We agree with Larkin et al . 2019: restoration is context specific

International audienceWe welcome the opportunity to further discuss our analysis and conclusions [1] that Larkin et al.'s [2] (hereafter LEA) comment provides. In this response, we first discuss mischaracterizations and criticisms of our analyses, then highlight how the main conclusions from both LEA's and our analyses are similar, and end with further discussion of what both analyses suggest for restoration and conservation moving forward.LEA contend that the response ratio is ‘fundamentally flawed’; given its prominence in the restoration [3–5] and meta-analysis literatures [6–8], we suggest that the matter of its usefulness or lack thereof is far from settled and leave it to meta-analysis statisticians to discuss its utility. For those interested, both LEA and we consulted with meta-analysis statisticians who came to different conclusions (see published reviews of LEA's comment). We further direct readers to the reviews of LEA's comment for a more in-depth response to their criticisms on the choice of variables to calculate response ratios, of how to treat response ratios that overshoot recovery goals, exclusion of invasive species disturbances, and of minimal sample size calculations