Barbier, Edward B

Benayas, Jose M Rey

Blackburn, Ryan C

Holl, Karen D

Jones, Holly P

Jones, Peter C

McCrackin, Michelle

Meli, Paula

Montoya, Daniel

Moreno Mateos, David

Mateos, David Moreno

eScholarship - University of California

UC Santa CruzUC Santa Cruz Previously Published WorksTitleWe agree with Larkin et al. 2019: restoration is context specificPermalinkhttps://escholarship.org/uc/item/1r38x611JournalProceedings of the Royal Society B, 286(1907)ISSN0962-8452AuthorsJones, Holly PJones, Peter CBarbier, Edward Bet al.Publication Date2019-07-24DOI10.1098/rspb.2019.1179 Peer reviewedeScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital LibraryUniversity of Californiareetiones1, PBentoya9,Biologict of BioEconomnacionalde CiencStudiesre, Stock 1temas Miversitye Dijon,for ClimBasque F002-551e the oet al.’smischin conrther discussion of what both analyses suggest for restoration andmoving forward.tendin tht the meta-ad we123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263ARTICLE IN PRESSroyalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rspbInvited replyCite this article: Jones HP et al. 2019 Weagree with Larkin et al. 2019: restoration iscontext specific. Proc. R. Soc. B 20191179.http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2019.1179Received: 21 May 2019Accepted: 21 June 2019Author for correspondence:Holly P. Jonese-mail: hjones@niu.eduWe agrestoraHolly P. JonJose M. ReyDaniel Mon1Department ofand 2Departmen3Department of4Fundación Inter5Departamento6Environmental7Baltic Sea Cent8Natura y Ecosis9Centre for Biod10Centre INRA d11Basque Center12IKERBASQUE,HPJ, 0000-0We welcomthat Larkinfirst discusshow the maend with fuconservationLEA conprominencesuggest thaleave it to mboth LEA anhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2018.2928.ent conclusions (shas different assu& 2019 The Author(s)rspb20191179—27/6/19—12:18–Copy Edited by: Not Mentionedwith Larkin et al. 2019:is context specificeter C. Jones2, Edward B. Barbier3, Ryan C. Blackburn2,ayas4,5, Karen D. Holl6, Michelle McCrackin7, Paula Meli4,8,10 and David Moreno Mateos4,11,12al Sciences and Institute for the Study of the Environment, Sustainability, and Energy,logical Sciences, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL, USAics and Finance, University of Wyoming, 1000 E University Ave, Laramie, WY, USApara la Restauración de Ecosistemas, Madrid, Spainias de la Vida, Universidad de Alcalá, Alcalá de Henares, SpainDepartment, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA, USAholm QUniversity, Stockholm, Swedenexicanos A.C., Mexico DF, MexicoTheory and Modeling, Station D’Ecologie Experimentale du CNRS, Moulis, FranceDijon Cedex, Franceate Change – BC3, Bilbao, Spainoundation for Science, Bilbao, Spain2-9958pportunity to further discuss our analysis and conclusions [1][2] (hereafter LEA) comment provides. In this response, wearacterizations and criticisms of our analyses, then highlightclusions from both LEA’s and our analyses are similar, andthat the response ratio is ‘fundamentally flawed’; given itse restoration [3–5] and meta-analysis literatures [6–8], weatter of its usefulness or lack thereof is far from settled andnalysis statisticians to discuss its utility. For those interested,consulted with meta-analysis statisticians who came to differ-ee published reviews of LEA’s comment). We further directreaders to the reviews of LEAs comment for a more in-depth response totheir criticisms on the choice of variables to calculate response ratios, of howto treat response ratios that overshoot recovery goals, exclusion of invasivealdnadulwasyherthatweesty imhospecies disturbances, and of minimWe appreciate LEA’s point thatthis is particularly true in meta-afrom a dataset is that they exert unour analysis, the data were almost ametric because the authors had medays, which highly inflated recoverthat when LEA included outliers, tcontend that leaving these inflateddifferences that are a result of mabecause of a very small denominappreciate LEA catching the errorwhich resulted in us excluding threWe ran the