Coral restoration database – Dataset from Bostrom-Einarsson et al 2019 (NESP TWQ 4.3, JCU)

This dataset consists of a review of case studies and descriptions of coral restoration methods from four sources: 1) the primary literature (i.e. published peer-reviewed scientific literature), 2) grey literature (e.g. scientific reports and technical summaries from experts in the field), 3) online descriptions (e.g. blogs and online videos describing projects), and 4) an online survey targeting restoration practitioners (doi:10.5061/dryad.p6r3816). Included are only those case studies which actively conducted coral restoration (i.e. at least one stage of scleractinian coral life-history was involved). This excludes indirect coral restoration projects, such as disturbance mitigation (e.g. predator removal, disease control etc.) and passive restoration interventions (e.g. enforcement of control against dynamite fishing or water quality improvement). It also excludes many artificial reefs, in particular if the aim was fisheries enhancement (i.e. fish aggregation devices), and if corals were not included in the method. To the best of our abilities, duplication of case studies was avoided across the four separate sources, so that each case in the review and database represents a separate project.Methods:More than 40 separate categories of data were recorded from each case study and entered into a database. These included data on (1) the information source, (2) the case study particulars (e.g. location, duration, spatial scale, objectives, etc.), (3) specific details about the methods, (4) coral details (e.g. genus, species, morphology), (5) monitoring details, and (6) the outcomes and conclusions.Primary literatureMultiple search engines were used to achieve the most complete coverage of the scientific literature. First, the scientific literature was searched using Google Scholar with the keywords “coral* + restoration”. Because the field (and therefore search results) are dominated by transplantation studies, separate searches were then conducted for other common techniques using “coral* + restoration + [technique name]”. This search was further complemented by using the same keywords in ISI Web of Knowledge (search yield n=738). Studies were then manually selected that fulfilled our criteria for active coral restoration described above (final yield n= 221). In those cases where a single paper describes several different projects or methods, these were split into separate case studies. Finally, prior reviews of coral restoration were consulted to obtain case studies from their reference lists.Grey literatureWhile many reports appeared in the Google Scholar literature searches, The Nature Conservancy (TNC) database of reports for North American coastal restoration projects (http://projects.tnc.org/coastal/) was also conducted. This was supplemented with reports listed in the reference lists of other papers, reports and reviews, and during the online searches (n=30). Online recordsSmall-scale projects conducted without substantial input from researchers, academics, non-governmental organisations (NGO) or coral reef managers often do not result in formal written accounts of methods. To access this information, we conducted online searches of YouTube, Facebook and Google, using the search terms “Coral restoration”. The information provided in videos, blog posts and websites to describe further projects (n=48) was also used. Due to the unverified nature of such accounts, the data collected from these online-only records was limited compared to peer reviewed literature and surveys. At the minimum, the location, the methods used and reported outcomes or lessons learned were included in this review.Online surveyTo access information from projects not published elsewhere, an online survey targeting restoration practitioners was designed. The survey consisted of 25 questions querying restoration practitioners regarding projects they had undertaken under JCU human ethics H7218 (following the Australian National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research, 2007). These data (n=63) are included in all calculations within this review, but are not publicly available to preserve the anonymity of participants. Although we encouraged participants to fill out a separate survey for each case study, it is possible that participants included multiple separate projects in a single survey, which may reduce the real number of case studies reported.Data analysisPercentages, counts and other quantifications from the database refer to the total number of case studies with data in that category. Case