A primer on choosing goals and indicators to evaluate ecological restoration success
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2019 |
Outros Autores: | , , , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Repositório Institucional da UFRGS |
Texto Completo: | http://hdl.handle.net/10183/221511 |
Resumo: | We discuss aspects of one of the most important issues in ecological restoration: how to evaluate restoration success. This rst requires clearly stated and justied restoration goals and targets; this may seem “obvious” but in our experience, this step is often elided. Indicators or proxy variables are the typical vehicle for monitoring; these must be justied in the context of goals and targets and ultimately compared against those to allow for an evaluation of outcome (e.g. success or failure). The monitoring phase is critical in that a project must consider how the monitoring frequency and overall design will allow the postrestoration trajectories of indicators to be analyzed. This allows for real‐time management adjustments—adaptive management (sensu lato)—to be implemented if the trajectories are diverging from the targets. However, as there may be large variation in early postrestoration stages or complicated (nonlinear) trajectory, caution is needed before committing to management adjustments. Ideally, there is not only a goal and target but also a model of the expected trajectory—that only can occur if there are sucient data and enough knowledge about the ecosystem or site being restored. With so many possible decision points, we focus readers' attention on one critical step—how to choose indicators. We distinguish generalizable and specic indicators which can be qualitative, semiquantitative, or quantitative. The generalizable indicators can be used for meta‐analyses. There are many options of indicators but making them more uniform would help mutual comparisons among restoration projects. |
id |
UFRGS-2_5690c9e583d58cfb40e2123ca98d408c |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:www.lume.ufrgs.br:10183/221511 |
network_acronym_str |
UFRGS-2 |
network_name_str |
Repositório Institucional da UFRGS |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Prach, KarelDurigan, GiseldaFrennessy, SiobhanOverbeck, Gerhard ErnstTorezan, José MarceloMurphy, Stephen D.2021-05-26T04:36:03Z20191061-2971http://hdl.handle.net/10183/221511001120594We discuss aspects of one of the most important issues in ecological restoration: how to evaluate restoration success. This rst requires clearly stated and justied restoration goals and targets; this may seem “obvious” but in our experience, this step is often elided. Indicators or proxy variables are the typical vehicle for monitoring; these must be justied in the context of goals and targets and ultimately compared against those to allow for an evaluation of outcome (e.g. success or failure). The monitoring phase is critical in that a project must consider how the monitoring frequency and overall design will allow the postrestoration trajectories of indicators to be analyzed. This allows for real‐time management adjustments—adaptive management (sensu lato)—to be implemented if the trajectories are diverging from the targets. However, as there may be large variation in early postrestoration stages or complicated (nonlinear) trajectory, caution is needed before committing to management adjustments. Ideally, there is not only a goal and target but also a model of the expected trajectory—that only can occur if there are sucient data and enough knowledge about the ecosystem or site being restored. With so many possible decision points, we focus readers' attention on one critical step—how to choose indicators. We distinguish generalizable and specic indicators which can be qualitative, semiquantitative, or quantitative. The generalizable indicators can be used for meta‐analyses. There are many options of indicators but making them more uniform would help mutual comparisons among restoration projects.application/pdfengRestoration Ecology. Washington, DC. Vol. 27, no. 5 (Sept. 2019) p. 917-923Manejo ambientalRestauração ecológicaAdaptive managementEcological indicatorsRestoration successRestoration targeA primer on choosing goals and indicators to evaluate ecological restoration successEstrangeiroinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Institucional da UFRGSinstname:Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS)instacron:UFRGSTEXT001120594.pdf.txt001120594.pdf.txtExtracted Texttext/plain4044http://www.lume.ufrgs.br/bitstream/10183/221511/2/001120594.pdf.txta20dc9a2683f78457f19d156ec4f21e3MD52ORIGINAL001120594.pdfTexto completo (inglês)application/pdf147666http://www.lume.ufrgs.br/bitstream/10183/221511/1/001120594.pdf0d8e3bcd3a0c70274fcf7ed7d3f11c09MD5110183/2215112021-06-12 04:45:44.513387oai:www.lume.ufrgs.br:10183/221511Repositório de PublicaçõesPUBhttps://lume.ufrgs.br/oai/requestopendoar:2021-06-12T07:45:44Repositório Institucional da UFRGS - Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS)false |
dc.title.pt_BR.fl_str_mv |
A primer on choosing goals and indicators to evaluate ecological restoration success |
title |
A primer on choosing goals and indicators to evaluate ecological restoration success |
spellingShingle |
A primer on choosing goals and indicators to evaluate ecological restoration success Prach, Karel Manejo ambiental Restauração ecológica Adaptive management Ecological indicators Restoration success Restoration targe |
title_short |
A primer on choosing goals and indicators to evaluate ecological restoration success |
title_full |
A primer on choosing goals and indicators to evaluate ecological restoration success |
title_fullStr |
A primer on choosing goals and indicators to evaluate ecological restoration success |
title_full_unstemmed |
A primer on choosing goals and indicators to evaluate ecological restoration success |
title_sort |
A primer on choosing goals and indicators to evaluate ecological restoration success |
author |
Prach, Karel |
author_facet |
Prach, Karel Durigan, Giselda Frennessy, Siobhan Overbeck, Gerhard Ernst Torezan, José Marcelo Murphy, Stephen D. |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Durigan, Giselda Frennessy, Siobhan Overbeck, Gerhard Ernst Torezan, José Marcelo Murphy, Stephen D. |
author2_role |
author author author author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Prach, Karel Durigan, Giselda Frennessy, Siobhan Overbeck, Gerhard Ernst Torezan, José Marcelo Murphy, Stephen D. |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Manejo ambiental Restauração ecológica |
topic |
Manejo ambiental Restauração ecológica Adaptive management Ecological indicators Restoration success Restoration targe |
dc.subject.eng.fl_str_mv |
Adaptive management Ecological indicators Restoration success Restoration targe |
description |
We discuss aspects of one of the most important issues in ecological restoration: how to evaluate restoration success. This rst requires clearly stated and justied restoration goals and targets; this may seem “obvious” but in our experience, this step is often elided. Indicators or proxy variables are the typical vehicle for monitoring; these must be justied in the context of goals and targets and ultimately compared against those to allow for an evaluation of outcome (e.g. success or failure). The monitoring phase is critical in that a project must consider how the monitoring frequency and overall design will allow the postrestoration trajectories of indicators to be analyzed. This allows for real‐time management adjustments—adaptive management (sensu lato)—to be implemented if the trajectories are diverging from the targets. However, as there may be large variation in early postrestoration stages or complicated (nonlinear) trajectory, caution is needed before committing to management adjustments. Ideally, there is not only a goal and target but also a model of the expected trajectory—that only can occur if there are sucient data and enough knowledge about the ecosystem or site being restored. With so many possible decision points, we focus readers' attention on one critical step—how to choose indicators. We distinguish generalizable and specic indicators which can be qualitative, semiquantitative, or quantitative. The generalizable indicators can be used for meta‐analyses. There are many options of indicators but making them more uniform would help mutual comparisons among restoration projects. |
publishDate |
2019 |
dc.date.issued.fl_str_mv |
2019 |
dc.date.accessioned.fl_str_mv |
2021-05-26T04:36:03Z |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
Estrangeiro info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://hdl.handle.net/10183/221511 |
dc.identifier.issn.pt_BR.fl_str_mv |
1061-2971 |
dc.identifier.nrb.pt_BR.fl_str_mv |
001120594 |
identifier_str_mv |
1061-2971 001120594 |
url |
http://hdl.handle.net/10183/221511 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.ispartof.pt_BR.fl_str_mv |
Restoration Ecology. Washington, DC. Vol. 27, no. 5 (Sept. 2019) p. 917-923 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
reponame:Repositório Institucional da UFRGS instname:Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS) instacron:UFRGS |
instname_str |
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS) |
instacron_str |
UFRGS |
institution |
UFRGS |
reponame_str |
Repositório Institucional da UFRGS |
collection |
Repositório Institucional da UFRGS |
bitstream.url.fl_str_mv |
http://www.lume.ufrgs.br/bitstream/10183/221511/2/001120594.pdf.txt http://www.lume.ufrgs.br/bitstream/10183/221511/1/001120594.pdf |
bitstream.checksum.fl_str_mv |
a20dc9a2683f78457f19d156ec4f21e3 0d8e3bcd3a0c70274fcf7ed7d3f11c09 |
bitstream.checksumAlgorithm.fl_str_mv |
MD5 MD5 |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositório Institucional da UFRGS - Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
|
_version_ |
1801225018752892928 |