These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
126 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21136054)
21. Performance criteria, compliance success, and vegetation development in compensatory mitigation wetlands. Matthews JW; Endress AG Environ Manage; 2008 Jan; 41(1):130-41. PubMed ID: 17676406 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Whither Californians and their water: environmental preservation or environmental destruction. Hundley N South Calif Q; 2000; 82(1):75-100. PubMed ID: 17674501 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
23. Mangrove and Freshwater Wetland Conservation Through Carbon Offsets: A Cost-Benefit Analysis for Establishing Environmental Policies. Vázquez-González C; Moreno-Casasola P; Hernández ME; Campos A; Espejel I; Fermán-Almada JL Environ Manage; 2017 Feb; 59(2):274-290. PubMed ID: 27848002 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. National-Level Wetland Policy Specificity and Goals Vary According to Political and Economic Indicators. Peimer AW; Krzywicka AE; Cohen DB; Van den Bosch K; Buxton VL; Stevenson NA; Matthews JW Environ Manage; 2017 Jan; 59(1):141-153. PubMed ID: 27624708 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Trajectories of vegetation-based indicators used to assess wetland restoration progress. Matthews JW; Spyreas G; Endress AG Ecol Appl; 2009 Dec; 19(8):2093-107. PubMed ID: 20014581 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Legacy source of mercury in an urban stream-wetland ecosystem in central North Carolina, USA. Deonarine A; Hsu-Kim H; Zhang T; Cai Y; Richardson CJ Chemosphere; 2015 Nov; 138():960-5. PubMed ID: 25577695 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Establishing aquatic restoration priorities using a watershed approach. Bohn BA; Kershner JL J Environ Manage; 2002 Apr; 64(4):355-63. PubMed ID: 12141156 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. On-site and in-kind: Compensatory mitigation of California Coastal Zone habitat impacts between 2010 and 2018. Pausch R; Alexander T; Howard E; Garske-Garcia L J Environ Manage; 2024 Aug; 366():121674. PubMed ID: 39032260 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Modelling hydrological effects of wetland restoration: a differentiated view. Staes J; Rubarenzya MH; Meire P; Willems P Water Sci Technol; 2009; 59(3):433-41. PubMed ID: 19213997 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Maximizing US nitrate removal through wetland protection and restoration. Cheng FY; Van Meter KJ; Byrnes DK; Basu NB Nature; 2020 Dec; 588(7839):625-630. PubMed ID: 33328640 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Life cycle implications of urban green infrastructure. Spatari S; Yu Z; Montalto FA Environ Pollut; 2011; 159(8-9):2174-9. PubMed ID: 21330022 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Restoration as mitigation: analysis of stream mitigation for coal mining impacts in southern Appalachia. Palmer MA; Hondula KL Environ Sci Technol; 2014 Sep; 48(18):10552-60. PubMed ID: 25133756 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Are Urban Stream Restoration Plans Worth Implementing? Sarvilinna A; Lehtoranta V; Hjerppe T Environ Manage; 2017 Jan; 59(1):10-20. PubMed ID: 27812794 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Projected wetland densities under climate change: habitat loss but little geographic shift in conservation strategy. Sofaer HR; Skagen SK; Barsugli JJ; Rashford BS; Reese GC; Hoeting JA; Wood AW; Noon BR Ecol Appl; 2016 Sep; 26(6):1677-1692. PubMed ID: 27755694 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Review and Comparison of Wetland Impacts and Mitigation Requirements Between New Jersey, USA, Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Torok LS; Lockwood S; Fanz D Environ Manage; 1996 Sep; 20(5):741-52. PubMed ID: 8703111 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Building local community commitment to wetlands restoration: a case study of the Cache River Wetlands in southern Illinois, USA. Davenport MA; Bridges CA; Mangun JC; Carver AD; Williard KW; Jones EO Environ Manage; 2010 Apr; 45(4):711-22. PubMed ID: 20127327 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Quantifying ecosystem service trade-offs: the case of an urban floodplain in Vienna, Austria. Sanon S; Hein T; Douven W; Winkler P J Environ Manage; 2012 Nov; 111():159-72. PubMed ID: 22892145 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. [The control of urban growth in Mexico City. Suppositions regarding poor planning]. Aguilar AG; Olvera G Estud Demogr Urbanos Col Mex; 1991; 6(1):89-115, 216-7. PubMed ID: 12343535 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Planning for sustainability in China's urban development: status and challenges for Dongtan eco-city project. Cheng H; Hu Y J Environ Monit; 2010 Jan; 12(1):119-26. PubMed ID: 20082005 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. The Main Drivers of Wetland Changes in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Region. Zhang L; Zhen Q; Cheng M; Ouyang Z Int J Environ Res Public Health; 2019 Jul; 16(14):. PubMed ID: 31340479 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]