Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Subscribers
    • Institutions
    • Advertisers
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Index/Abstracts
  • Connect
    • Feedback
    • Help
  • Alerts
  • Free Issue
  • Call for Papers
  • Other Publications
    • UWP
    • Land Economics
    • Landscape Journal
    • Native Plants Journal

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Ecological Restoration
  • Other Publications
    • UWP
    • Land Economics
    • Landscape Journal
    • Native Plants Journal
  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Ecological Restoration

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Subscribers
    • Institutions
    • Advertisers
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Index/Abstracts
  • Connect
    • Feedback
    • Help
  • Alerts
  • Free Issue
  • Call for Papers
  • Follow uwp on Twitter
  • Visit uwp on Facebook
Research ArticleResearch Article

A Decision Support System for Incorporating Land Potential Information in the Evaluation of Restoration Outcomes

David W. Kimiti, Amy C. Ganguli, Jeffrey E. Herrick, Jason W. Karl and Derek W. Bailey
Ecological Restoration, June 2020, 38 (2) 94-104; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3368/er.38.2.94
David W. Kimiti
David W. Kimiti (corresponding author) Lewa Wildlife Conservancy, 1806–10400 Nanyuki, Kenya, .
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: david.kimiti{at}lewa.org
Amy C. Ganguli
Amy C. Ganguli, Department of Animal and Range Sciences, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jeffrey E. Herrick
Jeffrey E. Herrick, Jornada Research Unit, Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Las Cruces, NM.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jason W. Karl
Jason W. Karl, Department of Forest, Rangeland, and Fire Sciences, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Derek W. Bailey
Derek W. Bailey, Department of Animal and Range Sciences, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

