CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 40Fish Ecology and Management StudiesConservation, Ecology, Wildlife EducationHydrology and Sediment Transport Processes

Is habitat restoration targeting relevant ecological needs for endangered species? Using Pacific Salmon as a case study

Open access
Barnas, Katie A., Katz, Stephen L., Hamm, David E., Diaz, Monica C., Jordan, Chris E.·2015·Ecosphere
DOI 10.1890/es14-00466.1
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Conservation and recovery plans for endangered species around the world, including the US Endangered Species Act (ESA), rely on habitat assessments for data, conclusions and planning of short and long‐term management strategies. In the Pacific Northwest of the United States, hundreds of millions of dollars ($US) per year are spent on thousands of restoration projects across the extent of ESA‐listed Pacific salmon—often without clearly connecting restoration actions to ecosystem and population needs. Numerous decentralized administrative units select and fund projects based on agency/organization needs or availability of funds with little or no centralized planning nor post‐project monitoring. The need therefore arises for metrics to identify whether ecosystem and species level restoration needs are being met by the assemblage of implemented projects. We reviewed habitat assessments and recovery plans to identify ecological needs and statistically compared these to the distribution of co‐located restoration projects. We deployed two metrics at scales ranging from the sub‐watershed to ESA listing units; one describes the unit scale match/mismatch between projects and ecological concerns, the other correlates ecological need with need treated by projects across units. Populations with more identified ecological concerns contained more restoration effort, but the frequency of ecological concerns in recovery plans did not correlate with their frequency as restoration targets. Instead, restoration projects were strongly biased towards less expensive types. Many ESA‐listed salmon populations (78%) had a good match between need and action noted in their recovery plan, but fewer (31%) matched at the smaller sub‐watershed scale. Further, a majority of sub‐watersheds contained a suite of projects that matched ecological concerns no better, and often worse, than a random pick of all project types. These results suggest considerable room for gains in restoration funding and placement even in the absence of centralized planning. This analytical approach can be applied to any species for which habitat management is a principle tactic, and in particular can help improve efficiencies in matching identified needs with explicit management actions.

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 · 10.1890/es14-00466.1

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • Complex linkages between restorative actions and ecosystem responses at a landscape scale make evaluations problematic, and most programs focus on monitoring and analysis.

    “Complex linkages between restorative actions and ecosystem responses at a landscape scale make evaluations problematic and most programs focus on monitoring and analysis.”

    From Evidence‐based evaluation of the cumulative effects of ecosystem restoration (2016) · cites this paper as Barnas et al. 2015

    The “Implications for species recovery” section says that high variability and missing data make restoration-effectiveness evaluations difficult at the scale of salmon populations. But the Abstract says projects often have little or no post-project monitoring, contrary to the claim that most programs focus on monitoring and analysis. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 48 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Stanford Environmental Law Society. 2001. The En- dangered Species Act. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California, USA.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Barnas, K. A., Katz, S. L., Hamm, D. E., Diaz, M. C., & Jordan, C. E.
Affiliations
  • NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service Northwest Fisheries Science Center (US)
  • Washington State University (US)
  • Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (US)
Corresponding author
Barnas, Katie A.
ORCID
Venue
Ecosphere
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-07
Volume
6
Issue
7
Pages
1-42
ISSN
2150-8925 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1890/es14-00466.1
OpenAlex
W2129433522
Cited by
40
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 4
FWCI
4.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
Ecosphere (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Fish Ecology and Management Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Conservation, Ecology, Wildlife Education
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Hydrology and Sediment Transport Processes
Keywords
habitat restoration, Pacific salmon, endangered species recovery, restoration targeting, ecological needs, habitat assessment, sub-watersheds, Pacific Northwest

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