Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39381718›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in ecology and evolution2024

Identifying priority ecosystem services in tidal wetland restoration.

Chloe A Jackson, Connie L Hernandez, Susan H Yee, Maliha S Nash, Heida L Diefenderfer, Amy B Borde, Matthew C Harwell, Theodore H DeWitt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in ecology and evolution, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

8 authors.

Chloe A JacksonOak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, Newport, OR, United States.
Connie L HernandezOak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, Newport, OR, United States.
Susan H YeeGulf Ecosystem Measurement and Modeling Division, Office of Research and Development, Center for Environmental Measurement and Modeling, US Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf Breeze, FL, United States.
Maliha S NashPacific Coastal Ecology Branch, Pacific Ecological Systems Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Newport, OR, United States.
Heida L DiefenderferCoastal Ecosystems Team, Coastal Research Group, Coastal Sciences Division, Energy and Environment Directorate, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Sequim, WA, United States.
Amy B BordeCoastal Ecosystems Team, Coastal Research Group, Coastal Sciences Division, Energy and Environment Directorate, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Sequim, WA, United States.
Matthew C HarwellPacific Coastal Ecology Branch, Pacific Ecological Systems Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Newport, OR, United States.
Theodore H DeWittPacific Coastal Ecology Branch, Pacific Ecological Systems Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Newport, OR, United States.

Funding

Intramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Classification systems can be an important tool for identifying and quantifying the importance of relationships, assessing spatial patterns in a standardized way, and forecasting alternative decision scenarios to characterize the potential benefits (e.g., ecosystem services) from ecosystem restoration that improve human health and well-being. We present a top-down approach that systematically leverages ecosystem services classification systems to identify potential services relevant for ecosystem restoration decisions. We demonstrate this approach using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's National Ecosystem Service Classification System Plus (NESCS Plus) to identify those ecosystem services that are relevant to restoration of tidal wetlands. We selected tidal wetland management documents from federal agencies, state agencies, wetland conservation organizations, and land stewards across three regions of the continental United States (northern Gulf of Mexico, Mid-Atlantic, and Pacific Northwest) to examine regional and organizational differences in identified potential benefits of tidal wetland restoration activities and the potential user groups who may benefit. We used an automated document analysis to quantify the frequencies at which different wetland types were mentioned in the management documents along with their associated beneficiary groups and the ecological end products (EEPs) those beneficiaries care about, as defined by NESCS Plus. Results showed that a top combination across all three regions, all four organizations, and all four tidal wetland types was the EEP naturalness paired with the beneficiary people who care (existence). Overall, the Mid-Atlantic region and the land steward organizations mentioned ecosystem services more than the others, and EEPs were mentioned in combination with tidal wetlands as a high-level, more general category than the other more specific tidal wetland types. Certain regional and organizations differences were statistically significant. Those results may be useful in identifying ecosystem services-related goals for tidal wetland restoration. This approach for identifying and comparing ecosystem service priorities is broadly transferrable to other ecosystems or decision-making contexts.

Indexed as

document analysisecosystem servicesprioritizationrestorationtidal wetlands

Identifiers

PMID39381718
PMCPMC11457110

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.