Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36325106›Full record

ArticleBioscience2022

Greater Consideration of Animals Will Enhance Coastal Restoration Outcomes.

Michael Sievers, Christopher J Brown, Christina A Buelow, Robin Hale, Andria Ostrowski, Megan I Saunders, Brian R Silliman, Stephen E Swearer, Mischa P Turschwell, Stephanie R Valdez and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioscience, 2022. 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. Optimizing seagrass planting arrangements for animal benefits in a multihabitat restoration seascape.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America · 2025
    Article
  2. Combining co-introduction with patch-size optimization as a novel strategy to maximize seagrass restoration.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America · 2025
    Article
  3. 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

11 authors.

Michael SieversCoastal and Marine Research Centre, Australian Rivers Institute, and with the School of Environment and Science, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7162-1830
Christopher J BrownCoastal and Marine Research Centre, Australian Rivers Institute, and with the School of Environment and Science, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7271-4091
Christina A BuelowCoastal and Marine Research Centre, Australian Rivers Institute, and with the School of Environment and Science, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.
Robin HaleArthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research, Department of Environment, Land, Water, and Planning, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia.
Andria OstrowskiCoastal and Marine Research Centre, Australian Rivers Institute, and with the School of Environment and Science, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.
Megan I SaundersCSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere, St Lucia, Brisbane, Australia.
Brian R SillimanNicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Beaufort, North Carolina, United States.
Stephen E SwearerNational Centre for Coasts and Climate and with the School of Biosciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Mischa P TurschwellCoastal and Marine Research Centre, Australian Rivers Institute, and with the School of Environment and Science, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.
Stephanie R ValdezNicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Beaufort, North Carolina, United States.
Rod M ConnollyCoastal and Marine Research Centre, Australian Rivers Institute, and with the School of Environment and Science, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As efforts to restore coastal habitats accelerate, it is critical that investments are targeted to most effectively mitigate and reverse habitat loss and its impacts on biodiversity. One likely but largely overlooked impediment to effective restoration of habitat-forming organisms is failing to explicitly consider non-habitat-forming animals in restoration planning, implementation, and monitoring. These animals can greatly enhance or degrade ecosystem function, persistence, and resilience. Bivalves, for instance, can reduce sulfide stress in seagrass habitats and increase drought tolerance of saltmarsh vegetation, whereas megaherbivores can detrimentally overgraze seagrass or improve seagrass seed germination, depending on the context. Therefore, understanding when, why, and how to directly manipulate or support animals can enhance coastal restoration outcomes. In support of this expanded restoration approach, we provide a conceptual framework, incorporating lessons from structured decision-making, and describe potential actions that could lead to better restoration outcomes using case studies to illustrate practical approaches.

Indexed as

decision scienceecological restorationrehabilitationtranslocationtransplantation

Identifiers

PMID36325106
PMCPMC9618274

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.