studies where data were lacking for the category in question, or lack appropriate detail (e.g. reporting ‘mixed’ for coral genera) are not included in calculations. Many categories allowed multiple answers (e.g. coral species); these were split into separate records for calculations (e.g. coral species n). For this reason, absolute numbers may exceed the number of case studies in the database. However, percentages reflect the proportion of case studies in each category. We used the seven objectives outlined in [1] to classify the objective of each case study, with an additional two categories (‘scientific research’ and ‘ecological engineering’). We used Tableau to visualise and analyse the database (Desktop Professional Edition, version 10.5, Tableau Software). The data have been made available following the FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship [2]. Data available from the Dryad Digital Repository downloaded here (https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.p6r3816), and visually explored: https://public.tableau.com/views/CoralRestorationDatabase-Visualisation/Coralrestorationmethods?:embed=y&:display_count=yes&publish=yes&:showVizHome=no#1. Limitations:While our expanded search enabled us to avoid the bias from the more limited published literature, we acknowledge that using sources that have not undergone rigorous peer-review potentially introduces another bias. Many government reports undergo an informal peer-review; however, survey results and online descriptions may present a subjective account of restoration outcomes. To reduce subjective assessment of case studies, we opted not to interpret results or survey answers, instead only recording what was explicitly stated in each document [3, 4]. Defining restorationIn this review, active restoration methods are methods which reintroduce coral (e.g. coral fragment transplantation, or larval enhancement) or augment coral assemblages (e.g. substrate stabilisation, or algal removal), for the purposes of restoring the reef ecosystem. In the published literature and elsewhere, there are many terms that describe the same intervention. For clarity, we provide the terms we have used in the review, their definitions and alternative terms (see references). Passive restoration methods such as predator removal (e.g. crown-of-thorns starfish and Drupella control) have been excluded, unless they were conducted in conjunction with active restoration (e.g. macroalgal removal combined with transplantation). Format:The data is supplied as an excel file with three separate tabs for 1) peer reviewed literature 2) grey literature, and 3) a description of the objectives form Hein et al. 2017. Survey responses have been excluded to preserve the anonymity of the respondents. This dataset is a database that underpins a 2018 report and 2019 published review of coral restoration methods from around the world. -    Bostrom-Einarsson L, Ceccarelli D, Babcock R.C., Bayraktarov E, Cook N, Harrison P, Hein M, Shaver E, Smith A, Stewart-Sinclair P.J, Vardi T, McLeod I.M. 2018 - Coral restoration in a changing world - A global synthesis of methods and techniques, report to the National Environmental Science Program. Reef and Rainforest Research Centre Ltd, Cairns (63pp.). -    Review manuscript is currently under review. Data Dictionary:The Data Dictionary is emended in the excel spreadsheet. Comments are included in the column titles to aid interpretation, and/or refer to additional information tabs. For more information on each column, open the red triangle [located top right of cell].References:1. Hein MY, Willis BL, Beeden R, Birtles A. The need for broader ecological and socioeconomic tools to evaluate the effectiveness of coral restoration programs. Restoration Ecology. Wiley/Blackwell (10.1111); 2017;25: 873–883. doi:10.1111/rec.125802. Wilkinson MD, Dumontier M, Aalbersberg IJ, Appleton G, Axton M, Baak A, et al. The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific Data 2016 3. Nature Publishing Group; 2016;3: 160018. doi:10.1038/sdata.2016.183.Miller RL, Marsh H, Cottrell A, Hamann M. Protecting Migratory Species in the Australian Marine Environment: A Cross-Jurisdictional Analysis of Policy and Management Plans. Front Mar Sci. Frontiers; 2018;5: 211. doi:10.3389/fmars.2018.002294. Ortega-Argueta A, Baxter G, Hockings M. Compliance of Australian threatened species recovery plans with legislative requirements. Journal of Environmental Management. Elsevier; 2011;92: 2054–2060.Data Location:This dataset is filed in the eAtlas enduring data repository at: data\2018-2021-NESP-TWQ-4\4.3_Best-practice-coral-restoration

