Normal Email Research Articles

A detection research of spams based on machine learning algorithms

The wide spread of spam has brought a lot of inconvenience and trouble to peoples work and lives. Therefore, it is of great practical significance to constantly update the methods of spam classification and filtering to improve the current situation of email use. In this paper, linear regression and logistic regression are examined to test whether a random email is spam or a normal email. The logistic regression model is based on a public data set that is estimated by calculating the number of entries in the entire set and then the probability of spam. The linear regression model is based on the data from the logistic regression model and is estimated to give a line representing the probability of spam in a given range of emails. Finally, the results of these two models clearly indicate the rampant and widespread nature of spam, which can enhance the publics overall awareness of carefully examining unknown emails.

Wild by Design: The Rise of Ecological Restoration. LauraMartin (2022) Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, U.S.A., 336 pages, $39.95 (hardcover), ISBN 9780674979420 (hardback).

Restoration EcologyVolume 31, Issue 4 e13921 BOOK REVIEW Wild by Design: The Rise of Ecological Restoration. Laura Martin (2022) Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, U.S.A., 336 pages, $39.95 (hardcover), ISBN 9780674979420 (hardback). Eric S. Higgs, Corresponding Author Eric S. Higgs [email protected] School of Environmental Studies, University of Victoria, 3800 Finnerty Road, Victoria, British Columbia, V8P 5C2 Canada Address correspondence to E. S. Higgs, email [email protected]Search for more papers by this author Eric S. Higgs, Corresponding Author Eric S. Higgs [email protected] School of Environmental Studies, University of Victoria, 3800 Finnerty Road, Victoria, British Columbia, V8P 5C2 Canada Address correspondence to E. S. Higgs, email [email protected]Search for more papers by this author First published: 03 May 2023 https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13921 Coordinating Editor: Stuart Allison Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL No abstract is available for this article. Volume31, Issue4May 2023e13921 Restoration Ecology - Message to authors, reviewers, editorial board During this time of mass disruption, be advised that we appreciate there will be a slower pace for all. Restoration Ecology understands that reviews and decisions may be delayed; responses from authors may be delayed. There are no consequences for delays. We ask all to be patient. The EIC and Managing Editor work remotely as is (in different countries) so we already work from ‘home’. We are attempting to add this message to our communications (not as easy because the Editors don’t have total editing rights) and reduce the normal reminder emails to reflect this uncertain time. If you receive our normal email correspondence reminding you of deadlines, we are waiving these and asking only that you let us know, if possible, of delays exceeding a month. Stephen Murphy, EIC RelatedInformation

Issue Information

Restoration EcologyVolume 31, Issue 4 e13730 ISSUE INFORMATIONFree Access Issue Information First published: 03 May 2023 https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13730AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Volume31, Issue4May 2023e13730 Restoration Ecology - Message to authors, reviewers, editorial board During this time of mass disruption, be advised that we appreciate there will be a slower pace for all. Restoration Ecology understands that reviews and decisions may be delayed; responses from authors may be delayed. There are no consequences for delays. We ask all to be patient. The EIC and Managing Editor work remotely as is (in different countries) so we already work from ‘home’. We are attempting to add this message to our communications (not as easy because the Editors don’t have total editing rights) and reduce the normal reminder emails to reflect this uncertain time. If you receive our normal email correspondence reminding you of deadlines, we are waiving these and asking only that you let us know, if possible, of delays exceeding a month. Stephen Murphy, EIC RelatedInformation

