Cited by 5

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Bootstrap methods can help evaluate monitoring program performance to inform restoration as part of an adaptive management program

Moore, Jennifer F., Pine III, William E.·2021·PeerJ

Abstract

The objective of many fish and wildlife restoration programs is to utilize management actions to change the state of a system. Because restoration programs are often expensive, iteratively assessing whether the restoration is having the desired outcome is a critical aspect of learning how to inform ongoing and sampling designs to evaluate proposed restoration programs. We provide an example of how we are using data resampling as part of an adaptive restoration process to test the effectiveness of a restoration action and associated monitoring program to restore the degraded Lone Cabbage oyster reef in Suwannee Sound, Florida in the northeast Gulf of Mexico. We use a resampling framework through simulations to inform the progress of the restoration efforts by examining the direction and magnitude of the differences in live oyster counts between restored and unrestored (wild) reefs over time. In addition, we evaluated the effort (number of sites sampled) needed to determine the effect of restoration to understand how many surveys should be conducted in subsequent sampling seasons. These efforts allow us to provide timely insight into the effectiveness of both our monitoring efforts and restoration strategy which is of critical importance not only to the restoration of Lone Cabbage Reef but to larger restoration efforts within the Gulf of Mexico as part of the consolidated Deepwater Horizon settlements and funded restoration efforts.

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 · 10.7717/peerj.11378

Cites

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Lone Cabbage Reef study area. The location of Lone Cabbage Reef within the Gulf of Mexico including the restored and unrestored (wild) reefs.
Figure 1 Lone Cabbage Reef study area. The location of Lone Cabbage Reef within the Gulf of Mexico including the restored and unrestored (wild) reefs.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Boxplots showing the ratio of live oyster counts between the unrestored (no rocks) and restored (rocks) sites. Boxes show the ratio from the 5,000 simulations for period 1 (Winter 2018–2019) and period 2 (Winter 2019–2020).
Figure 2 Boxplots showing the ratio of live oyster counts between the unrestored (no rocks) and restored (rocks) sites. Boxes show the ratio from the 5,000 simulations for period 1 (Winter 2018–2019) and period 2 (Winter 2019–2020).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Boxplots showing the ratio of live oyster counts between the unrestored (no rocks) and restored (rocks) sites. Boxes show ratio from the 5,000 simulations for a subset of 10 sites, 20 sites, 30 sites, or 40 sites of the total number of sites from period 2 (winter 2019–2020).
Figure 3 Boxplots showing the ratio of live oyster counts between the unrestored (no rocks) and restored (rocks) sites. Boxes show ratio from the 5,000 simulations for a subset of 10 sites, 20 sites, 30 sites, or 40 sites of the total number of sites from period 2 (winter 2019–2020).CC BY · PubMed Central

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

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?

