Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33091008›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Coastal restoration evaluated using dominant habitat characteristics and associated fish communities.

Kailee Schulz, Philip W Stevens, Jeffrey E Hill, Alexis A Trotter, Jared L Ritch, Quenton M Tuckett, Joshua T Patterson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Salt marsh restoration: an overview of techniques and success indicators.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2022
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Kailee SchulzProgram in Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, School of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-0998-7951
Philip W StevensFish and Wildlife Research Institute, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, St. Petersburg, Florida, United States of America.
Jeffrey E HillProgram in Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, School of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States of America.
Alexis A TrotterFish and Wildlife Research Institute, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, St. Petersburg, Florida, United States of America.
Jared L RitchFish and Wildlife Research Institute, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, St. Petersburg, Florida, United States of America.
Quenton M TuckettProgram in Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, School of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States of America.
Joshua T PattersonProgram in Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, School of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-0941-2154

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Increasing coastal populations and urban development have led to the loss of estuarine habitats for fish and wildlife. Specifically, a decline in complexity and heterogeneity of tidal marshes and creeks is thought to negatively impact fish communities by altering the function of nursery grounds, including predator refuge and prey resources. To offset these impacts, numerous agencies are restoring degraded habitats while also creating new ones where habitat has been lost. To improve understanding of what contributes to a successful restoration, six quarterly sampling events using two gear types to collect small- and large-bodied fishes were conducted to compare the fish community structure and habitat characteristics at three natural, three restored, and three impacted (i.e. ditched) areas along the coast of Tampa Bay, Florida. Overall, impacted sites had significantly lower small-bodied and juvenile fish diversity than natural and restored areas, while restored sites harbored a greater number of fish species than impacted sites for both large- and small-bodied fish. Habitat features such as shoreline slope differentiated impacted and restored from natural areas. Although we did not find a direct correlation, habitat heterogeneity likely played a role in structuring fish communities. These findings provide guidance for future coastal restoration or modification of existing projects. Specifically, the habitat mosaic approach of creating a geographically compact network of heterogenous habitat characteristics is likely to support fish diversity, while decreasing shoreline slope in a greater amount of area within coastal wetland restorations would more closely mimic natural areas.

Indexed as

Conservation of Natural ResourcesEcosystemAnimalsEstuariesFishesFloridaHumansUrban RenewalWetlands

Identifiers

PMID33091008
PMCPMC7580894

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.