models again with thchange our conclusions.LEA used a completely differenthalf of our original dataset; they onlof data after the disturbance was reunlike our methods, are not likelimptions and approaPublished by the Royal Socsample size calculations.ata analyses are sensitive to outliers, andlysis. The reason for removing outlierse influence on the statistical analysis. Inays removed as outliers for the resilienceured recovery over a period of hours orrates. Thus, we do not find it surprisingir results differed slightly from ours. Weecovery rates in the analysis highlightsematical anomalies (rates being higheror) rather than biological realities. Wee made in the outlier removal process,papers that should have been included.correct outliers removed and it did notatistical methodology to analyse less thanncluded studies that had two time pointsoved. Generalized Estimating Equations,od based and they are semiparametricThe accompanying comment can be viewed at(meaning they have some nonparametric components). So, the LEA analysisches than our analysis. We find it strikingiety. All rights reserved.that despite the different approach, LEA’s results are remark-ably similar to our own (see fig. 3 in [1] and supp. fig. 1 in[2]). But, because the statistical approaches are different andbecause of the inclusion of outliers, their approach givessome p-values stating significant differences, despite substan-tial overlap of nearly all confidence intervals.We agree with a number of the points made by LEA.Defining passive versus active restoration is particularly diffi-cult and confounding, which LEA highlight, has beenreviewed in the literature [9–11], and we extensivelydiscussed in our original paper. It would be useful if restor-ation ecologists could come to a consensus on a specificway to categorize the difference. However, the debate persistsbecause it is so difficult to do so as restoration actions existalong a continuum. We debated heavily among authors thedefinitions we would use and analysed data using a varietyof definitions. When we changed various categories of restor-ation types to passive or active (e.g. changing reconnectinghydrology to active), we still found no differences betweenthe two categories.Despite having contributed to the ongoing debate aboutthis definition, we wonder if that debate detracts from apotentially more important point, namely that short-termrestoration approaches cannot and should not replace conser-vation or long-term investment in ecosystem restoration.Conservation of relatively undisturbed habitat will continueto be critical, given the restoration debt recovering ecosystemsface [12] and how little full recovery ecosystems haveachieved [1]. As LEA point out, there is considerable focuson the short-term benefits of low-cost projects, and well-pub-licized and ambitious targets for the amount of area to berestored, such as the Aichi target of restoring 15% ofdegraded ecosystems. Focusing on the area committed torestoration over the short term comes at the expense of pursu-ing restoration that achieves improved biodiversity andecosystem services over the long term [13].We highlight that in spite of differing opinions regardingstatistical approaches, LEA’s major conclusions are consistentwith ours. Meta-analysis allows us to glean generalities frommany studies across the globe on a particular topic. Suchcoarse resolution is difficult then to apply to on-the-groundprojects, a point we emphasized in our original paper, andLEA repeated in theirs. As we both stated, restoration projectsare context-specific, and restoration strategies should betailored to overcome specific barriers in individual sites,taking into account local ecological and socioeconomicconditions.Moving forward, both LEA and our analyses point tothe need to continue evaluating what is working in restor-ation, what isn’t, and where the largest potential forsustained, large-scale, and cost-effective restoration gainsexist. The United Nations just declared the next decadethe ‘Decade of Ecosystem Restoration’. If we are to getrestoring ecosystems