Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39417608›Full record

ReviewConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2025

Review of ecological valuation and equivalency analysis methods for assessing temperate nearshore submerged aquatic vegetation.

Rachel E Pausch, Jessica R Hale, Peter Kiffney, Beth Sanderson, Sara Azat, Katie Barnas, W Bryant Chesney, Natalie Cosentino-Manning, Stephanie Ehinger, Dayv Lowry and 1 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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.

Rachel E PauschDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7816-0598
Jessica R HaleNational Marine Sanctuary Foundation, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA.
Peter KiffneyNOAA NWFSC, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Beth SandersonNOAA NWFSC, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Sara AzatNOAA WCR, Santa Rosa, California, USA.
Katie BarnasNWFSC, Seattle, Washington, USA.
W Bryant ChesneyNOAA WCR, Long Beach, California, USA.
Natalie Cosentino-ManningNOAA Office of Habitat Conservation, Santa Rosa, California, USA.
Stephanie EhingerNOAA WCR, Lacey, Washington, USA.
Dayv LowryNOAA WCR, Lacey, Washington, USA.
Steve MarxPew Charitable Trusts, Portland, Oregon, USA.

Funding

National Marine Sanctuary Foundation, Pew Charitable TrustsNOAA FisheriesNSF Graduate Research Program
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nearshore seagrass, kelp, and other macroalgae beds (submerged aquatic vegetation [SAV]) are productive and important ecosystems. Mitigating anthropogenic impacts on these habitats requires tools to quantify their ecological value and the debits and credits of impact and mitigation. To summarize and clarify the state of SAV habitat quantification and available tools, we searched peer-reviewed literature and other agency documents for methods that either assigned ecological value to or calculated equivalencies between impact and mitigation in SAV. Out of 47 tools, there were 11 equivalency methods, 7 of which included a valuation component. The remaining valuation methods were most commonly designed for seagrasses and rocky intertidal macroalgae rather than canopy-forming kelps. Tools were often designed to address specific resource policies and associated habitat evaluation. Frequent categories of tools and methods included those associated with habitat equivalency analyses and those that scored habitats relative to reference or ideal conditions, including models designed for habitat suitability indices and the European Union's Water and Marine Framework Directives. Over 29 tool input metrics spanned 3 spatial scales of SAV: individual shoots or stipes, bed or site, and landscape or region. The most common metric used for both seagrasses and macroalgae was cover. Seagrass tools also often employed density measures, and some categories used measures of tissue content (e.g., carbon, nitrogen). Macroalgal tools for rocky intertidal habitats frequently included species richness or incorporated indicator species to assess habitat. We provide a flowchart for decision-makers to identify representative tools that may apply to their specific management needs.

Indexed as

Conservation of Natural ResourcesEcosystemSeaweedcompensatory mitigationcuantificación del hábitathabitat quantificationkelpmedidasmetricsmitigación compensatoriapastos marinosquelposeagrass

Identifiers

PMID39417608
PMCPMC11780217

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.