Issue Information

Restoration EcologyVolume 31, Issue 3 e13729 ISSUE INFORMATIONFree Access Issue Information First published: 02 March 2023 https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13729AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Volume31, Issue3March 2023e13729 Restoration Ecology - Message to authors, reviewers, editorial board During this time of mass disruption, be advised that we appreciate there will be a slower pace for all. Restoration Ecology understands that reviews and decisions may be delayed; responses from authors may be delayed. There are no consequences for delays. We ask all to be patient. The EIC and Managing Editor work remotely as is (in different countries) so we already work from ‘home’. We are attempting to add this message to our communications (not as easy because the Editors don’t have total editing rights) and reduce the normal reminder emails to reflect this uncertain time. If you receive our normal email correspondence reminding you of deadlines, we are waiving these and asking only that you let us know, if possible, of delays exceeding a month. Stephen Murphy, EIC RelatedInformation

Young voices and visions for the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration

Restoration EcologyVolume 31, Issue 3 e13871 FOREWORD Young voices and visions for the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration Tina Christmann, Corresponding Author Tina Christmann tina.christmann@worc.ox.ac.uk orcid.org/0000-0003-2203-4757 School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford Ringgold Standard Institution, Oxford, OX1 2JD U.K. Address correspondence to T. Christmann, email tina.christmann@worc.ox.ac.ukSearch for more papers by this authorTrisha Gopalakrishna, Trisha Gopalakrishna orcid.org/0000-0002-1448-4224 School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford Ringgold Standard Institution, Oxford, OX1 2JD U.K.Search for more papers by this authorCourtney Stuart, Courtney Stuart School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford Ringgold Standard Institution, Oxford, OX1 2JD U.K.Search for more papers by this authorValter Amaral, Valter Amaral orcid.org/0000-0003-1974-6788 MARE — Marine and Environmental Sciences Centre / ARNET — Aquatic Research Network, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, 1749-016 Lisbon, PortugalSearch for more papers by this author Tina Christmann, Corresponding Author Tina Christmann tina.christmann@worc.ox.ac.uk orcid.org/0000-0003-2203-4757 School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford Ringgold Standard Institution, Oxford, OX1 2JD U.K. Address correspondence to T. Christmann, email tina.christmann@worc.ox.ac.ukSearch for more papers by this authorTrisha Gopalakrishna, Trisha Gopalakrishna orcid.org/0000-0002-1448-4224 School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford Ringgold Standard Institution, Oxford, OX1 2JD U.K.Search for more papers by this authorCourtney Stuart, Courtney Stuart School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford Ringgold Standard Institution, Oxford, OX1 2JD U.K.Search for more papers by this authorValter Amaral, Valter Amaral orcid.org/0000-0003-1974-6788 MARE — Marine and Environmental Sciences Centre / ARNET — Aquatic Research Network, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, 1749-016 Lisbon, PortugalSearch for more papers by this author First published: 18 January 2023 https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13871 Author contributions: TC wrote the manuscript; TG, CS, VA provided comments and helped edit the editorial. Coordinating Editor: Stephen Murphy Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume31, Issue3March 2023e13871 This article also appears in:Cross Society Special Feature on the Decade of Ecosystem Restoration Restoration Ecology - Message to authors, reviewers, editorial board During this time of mass disruption, be advised that we appreciate there will be a slower pace for all. Restoration Ecology understands that reviews and decisions may be delayed; responses from authors may be delayed. There are no consequences for delays. We ask all to be patient. The EIC and Managing Editor work remotely as is (in different countries) so we already work from ‘home’. We are attempting to add this message to our communications (not as easy because the Editors don’t have total editing rights) and reduce the normal reminder emails to reflect this uncertain time. If you receive our normal email correspondence reminding you of deadlines, we are waiving these and asking only that you let us know, if possible, of delays exceeding a month. Stephen Murphy, EIC RelatedInformation

