Plant species produce far more seedlings than those surviving to adulthood. It would seem reasonable to take advantage of that excess production, by relocating seedlings to desired restoration sites. ...There is, however, little information available on this issue. In the present study, we collected naturally regenerated seedlings of two native species,
Calophyllum brasiliense
(“barí”) and
Vochysia guatemalensis
(“corpo”), in old‐growth forest patches, and transplanted them for the enrichment of a secondary tropical forest in Veracruz, Mexico. For transplanted
C. brasiliense
seedlings, overall survival was 32% after 20 months, and for
V. guatemalensis
seedlings it was 66% after 26 months. The mean height (±standard error) of all
C. brasiliense
and
V. guatemalensis
seedlings that survived until the end of the study, was 33 ± 2 cm (from initially 12.9 ± 0.2 cm) and 52 ± 5 cm (from 4.6 ± 0.1 cm), respectively. We applied a cost–benefit model to assess the trade‐off between initial‐investment costs and the resulting survival of transplanting naturally regenerated seedlings in the current study, in comparison with direct seeding (with and without the protection of seeds and emerged seedlings) reported in a previous study for the same area and species. For
C. brasiliense
, the success of transplanting naturally regenerated seedlings was always inferior to direct seeding without protection, whereas for
V. guatemalensis
it was always superior. Comparing the transplantation of naturally regenerated seedlings with direct seeding with protection, the best propagation strategy depended on the (monetary) value that a treelet is expected to be worth after 2 years.
A priority in restoration research is to seek methods that reach high levels of plant establishment at the lowest possible cost. Here, we test how direct seeding works with and without a plastic ...protector that covers seeds and seedlings in an early‐successional rainforest in Veracruz (Mexico). Two native species, Calophyllum brasiliense (barí) and Vochysia guatemalensis (corpo), at three topographic positions, were used. Germination rates with and without the protector were 84 versus 79% for C. brasiliense, and 98 versus 89% for V. guatemalensis, respectively. The protector significantly improved the germination only of V. guatemalensis. Plant survivorship of V. guatemalensis 27 months after seeding was significantly higher with the protector (78%) than without it (46%). For C. brasiliense, there were no differences in survivorship after 22 months with (61%) and without (54%) protector. In both species, the protector had no effect on height growth, which was significantly larger for seedlings located at the toeslope position. We developed a cost–benefit model that provides a threshold value at which the investment for protectors is justified by a resulting higher survivorship: If 27 months after seeding a treelet of V. guatemalensis is worth at least 0.83 USD on our sites, then the effect of the protector is worth the cost of its implementation (for C. brasiliense, survivorship was statistically undistinguishable with and without protector). We suggest that direct seeding with a plastic protector could be a promising alternative for forest restoration with suitable tree species.