References

  1. ↵
    1. Aronson J.,
    2. Dhillion S.,
    3. Floc’h E
    . 1995. On the need to select an ecosystem of reference, however imperfect: A reply to Pickett and Parker. Restoration Ecology 3:1–3.
    OpenUrl
  2. ↵
    1. Block W.M.,
    2. Franklin A.B.,
    3. Ward J.P. Jr.,
    4. Ganey J.L.,
    5. White G.C
    . 2001. Design and implementation of monitoring studies to evaluate the success of ecological restoration on wildlife. Restoration Ecology 9:293–303.
    OpenUrl
  3. ↵
    1. Booth D.T.,
    2. Tueller P.T.
    2003. Rangeland monitoring using remote sensing. Arid Land Research and Management 17: 455–467.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  4. ↵
    1. Brewer J.S.,
    2. Menzel T.
    2009. A method for evaluating outcomes of restoration when no reference sites exist. Restoration Ecology 17:4–11.
    OpenUrl
  5. ↵
    1. Dregne H.E.,
    2. Chou N.T.
    1992. Global desertification dimensions and costs. Degradation and Restoration of Arid Lands 1:73–92.
    OpenUrl
  6. ↵
    1. Elzinga C.L.,
    2. Salzer D.W.,
    3. Willoughby J.W
    . 1998. Measuring & Monitoring Plant Populations. US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.
  7. ↵
    1. Folke C.,
    2. Carpenter S.,
    3. Walker B.,
    4. Scheffer M.,
    5. Elmqvist T.,
    6. Gunderson L.,
    7. Holling C.S
    . 2004. Regime shifts, resilience, and bio-diversity in ecosystem management. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 35:557–581.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  8. ↵
    1. Foster D.R.,
    2. Schoonmaker P.,
    3. Pickett S.T.A
    . 1990. Insights from paleoecology to community ecology. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 5:119–122.
    OpenUrl
  9. ↵
    1. Grady K.C.,
    2. Hart S.C.
    2006. Influences of thinning, prescribed burning, and wildfire on soil processes and properties in southwestern ponderosa pine forests: A retrospective study. Forest Ecology and Management 234:123–135.
    OpenUrl
  10. ↵
    1. Graetz R.D.,
    2. Pech R.P.,
    3. Davis A.W
    . 1988. The assessment and monitoring of sparsely vegetated rangelands using calibrated Landsat data. International Journal of Remote Sensing 9:1201–1222.
    OpenUrl
  11. ↵
    1. Hallett L.M.,
    2. Diver S.,
    3. Eitzel M.V.,
    4. Olson J.J.,
    5. Ramage B.S.,
    6. Sardinas H.,
    7. et al.
    2013. Do we practice what we preach? Goal setting for ecological restoration. Restoration Ecology 21:312–319.
    OpenUrl
  12. ↵
    1. Harris J.A.,
    2. Hobbs R.J.,
    3. Higgs E.,
    4. Aronson J
    . 2006. Ecological restoration and global climate change. Restoration Ecology 14:170–176.
    OpenUrl
  13. ↵
    1. Heleno R.,
    2. Lacerda I.,
    3. Ramos J.A.,
    4. Memmott J
    . 2010. Evaluation of restoration effectiveness: Community response to the removal of alien plants. Ecological Applications 20:1191–1203.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  14. ↵
    1. Herrick J.E.,
    2. Schuman G.E.,
    3. Rango A
    . 2006. Monitoring ecological processes for restoration projects. Journal for Nature Conservation 14:161–171.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  15. ↵
    1. Herrick J.E.,
    2. Karl J.W.,
    3. McCord S.E.,
    4. Buenemann M.,
    5. Riginos C.,
    6. Courtright E.,
    7. et al.
    2017. Two new mobile apps for rangeland inventory and monitoring by landowners and land managers. Rangelands 39:46–55.
    OpenUrl
  16. ↵
    1. Herrick J.E.,
    2. Urama K.C.,
    3. Karl J.W.,
    4. Boos J.,
    5. Johnson M.V.V.,
    6. Shepherd K.D.,
    7. et al.
    2013. The global Land-Potential Knowledge System (LandPKS): Supporting evidence-based, site-specific land use and management through cloud computing, mobile applications, and crowdsourcing. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 68:5A–12A.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  17. ↵
    1. Herrick J.E.,
    2. Lessard V.C.,
    3. Spaeth K.E.,
    4. Shaver P.L.,
    5. Dayton R.S.,
    6. Pyke D.A.,
    7. et al.
    2010. National ecosystem assessments supported by scientific and local knowledge. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 8:403–408.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  18. ↵
    1. Hilderbrand R.H.,
    2. Watts A.C.,
    3. Randle A.M
    . 2005. The myths of restoration ecology. Ecology and Society 10:19.
    OpenUrl
  19. ↵
    1. Hobbs R.J.,
    2. Kristjanson L.J.
    2003. Triage: How do we prioritize health care for landscapes? Ecological Management and Restoration 4:S39–S45.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  20. ↵
    1. Horn R.,
    2. Domżżał H.,
    3. Słowińska-Jurkiewicz A.,
    4. Van Ouwerkerk C.
    1995. Soil compaction processes and their effects on the structure of arable soils and the environment. Soil and Tillage Research 35:23–36.
    OpenUrl
  21. ↵
    1. IPBES
    . 2018. Summary for policymakers of the assessment report on land degradation and restoration of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.
  22. ↵
    1. James J.J.,
    2. Sheley R.L.,
    3. Erickson T.,
    4. Rollins K.S.,
    5. Taylor M.H.,
    6. Dixon K.W
    . 2013. A systems approach to restoring degraded drylands. Journal of Applied Ecology 50:730–739.
    OpenUrl
  23. ↵
    1. Kawamura K.,
    2. Akiyama T.,
    3. Yokota H.O.,
    4. Tsutsumi M.,
    5. Yasuda T.,
    6. Watanabe O.,
    7. Wang S
    . 2005. Comparing MODIS vegetation indices with AVHRR NDVI for monitoring the forage quantity and quality in Inner Mongolia grassland, China. Grassland Science 51:33–40.
    OpenUrl
  24. ↵
    1. King E.G.,
    2. Hobbs R.J.
    2006. Identifying linkages among conceptual models of ecosystem degradation and restoration: Towards an integrative framework. Restoration Ecology 14:369–378.
    OpenUrl
  25. ↵
    1. Kinyua D.,
    2. McGeoch L.E.,
    3. Georgiadis N.,
    4. Young T.P
    . 2010. Short term and long term effects of soil ripping, seeding, and fertilization on the restoration of a tropical rangeland. Restoration Ecology 18:226–233.
    OpenUrl
  26. ↵
    1. Lake P.S
    . 2001. On the maturing of restoration: Linking ecological research and restoration. Ecological Management and Restoration 2:110–115.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  27. ↵
    1. Legendre P.
