine areas which is lacking any local uses (Maikhuri et al., 2015; Rao et al., 2022). People’s expectations and responses change with acquisition of new knowledge/experiences and encounter with new challenges and opportunities. People desired inclusion of, elimination of intermediaries in marketing channel and establishment of mechanical walnut shelling/ skinning/packaging and taxol production units after they became aware of business operation system of pharmaceutical company. They realized irrationality of cultural values prohibiting income from timber from single-tree harvesting or disposal of dead/diseased tree from any adverse outcomes when they came to know from participatory discussions that neighbouring communities fetched significant income from them with no adverse impact on forest ecosystem functions (Buffum et al., 2008). These new demands have not been so far factored in the existing forest restoration or landscape development programmes. This inaction on the part of policy planners may result in mass movements forcing policy changes as has happened in the past resulting in the provision of creation of village community forests in 1920s, prohibition on logging by government agencies in the 1970s and restoration of ecotourism in some protected areas in 1990s (Rao et al., 2022). 4.4 Forests, Landscape and Livelihood Deforestation and forest degradation in the Indian Himlayan region are outcomes more of development of modern infrastructure/industries than agricultural expansion prohibited since 1880s or logging since 1970s. Likewise, agricultural abandonment is an outcome more of land holdings becoming too small to meet local needs/aspirations and prohibitive levels of depredation by wildlife concomitantly with effective implementation of policies of supplying subsidized food grains and creating opportunities of income to people from non-farm/non-forest sectors rather than depletion of soil fertility, weed infestation or climate change (Wakeel et al., 2005; Singh et al., 2008; Shimrah et al., 2015). Termination of manuring, soil/water conservation treatments and maintenance of agroforestry tree cover/health after abandonment of cropping results in emissions , biological invasion and positive feedbacks on detrimental wildlife in the present temperate climate unlike rapid passive restoration in the humid tropics (Evans et al., 2017; Dhakal & Kattel, 2019; Zethof et al., 2019; Zambiazi et al., 2021). Decline in livestock population failed to induce passive recovery of degraded forests as grazing pressure on them remained the same as a result of abandonment of traditional transhumance underpinned by diversion of labor to wage employment program. Nullification of ecological benefits from forest restoration by agricultural abandonment demands nesting of restoration in integrated cultural landscape management (Reed et al., 2016) expanding the concept of forest landscape restoration (Chazdon et al., 2016). Treatment of cultural landscapes as units and aggregation of their biodiversity conservation and ecosystem service generation potential for determining compensations or incentives could discourage/encourage land use changes countering/augmenting forest restoration (Wendland et al., 2010; Vanderhaegen et al., 2015; Liu et al., 2016). 5 Conclusions The present study suggests that effectiveness and efficiency of forest restoration in village landscapes functioning as independent governance and development units can be enhanced by: ensuring both non-material/non-monetary and material/monetary benefits from it to people ensuring its synergy with other land uses and non-land activities linking it with bioprospecting, value addition, manufacturing and marketing engaging people in planning, monitoring and evaluation securing funding until its success is established but limited to the inputs that people cannot afford adopting co-management approach to mitigate knowledge, resource and institutional barriers and reconcile diverse and competing interests adopting adaptive management approach to address new challenges and opportunities long term (>10 years) planning with incentives/rewards for successful restoration across spatial (household, village and village cluster) and temporal (short, medium and long term) scales promoting action research translating socio-ecological concepts of cost-effective restoration into sustainable package of practices Declarations Acknowledgements Authors acknowledge the contribution of villagers who shared their insights of traditional knowledge about natural resource management and their participation in the study. Author contributions KGS, KSR designed the framework, drafting and implemented the study with the active participation of RKM, RLS, AM and SN. Data availability The datasets generated during and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Confict of interest Authors declare that they have no competing interests. References Ahammad, R., Hossain, M.K., Sobhan, I., Hasan, I., Biswas, S.R., & Mukul, S.A. (2023). Social-ecological and institutional factors affecting forest and landscape restoration in the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh. Land Use Policy , 125 , 106478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106478. Andrade, H.J., Segura, M.A., & Carlos-Suarez, J. (2023). Growth and carbon sequestration in biomass of Cordia alliodora in Andean agroforestry systems with coffee. Agroforestry Systems , 97 , 1435-1446. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-023-00868-6 Andrews, J., & Mulder, M.B. (2018). Cultural group selection and design of REDD+: insights from Pemba. Sustainability Science, 13, 93-107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-017-0489-2 Anonymous. (2021a). Principles for Ecosystem Restoration to Guide the United Nations Decade 2021–2030 . Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization. Retrived on 7 th November 2023. Anonymous. (2021b). India State of Forest Report 2019. Dehradun, Forest Survey of India. Retrieved on 7 th November 2023. Anonymous. (2023). Progress Chart . United Nations Statistics Division, Geneva, United Nations. Retrieved on 7 th November 2023. https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/ 2023/progress-chart/ Arneth, A., Olsson, L., Cowie, A., Erb, K-H., Hurlbert, M., Kurz, W.A., Mirzabaev, A., & Rounsevell, M.D.A. (2021). Restoring degraded lands. Annual Review of Environment and Resources , 46 , 569-599. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-012320-054809 Ashton, M.S., Gunatilleke, I.A.U.N., Gunatillake, C.V.S., Tennakoon, K.U., & Ashton, P.S. (2014). Use and cultivation of plants that yield products other than timber from south Asian tropical forests, and their potential in forest restoration. Forest Ecology and Management 329: 360-374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2014.02.030 Bajracharya, B., Thapa, R.B., & Matin, M.A. (eds) (2021). Earth Observation Science and Applications for Risk Reduction and Enhanced Resilience in Hindu Kush Himalaya Region. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73569-2_6 Bhadauria, T., Kumar, P., Kumar, R., Maikhuri, R.K., Rao, K.S., & Saxena, K,G. 2012. Earthworm populations in a traditional village landscape in Central Himalaya, India. Applied Soil Ecology, 53, 83-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2011.11.011 Buffum, B., Gratzer, G., & Tenzin, Y. (2008). The sustainability of selection cutting in a late successional broadleaved forest in Bhutan. Forest Ecology and Management, 256 , 2084-2091. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2008.07.031 Chazdon, R.L., Brancalion, P.H.S., Laestadius, L., Bennett-Curry, A., Buckingham, K., Kumar, C., Moll-Rocek, J., Vieira, I.C.G., & Wilson, S.J. (2016). When is a forest a forest? Forest concepts and definitions in the era of forest and landscape restoration. Ambio, 45 , 538-550. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0772-y Costello, M., Vale, M., Kiessling, W., Maharaj, S., Price, J., Talukdar, G., Beckett, H., Darwall, W., Debnath, A., Devenish-Nelson, E., Golbuu, Y., Grey, K., Jefferson, T., Jenkins, R., Kocsis, Á., Manes, S., Midgley, G., Schoeman, D., & Tedesco, P. (2022). Biodiversity Hotspots. In Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability . Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009325844.018. Crossland, M., Winowiecki, L.A., Pagella, T., Hadgu, K., & Sinclair, F. (2018). Implications of variation in local perception of degradation and restoration processes for implementing land degradation neutrality. Environmental Development, 28 , 42-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2018.09.005 de Jong, W., Liu, J., & Long, H. (2021). The forest restoration frontier. Ambio, 50 , 2224–2237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-021-01614-x Dhakal, B., & Kattel, R. (2019). Effects of global changes on ecosystems services of multiple natural resources in agricultural landscapes. Science of The Total Environment, 676 , 665-682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.04.276 Edwards, D.P., Cerullo, G.R., Chomba, S., Worthington, T.A., Balmford, A.P., Chazdon, R.L., & Harrison, R.D. (2021). Upscaling tropical restoration to deliver environmental benefits and socially equitable outcomes. Current Biology, 31 (19), R1326-R1341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2021.08.058 Ens, E.J., Daniels, C., Thompson, W., Ponto, S., Kelvin, R., Roy, J., Priscilla, D., & Nelson, E. (2010). Combining aboriginal knowledge and western science to investigate possible explanation for decline in fruit production of a bush tucker shrub, Djutpi, near Ngukurr, Northern territory. Ecological Management & Restoration, 11 , 146-148. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-8903.2010.00535.x Evans, L.J., Gossens, B., & Asner, G.P. (2017). Underproductive agriculture aids connectivity in tropical forests. Forest Ecology and Management, 401 , 159–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2017.07.015 Fremout, T., Gutiérrez-Miranda, C.E., Briers, S., Marcelo-Peña, J.L., Cueva-Ortiz, E., Linares-Palomino, R., La Torre-Cuadros, M.d.l.Á., Chang-Ruíz, J.C., Villegas-Gómez, T.L., Acosta-Flota, A.H., Plouvier, D., Atkinson, R., Charcape-Ravelo, M., Aguirre-Mendoza, Z., Muys, B. and Thomas, E. (2021), The value of local ecological knowledge to guide tree species selection in tropical dry forest restoration. Restoration Ecology, 29 , e13347. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13347 Guariguata, M.R., & Evans, K. (2020). A diagnostic for collaborative monitoring in forest landscape restoration. Restoration Ecology, 28 (4), 742-749. https://doi.org/10.1111/ rec.13076 Guariguata, M.R., García-Fernández, C., Sheil, D., Nasi, R., Herrero-Jauregui, C., Cronkleton, P., & Ingram, V. (2010). Compatibility of timber and non-timber forest product management in natural tropical forests: perspectives, challenges, and opportunities. Forest Ecology and Management, 259 (3), 237-245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. foreco.2009.11.01 He, J., Ho, M.H., & Xu, J. (2015). Participatory selection of tree species for agroforestry on sloping land in North Korea. Mountain Research and Development, 35 (4), 318-327 https://doi.org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-15-00046.1 He, J., Zhou, Z., Weyerhaeuser, H., & Xu, J. (2009). Participatory technology development for incorporating non-timber forest products into forest restoration in Yunnan, Southwest China. Forest Ecology and Management, 257 (10), 2010-2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2009.01.041 Hending, D., Randrianarison, H., Holderied, M., McCabe, G., & Cotton, S. (2021). The kapok tree ( Ceiba pentandra (L.) Gaertn, Malvaceae) as a food source for native vertebrates species during times of resource scarcity and its potential for reforestation in Madagascar. Austral Ecology, 46 , 1440-1444. https://doi.org/10.1111/aec.13076 Hertog, W.H., & Wiersum, K.F. (2000). Timur ( Zanthoxylum armatum ) production in Nepal. Mountain Research and Development, 20 , 136-145. https://doi.org/10.1659/0276-4741(2000)020[0136:TZAPIN]2.0.CO;2 Jacobs, D.F., Selig, M.F., & Severeid, L.R. (2009). Aboveground carbon biomass of plantation grown American chestnut ( Castanea dentata ) in absence of blight. Forest Ecology and Management, 258 (3), 288-294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2009.04.014 Jia, J., xu, M., Bei, S., Zhang, H., Xio, L., Gao, Y., Zhang, Y., Sai, L., Xue, L., Lei, J., & Qia, X. (2021). Impact of reduced light intensity on wheat yield and quality: Implication for agroforestry systems. Agroforestry Systems , 95 , 1689-1701.https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10457-021-00668-w Jing, Y., Cui, H., Li, T., & Zhao, Z. (2014). Heavy metal accumulation characteristics of Nepalese alder ( Alnus nepalensis ) growing in a lead-zinc spoil heap, Yunnan, south-western China. iForest, 7 , 204-208. https://doi.org/10.3832/ifor1082-007 Jinger, D., Kaushal, R., Kumar, R. Paramesh, V., Verma, A., Shukla, M., Chavan, S.B., Kakade, V., Dobhal, S., Uthappa, A.R., Roy, T., Singhal, V., Madegowda, M., Kumar, D., Khatri, P., Dinesh, D., Singh, G., Singh, A.K., Nath, A.J., Joshi, N., Joshi, E., & Kumawat, S. (2023). Degraded land rehabilitation through agroforestry in India: Achievements, current understanding, and future prospectives. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 11 , 1088796. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2023.1088796 Kindt, R., Carsan, S., Graudal, L., Jamnadass, R., Lilleso, J., Tadesse, W., Chege, J., Pedercini, F., Moestrup, S., & Dawson, I.K. (2023). Supporting better forest landscape restoration by making investor funding for tree planting conditional on an adequate explanation of how tree seeds and seedlings will be sourced. Environmental Conservation, 50 (4), 192-195. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892923000188. Laishram, J., Saxena, K.G., & Rao, K.S. (2020). Rice cultivar diversity, associated indigenous knowledge and management practices in a lowland village landscape from north-eastern India. Vegetos, 33, 172-186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42535-020-00097-7 Lamb, D., Erskine, P.D., & Parrotta, J.A. (2005). Restoration of degraded tropical forest landscapes. Science, 310, 1628-1632. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1111773 Leptander, R. (2023). The Yamal Nenets’ traditional and contemporary environmental knowledge of snow, ice and permafrost. Ecology and Society , 28 (3), Article 6. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-14353-280306 Lewis, T., Vestraten, L., Hogg, B., Wehr, B.J., Swift, S., Menzies, N.W., Dalal, R.C., Bryant P, Francis, B., & Smith, T.E. (2019). Reforestation of agricultural land in the tropics: the relative contribution of soil, living biomass and debris pool to carbon sequestration. Science of the Total Environment, 649, 1502–1513. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.scitotenv.2018.08.351 Li, C., Ma, J., Li, L., Huang, J., Lu, J., Mei, H., Degen, A., & Shang, Z. (2023). Effects of degradation and species composition on soil seed density in the alpine grasslands, China. Journal of Arid Land, 15 (12), 1510-1528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40333-023-0036-1 Liu, S., Dong,Y., Cheng, F., Coxixo, A., & Hou X (2016). Practices and opportunities of ecosystem service studies for ecological restoration in China. Sustainability Science, 11, 935–944. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-016-0390-4 Longkumer, M., & Makar, A.K. (2017). NEPED-An Integrated Development Project, and Its Role in Preservation of Indigenous Knowledge in Nagaland. International Journal of Science and Research, 6 (7), 133-138. https://www.ijsr.net/archive/v6i7/ ART20171286.pdf Mackinnon, J.L., Andramaro, L., Rambeloson, A., Razafindrazakosa, M. & Harvey, C.A. (2018). Cost of delivery approaches for providing livelihood projects to local communities as part of REDD + programmes: an analysis from Madagascar. Environmental Conservation , 45 , 324-332. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892917000571 Maikhuri, R.K., Rao, K.S., Nautiyal, S., Chandrasekhara, K., Gavali, R., & Saxena, K.G. (2000). Analysis and resolution of protected area-people conflicts in Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve, India. Environmental Conservation, 27 , 43-53. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0376892900000060 Maikhuri, R.K., Rawat, L.S., Semwal, R.L., Rao, K.S., & Saxena, K.G. (2015). Organic farming in Uttarakhand Himalaya, India. International Journal of Ecology and Environmental Science, 41 , 161-176. https://nieindia.org/Journal/index.php/ijees/article/view/670/227 Maikhuri, R.K., Saxena, K.G., & Rao, K.S. (1995). Experiences in developing a village agroforestry project in Garhwal Himalaya, India. International Tree Crops Journal 8 , 213–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/01435698.1995.9752950 Maikhuri, R.K., Semwal, R.L., Rao, K.S., & Saxena, K.G. (1997). Rehabilitation of degraded community lands for sustainable development in Himalaya: a case study in Garhwal Himalaya, India. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 4 , 192–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509709469954 Mansourian, S., Kleymann, H., Passardi, V., Winter, S., Derkyi, M., Diederischen, A., Gabay, M., Pacheko, P., Valluri, D., & Kull, C.A. (2022). Governments commit to forest restoration but what does it take to restore forests? Environmental Conservation , 49 , 206-214. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892922000340 Martin, P.A., Newton, A.C., & Bullock, J.M. (2013). Carbon pools recover more quickly than plant biodiversity in tropical secondary forests. Proceedings Royal Society: B 280 , 2013-2236. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.2236 Mir, A.H., Dad, J.M., Singh, B., & Kamili, A.N. (2022). Passive restoration considerably improved the community structure, soil health and carbon stock in the Pine forests of Kashmir Himalaya, India. Ecological Engineering, 176 , 106535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2021.106535 Moreno, M., de-Bashan, L., Hernandez, J.P., Lopez, B.R., & Bashan, Y. (2017). Success of long-term restoration of degraded arid land using native trees planted 11 years earlier. Plant and Soil, 421 , 83–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-017-3438-z Moreno-Mateos, D., Alberdi, A., Morriën, E., van der Putten, W.H., Rodriguez-Una, A., & Montoya, D. (2020) . The long-term restoration of ecosystem complexity. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 4 , 676–685. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-1154-1 Murcia, C. (1997). Evaluation of Andean alder as a catalyst for recovery of tropical cloud forests in Colombia. Forest Ecology and Management, 99 , 163-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(97)00202-8 Murgueito, E., Calle, Z., Uribe, F., Calle, A., & Solorio, B. (2011). Native tree and shrubs for the productive rehabilitation of tropical cattle ranching lands. Forest Ecology and Management, 261, 1654-1663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2010.09.027 Negi, V.S., Pathak, R., Dhyani, V., Durgapal, M., Joshi, R.K., & Bhatt, I.D. (2022). Land restoration in the Himalayan Region: Steps towards biosphere integrity. Land Use Policy, 121 , 106317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106317 Pandey, S.S., Maraseni, T.N., & Cockfield, M. (2014). Carbon stock dynamics in different vegetation dominated community forests under REDD+: A case from Nepal. Forest Ecology and Management, 327 , 40-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2014.04.028 Pereira, C.A., Tabarelli, M., Barros, M.F., & Vieira, I.C.G. (2023). Restoring fire-degraded social forests via biocultural approaches: a key strategy to safeguard the Amazon legacy. Restoration Ecology, 31 , e13976. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13976 Qiu, S., Peng, J., Zheng, H., Xu, Z., & Meersmans, J. (2022). How can massive ecological restoration programs interplay with social-ecological systems? A review of research in the South China karst region. Science of The Total Environment , 807 (2), 150723. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150723. Rajput, B.S., Bhardwaj, D.R., & Pala, N.A. (2017). Factors influencing biomass and carbon storage potential of different land use systems along an elevational gradient in temperate northwestern Himalaya. Agroforestry Systems, 91 , 479–486. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-016-9948-5 Rakatama, A., Pandit, R., Ma, C., & Iftekhar, S. (2017). The costs and benefits of REDD + : A review of literature. Forest Policy & Economics , 75 , 102-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.08.006 Ramdani, R., & Mustalahti, I. (2023). Collaborative everyday adaptation to deal with peatland fires: a case study on the east coast of Sumatra, Indonesia. Ecology & Society, 28 (3), Art 12. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-14263-280312 Ramprasad, V., Joglekar, A., & Fleischman, F. (2020). Plantations and pastoralists: afforestation activities make pastoralists in the Indian Himalaya vulnerable. Ecology & Socoety, 25 (4), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-14263-250501 Rana, P., Fleischman, F., Ramprasad, V., & Lee, K. (2022). Predicting wasteful spending in tree planting programs in Indian Himalaya. World Development, 154 , 105864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2022.105864. Rao, K.S., Maikhuri, R.K., & Saxena, K.G. (1999). Participatory approach to rehabilitation of degraded forest lands: a case study in a high altitude village of Indian Himalaya. International Tree Crops Journal, 10 , 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/01435698. 1999.9752988 Rao, K.S., Semwal, R.L., Ghoshal, S., Maikhuri, R.K., Nautiyal, S., & Saxena, K.G. (2022). Participatory active restoration of communal forests in temperate Himalaya, India. Restoration Ecology, 30 (1), e13486. https://doi.org/10.1111.rec.13486 Rao, K.S., Semwal, R.L., Maikhuri, R.K., Nautiyal, S., Sen, K.K., Singh, K., Chandrasekhar, K., & Saxena, K.G. (2003). Indigenous ecological knowledge, biodiversity and sustainable development in the central Himalayas. Tropical Ecology, 44. 93-111. https://tropecol.org/pdf/open/PDF_44_1/44110.pdf Rao, K.S., Saxena, K.G., & Tiwari, B.K. (2016). Biodiversity, Climate Change and Socio-economic Development in the Indian Himalaya: An Overview . Dehradun, Bishen Singh Mahendra Pal Singh. Rayden, T., Jones, K.R., Austin, K., & Radachowsky, J. (2023). Improving climate and biodiversity outcomes through restoration of forest integrity. Conservation Biology, 37 (6), e14163. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14163 Reang, D., Nath, A.J., Sileshi, G.W., Hazarika, A., & Das, A.K. (2022). Post-fire restoration of land under shifting cultivation: A case study of pineapple agroforestry in the Sub-Himalayan region. Journal of Environmental Management, 305 , 114372 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.114372. Reang, D., Hazarika, A., Sileshi, G.W., Pandey, R., Das, A.K., & Nath, A.J. (2021). Assessing tree diversity and carbon storage during land use transitioning from shifting cultivation to indigenous agroforestry systems: Implications for REDD+ initiatives. Journal of Environmental Management, 298 , 113470, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113470. Reed, J., van Vianen, J., Deakin, E.L., Barlow, J., & Sunderland, T. (2016). Integrated landscape approaches to managing social and environmental issues in the tropics: learning from the past to guide the future. Global Change Biology, 22 (7), 2540-2554. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13284 Reyes‐García, V., Fernández‐Llamazares, Á., McElwee, P., Molnár, Z., Öllerer, K., Wilson, S.J., & Brondizio, E.S. (2019). The contributions of Indigenous Peoples and local communities to ecological restoration. Restoration Ecology, 27 (1), 3-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12894 Rohr, J.R., Bernhardt, E.S., Cadotte, M.W., & Clements, W.H. (2018). The ecology and economies of restoration: when, what, where, and how to restore ecosystems. Ecology & Society, 23 (2), 15. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09876-230215 Sacande, M., & Muir, G. (2022). Restoring Sahelian landscapes with people and plants: insights from large‐scale interventions. Restoration Ecology, 24, e13656. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13656 Salick, J., Ghimire, S.K., Fang, Z., Dema, S., & Konchar, K.M. (2014). Himalayan alpine vegetation, climate change and mitigation. Journal of Ethnobiology , 24 , 276-293. https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-34.3.276 Sapkota, R.P., & Stahl, P.D. (2019). Effectiveness of passive restoration on density and diversity of regenerating tree species in mixed Dipterocarp forests of Nepal. Restoration Ecology, 27 , 581-591. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12904 Saxena, K.G., Sreekesh, S., Rao, K.S., Maikhuri, R.K., & Nautiyal, S. 2024. Business-culture-biodiversity nexus: The foundation of socio-ecological integrity in traditional cultural landscapes in Indian Himalaya. In Satoyama Initiative Thematic Review 9, Springer (in press). Semwal, R.L., Nautiyal, S., Maikhuri, R.K., Rao, K.S., & Saxena, K.G. (2013). Growth and carbon stocks of multipurpose tree species plantations in degraded lands in central Himalaya, India. Forest Ecology and Management, 310, 450–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2013.08.023 Semwal, R.L., Nautiyal, S., Sen, K.K., Rana, U., Maikhuri, R.K., Rao, K.S., & Saxena, K.G. (2004). Patterns and ecological implications of agricultural land-use changes: a case study from central Himalaya, India. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 102, 81-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(03)00228-7 Shigaeva, J., & Darr, D. (2020). On the socio-economic importance of natural and planted walnut (Juglans regia L.) forests in the Silk Road countries: A systematic review. Forest Policy and Economics, 118 , 102233, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102233. Shimrah, T., Rao, K.S., & Saxena, K.G. (2015) The shifting agricultural system (Jhum) and strategies for sustainable agroecosystems in Northeast India. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 39 , 1154-1171. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2015.1089350 Singh, K., Maikhuri, R.K., Rao, K.S., & Saxena, K.G. 2008. Characterizing land-use diversity in village landscapes for sustainable mountain development: a case study from Indian Himalaya. Environmentalist, 28. 429-445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-008-9164-6 Singh, K., Byun, C., & Bux, F. (2022). Ecological restoration of degraded ecosystems in India: Science and practices. Ecological Engineering, 182 , 106708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2022.106708 Singh, R.K., Alves, R.N., & Ralen, O. (2014). Hunting of kebung ( Retufa bicolor ) and other squirrel species from morang forest by the Adi tribe of Arunachal Pradesh, India: biocultural conservation and livelihood dimensions. Regional Environmental Change , 14 , 1479-1490. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-014-0590-3 Speldewinde, P.C., Slaney, D., & Weinstein, P. (2015). Is restoring an ecosystem good for your health? Science of the Total Environment, 502 , 276-279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.09.028 Spiotta-Marin, S., Silver, W.L., & Ostertag, R. (2007). Long term patterns of tropical reforestation: plant community composition and aboveground biomass accumulation. Ecological Applications, 17 , 828–839. https://doi.org/10.1890/06-1268 Stanturf, J.A. (2021). Forest landscape restoration: building on the past for future success. Restoration Ecology, 29 (4), e13349. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13349 Vanderhaegen, K., Verbist, B., Hundera, K., & Muys, B. (2015). REALU vs REDD+: carbon and biodiversity in the Afromontane landscapes of SW Ethiopia. Forest Ecology and Management, 343, 22–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2015.01.016 Wakeel, A., Rao, K.S., Maikhuri, R.K., & Saxena, K.G. (2005). Forest management and land use/cover changes in a typical micro watershed in the mid elevation zone of Central Himalaya, India. Forest Ecology and Management, 213 , 229-242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2005.03.061 Walker, L.R., Wardle, D.A., Bardgett, R.D., & Clarkson, B.D. (2010). The use of chronosequences in studies of ecological succession and soil development. Journal of Ecology, 98 (4), 725-736. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2010.01664.x Wheeler, C.E., Omeja, P.A., Chapman, C.A., Gilpin, M., & Tumwesigiye, C. (2016). Carbon sequestration and biodiversity following 18 years of active tropical forest restoration. Forest Ecology and Management , 373 , 44-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2016.04.025 Zambiazi, D.S., Fantini, A.C., Piotto, D., Siminski, A., Vibrans, A.C., Oller, D.C., Geferson, E.P., Piazza, E., & Peña-Claros, M. (2021). Timber stock recovery in a chronosequence of secondary forests in Southern Brazil: Adding value to restored landscapes. Forest Ecology and Management, 495 , 119352, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2021.119352. Zethof, J.H.T., Cammeraat, E.L.H., & Nadal-Romero, E. (2019). The enhancing effect of afforestation over secondary succession on soil fertility under semi-arid climate conditions. Science of the Total Environment, 652 , 1090–1101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.235 Zhou, S. 1993. Cultivation of Amomum villosum in tropical forests. Forest Ecology and Management, 60 , 157-162. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-1127(93)90029-M Tables Table 1. Density (number of individuals ha -1 ), height (cm) and biomass (kg/individual of tree and clump of bamboo) of the tree component in the restoration site. Plant species Density Height Biomass 8 year 10 year 20 year 8 year 10 year 20 year 8 year 10 year 20 year Aesculus indica # 1500 1250 625 260 395 502 11.8 20.8 57.9 Juglans regia # 575 525 300 140 316 417 5.1 20.1 73.4 Quercus leucotrichophora # 225 200 100 160 294 331 5.5 26.1 52.3 Thamnocalamus spathiflorus # 1800 5 856 260 80 102 33.7 1.6 19.8 Alnus nepalensis @ 0 145 96 0 80 660 0 5.7 40 Abies pindrow $ 2 4 4 55 85 175 1.4 2.5 14 Fraxinus micrantha $ 6 12 15 75 95 155 3.4 4.1 15 Neolitsea pallens $ 6 6 8 55 85 140 2.9 3.9 18 Pyrus pashia $ 24 35 40 85 105 155 1.4 5.5 14 F 25,84 102.5 182.5 70.2 LSD (P = 0.05) 21.8 30.4 6.2 #2500 individuals/ha of each species initially planted in1991; @ - 145 individuals/ha planted in gaps in 2001; $ - people protected naturally regenerated Abies pindrow (Royle ex D.Don) Royle (Pinaceae) for its timber used in traditional flooring/roofing, Fraxinus micrantha Lingelsheim (Oleaceae) for wood in farm implements/bark in health care, Neolitsea pallens (D. Don) Momiy. & H. Hara (Lauraceae) for seeds yielding edible oil and Pyrus pashia Buch.-Ham. Ex D.Don (Rosaceae) for high quality stakes/fuelwood/farm implements/honeybee forage as also medicinal herb Potentilla fulgens Wall. ex Hook. (Rosaceae). Table 2. Density (individuals/ha) of planted and naturally regenerated surviving 1, 7, 10 and 20 years after setting out a participatory restoration trial in village Khaljhuni, Central Himalaya, India 8 years 10 years 20 years Medicinal herbs planted in 1996 Angelia glauca 282 280 268 Aconitum heterophyllum 260 254 244 Picrorhiza kurrooa 196 195 187 Rheum australe 301 295 269 F 11, 48 = 53; least significant difference ( p = 0.05) = 27 Medicinal plants established through natural regeneration Swertia chirayata 265 290 280 Potentilla fulgens 489 510 490 Artemesia sps . 215 210 240 Oreganum vulgare 89 150 156 F 11, 48 = 43; least significant difference ( p = 0.05) = 48 Table 3. Selected socio-ecological attributes (± standard deviation) of Khaljhuni landscape and community at the end of 8 th (1998) and 20 th year of restoration (2011) (differences between values in the two years with different superscripts are significant ( P < 0.05: Mann Whitney Rank test) 1998 2011 Infrastructure Distance to road (km) 14 5 Households electrified 0 50 Human/livestock population Number of families 38 50 Human population 268 340 Livestock population 631 365 Land cover/use (ha) Agricultural land: food crops 66.5 41 Agricultural land: medicinal herbs 1.5 1.5 Abandoned agricultural land: leased ( Taxus baccata plantation) 0 6 Abandoned agricultural land: 0 19.5 Intact forests (crown cover: 70-90%) 302 302 Degraded forests (crown cover :< 20%) 134 134 Restored forest land 8 8 Annual production (m 3 for timber and kg for other attributes/household/year) and income (in parenthesis: Indian Rs/household/year; 1 USD = Rs 65; Cultural values prohibited cash income from timber, fuelwood and fodder) Agricultural products Food crops 5195 a (3078 a ) 1526 b (1024 b ) Fuelwood 708 a 2890 b Fodder 190 a 650 b Medicinal herbs (cultivated on farm) 11 a (824 a ) 12 a (2943 b ) Milk/milk products 1204 a (181 a ) 926 b (48 b ) Wool 93 a (205 a ) 45 b (32 b ) Forest land Timber 0.9 a 0.9 a Fuelwood 14159 a 12194 b Fodder 2038 a 1782 b Leaf litter 232 a 206 a Bamboo 3500 a (593 a ) 697 b (30 b ) Lichens 29 a (38 a ) 11 b (140 b ) Medicinal plants 22 a (82 a ) 16 b (216 b ) Honey 14 a (160 a ) 1 b (40 b ) Walnut 11 a (96 a ) 29 b (1550 b ) Other income Wages 70 a 14200 b Rent from lease 0 546 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files SupplementarytablesS1andS2.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-3975272","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":274309998,"identity":"59b0a7c4-37eb-47a6-9fd8-ce6219f72a3c","order_by":0,"name":"Kottapalli Sreenivasa Rao","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Delhi","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Kottapalli","middleName":"Sreenivasa","lastName":"Rao","suffix":""},{"id":274309999,"identity":"29a1904c-3bfd-46b6-8525-fd1dbcdbe9a5","order_by":1,"name":"Rajeev Lochan Semwal","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Independent Researcher","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Rajeev","middleName":"Lochan","lastName":"Semwal","suffix":""},{"id":274310000,"identity":"2a490e92-ed5c-4ebc-8ff7-3351bc935bc2","order_by":2,"name":"Ajay Maletha","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Amity University, NOIDA","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ajay","middleName":"","lastName":"Maletha","suffix":""},{"id":274310001,"identity":"f21332c6-e645-4c0d-8a16-090e89141eb8","order_by":3,"name":"Sunil Nautiyal","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"G. B. Pant National Institute of Himalayan Environment, Kosi-Karatmal","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Sunil","middleName":"","lastName":"Nautiyal","suffix":""},{"id":274310002,"identity":"88175d55-6554-4f3d-bbdb-b9595aaa0b9f","order_by":4,"name":"Rakesh Kumar Maikhuri","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"H. N. Bahuguna University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Rakesh","middleName":"Kumar","lastName":"Maikhuri","suffix":""},{"id":274310003,"identity":"ee136afb-60d8-40f4-8566-f56a131b20f2","order_by":5,"name":"Krishna Saxena","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Jawaharlal Nehru University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Krishna","middleName":"","lastName":"Saxena","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-02-21 11:00:06","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3975272/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3975272/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":51720220,"identity":"6f3e4760-0f84-44d8-8462-054576bfd4f6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-02-27 21:44:42","extension":"jpg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":776529,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eLocation of village Khaljhuni, District Bageshwar, State Uttarakhand, India (Source: Google Earth Image/information extracted from Google Earth Pro software)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3975272/v1/b23735baf3b0e502b26fd851.jpg"},{"id":51720224,"identity":"b5ac3f7e-0e93-4ff6-8718-c3ccab6caf9e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-02-27 21:44:43","extension":"jpg","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":463446,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e2a. Carbon stocks before (0 yr) and at the end of 8th, 10th and 20th year (1999, 2001 and 2011, respectively) of initial planting in degraded community forest and other land use/cover types in Khaljhuni village, Central Himalaya, India. IF, intact community forest; DF, degraded community forest outside the trial area; AL, agricultural land under cropping; AAL, abandoned agricultural land (unleased); AAL-L, abandoned agricultural land leased to a pharmaceutical company; LSD (\u003cem\u003ep \u003c/em\u003e= 0.05) values are shown: F (aboveground biomass C)\u003csub\u003e8, 36\u003c/sub\u003e = 341.2, F (belowground biomass C)\u003csub\u003e8, 36\u003c/sub\u003e= 309.4, F (Soil organic C)\u003csub\u003e8, 36\u003c/sub\u003e = 32.2\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2b. Carbon pool in annual biomass removals before (0 yr) and at the end of 8th, 10th and 20th year (1999, 2001 and 2011, respectively) of initial planting in degraded community forest and other land use/cover types in Khaljhuni village, Central Himalaya, India. Other details as in Figure 2a except that the category AAL-L (abandoned agricultural land leased to a pharmaceutical company), where people were not allowed to utilize any biomass, is not shown. Timber, leaf litter and NTFPs supplied to commercial industries were available/utilized only from Intact Forest and food grains agricultural land. F (fuelwood)\u003csub\u003e7, 32\u003c/sub\u003e = 94.7, F (fodder)\u003csub\u003e7, 32 \u003c/sub\u003e= 21.3, F (NTFP-cottage industry)\u003csub\u003e2, 12\u003c/sub\u003e = 77.6, F(NTFPs-edibles)\u003csub\u003e3, 16\u003c/sub\u003e = 65.3, F(NTFP-medicinal herbs)\u003csub\u003e7, 32\u003c/sub\u003e = 36.9 (other details as in Figure 2a).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3975272/v1/4fd33b3725b638d2a61dfb88.jpg"},{"id":51720223,"identity":"b791e31c-b25c-41ef-bf34-5b15d314ab88","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-02-27 21:44:43","extension":"jpg","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":250045,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eLife form wise species richness before (0 yr) and at the end of 8th, 10th and 20th year (1999, 2001 and 2011, respectively) of initial planting in degraded community forest and other land use/cover types in Khaljhuni village, Central Himalaya, India (other details as in Figure 2a).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3975272/v1/7d6de30eb0b36b770a73c0f5.jpg"},{"id":51720222,"identity":"7b976921-1871-4cae-9016-a4b3dcf98a12","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-02-27 21:44:43","extension":"jpg","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":275789,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eEconomic yields before (0 yr) and at the end of 8th, 10th and 20th year (1999, 2001 and 2011, respectively) of initial planting in degraded community forest and other land use/cover types in Khaljhuni village, Central Himalaya, India. F (fuelwood)\u003csub\u003e7, 32\u003c/sub\u003e = 214.7, F (fodder)\u003csub\u003e7, 32 \u003c/sub\u003e= 36.1, F (NTFP-cottage industry)\u003csub\u003e2, 12\u003c/sub\u003e = 57.6, F(NTFP-edibles)\u003csub\u003e 1, 8\u003c/sub\u003e = 65.3, F(NTFP-medicinal herbs)\u003csub\u003e7, 32\u003c/sub\u003e = 54.9 (other details as in Figure 2a).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"4.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3975272/v1/007a778c38240b982fa559cf.jpg"},{"id":55327710,"identity":"d516bef9-070b-4647-8a29-9815c11a96cb","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-04-25 18:01:21","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1209251,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3975272/v1/a43b85f7-fa90-425c-9a85-26c508446103.pdf"},{"id":51720221,"identity":"8a066ffe-dbea-44c5-a9d7-86f5105bde63","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-02-27 21:44:42","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":39314,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"SupplementarytablesS1andS2.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3975272/v1/e9f10edaca10d9d959320b92.