Why species composition is not a good indicator to assess restoration success? Counter‐response to Reid (2015)

E-ISSN： 1526-100x|1061-2971|5|521-523

ISSN： 1061-2971

Source： RESTORATION ECOLOGY (ELECTRONIC), Vol.1061-2971, Iss.5, 2015-09, pp. : 521-523

Disclaimer: Any content in publications that violate the sovereignty, the constitution or regulations of the PRC is not accepted or approved by CNPIEC.

Previous Menu Next

Abstract

Related content

Why species composition is not a good indicator to assess restoration success? Counter‐response to Reid (2015)

RESTORATION ECOLOGY (ELECTRONIC), Vol. 23, Iss. 5, 2015-09 ,pp. : 521-523

John Wiley & Sons Inc

Access to resources Recommend Favorite

Counter-cleptoparasitic behaviours of species of Sphecidae (Hymenoptera) in response to miltogrammini larviposition (Diptera: Sarcophagidae)

By Spofford M.G.

Journal of Natural History, Vol. 26, Iss. 5, 1992-09 ,pp. : 993-1012

Taylor & Francis Ltd

Access to resources Recommend Favorite

Let the concept of indicator species be functional!

JOURNAL OF VEGETATION SCIENCE, Vol. 26, Iss. 5, 2015-09 ,pp. : 839-847

John Wiley & Sons Inc

Access to resources Recommend Favorite

Why humans judge things to be good

By Joyce Richard

Biology and Philosophy, Vol. 19, Iss. 5, 2004-11 ,pp. : 809-817

Springer Publishing Company

Access to resources Recommend Favorite

An undeniable need for recognition: What do you call a man who has undergone foreskin restoration? “Uncircumcised”? “Restored”? How about just BRAVE? A response to Hill (2015)

CLINICAL ANATOMY, Vol. 28, Iss. 8, 2015-11 ,pp. : 962-963

John Wiley & Sons Inc

Access to resources Recommend Favorite