ArticleEnvironmental monitoring and assessment2025
An approach for assessing risk, planning, and decision-making in protecting ecological resources on contaminated sites compared to local regions.
Article in Environmental monitoring and assessment, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The United States and other countries have degraded lands because of legacy wastes from the Second World War, Cold War, and industrialization. There is a need to return lands to productive uses that necessitates assessing and monitoring ecological resources. Federal governments and the public are interested in assurances that federal landowners are protective of environmental and ecological health. This paper uses the U.S. National Land Cover Database to (1) compare land cover on two Department of Energy (DOE) facilities with the surrounding region (10-km and 30-km bands), (2) determine if each has preserved more of the climax vegetation on each site, and (3) discuss how the method allows managers, regulators, and the public to assess if ecological resources on contaminated lands are protected. The analysis method employed provides a monitoring tool that can be used following restoration or management. About 70% of Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR) is forested, compared to 45% of the 10-km buffer (52% of 30-km buffer). Savannah River Site (SRS) protected 58% of its forest compared to 27% of its buffers. Both DOE sites have the opportunity to preserve the largest tracts of unbroken forest during remediation, especially those that include wetlands surrounded by forest. The highest percentage of land cover on both sites is the local natural forest. Visually, ORR has more development in the surrounding region than does SRS. This method can be applied to degraded sites across the U.S. and elsewhere and provides a visual tool for managers, regulators, and the public to quickly access information on vegetation types, the importance of ecological resources, and vulnerability of these resources within the region.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.