Issue Information

Restoration EcologyVolume 31, Issue 2 e13728 ISSUE INFORMATIONFree Access Issue Information First published: 02 February 2023 https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13728AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Volume31, Issue2Special Issue: Thematic Series: Arid LandsFebruary 2023e13728 Restoration Ecology - Message to authors, reviewers, editorial board During this time of mass disruption, be advised that we appreciate there will be a slower pace for all. Restoration Ecology understands that reviews and decisions may be delayed; responses from authors may be delayed. There are no consequences for delays. We ask all to be patient. The EIC and Managing Editor work remotely as is (in different countries) so we already work from ‘home’. We are attempting to add this message to our communications (not as easy because the Editors don’t have total editing rights) and reduce the normal reminder emails to reflect this uncertain time. If you receive our normal email correspondence reminding you of deadlines, we are waiving these and asking only that you let us know, if possible, of delays exceeding a month. Stephen Murphy, EIC RelatedInformation

Issue Information

Restoration EcologyVolume 30, Issue S2 e13794 ISSUE INFORMATIONFree Access Issue Information First published: 09 November 2022 https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13794AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Volume30, IssueS2Special Issue: International Principles and Standards for the Ecological Restoration and Recovery of Mine SitesNovember 2022e13794 Restoration Ecology - Message to authors, reviewers, editorial board During this time of mass disruption, be advised that we appreciate there will be a slower pace for all. Restoration Ecology understands that reviews and decisions may be delayed; responses from authors may be delayed. There are no consequences for delays. We ask all to be patient. The EIC and Managing Editor work remotely as is (in different countries) so we already work from ‘home’. We are attempting to add this message to our communications (not as easy because the Editors don’t have total editing rights) and reduce the normal reminder emails to reflect this uncertain time. If you receive our normal email correspondence reminding you of deadlines, we are waiving these and asking only that you let us know, if possible, of delays exceeding a month. Stephen Murphy, EIC RelatedInformation

Issue Information

Restoration EcologyVolume 30, Issue 1 e13442 ISSUE INFORMATIONFree Access Issue Information First published: 24 January 2022 https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13442AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Volume30, Issue1January 2022e13442 Restoration Ecology - Message to authors, reviewers, editorial board During this time of mass disruption, be advised that we appreciate there will be a slower pace for all. Restoration Ecology understands that reviews and decisions may be delayed; responses from authors may be delayed. There are no consequences for delays. We ask all to be patient. The EIC and Managing Editor work remotely as is (in different countries) so we already work from ‘home’. We are attempting to add this message to our communications (not as easy because the Editors don’t have total editing rights) and reduce the normal reminder emails to reflect this uncertain time. If you receive our normal email correspondence reminding you of deadlines, we are waiving these and asking only that you let us know, if possible, of delays exceeding a month. Stephen Murphy, EIC RelatedInformation

Adaptive intelligent learning approach based on visual anti-spam email model for multi-natural language

Abstract Spam electronic mails (emails) refer to harmful and unwanted commercial emails sent to corporate bodies or individuals to cause harm. Even though such mails are often used for advertising services and products, they sometimes contain links to malware or phishing hosting websites through which private information can be stolen. This study shows how the adaptive intelligent learning approach, based on the visual anti-spam model for multi-natural language, can be used to detect abnormal situations effectively. The application of this approach is for spam filtering. With adaptive intelligent learning, high performance is achieved alongside a low false detection rate. There are three main phases through which the approach functions intelligently to ascertain if an email is legitimate based on the knowledge that has been gathered previously during the course of training. The proposed approach includes two models to identify the phishing emails. The first model has proposed to identify the type of the language. New trainable model based on Naive Bayes classifier has also been proposed. The proposed model is trained on three types of languages (Arabic, English and Chinese) and the trained model has used to identify the language type and use the label for the next model. The second model has been built by using two classes (phishing and normal email for each language) as a training data. The second trained model (Naive Bayes classifier) has been applied to identify the phishing emails as a final decision for the proposed approach. The proposed strategy is implemented using the Java environments and JADE agent platform. The testing of the performance of the AIA learning model involved the use of a dataset that is made up of 2,000 emails, and the results proved the efficiency of the model in accurately detecting and filtering a wide range of spam emails. The results of our study suggest that the Naive Bayes classifier performed ideally when tested on a database that has the biggest estimate (having a general accuracy of 98.4%, false positive rate of 0.08%, and false negative rate of 2.90%). This indicates that our Naive Bayes classifier algorithm will work viably on the off chance, connected to a real-world database, which is more common but not the largest.

