Repeatability of the searching process in reviews of restoration outcomes

Autor(es)

Romanelli, Jo Ao Paulo ^[1] ; Silva, Luiz G. M. ^[2] ; Goncalves, Maria Carolina P. ^[3] ; Naves, Rafaela P. ^[4] ; De Almeida, Danilo Roberti Alves ^[5] ; De Resende, Angelica Faria ^[5] ; Rodrigues, Ricardo Ribeiro ^[1]

Afiliação do(s) autor(es)

^[1] Univ Sao Paulo, Luiz de Queiroz Coll Agr, Dept Forest Sci, Lab Ecol & Forest Restorat LERF, Ave Padua Dias 11, BR-13418900 Piracicaba, SP - Brazil

^[2] Swiss Fed Inst Technol, Inst Environm Engn IfU, Dept Civil Environm & Geomat Engn D BAUG, Stocker Lab, CH-8046 Zurich - Switzerland

^[3] Fed Univ Sao Carlos UFSCar, Chem Engn Dept, Enzyme Technol Lab LabEnz, BR-13565905 Sao Carlos, SP - Brazil

^[4] Univ Sao Paulo, Luiz de Queiroz Coll Agr, Dept Forest Sci, Ave Padua Dias 11, BR-13418900 Piracicaba, SP - Brazil

^[5] Univ Sao Paulo, Luiz de Queiroz Coll Agr, Dept Forest Sci, Lab Trop Forestry LASTROP, Ave Padua Dias 11, BR-13418900 Piracicaba, SP - Brazil

• Tipo de documento: Artigo de Revisão
• Fonte: RESTORATION ECOLOGY; v. 29, n. 8 AUG 2021.
• Citações Web of Science: 0

Resumo

In the recently declared United Nations Decade on Ecosystem Restoration (2021-2030), evidence-based research has an essential role in summarizing restoration outcomes toward broad generalizations to advance restoration practice and science globally. However, to present trustworthy, high-quality recommendations, evidence reviews should be based on rigorous methods that minimize bias and enhance systematicity, transparency, objectivity, comprehensiveness, and repeatability. To assess the current value of restoration reviews in terms of methodological repeatability at the searching stage, a fundamental review stage, we evaluated a sample of meta-analyses and narrative syntheses (n = 79) and critically appraised how searches were conducted based on the information reported within each study. By assessing whether review methods were reported in sufficient detail to be repeated by an independent party, we found that repeatability varied substantially by the standard we used. Overall, reviews performed relatively poorly, with a median score of 3 out of 9 points available, and a mean score of 3.6. Most reviews (n = 76/79) failed in effectively reporting all necessary information to allow repeatability at this stage. We found no statistically significant differences considering review types, suggesting that the type of synthesis alone does not solely reflect the repeatability of a review. Toward increasingly repeatable, reliable reviews in restoration ecology, we recommend that authors incorporate and apply principles of systematic reviews and maps in their review process, and suggest that environmental journals should broadly emphasize ways of performing rigorous reviews, as well as increase efforts for the publication of open access review protocols. (AU)

• Processo FAPESP: 19/23908-4 - Design de novos biocatalisadores por modificações de superfície de lipases pós-imobilização para aplicação na síntese de oleato de xilose
• Beneficiário: Maria Carolina Pereira Gonçalves
• Modalidade de apoio: Bolsas no Brasil - Doutorado
• Processo FAPESP: 19/24049-5 - Monitoramento das florestas em restauração do Estado do São Paulo: aplicação de novas ferramentas de sensoriamento remoto e subsídios para políticas públicas
• Beneficiário: Angelica Faria de Resende
• Modalidade de apoio: Bolsas no Brasil - Pós-Doutorado
• Processo FAPESP: 18/18416-2 - Compreendendo florestas restauradas para o benefício das pessoas e da natureza - NewFor
• Beneficiário: Pedro Henrique Santin Brancalion
• Modalidade de apoio: Auxílio à Pesquisa - Programa BIOTA - Temático
• Processo FAPESP: 18/21338-3 - Monitoramento da restauração de paisagens florestais usando veículo aéreo não tripulado com sensoriamento remoto Lidar e hiperespectral
• Beneficiário: Danilo Roberti Alves de Almeida
• Modalidade de apoio: Bolsas no Brasil - Pós-Doutorado
• Processo FAPESP: 13/50718-5 - Restauração ecológica de florestas ciliares, de florestas nativas de produção econômica e de fragmentos florestais degradados (em APP e RL), com base na ecologia de restauração de ecossistemas de referência, visando testar cientificamente os preceitos do Novo Código Florestal Brasileiro
• Beneficiário: Ricardo Ribeiro Rodrigues
• Modalidade de apoio: Auxílio à Pesquisa - Programa BIOTA - Temático
• Processo FAPESP: 19/08533-4 - Compreendendo os aspectos ecológicos e sociais das ações de restauração em regiões tropicais através de revisões sistemáticas e metanálises
• Beneficiário: João Paulo Romanelli
• Modalidade de apoio: Bolsas no Brasil - Pós-Doutorado