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Participatory forest restoration for sustainable livelihood: A case study from Himalaya","fulltext":[{"header":"1 Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eDealt explicitly in Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 15, land restoration renders significant co-benefits for all SDGs (Arneth et al., 2021). Forest restoration became a frontline global agenda with articulation of Clean Development Mechanisms in 1997, REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries) Programme in 2008, Nature-based Solutions to climate change in 2016 and of 2021-2030 as the Decade on Ecosystem Restoration by the United Nations (Anonymous, 2021a). Nonetheless, 2020-restoration targets (Aichi Target 15, Bonn Challenge and New York Declaration) have been missed, while stagnation/regression is discernable in 2030-Targets stipulated in the Agenda of Sustainable Development. Accelerated and extensive restoration of multi-functionality of degraded ecosystems and landscapes remains a global challenge, more so in developing countries (Mansourian et al., 2022; Edwards et al. 2021; Jinger et al., 2023; Anonymous, 2023).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eResearchers have elaborated the scope of integration across knowledge systems, disciplines, institutions, stakeholders and land uses/non-land activities (Reed et al., 2016; Reyes-Garcia et al., 2019; Fremout et al., 2021) and long term adaptive co-management in accomplishing cost-effective restoration (Speldewinde et al., 2015; Crossland et al., 2018; Guariguata \u0026amp; Evans 2020). However, empirical attempts to turn the concepts into sustainable practices are only a few (Chazdon et al., 2016; Rohr et al., 2018; Stanturf, 2021; Kindt et al., 2023), more so the ones using non-timber species which have higher conservation and social values as well than timber species in many developing regions (Guariguata et al., 2010; Ashton et al., 2014). Moreover, the available studies (Hertog \u0026amp; Weirsum, 2000; Murgueito et al., 2011; Jing et al., 2014; He et al., 2009, 2015; Negi et al., 2022; Sacande \u0026amp; Muir, 2022) suffer from several limitations. First, they neglected multi-functionality of ecosystems/landscapes so crucial for mitigating contemporary intertwined social-ecological challenges. Second, off-site and post-project outcomes of restoration attempted as sponsored projects were not analysed (Moreno et al., 2017; Mackinnon et al. 2018; Moreno-Mateos et al., 2020). Assessment of restoration of ecosystem functions over a time scale \u0026gt; 10 years so important for harnessing the payments for ecosystem services for socio-economic upliftment (Rakatama et al., 2017; Mackinnon et al., 2018) are rare (Semwal et al., 2013; Wheeler et al., 2016; Andrade et al., 2023). Third, precision of on-site impacts of restoration inferred from chronosequences attempted in most endeavours is questionable unlike the ones drawn from repeated long term measurements in the same sites (Walker et al., 2010; Qiu et al., 2022). Fourth, severely degraded lands responding only to expensive treatments have been neglected (Li et al., 2023). Lastly, integrated assessment of ecological, economic and social benefits and costs of restoration is missing (Singh et al., 2022).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGiven high costs, uncertain returns and almost half of earth\u0026rsquo;s land surface suffering from degradation, land restoration demands prioritization (Speldewinde et al., 2015; Rayden et al., 2023). Biodiversity Hotspots deserve priority as restoration in just 2.5% land area they cover can check extinction of 50% endemic flowering plant and vertebrate animal species while mitigating climate change and enhancing livelihood of countless marginal people (Costello et al., 2022). Himalayan mountain system is hotspot partly/fully covering eight Asian countries (viz., Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, India, Myanmar, Nepal and Pakistan). It is distinguished for harboring immense wild as well as domesticated biodiversity. Being highly sensitive to climate change and rendering ecosystem services securing not only livelihood of half a billion people living within but also over one billion in catchments/delta its rivers. All across, local communities view forests as sources of free tangible (fodder, manure, fuelwood, timber, supplementary nutritional/health care products, raw material for cottage industries) and intangible (hydrological balance, protection from wildlife and wind, aesthetics, rituals and spiritual strength) benefits. Agriculture is a minor land use in terms of spatial extent but the mainstay of local economy fostering conservation or degradation of natural ecosystems depending on policy, socio-economic and ecological conditions. Extensive human induced ecological degradation became apparent after 19\u003csup\u003eth\u003c/sup\u003e century with enormous variation in their nature, rates and drivers (Rao et al., 2016; Bajracharya et al., 2021). In Indian Himalayan Region, villages are farm-forest landscape mosaics managed by local communities. Covering in all 30% area, these landscapes impact and are impacted by the remaining 70% area of government managed forest, alpine and aquatic ecosystems. Deforestation/forest degradation outweigh forest restoration/protection despite huge investment and current forest cover and ecosystem functions lag far behind the goals set in 1952 (Anonymous, 2021b).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe launched participatory community forest restoration trials in the early 1990s on a pilot basis (Maikhuri et al., 1995, 1997; Rao et al., 1999, 2003, 2022; Bhadauria et al., 2012; Semwal et al., 2013). The generic approach was to promote restoration harmonizing people\u0026rsquo;s interest in livelihood enhancement with the global ones in biodiversity conservation and climate change mitigation. This harmonization was attempted by (i) expanding people\u0026rsquo;s vision and perspective confined by informing them national/global perspectives, status of traditional knowledge/ institutions \u003cem\u003evis-a-vis\u003c/em\u003e formal (scientific) knowledge/institutions, and the concepts underpinning collaborative, adaptive and integrated landscape management and (ii) securing financial support until restoration became an additional source of income irrespective of any time limit but limited to inputs people could not afford. A generic anticipation was that successful trials would entail voluntary maintenance/upscaling/outscaling and policies favouring them. Extending our previous work in temperate Himalaya (Rao et al., 1999, 2003, 2022), the present study provides an account of on-site, off-site and village landscape scale ecological (viz., vegetation structure, flowering plant diversity and carbon stocks), economic (viz., yields and income) and social (viz., equity and solidarity) outcomes over a period of 13 years after 7-year-long funding phase in a remote temperate village landscape.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2 Material and methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis Section summarizes details in previous studies in the same sites (Rao et al., 1999, 2022)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.1 Study village\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKhaljhuni (30\u003csup\u003e0 \u003c/sup\u003e13\u0026rsquo;5\u0026rsquo;\u0026rsquo; N latitude, 80\u003csup\u003e0\u003c/sup\u003e 6\u0026rsquo; 35\u0026rsquo;\u0026rsquo; E longitude) is a typical of remote village around UNESCO World Heritage Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve in the State of Uttarakhand, India (Fig. 1). The village territory encompassed settled terraced farms (68 ha), intact community forests (305 ha) and degraded community forests (131 ha) on 35-45\u003csup\u003e0 \u003c/sup\u003eslopes at elevation of 2200-2600 m above mean sea level. Khaljhuni had 268 people and 631 livestock (cattle, buffalo, sheep and goats) in 38 households. Livestock bedding was made of forest leaf litter and litter-excreta mixture incorporated as manure in terraced farms. Village Forest Council and Development Council (locally called \u003cem\u003eVan Panchayat\u003c/em\u003e and Gram Sabha, respectively; each comprising six elected individuals and government official) regulated forest resource uses and social/economic development schemes, respectively.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.2 Restoration framework\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTrial was designed in three steps: (i) analysis of people\u0026rsquo;s knowledge, perceptions and imperatives \u003cem\u003evis-a-vis\u003c/em\u003e scientific knowledge and national/global imperatives, (ii) facilitation of people to plan restoration harmonizing local and global imperatives and (iii) elaboration of co-management.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e2.2.1 Analysis of people\u0026rsquo;s knowledge, perceptions and imperatives vis-a-vis scientific knowledge and global imperatives\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll households (i) demanded support for planting bamboo and medicinal herbs anticipating early and high income and had reservations for planting trees for their long gestation periods, lack of scarcity of tree-based domestic products and cultural values prohibiting income from timber, (ii) considered amelioration of soil stresses and weeding for successful restoration, (iii) dismissed voluntary labor, cash contribution and employing outside labor, (iii) offered free surplus physical resources, logistics, traditional knowledge, extension of traditional management practices in intact forests to restored area and voluntary maintenance/upscaling/outscaling after restoration became an additional source of material benefits.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePeople were ignorant of IUCN criteria of threatened species, premier prices for wild walnut and honey qualifying as organic food and likely facilitation of medicinal herbs/ bamboo by trees and payments for carbon sequestered by them. They misconceived that scientific knowledge of medicinal herb cultivation and checking gregarious flowering induced mass mortality of bamboo existed but forest managers did not apply it as they served their vested interests from industrial timber species. Selection of species for planting reflected characterization of species in terms of its economic uses and also many ecological attributes (Supplementary Table S1). \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e2.2.2 Facilitation of people to plan restoration harmonizing local and global imperatives\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA series of free and reflexive participatory discussions were held to clear misconceptions of people and to motivate them. Motivation was attempted by explaining (i) convergence between scientific and traditional knowledge on leaf litter/timber quality, keystone species, impact of disturbance, competition and stress on forest structure and ecosystem functions, (ii) cultural heritage (social sanction of income from wild non-timber products, nomadic pastoralism, carpentry, leather works only to small farm holders and decision making by community consensus) favouring environmental sustainability, equity and social integration, (iii) cultural heritage fetching the region a recognition of biodiversity hotspot and (iv) operational constraints of forest managers and other players in conservation and development.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMotivation and knowledge enrichment led people to articulate the ideas: (i) establishing mixed plantation of multipurpose trees, bamboo and medicinal herbs yielding both domestic and marketable products, (ii) saving expenditure on developing nursery by transplanting wild tree saplings/bamboo offsets abundant around village territory and on physical fencing/patrolling by extending self-imposed rules of checking fire, livestock grazing, over-exploitation and poaching in intact forests to the restored forest, (iii) developing nursery of rare and tender medicinal herbs in farm land and transplanting them after tree/bamboo canopy suppressed grasses, (iv) locating the trial area close to dwellings to enhance labor productivity, (v) determination of size of treatment area by surplus labour, farm yard manure, wild propagules and funds available to support inputs they could not afford and (vi) voluntary maintenance and expansion after monetary benefit/cost ratio turned \u0026gt; 1.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2.2.3 \u003cem\u003eElaboration of co-management\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith government officials in Khaljhuni village expressing inability to participate formally, there were only two stakeholders in field: Khaljhuni village community and the researchers from the G.B. Pant Institute of Himalayan Environment and Development (now G.B. Pant National Institute of Himalayan Environment, an autonomous set up of the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change). Establishing treatments, protection and resource utilization were agreed as the exclusive tasks of the community, securing funds and updating people with scientific knowledge and national/global developments of scientists and monitoring and mid-terms corrections as joint-tasks.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e2.2.4 Implementation and monitoring\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWild ringal bamboo (\u003cem\u003eThamnocalamus spathiflorus)\u003c/em\u003e offsets and saplings of horse chestnut (\u003cem\u003eAesculus indica\u003c/em\u003e), walnut (\u003cem\u003eJuglans regia\u003c/em\u003e) and oak (\u003cem\u003eQuercus leuctrichophora\u003c/em\u003e) were transplanted at 1 m spacing in 40 \u0026times; 40 \u0026times; 40 cm size pits after removal of gravels and incorporation of 500 g of farm yard manure in each pit in a 8 ha plot close to the dwellings. Nursery of four medicinal herbs (\u003cem\u003eAconitum heterophyllum\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eAngelica glauca\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003ePikrorhiza kurrooa\u003c/em\u003e listed as \u0026lsquo;Endangered\u0026rsquo; in IUCN Redlist and \u003cem\u003eRheum australe\u003c/em\u003e) was developed in farmland and transplanted four years after grasses were shaded out by tree/bamboo. \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSurviving transplants and naturally regenerated individuals were enumerated and belowground biomass, soil (full profile), litter and aboveground biomass carbon stocks, and economic inputs/outputs estimated in in five random plots (40 \u0026times; 20 m) in the restored area just before and 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10 and 20 years after planting (data of 8\u003csup\u003eth\u003c/sup\u003e, 10\u003csup\u003eth\u003c/sup\u003e and 20\u003csup\u003eth\u003c/sup\u003e year presented here). Tree/bamboo individuals were classified into three height classes, three random individuals of each species from each class harvested from each plot, aboveground biomass separated into main stem (bole), branches and leaves, and fresh weight obtained in field on each sampling time. Aboveground biomass of naturally established shrubs/bushes was estimated in one 10 \u0026times; 5 m quadrat nested in the centre, herbs in five 2 \u0026times; 1 m quadrats, one each at the centre and the corners, and surface leaf/wood litter in ten 1 \u0026times; 0.5 m quadrats, two each at centre and corners, of each 40 \u0026times; 20 m plot. Soil in 50 \u0026times; 50 cm area in the centre of each litter quadrat was dug out from the entire profile and samples taken from 0-15, 15-30 and \u0026gt; 30 cm layers after hand-picking roots. Soil organic carbon concentration was determined by the Walkley-Black dichromate oxidation method and converted to Mg C/ha using bulk density. Similar data were collected in other land uses in Khaljhuni village landscape except that (i) untreated degraded forest was sampled at only two points of time: before and 20 years after treatment and intact forest/agricultural lands at only one point of time: 20 years after treatment and (ii) aboveground tree biomass in intact forests/agricultural land, where harvesting was not feasible, was estimated from volume equations and biomass expansion factors. A plot was treated as a replicate in statistical analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eVillage records were compiled, all households surveyed and regular participatory discussions/transect walks organized to assess changes in human/livestock population, land uses, resource utilization, monetary values, socio-ecological changes, driving factors and implications. Significance of differences between restored area and other land uses was assessed by least significant difference (LSD; \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e = 0.05) after ascertaining significance of \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e value obtained from One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and in socio-ecological attributes of village landscape between the 8\u003csup\u003eth\u003c/sup\u003e and 20\u003csup\u003eth\u003c/sup\u003e year by Mann-Whitney test.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e2.2.5 Funding phase\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLabour was the sole paid input. Funding was terminated after 7 years when monetary benefit/cost ratio crossed the mark of one, with bamboo contributing 60% of aboveground biomass and 70% of economic output. Off-site impacts of the trial included: (i) cultivation of medicinal herbs (the four used in restoration and \u003cem\u003eAllium stracheyi\u003c/em\u003e Baker (Amaryllidaceae), \u003cem\u003eCarum carvi\u003c/em\u003e L. (Apiaceae), \u003cem\u003eTanacetum tomentosum\u003c/em\u003e DC. (Asteraceae), \u003cem\u003eSwertia chirayita \u003c/em\u003e(Roxb.) H. Karst. (Gentianaceae) and \u003cem\u003eSaussurea costus\u003c/em\u003e (Falc.) Lipsch (Asteraceae) in private farms, (ii) increase in returns to labor and decline in pressure on intact forests from availability of products from restored vegetation collected otherwise from the former (details in Rao et al., 1999, 2022).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"3 Results","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.1 Unforeseen problems and responses in the trial area\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBamboo suffered gregarious flowering mass mortality in the 10\u003csup\u003eth\u003c/sup\u003e year of restoration (i.e., 3 years after cessation of funding). People knew this phenomenon but did not expect its occurrence at peak of bamboo growth. The monetary benefit from edible bamboo seeds and flowered shoots used as fuelwood was insignificant compared to the loss from handicrafts made from only vegetative shoots and deployment of labor in cleaning the site from huge dead bamboo mass to check pests and fill gaps to maintain recovery. This unintended outcome triggered contemplation of upcoming problems (viz., depredation of crops/beehives by porcupine/bear and degradation of intact forests from rising demand of domestic timber due to increase in population growth, household fragmentation and cultural values allowing neighbouring communities losing their forests due to expansion of common facilities viz., road and electricity) and choosing species for gap filling which are efficient in mitigating them as well as progression of the recovery processes. People decided to fill gaps with Nepalese alder (\u003cem\u003eAlnus nepalensis\u003c/em\u003e:\u003cem\u003e \u003c/em\u003efor its fast growth, negative association with porcupine/bear and timber, albeit of moderate quality, uses) which they dismissed for its positive association with crop pests and poor quality fodder/fuelwood in the initial planting when the area is experiencing extreme inaccessibility for implementation of policy of supplying subsidized food grains, cooking gas/kerosene and feed concentrates.