The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Ecological Consequences of Shoreline Hardening: A Meta-Analysis
Open accessAbstract
Protecting coastal communities has become increasingly important as their populations grow, resulting in increased demand for engineered shore protection and hardening of over 50% of many urban shorelines. Shoreline hardening is recognized to reduce ecosystem services that coastal populations rely on, but the amount of hardened coastline continues to grow in many ecologically important coastal regions. Therefore, to inform future management decisions, we conducted a meta-analysis of studies comparing the ecosystem services of biodiversity (richness or diversity) and habitat provisioning (organism abundance) along shorelines with versus without engineered-shore structures. Seawalls supported 23% lower biodiversity and 45% fewer organisms than natural shorelines. In contrast, biodiversity and abundance supported by riprap or breakwater shorelines were not different from natural shorelines; however, effect sizes were highly heterogeneous across organism groups and studies. As coastal development increases, the type and location of shoreline hardening could greatly affect the habitat value and functioning of nearshore ecosystems.
Overview
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
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package
Viechtbauer, W. (2010) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v036.i03 · Cited by 20,464
The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results.
Rosenthal, R. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638 · Cited by 9,068 · cited 1×
“In addition, when a significant effect size was observed, we calculated Rosenthal’s fail-safe number, which is the number of unpublished studies, with a mean effect of zero, required to eliminate a significant overall effect size (Rosenthal 1979, Møller and Jennions 2001).”
MethodThe meta-analysis of response ratios in experimental ecology
Hedges, L. V., Gurevitch, J., & Curtis, P. S. (1999) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/0012-9658(1999)080[1150:tmaorr]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 4,704
Meta-Analytic Procedures for Social Research
Rosenthal, R. (1991) · doi:10.4135/9781412984997 · Cited by 4,635
The Anthropocene: Are Humans Now Overwhelming the Great Forces of Nature
Steffen, W., Crutzen, P. J., & McNeill, J. R. (2007) · AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment · doi:10.1579/0044-7447(2007)36[614:taahno]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 3,487
Meta-analysis: Principles and procedures
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., & Phillips, A. N. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7121.1533 · Cited by 2,415
Metadata
- Authors
- Gittman, R. K., Scyphers, S. B., Smith, C. S., Neylan, I. P., & Grabowski, J. H.
- Venue
- BioScience
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2016-08-10
- Volume
- 66
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 763-773
- ISSN
- 0006-3568 (ISSN-L)
- 1525-3244
- OpenAlex
- W2502428080
- Cited by
- 307
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 8.75
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Ecological Consequences of Shoreline Hardening: A Meta-Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/biosci/biw091
- The paper
- Gittman, R. K., Scyphers, S. B., Smith, C. S., Neylan, I. P., & Grabowski, J. H. (2016). Ecological Consequences of Shoreline Hardening: A Meta-Analysis. BioScience. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biw091
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.