Towards an integrated perspective of biological conservation and ecological restoration

McMahen, Katie; Bommel, Joanna Klees van

doi:10.1111/rec.13146

Cited by 5 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…1b) were congruent with other recent studies in which conservation and restoration subjects are discussed side by side (Possingham et al. 2015; McMahen & Bommel 2020), and topics related to biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services are key issues for future integrated research in ecological restoration (Guan et al. 2018; Staples et al.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

“…Trends in research topics (Fig. 1b) were congruent with other recent studies in which conservation and restoration subjects are discussed side by side (Possingham et al 2015;McMahen & Bommel 2020), and topics related to biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services are key issues for future integrated research in ecological restoration (Guan et al 2018;Staples et al 2019). Our population of reviews is, therefore, likely to be perceived as an important subset of publications in restoration ecology and to include topics of interest to researchers and policymakers.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Reliability of evidence‐review methods in restoration ecology

Romanelli

Meli

Naves

et al. 2020

Conservation Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In restoration science, evidence reviews play a crucial role in summarizing research findings in practice and policy. However, if unreliable or inappropriate methods are used to review evidence, decisions based on these reviews may not accurately reflect the available evidence base. To assess the current value of restoration reviews, we examined a sample of meta‐analyses and narrative syntheses (n = 91) with the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence Synthesis Assessment Tool (CEESAT), which uses detailed criteria to assesses the method of policy‐relevant evidence synthesis according to elements important for objectivity, transparency, and comprehensiveness. Overall, reviews scored low based on this standard: median score 16 out of 39, modal score 15, and mean 16.6. Meta‐analyses scored higher than narrative syntheses (median 17 vs. 5, respectively), although there were some outlier narrative syntheses that had high scores, suggesting that quantitative synthesis does not solely reflect the reliability of a review. In general, criteria spanning the more fundamental review stages (i.e., searching for studies and including studies) received low scores for both synthesis types. Conversely, criteria comprising the later stages of the review (i.e., critical appraisal, data extraction, and data synthesis) were generally well described in meta‐analyses; thus, these criteria achieved the highest individual CEESAT scores. We argue that restoration ecology is well positioned to advance so‐called evidence‐based restoration, but review authors should elucidate their conceptual understanding of evidence syntheses and recognize that conducting reliable reviews demands the same methodological rigor and reporting standards used in primary research. Given the potential of evidence reviews to inform management, policy, and research, it is of vital importance that the overall methodological reliability of restoration reviews be improved.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

Reliability of evidence‐review methods in restoration ecology

Romanelli

Meli

Naves

et al. 2020

Conservation Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Restoration and preservation differ in terms of goals, approaches, ecological impacts, long-term sustainability, and ecosystem management applications [15,[57][58][59]. Restoration aims to restore degraded, damaged, or destroyed ecosystems through active human intervention, with a focus on restoring ecosystem elements and dynamic processes [57], and may take considerable time and financial investment to conduct basic revegetation and remediation of pollutants [60].…”

Section: The Importance Of Distinguishing Priority Areas Separately F...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Delineating Priority Areas for Preservation and Restoration across Production–Living–Ecological Spaces in Ganzi, China

