Cited by 55Hydrology and Sediment Transport ProcessesEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesEcology and biodiversity studies

Applying cumulative effects to strategically advance large‐scale ecosystem restoration

Open access
Diefenderfer, Heida L, Steyer, Gregory D, Harwell, Matthew C, LoSchiavo, Andrew J, Neckles, Hilary A, Burdick, David M, Johnson, Gary E, Buenau, Kate E +5 more·2021·Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment

Abstract

International efforts to restore degraded ecosystems will continue to expand over the coming decades, yet the factors contributing to the effectiveness of long‐term restoration across large areas remain largely unexplored. At large scales, outcomes are more complex and synergistic than the additive impacts of individual restoration projects. Here, we propose a cumulative‐effects conceptual framework to inform restoration design and implementation and to comprehensively measure ecological outcomes. To evaluate and illustrate this approach, we reviewed long‐term restoration in several large coastal and riverine areas across the US : the greater Florida Everglades; Gulf of Mexico coast; lower Columbia River and estuary; Puget Sound; San Francisco Bay and Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta; Missouri River; and northeastern coastal states. Evidence supported eight modes of cumulative effects of interacting restoration projects, which improved outcomes for species and ecosystems at landscape and regional scales. We conclude that cumulative effects, usually measured for ecosystem degradation, are also measurable for ecosystem restoration. The consideration of evidence‐based cumulative effects will help managers of large‐scale restoration capitalize on positive feedback and reduce countervailing effects.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

The paper proposes a cumulative-effects conceptual framework for large-scale ecosystem restoration and reviews US coastal and riverine restoration programs to show that interacting projects can produce beneficial cumulative effects beyond additive project outcomes. It concludes that eight modes of cumulative effects are measurable in restoration and should be incorporated into planning, monitoring, and adaptive management.

Key findings

  • Evidence from the reviewed restoration areas supported eight modes of cumulative effects, and every study area showed more than one mode; the authors state this is the first strong, collective evidence of beneficial cumulative effects within large-scale ecosystems.
  • In Tampa Bay, advanced wastewater and stormwater treatment since the 1970s reduced total nitrogen inputs by 90%; after improvements in water transparency, chlorophyll-a, and total N loading, seagrass acreage in 2014 exceeded 1996 recovery goals based on 1950s benchmark levels.
  • In the northeastern coastal states, salt marsh reconnections in Maine and New Hampshire returned some conditions immediately while others required up to 50 years; after eelgrass was planted at two Gulf of Maine locations, canopy height and biomass developed over 8 years and were followed by increased fish species richness.
  • In the Atchafalaya River Delta, water diverted during rising or peak river stages delivers at least twice as much sediment as during falling stages; globally, 57 entities committed to restoring 170 million ha, with estimated economic benefits on the order of US$9 trillion from improved food security, water supply, and biodiversity, plus greater carbon sequestration.

Methods

  • The authors adapted stressors-based definitions of eight modes of cumulative effects from CEQ (1997) for application to ecological restoration, ecosystem management, and conservation science.
  • They reviewed long-term restoration in several large coastal and riverine areas across the US: the greater Florida Everglades; Gulf of Mexico coast; lower Columbia River and estuary; Puget Sound; San Francisco Bay and Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta; Missouri River; and northeastern coastal states.
  • The main analysis is a qualitative case-study synthesis using evidence compiled in WebTables and cited literature; no new primary data collection or quantitative meta-analysis is reported.

Limitations

  • Stated: evidence for cumulative effects is often deemed too expensive to fully develop and incorporate into restoration design and evaluation; sociocultural and institutional mechanisms can pose substantial barriers even when the ecology is well understood.
  • Stated: resource limitations have sometimes prevented the hypothesis-driven experimentation and monitoring needed to distinguish restoration effects from background trends, and detecting time- or space-crowding effects requires robust statistical modeling and experimental designs.
  • Evident from the text: the review is qualitative and case-study based rather than a systematic quantitative test, and the authors note that thresholds, space crowding, and time crowding are not as widely documented in large-scale restoration and should be incorporated where ecological history suggests they are likely to occur.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/fee.2274

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

23 of 67 cited sources checked · 6 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation

    Positive effects arising from multiple pathways have been observed in Tampa Bay, where watershed-scale nutrient management and local habitat protection and enhancement projects aided seagrass recovery.

