Top Ten Synthesis

In case ya'll want to get a bit quantitative about this, here are all the papers that got at least 2 votes, in order by number of votes. From this it seems like our collective interests are:

1. Novel ecosystems and novel approaches (concept papers Hobbs et al 2009, Jackson and Hobbs 2009; Seastedt et al 2008 and Funk et al 2008 brought it in with novel approaches)

2. Restoration and climate change (Bradley 2009, Hobbs and Cramer 2008, Harris et al 2006)

3. Restoration examples that consider the whole ecosystem (such as Chazdon 2009 in tropical forests and Flitcroft 2009, the Long Tom example)

4. Economic valuation of restoration and monetizing ecosystem services (e.g. Norgaard 2010, Galatowitsch 2009, Nadasdy 2007, Kosoy and Corbera 2010).

Palmer rocked the river restoration vote, and we also have a soft spot for Traditional Ecological Knowledge (Gangon et al 2009):

Paper - Votes
Hobbs et al 2009 - 9
Jackson and Hobbs 2009 - 6
Chazdon et al 2009 - 5
Norgaard 2010 - 5
Palmer 2009 - 5
Seastedt et al 2008 - 5
Flitcroft et al 2009 - 4
Galatowitsch 2009 - 4
Nadasdy 2007 - 4
Bradley et al 2009 - 3
Funk et al 2008 - 3
Gagnon et al 2009 - 3
Harris et al 2006 - 3
Hobbs and Cramer 2008 - 3
Kosoy and Corbera 2010 - 3
Palmer and Filoso 2009 - 3
deGroot et al 2010 - 2
Peterson et al 2010 - 2
Ruiz-Jaen and Aide 2005 - 2
Suding et al 2004 - 2
Veira et al 2009 - 2

*Note: these are through Kelly's entry

3 comments:

  1. I was just wondering which papers had been consistently mentioned across lists - thank you for compiling them!

    I think this is useful information in compiling a larger list, but I also think we should remember that people have introduced a lot of other good stuff that we weren't all aware of, so some of those outliers should also be included.

    Good stuff!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Fair enough Melissa, there were a few gem papers that didn't get widely circulated. For reference, here's a list of all the one-votes:

    Armstrong and Seddon 2008
    Aronson et al 2010
    Beschta and Ripple 2010
    Biggs et al 2009
    Bradley et al 2010
    Brewer and Menzel 2009
    Burger 2008
    Coase 1960
    Costanza et al 1997
    Cramer et al 2008
    Gagnon and Berteaux 2009
    Goldman et al 2008
    Gonzalo-Turpin et al 2008
    Hagerman et al 2010
    Hobbs and Harris 2001
    Holl and Howarth 2000
    Holl et al 2003
    Lave et al 2010
    Newman 2008
    Nicol and Possingham 2010
    Perfecto and Vandermeer 2010
    Robertson 2006
    Schaefer 2009
    SER Handbook
    Stone et al 2008
    Suding et al 2008
    Tallis et al 2009
    Walker et al 2009
    Wallem et al 2010
    Wendland et al 2010
    White and Walker 1997
    Winfree 2010

    ReplyDelete
  3. Great lists everyone. This last list especially shows a pretty broad range of interests among us, it'll be fun narrowing down as a group. I'm happy so many of you considered papers from alternate perspectives (like the Marxist paper and Nadasdy chapter). I think these are particularly important for people that are already entrenched in the field, not only because the latest restoration science may quickly become common knowledge to specialists, but because alternate perspectives find it historically difficult to enter the conversations within dominant scientific paradigms.

    ReplyDelete