{"title":"濒危物种","authors":"Bremer Gm","doi":"10.3368/er.11.1.79","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Process. Wetland Journal 5(1):8-9.) has taken exception to use of reference wetlands. He argues that such an approach disregards the fact that each wetland is a dynamic, ever-changing system, and that no two are exactly alike. Instead, he prefers to compare the wetland as it ~vas designed to its condition after it has been constructed. While the authors acknowledge and recommend this \"as-built\" approach for at least one level of monitoring, they feel that by utilizing populations of both \"new\" and existing wetlands they have solved the problem of comparing two unique entities. Unfortunately, they fail to include case studies that might shed greater light on their methodology. In addition, the reader is left to wonder whether their relatively small study of newly restored and/or created freshwater ponds with only fringes of emergent marsh on which this protocol is based provides an adequate basis for evaluation of all types of wetlands. Is this a bureaucratic solution or a scientific one? Undoubtedly, this book will inspire discussion as to the best means to monitor and learn from wetland mitigation projects. Less controversial but still interesting are some short but informative chapters on recruiting and training volunteers as wetland monitors, employing graphics to display data, and using information about local natural wetlands to improve wetland project designs.","PeriodicalId":105419,"journal":{"name":"Restoration & Management Notes","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1995-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"ENDANGERED SPECIES\",\"authors\":\"Bremer Gm\",\"doi\":\"10.3368/er.11.1.79\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Process. Wetland Journal 5(1):8-9.) has taken exception to use of reference wetlands. He argues that such an approach disregards the fact that each wetland is a dynamic, ever-changing system, and that no two are exactly alike. Instead, he prefers to compare the wetland as it ~vas designed to its condition after it has been constructed. While the authors acknowledge and recommend this \\\"as-built\\\" approach for at least one level of monitoring, they feel that by utilizing populations of both \\\"new\\\" and existing wetlands they have solved the problem of comparing two unique entities. Unfortunately, they fail to include case studies that might shed greater light on their methodology. In addition, the reader is left to wonder whether their relatively small study of newly restored and/or created freshwater ponds with only fringes of emergent marsh on which this protocol is based provides an adequate basis for evaluation of all types of wetlands. Is this a bureaucratic solution or a scientific one? Undoubtedly, this book will inspire discussion as to the best means to monitor and learn from wetland mitigation projects. Less controversial but still interesting are some short but informative chapters on recruiting and training volunteers as wetland monitors, employing graphics to display data, and using information about local natural wetlands to improve wetland project designs.\",\"PeriodicalId\":105419,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Restoration & Management Notes\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1995-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Restoration & Management Notes\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3368/er.11.1.79\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Restoration & Management Notes","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3368/er.11.1.79","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Process. Wetland Journal 5(1):8-9.) has taken exception to use of reference wetlands. He argues that such an approach disregards the fact that each wetland is a dynamic, ever-changing system, and that no two are exactly alike. Instead, he prefers to compare the wetland as it ~vas designed to its condition after it has been constructed. While the authors acknowledge and recommend this "as-built" approach for at least one level of monitoring, they feel that by utilizing populations of both "new" and existing wetlands they have solved the problem of comparing two unique entities. Unfortunately, they fail to include case studies that might shed greater light on their methodology. In addition, the reader is left to wonder whether their relatively small study of newly restored and/or created freshwater ponds with only fringes of emergent marsh on which this protocol is based provides an adequate basis for evaluation of all types of wetlands. Is this a bureaucratic solution or a scientific one? Undoubtedly, this book will inspire discussion as to the best means to monitor and learn from wetland mitigation projects. Less controversial but still interesting are some short but informative chapters on recruiting and training volunteers as wetland monitors, employing graphics to display data, and using information about local natural wetlands to improve wetland project designs.