Restoration Ecology (Restor Ecol)

Publisher: Society for Ecological Restoration; Society for Ecological Restoration International, Wiley

Journal description

Restoration Ecology fosters the exchange of ideas among the many disciplines involved in the process of ecological restoration. Addressing global concerns and communicating them to the international scientific community, the Journal is at the forefront of a vital new direction in science and ecology. Original papers describe experimental, observational, and theoretical studies on terrestrial, marine, and freshwater systems, and are considered without taxonomic bias.The primary emphasis of the Journal is on ecological and biological restoration, and it also publishes papers on soils, water, air, and hydrologic functions. Edited by a distinguished panel, the Journal continues to be a major conduit for research scientists to publish their findings in the fight to not only halt ecological damage, but also to ultimately reverse it.

Current impact factor: 1.99

Impact Factor Rankings

2015 Impact Factor Available summer 2015
2013 / 2014 Impact Factor 1.991
2012 Impact Factor 1.764
2011 Impact Factor 1.681
2010 Impact Factor 1.927
2009 Impact Factor 1.665
2008 Impact Factor 1.892
2007 Impact Factor 1.928
2006 Impact Factor 1.612
2005 Impact Factor 1.38
2004 Impact Factor 1.177
2003 Impact Factor 0.842
2002 Impact Factor 0.901
2001 Impact Factor 1.011
2000 Impact Factor 1.024
1999 Impact Factor 1.236
1998 Impact Factor 0.472
1997 Impact Factor 0.847

Impact factor over time

Impact factor
Year

Additional details

5-year impact 2.15
Cited half-life 7.40
Immediacy index 0.27
Eigenfactor 0.01
Article influence 0.69
Website Restoration Ecology website
Other titles Restoration ecology (Online), Restoration ecology
ISSN 1526-100X
OCLC 41986237
Material type Document, Periodical, Internet resource
Document type Internet Resource, Computer File, Journal / Magazine / Newspaper

Publisher details

Wiley

  • Pre-print
    • Author can archive a pre-print version
  • Post-print
    • Author cannot archive a post-print version
  • Restrictions
    • 12 months embargo
  • Conditions
    • Some journals have separate policies, please check with each journal directly
    • On author's personal website, institutional repositories, arXiv, AgEcon, PhilPapers, PubMed Central, RePEc or Social Science Research Network
    • Author's pre-print may not be updated with Publisher's Version/PDF
    • Author's pre-print must acknowledge acceptance for publication
    • On a non-profit server
    • Publisher's version/PDF cannot be used
    • Publisher source must be acknowledged with citation
    • Must link to publisher version with set statement (see policy)
    • If OnlineOpen is available, BBSRC, EPSRC, MRC, NERC and STFC authors, may self-archive after 12 months
    • If OnlineOpen is available, AHRC and ESRC authors, may self-archive after 24 months
    • Publisher last contacted on 07/08/2014
    • This policy is an exception to the default policies of 'Wiley'
  • Classification
    ​ yellow