本数据集包含对案例研究的综述以及来自4类来源的珊瑚修复方法描述：1）原始文献（即已发表的同行评议科学文献）；2）灰色文献（grey literature，例如该领域专家撰写的科学报告与技术综述）；3）在线描述内容（例如介绍修复项目的博客与在线视频）；4）针对修复从业者的在线调研（doi:10.5061/dryad.p6r3816）。

本数据集仅纳入主动开展珊瑚修复的案例研究（即涉及至少一个石珊瑚（scleractinian coral）生活史阶段的修复行为）。本数据集排除间接珊瑚修复项目，例如干扰缓解措施（如移除捕食者、病害防控等）与被动修复干预手段（如打击炸药捕鱼的执法行动或水质改善工程）；同时也排除多数人工鱼礁项目，尤其是以渔业增殖为目标（即鱼类聚集装置）且未将珊瑚纳入修复方法的项目。本团队已尽最大努力避免四类来源中出现案例研究重复，确保综述与数据库中的每个案例均对应独立项目。

本数据集目前处于出版限制期，直至综述稿件正式发表后才可公开。

研究方法：
本团队从每个案例研究中提取超过40类独立数据并录入数据库，涵盖以下类别：(1) 信息来源；(2) 案例研究基本信息（如项目地点、实施时长、空间尺度、修复目标等）；(3) 修复方法的具体细节；(4) 珊瑚相关信息（如属、种、形态特征）；(5) 监测相关细节；(6) 修复结果与研究结论。

原始文献检索
本团队使用多个搜索引擎以尽可能全面覆盖科学文献：首先以Google Scholar检索关键词“coral* + restoration”；由于该领域（及对应检索结果）以移植类研究为主，后续又针对其他常见修复技术分别开展检索，检索式为“coral* + restoration + [技术名称]”。本检索同时辅以ISI Web of Knowledge平台的同款关键词检索，共获取文献738篇。随后人工筛选符合前述主动珊瑚修复标准的研究，最终纳入221篇。若单篇文献描述了多个不同项目或修复方法，则将其拆分为独立的案例研究。最后，本团队查阅已发表的珊瑚修复综述文献，从其参考文献列表中补充获取案例研究。

灰色文献检索
尽管多篇灰色文献已在Google Scholar检索中被获取，本团队同时检索了自然保护协会（The Nature Conservancy, TNC）的北美海岸修复项目报告数据库（http://projects.tnc.org/coastal/）。此外，本团队还从其他论文、报告及综述的参考文献列表，以及在线检索过程中补充获取了30篇相关报告。

在线记录检索
未获得研究人员、学者、非政府组织（non-governmental organisation, NGO）或珊瑚礁管理者实质性支持的小型修复项目，通常不会形成正式的书面方法记录。为获取此类项目信息，本团队以“Coral restoration”为关键词在YouTube、Facebook与Google平台开展检索，共获取48个项目的视频、博客文章与网站描述信息。由于此类在线记录未经过严格核验，相较于同行评议文献与调研数据，从纯在线记录中采集的数据维度相对有限。本综述至少纳入了此类项目的地点、所用修复方法以及公开的修复结果或经验教训。

在线调研
为获取未在其他渠道发表的项目信息，本团队设计了针对修复从业者的在线调研。调研共包含25个问题，用于询问受访者参与过的修复项目，所有调研均遵循詹姆斯库克大学（James Cook University, JCU）人类研究伦理审批H7218号要求（符合2007年《澳大利亚人类研究伦理行为国家声明》）。本调研共获取63份有效数据，已纳入本综述的所有统计计算，但为保护受访者匿名性，此类数据暂不对外公开。尽管本团队鼓励参与者为每个案例研究单独填写调研问卷，但仍存在受访者在单份问卷中上报多个独立项目的可能，这可能导致实际案例研究数量被低估。

