Style Request: [Restoration Ecology]

Please, if possible, I would like to have access to the csl style for the journal Restoration Ecology. References are as follows:

(Bianconi et al. 2007)
Bianconi, G. V., S. B. Mikich, S. D. Teixeira, and B. Maia 2007. Attraction of fruit-eating bats with essential oils of fruits: A potential tool for forest restoration. Biotropica 39:136-140.

(Duncan & Chapman 2002)
Duncan, R. S., and C. A. Chapman 2002. Limitations of animal seed dispersal for enhancing forest succession on degraded lands. Pages 437-450 in D. J. Levey, W. R. Silva and M. Galetti, editors. Seed dispersal and frugivory: Ecology, evolution and conservation. 2nd edition. CAB International, Wallingford.

Online ISSN: 1526-100X

RE Style guide:

http:// onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1526-100X/homepage/ForAuthors.html

  • Thanks Adam. But they are not the same.
  • right, so see the requesting styles link
  • Has any progress been made including the Restoration ecology style? or is there a very similar one?
  • Hi edward9982, I used Conservation Ecology style and it worked out well.
  • Really? I do not see that Journal listed.
  • I'd guess that's "Conservation Biology" -- I'm not sure "Conservation Ecology" is even a real journal.
  • Hi guys, would it be possible to update the reference style for Conservation Biology? I see the recent issues have changed:

    Figueroa F, S´anchez-Cordero V. 2008. Effectiveness of natural protected areas to prevent land use and land cover change in Mexico. Biodiversity and Conservation 17:3223–3240

    Geldmann J, Barnes M, Coad L, Craigie ID, Hockings M, Burgess ND.
    2013. Effectiveness of terrestrial protected areas in reducing habitat loss and population declines. Biological Conservation 161:230–238

    Many thanks!
  • Please start a new thread if you think changes need to be made. While this thread mentions Conservation Bio, that's not the main topic. Also, please detail what changes need to be made (similar to the way new styles are requested).

    Oftentimes printed references differ from the author instructions and we tend to defer to the author instructions unless we've had editorial instructions to the contrary.

    The currently linked author instructions date to Apr 2015 and seem to be pretty close to the current style (I don't believe 'and' should be used before the terminal author, but saw no other differences) and these differ a bit from what you've given (which lacks a bold volume and a terminal period).
Sign In or Register to comment.