File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Stating mechanisms and refining criteria for ecologically successful river restoration: A comment on Palmer et al. (2005)

TitleStating mechanisms and refining criteria for ecologically successful river restoration: A comment on Palmer et al. (2005)
Authors
KeywordsCriteria
Restoration Assessment
River Rehabilitation
Standards
Issue Date2005
PublisherBlackwell Publishing Ltd. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/JPE
Citation
Journal Of Applied Ecology, 2005, v. 42 n. 2, p. 218-222 How to Cite?
Abstract1. To encourage more project assessment and reporting of restoration outcomes, Palmer et al. (2005) propose five criteria for assessing the ecological success of river restoration. They also suggest that these criteria should help to clarify which activities should qualify for ecological restoration funding and facilitate consistency about what constitutes an ecologically successful restoration project. 2. We critique the five criteria and agree they all merit inclusion in an assessment of successful river restoration. However, the practical application of measuring self-sustainability (resilience) following restoration is potentially problematic and an explicit timeframe is needed to evaluate the results of the restoration. 3. A sixth criterion is proposed that encourages specific hypotheses and/or a conceptual model of the ecological mechanisms by which the proposed activities will achieve their target. This would enhance our understanding of the mechanisms at play for successful river restoration, and provide a more powerful deductive framework likely to lead to appropriate practices that can be applied across rivers. To explore the potential practical applicability of these six criteria, we applied them to a recently published example of river restoration to ascertain its ecological success. 4. Synthesis and applications. We agree with the criteria proposed by Palmer et al. (2005), although the problems of measuring resilience and defining a timeline for recovery should be addressed. We suggest strengthening the deductive framework of restoration projects by formulating some sort of conceptual model. This step could involve scientists, and be a useful way of involving science more explicitly in restoration activities. Agreed-upon criteria for successful restoration will greatly facilitate evaluation of river ecosystem recovery at the critical broader scales where our knowledge is still limited. © 2005 British Ecological Society.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/178880
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 5.196
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 3.242
ISI Accession Number ID
References

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorJansson, Ren_US
dc.contributor.authorBackx, Hen_US
dc.contributor.authorBoulton, AJen_US
dc.contributor.authorDixon, Men_US
dc.contributor.authorDudgeon, Den_US
dc.contributor.authorHughes, FMRen_US
dc.contributor.authorNakamura, Ken_US
dc.contributor.authorStanley, EHen_US
dc.contributor.authorTockner, Ken_US
dc.date.accessioned2012-12-19T09:50:21Z-
dc.date.available2012-12-19T09:50:21Z-
dc.date.issued2005en_US
dc.identifier.citationJournal Of Applied Ecology, 2005, v. 42 n. 2, p. 218-222en_US
dc.identifier.issn0021-8901en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/178880-
dc.description.abstract1. To encourage more project assessment and reporting of restoration outcomes, Palmer et al. (2005) propose five criteria for assessing the ecological success of river restoration. They also suggest that these criteria should help to clarify which activities should qualify for ecological restoration funding and facilitate consistency about what constitutes an ecologically successful restoration project. 2. We critique the five criteria and agree they all merit inclusion in an assessment of successful river restoration. However, the practical application of measuring self-sustainability (resilience) following restoration is potentially problematic and an explicit timeframe is needed to evaluate the results of the restoration. 3. A sixth criterion is proposed that encourages specific hypotheses and/or a conceptual model of the ecological mechanisms by which the proposed activities will achieve their target. This would enhance our understanding of the mechanisms at play for successful river restoration, and provide a more powerful deductive framework likely to lead to appropriate practices that can be applied across rivers. To explore the potential practical applicability of these six criteria, we applied them to a recently published example of river restoration to ascertain its ecological success. 4. Synthesis and applications. We agree with the criteria proposed by Palmer et al. (2005), although the problems of measuring resilience and defining a timeline for recovery should be addressed. We suggest strengthening the deductive framework of restoration projects by formulating some sort of conceptual model. This step could involve scientists, and be a useful way of involving science more explicitly in restoration activities. Agreed-upon criteria for successful restoration will greatly facilitate evaluation of river ecosystem recovery at the critical broader scales where our knowledge is still limited. © 2005 British Ecological Society.en_US
dc.languageengen_US
dc.publisherBlackwell Publishing Ltd. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/JPEen_US
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Applied Ecologyen_US
dc.rightsJournal of Applied Ecology. Copyright © Blackwell Publishing Ltd.-
dc.subjectCriteriaen_US
dc.subjectRestoration Assessmenten_US
dc.subjectRiver Rehabilitationen_US
dc.subjectStandardsen_US
dc.titleStating mechanisms and refining criteria for ecologically successful river restoration: A comment on Palmer et al. (2005)en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.emailDudgeon, D: ddudgeon@hku.hken_US
dc.identifier.authorityDudgeon, D=rp00691en_US
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltexten_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01022.xen_US
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-18444375620en_US
dc.identifier.hkuros97851-
dc.relation.referenceshttp://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-18444375620&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpageen_US
dc.identifier.volume42en_US
dc.identifier.issue2en_US
dc.identifier.spage218en_US
dc.identifier.epage222en_US
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000228396600003-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Kingdomen_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridJansson, R=7007160007en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridBackx, H=36087000900en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridBoulton, AJ=35267971600en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridDixon, M=7402428376en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridDudgeon, D=7006559840en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridHughes, FMR=8894898400en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridNakamura, K=35727717400en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridStanley, EH=7103284815en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridTockner, K=7004652754en_US
dc.identifier.citeulike162916-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats