Environmental Evidence最新文献

{"title":"Verifying authors' claims to have conducted a Systematic Review? A checklist for journal editors and peer reviewers.","authors":"Andrew S Pullin, Biljana Macura","doi":"10.1186/s13750-025-00361-w","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s13750-025-00361-w","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":48621,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Evidence","volume":"14 1","pages":"8"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12076875/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144026113","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Testing the utility of GPT for title and abstract screening in environmental systematic evidence synthesis.","authors":"Björn Nykvist, Biljana Macura, Maria Xylia, Erik Olsson","doi":"10.1186/s13750-025-00360-x","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-025-00360-x","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In this paper we show that OpenAI's Large Language Model (LLM) GPT perform remarkably well when used for title and abstract eligibility screening of scientific articles and within a (systematic) literature review workflow. We evaluated GPT on screening data from a systematic review study on electric vehicle charging infrastructure demand with almost 12,000 records using the same eligibility criteria as human screeners. We tested 3 different versions of this model that were tasked to distinguishing between relevant and irrelevant content by responding with a relevance probability between 0 and 1. For the latest GPT-4 model (tested in November 2023) and probability cutoff 0.5 the recall rate is 100%, meaning no relevant papers were missed and using this mode for screening would have saved 50% of the time that would otherwise be spent on manual screening. Experimenting with a higher cut of threshold can save more time. With threshold chosen so that recall is still above 95% for GPT-4 (where up to 5% of relevant papers might be missed), the model could save 75% of the time spent on manual screening. If automation technologies can replicate manual screening by human experts with effectiveness, accuracy, and precision, the work and cost savings are significant. Furthermore, the value of a comprehensive list of relevant literature, rather quickly available at the start of a research project, is hard to understate. However, as this study only evaluated the performance on one systematic review and one prompt, we caution that more test and methodological development is needed, and outline the next steps to properly evaluate rigor and effectiveness of LLMs for eligibility screening.</p>","PeriodicalId":48621,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Evidence","volume":"14 1","pages":"7"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12016299/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144023071","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Investigating the effects of the main agronomic interventions on carabids and spiders in European arable fields: A systematic review protocol.","authors":"Coralie Triquet, Yvonne Fabian, Philippe Jeanneret","doi":"10.1186/s13750-025-00359-4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-025-00359-4","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Designing agroecological cropping systems enhancing functional biodiversity and natural pest regulations requires understanding the ecological processes involved, specifically regarding the response of generalist predators. A more precise knowledge of the changes in ground-dwelling communities implied by individual agronomic interventions is needed to make enlightened and consistent choices in the design of such innovative cropping systems. A recent systematic map showed that fertilization, tillage, pesticides use, grazing and mowing are the most studied agronomic interventions regarding their effects on arthropods. The direct and indirect effects of disturbances induced by agronomic interventions on ground-dwelling arthropods in arable fields have been widely investigated, especially for carabids and spiders. However, there is not always a clear pattern outstanding, probably due to antagonistic responses of species with different functional traits. Here, we propose a quantified synthesis on this topic. We will show the impact of the main agronomic interventions in arable fields on the two most studied ground-dwelling predator groups, carabids and spiders, and compare their response (abundance, species richness, taxonomic and functional diversity) in different contexts (crop types and production methods). We will investigate contrasting responses at different taxonomic levels depending on functional traits.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The evidence will be identified from the recent systematic map on the impacts of agricultural management practices on biodiversity indicator species groups published in 2024. We will select all studies reporting the effect of the most studied agronomic interventions (fertilization, tillage, pesticide application, mowing and grazing) in arable fields (arable crops and temporary grasslands) on carabids and spiders in the map database. A search update will be performed using the search strings used for the systematic map for carabids and spiders, and extracted references will be sorted at title, abstract and full text levels according to the topic of the present work. All selected studies will be critically appraised and a low, medium, or high risk of bias will be assigned to each study. The synthesis of the data extracted from the studies will be first narrative (using qualitative data), and then quantitative for those with adequate data for a meta-analysis.</p>","PeriodicalId":48621,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Evidence","volume":"14 1","pages":"6"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12008925/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144023409","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"AI-assisted evidence screening method for systematic reviews in environmental research: integrating ChatGPT with domain knowledge.","authors":"Chen Zuo, Xiaohao Yang, Josh Errickson, Jiayang Li, Yi Hong, Runzi Wang","doi":"10.1186/s13750-025-00358-5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-025-00358-5","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Systematic reviews (SRs) in environmental science is challenging due to diverse methodologies, terminologies, and study designs across disciplines. A major limitation is that inconsistent application of eligibility criteria in evidence-screening affects the reproducibility and transparency of SRs. To explore the potential role of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in applying eligibility criteria, we developed and evaluated an AI-assisted evidence-screening framework using a case study SR on the relationship between stream fecal coliform concentrations and land use and land cover (LULC). The SR incorporates publications from hydrology, ecology, public health, landscape, and urban planning, reflecting the interdisciplinary nature of environmental research. We fine-tuned ChatGPT-3.5 Turbo model with expert-reviewed training data for title, abstract, and full-text screening of 120 articles. The AI model demonstrated substantial agreement at title/abstract review and moderate agreement at full-text review with expert reviewers and maintained internal consistency, suggesting its potential for structured screening assistance. The findings provide a structured framework for applying eligibility criteria consistently, improving evidence screening efficiency, reducing labor and costs, and informing large language models (LLMs) integration in environmental SRs. Combining AI with domain knowledge provides an exploratory step to evaluate feasibility of AI-assisted evidence screening, especially for diverse, large volume, and interdisciplinary studies. Additionally, AI-assisted screening has the potential to provide a structured approach for managing disagreement among researchers with diverse domain knowledge, though further validation is needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":48621,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Evidence","volume":"14 1","pages":"5"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11998256/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144041115","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Evidence of the impacts of pharmaceuticals on aquatic animal behaviour (EIPAAB): a systematic map and open access database.","authors":"Jake M Martin, Marcus Michelangeli, Michael G Bertram, Paul J Blanchfield, Jack A Brand, Tomas Brodin, Bryan W Brooks, Daniel Cerveny, Kate N Fergusson, Malgorzata Lagisz, Lea M Lovin, Isaac Y Ligocki, Shinichi Nakagawa, Shiho Ozeki, Natalia Sandoval-Herrera, Kendall R Scarlett, Josefin Sundin, Hung Tan, Eli S J Thoré, Bob B M Wong, Erin S McCallum","doi":"10.1186/s13750-025-00357-6","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s13750-025-00357-6","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Background: &lt;/strong&gt;Over the last decade, pharmaceutical pollution in aquatic ecosystems has emerged as a pressing environmental issue. Recent years have also seen a surge in scientific interest in the use of behavioural endpoints in chemical risk assessment and regulatory activities, underscoring their importance for fitness and survival. In this respect, data on how pharmaceuticals alter the behaviour of aquatic animals appears to have grown rapidly. Despite this, there has been a notable absence of systematic efforts to consolidate and summarise this field of study. To address this, our objectives were twofold: (1) to systematically identify, catalogue, and synthesise primary research articles on the effects of pharmaceuticals on aquatic animal behaviour; and (2) to organise this information into a comprehensive open-access database for scientists, policymakers, and environmental managers.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Methods: &lt;/strong&gt;We systematically searched two electronic databases (Web of Science and Scopus) and supplemented these with additional article sources. The search string followed a Population-Exposure-Comparison-Outcome framework to capture articles that used an aquatic organism (population) to test the effects of a pharmaceutical (exposure) on behaviour (outcome). Articles were screened in two stages: title and abstract, followed by full-text screening alongside data extraction. Decision trees were designed a priori to appraise eligibility at both stages. Information on study validity was collected but not used as a basis for inclusion. Data synthesis focused on species, compounds, behaviour, and quality themes and was enhanced with additional sources of metadata from online databases (e.g. National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) Taxonomy, PubChem, and IUCN Red List of Threatened Species).