Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33987035›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2021

Bootstrap methods can help evaluate monitoring program performance to inform restoration as part of an adaptive management program.

Jennifer F Moore, William E Pine Iii

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Jennifer F MooreDepartment of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States of America.
William E Pine IiiDepartment of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The objective of many fish and wildlife restoration programs is to utilize management actions to change the state of a system. Because restoration programs are often expensive, iteratively assessing whether the restoration is having the desired outcome is a critical aspect of learning how to inform ongoing and sampling designs to evaluate proposed restoration programs. We provide an example of how we are using data resampling as part of an adaptive restoration process to test the effectiveness of a restoration action and associated monitoring program to restore the degraded Lone Cabbage oyster reef in Suwannee Sound, Florida in the northeast Gulf of Mexico. We use a resampling framework through simulations to inform the progress of the restoration efforts by examining the direction and magnitude of the differences in live oyster counts between restored and unrestored (wild) reefs over time. In addition, we evaluated the effort (number of sites sampled) needed to determine the effect of restoration to understand how many surveys should be conducted in subsequent sampling seasons. These efforts allow us to provide timely insight into the effectiveness of both our monitoring efforts and restoration strategy which is of critical importance not only to the restoration of Lone Cabbage Reef but to larger restoration efforts within the Gulf of Mexico as part of the consolidated

Indexed as

Adaptive managementAdaptive restorationCoastal restorationDeepwater HorizonGulf of MexicoMonitoring program designOyster reef

Identifiers

PMID33987035
PMCPMC8103915

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.