    “Positive effects arising from multiple pathways have been observed in Tampa Bay, Florida, where watershed-scale nutrient management and local habitat protection and enhancement projects aided seagrass recovery (Beck et al. 2019).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Beck et al. 2019 source

      The Introduction reports seagrass recovery in Tampa Bay and says reduced nutrient loading and improved water clarity preceded it. The Discussion links habitat protection to reductions in chlorophyll-a, but says habitat enhancement was not strongly associated with baywide water-quality improvements. The paper does not establish that habitat protection and enhancement projects aided seagrass recovery. (LLM, conf=0.87)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Premisecitation

    Rain gardens, bioretention, and vegetated roofs moderate runoff events and associated nutrient loads.

    “Rain gardens, bioretention, and vegetated roofs moderate runoff events and associated nutrient loads (Pennino et al. 2016).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Pennino et al. 2016 source

      The Conclusions report that stormwater green infrastructure reduced flashy hydrology and nitrogen exports at the watershed scale. But §3.3 found no significant correlation between nutrient exports and any individual infrastructure type, and no significant reduction in phosphorus exports. The paper therefore does not establish that rain gardens, bioretention, and vegetated roofs each moderate runoff and associated nutrient loads. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Premisecitation

    In the Florida Everglades, multiple lines of evidence collected over three decades indicate that the effects of water management and restoration projects on food availability during the nesting season are key contributors to nesting success and the sustainability of wading bird populations.

    “Similarly, in the Florida Everglades, multiple lines of evidence collected over three decades indicate that the effects of water management and restoration projects on food availability during the nesting season are key contributors to nesting success and the sustainability of wading bird populations (WebTable 1; Beerens et al. 2015).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Beerens et al. 2015 source

      Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Premisecitation

    Large-scale restoration is usually more cost-effective than local site-specific planning.

    “Large-scale restoration is usually more cost-effective than local site-specific planning (Neeson et al. 2015);”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Neeson et al. 2015 source

      The Significance section reports that coordinating restoration across the Laurentian Great Lakes region was nine times more cost-effective than local-scale planning. The claim extends that finding to large-scale restoration generally by saying it is 'usually' more cost-effective; the paper also notes that local opportunities can be worthwhile (Results and Discussion). (LLM, conf=0.85)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Premisecitation

    The direct effects of reconnection on hydrology and sedimentation in turn produce indirect effects on native plants and the aquatic food web.

    “The direct effects of reconnection on hydrology and sedimentation in turn produce indirect effects on native plants and the aquatic food web (Thom et al. 2018).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Thom et al. 2018 source

      The Accepted Article passages (page unavailable) report that reconnection restored water-level variations, that sediment accretion helped restore marsh elevation and vegetation structure, and that vegetation changed after reconnection. They also describe exported organic matter as a potential contribution to the aquatic food web, but say further research is needed to establish how it is taken up. The paper does not establish the claimed effects on native plants or a demonstrated food-web response. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • May combine two claims. 9
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 30
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Habitat restoration in a Puget Sound watershed measurably increased habitat complexity, which in turn was positively associated with Chinook salmon productivity.

    “For instance, habitat restoration in a Puget Sound watershed measurably increased habitat complexity, which in turn was positively associated with Chinook salmon productivity (Hall et al. 2018)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hall et al. 2018 source
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Several studies have described landscape-scale effects of restorative actions at multiple sites.

    “Several studies have described similar landscape-scale effects of restorative actions at multiple sites (eg Diefenderfer et al. 2016; Beck et al. 2019)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Diefenderfer et al. 2016 source
    • cites Beck et al. 2019 source
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Too little habitat restoration, or restoration of high-risk habitats that attract birds from other locations, may reduce the reproductive output of piping plovers competing for territory.

    “Too little habitat restoration, or restoration of high-risk habitats that attract birds from other locations, may reduce the reproductive output of piping plovers competing for territory (Hunt et al. 2018).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hunt et al. 2018 source

      The Discussion (page unavailable) reports that reproductive rates fell as density increased despite engineered habitat creation, and that birds arriving later may have been unable to secure territories. It also describes predation risks on small, densely occupied sandbars, but does not establish that high-risk restored habitat attracted birds from other locations and thereby reduced reproductive output. (LLM, conf=0.85)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Time lags may impose limits on management control of the system, which need to be addressed by long-term monitoring within adaptive management or structured decision-making frameworks.

