The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Opportunities and Challenges for Ecological Restoration within REDD+
Open accessAbstract
The Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) mechanism has the potential to provide the developing nations with significant funding for forest restoration activities that contribute to climate change mitigation, sustainable management, and carbon‐stock enhancement. In order to stimulate and inform discussion on the role of ecological restoration within REDD+, we outline opportunities for and challenges to using science‐based restoration projects and programs to meet REDD+ goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and storing carbon in forest ecosystems. Now that the REDD+ mechanism, which is not yet operational, has expanded beyond a sole focus on activities that affect carbon budgets to also include those that enhance ecosystem services and deliver other co‐benefits to biodiversity and communities, forest restoration could play an increasingly important role. However, in many nations, there is a lack of practical tools and guidance for implementing effective restoration projects and programs that will sequester carbon and at the same time improve the integrity and resilience of forest ecosystems. Restoration scientists and practitioners should continue to engage with potential REDD+ donors and recipients to ensure that funding is targeted at projects and programs with ecologically sound designs.
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
Inhibition of Amazon deforestation and fire by parks and indigenous lands
NEPSTAD, D., SCHWARTZMAN, S., BAMBERGER, B., SANTILLI, M., RAY, D., SCHLESINGER, P., LEFEBVRE, P., ALENCAR, A., PRINZ, E., FISKE, G., et al. (2006) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00351.x · Cited by 966
Cited by
Meli, P., Holl, K. D., Rey Benayas, J. M., Jones, H. P., Jones, P. C., Montoya, D., & Moreno Mateos, D. (2017) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0171368 · Cited by 455
Genetic considerations in ecosystem restoration using native tree species
Thomas, E., Jalonen, R., Loo, J., Boshier, D., Gallo, L., Cavers, S., Bordács, S., Smith, P., & Bozzano, M. (2014) · Forest Ecology and Management · doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2014.07.015 · Cited by 353
Assessing ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies: The need for a more mechanistic approach
Dade, M. C., Mitchell, M. G. E., McAlpine, C. A., & Rhodes, J. R. (2019) · Ambio · doi:10.1007/s13280-018-1127-7 · Cited by 298
Temperton, V. M., Buchmann, N., Buisson, E., Durigan, G., Kazmierczak, Ł., Perring, M. P., de Sá Dechoum, M., Veldman, J. W., & Overbeck, G. E. (2019) · Restoration Ecology · doi:10.1111/rec.12989 · Cited by 179
Metadata
- Authors
- Alexander, S., Nelson, C. R., Aronson, J., Lamb, D., Cliquet, A., Erwin, K. L., Finlayson, C. M., de Groot, R. S., Harris, J. A., Higgs, E. S., Hobbs, R. J., Robin Lewis, R. R., Martinez, D., & Murcia, C.
- Venue
- Restoration Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2011-08-24
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 683-689
- ISSN
- 1061-2971 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-100X
- OpenAlex
- W2135908407
- Cited by
- 179
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 10.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Opportunities and Challenges for Ecological Restoration within REDD+. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1526-100x.2011.00822.x
- The paper
- Alexander, S., Nelson, C. R., Aronson, J., Lamb, D., Cliquet, A., Erwin, K. L., Finlayson, C. M., de Groot, R. S., Harris, J. A., Higgs, E. S., Hobbs, R. J., Robin Lewis, R. R., Martinez, D., & Murcia, C. (2011). Opportunities and Challenges for Ecological Restoration within REDD+. Restoration Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100x.2011.00822.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.