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Review findings: &lt;/strong&gt;We screened 5,988 articles, of which 901 were included in the final database, representing 1,739 unique species-by-compound combinations. The database includes data collected over 48 years (1974-2022), with most articles having an environmental focus (510) and fewer relating to medical and basic research topics (233 and 158, respectively). The database includes 173 species (8 phyla and 21 classes). Ray-finned fishes were by far the most common clade (75% of the evidence base), and most studies focused on freshwater compared to marine species (80.4% versus 19.6%). The database includes 426 pharmaceutical compounds; the most common groups were antidepressants (28%), antiepileptics (11%), and anxiolytics (10%). Evidence for the impacts on locomotion and boldness/anxiety behaviours were most commonly assessed. Almost all behaviours were scored in a laboratory setting, with only 0.5% measured under field conditions. Generally, we detected poor reporting and/or compliance with several of our study validity criteria.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusions: &lt;/strong&gt;Our systematic map revealed a rapid increase in","PeriodicalId":48621,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Evidence","volume":"14 1","pages":"4"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11924672/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143665186","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"What is favourable conservation status?: A systematic map protocol.","authors":"Alice M Oswald, Natasha Mannion, Stephen G Willis, Philip A Stephens, Philip J K McGowan","doi":"10.1186/s13750-025-00356-7","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s13750-025-00356-7","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Favourable Conservation status (FCS) is the overarching goal of the Habitats and Birds Directives, in which it is described as the situation in which a habitat or species is thriving throughout its natural range and is expected to continue to thrive. However, despite being introduced over thirty years ago, FCS has not been widely adopted as a conservation assessment framework. This systematic map aims to collate and characterise evidence to understand 1) how the term FCS is used in the literature, and 2) the context of its applications in policy and practice. Specifically, we ask the question: how is FCS defined and how has it been applied in policy and practice? This review will contribute to the field by providing the first systematic evidence synthesis on FCS, both as a concept and as a practical application, and will review the broader applicability of FCS beyond Member State reporting obligations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search of the literature will be conducted to collate and categorise evidence on the definitions and applications of FCS and barriers to its implementation. The literature will be screened in two stages to assess relevance, firstly by titles and abstracts and secondly by the full-texts. Studies will be assessed against eligibility criteria pertaining to the components of the question. Coded data will be extracted from the relevant studies and used in a narrative synthesis to summarise the evidence in a discussion, complemented by descriptive statistics and visual aids.</p>","PeriodicalId":48621,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Evidence","volume":"14 1","pages":"3"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11834568/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143442211","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Restoring riparian habitats for benefits to biodiversity and human livelihoods: a systematic map protocol for riparian restoration approaches in the tropics.","authors":"Sheena Davis, Matthew Grainger, Marion Pfeifer, Zarah Pattison, Philip Stephens, Roy Sanderson","doi":"10.1186/s13750-025-00355-8","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s13750-025-00355-8","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Riparian zones are vital transitional habitats that bridge the gap between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. They support elevated levels of biodiversity and provide an array of important regulatory and provisioning ecosystem services, of which, many are fundamentally important to human well-being, such as the maintenance of water quality and the mitigation of flood risk along waterways. Increasing anthropogenic pressures resulting from agricultural intensification, industry development and the expansion of infrastructure in tropical regions have led to the widespread degradation of riparian habitats resulting in biodiversity loss and decreased resilience to flooding and erosion. Considering climate change and its associated effects on freshwater systems, the need to build resilience and adaptive capacities is pertinent. This has prompted the need to protect existing riparian habitats and the implementation of solutions to restore these degraded habitats to recover their functional capacity. This systematic map will aim to identify and collate existing literature on approaches for riparian restoration implemented in tropical regions and identify what indicators have been used to measure outcomes for biodiversity and human well-being. The resulting collation of evidence will help to identify current knowledge gaps and inform the direction of future research.