    “Time lags may impose limits on management control of the system, which need to be addressed by long-term monitoring within adaptive management or structured decision-making frameworks (WebTable 3; Neckles et al. 2015; Ebberts et al. 2017).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Neckles et al. 2015

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Ebberts et al. 2017 source

      The Components section describes monitoring over multiple years and using the results to adjust decisions within an adaptive-management process; the Results section says comprehensive evaluation occurs every 4–5 years to allow enough new data to accumulate. The copy does not say that time lags limit management control, or discuss structured decision-making as an alternative framework. Page numbers were not available in the indexed passages. (LLM, conf=0.83)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Detection of time- or space-crowding effects requires robust statistical modeling and experimental designs.

    “The detection of time-or space-crowding effects requires robust statistical modeling and experimental designs (Diefenderfer et al. 2012; Pennino et al. 2016).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Diefenderfer et al. 2012 source
    • cites Pennino et al. 2016 source

      Section 2.5 (Statistical analysis; page unavailable) describes regression, ANOVA, and control watersheds for detecting effects of stormwater green infrastructure. Our copy does not address time- or space-crowding effects or say what methods their detection requires (searched: crowding effects, statistical modeling, and experimental design). (LLM, conf=0.76)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    As changes occur, continuing ecosystem management may be more or less active and adaptive according to the decision framework and depending on the results of monitoring.

    “As changes occur, continuing ecosystem management may be more or less active and adaptive according to the decision framework and depending on the results of monitoring (WebTable 3; Neckles et al. 2015; Ebberts et al. 2017).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Neckles et al. 2015

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Ebberts et al. 2017 source
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In practice, large-scale restoration is typically overseen by multidisciplinary teams and based on an ecosystem approach developed at the site scale.

    “In practice, large-scale restoration is typically overseen by multidisciplinary teams and based on an ecosystem approach developed at the site scale, as can be seen in the programs we reviewed (Figure 1).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Multiple restoration and species recovery objectives were identified for each study area.

    “Multiple restoration and species recovery objectives were identified for each study area (WebTable 2), and governance models ranged from centralized programs to subregional organization or separately managed projects.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Findingnone given

    Many program reports offer simple, additive summaries of project outcomes.

    “Many program reports offer simple, additive summaries of project outcomes.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    The Missouri River Recovery Program used suites of models to evaluate beneficial and countervailing effects of multiple restoration actions on focal species, account for benefits, and prioritize management activity.

    “the Missouri River Recovery Program, for example, used suites of models to evaluate the potential for beneficial and countervailing effects of multiple restoration actions on focal species throughout the river system, fully account for benefits, and prioritize management activity (WebTable 3).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites WebTable 3

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Findingnone given

    Resource limitations have sometimes prevented the hypothesis-driven experimentation and monitoring needed to distinguish restoration effects from background trends.

    “Resource limitations have sometimes prevented the hypothesis-driven experimentation and monitoring needed to distinguish restoration effects from background trends.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Findingnone given

    Evaluating the effectiveness of restoration is at present primarily a project-scale endeavor.

    “Evaluating the effectiveness of restoration is at present primarily a project-scale endeavor.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    In San Francisco Bay and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, the loss of 90-95% of wetlands within the estuary, extensive habitat loss in the Central Valley, habitat fragmentation, and loss of connectivity severely impact numerous wetland species, including the California Ridgway's rail and salt marsh harvest mouse.

    “In San Francisco Bay and the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta, the loss of 90–95% of wetlands within the estuary, extensive habitat loss in the Central Valley, habitat fragmentation, and loss of connectivity severely impact numerous wetland species, including the California Ridgway’s rail (Rallus obsoletus obsoletus) and salt marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris; Callaway et al. 2012).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Callaway et al. 2012

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Large-scale restoration of eelgrass in the Virginia Coast Reserve's lower bays improved water clarity, crossing a threshold that led to rapid eelgrass meadow expansion.

    “Large-scale restoration of eelgrass (Zostera marina) in the Virginia Coast Reserve’s lower bays improved water clarity, crossing a threshold that led to rapid eelgrass meadow expansion (Orth et al. 2012).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Orth et al. 2012

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Numerous assessments convincingly demonstrate associations between multiple interacting stressors and declining functions of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.

    “Numerous assessments convincingly demonstrate the associations between multiple interacting stressors and declining functions of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems (Luoma et al. 2001; Darling and Côté 2008).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Luoma et al. 2001

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Darling and Côté 2008 source
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Ecosystem conceptual models are used to inform decisions about altering controlling factors and reducing stressors to achieve ecological objectives.

    “Ecosystem conceptual models are used to inform decisions about altering controlling factors and reducing stressors to achieve ecological objectives (Gentile et al. 2001).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Gentile et al. 2001 source
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationcitation

    Relationships between life histories and habitat connectivity add complex dimensions to restoration planning, monitoring, and evaluation.