Chen,

Deng,

et al. 2024

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Delineating conservation priority areas for both preservation and restoration is essential for developing adaptive ecosystem management strategies across production–living–ecological spaces (PLES). This study developed a coherent framework with four steps: (1) mapping spatial distributions of biodiversity and ecosystem services, (2) ranking the relative importance of ecosystems across spaces, (3) delineating priority areas for preservation and restoration according to the human footprint and priority ranks, and (4) contrasting with current conservation networks and overlapping with PLES. This framework was applied in Ganzi, China, to delineate the preservation priority areas (PPAs) of 8714.2 km2 and 11,308.1 km2, and restoration priority areas (RPAs) of 36,817.7 km2 and 63,578.4 km2 under the target to conserve 30% and 50% of territories, respectively. The priority areas, including PPAs and RPAs, achieve higher conservation capacity than the current Ecological Conservation Redline (ECR) in terms of biodiversity conservation or ecosystem service delivery. Roughly 67% of PPAs, 40% of RPAs, and a total of 75% of large patches with high priority are covered by ECR, indicating the necessity to adjust boundary and conduct restoration for ECR. As for PLES, the conservation priority areas encompass proportionally more ecological space (67–76%) than ECR (63.5%) or Ganzi (61.4%), implying the lower potential conflict between local residents’ production and conservation, and meanwhile, new opportunities and challenges in sustainable development in human-dominated spaces. The coherent framework to delineate PPAs and RPAs is flexible in terms of threshold in human impact or ecological degradation and can be improved by considering the complex relationships between indicators of biodiversity and ecosystem services. This study highlights the importance of incorporating ecosystem features, land uses, and human activities in developing different strategies according to different conservation purposes in the context of sustainable development.

show abstract

“…In the modern age of anthropogenic landscape change, restoration ecology is gaining traction as a means of conserving biodiversity (McMahen & Klees van Bommel, 2020; Possingham et al, 2015; Wiens & Hobbs, 2015). Over 75% of the Earth's terrestrial surface has been modified by humans and vertebrate populations have shrunk by almost 70% (WWF, 2020), indicating that restoration is needed in addition to habitat protection to conserve remaining vertebrate biodiversity.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Walking the line: Investigating biophysical characteristics related to wildlife use of linear features

Tattersall¹,

Pigeon²,

MacNearney³

et al. 2023

Ecol Sol and Evidence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Habitat restoration is a necessary component of wildlife conservation in anthropogenic landscapes. To ensure restoration initiatives achieve the desired effects on wildlife communities, it is useful to investigate how animals use landscape features. Understanding the relationships between wildlife use and ecological cues provides specific and measurable targets that can be used to measure restoration success. In western Canada, linear feature networks formed by seismic lines, pipelines and roads have altered the boreal forest landscape and resulted in population declines for woodland caribou. Restoration is aimed at supporting caribou recovery by deterring linear feature use by caribou predators and ungulate competitors. Information on how linear feature characteristics facilitate or deter wildlife use supports restoration initiatives by providing specific targets for restoration. Here, we used wildlife track and sign data to investigate biophysical characteristics related to the use of linear features by canines, bears, deer, elk and moose in caribou ranges of west‐central and north‐western Alberta and British Columbia. We built generalized linear mixed models consistent with three hypotheses that could explain likely mechanisms for use: (1) ease of movement, (2) risk avoidance and (3) resource availability (prey and forage). Moose, deer, elk and bears were more likely to use linear features with either human or game trails. Bears and canines were less likely to use seismic lines with greater lateral vegetation cover and taller vegetation, respectively. Moose, deer and elk were more likely to use linear features with a greater cover of ungulate forage taxa such as willow, birch, sedges and forbs. These results suggest that restoration focusing on trails, online vegetation structure and online vegetation type should deter predators and ungulate prey species to the overall benefit of caribou. Our study corroborates the findings of other research recommending structural and functional restoration using high‐intensity line blocking and vegetative regeneration. We provide specific targets for linear feature restoration to assist in prioritization according to restoration objectives, which translates to a broader goal of linking local‐level restoration actions to landscape‐level conservation goals. This approach to restoration has implications for any major system experiencing anthropogenic landscape change.

show abstract

Towards an integrated perspective of biological conservation and ecological restoration

Cited by 5 publications

References 16 publications

Reliability of evidence‐review methods in restoration ecology

Reliability of evidence‐review methods in restoration ecology

Delineating Priority Areas for Preservation and Restoration across Production–Living–Ecological Spaces in Ganzi, China

Walking the line: Investigating biophysical characteristics related to wildlife use of linear features

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About