Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 257

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 157 of the 157 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Ecological restoration of rich fens in Europe and North America: from trial and error to an evidence‐based approach

Open access
Lamers, Leon P. M., Vile, Melanie A., Grootjans, Ab P., Acreman, Mike C., van Diggelen, Rudy, Evans, Martin G., Richardson, Curtis J., Rochefort, Line, Kooijman, Annemieke M., Roelofs, Jan G. M., Smolders, Alfons J. P.·2015·Biological Reviews

Abstract

Fens represent a large array of ecosystem services, including the highest biodiversity found among wetlands, hydrological services, water purification and carbon sequestration. Land‐use change and drainage has severely damaged or annihilated these services in many parts of North America and Europe; restoration plans are urgently needed at the landscape level. We review the major constraints on the restoration of rich fens and fen water bodies in agricultural areas in Europe and disturbed landscapes in North America: (i) habitat quality problems: drought, eutrophication, acidification, and toxicity, and (ii) recolonization problems: species pools, ecosystem fragmentation and connectivity, genetic variability, and invasive species; and here provide possible solutions. We discuss both positive and negative consequences of restoration measures, and their causes. The restoration of wetland ecosystem functioning and services has, for a long time, been based on a trial‐and‐error approach. By presenting research and practice on the restoration of rich fen ecosystems within agricultural areas, we demonstrate the importance of biogeochemical and ecological knowledge at different spatial scales for the management and restoration of biodiversity, water quality, carbon sequestration and other ecosystem services, especially in a changing climate. We define target processes that enable scientists, nature managers, water managers and policy makers to choose between different measures and to predict restoration prospects for different types of deteriorated fens and their starting conditions.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/brv.12102

Cites

157 of 157 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

Show all 157 references

Metadata

Authors
Lamers, L. P. M., Vile, M. A., Grootjans, A. P., Acreman, M. C., van Diggelen, R., Evans, M. G., Richardson, C. J., Rochefort, L., Kooijman, A. M., Roelofs, J. G. M., & Smolders, A. J. P.
Venue
Biological Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-04-04
Volume
90
Issue
1
Pages
182-203
ISSN
  • 0006-3231 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-7931
  • 1469-185X
OpenAlex
W2166074394
Cited by
257
References
157
FWCI
2.50
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 restoration of rich fens in Europe and North America: from trial and error to an evidence‐based approach. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/brv.12102
The paper
Lamers, L. P. M., Vile, M. A., Grootjans, A. P., Acreman, M. C., van Diggelen, R., Evans, M. G., Richardson, C. J., Rochefort, L., Kooijman, A. M., Roelofs, J. G. M., & Smolders, A. J. P. (2015). Ecological restoration of rich fens in Europe and North America: from trial and error to an evidence‐based approach. Biological Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12102

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.