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 32

  1. Bolker, 2008, Ecological models and data in R
  2. Carpenter, 1989, Randomized intervention analysis and the interpretation of whole-ecosystem experiments, Ecology, 70, 1142, 10.2307/1941382 · DOI
  3. Colden, 2017, Reef height drives threshold dynamics of restored oyster reefs, Marine Ecology Progress Series, 582, 1, 10.3354/meps12362 · DOI
  4. Conner, 2016, Evaluating impacts using a BACI design, ratios, and a Bayesian approach with a focus on restoration, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 188, 555, 10.1007/s10661-016-5526-6 · DOI
  5. Frederick, 2016, Reversing a rapid decline in oyster reefs: effects of durable substrate on oyster populations, elevations, and aquatic bird community composition, Journal of Shellfish Research, 35, 359, 10.2983/035.035.0210 · DOI · Paper page
  6. George, 2019, Temporal variability in stream fish assemblage metrics and implications for long-term monitoring, Ecological Indicators, 101, 661, 10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.01.055 · DOI
  7. Gillespie, 2019, Tropical invertebrate response to marine reserves varies with protection duration, habitat type, and exploitation history, Aquatic Conservation: marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 29, 511, 10.1002/aqc.3019 · DOI
  8. Gwinn, 2016, Imperfect detection and the determination of environmental flows for fish: challenges, implications and solutions, Freshwater Biology, 61, 172, 10.1111/fwb.12684 · DOI
  9. Hayes, 2019, The influence of natural flow and temperature and introduced brown trout on the temporal variation in native fish abundance in a reference stream, Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 76, 705, 10.1139/cjfas-2018-0033 · DOI
  10. Hilderbrand, 2017, Spatiotemporal stability patterns of brook trout abundance and implications for stream research and monitoring, North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 37, 353, 10.1080/02755947.2016.1269030 · DOI
  11. Holling, 1978, Adaptive environmental assessment and management
  12. Johnson, 2015, Power analysis for generalized linear mixed models in ecology and evolution, Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 6, 133, 10.1111/2041-210X.12306 · DOI
  13. Kain, 2015, A practical guide and power analysis for GLMMs: detecting among treatment variation in random effects, PeerJ, 3, e1226, 10.7717/peerj.1226 · DOI
  14. Kaplan, 2016, Freshwaterdetention by oyster reefs: quantifying a keystone ecosystem service, PLOS ONE, 11, e0167694, 10.1371/journal.pone.0167694 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Krebs, 1999, Ecological methodology
  16. Miner, 2018, Large-scale impacts of sea star wasting disease (SSWD) on intertidal sea stars and implications for recovery, PLOS ONE, 13, e0192870, 10.1371/journal.pone.0192870 · DOI
  17. Moore, 2020, Trends in oyster populations in the Northeastern Gulf of Mexico: an assessment of river discharge and fishing effects over time and space, Marine and Coastal Fisheries, 12, 191, 10.1002/mcf2.10117 · DOI · Paper page
  18. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2017, Effective monitoring to evaluate ecological restoration in the Gulf of Mexico
  19. NRC, 2014, Adaptive management for water resources project planning
  20. NRDA Trustees, 2016, Deepwater Horizon oil spill: final programmatic damage assessment and restoration plan and final programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (noaa:18084)
  21. Osenberg, 1994, Detection of environmental impacts: natural variability, effect size, and power analysis, Ecological Applications, 4, 16, 10.2307/1942111 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Pine, 2015, The curious case of eastern oyster Crassostrea virginica stock status in Apalachicola Bay, Florida, Ecology and Society, 20, 46, 10.5751/ES-07827-200346 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Pregler, 2019, State-space analysis of power to detect regional brook trout population trends over time, Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 76, 2145, 10.1139/cjfas-2018-0241 · DOI
  24. Raabe, 2004, Historic topographic sheets to satellite imagery—A methodology for evaluating coastal change in Florida’s Big Bend tidal marsh (Report No. 2002211; Revised June 28, 2012, Open-File Report), 10.3133/ofr2002211 · DOI
  25. Seavey, 2011, Decadal changes in oyster reefs in the Big Bend of Florida’s Gulf Coast, Ecosphere, 2, 1, 10.1890/ES11-00205.1 · DOI · Paper page
  26. Stewart-Oaten, 1992, Assessing effects of unreplicated perturbations: no simple solutions, Ecology, 73, 1396, 10.2307/1940685 · DOI
  27. Wagner, 2014, Spatial and temporal dynamics in brook trout density: implications for population monitoring, North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 34, 258, 10.1080/02755947.2013.847878 · DOI
  28. Wagner, 2013, Detecting temporal trends in freshwater fisheries surveys: statistical power and the important linkages between management questions and monitoring objectives, Fisheries, 38, 309, 10.1080/03632415.2013.799466 · DOI
  29. Walters, 2007, Is adaptive management helping to solve fisheries problems?, AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, 36, 304, 10.1579/0044-7447(2007)36[304:IAMHTS]2.0.CO;2 · DOI · Paper page
  30. Walters, 1990, Large-scale management experiments and learning by doing, Ecology, 71, 2060, 10.2307/1938620 · DOI
  31. Zacherl, 2015, Exploring Restoration Methods for the Olympia Oyster Ostrea lurida Carpenter, 1864: effects of shell bed thickness and shell deployment methods on shell cover, oyster recruitment, and oyster density, Journal of Shellfish Research, 34, 819, 10.2983/035.034.0311 · DOI
  32. Zedler, 2017, What’s new in adaptive management and restoration of coasts and estuaries?, Estuaries and Coasts, 40, 1, 10.1007/s12237-016-0162-5 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 5

Metadata

Authors
Moore, J. F., & Pine III, W. E.
Affiliations
Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States of America
Venue
PeerJ
Publisher
PeerJ
Published
2021-05-04
Volume
9
Pages
e11378
ISSN
2167-8359
Cited by
5
References
0
Language
en
Funders
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation

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: Bootstrap methods can help evaluate monitoring program performance to inform restoration as part of an adaptive management program. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.7717/peerj.11378
The paper
Moore, J. F., & Pine III, W. E. (2021). Bootstrap methods can help evaluate monitoring program performance to inform restoration as part of an adaptive management program. PeerJ. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.11378