Planning for Implementation: Landscape‐Level Restoration Planning in an Agricultural Setting
Identifieur interne : 000F46 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 000F45; suivant : 000F47Planning for Implementation: Landscape‐Level Restoration Planning in an Agricultural Setting
Auteurs : Bill A. ThompsonSource :
- Restoration Ecology [ 1061-2971 ] ; 2011-01.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
Abstract
The conservation of biodiversity in highly fragmented landscapes often requires large‐scale habitat restoration in addition to traditional biological conservation techniques. The selection of priority restoration sites to support long‐term persistence of biodiversity within landscape‐scale projects however remains a challenge for many restoration practitioners. Techniques developed under the paradigm of systematic conservation planning may provide a template for resolving these challenges. Systematic conservation planning requires the identification of conservation objectives, the establishment of quantitative targets for each objective, and the identification of areas which, if conserved, would contribute to meeting those targets. A metric developed by systematic conservation planners termed “irreplaceability” allows for analysis and prioritization of such conservation options, and allows for the display of analysis results in a way that can engage private landowners and other decision makers. The process of systematic conservation planning was modified to address landscape‐level restoration prioritization in southern Ontario. A series of recent and locally relevant landscape ecology studies allowed the identification of restoration objectives and quantitative targets, and a simple algorithm was developed to identify and prioritize potential restoration projects. The application of an irreplaceability analysis to landscape‐level restoration planning allowed the identification of varying needs throughout the planning region, resulting from underlying differences in topography and settlement patterns, and allowed the effective prioritization of potential restoration projects. Engagement with rural landowners and agricultural commodity groups, as well as the irreplaceability maps developed, ultimately resulted in a substantial increase in the number and total area of habitat restoration projects in the planning region.
Url:
DOI: 10.1111/j.1526-100X.2010.00666.x
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:44FEB567C37A28FA2EBE22F7813FBF6D5BFBB6A7Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Planning for Implementation: Landscape‐Level Restoration Planning in an Agricultural Setting</title><author><name sortKey="Thompson, Bill A" sort="Thompson, Bill A" uniqKey="Thompson B" first="Bill A." last="Thompson">Bill A. Thompson</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Aylmer, Ontario N5H 2S8, Canada</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Present address: Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, Newmarket, Ontario L3Y 4X1, Canada</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>E-mail: B.Thompson@lsrca.on.ca</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:44FEB567C37A28FA2EBE22F7813FBF6D5BFBB6A7</idno><date when="2011" year="2011">2011</date><idno type="doi">10.1111/j.1526-100X.2010.00666.x</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/44FEB567C37A28FA2EBE22F7813FBF6D5BFBB6A7/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">000F46</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">000F46</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Planning for Implementation: Landscape‐Level Restoration Planning in an Agricultural Setting</title><author><name sortKey="Thompson, Bill A" sort="Thompson, Bill A" uniqKey="Thompson B" first="Bill A." last="Thompson">Bill A. Thompson</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Aylmer, Ontario N5H 2S8, Canada</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Present address: Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, Newmarket, Ontario L3Y 4X1, Canada</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>E-mail: B.Thompson@lsrca.on.ca</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j">Restoration Ecology</title><idno type="ISSN">1061-2971</idno><idno type="eISSN">1526-100X</idno><imprint><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2011-01">2011-01</date><biblScope unit="volume">19</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">1</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="5">5</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="13">13</biblScope></imprint><idno type="ISSN">1061-2971</idno></series><idno type="istex">44FEB567C37A28FA2EBE22F7813FBF6D5BFBB6A7</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/j.1526-100X.2010.00666.x</idno><idno type="ArticleID">REC666</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">1061-2971</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>community engagement</term><term>ecological threshold</term><term>irreplaceability</term><term>landscape‐level restoration</term><term>restoration implementation</term><term>systematic restoration planning</term></keywords></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract">The conservation of biodiversity in highly fragmented landscapes often requires large‐scale habitat restoration in addition to traditional biological conservation techniques. The selection of priority restoration sites to support long‐term