    , 1993. Spatial autocorrelation: Trouble or new paradigm? Ecology. 74:1659–1673.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  28. ↵
    1. Leonard S.W.,
    2. Bennett A.F.,
    3. Clarke M.F
    . 2014. Determinants of the occurrence of unburnt forest patches: Potential biotic refuges within a large, intense wildfire in south-eastern Australia. Forest Ecology and Management 314:85–93.
    OpenUrl
  29. ↵
    1. Osenberg C.W.,
    2. Bolker B.M.,
    3. White J.S.S.,
    4. St. Mary C.M.,
    5. Shima J.S
    . 2006. Statistical issues and study design in ecological restorations: Lessons learned from marine reserves in Foundations of Restoration Ecology vol. 280. Washington, DC: Island Press.
  30. ↵
    1. Pellant M.,
    2. Shaver P.,
    3. Pyke D.A.,
    4. Herrick J.E
    . 2005. Interpreting indicators of rangeland health, version 4. Technical Reference 1734–6. US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, National Science and Technology Center, Denver, CO. BLM/WO/ST–00/001+ 1734/REV05.
  31. ↵
    1. Porensky L.M.,
    2. Veblen K.E.
    2015. Generation of ecosystem hotspots using short-term cattle corrals in an African savanna. Rangeland Ecology and Management 68:131–141.
    OpenUrl
  32. ↵
    1. Riginos C.,
    2. Herrick J.E.
    2010. Monitoring Rangeland Health: A Guide for Pastoralist Communities and Other Land Managers in Eastern Africa. ELMT–USAID/East Africa.
  33. ↵
    1. Ruiz-Jaen M.C.,
    2. Aide T.M.
    2005. Restoration success: How is it being measured? Restoration ecology 13:569–577.
    OpenUrl
    1. Saylor M.J
    . 2013. The mobile wave: How mobile intelligence will change everything. Vanguard Press.
  34. ↵
    1. SER
    . 2004. Society for ecological restoration international’s primer of ecological restoration (available from www.ser.org/resources/resources-detail-view/ser-internationalprimer-on-ecological-restoration)
  35. ↵
    1. Sibanda P.,
    2. Sebata A.,
    3. Mufandaedza E.,
    4. Mawanza M
    . 2016. Effect of short–duration overnight cattle kraaling on grass production in a southern African savanna. African Journal of Range and Forage Science 33:217–223.
    OpenUrl
  36. ↵
    1. Smith E.P.
    , 2014. BACI design. Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online.
    1. Stoddard J.L.,
    2. Larsen D.P.,
    3. Hawkins C.P.,
    4. Johnson R.K.,
    5. Norris R.H
    . 2006. Setting expectations for the ecological condition of streams: The concept of reference condition. Ecological Applications 16:1267–1276.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  37. ↵
    1. Svejcar L.N.,
    2. Kildisheva O.A.
    2017. The age of restoration: Challenges presented by dryland systems Plant Ecology 218:1–6.
    OpenUrl
  38. ↵
    1. Swetnam T.W.,
    2. Allen C.D.,
    3. Betancourt J.L
    . 1999. Applied historical ecology: using the past to manage for the future. Ecological Applications 9:1189–1206.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  39. ↵
    1. UNCCD
    . 1994. United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for a Convention to Combat Desertification, Elaboration of an International Convention to Combat Desertification in Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, Particularly in Africa. U.N. Doc. A/AC.241/27, 33 I.L.M. 1328. United Nations, New York.
  40. ↵
    1. UNEP
    . 2016. Unlocking the sustainable potential of land resources: Evaluation systems, strategies and tools. A Report of the Working Group on Land and Soils, International Resource Panel of the United Nations Environment Programme.
  41. ↵
    1. USDA–NRCS
    . 1997. National range and pasture handbook. Washington, DC: USDA–NRCS.
  42. ↵
    1. Washington–Allen R.A.,
    2. West N.E.,
    3. Ramsey R.D.,
    4. Efroymson R.A
    . 2006. A protocol for retrospective remote sensing–based ecological monitoring of rangelands. Rangeland Ecology & Management 59:19–29.
    OpenUrl
  43. ↵
    1. Whisenant S
    . 1999. Repairing damaged wildlands: a process–orientated, landscape–scale approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  44. ↵
    1. Wortley L.,
    2. Hero J.M.,
    3. Howes M
    . 2013. Evaluating ecological restoration success: A review of the literature. Restoration Ecology 21:537–543.
    OpenUrl
  45. ↵
    1. Zedler J.B
    . 2007. Success: an unclear, subjective descriptor of restoration outcomes. Ecological Restoration 25:162–168.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Ecological Restoration: 38 (2)
Ecological Restoration
Vol. 38, Issue 2
1 Jun 2020
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Ecological Restoration.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
A Decision Support System for Incorporating Land Potential Information in the Evaluation of Restoration Outcomes
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Ecological Restoration
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Ecological Restoration web site.
Citation Tools
A Decision Support System for Incorporating Land Potential Information in the Evaluation of Restoration Outcomes
David W. Kimiti, Amy C. Ganguli, Jeffrey E. Herrick, Jason W. Karl, Derek W. Bailey
Ecological Restoration Jun 2020, 38 (2) 94-104; DOI: 10.3368/er.38.2.94

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
A Decision Support System for Incorporating Land Potential Information in the Evaluation of Restoration Outcomes
David W. Kimiti, Amy C. Ganguli, Jeffrey E. Herrick, Jason W. Karl, Derek W. Bailey
Ecological Restoration Jun 2020, 38 (2) 94-104; DOI: 10.3368/er.38.2.94
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Land Potential
    • A Decision Tree Framework for Monitoring Restoration Outcomes
    • Use of Mobile Phone Applications to Facilitate Land Potential Evaluation
    • Opportunities and Limitations
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Container Type but not Substrate or Hydrogel affects Establishment of Sandhill Milkweed (Asclepias humistrata)
  • Natural Regeneration Dynamics of Himalayan Forests
  • Effects of Restoration on Small Headwater Stream Quality
Show more Research Article

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • LandPKS
  • monitoring
  • restoration success
  • retrospective assessment
UW Press logo

© 2025 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System

Powered by HighWire