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>To address the aims of this systematic map, a search of pre-identified bibliographic databases will be undertaken using a set string of search terms. In addition to this, a grey literature search will be conducted using Google Scholar and by searching for references using specialist websites. All literature that is gathered will be screened by title, abstract and full text using a two-phase screening process which adheres to a pre-determined eligibility criteria. Data will then be coded from the collated group of articles using a pre-designed data coding sheet. Heterogeneity will likely be present in the data; therefore, studies will be grouped appropriately based on the restoration strategy implemented and, on the type of outcome measured. These will be presented as sub-groups. A narrative synthesis of map findings will be produced, this will outline the distribution and frequency of restoration interventions, and outcomes measured, and will highlight evidence gaps to direct future research.</p>","PeriodicalId":48621,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Evidence","volume":"14 1","pages":"2"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11780855/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143068966","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Effects of converting cropland to grassland on greenhouse gas emissions from peat and organic-rich soils in temperate and boreal climates: a systematic review.","authors":"Alena Holzknecht, Magnus Land, Jacynthe Dessureault-Rompré, Lars Elsgaard, Kristiina Lång, Örjan Berglund","doi":"10.1186/s13750-024-00354-1","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s13750-024-00354-1","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Background: &lt;/strong&gt;To align with climate goals, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from agriculture must be reduced significantly. Cultivated peatlands are an important source of such emissions. One proposed measure is to convert arable fields on peatlands to grassland, as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) default emission factors (EF) for organic soils are lower from grasslands. Yet, these EFs are based on limited data with high variability and comparisons are difficult due to differences in climate, soil properties, and crop management. This systematic review synthesizes available evidence on the effects of converting cropland to grassland on GHG emissions from peat and organic-rich soils in temperate and boreal climates using data from comparable fields.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Methods: &lt;/strong&gt;Literature was searched using five bibliographic databases, four archives or search engines for grey literature, and Google Scholar. Eligibility screening was performed in two steps on (1) title/abstract, with consistency among reviewers assessed by double-screening 896 articles, and (2) full text screened by two reviewers. Eligible articles were critically appraised independently by at least two reviewers. Disagreements were reconciled through discussions. Data and key metadata are presented in narrative synthesis tables, including risk of bias assessments. Meta-analyses comparing grasslands with croplands were performed using raw mean difference as the effect size.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Review findings: &lt;/strong&gt;A total of 10,352 unique articles were retrieved through the literature searches, and 18 articles including 29 studies were considered relevant to answer the review question. After critical appraisal, it was concluded that two articles reported the same data, so a total of 28 studies, comprising 34 comparisons were included in the systematic review. Most of the included studies were conducted in the Nordic countries and Germany, one in Belarus and one in Canada. A meta-analysis was conducted on 24 studies pairing cropland and grassland sites. No significant differences in carbon dioxide (CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;) or methane (CH&lt;sub&gt;4&lt;/sub&gt;) emissions were found. Emissions of nitrous oxide (N&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;O) from grasslands were found to be 7.55 kg ha&lt;sup&gt;-1&lt;/sup&gt; y&lt;sup&gt;-1&lt;/sup&gt; lower than from cropland, however the sensitivity analysis showed that the difference was not robust, making it uncertain whether conversion from cropland to grassland has a significant effect on N&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;O emissions from organic soils. The difference was also smaller when root crops were excluded from the comparator group. Further, net ecosystem exchange (NEE) of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; and net ecosystem carbon balance (NECB) were higher in grasslands compared to croplands in cases where the grasslands were fertilized.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusions: &lt;/strong&gt;This systematic review underlines the ambiguity of GHG emissions from peatlands and their relationship to land use. Our un","PeriodicalId":48621,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Evidence","volume":"14 1","pages":"1"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11743012/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143014585","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"How is the concept of charisma used in the academic literature about biodiversity conservation? A systematic map protocol.","authors":"Maxim Isaac, Caroline S Fukushima, Biljana Macura, Enrico Di Minin, Ricardo A Correia","doi":"10.1186/s13750-024-00353-2","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s13750-024-00353-2","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The extinction of species is a multifaceted phenomenon shaped by the complex interplay between biological and socio-cultural factors. Public and academic