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.2 Recovery of forest ecosystem structure and functions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e3.2.1 Species performance and vegetation structure\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInitial offset borne bamboo survived and grew better than horse chestnut, walnut and oak planted along with it unlike natural seed-borne bamboo post-flowering growing slower than alder planted at the same time. Alder after 10 years of growth was taller than horse chestnut, walnut and oak after 20 years. Naturally regenerated trees were less numerous and shorter as well than the transplanted ones (Table 1). Medicinal herbs were more numerous than the transplanted ones after 20 years. Among transplanted species, only bamboo regenerated naturally (Tables 1, 2).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAfter 20 years restored vegetation had three strata as also intact forest. However, trees constituting top and middle layers in intact forest (data not presented) were \u0026gt; 5 times taller than restored forest after 20 years (top layer : \u0026gt; 3 m tall planted trees; middle layer: 1.4-2 m tall naturally regenerated trees) while height of understory in the two sites did not differ much (1-1.5 m). Vegetation structure in the untreated degraded forest did not change over the 20-year period.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e3.2.2 Carbon stock and biodiversity\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDecline in aboveground C stock between the 8\u003csup\u003eth\u003c/sup\u003e and the 10\u003csup\u003eth\u003c/sup\u003e year due to bamboo flowering was recovered largely by tree growth between the 11\u003csup\u003eth\u003c/sup\u003e and 20\u003csup\u003eth\u003c/sup\u003e year. Total C in harvested products did not differ between 20-year old restored and intact forests, though domestic timber, lichens and leaf litter were utilized only from the latter. Soil C stock recovered faster than biomass C stock. Restored forest after 20 years had total C stock just 39% of the intact forest stock. Standing aboveground and belowground stocks increased at a rate of 0.86 Mg C ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e yr\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e and 2.80 Mg C ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e year \u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e, respectively. If biomass removals (all aboveground) were included, aboveground C and total C increased by 2.85 and 5.65 Mg C ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e yr\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e, respectively. Conversion of intact forests to terraced farms by local people centuries ago resulted in 72% decline, degradation from logging after 1920 by government agencies 84% and abandonment of cropping a decade ago 53% decline in total C stock. Forest degradation depleted more of aboveground and agricultural abandonment more of belowground C stocks. Carbon stocks in untreated degraded forest did not differ significantly (P\u0026gt;0.05) over the 20-year period (Figs. 2 a,b) Naturally regenerated trees/bamboo made up hardly 5% of aboveground C stock (data not shown).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eChanges in species richness during progression of restoration were less prominent than C stock. Agricultural land had the lowest richness of wild species. However, if crops (10 food and 9 medicinal species) were taken in account, it was the second most-species rich land use after intact forest. The 20-year-old restored forest had eight of 17 tree, five of 15 bamboo/shrub, and 10 of 32 herbaceous flowering species of the intact forest. Intact forest had eight species with high conservation value (Near threatened: \u003cem\u003eThamnocalamus spathiflorus\u003c/em\u003e; Vulnerable: \u003cem\u003eUlmus wallichiana\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003ePodophyllum hexandrum\u003c/em\u003e; Endangered: \u003cem\u003eAcontium heterophyllum\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e Angelica glauca, Dactylis hatagirea \u003c/em\u003eand \u003cem\u003ePicrorhiza kurrooa\u003c/em\u003e; Critical: \u003cem\u003eNardostachys grandiflora\u003c/em\u003e) of 70 species present compared to four (all transplanted) and 42, respectively, in the restored forest. Agroforestry trees complimented forest biodiversity. Deforestation and forest degradation extirpated all threatened/near-threatened species and decimated total species richness by 40%. Restored forest, degraded forest and abandoned agricultural land differed more in species composition than richness (Fig. 3, Supplementary Table S2).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e3.2.3 Economic yields\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith walnut fruiting beginning in the year of bamboo flowering, total economic benefits consistently increased with progression of restoration. Restored forest was economically 7-fold more efficient than the intact forest as a result of higher bamboo/walnut density/growth in the former and cultural heritage limiting utilization of resources abundant in the intact forest (timber only for domestic uses, collection of fodder, fuelwood and bamboo for sale only by small farm holders and rare medicinal herbs only by local healers) (Fig. 4).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.3 People, landscape and livelihoods\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHuman population increased by 2.2% and households by 2.6% while livestock population a decreased of 3.55% annually over the 13-year-period (1999-2011). Expanse of the village territory remained unchanged. Cultivation of medicinal herbs in private farms did not expand as also the area of restored forest.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTraditions favouring equity, environmental sustainability and social integrity (income from ploughing, herding, milling, leather working, metal/wood working, therapy, non-timber forest products used in cottage industry only to families with small landholdings) and division of responsibilities between genders (men performing more labour-intensive and risky tasks, e.g., ploughing, nomadic pastoralism, cutting/processing/transporting bamboo/timber, collecting lichens from tree canopies, portering, and trading outside the village, and women accomplishing less labour-intensive and low-risk ones, e.g. sowing, weeding, grass-cutting, fuelwood/fodder collection, and farmyard manure preparation persisted. However, the cultural value of households unable to cultivate to invite other(s) to cultivate their lands eroded. Food crop cultivation was abandoned in 38% area and 24% of it was leased to pharmaceutical company which established monoculture of \u003cem\u003eTaxus baccata\u003c/em\u003e for production of anticarcinogenic taxol.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eProduction of food grains, milk/milk products and wool production declined by 70%, 23% and 52%, respectively and fuelwood and fodder increased by 308% and 208%, respectively from agricultural land. Utilization of timber and leaf litter from forests remained the same, walnut increased by 163% and of fuelwood, fodder, bamboo, lichens, medicinal herbs and honey declined by 14%, 13%, 80%, 62%, 27% and 92%, respectively. Intensity of timber utilization from intact forest (computed from removals and intact forest area) increased by 30% to 0.2 m\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e/ha/year, fuelwood by 13% to 1994 kg/ha/year, fodder by 15% to 281 kg/ha/year, leaf litter by 8% to 232 kg/ha/year and wild edibles by 38% to 1.5 kg/ha/year while that of medicinal products decreased by 4% to 0.33 kg/ha/year, bamboo by 73% to kg/ha/year and lichens by 50% to 1.8 kg kg/ha/year,\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnnual household income increased 3.8-times in absolute terms and only 1.2 times if normalized with respect to consumer price index or 9% discount rate, with forest products, farm products and wages fetching 18%, 75% and 7%, respectively, in 1998 and 10%, 20% and 70%, respectively, in 2011. A quantum jump in income from wages resulted from 100 person days of guaranteed employment to a family in government works available from 2006 onwards. Among forest products, bamboo shared \u0026gt; 70% of income from forest products in 1998 and walnut in in 2011 (Table 3).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith emission from agricultural abandonment offsetting restoration mediated carbon sequestration, slow growth of \u003cem\u003eTaxus baccata\u003c/em\u003e planted in the leased abandoned agricultural land, lack of deforestation/forest degradation and failure of upscaling/outscaling of the trial or natural succession in abandoned crop fields, village landscape carbon stock remained the same (204-206 Mg ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e) as also total species richness (89 wild species and 10 food crops).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGovernment programmes impacting land use and livelihood over this period included: (i) infrastructure improvement: distance to motorable road reduced from 14 km to 5 km and electrification at no cost to people, (ii) financial support to Village Forest Council: one-time grant for tree planting as directed by the Forest Department, (iii) guaranteed employment: 100 person-days of wage employment in a year to each family in government projects, (iv) financial support for agricultural development: one-time grant for growing medicinal herbs in farm, microirrigation and vermicomposting to two households and (v) supply of a quota of subsidized food, fuel and modern medicine.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"4 Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eLegitimization of free customary utilization of timber only for domestic consumption and non-timber products for cash income as well by local people in the Indian Himalaya in the 19\u003csup\u003eth\u003c/sup\u003e century has been an effective way of conserving intact forests vast enough to recover removals passively at no cost to the government. On the other hand, it failed in protection of intact forest patches too small to meet local needs and restoration of severely degraded lands responding favourably only to expensive active restoration (Semwal et al., 2004; Wakeel et al., 2005; Buffum et al., 2008).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFailure of top down restorative plantations engaging people merely as wage earners, denying them usufruct rights and treating achievement of planting/employment targets as indicators of their long term social and ecological success reported here is widespread in developing countries (de Jong et al., 2021; Rana et al., 2022; Ahammad et al., 2023; Kindt et al., 2023). A few examples of successful forest plantations in degraded forest lands outside legally protected areas do exist but in socio-ecological scenarios distinguished by lack of cultural/legal barriers to timber trade unlike Indian Himalaya. Plantations or natural forests managed for timber production (Pandey et al., 2014; Rajput et al., 2017; Mir et al., 2022) are not as rich in biodiversity and ecosystem functions as restored or intact community forests in Khaljhuni and many other remote villages in Indian Himalaya (Maikhuri et al., 2000; Saxena et al., 2024).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eForest restoration harmonizing local concerns for early-high income from non-timber products and the global ones for biodiversity conservation and climate change mitigation attempted here was more expensive than conventional tree planting (Rao et al. 2005). However, restoration costs could be reduced and investment secured by harnessing the strengths of traditional knowledge, culture and institutions and making people a party in planning and monitoring while acknowledging their exclusive rights over all economic benefits\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4.1 Traditional vis-\u0026agrave;-vis scientific knowledge\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe present study unleashes potential of traditional knowledge as the starting point for screening non-timber species neglected in timber-centric organized forestry (Ashton et al., 2014; Hending et al., 2021). This knowledge may enormously vary in space and time as a result of geographical, linguistic and cultural barriers in exchange of knowledge among local communities. Knowledge of maintaining dominance of walnut in natural forests (Shigaeva \u0026amp; Darr, 2020), growing many economic woody species in canopy gaps in natural forests (Rao et al., 2016), walnut-food crop intercropping (Jia et al., 2021), growing medicinal herbs as understory crops (Zhou, 1993) and of withstanding market competition and uncertainties (Maikhuri et al., 2015) observed elsewhere in Himalaya/resembling biophysical regions was altogether missing in Khaljhuni.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCharacterization of species in terms of probabilities of their extinction articulated in the IUCN Red List and potential of climate change mitigation through carbon sequestration was altogether lacking in traditional knowledge. Nonetheless, medicinal herbs and bamboo selected for planting by people for early-high income rendered co-benefits of biodiversity conservation and climate change mitigation (Singh et al., 2008; Salick et al., 2014; Laishram et al., 2020; Reang et al., 2022). Likewise, oak selected by people for its products (viz. high quality fodder, fuelwood, domestic timber, livestock bedding and farm yard manure, marketable epiphytic lichens and understory medicinal herbs, common theme in folklores) as well as ecological functions (positive association with economic epiphytes and understory herbs, fire/flood control and recharge of springs) (Rao et al., 2003, 2022).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUnderstanding of bamboo and \u003cem\u003eA. nepalensis\u003c/em\u003e as fast growing species, gregarious flowering induced mass mortality of bamboo and ensuing pest problems, competitive dominance of mat forming grasses, accelerated recovery following amelioration of soil stresses, multifunctionality and resilience of mixed species plantations and feedbacks between different land uses constituting cultural landscapes in traditional knowledge are substantiated by scientific knowledge (Murcia, 1997; Lamb et al., 2005; Semwal et al., 2013; Ashton et al., 2014; Chazdon et al., 2016; Rohr et al., 2018). Both traditional and scientific knowledge remain deficient in precise prediction of bamboo flowering and determination of optimal species composition and configuration in mixed plantations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSome loss of traditional knowledge is inevitable with loss of cultural values, norms and practices as the latter have emerged from the historical churning of the former. Agricultural abandonment is an outcome largely of erosion of cultural values fostering household(s) unable to cultivate or to invite other(s) to cultivate, planting of aromatic \u003cem\u003ePerilla frutescens\u003c/em\u003e dispelling wildlife in all fields bordering forests and contribution of all households in patrolling and manual ways of dispelling harmful wildlife (Singh et al., 2014; Leptander, 2023). Long term ecological and social success of restoration can be thus achieved by capitalizing on the strengths of traditional local knowledge and overcoming its limitations (Ens et al., 2010; Salick et al., 2014; Rao et al., 2016; Ramprasad et al., 2020) rather than its outright dismissal still widespread in organized forestry.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4.2 Carbon stock and biodiversity recovery\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAssuming persistence of net biomass C accumulation rate of 0.75 Mg carbon ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e yr\u003csup\u003e-1 \u003c/sup\u003eobserved in the 20\u003csup\u003eth\u003c/sup\u003e year, it would take 210 years for accumulation of aboveground C stock in the restored site equal to the stock in intact forest in the present temperate Himalaya compared to \u0026lt; 100 years in tropical Himalaya (Semwal et al., 2013; Reang et al., 2021) and other regions (Spiotta-Marin et al., 2007; Wheeler et al., 2016; Lewis et al., 2019). Nonetheless, comparison of the present low input plantations to the high input ones (Jacobs et al., 2009) suggests scope of 2-fold increase in C sequestration rate. A smaller regional species pool, a fairly large number of planted species, less intensive weeding and suppression of dominance from systematic removal of aboveground biomass in the form of economic products resulted in faster recovery in species richness than aboveground carbon stock unlike opposite trends reported elsewhere (Martin et al., 2013; Wheeler et al., 2016; Reang et al., 2021). Natural regeneration solely of bamboo among planted species reflects propagule dispersal, soil bank and safe site limitations in shallow-gravelly soils on steep and dissected slopes with long histories of anthropogenic disturbances (Rao et al., 2022). Also, a 20-year-period may be too short to trigger passive restoration of economic species in temperate Himalaya unlike tropical Himalayan foothills (Sapkota and Stahl, 2018). Non-linear growth patterns and socio-ecological risks and uncertainties prohibit generalization of deductions on relative performance of species, carbon sequestration rates and recuperation of biodiversity from short term studies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4.3 People\u0026rsquo;s participation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA multipronged strategy was adopted to elicit active participation of people: (i) recognizing the strengths of traditional knowledge/culture, and making people to understand scope of their enhancements with scientific knowledge and formal institutions/funding mechanisms, (ii) acknowledging genuine needs and aspirations of people, (iii) tailoring restoration as an additional source of income and (iv) consistent motivation of people by updating them with new developments through reflexive participatory discussions and engaging them scientific data collection (Guariguata \u0026amp; Evans, 2020; Stanturf, 2021; Pereira et al., 2023). Voluntary maintenance of the trial after seven years, despite poor performance of planted medicinal herbs and huge economic loss from bamboo flowering suggests that people valued whole-hearted collaborative efforts more than their outcomes (Andrews \u0026amp; Mulder, 2018; Ramdani \u0026amp; Mustalahti, 2023).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe stakeholders did not upscale/outscale the trial for reasons including: (i) too low income from the trial to plough back, (ii) lack of funding for people-led participatory restoration and government commitments on the share of people in Green Bonus (funds from Central to State Governments based on their forest cover and health)/other payments for restoration mediated ecosystem services (e.g., UN-REDD, Corporate Social Responsibility) and procurement of non-timber forest products at Minimum Support Price provided in the national policy, (iii) failure of the trial in checking economic losses due to wildlife and of protected area authorities to compensate them and (iv) higher/more secured income from new social/economic development programmes, and new markets of caterpillar fungus (\u003cem\u003eOphiocordyceps sinensis\u003c/em\u003e) growing naturally around alpine areas which is lacking any local uses (Maikhuri et al., 2015; Rao et al., 2022). \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePeople\u0026rsquo;s expectations and responses change with acquisition of new knowledge/experiences and encounter with new challenges and opportunities. People desired inclusion of, elimination of intermediaries in marketing channel and establishment of mechanical walnut shelling/ skinning/packaging and taxol production units after they became aware of business operation system of pharmaceutical company. They realized irrationality of cultural values prohibiting income from timber from single-tree harvesting or disposal of dead/diseased tree from any adverse outcomes when they came to know from participatory discussions that neighbouring communities fetched significant income from them with no adverse impact on forest ecosystem functions (Buffum et al., 2008). These new demands have not been so far factored in the existing forest restoration or landscape development programmes. This inaction on the part of policy planners may result in mass movements forcing policy changes as has happened in the past resulting in the provision of creation of village community forests in 1920s, prohibition on logging by government agencies in the 1970s and restoration of ecotourism in some protected areas in 1990s (Rao et al., 2022).