Restoration of impaired ecosystems: An ounce of prevention or a pound of cure? Introduction, overview, and key messages from a SETAC-SER workshop
Open accessAbstract
A workshop on Restoration of Impaired Ecosystems was held in Jackson, Wyoming, in June 2014. Experts from Australia, Canada, Mexico, the United Kingdom, and the United States in ecotoxicology, restoration, and related fields from both the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry and the Society for Ecological Restoration convened to advance the practice of restoring ecosystems that have been contaminated or impaired from industrial activities. The overall goal of this workshop was to provide a forum for ecotoxicologists and restoration ecologists to define the best scientific practices to achieve ecological restoration while addressing contaminant concerns. To meet this goal, participants addressed 5 areas: 1) links between ecological risk assessment and ecological restoration, 2) restoration goals, 3) restoration design, 4) monitoring for restoration effectiveness and 5) recognizing opportunities and challenges. Definitions are provided to establish a common language across the varied disciplines. The current practice for addressing restoration of impaired ecosystems tends to be done sequentially to remediate contaminants, then to restore ecological structure and function. A better approach would anticipate or plan for restoration throughout the process. By bringing goals to the forefront, we may avoid intrusive remediation activities that close off options for the desired restoration. Participants realized that perceived limitations in the site assessment process hinder consideration of restoration goals; contaminant presence will influence restoration goal choices; social, economic, and cultural concerns can factor into goal setting; restoration options and design should be considered early during site assessment and management; restoration of both structure and function is encouraged; creative solutions can overcome limitations; a regional focus is imperative; monitoring must occur throughout the restoration process; and reciprocal transfer of knowledge is needed among theorists, practitioners, and stakeholders and among varied disciplines. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2016;12:247–252. © 2015 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of SETAC Key Points This work summarizes key messages from a workshop supported by SETAC and the Society of Ecological Restoration. Restoration of contaminated sites has traditionally been a compartmentalized and sequential process, we propose a shift to a restoration continuum. This continuum involves more reciprocal transfer of knowledge among varied disciplines, bringing restoration planning and goals to the forefront during assessments and remediation, conducting monitoring throughout the process, and taking a more regional focus during the restoration. Social, economic and cultural concerns must be factored in to the restoration goalsetting process and unique goals may be needed for contaminated ecosystems.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Little is known about how remediation technologies may further impact local ecosystems that may have been influenced by PFAS contamination.
“Also, little is known about how these remediation technologies may further impact local ecosystems that may have been influenced by PFAS contamination.53”
From A Never-Ending Story of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs)? (2017) · cites this paper as [53]
In the section labeled “Society of Ecological Restoration 2004” (page not provided), the paper says work at contaminated sites may have repercussions for the broader ecosystem and recommends monitoring for adverse effects during remediation. It does not say that little is known about the impacts of remediation technologies, nor does it address PFAS-contaminated ecosystems. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Perturbation Experiments in Community Ecology: Theory and Practice
Bender, E. A., Case, T. J., & Gilpin, M. E. (1984) · Ecology · doi:10.2307/1939452 · Cited by 1,245 · see citing works
Ecological restoration: principles, values, and structure of an emerging profession
(2008) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.45-6140 · Cited by 285 · see citing works
Ecotoxicology: Objectives, principles and perspectives
Truhaut, R. (1977) · Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety · doi:10.1016/0147-6513(77)90033-1 · Cited by 202 · see citing works
Hunting Down the Chimera of Multiple Disciplinarity in Conservation Science
Pooley, S., Mendelsohn, J. A., & Milner‐Gulland, E. J. (2013) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1111/cobi.12183 · Cited by 121 · see citing works
Integrated risk and recovery monitoring of ecosystem restorations on contaminated sites
Hooper, M. J., Glomb, S. J., Harper, D. D., Hoelzle, T. B., McIntosh, L. M., & Mulligan, D. R. (2015) · Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management · doi:10.1002/ieam.1731 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
Self-citationA framework for establishing restoration goals for contaminated ecosystems
Wagner, A., Larson, D. L., Dalsoglio, J. A., Harris, J. A., Labus, P., Rosi, E. J., & Skrabis, K. E. (2015) · Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management · doi:10.1002/ieam.1709 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
Self-citationKapustka, L. A., Bowers, K., Isanhart, J. P., Martínez‐Garza, C., Finger, S., Stahl, R. G., & Stauber, J. L. (2015) · Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management · doi:10.1002/ieam.1673 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
Self-citationTransforming ecosystems: When, where, and how to restore contaminated sites
Rohr, J. R., Farag, A. M., Cadotte, M. W., Clements, W. H., Smith, J. R., Ulrich, C. P., & Woods, R. W. (2015) · Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management · doi:10.1002/ieam.1668 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Self-citationBasche, A., Roesch-McNally, G. E., Pease, L. A., Eidson, C. D., Lahdou, G. B., Dunbar, M. W., Frank, T. J., Frescoln, L. M., Gu, L., Nagelkirk, R., et al. (2014) · Journal of Soil and Water Conservation · doi:10.2489/jswc.69.6.176a · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Hull, R. N., Luoma, S. N., Bayne, B. A., Iliff, J., Larkin, D. J., Paschke, M. W., Victor, S. L., & Ward, S. E. (2015) · Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management · doi:10.1002/ieam.1714 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
1 of the 11 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Farag AM, Hull RN, Clements WH, Glomb S, Larson DL, Stahl R, Stauber J. 2015. Restoration of impaired ecosystems: An ounce of prevention or a pound of cure? Introduction, overview, and key messages from a SETAC-SER workshop. Integr Environ Assess Manag 12:247-252.
- Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2003. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: A Framework for Assessment. Washington (DC): Island Press. [2014 May 12]. Available from: http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/Framework.aspx
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A Never-Ending Story of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs)?
Wang, Z., DeWitt, J. C., Higgins, C. P., & Cousins, I. T. (2017) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.6b04806 · Cited by 1,921 · see citing works
Thermal remediation alters soil properties – a review
O’Brien, P. L., DeSutter, T. M., Casey, F. X. M., Khan, E., & Wick, A. F. (2017) · Journal of Environmental Management · doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.11.052 · Cited by 214 · see citing works
O’Brien, P. L., DeSutter, T. M., Casey, F. X. M., Wick, A. F., & Khan, E. (2017) · Current Pollution Reports · doi:10.1007/s40726-017-0063-7 · Cited by 73 · see citing works
Integrated risk and recovery monitoring of ecosystem restorations on contaminated sites
Hooper, M. J., Glomb, S. J., Harper, D. D., Hoelzle, T. B., McIntosh, L. M., & Mulligan, D. R. (2015) · Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management · doi:10.1002/ieam.1731 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
Self-citationLee, S.-H., Kim, S.-O., Lee, S., Kim, M.-S., & Park, H. (2021) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su132212523 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
Shentu, J., Chen, Q., Cui, Y., Wang, Y., Lu, L., Long, Y., & Zhu, M. (2023) · Journal of Hazardous Materials · doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2023.130870 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
A framework for establishing restoration goals for contaminated ecosystems
Wagner, A., Larson, D. L., Dalsoglio, J. A., Harris, J. A., Labus, P., Rosi, E. J., & Skrabis, K. E. (2015) · Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management · doi:10.1002/ieam.1709 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
Self-citationKapustka, L. A., Bowers, K., Isanhart, J. P., Martínez‐Garza, C., Finger, S., Stahl, R. G., & Stauber, J. L. (2015) · Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management · doi:10.1002/ieam.1673 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
Self-citationA risk management framework for Gentle Remediation Options (GRO)
Drenning, P., Chowdhury, S., Volchko, Y., Rosén, L., Andersson‐Sköld, Y., & Norrman, J. (2021) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149880 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
Hull, R. N., Luoma, S. N., Bayne, B. A., Iliff, J., Larkin, D. J., Paschke, M. W., Victor, S. L., & Ward, S. E. (2015) · Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management · doi:10.1002/ieam.1714 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Self-citationScaling to the Organism: An Innovative Model of Dynamic Exposure Hotspots in Stream Systems
Harrigan, K. M., & Moore, P. A. (2017) · Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology · doi:10.1007/s00244-017-0444-3 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Meldrum, J. R., Larson, D. L., Hoelzle, T. B., & Hinck, J. E. (2023) · Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management · doi:10.1002/ieam.4808 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Self-citationRestoration of contaminated ecosystems: adaptive management in a changing climate
Farag, A. M., Larson, D. L., Stauber, J. L., Stahl, R. G., Isanhart, J. P., McAbee, K. T., & Walsh, C. J. (2017) · Restoration Ecology · doi:10.1111/rec.12583 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Self-citationPuglis, H. J., Farag, A. M., & Mebane, C. A. (2020) · Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management · doi:10.1002/ieam.4240 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Self-citationTemporal recovery of soil biological activity and diversity after 915-MHz microwave treatments
Maynaud, G., Baudoin, E., Mahé, F., Villenave, C., Cleyet-Marel, J.-C., & Brunel, B. (2021) · Biology and Fertility of Soils · doi:10.1007/s00374-021-01553-5 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Farag, A. M., Hull, R. N., Clements, W. H., Glomb, S., Larson, D. L., Stahl, R., & Stauber, J.
- Affiliations
- United States Geological Survey (US)
- Intrinsik (Canada) (CA)
- Colorado State University (US)
- United States Department of the Interior (US)
- DuPont (United States) (US)
- CSIRO Land Water, Kirrawee Sydney New South Wales, Australia
- Corresponding author
- Farag, Aïda M
- Venue
- Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2016-04-01
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 247-252
- ISSN
- 1551-3777 (ISSN-L)
- 1551-3793
- OpenAlex
- W2143202057
- Cited by
- 17
- References
- 11
- Citations by year
- 2023: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 5 · 2015: 5
- FWCI
- 2.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Anchor QEA LLC
- Chevron, CSIRO, DuPont, ExxonMobil
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Environmental Toxicology and Ecotoxicology
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Environmental and Biological Research in Conflict Zones
- Keywords
- ecological restoration, contaminated ecosystems, restoration targets, restoration design, environmental risk assessment, restoration monitoring, remediation, site evaluation, stakeholder engagement, ecotoxicology
- MeSH terms
- Environmental Monitoring, Environmental Restoration and Remediation, Ecotoxicology, Environmental Policy
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.
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