    “Relationships between life histories and habitat connectivity add complex dimensions to restoration planning, monitoring, and evaluation (WebTable 1; Herbold et al. 2018).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Herbold et al. 2018

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Interactions between species facilitate restoration.

    “and interactions between species facilitating restoration (Halpern et al. 2007).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Halpern et al. 2007

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Restoration actions are often intended to catalyze ecological processes to act on the landscape and create the desired system state.

    “Restoration actions are often intended to catalyze ecological processes to act on the landscape and create the desired system state (Clewell and Aronson 2013).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Clewell and Aronson 2013 source
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    Coordinating the management of restoration projects linked by ecological processes and evaluating their collective effectiveness requires understanding how populations and ecosystems are affected by changing spatial patterns, cross-boundary effects, and space crowding across the landscape.

    “Coordinating the management of restoration projects linked by ecological processes and evaluating their collective effectiveness requires understanding how populations and ecosystems are affected by changing spatial patterns, cross-boundary effects, and space crowding across the landscape (Table 1).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    For species such as smelt and salmon, survival across a mix of habitats in multiple parts of the estuary, tidal river, and watershed must be considered in conjunction with flow management.

    “For species such as smelt and salmon, survival across a mix of habitats in multiple parts of the estuary, tidal river, and watershed must be considered in conjunction with flow management.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Geomorphic conditions and hydrological processes are regarded as ecosystem controlling factors that largely determine ecological structure and function.

    “Geomorphic conditions and hydrological processes are regarded as ecosystem controlling factors that largely determine ecological structure and function (Brinson 1993).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Brinson 1993

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Development of effective regional restoration and management policies requires improved synthesis of interacting project effects across terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems aided by systems models.

    “The development of effective regional restoration and management policies requires improved synthesis of interacting project effects across terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems aided by systems models.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    A cumulative-effects framework helps account for the non-linearity of the combined effects of restoration projects, particularly where hydrological connectivity of ecosystems is high.

    “A cumulative-effects framework helps to account for the non-linearity of the combined effects of restoration projects, particularly where the hydrological connectivity of ecosystems is high.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Recognizing the individual and interacting ecosystem processes by which effects accumulate is necessary to harness their beneficial work to support the massive scale-up of restoration currently envisioned.

    “Recognizing the individual and interacting ecosystem processes by which effects accumulate is necessary to harness their beneficial work to support the massive scale-up of restoration currently envisioned.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The restoration areas surveyed are representative of large-scale ecosystem restoration generally.
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    Restoration of large-scale ecosystems will require the same vision and experimentation that was needed in 1972 to clean up lakes and rivers in the US after expansion of the Clean Water Act.

    “The restoration of large-scale ecosystems, whether regional landscapes or whole bodies of water, will require the same vision and experimentation that was needed in 1972 to clean up lakes and rivers in the US after expansion of the Clean Water Act.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    In salt marsh reconnections in Maine and New Hampshire, some conditions and components such as salinity returned to previous levels immediately, whereas others required up to 50 years.

    “In salt marsh reconnections in Maine and New Hampshire, some conditions and components (eg salinity) returned to previous levels immediately, whereas others required up to 50 years (Burdick et al. 1997).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Burdick et al. 1997

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    A cumulative-effects conceptual framework is useful for designing monitoring, synthesis, and evaluation strategies that fully account for and appropriately credit cumulative effects.

    “second, to design monitoring, synthesis, and evaluation strategies that fully account for and appropriately credit cumulative effects”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The restoration areas surveyed are representative of large-scale ecosystem restoration generally.
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisenone given

    Many research tools have been developed to assess the cumulative impacts of human-caused stressors.

    “many research tools have been developed to assess the cumulative impacts of human-caused stressors”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    A cumulative-effects conceptual framework is useful for planning to use ecological synergies beneficially and avoid countervailing effects of projects within interconnected ecosystems.

    “the utility of a cumulative-effects conceptual framework for large-scale ecosystem restoration is twofold: first, to plan to use ecological synergies beneficially and avoid countervailing effects of projects within interconnected ecosystems”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The restoration areas surveyed are representative of large-scale ecosystem restoration generally.
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Accounting for cumulative effects is one basis for the advancement of large-scale, evidence-based programs to recover priority species and ecosystems on rivers and coasts worldwide.

    “Accounting for cumulative effects is one basis for the advancement of large-scale, evidence-based programs to recover priority species and ecosystems on rivers and coasts worldwide.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The restoration areas surveyed are representative of large-scale ecosystem restoration generally.
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Considering cumulative effects helps program managers make critical decisions about geographic scope, prioritization, accounting for benefits and unintended consequences, and management triggers and thresholds.