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4.4 Forests, Landscape and Livelihood\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDeforestation and forest degradation in the Indian Himlayan region are outcomes more of development of modern infrastructure/industries than agricultural expansion prohibited since 1880s or logging since 1970s. Likewise, agricultural abandonment is an outcome more of land holdings becoming too small to meet local needs/aspirations and prohibitive levels of depredation by wildlife concomitantly with effective implementation of policies of supplying subsidized food grains and creating opportunities of income to people from non-farm/non-forest sectors rather than depletion of soil fertility, weed infestation or climate change (Wakeel et al., 2005; Singh et al., 2008; Shimrah et al., 2015). \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTermination of manuring, soil/water conservation treatments and maintenance of agroforestry tree cover/health after abandonment of cropping results in emissions , biological invasion and positive feedbacks on detrimental wildlife in the present temperate climate unlike rapid passive restoration in the humid tropics (Evans et al., 2017; Dhakal \u0026amp; Kattel, 2019; Zethof et al., 2019; Zambiazi et al., 2021). Decline in livestock population failed to induce passive recovery of degraded forests as grazing pressure on them remained the same as a result of abandonment of traditional transhumance underpinned by diversion of labor to wage employment program. Nullification of ecological benefits from forest restoration by agricultural abandonment demands nesting of restoration in integrated cultural landscape management (Reed et al., 2016) expanding the concept of forest landscape restoration (Chazdon et al., 2016). Treatment of cultural landscapes as units and aggregation of their biodiversity conservation and ecosystem service generation potential for determining compensations or incentives could discourage/encourage land use changes countering/augmenting forest restoration (Wendland et al., 2010; Vanderhaegen et al., 2015; Liu et al., 2016).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"5 Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe present study suggests that effectiveness and efficiency of forest restoration in village landscapes functioning as independent governance and development units can be enhanced by:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eensuring both non-material/non-monetary and material/monetary benefits from it to people\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eensuring its synergy with other land uses and non-land activities\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003elinking it with bioprospecting, value addition, manufacturing and marketing\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eengaging people in planning, monitoring and evaluation\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003esecuring funding until its success is established but limited to the inputs that people cannot afford\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eadopting co-management approach to mitigate knowledge, resource and institutional barriers and reconcile diverse and competing interests\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eadopting adaptive management approach to address new challenges and opportunities\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003elong term (\u0026gt;10 years) planning with incentives/rewards for successful restoration across spatial (household, village and village cluster) and temporal (short, medium and long term) scales\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003epromoting action research translating socio-ecological concepts of cost-effective restoration into sustainable package of practices\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eAuthors acknowledge the contribution of villagers who shared their insights of traditional knowledge about natural resource management and their participation in the study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor contributions\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eKGS, KSR designed the framework, drafting and implemented the study with the active participation of RKM, RLS, AM and SN.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData availability\u003c/strong\u003e The datasets generated during and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConfict of interest\u003c/strong\u003e Authors declare that they have no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAhammad, R., Hossain, M.K., Sobhan, I., Hasan, I., Biswas, S.R., \u0026amp; Mukul, S.A. (2023). Social-ecological and institutional factors affecting forest and landscape restoration in the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh. \u003cem\u003eLand Use Policy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e125\u003c/em\u003e, 106478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106478.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAndrade, H.J., Segura, M.A., \u0026amp; Carlos-Suarez, J. (2023). Growth and carbon sequestration in biomass of \u003cem\u003eCordia alliodora\u003c/em\u003e in Andean agroforestry systems with coffee. \u003cem\u003eAgroforestry Systems\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e97\u003c/em\u003e, 1435-1446. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-023-00868-6\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAndrews, J., \u0026amp; Mulder, M.B. (2018). Cultural group selection and design of REDD+: insights from Pemba. \u003cem\u003eSustainability Science,\u003c/em\u003e 13, 93-107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-017-0489-2\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnonymous. (2021a). \u003cem\u003ePrinciples for Ecosystem Restoration to Guide the United Nations Decade 2021\u0026ndash;2030\u003c/em\u003e. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization. Retrived on 7\u003csup\u003eth\u003c/sup\u003e November 2023.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnonymous. (2021b). \u003cem\u003eIndia State of Forest Report 2019.\u003c/em\u003e Dehradun, Forest Survey of India. Retrieved on 7\u003csup\u003eth\u003c/sup\u003e November 2023.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnonymous. (2023). \u003cem\u003eProgress Chart\u003c/em\u003e. United Nations Statistics Division, Geneva, United Nations. Retrieved on 7\u003csup\u003eth\u003c/sup\u003e November 2023. https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/ 2023/progress-chart/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eArneth, A., Olsson, L., Cowie, A., Erb, K-H., Hurlbert, M., Kurz, W.A., Mirzabaev, A., \u0026amp; Rounsevell, M.D.A. (2021). Restoring degraded lands. \u003cem\u003eAnnual Review of Environment and Resources\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e46\u003c/em\u003e, 569-599. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-012320-054809\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAshton, M.S., Gunatilleke, I.A.U.N., Gunatillake, C.V.S., Tennakoon, K.U., \u0026amp; Ashton, P.S. (2014). Use and cultivation of plants that yield products other than timber from south Asian tropical forests, and their potential in forest restoration. \u003cem\u003eForest Ecology and Management\u003c/em\u003e 329: 360-374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2014.02.030\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBajracharya, B., Thapa, R.B., \u0026amp; Matin, M.A. (eds) (2021). \u003cem\u003eEarth Observation Science and Applications for Risk Reduction and Enhanced Resilience in Hindu Kush Himalaya Region.\u003c/em\u003e Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73569-2_6\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBhadauria, T., Kumar, P., Kumar, R., Maikhuri, R.K., Rao, K.S., \u0026amp; Saxena, K,G. 2012. Earthworm populations in a traditional village landscape in Central Himalaya, India. \u003cem\u003eApplied Soil Ecology,\u003c/em\u003e 53, 83-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2011.11.011\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBuffum, B., Gratzer, G., \u0026amp; Tenzin, Y. (2008). The sustainability of selection cutting in a late successional broadleaved forest in Bhutan. \u003cem\u003eForest Ecology and Management, 256\u003c/em\u003e, 2084-2091. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2008.07.031\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChazdon, R.L., Brancalion, P.H.S., Laestadius, L., Bennett-Curry, A., Buckingham, K., Kumar, C., Moll-Rocek, J., Vieira, I.C.G., \u0026amp; Wilson, S.J. (2016). When is a forest a forest? Forest concepts and definitions in the era of forest and landscape restoration. \u003cem\u003eAmbio,\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003e45\u003c/em\u003e, 538-550. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0772-y\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCostello, M., Vale, M., Kiessling, W., Maharaj, S., Price, J., Talukdar, G., Beckett, H., Darwall, W., Debnath, A., Devenish-Nelson, E., Golbuu, Y., Grey, K., Jefferson, T., Jenkins, R., Kocsis, \u0026Aacute;., Manes, S., Midgley, G., Schoeman, D., \u0026amp; Tedesco, P. (2022). Biodiversity Hotspots. In \u003cem\u003eClimate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability\u003c/em\u003e. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009325844.018.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCrossland, M., Winowiecki, L.A., Pagella, T., Hadgu, K., \u0026amp; Sinclair, F. (2018). Implications of variation in local perception of degradation and restoration processes for implementing land degradation neutrality. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Development, 28\u003c/em\u003e, 42-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2018.09.005\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ede Jong, W., Liu, J., \u0026amp; Long, H. (2021). The forest restoration frontier. \u003cem\u003eAmbio,\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003e50\u003c/em\u003e, 2224\u0026ndash;2237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-021-01614-x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDhakal, B., \u0026amp; Kattel, R. (2019). Effects of global changes on ecosystems services of multiple natural resources in agricultural landscapes. \u003cem\u003eScience of The Total Environment, 676\u003c/em\u003e, 665-682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.04.276\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEdwards, D.P., Cerullo, G.R., Chomba, S., Worthington, T.A., Balmford, A.P., Chazdon, R.L., \u0026amp; Harrison, R.D. (2021). Upscaling tropical restoration to deliver environmental benefits and socially equitable outcomes. \u003cem\u003eCurrent Biology, 31\u003c/em\u003e(19), R1326-R1341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2021.08.058\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEns, E.J., Daniels, C., Thompson, W., Ponto, S., Kelvin, R., Roy, J., Priscilla, D., \u0026amp; Nelson, E. (2010). Combining aboriginal knowledge and western science to investigate possible explanation for decline in fruit production of a bush tucker shrub, Djutpi, near Ngukurr, Northern territory. \u003cem\u003eEcological Management \u0026amp; Restoration, 11\u003c/em\u003e, 146-148. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-8903.2010.00535.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEvans, L.J., Gossens, B., \u0026amp; Asner, G.P. (2017). Underproductive agriculture aids connectivity in tropical forests. \u003cem\u003eForest Ecology and Management, 401\u003c/em\u003e, 159\u0026ndash;165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2017.07.015\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFremout, T., Guti\u0026eacute;rrez-Miranda, C.E., Briers, S., Marcelo-Pe\u0026ntilde;a, J.L., Cueva-Ortiz, E., Linares-Palomino, R., La Torre-Cuadros, M.d.l.\u0026Aacute;., Chang-Ru\u0026iacute;z, J.C., Villegas-G\u0026oacute;mez, T.L., Acosta-Flota, A.H., Plouvier, D., Atkinson, R., Charcape-Ravelo, M., Aguirre-Mendoza, Z., Muys, B. and Thomas, E. (2021), The value of local ecological knowledge to guide tree species selection in tropical dry forest restoration. \u003cem\u003eRestoration Ecology, 29\u003c/em\u003e, e13347. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13347\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGuariguata, M.R., \u0026amp; Evans, K. (2020). A diagnostic for collaborative monitoring in forest landscape restoration. \u003cem\u003eRestoration Ecology,\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003e28\u003c/em\u003e(4), 742-749. https://doi.org/10.1111/ rec.13076\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGuariguata, M.R., Garc\u0026iacute;a-Fern\u0026aacute;ndez, C., Sheil, D., Nasi, R., Herrero-Jauregui, C., Cronkleton, P., \u0026amp; Ingram, V. (2010). Compatibility of timber and non-timber forest product management in natural tropical forests: perspectives, challenges, and opportunities. \u003cem\u003eForest Ecology and Management,\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003e259\u003c/em\u003e(3), 237-245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. foreco.2009.11.01\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHe, J., Ho, M.H., \u0026amp; Xu, J. (2015). Participatory selection of tree species for agroforestry on sloping land in North Korea. \u003cem\u003eMountain Research and Development,\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003e35\u003c/em\u003e(4), 318-327 https://doi.org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-15-00046.1\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHe, J., Zhou, Z., Weyerhaeuser, H., \u0026amp; Xu, J. (2009). Participatory technology development for incorporating non-timber forest products into forest restoration in Yunnan, Southwest China. \u003cem\u003eForest Ecology and Management,\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003e257\u003c/em\u003e(10), 2010-2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2009.01.041\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHending, D., Randrianarison, H., Holderied, M., McCabe, G., \u0026amp; Cotton, S. (2021). The kapok tree (\u003cem\u003eCeiba pentandra\u003c/em\u003e (L.) Gaertn, Malvaceae) as a food source for native vertebrates species during times of resource scarcity and its potential for reforestation in Madagascar. \u003cem\u003eAustral Ecology, 46\u003c/em\u003e, 1440-1444. https://doi.org/10.1111/aec.13076\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHertog, W.H., \u0026amp; Wiersum, K.F. (2000). Timur (\u003cem\u003eZanthoxylum armatum\u003c/em\u003e) production in Nepal. \u003cem\u003eMountain Research and Development, 20\u003c/em\u003e, 136-145. https://doi.org/10.1659/0276-4741(2000)020[0136:TZAPIN]2.0.CO;2\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJacobs, D.F., Selig, M.F., \u0026amp; Severeid, L.R. (2009). Aboveground carbon biomass of plantation grown American chestnut (\u003cem\u003eCastanea dentata\u003c/em\u003e) in absence of blight. \u003cem\u003eForest Ecology and Management, 258\u003c/em\u003e(3), 288-294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2009.04.014\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJia, J., xu, M., Bei, S., Zhang, H., Xio, L., Gao, Y., Zhang, Y., Sai, L., Xue, L., Lei, J., \u0026amp; Qia, X. (2021). \u003cem\u003eImpact of reduced light intensity on wheat yield and quality: Implication for agroforestry systems.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eAgroforestry Systems\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e95\u003c/em\u003e, 1689-1701.https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10457-021-00668-w\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJing, Y., Cui, H., Li, T., \u0026amp; Zhao, Z. (2014). Heavy metal accumulation characteristics of Nepalese alder (\u003cem\u003eAlnus nepalensis\u003c/em\u003e) growing in a lead-zinc spoil heap, Yunnan, south-western China. \u003cem\u003eiForest, 7\u003c/em\u003e, 204-208. https://doi.org/10.3832/ifor1082-007\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJinger, D., Kaushal, R., Kumar, R. Paramesh, V., Verma, A., Shukla, M., Chavan, S.B., Kakade, V., Dobhal, S., Uthappa, A.R., Roy, T., Singhal, V., Madegowda, M., Kumar, D., Khatri, P., Dinesh, D., Singh, G., Singh, A.K., Nath, A.J., Joshi, N., Joshi, E., \u0026amp; Kumawat, S. (2023). Degraded land rehabilitation through agroforestry in India: Achievements, current understanding, and future prospectives. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 11\u003c/em\u003e, 1088796. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2023.1088796\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKindt, R., Carsan, S., Graudal, L., Jamnadass, R., Lilleso, J., Tadesse, W., Chege, J., Pedercini, F., Moestrup, S., \u0026amp; Dawson, I.K. (2023). Supporting better forest landscape restoration by making investor funding for tree planting conditional on an adequate explanation of how tree seeds and seedlings will be sourced. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Conservation, 50\u003c/em\u003e(4), 192-195. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892923000188.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLaishram, J., Saxena, K.G., \u0026amp; Rao, K.S. (2020). Rice cultivar diversity, associated indigenous knowledge and management practices in a lowland village landscape from north-eastern India. Vegetos, 33, 172-186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42535-020-00097-7\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLamb, D., Erskine, P.D., \u0026amp; Parrotta, J.A. (2005). Restoration of degraded tropical forest landscapes. \u003cem\u003eScience,\u003c/em\u003e 310, 1628-1632. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1111773\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLeptander, R. (2023). The Yamal Nenets\u0026rsquo; traditional and contemporary environmental knowledge of snow, ice and permafrost. \u003cem\u003eEcology and Society\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e28\u003c/em\u003e(3), Article 6. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-14353-280306\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLewis, T., Vestraten, L., Hogg, B., Wehr, B.J., Swift, S., Menzies, N.W., Dalal, R.C., Bryant P, Francis, B., \u0026amp; Smith, T.E. (2019). Reforestation of agricultural land in the tropics: the relative contribution of soil, living biomass and debris pool to carbon sequestration. \u003cem\u003eScience of the Total Environment, 649,\u003c/em\u003e 1502\u0026ndash;1513. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.scitotenv.2018.08.351\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLi, C., Ma, J., Li, L., Huang, J., Lu, J., Mei, H., Degen, A., \u0026amp; Shang, Z. (2023). Effects of degradation and species composition on soil seed density in the alpine grasslands, China. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Arid Land, 15\u003c/em\u003e(12), 1510-1528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40333-023-0036-1\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLiu, S., Dong,Y., Cheng, F., Coxixo, A., \u0026amp; Hou X (2016). Practices and opportunities of ecosystem service studies for ecological restoration in China. \u003cem\u003eSustainability Science, 11,\u003c/em\u003e 935\u0026ndash;944. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-016-0390-4\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLongkumer, M., \u0026amp; Makar, A.K. (2017). NEPED-An Integrated Development Project, and Its Role in Preservation of Indigenous Knowledge in Nagaland. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Science and Research,\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003e6\u003c/em\u003e(7), 133-138. https://www.ijsr.net/archive/v6i7/ ART20171286.