Ramos and Anjos (2014) worked with birds in two riparian "forests" from the northwest of the state of Paraná, southern Brazil, to evaluate how the width and biotic integrity of the "forests" affected the communities. One of their conclusions was that riparian forest should be expanded to a minimum of 50 m of width on each side of a stream. I believe that Ramos and Anjos (2014) compared different environments with different sampling areas: one sampled area was covered by secondary vegetation, which has so far not reached the forest stage, and showed approximately 40% less arboreal vegetation than the second sampled area. This undermines some of the claims made by Ramos and Anjos (2014), for example that the riparian vegetation should be expanded to a minimum of 50 m. The minimum width of the riparian forests must be better evaluated comparing samples of vegetation at similar regeneration stages.
Bornschein, M. R. (2015, July 1). Some trees do not necessarily mean a forest: A criticism to Ramos and Anjos (2014). Natureza e Conservacao. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ncon.2015.10.002