Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28708881›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Large anthropogenic impacts on a charismatic small carnivore: Insights from distribution surveys of red panda Ailurus fulgens in Nepal.

Saroj Panthi, Gopal Khanal, Krishna Prasad Acharya, Achyut Aryal, Arjun Srivathsa

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Habitat occupancy of sloth bearEcology and evolution · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Habitat assessment of Marco Polo sheep (Ecology and evolution · 2018
    Article
  14. Article
  15. 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 at 4 institutions in 5 countries.

Saroj PanthiDepartment of Forests, Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation, Kathmandu, Nepal.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1502-7711
Gopal KhanalPost-Graduate Programme in Wildlife Biology and Conservation, Wildlife Conservation Society, India Program, National Centre for Biological Sciences (Tata Institute of Fundamental Research), Bangalore, India.
Krishna Prasad AcharyaDepartment of Forests, Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Achyut AryalCharles Perkins Centre, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Arjun SrivathsaSchool of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States of America.
Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation · NPTata Institute of Fundamental Research · INThe University of Sydney · AUUniversity of Florida · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Protected areas are key to preserving biodiversity and maintaining ecosystem services. However, their ability to ensure long-term survival of threatened andendangered species varies across countries, regions and landscapes. Distribution surveys can beparticularly important for assessing the value of protected areas, and gauging their efficacy incatering to species-specific requirements. We assessed the conservation value of one such reserve for a charismatic yet globally endangered species, the red panda Ailurus fulgens,in the light of on-going land-use transformation in Nepal. We conducted field surveys forindirect signs of red pandas along forest trails in 25-km2 sampling grid cells (n = 54) of Dhorpatan Hunting Reserve, and confronted a set of ecological hypotheses to the data using hierarchical occupancy models. We estimated overall occupancy at Ψ(SE) = 0.41 (0.007), with relatively high site-level detectability [p = 0.93 (SE = 0.001)]. Our results show that despitebeing a subsistence form of small-scale resource use, extraction of bamboo and livestock grazing negatively affected panda occurrence, albeit at different intensities. The amount of bamboo cover,rather than the overall proportion of forest cover, had greater influence on the panda occurrence. Despite availability of bamboo cover, areas with bamboo extraction and anthropogenic disturbances were less likely to be occupied by pandas. Together, these results suggest that long-term persistence of red pandas in this reserve and elsewhere across the species' range will require preventing commercial extractionof bamboo, coupled with case-specific regulation of anthropogenic exploitation of red panda habitats.

Indexed as

AiluridaeAnimalsConservation of Natural ResourcesEcosystemNepalPoaceae

Identifiers

PMID28708881
PMCPMC5510994
OpenAlexW2734714627

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.