数据分析
数据库中的百分比、计数及其他量化指标均对应该类别下有有效数据的案例研究总数。若某案例研究在对应类别中缺失数据或细节不足（如珊瑚属仅标注为“混合”），则不纳入该类别的统计计算。多数类别支持多选（如珊瑚物种），统计时会将此类多选结果拆分为独立记录（如珊瑚物种计数n）。因此，绝对计数可能超过数据库中的案例研究总数，但百分比仍反映各分类下案例研究的占比。本团队采用文献[1]中提出的7类修复目标对每个案例研究的目标进行分类，额外新增“科学研究”与“生态工程”两类目标。本团队使用Tableau软件（Desktop Professional Edition，版本10.5，Tableau Software）对数据库进行可视化与分析。本数据集遵循FAIR科学数据管理与管控原则（FAIR Guiding Principles）[2]进行公开共享，数据可从Dryad数字知识库获取（下载链接：https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.p6r3816），并可通过以下链接进行可视化探索：https://public.tableau.com/views/CoralRestorationDatabase-Visualisation/Coralrestorationmethods?:embed=y&:display_count=yes&publish=yes&:showVizHome=no#1。

局限性说明
尽管本团队的扩展检索规避了仅依赖有限发表文献带来的偏倚，但需说明：使用未经过严格同行评议的来源可能引入额外偏倚。多数政府报告会经过非正式同行评议，但调研结果与在线描述仍可能存在对修复结果的主观表述。为降低案例研究评估的主观性，本团队未对研究结果或调研答案进行解读，仅如实记录每份文档中明确表述的内容[3,4]。

修复定义
本综述中，主动修复方法指为恢复珊瑚礁生态系统而开展的珊瑚再引入（如珊瑚断枝移植、幼虫增殖）或珊瑚群落扩增（如基底稳定、藻类移除）手段。在已发表文献及其他渠道中，同一干预手段常存在多个术语表述。为清晰起见，本团队列出综述中使用的术语、定义及对应替代术语（详见参考文献）。被动修复手段（如移除捕食者——例如长棘海星与织纹螺（Drupella）防控）若未与主动修复措施结合开展，则被排除在本数据集之外（如仅移除大型藻类而未结合移植修复的项目）。

数据格式
本数据集以Excel文件形式提供，包含3个独立工作表：1）同行评议文献；2）灰色文献；3）Hein等人2017年提出的修复目标分类说明。为保护受访者匿名性，调研原始回复未纳入本数据集。

本数据集为支撑以下2018年报告与2019年发表的全球珊瑚修复方法综述的核心数据库：
1. Bostrom-Einarsson L, Ceccarelli D, Babcock R.C.等. 2018——《变化世界中的珊瑚修复：方法与技术全球综合报告》，提交给国家环境科学项目，Reef and Rainforest Research Centre Ltd，凯恩斯（共63页）。
2. 综述稿件目前处于同行评议阶段。

数据字典
数据字典已嵌入Excel文件中。列标题中包含注释以辅助解读，或指向额外信息工作表。若需了解每一列的详细信息，可点击单元格右上角的红色三角按钮。

参考文献
1. Hein MY, Willis BL, Beeden R, Birtles A. 评估珊瑚修复项目有效性需拓展生态与社会经济工具. 恢复生态学（Restoration Ecology）. Wiley/Blackwell (10.1111); 2017;25: 873–883. doi:10.1111/rec.12580
2. Wilkinson MD, Dumontier M, Aalbersberg IJ等. 科学数据管理与管控的FAIR原则. 科学数据（Scientific Data）2016 3. Nature Publishing Group; 2016;3: 160018. doi:10.1038/sdata.2016.18
3. Miller RL, Marsh H, Cottrell A, Hamann M. 澳大利亚海洋环境中的迁徙物种保护：跨辖区政策与管理计划分析. 海洋科学前沿（Front Mar Sci）. Frontiers; 2018;5: 211. doi:10.3389/fmars.2018.00229
4. Ortega-Argueta A, Baxter G, Hockings M. 澳大利亚受威胁物种恢复计划的合规性分析. 环境管理期刊（Journal of Environmental Management）. Elsevier; 2011;92: 2054–2060.

数据存储位置
本数据集存储于eAtlas永久数据仓库中，路径为：data2018-2021-NESP-TWQ-44.3_Best-practice-coral-restoration