The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Restoration Success: How Is It Being Measured?
Abstract
The criteria of restoration success should be clearly established to evaluate restoration projects. Recently, the Society of Ecological Restoration International (SER) has produced a Primer that includes ecosystem attributes that should be considered when evaluating restoration success. To determine how restoration success has been evaluated in restoration projects, we reviewed articles published in Restoration Ecology (Vols. 1[1]–11[4]). Specifically, we addressed the following questions: (1) what measures of ecosystem attributes are assessed and (2) how are these measures used to determine restoration success. No study has measured all the SER Primer attributes, but most studies did include at least one measure in each of three general categories of the ecosystem attributes: diversity, vegetation structure, and ecological processes. Most of the reviewed studies are using multiple measures to evaluate restoration success, but we would encourage future projects to include: (1) at least two variables within each of the three ecosystem attributes that clearly related to ecosystem functioning and (2) at least two reference sites to capture the variation that exist in 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
Original Articles: Ecological Resilience, Biodiversity, and Scale
Peterson, G., Allen, C. R., & Holling, C. S. (1998) · Ecosystems · doi:10.1007/s100219900002 · Cited by 1,547
Restoration Ecology: Repairing the Earth’s Ecosystems in the New Millennium
Hobbs, R. J., & Harris, J. A. (2001) · Restoration Ecology · doi:10.1046/j.1526-100x.2001.009002239.x · Cited by 905
Patterns of Species Richness and Composition in Re-Created Grassland
Sluis, W. J. (2002) · Restoration Ecology · doi:10.1046/j.1526-100x.2002.01048.x · Cited by 182
Cited by
Assessing the benefits and risks of translocations in changing environments: a genetic perspective
Weeks, A. R., Sgro, C. M., Young, A. G., Frankham, R., Mitchell, N. J., Miller, K. A., Byrne, M., Coates, D. J., Eldridge, M. D. B., Sunnucks, P., et al. (2011) · Evolutionary Applications · doi:10.1111/j.1752-4571.2011.00192.x · Cited by 916
The biodiversity and ecosystem service contributions and trade-offs of forest restoration approaches
Hua, F., Bruijnzeel, L. A., Meli, P., Martin, P. A., Zhang, J., Nakagawa, S., Miao, X., Wang, W., McEvoy, C., Peña-Arancibia, J. L., et al. (2022) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.abl4649 · Cited by 831
A global meta-analysis on the ecological drivers of forest restoration success
Crouzeilles, R., Curran, M., Ferreira, M. S., Lindenmayer, D. B., Grelle, C. E. V., & Rey Benayas, J. M. (2016) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/ncomms11666 · Cited by 652
Gang, C., Zhou, W., Chen, Y., Wang, Z., Sun, Z., Li, J., Qi, J., & Odeh, I. (2014) · Environmental Earth Sciences · doi:10.1007/s12665-014-3322-6 · Cited by 423
Rowland, S. M., Prescott, C. E., Grayston, S. J., Quideau, S. A., & Bradfield, G. E. (2009) · Journal of Environmental Quality · doi:10.2134/jeq2008.0317 · Cited by 156
Metadata
- Authors
- Ruiz‐Jaen, M. C., & Mitchell Aide, T.
- Venue
- Restoration Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2005-08-15
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 569-577
- ISSN
- 1061-2971 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-100X
- OpenAlex
- W2153054285
- Cited by
- 1,107
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 17.09
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Restoration Success: How Is It Being Measured? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1526-100x.2005.00072.x
- The paper
- Ruiz‐Jaen, M. C., & Mitchell Aide, T. (2005). Restoration Success: How Is It Being Measured? Restoration Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100x.2005.00072.x
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.
