Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMarchand, Lilian
dc.contributor.authorCastagneyrol, Bastien
dc.contributor.authorJiménez, Juan José
dc.contributor.authorRey Benayas, José María
dc.contributor.authorBenot, Marie-Lise
dc.contributor.authorMartínez Ruiz, Carolina
dc.contributor.authorAlday, Josu G.
dc.contributor.authorJaunatre, Renaud
dc.contributor.authorDutoit, Thierry
dc.contributor.authorBuisson, Elise
dc.contributor.authorMench, Michel
dc.contributor.authorAlard, Didier
dc.contributor.authorCorcket, Emmanuel
dc.contributor.authorComín, F. A. (Francisco A.)
dc.date.accessioned2021-03-11T07:37:59Z
dc.date.available2021-03-11T07:37:59Z
dc.date.issued2021-01-23
dc.identifier.issn1470-160X
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10459.1/70722
dc.description.abstractEcological restoration (ER) of terrestrial ecosystems has become widespread in past decades. However, assessing its success is complex mainly due to the diversity of objectives pursued, actions undertaken but also statistical methods for treating data. We demonstrate here that, due to the heterogeneity of collected data, the success of restoration actions can be overestimated in meta-analyses. We advocate analyzing distinctly two types of actions in ER, those aiming at increasing an ecosystem attribute (e.g. species richness of a native plant species, ER+), and those aiming at decreasing it (e.g. invasive species cover, ER-). We also suggest that only one index for assessing the success of a restoration action is not enough. We propose here to complete RR (Remaining Recovery) by a novel index informing on ‘what has been restored by comparison to what should have been recovered’: the ‘Achieved Restoration’ index (AR).ca_ES
dc.description.sponsorshipThis work has been granted by the AgreenSkills + fellowship program, INRA and Agreenium, France, which has received funding from the EU’s Seventh Framework Program under grant agreement N° FP7-609398 (AgreenSkills + contract), and Bordeaux Metropole, France, under the grant agreement N° 22000964. JMRB acknowledges support from REMEDINAL TE-CM S2018/EMT-4338. J.G.A. was supported by Ramon y Cajal fellowship (RYC-2016-20528).ca_ES
dc.language.isoengca_ES
dc.publisherElsevierca_ES
dc.relation.isformatofReproducció del document publicat a: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.107362ca_ES
dc.relation.ispartofEcological Indicators, 2021, vol. 123, p. 107362ca_ES
dc.rightscc-by (c) Marchand et al., 2021ca_ES
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.subjectAchieved restoration indexca_ES
dc.subjectActiverestorationca_ES
dc.subjectMeta-analysisca_ES
dc.subjectPassive restorationca_ES
dc.subjectRemaining recoveryca_ES
dc.titleConceptual and methodological issues in estimating the success of ecological restorationca_ES
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleca_ES
dc.type.versioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionca_ES
dc.rights.accessRightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessca_ES
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.107362
dc.relation.projectIDinfo:eu-repo/grantAgreement/EC/FP7/609398ca_ES


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

cc-by (c) Marchand et al., 2021
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as cc-by (c) Marchand et al., 2021