persistence of biodiversity within landscape‐scale projects however remains a challenge for many restoration practitioners. Techniques developed under the paradigm of systematic conservation planning may provide a template for resolving these challenges. Systematic conservation planning requires the identification of conservation objectives, the establishment of quantitative targets for each objective, and the identification of areas which, if conserved, would contribute to meeting those targets. A metric developed by systematic conservation planners termed “irreplaceability” allows for analysis and prioritization of such conservation options, and allows for the display of analysis results in a way that can engage private landowners and other decision makers. The process of systematic conservation planning was modified to address landscape‐level restoration prioritization in southern Ontario. A series of recent and locally relevant landscape ecology studies allowed the identification of restoration objectives and quantitative targets, and a simple algorithm was developed to identify and prioritize potential restoration projects. The application of an irreplaceability analysis to landscape‐level restoration planning allowed the identification of varying needs throughout the planning region, resulting from underlying differences in topography and settlement patterns, and allowed the effective prioritization of potential restoration projects. Engagement with rural landowners and agricultural commodity groups, as well as the irreplaceability maps developed, ultimately resulted in a substantial increase in the number and total area of habitat restoration projects in the planning region.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName><author><json:item><name>Bill A. Thompson</name><affiliations><json:string>Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Aylmer, Ontario N5H 2S8, Canada</json:string><json:string>Present address: Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, Newmarket, Ontario L3Y 4X1, Canada</json:string><json:string>E-mail: B.Thompson@lsrca.on.ca</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>community engagement</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>ecological threshold</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>irreplaceability</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>landscape‐level restoration</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>restoration implementation</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>systematic restoration planning</value></json:item></subject><articleId><json:string>REC666</json:string></articleId><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>The conservation of biodiversity in highly fragmented landscapes often requires large‐scale habitat restoration in addition to traditional biological conservation techniques. The selection of priority restoration sites to support long‐term persistence of biodiversity within landscape‐scale projects however remains a challenge for many restoration practitioners. Techniques developed under the paradigm of systematic conservation planning may provide a template for resolving these challenges. Systematic conservation planning requires the identification of conservation objectives, the establishment of quantitative targets for each objective, and the identification of areas which, if conserved, would contribute to meeting those targets. A metric developed by systematic conservation planners termed “irreplaceability” allows for analysis and prioritization of such conservation options, and allows for the display of analysis results in a way that can engage private landowners and other decision makers. The process of systematic conservation planning was modified to address landscape‐level restoration prioritization in southern Ontario. A series of recent and locally relevant landscape ecology studies allowed the identification of restoration objectives and quantitative targets, and a simple algorithm was developed to identify and prioritize potential restoration projects. The application of an irreplaceability analysis to landscape‐level restoration planning allowed the identification of varying needs throughout the planning region, resulting from underlying differences in topography and settlement patterns, and allowed the effective prioritization of potential restoration projects. Engagement with rural landowners and agricultural commodity groups, as well as the irreplaceability maps developed, ultimately resulted in a substantial increase in the number and total area of habitat restoration projects in the planning region.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>8</score><pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion><pdfPageSize>595.276 x 782.362 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><abstractCharCount>1950</abstractCharCount><pdfWordCount>5956</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>40069</pdfCharCount><pdfPageCount>9</pdfPageCount><abstractWordCount>250</abstractWordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Planning for Implementation: Landscape‐Level Restoration Planning in an Agricultural Setting</title><genre><json:string>article</json:string></genre><host><volume>19</volume><publisherId><json:string>REC</json:string></publisherId><pages><total>9</total><last>13</last><first>5</first></pages><issn><json:string>1061-2971</json:string></issn><issue>1</issue><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><eissn><json:string>1526-100X</json:string></eissn><title>Restoration