“Active” and “passive” ecological restoration strategies in meta‐analysis

Joe Atkinson; Stephen P. Bonser

doi:10.1111/rec.13229

journal article Sep 01, 2020

“Active” and “passive” ecological restoration strategies in meta‐analysis

Joe Atkinson

Stephen P. Bonser

Restoration Ecology Vol. 28 No. 5 pp. 1032-1035 · Wiley

View at Publisher Save 10.1111/rec.13229

Abstract

One of the means of creating a more robust methodology for ecological restoration involves reducing the gap between ecological theory and restoration practices. A common strategy to do so is using meta‐analysis to understand key drivers of restoration outcomes. “Active” and “passive” is a dichotomy often used to separate restoration strategies in such meta‐analyses. We investigate previously raised concerns about selection bias and subjective categorization of strategies. We promote a paired experimental design in future empirical research and propose the use of three categories of restoration strategy in lieu of “passive” and “active” to alleviate inconsistency in definitions and categorization.

Topics

No keywords indexed for this article. Browse by subject →

References

14

[1]

A global meta-analysis on the ecological drivers of forest restoration success

Renato Crouzeilles, Michael Curran, Mariana S. Ferreira et al.

Nature Communications 10.1038/ncomms11666

[2]

10.1126/sciadv.1701345

[3]

International principles and standards for the practice of ecological restoration. Second edition

George D. Gann, Tein McDonald, Bethanie Walder et al.

Restoration Ecology 10.1111/rec.13035

[4]

10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.08.320

[5]

Restoration and repair of Earth's damaged ecosystems

HOLLY P. JONES, Peter C. Jones, Edward B. Barbier et al.

Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series... 10.1098/rspb.2017.2577

[6]

10.1098/rspb.2019.1179

[7]

Improving Restoration Programs Through Greater Connection With Ecological Theory and Better Monitoring

David Lindenmayer

Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 10.3389/fevo.2020.00050

[8]

10.1371/journal.pone.0171368

[9]

10.1111/rec.12224

[10]

10.1080/01426397.2019.1593335

[11]

10.1126/sciadv.aas9143

[12]

10.1371/journal.pone.0208523

[13]

10.1111/rec.13077

[14]

10.1016/j.ecoleng.2018.03.011

Cited By

100

Selecting ecological restoration modes for watershed ecosystems: a case study in Loess Plateau

Enmao Zha, Juan He · 2025

Environmental Research Letters

Quantifying the biodiversity and ecosystem service outcomes of karst ecological restoration: A meta-analysis of South China Karst

Yue Chen, Cai Cheng · 2024

CATENA

Soil carbon sequestration benefits of active versus natural restoration vary with initial carbon content and soil layer

Dashuan Tian, Yangzhou Xiang · 2023

Communications Earth & Environm...

Metrics

100

Citations

14

References

Details

Published: Sep 01, 2020
Vol/Issue: 28(5)
Pages: 1032-1035
License: View

Authors

J

Joe Atkinson

Ecology and Evolution Research Centre School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, UNSW Sydney Sydney NSW 2033 Australia

S

Stephen P. Bonser

Ecology and Evolution Research Centre School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, UNSW Sydney Sydney NSW 2033 Australia

Cite This Article

Joe Atkinson, Stephen P. Bonser (2020). “Active” and “passive” ecological restoration strategies in meta‐analysis. Restoration Ecology, 28(5), 1032-1035. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13229

“Active” and “passive” ecological restoration strategies in meta‐analysis

You May Also Like