right in the next decade, then it iscritical that we identify where active restoration effortsare most needed, where ecosystems themselves are resilientand only need to be unencumbered by further disturbance,and where we need to conserve ecosystems because theyare unlikely to recover with or without active restoration.Our analysis was a first global inquiry into these questions,but we agree with LEA that looking deeper is required. Weencourage future studies that drill down into specific dis-turbances, ecosystems, and socio-political contexts tofurther illuminate how and where we can maximize thebenefits of restoration.Data accessibility. This article has no additional data.Authors’ contributions. H.P.J. and P.C.J. designed the response, H.P.Jwrote the response; all authors edited the response.Competing interests. We declare we have no competing interests.Funding. We received no funding for Q2this study.References1. Jones HP et al. 2018 Restoration and repair ofEarth’s damaged ecosystems. Proc. R. Soc. B 285,20172577. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2017.2577)2. Larkin D, Buck R, Fieberg J, Galatowitsch S. 2019Revisiting the benefits ofQ3 active approaches forrestoring damaged ecosystems. Proc. R. Soc. B3. Benayas JM, Newton AC, Diaz A, Bullock JM. 2009Enhancement of biodiversity and ecosystem servicesby ecological restoration: a meta-analysis. Science325, 1121 – 1124. (doi:10.1126/science.1172460)4. Crouzeilles R, Ferreira MS, Chazdon RL, LindenmayerDB, Sansevero JB, Monteiro L, Iribarrem A, LatawiecAE, Strassburg BB. 2017 Ecological restorationsuccess is higher for natural regeneration than foractive restoration in tropical forests. Sci. Adv. 3,e1701345. (doi:10.1126/sciadv.1701345)5. Miller SW, Budy P, Schmidt JC. 2010 Quantifyingmacroinvertebrate responses to in-stream habitatrestoration: applications of meta-analysis to riverrestoration. Restor. Ecol. 18, 8 – 19. (doi:10.1111/j.1526-100X.2009.00605.x)6. Côté IM, Mosqueira I, Reynolds JD. 2001 Effects ofmarine reserve characteristics on the protectionof fish populations: a meta-analysis. J. Fish Biol.59, 178 – 189. (doi:10.1111/j.1095-8649.2001.tb01385.x)7. Johnson DW, Curtis PS. 2001 Effects of forestmanagement on soil C and N storage: metaanalysis. For. Ecol. Manage. 140, 227 – 238. (doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(00)00282-6)8. Hedges LV, Gurevitch J, Curtis PS. 1999 The meta-analysis of response ratios in experimental ecology.Ecology 80, 1150 – 1156. (doi:10.1890/0012-9658(1999)080[1150:TMAORR]2.0.CO;2)9. McDonald T, Gann G, Jonson J, Dixon K. 2016International standards for the practice of ecologicalrestoration—including principles and key concepts.(Society for Ecological Restoration: Washington, DC,USA). Soil-Tec, Inc, & Marcel Huijser, BethanieWalder.10. Reid JL, Fagan ME, Zahawi RA. 2018 Positive siteselection bias in meta-analyses comparing naturalregeneration to active forest restoration. Sci. Adv. 4,eaas9143. (doi:10.1126/sciadv.aas9143)11. Holl KD, Aide TM. 2011 When and where to activelyrestore ecosystems? For. Ecol. Manage. 261,1558 – 1563. (doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2010.07.004)12. Moreno-Mateos D et al. 2017 Anthropogenicecosystem disturbance and the recovery debt. Nat.Commun. 8, 8 – 13. (doi:10.1038/ncomms14163)13. Lee SY, Hamilton S, Barbier EB, Primavera J,Lewis RR. 2019 Better restoration policies areneeded to conserve mangrove ecosystems. Nat. Ecol.Evol. 3, 870 – 872. (doi:10.1038/s41559-019-0861-y)royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rspbProc.R.Soc.B201911792646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126ARTICLE IN PRESSrspb20191179—27/6/19—12:18–Copy Edited by: Not Mentioned

English

We agree with Larkin et al. 2019: restoration is context specific

https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1r38x611

We agree with Larkin et al. 2019: restoration is context specific.

We agree with Larkin et al. 2019: restoration is context specific.

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

eScholarship - University of California