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMackinnon, J.L., Andramaro, L., Rambeloson, A., Razafindrazakosa, M. \u0026amp; Harvey, C.A. (2018). Cost of delivery approaches for providing livelihood projects to local communities as part of REDD\u003csup\u003e+\u003c/sup\u003e programmes: an analysis from Madagascar. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Conservation\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e45\u003c/em\u003e, 324-332. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892917000571\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMaikhuri, R.K., Rao, K.S., Nautiyal, S., Chandrasekhara, K., Gavali, R., \u0026amp; Saxena, K.G. (2000). Analysis and resolution of protected area-people conflicts in Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve, India. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Conservation,\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003e27\u003c/em\u003e, 43-53. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0376892900000060\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMaikhuri, R.K., Rawat, L.S., Semwal, R.L., Rao, K.S., \u0026amp; Saxena, K.G. (2015). Organic farming in Uttarakhand Himalaya, India. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Ecology and Environmental Science, 41\u003c/em\u003e, 161-176. https://nieindia.org/Journal/index.php/ijees/article/view/670/227\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMaikhuri, R.K., Saxena, K.G., \u0026amp; Rao, K.S. (1995). Experiences in developing a village agroforestry project in Garhwal Himalaya, India. \u003cem\u003eInternational Tree Crops Journal \u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e8\u003c/em\u003e, 213\u0026ndash;22. https://doi.org/10.1080/01435698.1995.9752950\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMaikhuri, R.K., Semwal, R.L., Rao, K.S., \u0026amp; Saxena, K.G. (1997). Rehabilitation of degraded community lands for sustainable development in Himalaya: a case study in Garhwal Himalaya, India. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology,\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003e4\u003c/em\u003e, 192\u0026ndash;203. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509709469954\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMansourian, S., Kleymann, H., Passardi, V., Winter, S., Derkyi, M., Diederischen, A., Gabay, M., Pacheko, P., Valluri, D., \u0026amp; Kull, C.A. (2022). Governments commit to forest restoration but what does it take to restore forests? \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Conservation\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e49\u003c/em\u003e, 206-214. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892922000340\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMartin, P.A., Newton, A.C., \u0026amp; Bullock, J.M. (2013). Carbon pools recover more quickly than plant biodiversity in tropical secondary forests. \u003cem\u003eProceedings Royal Society: B 280\u003c/em\u003e, 2013-2236. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.2236\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMir, A.H., Dad, J.M., Singh, B., \u0026amp; Kamili, A.N. (2022). Passive restoration considerably improved the community structure, soil health and carbon stock in the Pine forests of Kashmir Himalaya, India. \u003cem\u003eEcological Engineering, 176\u003c/em\u003e, 106535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2021.106535\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMoreno, M., de-Bashan, L., Hernandez, J.P., Lopez, B.R., \u0026amp; Bashan, Y. (2017). Success of long-term restoration of degraded arid land using native trees planted 11 years earlier. \u003cem\u003ePlant and Soil,\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003e421\u003c/em\u003e, 83\u0026ndash;92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-017-3438-z\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMoreno-Mateos, D., Alberdi, A., Morri\u0026euml;n, E., van der Putten, W.H., Rodriguez-Una, A., \u0026amp; Montoya, D. (2020)\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e The long-term restoration of ecosystem complexity. \u003cem\u003eNature Ecology \u0026amp; Evolution,\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003e4\u003c/em\u003e, 676\u0026ndash;685. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-1154-1\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMurcia, C. (1997). Evaluation of Andean alder as a catalyst for recovery of tropical cloud forests in Colombia. \u003cem\u003eForest Ecology and Management,\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003e99\u003c/em\u003e, 163-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(97)00202-8\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMurgueito, E., Calle, Z., Uribe, F., Calle, A., \u0026amp; Solorio, B. (2011). Native tree and shrubs for the productive rehabilitation of tropical cattle ranching lands. \u003cem\u003eForest Ecology and Management,\u003c/em\u003e 261, 1654-1663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2010.09.027\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNegi, V.S., Pathak, R., Dhyani, V., Durgapal, M., Joshi, R.K., \u0026amp; Bhatt, I.D. (2022). Land restoration in the Himalayan Region: Steps towards biosphere integrity. \u003cem\u003eLand Use Policy,\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003e121\u003c/em\u003e, 106317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106317\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePandey, S.S., Maraseni, T.N., \u0026amp; Cockfield, M. (2014). Carbon stock dynamics in different vegetation dominated community forests under REDD+: A case from Nepal. \u003cem\u003eForest Ecology and Management,\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003e327\u003c/em\u003e, 40-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2014.04.028\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePereira, C.A., Tabarelli, M., Barros, M.F., \u0026amp; Vieira, I.C.G. (2023). Restoring fire-degraded social forests via biocultural approaches: a key strategy to safeguard the Amazon legacy. \u003cem\u003eRestoration Ecology, 31\u003c/em\u003e, e13976. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13976\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eQiu, S., Peng, J., Zheng, H., Xu, Z., \u0026amp; Meersmans, J. (2022). How can massive ecological restoration programs interplay with social-ecological systems? A review of research in the South China karst region. \u003cem\u003eScience of The Total Environment\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e807\u003c/em\u003e(2), 150723. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150723.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRajput, B.S., Bhardwaj, D.R., \u0026amp; Pala, N.A. (2017). Factors influencing biomass and carbon storage potential of different land use systems along an elevational gradient in temperate northwestern Himalaya. \u003cem\u003eAgroforestry Systems,\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003e91\u003c/em\u003e, 479\u0026ndash;486. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-016-9948-5\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRakatama, A., Pandit, R., Ma, C., \u0026amp; Iftekhar, S. (2017). The costs and benefits of REDD\u003csup\u003e+\u003c/sup\u003e: A review of literature. \u003cem\u003eForest Policy \u0026amp; Economics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e75\u003c/em\u003e, 102-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.08.006\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRamdani, R., \u0026amp; Mustalahti, I. (2023). Collaborative everyday adaptation to deal with peatland fires: a case study on the east coast of Sumatra, Indonesia. \u003cem\u003eEcology \u0026amp; Society, 28\u003c/em\u003e(3), Art 12. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-14263-280312\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRamprasad, V., Joglekar, A., \u0026amp; Fleischman, F. (2020). Plantations and pastoralists: afforestation activities make pastoralists in the Indian Himalaya vulnerable. \u003cem\u003eEcology \u0026amp; Socoety, 25\u003c/em\u003e (4), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-14263-250501\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRana, P., Fleischman, F., Ramprasad, V., \u0026amp; Lee, K. (2022). Predicting wasteful spending in tree planting programs in Indian Himalaya. \u003cem\u003eWorld Development, 154\u003c/em\u003e, 105864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2022.105864.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRao, K.S., Maikhuri, R.K., \u0026amp; Saxena, K.G. (1999). Participatory approach to rehabilitation of degraded forest lands: a case study in a high altitude village of Indian Himalaya. \u003cem\u003eInternational Tree Crops Journal,\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003e10\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;17. https://doi.org/10.1080/01435698. 1999.9752988\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRao, K.S., Semwal, R.L., Ghoshal, S., Maikhuri, R.K., Nautiyal, S., \u0026amp; Saxena, K.G. (2022). Participatory active restoration of communal forests in temperate Himalaya, India. \u003cem\u003eRestoration Ecology,\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003e30\u003c/em\u003e(1), e13486. https://doi.org/10.1111.rec.13486\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRao, K.S., Semwal, R.L., Maikhuri, R.K., Nautiyal, S., Sen, K.K., Singh, K., Chandrasekhar, K., \u0026amp; Saxena, K.G. (2003). Indigenous ecological knowledge, biodiversity and sustainable development in the central Himalayas. \u003cem\u003eTropical Ecology,\u003c/em\u003e 44. 93-111. https://tropecol.org/pdf/open/PDF_44_1/44110.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRao, K.S., Saxena, K.G., \u0026amp; Tiwari, B.K. (2016). \u003cem\u003eBiodiversity, Climate Change and Socio-economic Development in the Indian Himalaya: An Overview\u003c/em\u003e. Dehradun, Bishen Singh Mahendra Pal Singh.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRayden, T., Jones, K.R., Austin, K., \u0026amp; Radachowsky, J. (2023). Improving climate and biodiversity outcomes through restoration of forest integrity. \u003cem\u003eConservation Biology, 37\u003c/em\u003e (6), e14163. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14163\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eReang, D., Nath, A.J., Sileshi, G.W., Hazarika, A., \u0026amp; Das, A.K. (2022). Post-fire restoration of land under shifting cultivation: A case study of pineapple agroforestry in the Sub-Himalayan region. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Environmental Management, 305\u003c/em\u003e, 114372 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.114372.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eReang, D., Hazarika, A., Sileshi, G.W., Pandey, R., Das, A.K., \u0026amp; Nath, A.J. (2021). Assessing tree diversity and carbon storage during land use transitioning from shifting cultivation to indigenous agroforestry systems: Implications for REDD+ initiatives. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Environmental Management, 298\u003c/em\u003e, 113470, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113470. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eReed, J., van Vianen, J., Deakin, E.L., Barlow, J., \u0026amp; Sunderland, T. (2016). Integrated landscape approaches to managing social and environmental issues in the tropics: learning from the past to guide the future. \u003cem\u003eGlobal Change Biology,\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003e22\u003c/em\u003e(7), 2540-2554. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13284 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eReyes‐Garc\u0026iacute;a, V., Fern\u0026aacute;ndez‐Llamazares, \u0026Aacute;., McElwee, P., Moln\u0026aacute;r, Z., \u0026Ouml;llerer, K., Wilson, S.J., \u0026amp; Brondizio, E.S. (2019). The contributions of Indigenous Peoples and local communities to ecological restoration. \u003cem\u003eRestoration Ecology,\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003e27\u003c/em\u003e(1), 3-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12894\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRohr, J.R., Bernhardt, E.S., Cadotte, M.W., \u0026amp; Clements, W.H. (2018). The ecology and economies of restoration: when, what, where, and how to restore ecosystems. \u003cem\u003eEcology \u0026amp; Society,\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003e23\u003c/em\u003e(2), 15. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09876-230215\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSacande, M., \u0026amp; Muir, G. (2022). Restoring Sahelian landscapes with people and plants: insights from large‐scale interventions. \u003cem\u003eRestoration Ecology, 24, \u003c/em\u003ee13656. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13656 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSalick, J., Ghimire, S.K., Fang, Z., Dema, S., \u0026amp; Konchar, K.M. (2014). Himalayan alpine vegetation, climate change and mitigation. \u003cem\u003eJournal of\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eEthnobiology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e24\u003c/em\u003e, 276-293. https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-34.3.276\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSapkota, R.P., \u0026amp; Stahl, P.D. (2019). Effectiveness of passive restoration on density and diversity of regenerating tree species in mixed Dipterocarp forests of Nepal. \u003cem\u003eRestoration Ecology,\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003e27\u003c/em\u003e, 581-591. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12904\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSaxena, K.G., Sreekesh, S., Rao, K.S., Maikhuri, R.K., \u0026amp; Nautiyal, S. 2024. Business-culture-biodiversity nexus: The foundation of socio-ecological integrity in traditional cultural landscapes in Indian Himalaya. In \u003cem\u003eSatoyama Initiative Thematic Review\u003c/em\u003e 9, Springer (in press).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSemwal, R.L., Nautiyal, S., Maikhuri, R.K., Rao, K.S., \u0026amp; Saxena, K.G. (2013). Growth and carbon stocks of multipurpose tree species plantations in degraded lands in central Himalaya, India. \u003cem\u003eForest Ecology and Management,\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003e310,\u003c/em\u003e 450\u0026ndash;459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2013.08.023\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSemwal, R.L., Nautiyal, S., Sen, K.K., Rana, U., Maikhuri, R.K., Rao, K.S., \u0026amp; Saxena, K.G. (2004). Patterns and ecological implications of agricultural land-use changes: a case study from central Himalaya, India. \u003cem\u003eAgriculture, Ecosystems and Environment,\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003e102,\u003c/em\u003e 81-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(03)00228-7\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShigaeva, J., \u0026amp; Darr, D. (2020). On the socio-economic importance of natural and planted walnut (Juglans regia L.) forests in the Silk Road countries: A systematic review. \u003cem\u003eForest Policy and Economics, 118\u003c/em\u003e, 102233, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102233.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShimrah, T., Rao, K.S., \u0026amp; Saxena, K.G. (2015) The shifting agricultural system (Jhum) and strategies for sustainable agroecosystems in Northeast India. \u003cem\u003eAgroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 39\u003c/em\u003e, 1154-1171. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2015.1089350\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSingh, K., Maikhuri, R.K., Rao, K.S., \u0026amp; Saxena, K.G. 2008. Characterizing land-use diversity in village landscapes for sustainable mountain development: a case study from Indian Himalaya. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmentalist,\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003e28.\u003c/em\u003e 429-445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-008-9164-6\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSingh, K., Byun, C., \u0026amp; Bux, F. (2022). Ecological restoration of degraded ecosystems in India: Science and practices. \u003cem\u003eEcological Engineering, 182\u003c/em\u003e, 106708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2022.106708\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSingh, R.K., Alves, R.N., \u0026amp; Ralen, O. (2014). Hunting of \u003cem\u003ekebung\u003c/em\u003e (\u003cem\u003eRetufa bicolor\u003c/em\u003e) and other squirrel species from morang forest by the Adi tribe of Arunachal Pradesh, India: biocultural conservation and livelihood dimensions. \u003cem\u003eRegional Environmental Change\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e, 1479-1490. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-014-0590-3\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeldewinde, P.C., Slaney, D., \u0026amp; Weinstein, P. (2015). Is restoring an ecosystem good for your health? \u003cem\u003eScience of the Total Environment, 502\u003c/em\u003e, 276-279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.09.028\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpiotta-Marin, S., Silver, W.L., \u0026amp; Ostertag, R. (2007). Long term patterns of tropical reforestation: plant community composition and aboveground biomass accumulation. \u003cem\u003eEcological Applications, 17\u003c/em\u003e, 828\u0026ndash;839. https://doi.org/10.1890/06-1268\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStanturf, J.A. (2021). Forest landscape restoration: building on the past for future success. \u003cem\u003eRestoration Ecology,\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003e29\u003c/em\u003e(4), e13349. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13349\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVanderhaegen, K., Verbist, B., Hundera, K., \u0026amp; Muys, B. (2015). REALU vs REDD+: carbon and biodiversity in the Afromontane landscapes of SW Ethiopia. Forest Ecology and Management, 343, 22\u0026ndash;33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2015.01.016\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWakeel, A., Rao, K.S., Maikhuri, R.K., \u0026amp; Saxena, K.G. (2005). Forest management and land use/cover changes in a typical micro watershed in the mid elevation zone of Central Himalaya, India. \u003cem\u003eForest Ecology and Management, 213\u003c/em\u003e, 229-242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2005.03.061\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWalker, L.R., Wardle, D.A., Bardgett, R.D., \u0026amp; Clarkson, B.D. (2010). The use of chronosequences in studies of ecological succession and soil development. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Ecology, 98\u003c/em\u003e(4), 725-736. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2010.01664.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWheeler, C.E., Omeja, P.A., Chapman, C.A., Gilpin, M., \u0026amp; Tumwesigiye, C. (2016). Carbon sequestration and biodiversity following 18 years of active tropical forest restoration. \u003cem\u003eForest Ecology and Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e373\u003c/em\u003e, 44-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2016.04.025\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZambiazi, D.S., Fantini, A.C., Piotto, D., Siminski, A., Vibrans, A.C., Oller, D.C., Geferson, E.P., Piazza, E., \u0026amp; Pe\u0026ntilde;a-Claros, M. (2021). Timber stock recovery in a chronosequence of secondary forests in Southern Brazil: Adding value to restored landscapes. \u003cem\u003eForest Ecology and Management, 495\u003c/em\u003e, 119352, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2021.119352.