Tropical-Forest Degradation–Restoration Interface: A Comprehensive Review

Abstract

Tropical forests sustain exceptional biodiversity and regulate global carbon and water cycles, yet degradation and incomplete recovery increasingly compromise these functions. We integrated bibliometric mapping with structured systematic synthesis to characterize research at the tropical-forest degradation–restoration interface, identify its most influential contributors and publications, and evaluate evidence on drivers, interventions, monitoring, and knowledge gaps. This study addresses three guiding scientific questions: (i) How has the field developed over time and across geographic space? (ii) Which authors, institutions, journals and publications have been most influential? (iii) What does the evidence indicate about degradation drivers, restoration strategies, monitoring approaches and knowledge gaps? Scopus and Web of Science were searched for peer-reviewed articles and reviews published from 1980 to 2025. After deduplication and PRISMA-based screening, 1075 publications were analyzed bibliometrically, and the 400 most-cited studies were coded against twenty predefined questions. Scientific output increased by 10.68% annually, with 483 publications appearing during 2020–2025. The corpus comprised 318 journals and 4470 authors. Forest Ecology and Management was the leading source (141 publications; 13.1%), while the twenty most productive journals accounted for 44.3% of the corpus. Brancalion P.H.S. was the most productive author (23 publications), followed by Chazdon R.L. and Tabarelli M. (20 each). Citation influence was concentrated: the twenty most-cited documents received 25.7% of all citations, led by Ribeiro M.C. (3339 citations), whereas Hua F. achieved the highest publication-year-normalized citation score among this group. Agricultural expansion, pasture establishment, and logging were the most frequently reported degradation pressures, but interactions among logging, fire, drought, and fragmentation were rarely quantified. Restoration evidence supported a context-dependent continuum from natural regeneration to assisted and active interventions, although planting and enrichment were more visible than direct passive–active comparisons. Carbon, biomass, plant diversity, and forest structure dominated outcome assessment, whereas fauna, ecological interactions, governance, and socioeconomic dimensions received less attention. Monitoring relied mainly on satellite imagery and field inventories, with limited evaluation of tool performance. Long-term trajectories and evidence from Africa, Southeast Asia, seasonally dry forests, and montane systems remained scarce. Overall, the field is rapidly consolidating but remains geographically and thematically uneven. Future research should quantify interacting degradation processes, evaluate multidimensional and long-term recovery, connect remote sensing with ecologically meaningful field indicators, and integrate governance and social conditions into restoration planning. The synthesis supports preventing further degradation and treating restoration as a context-specific complement, rather than a substitute, for protecting remaining native forests.