CORRIGENDUM

Restoration EcologyVolume 28, Issue 5 p. 1309-1309 CORRIGENDUMFree Access CORRIGENDUM This article corrects the following: Restoration scenario planning at a Spanish quarry can be informed by assessing ecosystem services Ana Calvo Robledo, Michael A. MacDonald, Charlie Butt, Volume 28Issue 4Restoration Ecology pages: 1006-1013 First Published online: April 27, 2020 First published: 29 September 2020 https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13286AboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL In Calvo Robledo et al. (2020), the authors would like to correct the following errors. In Abstract section, the values and terms in the seventh sentence should have been ‘€172,942’ instead of ‘€91,409’ and ‘conservation (€115,462) and agricultural (€66,210)’ instead of ‘agricultural (€68,504) and conservation (€48,556)’. The correct sentence should read as: Results indicated that the compromise scenario provided the greatest annual value (€172,942), mainly due to its potential visitors, surpassing both conservation (€115,462) and agricultural (€66,210) scenarios. In Table 5 on page 1011, the price values of ‘Climate regulation services’ and ‘Total (€/year)’ under ‘Conservation’, ‘Compromise’ and ‘Agricultural’ rows should have been ‘€91,994’, ‘€112,108’, ‘€-3,155’ and ‘€115,461.8’, ‘€172,942.34’, ‘€66,209.37’, respectively. Below is the correct table. Table 5. Comparison of monetary value (annual value) from ES considering three alternative scenarios for Soto de Pajares. Conservation Compromise Agricultural Agricultural production €23,467.80 €28,067.34 €69,364.37 Climate regulation services €91,994 €112,108 €-3,155 Recreation services €0 €32,767 €0 Total (€/year) €115,461.8 €172,942.34 €66,209.37 On page 1012, the price values in the third and fourth sentences of the ‘Climate Change Mitigation’ subsection should have been ‘€112,108’, ‘€91,994’ and ‘€3,155’. The correct sentences should read as: This gave an annual value in the compromise scenario of €112,108, and in the conservation scenario of €91,994. The net value of both of these scenarios compared with the agricultural scenario would be increased by €3,155, which is the negative value that applies to the emissions in this scenario. On page 1012, the price values and the terms ‘conservation’ and ‘agricultural’ were incorrectly used in the second sentence of ‘Comparison of Alternative Scenarios’ subsection. The correct sentence should read as: This scenario provides a net annual value of €57,480 compared to the conservation scenario; which in turn provided a net annual value of €49,252 compared to the agricultural scenario (Table 5). The authors apologize for these errors. LITURATURE CITED Calvo Robledo A, MacDonald MA, Butt C (2020) Restoration scenario planning at a Spanish quarry can be informed by assessing ecosystem services. Restoration Ecology 28: 1006– 1,013 https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13145 Volume28, Issue5September 2020Pages 1309-1309 Restoration Ecology - Message to authors, reviewers, editorial board During this time of mass disruption, be advised that we appreciate there will be a slower pace for all. Restoration Ecology understands that reviews and decisions may be delayed; responses from authors may be delayed. There are no consequences for delays. We ask all to be patient. The EIC and Managing Editor work remotely as is (in different countries) so we already work from ‘home’. We are attempting to add this message to our communications (not as easy because the Editors don’t have total editing rights) and reduce the normal reminder emails to reflect this uncertain time. If you receive our normal email correspondence reminding you of deadlines, we are waiving these and asking only that you let us know, if possible, of delays exceeding a month. Stephen Murphy, EIC ReferencesRelatedInformation