Publications in this journal

  • Rakan A. Zahawi, J. Leighton Reid, Karen D. Holl
    Restoration Ecology 06/2015; DOI:10.1111/rec.12249
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper presents the ecological index of maturity (EIM), a new index for evaluating the vegetation disturbance of an area affected by environmental restoration measures based on the study of plant communities. The EIM is the result of the unification and development of some floristic-vegetational indices devised by Taffetani and Rismondo (2009) and Rismondo et al. (2011) to assess the ecological functionality of agro-ecosystems. The EIM provides a value between 0 (high vegetation disturbance) and 9 (undisturbed vegetation), obtained by considering three distinct variables of the species of a plant community: phytosociological class, chorotype, and coverage. Starting from the measure of the degree of maturity of the vegetation (dynamic stage of succession), EIM values tend to decrease the greater the coverage of exotic species and the lower the coverage of endemic species present in the plant community. A practical example, in which the EIM is applied to a mountainous area in the Southern Alps (Northern Italy) that, following a landslide, was subject to soil bioengineering work aimed at slope stabilization and environmental restoration, is provided in order to understand the importance and features of the EIM.
    Restoration Ecology 06/2015; DOI:10.1111/rec.12232
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Inoculation may influence mycorrhizal colonization and provide benefits to plants in restoration projects. However, it is unclear whether inoculation has consistent effects across ecosystem types, if it has long-term effects on colonization, and whether sources of inocula differ in their effectiveness. To address these issues, we performed a meta-analysis of published restoration studies across a variety of ecosystems to examine the effects of mycorrhizal inoculation on mycorrhizal establishment and plant growth under field conditions. Although we included trials from a variety of geographic locations, disturbance types, and ecosystem types, the majority were based in temperate ecosystems in the Northern Hemisphere, and fewer trials were from tropical ecosystems. Across ecosystem types, we found that inoculation consistently increased the abundance of mycorrhizal fungi in degraded ecosystems, and thus improved the establishment of plants. These benefits did not significantly attenuate over time. Moreover, inocula from different sources varied in their effects on mycorrhizal colonization. Inocula sourced from reference ecosystems and inocula with specific fungal species yielded higher increases in mycorrhizal colonization than did inocula from commercial sources. These results suggest that inocula source matters, and that an initial investment into mycorrhizal inoculation could provide lasting benefits for facilitating the establishment of the below- and aboveground components of restored ecosystems.
    Restoration Ecology 06/2015; DOI:10.1111/rec.12231
  • Restoration Ecology 05/2015; 23(3). DOI:10.1111/rec.12220
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Ecological and financial constraints limit restoration efforts, preventing the achievement of desired ecological outcomes. Harvesting invasive plant biomass for bioenergy has the potential to reduce feedback mechanisms that sustain invasion, while alleviating financial limitations. Typha × glauca is a highly productive invasive wetland plant that reduces plant diversity, alters ecological functioning, its impacts increase with time, and is a suitable feedstock for bioenergy. We sought to determine ecological effects of Typha utilization for bioenergy in a Great Lakes coastal wetland by testing plant community responses to harvest-restoration treatments in stands of 2 age classes and assessing community resilience through a seed bank study. Belowground harvesting increased light penetration, diversity, and richness and decreased Typha dominance and biomass in both years post-treatment. Aboveground harvesting increased light and reduced Typha biomass in post-year 1 and in post-year 2, increased diversity and richness and decreased Typha dominance. Seed bank analysis revealed that young stands (<20 years) had greater diversity, richness, seedling density, and floristic quality than old stands (>30 years). In the field, stand-age did not affect diversity or Typha dominance, but old stands had greater Typha biomass and slightly higher richness following harvest. Harvesting Typha achieved at least 2 desirable ecological outcomes: reducing Typha dominance and increasing native plant diversity. Younger stands had greater potential for native recovery, indicated by more diverse seed banks. In similar degraded wetlands, a single harvest of Typha biomass would likely result in significant biodiversity and habitat improvements, with the potential to double plant species richness.
    Restoration Ecology 05/2015; 23(3). DOI:10.1111/rec.12167
  • Restoration Ecology 05/2015; 23(3). DOI:10.1111/rec.12218
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Native re-forestation is a widely used restoration tool, typically undertaken with the expectation that planting native trees will initiate succession processes (including the re-establishment of native fauna) that will eventually return the ecosystem to a native-dominated state. Invertebrate groups can be used to assess restoration progress, as their life history traits enable them to respond more rapidly to environmental change than many other organisms. In this study, we assessed beetle responses to re-forestation. Using two trapping methods (flight intercept traps and pitfall traps), we compared beetle assemblages in exotic pasture (pre-restoration state), <10-year-old planted native forest (restoration intervention) and approximately 40-year-old unmanaged regenerating native forest (reference state). Analysis of the flight intercept-trapped beetles suggests that re-forestation has initiated a transition from an exotic-dominated pasture fauna toward a native-dominated fauna: in planted forests, 75% of all flight-intercept-trapped beetles were native (compared with 22% in pasture and 87% in unmanaged forest). Flight intercept-trapped beetles also had higher native diversity and abundance in both forest types than in pasture. Pitfall-trapped beetle species were predominantly native in both forest types, but there were few statistically significant differences between the forests and pasture in the pit-fall trap data set. Both trapping methods detected significant compositional differences between the beetle assemblages in planted forest and unmanaged forest. Replanting native forest has increased native beetle diversity, abundance, and dominance (compared with the pre-restoration state), but convergence with the unmanaged reference forest has not yet been achieved.
    Restoration Ecology 05/2015; 23(3). DOI:10.1111/rec.12176