CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 172Fish Ecology and Management StudiesWildlife-Road Interactions and ConservationHydrology and Sediment Transport Processes

Enhancing ecosystem restoration efficiency through spatial and temporal coordination

Open access
Neeson, Thomas M., Ferris, Michael C., Diebel, Matthew W., Doran, Patrick J., O’Hanley, Jesse R., McIntyre, Peter B.·2015·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
DOI 10.1073/pnas.1423812112PMC PMC4434733
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Significance: Societies around the world make massive investments in ecosystem restoration projects to mitigate habitat loss, conserve biodiversity, and boost ecosystem services. We use a return-on-investment framework to assess the value of coordinating restoration efforts in space and time to maximize ecological connectivity between the Laurentian Great Lakes and their tributaries, which are fragmented by hundreds of thousands of dams and road crossings. We show that coordinating restoration efforts across the entire region is nine times more cost-effective than local-scale planning. Similarly, a single lump sum investment is up to 10 times more cost-effective than a series of annual allocations. These dramatic economic and ecological efficiencies provide ample incentive for coordinating conservation efforts across broad spatial and temporal scales.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.1423812112

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • 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);”

    From Applying cumulative effects to strategically advance large‐scale ecosystem restoration (2021) · cites this paper as Neeson et al. 2015

    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

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 33

  1. [2]Tilman D, et al. (2001) Forecasting agriculturally driven global environmental change. Science 292(5515):281 -284.
  2. [3]Fahrig L (2004) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 34(1):487 -515.
  3. [4]Bednarek AT (2001) Undamming rivers: A review of the ecological impacts of dam removal. Environ Manage 27(6):803 -814.
  4. [5]Damschen EI, Haddad NM, Orrock JL, Tewksbury JJ, Levey DJ (2006) Corridors increase plant species richness at large scales. Science 313(5791):1284 -1286.
  5. [6]Beier P, Spencer W, Baldwin RF, McRae BH (2011) Toward best practices for developing regional connectivity maps. Conserv Biol 25(5):879 -892.
  6. [7]Kark S, Levin N, Grantham HS, Possingham HP (2009) Between-country collaboration and consideration of costs increase conservation planning efficiency in the Mediterranean Basin. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106(36):15368 -15373.
  7. [8]Mazor T, Possingham HP, Kark S (2013) Collaboration among countries in marine conservation can achieve substantial efficiencies. Divers Distrib 19(11):1380 -1393.
  8. [9]Moilanen A, et al. (2013) Edge artefacts and lost performance in national versus continental conservation areas. Divers Distrib 19(2):171 -183.
  9. [10]Hermoso V, Linke S, Prenda J, Possingham HP (2011) Addressing longitudinal connectivity in the systematic conservation planning of fresh waters. Freshw Biol 56(1): 57 -70.
  10. [11]O ' Hanley JR, Tomberlin D (2005) Optimizing the removal of small fish passage barriers. Environ Model Assess 10(2):85 -98.
  11. [12]Kemp PS, O ' Hanley JR (2010) Procedures for evaluating and prioritising the removal of fish passage barriers: A synthesis. Fish Manag Ecol 17(4):297 -322.
  12. [13]Nilsson C, Reidy CA, Dynesius M, Revenga C (2005) Fragmentation and flow regulation of the world ' s large river systems. Science 308(5720):405 -408.
  13. [17]Bogue MB (2000) Fishing the Great Lakes: An Environmental History, 1783 -1933 (Univ of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI).
  14. [18]Januchowski-Hartley SR, et al. (2013) Restoring aquatic ecosystem connectivity requires expanding inventories of both dams and road crossings. Front Ecol Environ 11(4):211 -217.
  15. [20]Dochada MR (1999) Great Lakes Fisheries Policy and Management , eds Taylor WW, Ferreri CP (Michigan State Univ Press, East Lansing, MI).
  16. [21]Murdoch W, Ranganathan J, Polasky S, Regetz J (2010) Using return on investment to maximize conservation effectiveness in Argentine grasslands. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107(49):20855 -20862.
