Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35255531›Full record

ReviewBiological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society2022

Global kelp forest restoration: past lessons, present status, and future directions.

Aaron M Eger, Ezequiel M Marzinelli, Hartvig Christie, Camilla W Fagerli, Daisuke Fujita, Alejandra P Gonzalez, Seok Woo Hong, Jeong Ha Kim, Lynn C Lee, Tristin Anoush McHugh and 4 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Changes in the Structure of the Bacterial Community Associated WithPlant-environment interactions (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

14 authors.

Aaron M EgerCentre for Marine Science and Innovation & Ecology and Evolution Research Centre, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, 2052.ORCID 0000-0003-0687-7340
Ezequiel M MarzinelliThe University of Sydney, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.
Hartvig ChristieNorwegian Institute for Water Research, Økernveien 94, Oslo, 0579, Norway.
Camilla W FagerliNorwegian Institute for Water Research, Økernveien 94, Oslo, 0579, Norway.
Daisuke FujitaUniversity of Tokyo Marine Science and Technology, School of Marine Bioresources, Applied Phycology, Konan, Minato-ku, Tokyo, 108-8477, Japan.
Alejandra P GonzalezDepartamento de Ciencias Ecológicas, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de Chile, Las Palmeras 3425, Ñuñoa, Santiago, Chile.
Seok Woo HongDepartment of Biological Sciences, Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon, 2066, South Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-6234-2557
Jeong Ha KimDepartment of Biological Sciences, Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon, 2066, South Korea.
Lynn C LeeGwaii Haanas National Park Reserve, National Marine Conservation Area Reserve, and Haida Heritage Site, 60 Second Beach Road, Skidegate, Haida Gwaii, BC, V0T 1S1, Canada.
Tristin Anoush McHughReef Check Foundation, Long Marine Laboratory, 115 McAllister Road, Santa Cruz, CA, 95060, U.S.A.
Gregory N NishiharaOrganization for Marine Science and Technology, Institute for East China Sea Research, Nagasaki University, 1551-7 Taira-machi, Nagasaki City, 851-2213, Japan.
Masayuki TatsumiInstitute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, 7004, Australia.
Peter D SteinbergCentre for Marine Science and Innovation & Ecology and Evolution Research Centre, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, 2052.
Adriana VergésCentre for Marine Science and Innovation & Ecology and Evolution Research Centre, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, 2052.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Kelp forest ecosystems and their associated ecosystem services are declining around the world. In response, marine managers are working to restore and counteract these declines. Kelp restoration first started in the 1700s in Japan and since then has spread across the globe. Restoration efforts, however, have been largely disconnected, with varying methodologies trialled by different actors in different countries. Moreover, a small subset of these efforts are 'afforestation', which focuses on creating new kelp habitat, as opposed to restoring kelp where it previously existed. To distil lessons learned over the last 300 years of kelp restoration, we review the history of kelp restoration (including afforestation) around the world and synthesise the results of 259 documented restoration attempts spanning from 1957 to 2020, across 16 countries, five languages, and multiple user groups. Our results show that kelp restoration projects have increased in frequency, have employed 10 different methodologies and targeted 17 different kelp genera. Of these projects, the majority have been led by academics (62%), have been conducted at sizes of less than 1 ha (80%) and took place over time spans of less than 2 years. We show that projects are most successful when they are located near existing kelp forests. Further, disturbance events such as sea-urchin grazing are identified as regular causes of project failure. Costs for restoration are historically high, averaging hundreds of thousands of dollars per hectare, therefore we explore avenues to reduce these costs and suggest financial and legal pathways for scaling up future restoration efforts. One key suggestion is the creation of a living database which serves as a platform for recording restoration projects, showcasing and/or re-analysing existing data, and providing updated information. Our work establishes the groundwork to provide adaptive and relevant recommendations on best practices for kelp restoration projects today and into the future.

Indexed as

EcosystemEnvironmental Restoration and RemediationKelpAnimalsFood ChainSea UrchinscostsforestkelpLaminarialesmarinerecoveryrestorationsea urchinsseaweedtransplant

Identifiers

PMID35255531
PMCPMC9543053

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.