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
I was just wondering which papers had been consistently mentioned across lists - thank you for compiling them!
ReplyDeleteI 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!
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:
ReplyDeleteArmstrong 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
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