CORRIGENDUM

Restoration EcologyVolume 28, Issue 5 p. 1308-1308 CORRIGENDUMFree Access CORRIGENDUM This article corrects the following: Repeated mowing to restore remnant native grasslands invaded by nonnative annual grasses: upsides and downsides above and below ground Justin M. Valliere, Susan Balch, Carole Bell, Carlos Contreras, Bridget E. Hilbig, Volume 27Issue 2Restoration Ecology pages: 261-268 First Published online: August 30, 2018 First published: 29 September 2020 https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13280AboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL In Valliere et al. (2019), the terms ‘citizen scientists/science’ mentioned in the following sections were incorrect and should be changed to ‘community scientists/science’. On page 262, the third subsection title under ‘Methods’ section should read as ‘Community Science Program’. On page 267, the last sentence in the subsection ‘Other Benefits of Mowing’ should read as ‘… with researchers and community scientists can provide practitioners …’. On page 267, the second sentence in the ‘Acknowledgment’ section should read as ‘… the success of this community science project.” The authors apologize for this previously non-inclusive language. LITURATURE CITED Valliere JM, Balch S, Bell C, Contreras C, Hilbig BE (2019) Repeated mowing to restore remnant native grasslands invaded by nonnative annual grasses: upsides and downsides above and below ground. Restoration Ecology 27: 261– 268 Volume28, Issue5September 2020Pages 1308-1308 Restoration Ecology - Message to authors, reviewers, editorial board During this time of mass disruption, be advised that we appreciate there will be a slower pace for all. Restoration Ecology understands that reviews and decisions may be delayed; responses from authors may be delayed. There are no consequences for delays. We ask all to be patient. The EIC and Managing Editor work remotely as is (in different countries) so we already work from ‘home’. We are attempting to add this message to our communications (not as easy because the Editors don’t have total editing rights) and reduce the normal reminder emails to reflect this uncertain time. If you receive our normal email correspondence reminding you of deadlines, we are waiving these and asking only that you let us know, if possible, of delays exceeding a month. Stephen Murphy, EIC ReferencesRelatedInformation

New era, new voices in Restoration Ecology: announcing RE‐New

Restoration EcologyVolume 27, Issue 3 p. 469-469 EDITORIAL OPINION New era, new voices in Restoration Ecology: announcing RE-New First published: 07 May 2019 https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12954Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume27, Issue3May 2019Pages 469-469 Restoration Ecology - Message to authors, reviewers, editorial board During this time of mass disruption, be advised that we appreciate there will be a slower pace for all. Restoration Ecology understands that reviews and decisions may be delayed; responses from authors may be delayed. There are no consequences for delays. We ask all to be patient. The EIC and Managing Editor work remotely as is (in different countries) so we already work from ‘home’. We are attempting to add this message to our communications (not as easy because the Editors don’t have total editing rights) and reduce the normal reminder emails to reflect this uncertain time. If you receive our normal email correspondence reminding you of deadlines, we are waiving these and asking only that you let us know, if possible, of delays exceeding a month. Stephen Murphy, EIC RelatedInformation

The SER Standards: a globally relevant and inclusive tool for improving restoration practice—a reply to Higgs et al.

