SynthesisGlobal change biology2026
A Global Review of Salt Marsh Restoration: Why Simpler, Context-Specific Strategies Can Outperform Complex Approaches.
Synthesis in Global change biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Improving our understanding of the drivers of restoration success is a global priority, as effective restoration efforts are essential for biodiversity conservation, climate resilience and regenerative development. We present a global meta-analysis of active salt marsh restoration to evaluate how different restoration approaches approximate natural reference conditions across physical, biotic, and functional attributes, how factors such as project age, project timing, spatial extent, and latitude influence outcomes, and whether combining interventions yields synergistic benefits over single methods. Most approaches, including tidal restoration, sediment addition, and fertilisation, approximated reference conditions on average, but outcomes varied widely among studies, with attributes often falling short of or exceeding those of natural sites. The diversity of metrics used to assess restoration outcomes further complicates the interpretation of this variability. Deviations from reference conditions did not diminish with increasing project age, spatial extent or timing, highlighting the strong context dependency of restoration outcomes and the need for improved evaluation frameworks. Contrary to prevailing assumptions, combining multiple restoration interventions did not consistently enhance restoration success and was also associated with lower similarity to reference conditions and greater variability in outcomes. However, this pattern appears to be driven by the performance of specific intervention combinations rather than reflecting a general disadvantage of multi-intervention approaches. These findings suggest that combinatorial restoration strategies are heterogeneous in effectiveness and may be less predictable across contexts than simpler interventions, emphasising the need for careful restoration planning and indicating that context-specific strategies may provide more scalable solutions under global change.
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.