    “considering cumulative effects helps program managers make critical decisions about questions (WebTable 1)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites WebTable 1

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Evidence for cumulative effects theorized to occur in restoration programs is often deemed too expensive to fully develop and incorporate into restoration design and evaluation.

    “The evidence for cumulative effects theorized to occur in restoration programs is often deemed too expensive to fully develop and incorporate into restoration design and evaluation (Gilby et al. 2018).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Gilby et al. 2018 source
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationcitation

    A cumulative-effects approach may be integrated into adaptive management and structured decision-making processes to bring more synthesis and evaluation of project-scale lessons to programs.

    “A cumulative-effects approach may be integrated into adaptive management and structured decision-making processes to bring more synthesis and evaluation of project-scale lessons to programs (WebTable 3).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites WebTable 3

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    Many coastal restoration programs modify landforms, thereby altering water depths.

    “For instance, many coastal restoration programs modify landforms, thereby altering water depths.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    Understanding the mechanisms of cumulative effects has the potential to unify the multidisciplinary teams of scientists that must address large-scale environmental restoration.

    “Understanding the mechanisms of cumulative effects has the potential to unify the multidisciplinary teams of scientists that inevitably must address large-scale environmental restoration.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Pulsing the inflow of diverted water represents an active use of time crowding.

    “Pulsing the inflow of diverted water represents an active use of time crowding.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    These findings imply that collaborative understanding and management of cumulative effects are essential for the success of restoration at large scales.

    “These findings imply that collaborative understanding and management of cumulative effects are essential for the success of restoration at large scales.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The restoration areas surveyed are representative of large-scale ecosystem restoration generally.
38 of 38
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Little formal research on achieving successful program-level outcomes of large-scale restoration has been reported.

    “however, little formal research on achieving successful program-level outcomes has been reported.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The restoration areas surveyed are representative of large-scale ecosystem restoration generally.

    “This survey of restoration areas provides the first strong, collective evidence of beneficial cumulative effects within large-scale ecosystems.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The five modes of cumulative effects listed are the most commonly seen modes in large-scale restoration.

    “We suggest that restoration programs also routinely assess the five most commonly seen modes of cumulative effects at landscape or regional scales, consisting of compounding effects, indirect effects, changes in landscape pattern, cross-boundary effects, and time lags (Table 1; Figure 2).”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The Mississippi River Delta receives only a fraction of the vast quantities of sediment historically transported via the Missouri River.

    “the Mississippi River Delta receives only a fraction of the vast quantities of sediment historically transported via the Missouri River”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The Mississippi River Delta and Missouri River restoration areas are not jointly managed for collective objectives.

    “the two restoration areas are not jointly managed for collective objectives”
5 of 5

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality), 1997, Considering cumulative effects under the National Environmental Policy Act
  2. Luoma SN, 2001, Ecological variability: separating natural from anthropogenic causes of ecosystem impairment

Cited by

Still being checked.

Authors
Diefenderfer, H. L., Steyer, G. D., Harwell, M. C., LoSchiavo, A. J., Neckles, H. A., Burdick, D. M., Johnson, G. E., Buenau, K. E., Trujillo, E., Callaway, J. C., Thom, R. M., Ganju, N. K., & Twilley, R. R.
Affiliations
  • Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (US)
  • United States Geological Survey (US)
  • Environmental Protection Agency (US)
  • United States Army Corps of Engineers (US)
  • University of New Hampshire (US)
  • Puget Sound Partnership (US)
  • University of San Francisco (US)
  • Louisiana State University (US)
Corresponding author
Diefenderfer, Heida L
Venue
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-10-29
Volume
19
Issue
2
Pages
108-117
ISSN
  • 1540-9295 (ISSN-L)
  • 1540-9309
OpenAlex
W3094710550
Cited by
55
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 7
FWCI
3.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) (submittedVersion)
  • Civil War Book Review (submittedVersion)
  • University of New Hampshire Scholars Repository (University of New Hampshire at Manchester) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • NOAA Institutional Repository (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
  • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Hydrology and Sediment Transport Processes
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Ecology and biodiversity studies
Keywords
cumulative effects, restoration effectiveness, restoration design, long-term restoration outcomes, coastal restoration, Everglades, Gulf Coast, Columbia River, Puget Sound, San Francisco Bay, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, Missouri River, positive feedback

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-27.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-27.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review