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZethof, J.H.T., Cammeraat, E.L.H., \u0026amp; Nadal-Romero, E. (2019). The enhancing effect of afforestation over secondary succession on soil fertility under semi-arid climate conditions. \u003cem\u003eScience of the Total Environment, 652\u003c/em\u003e, 1090\u0026ndash;1101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.235\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhou, S. 1993. Cultivation of \u003cem\u003eAmomum villosum\u003c/em\u003e in tropical forests. \u003cem\u003eForest Ecology and Management, 60\u003c/em\u003e, 157-162. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-1127(93)90029-M\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Tables","content":"\u003cp\u003eTable 1. Density (number of individuals ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e), height (cm) and biomass (kg/individual of tree and clump of bamboo) of the tree component in the restoration site.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"863\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"34.106728538283065%\" rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePlant species\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"20.88167053364269%\" colspan=\"3\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDensity\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"22.737819025522043%\" colspan=\"3\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHeight\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"22.273781902552205%\" colspan=\"3\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBiomass\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.017574692442881%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8 year\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"11.24780316344464%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10 year\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.54481546572935%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20 year\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"11.95079086115993%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8 year\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"11.24780316344464%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10 year\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"11.24780316344464%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20 year\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"11.24780316344464%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8 year\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"11.24780316344464%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10 year\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"11.24780316344464%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20 year\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"34.06720741599073%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAesculus indica\u003csup\u003e#\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"6.6048667439165705%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1500\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.415990730011588%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1250\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"6.952491309385863%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e625\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.879490150637312%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e260\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.415990730011588%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e395\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.415990730011588%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e502\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.415990730011588%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.415990730011588%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.415990730011588%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e57.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"34.06720741599073%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJuglans regia\u003csup\u003e#\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"6.6048667439165705%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e575\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.415990730011588%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e525\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"6.952491309385863%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e300\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.879490150637312%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e140\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.415990730011588%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e316\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.415990730011588%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e417\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.415990730011588%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.415990730011588%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.415990730011588%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e73.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"34.06720741599073%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eQuercus leucotrichophora\u003csup\u003e#\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"6.6048667439165705%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e225\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.415990730011588%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e200\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"6.952491309385863%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.879490150637312%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e160\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.415990730011588%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e294\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.415990730011588%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e331\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.415990730011588%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.415990730011588%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.415990730011588%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e52.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"34.06720741599073%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThamnocalamus spathiflorus\u003csup\u003e#\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"6.6048667439165705%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1800\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.415990730011588%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"6.952491309385863%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e856\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.879490150637312%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e260\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.415990730011588%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e80\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.415990730011588%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e102\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.415990730011588%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e33.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.415990730011588%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.415990730011588%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"34.06720741599073%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAlnus nepalensis\u003csup\u003e@\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"6.6048667439165705%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.415990730011588%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e145\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"6.952491309385863%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e96\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.879490150637312%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.415990730011588%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e80\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.415990730011588%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e660\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.415990730011588%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.415990730011588%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.415990730011588%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"34.06720741599073%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAbies pindrow\u003csup\u003e$\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"6.6048667439165705%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.415990730011588%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"6.952491309385863%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.879490150637312%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e55\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.415990730011588%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e85\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.415990730011588%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e175\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.415990730011588%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.415990730011588%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.415990730011588%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"34.06720741599073%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFraxinus micrantha\u003csup\u003e$\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"6.6048667439165705%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.415990730011588%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"6.952491309385863%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.879490150637312%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e75\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.415990730011588%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e95\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.415990730011588%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e155\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.415990730011588%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.415990730011588%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.415990730011588%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"34.06720741599073%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNeolitsea pallens\u003csup\u003e$\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"6.6048667439165705%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.415990730011588%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"6.952491309385863%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.879490150637312%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e55\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.415990730011588%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e85\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.415990730011588%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e140\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.415990730011588%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.415990730011588%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.415990730011588%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"34.06720741599073%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePyrus pashia\u003csup\u003e$\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"6.6048667439165705%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e24\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.415990730011588%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e35\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"6.952491309385863%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.879490150637312%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e85\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.415990730011588%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e105\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.415990730011588%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e155\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.415990730011588%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.415990730011588%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.415990730011588%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"34.106728538283065%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eF\u003csub\u003e25,84\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"20.88167053364269%\" colspan=\"3\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e102.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"22.737819025522043%\" colspan=\"3\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e182.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"22.273781902552205%\" colspan=\"3\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e70.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"34.106728538283065%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLSD (P = 0.05)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"20.88167053364269%\" colspan=\"3\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"22.737819025522043%\" colspan=\"3\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"22.273781902552205%\" colspan=\"3\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e#2500 individuals/ha of each species initially planted in1991; @ - 145 individuals/ha planted in gaps in 2001; $ - people protected naturally regenerated \u003cem\u003eAbies pindrow\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Royle ex D.Don) Royle (Pinaceae) for its timber used in traditional flooring/roofing, \u003cem\u003eFraxinus micrantha\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eLingelsheim (Oleaceae) for wood in farm implements/bark in health care, \u003cem\u003eNeolitsea pallens\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(D. Don) Momiy. \u0026amp; H. Hara (Lauraceae) for seeds yielding edible oil and \u003cem\u003ePyrus pashia\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eBuch.-Ham. Ex D.Don (Rosaceae) for high quality stakes/fuelwood/farm implements/honeybee forage as also medicinal herb \u003cem\u003ePotentilla fulgens\u003c/em\u003e Wall. ex Hook. (Rosaceae).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 2. Density (individuals/ha) of planted and naturally regenerated surviving 1, 7, 10 and 20 years after setting out a participatory restoration trial in village Khaljhuni, Central Himalaya, India\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"99%\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"67.34693877551021%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.183673469387756%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"11.224489795918368%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.244897959183673%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"67.34693877551021%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMedicinal herbs planted in 1996\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.183673469387756%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"11.224489795918368%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.244897959183673%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"67.34693877551021%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAngelia glauca\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.183673469387756%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e282\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"11.224489795918368%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e280\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.244897959183673%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e268\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"67.34693877551021%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAconitum heterophyllum\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.183673469387756%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e260\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"11.224489795918368%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e254\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.244897959183673%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e244\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"67.34693877551021%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePicrorhiza kurrooa\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.183673469387756%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e196\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"11.224489795918368%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e195\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.244897959183673%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e187\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"67.34693877551021%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRheum australe\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.183673469387756%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e301\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"11.224489795918368%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e295\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.244897959183673%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e269\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"67.34693877551021%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eF\u003csub\u003e11, 48\u003c/sub\u003e = 53; least significant difference (\u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= 0.05) = 27\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.183673469387756%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"11.224489795918368%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.244897959183673%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"67.34693877551021%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMedicinal plants established through natural regeneration\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.183673469387756%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"11.224489795918368%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.244897959183673%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"67.34693877551021%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSwertia chirayata\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.183673469387756%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e265\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"11.224489795918368%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e290\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.244897959183673%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e280\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"67.34693877551021%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePotentilla fulgens\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.183673469387756%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e489\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"11.224489795918368%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e510\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.244897959183673%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e490\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"67.34693877551021%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eArtemesia\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003esps\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.183673469387756%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e215\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"11.224489795918368%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e210\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.244897959183673%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e240\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"67.34693877551021%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOreganum vulgare\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.183673469387756%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e89\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"11.224489795918368%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e150\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.244897959183673%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e156\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"67.34693877551021%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eF\u003csub\u003e11, 48\u003c/sub\u003e = 43; least significant difference (\u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= 0.05) = 48\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.183673469387756%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"11.224489795918368%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.244897959183673%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 3. Selected socio-ecological attributes (\u0026plusmn; standard deviation)\u0026nbsp;of Khaljhuni landscape and community at the end of 8\u003csup\u003eth\u003c/sup\u003e (1998) and 20\u003csup\u003eth\u003c/sup\u003e year of restoration (2011) (differences between values in the two years with different superscripts are significant (\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.05: Mann Whitney Rank test)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"61.28526645768025%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"20.689655172413794%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1998\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.025078369905955%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2011\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"100%\" colspan=\"3\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eInfrastructure\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"61.28526645768025%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDistance to road (km)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"20.689655172413794%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.025078369905955%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"61.28526645768025%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHouseholds electrified\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"20.689655172413794%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.025078369905955%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e50\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"100%\" colspan=\"3\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHuman/livestock population\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"61.28526645768025%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNumber of families\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"20.689655172413794%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e38\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.025078369905955%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e50\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"61.28526645768025%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHuman population\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"20.689655172413794%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e268\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.025078369905955%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e340\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"61.28526645768025%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLivestock population\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"20.689655172413794%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e631\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.025078369905955%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e365\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"100%\" colspan=\"3\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eLand cover/use\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(ha)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"61.28526645768025%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAgricultural land: food crops\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"20.689655172413794%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e66.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.025078369905955%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e41\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"61.28526645768025%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAgricultural land: medicinal herbs\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"20.689655172413794%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.025078369905955%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"61.28526645768025%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAbandoned agricultural land: leased \u0026nbsp;(\u003cem\u003eTaxus baccata\u003c/em\u003e plantation)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"20.689655172413794%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.025078369905955%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"61.28526645768025%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAbandoned agricultural land:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"20.689655172413794%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.025078369905955%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"61.28526645768025%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIntact forests (crown cover: 70-90%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"20.689655172413794%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e302\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.025078369905955%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e302\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"61.28526645768025%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDegraded forests (crown cover :\u0026lt; 20%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"20.689655172413794%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e134\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.025078369905955%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e134\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"61.28526645768025%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRestored forest land\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"20.689655172413794%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.025078369905955%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"100%\" colspan=\"3\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAnnual production\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(m\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e for timber and kg for other attributes/household/year) and\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;income (in parenthesis: Indian Rs/household/year; 1 USD = Rs 65;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eCultural values prohibited cash income from timber, fuelwood and fodder)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"61.28526645768025%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAgricultural products\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"20.689655172413794%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.025078369905955%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"61.28526645768025%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFood crops\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"20.689655172413794%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5195\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e (3078\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;a\u003c/sup\u003e)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.025078369905955%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1526\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e (1024\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;b\u003c/sup\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"61.28526645768025%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFuelwood\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"20.689655172413794%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e708\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;a\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.025078369905955%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2890\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;b\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"61.28526645768025%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFodder\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"20.689655172413794%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e190\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;a\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.025078369905955%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e650\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;b\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"61.28526645768025%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMedicinal herbs (cultivated on farm)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"20.689655172413794%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;a\u003c/sup\u003e (824\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;a\u003c/sup\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.025078369905955%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;a\u003c/sup\u003e (2943\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"61.28526645768025%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMilk/milk products\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"20.689655172413794%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1204\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;a\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(181\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;a\u003c/sup\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.025078369905955%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e926\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;b\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(48\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;b\u003c/sup\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"61.28526645768025%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWool\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"20.689655172413794%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e93\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;a\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(205\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;a\u003c/sup\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.025078369905955%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e45 \u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(32\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;b\u003c/sup\u003e )\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"61.28526645768025%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eForest land\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"20.689655172413794%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.025078369905955%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"61.28526645768025%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTimber\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"20.689655172413794%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.9\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;a\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.025078369905955%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.9\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;a\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"61.28526645768025%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFuelwood\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"20.689655172413794%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14159\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;a\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.025078369905955%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12194\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;b\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"61.28526645768025%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFodder\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"20.689655172413794%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2038\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;a\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.025078369905955%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1782\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;b\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"61.28526645768025%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLeaf litter\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"20.689655172413794%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e232\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;a\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.025078369905955%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e206\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;a\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"61.28526645768025%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBamboo\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"20.689655172413794%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3500\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;a\u003c/sup\u003e (593\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;a\u003c/sup\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.025078369905955%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e697\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;b\u003c/sup\u003e (30\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;b\u003c/sup\u003e)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"61.28526645768025%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLichens\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"20.689655172413794%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e29\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;a\u003c/sup\u003e (38\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;a\u003c/sup\u003e)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.025078369905955%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;b\u003c/sup\u003e (140\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;b\u003c/sup\u003e)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"61.28526645768025%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMedicinal plants\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"20.689655172413794%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;a\u003c/sup\u003e (82\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;a\u003c/sup\u003e)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.025078369905955%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;b\u003c/sup\u003e (216\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;b\u003c/sup\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"61.28526645768025%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHoney\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"20.689655172413794%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;a\u003c/sup\u003e (160\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;a\u003c/sup\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.025078369905955%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;b\u003c/sup\u003e (40\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;b\u003c/sup\u003e)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"61.28526645768025%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWalnut\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"20.689655172413794%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;a\u003c/sup\u003e (96\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;a\u003c/sup\u003e)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.025078369905955%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e29 \u003csup\u003eb\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sup\u003e(1550\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;b\u003c/sup\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"61.28526645768025%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOther income\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"20.689655172413794%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.025078369905955%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"61.28526645768025%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWages \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"20.689655172413794%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e70\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;a\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.025078369905955%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14200\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"61.28526645768025%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRent from lease\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"20.689655172413794%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.025078369905955%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e546\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Adaptive management, Bamboo, Benefit/cost ratio, Biodiversity, Carbon sequestration","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3975272/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3975272/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eForest restoration based on the concepts of integrated, adaptive and co-management with active community participation was attempted in a village in the temperate region of Indian Himalayan region. Mixed plantation of multipurpose broad-leaved trees, bamboo and medicinal herbs selected by the inhabitants based on pooled traditional and scientific knowledge was established, with an understanding that funding will be limited to inputs unaffordable by people and will be terminated after economic benefit/cost ratio is \u003cu\u003e\u0026gt;\u003c/u\u003e 1. Stakeholders would voluntarily maintain and upscale/outscale it thereafter and analysis of socio-ecological outcomes would continue for at least next 20 years. Accordingly, the funding was terminated after 7 years when economic benefit/cost ratio crossed the mark of one. Voluntary planting of \u003cem\u003eAlnus nepalensis\u003c/em\u003e in gaps arising from gregarious flowering induced mass mortality of bamboo two years after cessation of funding maintained progression of recovery. After 20 years, the restored area had 17% of aboveground and 75% of belowground carbon stocks, and 39% of flowering species as compared to intact forests. Further, restored forest after 20 years was monetarily the most efficient land use even though there were no payments for its regulating ecosystem services.\u0026nbsp;People maintained but did not upscale/outscale the forest restoration trial as also cultivation of medicinal herbs having high biodiversity conservation on farm land triggered by it. In the study village abandonment of cropping in 39% of private farm area and leasing 24% of it to a pharmaceutical company were the land use changes between 8\u003csup\u003eth\u003c/sup\u003e and 20\u003csup\u003eth\u003c/sup\u003e year of restoration. Nullification of carbon sequestration by forest restoration by emission from agricultural abandonment resulted in no net sequestration at landscape (village) scale. Land use/cover changes resulted in change in flowering plant species diversity at ecosystem but not at village landscape scale. There is a need of tailoring forest restoration as an activity enhancing traditional knowledge, culture and income of people, ensuring its synergy with other land uses/non-land activities and determining financial support for contribution of farm-forest cultural landscape mosaics to biodiversity conservation and climate change mitigation around biodiversity hotspots in developing countries\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Participatory forest restoration for sustainable livelihood: A case study from Himalaya","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-02-27 21:44:38","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3975272/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"e8248649-a317-43c8-8975-d6319e670722","owner":[],"postedDate":"February 27th, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2024-04-25T18:00:55+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2024-02-27 21:44:38","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-3975272","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-3975272","identity":"rs-3975272","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"_2-kVJe1T_tPrBINL-cwx","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}