Restoration EcologyVolume 26, Issue 4 p. 798-798 CORRIGENDUMFree Access The SER Standards: a globally relevant and inclusive tool for improving restoration practice—a reply to Higgs et al. This article corrects the following: The SER Standards: a globally relevant and inclusive tool for improving restoration practice—a reply to Higgs et al. George D. Gann, Tein McDonald, James Aronson, Kingsley W. Dixon, Bethanie Walder, James G. Hallett, Kris Decleer, Donald A. Falk, Emily K. Gonzales, Carolina Murcia, Cara R. Nelson, Alan J. Unwin, Volume 26Issue 3Restoration Ecology pages: 426-430 First Published online: May 21, 2018 First published: 10 July 2018 https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12837AboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat In Gann et al. (2018), the funding statement was missing from the Acknowledgement section. “KWD is funded by the Australian Government through the Australian Research Council Industry Transformation Training Centre for Mine Site Restoration ICI150100041.” We apologize for this error. LITERATURE CITED Gann GD, McDonald T, Aronson J, Dixon KW, Walder B, Hallett JG, et al. (2018) The SER Standards: a globally relevant and inclusive tool for improving restoration practice—a reply to Higgs et al. Restoration Ecology 26: 426– 430 Volume26, Issue4July 2018Pages 798-798 Restoration Ecology - Message to authors, reviewers, editorial board During this time of mass disruption, be advised that we appreciate there will be a slower pace for all. Restoration Ecology understands that reviews and decisions may be delayed; responses from authors may be delayed. There are no consequences for delays. We ask all to be patient. The EIC and Managing Editor work remotely as is (in different countries) so we already work from ‘home’. We are attempting to add this message to our communications (not as easy because the Editors don’t have total editing rights) and reduce the normal reminder emails to reflect this uncertain time. If you receive our normal email correspondence reminding you of deadlines, we are waiving these and asking only that you let us know, if possible, of delays exceeding a month. Stephen Murphy, EIC ReferencesRelatedInformation

Plant phenological research enhances ecological restoration

Restoration EcologyVolume 26, Issue 2 p. 391-391 CORRIGENDUMFree Access Plant phenological research enhances ecological restoration This article corrects the following: Plant phenological research enhances ecological restoration Elise Buisson, Swanni T. Alvarado, Soizig Le Stradic, Leonor Patricia C. Morellato, Volume 25Issue 2Restoration Ecology pages: 164-171 First Published online: December 9, 2016 First published: 02 March 2018 https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12581AboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat In Buisson et al. 2017, the affiliation of the 4th author was listed incorrectly as: Biodiversity and Landscape Unit, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liege, Passage des Déportés 2, 5030, Gembloux, Belgium The correct affiliation is: Departamento de Botânica, Phenology Laboratory, Instituto de Biociências, UNESP - Univ Estadual Paulista, Avenida 24A, 1515, Rio Claro, SP 13506-900, Brazil We apologize for this error. LITERATURE CITED Buisson E, Alvarado ST, Stradic SL, Morellato LPC (2017) Plant phenological research enhances ecological restoration. Restoration Ecology 25: 164– 171 Volume26, Issue2March 2018Pages 391-391 Restoration Ecology - Message to authors, reviewers, editorial board During this time of mass disruption, be advised that we appreciate there will be a slower pace for all. Restoration Ecology understands that reviews and decisions may be delayed; responses from authors may be delayed. There are no consequences for delays. We ask all to be patient. The EIC and Managing Editor work remotely as is (in different countries) so we already work from ‘home’. We are attempting to add this message to our communications (not as easy because the Editors don’t have total editing rights) and reduce the normal reminder emails to reflect this uncertain time. If you receive our normal email correspondence reminding you of deadlines, we are waiving these and asking only that you let us know, if possible, of delays exceeding a month. Stephen Murphy, EIC ReferencesRelatedInformation

A learning evasive email-based P2P-like botnet

Nowadays, machine learning is widely used in malware detection system as a core component. The machine learning algorithm is designed under the assumption that all datasets follow the same underlying data distribution. But the real-world malware data distribution is not stable and changes with time. By exploiting the knowledge of the machine learning algorithm and malware data concept drift problem, we show a novel learning evasive botnet architecture and a stealthy and secure C&C mechanism. Based on the email communication channel, we construct a stealthy email-based P2P-like botnet that exploit the excellent reputation of email servers and a huge amount of benign email communication in the same channel. The experiment results show horizontal correlation learning algorithm is difficult to separate malicious email traffic from normal email traffic based on the volume features and time-related features with enough confidence. We discuss the malware data concept drift and possible defense strategies.