Ecology</title><doi><json:string>10.1111/(ISSN)1526-100X</json:string></doi></host><categories><wos><json:string>science</json:string><json:string>ecology</json:string></wos><scienceMetrix><json:string>natural sciences</json:string><json:string>biology</json:string><json:string>ecology</json:string></scienceMetrix></categories><publicationDate>2011</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2011</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1111/j.1526-100X.2010.00666.x</json:string></doi><id>44FEB567C37A28FA2EBE22F7813FBF6D5BFBB6A7</id><score>0.03857247</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/44FEB567C37A28FA2EBE22F7813FBF6D5BFBB6A7/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/44FEB567C37A28FA2EBE22F7813FBF6D5BFBB6A7/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/44FEB567C37A28FA2EBE22F7813FBF6D5BFBB6A7/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Planning for Implementation: Landscape‐Level Restoration Planning in an Agricultural Setting</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><availability><p>© 2010 Society for Ecological Restoration International</p></availability><date>2011</date></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="inbook"><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Planning for Implementation: Landscape‐Level Restoration Planning in an Agricultural Setting</title><author xml:id="author-1"><persName><forename type="first">Bill A.</forename><surname>Thompson</surname></persName><email>B.Thompson@lsrca.on.ca</email><affiliation>Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Aylmer, Ontario N5H 2S8, Canada</affiliation><affiliation>Present address: Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, Newmarket, Ontario L3Y 4X1, Canada</affiliation></author></analytic><monogr><title level="j">Restoration Ecology</title><idno type="pISSN">1061-2971</idno><idno type="eISSN">1526-100X</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1526-100X</idno><imprint><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2011-01"></date><biblScope unit="volume">19</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">1</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="5">5</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="13">13</biblScope></imprint></monogr><idno type="istex">44FEB567C37A28FA2EBE22F7813FBF6D5BFBB6A7</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/j.1526-100X.2010.00666.x</idno><idno type="ArticleID">REC666</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><creation><date>2011</date></creation><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage><abstract><p>The conservation of biodiversity in highly fragmented landscapes often requires large‐scale habitat restoration in addition to traditional biological conservation techniques. The selection of priority restoration sites to support long‐term persistence of biodiversity within landscape‐scale projects however remains a challenge for many restoration practitioners. Techniques developed under the paradigm of systematic conservation planning may provide a template for resolving these challenges. Systematic conservation planning requires the identification of conservation objectives, the establishment of quantitative targets for each objective, and the identification of areas which, if conserved, would contribute to meeting those targets. A metric developed by systematic conservation planners termed “irreplaceability” allows for analysis and prioritization of such conservation options, and allows for the display of analysis results in a way that can engage private landowners and other decision makers. The process of systematic conservation planning was modified to address landscape‐level restoration prioritization in southern Ontario. A series of recent and locally relevant landscape ecology studies allowed the identification of restoration objectives and quantitative targets, and a simple algorithm was developed to identify and prioritize potential restoration projects. The application of an irreplaceability analysis to landscape‐level restoration planning allowed the identification of varying needs throughout the planning region, resulting from underlying differences in topography and settlement patterns, and allowed the effective prioritization of potential restoration projects. Engagement with rural landowners and agricultural commodity groups, as well as the irreplaceability maps developed, ultimately resulted in a substantial increase in the number and total area of habitat restoration projects in the planning region.