Spatial Restoration Ecology: Placing Restoration in a Landscape Context
Open accessAbstract
Researchers on conservation planning and practice have increasingly recognized and adopted the pivotal role of landscape attributes in shaping the effectiveness of protected areas. However, the degree to which these concepts have been integrated into habitat restoration projects has not been quantified. We reviewed the global literature and found that landscape context was considered in fewer than one in eight restoration projects in the selection of restoration sites (11% of 472 projects). This figure was remarkably similar across terrestrial (10% of 243 projects), marine (13% of 89), and freshwater (13% of 164) ecosystems. Of the 54 restoration projects in which landscape context was considered in site selection, in just over half (56%), animal populations were reported to be larger or more diverse than in control areas. Tighter integration of concepts from spatial ecology and systematic conservation planning into restoration practice could improve the design, optimize placement, and enhance the ecological effectiveness of restoration projects in all ecosystems.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
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).”
From Applying cumulative effects to strategically advance large‐scale ecosystem restoration (2021) · cites this paper as Gilby et al. 2018
Cites
Integrating plant- and animal-based perspectives for more effective restoration of biodiversity
McAlpine, C., Catterall, C. P., Nally, R. M., Lindenmayer, D., Reid, J. L., Holl, K. D., Bennett, A. F., Runting, R. K., Wilson, K., Hobbs, R. J., et al. (2016) · Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment · doi:10.1002/16-0108.1 · Cited by 170 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Applying cumulative effects to strategically advance large‐scale ecosystem restoration
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., et al. (2021) · Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment · doi:10.1002/fee.2274 · Cited by 55 · see citing works
- Authors
- Gilby, B. L., Olds, A. D., Connolly, R. M., Henderson, C. J., & Schlacher, T. A.
- Affiliations
- University of the Sunshine Coast (AU)
- Griffith University (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Gilby, Ben L
- Olds, Andrew D
- Connolly, Rod M
- Schlacher, Thomas A
- Venue
- BioScience
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2018-11-14
- Volume
- 68
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1007-1019
- ISSN
- 0006-3568 (ISSN-L)
- 1525-3244
- OpenAlex
- W2901743823
- Cited by
- 111
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 16 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 5.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- BioScience (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife-Road Interactions and Conservation
- Keywords
- habitat restoration, landscape context, restoration site selection, systematic conservation planning, protected areas, restoration effectiveness, spatial ecology
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