preferences for different species often play a direct or indirect role in influencing the conservation outlook of these species. The \"charisma\" of species and other components of biodiversity is often mentioned as an important factor in shaping human preferences, determining both the scope of scientific studies and justifications for such scope. Here, we present a protocol for systematically mapping the use of the concept of \"charisma\" in relation to biodiversity peer-reviewed academic literature focused on biodiversity conservation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The search targeting academic peer-reviewed research articles and reviews will be conducted in three publication databases, The Lens, Scopus and Web of Science (Core Collection and SciELO), and will be supplemented by search engine results from Google Scholar. Broad-scope searches will be performed in 3 different languages (English, Portuguese, and Spanish) and article screening will be performed at two stages to ensure the relevance of each entry and consistency amongst reviewers in their use of the defined inclusion criteria. The resulting systematic map of the literature will be summarised by employing a narrative synthesis approach, and through descriptive statistics and analysis of temporal trends.</p>","PeriodicalId":48621,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Evidence","volume":"13 1","pages":"29"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2024-12-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11616242/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142781545","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Evidence on the performance of nature-based solutions interventions for coastal protection in biogenic, shallow ecosystems: a systematic map.","authors":"Avery B Paxton, Trevor N Riley, Camille L Steenrod, Brandon J Puckett, Jahson B Alemu I, Savannah T Paliotti, Alyssa M Adler, Laura Exar, Josette E T McLean, James Kelley, Y Stacy Zhang, Carter S Smith, Rachel K Gittman, Brian R Silliman","doi":"10.1186/s13750-024-00350-5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-024-00350-5","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Background: &lt;/strong&gt;Combined impacts from anthropogenic pressures and climate change threaten coastal ecosystems and their capacity to protect communities from hazards. One approach towards improving coastal protection is to implement \"nature-based solutions\" (NBS), which are actions working with nature to benefit nature and humans. Despite recent increases in global implementation of NBS projects for coastal protection, substantial gaps exist in our understanding of NBS performance. To help fill this gap, we systematically mapped the global evidence base on the ecological, physical, economic, and social performance of NBS interventions related to coastal protection. We focused on active NBS interventions, such as restoring or creating habitat, adding structure, or modifying sediment in six shallow biogenic ecosystems: salt marsh, seagrass, kelp forest, mangrove, coral reef, and shellfish reef.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Methods: &lt;/strong&gt;We identified potentially relevant articles on the performance of NBS for coastal protection using predefined and tested search strategies across two indexing platforms, one bibliographic database, two open discovery citation indexes, one web-based search engine, and a novel literature discovery tool. We also searched 45 organizational websites for literature and solicited literature from 66 subject matter experts. Potentially relevant articles were deduplicated and then screened by title and abstract with assistance from a machine learning algorithm. Following title and abstract screening, we conducted full text screening, extracted relevant metadata into a predefined codebook, and analyzed the evidence base to determine the distribution and abundance of evidence and answer our research questions on NBS performance.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Results: &lt;/strong&gt;Our search captured &gt; 37,000 articles, of which 252 met our eligibility criteria for relevance to NBS performance for coastal protection and were included in the systematic map. Evidence stemmed from 31 countries and increased from the 1980s through the 2020s. Active NBS interventions for coastal protection were most often implemented in salt marshes (45%), mangrove forests (26%), and shellfish reefs (20%), whereas there were fewer NBS studies in seagrass meadows (4%), coral reefs (4%), or kelp beds (&lt; 1%). Performance evaluations of NBS were typically conducted using observational or experimental methods at local spatial scales and over short temporal scales (&lt; 1 year to 5 years). Evidence clusters existed for several types of NBS interventions, including restoration and addition of structures (e.g., those consisting of artificial, hybrid, or natural materials), yet evidence gaps existed for NBS interventions like alteration of invasive species. Evaluations of NBS performance commonly focused on ecological (e.g., species and population, habitat, community) and physical (e.g., waves, sediment and morphology) outcomes, whereas pronounced evidence gaps existed for econom","PeriodicalId":48621,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Evidence","volume":"13 1","pages":"28"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2024-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11610176/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142773850","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}