Research of Email Classification based on Deep Neural Network

Abstract The effective distinction between normal email and spam, so as to maximize the possible of filtering spam has become a research hotspot currently. Naive bayes algorithm is a kind of frequently-used email classification and it is a statistical-based classification algorithm. It assumes that the attributes are independent of each other when given the target value. This hypothesis is apparently impossible in the email classification, so the accuracy of email classification based on naive bayes algorithm is low. In allusion to the problem of poor accuracy of email classification based on naive bayes algorithm, scholars have proposed some new email classification algorithms. The email classification algorithm based on deep neural network is one kind of them. The deep neural network is an artificial neural network with full connection between layer and layer. The algorithm extracted the email feature from the training email samples and constructed a DNN with multiple hidden layers, the DNN classifier was generated by training samples, and finally the testing emails were classified, and they were marked whether they were spam or not. In order to verify the effect of the email classification algorithm based on DNN, in this paper we constructed a DNN with 2 hidden layers. The number of nodes in each hidden layer was 30. When the training set was trained, we set up 2000 batches, and each batch has 3 trained data. We used the famous Spam Base dataset as the data set. The experiment result showed that DNN was higher than naive Bayes in the accuracy of email classification when the proportion of the training set was 10%, 20%, 30%, 40% and 50% respectively, and DNN showed a good classification effect. With the development of science and technology, spam manifests in many forms and the damage of it is more serious, this puts forward higher requirements for the accuracy of spam recognition. The focus of next research will be combining various algorithms to further improve the effect of email classification.

Experiencias Mexicanas en la Restauración de los Ecosistemas [with an English Summary: Mexican Experiences in Ecosystem Restoration

Restoration EcologyVolume 26, Issue 1 p. 197-197 BOOK REVIEW Experiencias Mexicanas en la Restauración de los Ecosistemas [with an English Summary: Mexican Experiences in Ecosystem Restoration] Julieta Benítez-Malvido, Julieta Benítez-Malvido jbenitez@cieco.unam.mx Instituto de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas y Sustentabilidad, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de, Morelia, Michoacan CP 58190, MexicoSearch for more papers by this author Julieta Benítez-Malvido, Julieta Benítez-Malvido jbenitez@cieco.unam.mx Instituto de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas y Sustentabilidad, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de, Morelia, Michoacan CP 58190, MexicoSearch for more papers by this author First published: 09 January 2018 https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12665 Coordinating Editor: Jelte Van Andel Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume26, Issue1January 2018Pages 197-197 Restoration Ecology - Message to authors, reviewers, editorial board During this time of mass disruption, be advised that we appreciate there will be a slower pace for all. Restoration Ecology understands that reviews and decisions may be delayed; responses from authors may be delayed. There are no consequences for delays. We ask all to be patient. The EIC and Managing Editor work remotely as is (in different countries) so we already work from ‘home’. We are attempting to add this message to our communications (not as easy because the Editors don’t have total editing rights) and reduce the normal reminder emails to reflect this uncertain time. If you receive our normal email correspondence reminding you of deadlines, we are waiving these and asking only that you let us know, if possible, of delays exceeding a month. Stephen Murphy, EIC RelatedInformation