</p></abstract><textClass xml:lang="en"><keywords scheme="keyword"><list><head>keywords</head><item><term>community engagement</term></item><item><term>ecological threshold</term></item><item><term>irreplaceability</term></item><item><term>landscape‐level restoration</term></item><item><term>restoration implementation</term></item><item><term>systematic restoration planning</term></item></list></keywords></textClass></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change when="2011-01">Published</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/44FEB567C37A28FA2EBE22F7813FBF6D5BFBB6A7/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="Wiley, elements deleted: body"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:document><component version="2.0" type="serialArticle" xml:lang="en"><header><publicationMeta level="product"><publisherInfo><publisherName>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisherName><publisherLoc>Oxford, UK</publisherLoc></publisherInfo><doi origin="wiley" registered="yes">10.1111/(ISSN)1526-100X</doi><issn type="print">1061-2971</issn><issn type="electronic">1526-100X</issn><idGroup><id type="product" value="REC"></id><id type="publisherDivision" value="ST"></id></idGroup><titleGroup><title type="main" sort="RESTORATION ECOLOGY">Restoration Ecology</title></titleGroup></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="part" position="01101"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/rec.2011.19.issue-1</doi><numberingGroup><numbering type="journalVolume" number="19">19</numbering><numbering type="journalIssue" number="1">1</numbering></numberingGroup><coverDate startDate="2011-01">January 2011</coverDate></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="unit" type="article" position="2" status="forIssue"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/j.1526-100X.2010.00666.x</doi><idGroup><id type="unit" value="REC666"></id></idGroup><countGroup><count type="pageTotal" number="9"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="tocHeading1">TECHNICAL REPORT</title></titleGroup><copyright>© 2010 Society for Ecological Restoration International</copyright><eventGroup><event type="firstOnline" date="2011-01-11"></event><event type="publishedOnlineAcceptedOrEarlyUnpaginated" date="2010-05-23"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:BPG_TO_WML3G version:2.4.2 mode:FullText" date="2011-01-11"></event><event type="publishedOnlineFinalForm" date="2011-01-11"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WILEY_ML3G_TO_WILEY_ML3GV2 version:3.8.8" date="2014-02-08"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WML3G_To_WML3G version:4.1.7 mode:FullText,remove_FC" date="2014-11-03"></event></eventGroup><numberingGroup><numbering type="pageFirst" number="5">5</numbering><numbering type="pageLast" number="13">13</numbering></numberingGroup><correspondenceTo> B. A. Thompson, email <email>B.Thompson@lsrca.on.ca</email></correspondenceTo><linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:REC.REC666.pdf"></link></linkGroup></publicationMeta><contentMeta><countGroup><count type="figureTotal" number="2"></count><count type="tableTotal" number="2"></count><count type="formulaTotal" number="0"></count><count type="referenceTotal" number="61"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="main">Planning for Implementation: Landscape‐Level Restoration Planning in an Agricultural Setting</title></titleGroup><creators><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr1" affiliationRef="#a1 #a2" corresponding="yes"><personName><givenNames>Bill A.</givenNames><familyName>Thompson</familyName></personName></creator></creators><affiliationGroup><affiliation xml:id="a1" countryCode="CA"><unparsedAffiliation>Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Aylmer, Ontario N5H 2S8, Canada</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a2" countryCode="CA"><unparsedAffiliation>Present address: Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, Newmarket, Ontario L3Y 4X1, Canada</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation></affiliationGroup><keywordGroup xml:lang="en"><keyword xml:id="k1"><b>community engagement</b></keyword><keyword xml:id="k2"><b>ecological threshold</b></keyword><keyword xml:id="k3"><b>irreplaceability</b></keyword><keyword xml:id="k4"><b>landscape‐level restoration</b></keyword><keyword xml:id="k5"><b>restoration implementation</b></keyword><keyword xml:id="k6"><b>systematic restoration planning</b></keyword></keywordGroup><abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:lang="en"><p> <b>The conservation of biodiversity in highly fragmented landscapes often requires large‐scale habitat restoration in addition to traditional biological conservation techniques. The selection of priority restoration sites to support long‐term persistence of biodiversity within landscape‐scale projects however remains a challenge for many restoration practitioners. Techniques developed under the paradigm of systematic conservation planning may provide a template for resolving these challenges. Systematic conservation planning requires the identification of conservation objectives, the establishment of quantitative targets for each objective, and the identification of areas which, if conserved, would contribute to meeting those targets. A metric developed by systematic conservation planners termed “irreplaceability” allows for analysis and prioritization of such conservation options, and allows for the display of analysis results in a way that can engage private landowners and other decision makers. The process of systematic conservation planning was modified to address landscape‐level restoration prioritization in southern Ontario. A series of recent and locally relevant landscape ecology studies allowed the identification of restoration objectives and quantitative targets, and a simple algorithm was developed to identify and prioritize potential restoration projects. The application of an irreplaceability analysis to landscape‐level restoration planning allowed the identification of varying needs throughout the planning region, resulting from underlying differences in topography and settlement patterns, and allowed the effective prioritization of potential restoration projects. Engagement with rural landowners and agricultural commodity groups, as well as the irreplaceability maps developed, ultimately resulted in a substantial increase in the number and total area of habitat restoration projects in the planning region.