One of the means of creating a more robust methodology for ecological restoration involves reducing the gap between ecological theory and restoration practices. A common strategy to do so is using meta‐analysis to understand key drivers of restoration outcomes. “Active” and “passive” is a dichotomy often used to separate restoration strategies in such meta‐analyses. We investigate previously raised concerns about selection bias and subjective categorization of strategies. We promote a paired experimental design in future empirical research and propose the use of three categories of restoration strategy in lieu of “passive” and “active” to alleviate inconsistency in definitions and categorization.

中文翻译：

---

荟萃分析中的“主动”和“被动”生态修复策略

创建更健壮的生态恢复方法的一种方法是缩小生态理论与恢复实践之间的差距。这样做的常用策略是使用荟萃分析来了解恢复结果的关键驱动因素。“主动”和“被动”是二分法，通常用于在此类荟萃分析中分离恢复策略。我们调查先前提出的有关选择偏见和策略的主观分类的关注。我们在未来的实证研究中推广配对实验设计，并提出使用三类恢复策略来代替“被动”和“主动”，以减轻定义和分类上的不一致。