Prospects for Resilience: Insights from New York City's Jamaica Bay

Restoration EcologyVolume 26, Issue 1 p. 195-196 BOOK REVIEW Prospects for Resilience: Insights from New York City's Jamaica Bay Jac. A. A. Swart, Corresponding Author Jac. A. A. Swart j.a.a.swart@rug.nl Science & Society Group, Faculty of Science and Engineering, University of Groningen, PO Box 221, 9700 AE Groningen, The NetherlandsSearch for more papers by this author Jac. A. A. Swart, Corresponding Author Jac. A. A. Swart j.a.a.swart@rug.nl Science & Society Group, Faculty of Science and Engineering, University of Groningen, PO Box 221, 9700 AE Groningen, The NetherlandsSearch for more papers by this author First published: 09 January 2018 https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12666 Coordinating Editor: Jelte Van Andel Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume26, Issue1January 2018Pages 195-196 Restoration Ecology - Message to authors, reviewers, editorial board During this time of mass disruption, be advised that we appreciate there will be a slower pace for all. Restoration Ecology understands that reviews and decisions may be delayed; responses from authors may be delayed. There are no consequences for delays. We ask all to be patient. The EIC and Managing Editor work remotely as is (in different countries) so we already work from ‘home’. We are attempting to add this message to our communications (not as easy because the Editors don’t have total editing rights) and reduce the normal reminder emails to reflect this uncertain time. If you receive our normal email correspondence reminding you of deadlines, we are waiving these and asking only that you let us know, if possible, of delays exceeding a month. Stephen Murphy, EIC RelatedInformation

Examining conscientiousness as a key resource in resisting email interruptions: Implications for volatile resources and goal achievement.

Within the context of the conservation of resources model, when a resource is deployed, it is depleted – albeit temporarily. However, when a ‘key’, stable resource, such as Conscientiousness, is activated (e.g., using a self‐control strategy, such as resisting an email interruption), we predicted that (1) another, more volatile resource (affective well‐being) would be impacted and that (2) this strategy would be deployed as a trade‐off, allowing one to satisfy task goals, at the expense of well‐being goals. We conducted an experience‐sampling field study with 52 email‐users dealing with their normal email as it interrupted them over the course of a half‐day period. This amounted to a total of 376 email reported across the sample. Results were analysed using random coefficient hierarchical linear modelling and included cross‐level interactions for Conscientiousness with strategy and well‐being. Our first prediction was supported – deploying the stable, key resource of Conscientiousness depletes the volatile, fluctuating resource of affective well‐being. However, our second prediction was not fully realized. Although resisting or avoiding an email interruption was perceived to hinder well‐being goal achievement by Conscientious people, it had neither a positive nor negative impact on task goal achievement. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.Practitioner points It may be necessary for highly Conscientious people to turn off their email interruption alerts at work, in order to avoid the strain that results from an activation‐resistance mechanism afforded by the arrival of a new email.Deploying key resources means that volatile resources may be differentially spent, depending on one's natural tendencies and how these interact with the work task and context. This suggests that the relationship between demands and resources is not always direct and predictable.Practitioners may wish to appraise the strategies they use to deal with demands such as email at work, to identify if these strategies are assisting with task or well‐being goal achievement, or whether they have become defunct through automation.

Wildlife Conservation in Farm Landscapes

Restoration EcologyVolume 25, Issue 2 p. 322-322 BOOK REVIEW Wildlife Conservation in Farm Landscapes Jelte van Andel, Jelte van Andel j.van.andel@rug.nl University of Groningen, Groningen, The NetherlandsSearch for more papers by this author Jelte van Andel, Jelte van Andel j.van.andel@rug.nl University of Groningen, Groningen, The NetherlandsSearch for more papers by this author First published: 05 March 2017 https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12508 Coordinating Editor: Stephen Murphy Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume25, Issue2March 2017Pages 322-322 Restoration Ecology - Message to authors, reviewers, editorial board During this time of mass disruption, be advised that we appreciate there will be a slower pace for all. Restoration Ecology understands that reviews and decisions may be delayed; responses from authors may be delayed. There are no consequences for delays. We ask all to be patient. The EIC and Managing Editor work remotely as is (in different countries) so we already work from ‘home’. We are attempting to add this message to our communications (not as easy because the Editors don’t have total editing rights) and reduce the normal reminder emails to reflect this uncertain time. If you receive our normal email correspondence reminding you of deadlines, we are waiving these and asking only that you let us know, if possible, of delays exceeding a month. Stephen Murphy, EIC RelatedInformation