</b> </p></abstract></abstractGroup></contentMeta></header></component></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Planning for Implementation: Landscape‐Level Restoration Planning in an Agricultural Setting</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>Planning for Implementation: Landscape‐Level Restoration Planning in an Agricultural Setting</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Bill A.</namePart><namePart type="family">Thompson</namePart><affiliation>Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Aylmer, Ontario N5H 2S8, Canada</affiliation><affiliation>Present address: Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, Newmarket, Ontario L3Y 4X1, Canada</affiliation><affiliation>E-mail: B.Thompson@lsrca.on.ca</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="article" displayLabel="article"></genre><originInfo><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">Oxford, UK</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2011-01</dateIssued><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2011</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><internetMediaType>text/html</internetMediaType><extent unit="figures">2</extent><extent unit="tables">2</extent><extent unit="references">61</extent></physicalDescription><abstract>The conservation of biodiversity in highly fragmented landscapes often requires large‐scale habitat restoration in addition to traditional biological conservation techniques. The selection of priority restoration sites to support long‐term persistence of biodiversity within landscape‐scale projects however remains a challenge for many restoration practitioners. Techniques developed under the paradigm of systematic conservation planning may provide a template for resolving these challenges. Systematic conservation planning requires the identification of conservation objectives, the establishment of quantitative targets for each objective, and the identification of areas which, if conserved, would contribute to meeting those targets. A metric developed by systematic conservation planners termed “irreplaceability” allows for analysis and prioritization of such conservation options, and allows for the display of analysis results in a way that can engage private landowners and other decision makers. The process of systematic conservation planning was modified to address landscape‐level restoration prioritization in southern Ontario. A series of recent and locally relevant landscape ecology studies allowed the identification of restoration objectives and quantitative targets, and a simple algorithm was developed to identify and prioritize potential restoration projects. The application of an irreplaceability analysis to landscape‐level restoration planning allowed the identification of varying needs throughout the planning region, resulting from underlying differences in topography and settlement patterns, and allowed the effective prioritization of potential restoration projects. Engagement with rural landowners and agricultural commodity groups, as well as the irreplaceability maps developed, ultimately resulted in a substantial increase in the number and total area of habitat restoration projects in the planning region.</abstract><subject lang="en"><genre>keywords</genre><topic>community engagement</topic><topic>ecological threshold</topic><topic>irreplaceability</topic><topic>landscape‐level restoration</topic><topic>restoration implementation</topic><topic>systematic restoration planning</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Restoration Ecology</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal">journal</genre><identifier type="ISSN">1061-2971</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1526-100X</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1526-100X</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">REC</identifier><part><date>2011</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>19</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>1</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>5</start><end>13</end><total>9</total></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">44FEB567C37A28FA2EBE22F7813FBF6D5BFBB6A7</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/j.1526-100X.2010.00666.x</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">REC666</identifier><accessCondition type="use and reproduction" contentType="copyright">© 2010 Society for Ecological Restoration International</accessCondition><recordInfo><recordContentSource>WILEY</recordContentSource><recordOrigin>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</recordOrigin></recordInfo></mods></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Agronomie/explor/SisAgriV1/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 000F46 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 000F46 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Agronomie
|area= SisAgriV1
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:44FEB567C37A28FA2EBE22F7813FBF6D5BFBB6A7
|texte= Planning for Implementation: Landscape‐Level Restoration Planning in an Agricultural Setting
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.28. |  |