Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40417069›Full record

ArticleWetlands (Wilmington, N.C.)2025

Bet Hedging to Aid Seed-Based Wetland Restoration Under Hydrologic Extremes.

Elana V Feldman, Karin M Kettenring

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Wetlands (Wilmington, N.C.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Elana V FeldmanDepartment of Watershed Sciences and Ecology Center, Utah State University, Logan, UT USA.ORCID 0009-0004-8168-3065
Karin M KettenringDepartment of Watershed Sciences and Ecology Center, Utah State University, Logan, UT USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7080-0407

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reestablishing native plant communities following invasive species management is a common restoration goal for wetland managers. Although passive recolonization is occasionally sufficient, often, active revegetation through seeding is required. However, the outcomes of seeding likely differ by site (due to varying environmental conditions) and the composition of the seed mix. We evaluated the effects of both passive recolonization and seeding treatments (varying density and diversity of natives) on wetland plant community cover and composition at two sites in the Great Salt Lake Watershed, USA, over two years. We found that passive recolonization was insufficient to increase native plant cover at one location and limit invasive species' cover at either location. Furthermore, different emergent wetland restoration sites, despite geographic proximity, had different plant community outcomes, likely due to distinct site environmental conditions. We also found that the effects of the seeding treatments appeared to be overwhelmed by water depth due to two extreme weather events (severe drought in year 1 and prolonged flooding in year 2). However, these events provided an opportunity to observe the recovery potential of the different functional groups and identify three species of restoration interest ( Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13157-025-01935-7.

Indexed as

Functional diversityHydrologyInvasion resistanceInvasive plant managementNative plantsNative seeding densityPhragmites australisSeed sowingWetland revegetation

Identifiers

PMID40417069
PMCPMC12098206

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.