Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26020794›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Multi-action planning for threat management: a novel approach for the spatial prioritization of conservation actions.

Lorenzo Cattarino, Virgilio Hermoso, Josie Carwardine, Mark J Kennard, Simon Linke

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Lorenzo CattarinoAustralian Rivers Institute, Griffith University, Nathan, Queensland, Australia.
Virgilio HermosoAustralian Rivers Institute, Griffith University, Nathan, Queensland, Australia; National Environmental Research Program Northern Australia Hub, Griffith University, Nathan, Queensland, Australia.
Josie CarwardineCSIRO Ecosystem Sciences, Dutton Park, Queensland, Australia.
Mark J KennardAustralian Rivers Institute, Griffith University, Nathan, Queensland, Australia; National Environmental Research Program Northern Australia Hub, Griffith University, Nathan, Queensland, Australia.
Simon LinkeAustralian Rivers Institute, Griffith University, Nathan, Queensland, Australia; National Environmental Research Program Northern Australia Hub, Griffith University, Nathan, Queensland, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Planning for the remediation of multiple threats is crucial to ensure the long term persistence of biodiversity. Limited conservation budgets require prioritizing which management actions to implement and where. Systematic conservation planning traditionally assumes that all the threats in priority sites are abated (fixed prioritization approach). However, abating only the threats affecting the species of conservation concerns may be more cost-effective. This requires prioritizing individual actions independently within the same site (independent prioritization approach), which has received limited attention so far. We developed an action prioritization algorithm that prioritizes multiple alternative actions within the same site. We used simulated annealing to find the combination of actions that remediate threats to species at the minimum cost. Our algorithm also accounts for the importance of selecting actions in sites connected through the river network (i.e., connectivity). We applied our algorithm to prioritize actions to address threats to freshwater fish species in the Mitchell River catchment, northern Australia. We compared how the efficiency of the independent and fixed prioritization approach varied as the importance of connectivity increased. Our independent prioritization approach delivered more efficient solutions than the fixed prioritization approach, particularly when the importance of achieving connectivity was high. By spatially prioritizing the specific actions necessary to remediate the threats affecting the target species, our approach can aid cost-effective habitat restoration and land-use planning. It is also particularly suited to solving resource allocation problems, where consideration of spatial design is important, such as prioritizing conservation efforts for highly mobile species, species facing climate change-driven range shifts, or minimizing the risk of threats spreading across different realms.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsEndangered SpeciesAnimal DistributionAnimalsAustraliaClimate ChangeConservation of Natural ResourcesCost-Benefit AnalysisDecision MakingFishesRivers

Identifiers

PMID26020794
PMCPMC4447389

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.