  17. [22]Januchowski-Hartley SR, Diebel M, Doran PJ, McIntyre PB (2014) Predicting road culvert passability for migratory fishes. Divers Distrib 20(12):1414 -1424.
  18. [23]Halpern BS, et al. (2013) Achieving the triple bottom line in the face of inherent trade-offs among social equity, economic return, and conservation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110(15):6229 -6234.
  19. [24]Pearsall DR, et al. (2013) ' Make no little plans ' : Developing biodiversity conservation strategies for the Great Lakes. Environ Pract 15(04):462 -480.
  20. [26]Berkes F (2004) Rethinking community-based conservation. Conserv Biol 18(3):621 -630.
  21. [27]Zbicz DC (2003) Imposing transboundary conservation: Cooperation between internationally adjoining protected areas. J Sustain For 17(1-2):21 -37.
  22. [28]McLaughlin RL, et al. (2012) Unintended consequences and trade-offs of fish passage. Fish Fish 14(4):580 -604.
  23. [29]Stanley EH, Doyle MW (2003) Trading off: The ecological effects of dam removal. Front Ecol Environ 1(1):15 -22.
  24. [30]Bode M, et al. (2008) Cost-effective global conservation spending is robust to taxonomic group. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105(17):6498 -6501.
  25. [31]Johnson SE, Graber BE (2002) Enlisting the social sciences in decisions about dam removal. Bioscience 52(8):731 -738.
  26. [34]Ziv G, Baran E, Nam S, Rodríguez-Iturbe I, Levin SA (2012) Trading-off fish biodiversity, food security, and hydropower in the Mekong River Basin. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109(15):5609 -5614.
  27. [35]Laurance WF, Balmford A (2013) Land use: A global map for road building. Nature 495(7441):308 -309.
  28. [36]Laurance WF, et al. (2014) A global strategy for road building. Nature 513(7517):229 -232.
  29. [37]Rahel FJ (2013) Intentional fragmentation as a management strategy in aquatic systems. Bioscience 63(5):362 -372.
  30. [38]Lavis DS, Hallet A, Koon EM, McAuley TC (2003) History of and advances in barriers as an alternative method to suppress sea lampreys in the Great Lakes. J Great Lakes Res 29(1):362 -372.
  31. [39]Ando AW, Mallory ML (2012) Optimal portfolio design to reduce climate-related conservation uncertainty in the Prairie Pothole Region. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109(17):6484 -6489.
  32. [40]O ' Hanley JR, Scaparra MP, Garcia S (2013) Probability chains: A general linearization technique for modeling reliability in facility location and related problems. Eur J Oper Res 230(1):63 -75.
  33. [50]Stuart IG, Mallen-Cooper M (1999) An assessment of the effectiveness of a verticalslot fishway for non-salmonid fish at a tidal barrier on a large tropical/subtropical river. Reg Rivers Res Manage 15(6):575 -590.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Neeson, T. M., Ferris, M. C., Diebel, M. W., Doran, P. J., O’Hanley, J. R., & McIntyre, P. B.
Affiliations
  • Center for Limnology and
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
  • Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (US)
  • The Nature Conservancy (US)
  • University of Kent (GB)
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Publisher
National Academy of Sciences
Published
2015-04-27
Volume
112
Issue
19
Pages
6236-6241
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
DOI
10.1073/pnas.1423812112
PMC
PMC4434733
OpenAlex
W2141351632
Cited by
172
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 2
FWCI
15.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Kent Academic Repository (University of Kent) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Fish Ecology and Management Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife-Road Interactions and Conservation
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Hydrology and Sediment Transport Processes
Keywords
ecological restoration, aquatic connectivity, habitat fragmentation, barrier removal, dams, road culverts, fish migration, Great Lakes, tributaries, restoration efficiency
MeSH terms
Animals, Conservation of Natural Resources, Fishes, Fresh Water, Models, Theoretical, United States, Water Movements, Ecosystem, Biodiversity, Rivers, Lakes, Spatio-Temporal Analysis

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