Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29531037›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2018

Reintroductions of birds and mammals involve evolutionarily distinct species at the regional scale.

Charles Thévenin, Maud Mouchet, Alexandre Robert, Christian Kerbiriou, François Sarrazin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Taxonomic and phylogenetic biases in translocated angiosperm plant species across European countries.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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.

Charles ThéveninSorbonne Université, Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, CNRS, UMR 7204 Centre d'Ecologie et des Sciences de la Conservation, 75005 Paris, France thevenin.charles@gmail.com.
Maud MouchetSorbonne Université, Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, CNRS, UMR 7204 Centre d'Ecologie et des Sciences de la Conservation, 75005 Paris, France.
Alexandre RobertSorbonne Université, Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, CNRS, UMR 7204 Centre d'Ecologie et des Sciences de la Conservation, 75005 Paris, France.
Christian KerbiriouSorbonne Université, Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, CNRS, UMR 7204 Centre d'Ecologie et des Sciences de la Conservation, 75005 Paris, France.
François SarrazinSorbonne Université, Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, CNRS, UMR 7204 Centre d'Ecologie et des Sciences de la Conservation, 75005 Paris, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reintroductions offer a powerful tool for reversing the effects of species extirpation and have been increasingly used over recent decades. However, this species-centered conservation approach has been criticized for its strong biases toward charismatic birds and mammals. Here, we investigated whether reintroduced species can be representative of the phylogenetic diversity within these two groups at a continental scale (i.e., Europe, North and Central America). Using null models, we found that reintroduced birds and mammals of the two subcontinents tend to be more evolutionarily distinct than expected by chance, despite strong taxonomic biases leading to low values of phylogenetic diversity. While evolutionary considerations are unlikely to have explicitly driven the allocation of reintroduction efforts, our results illustrate an interest of reintroduction practitioners toward species with fewer close relatives. We discuss how this phylogenetic framework allows us to investigate the contribution of reintroductions to the conservation of biodiversity at multiple geographic scales. We argue that because reintroductions rely on a parochial approach of conservation, it is important to first understand how the motivations and constraints at stake at a local context can induce phylogenetic biases before trying to assess the relevance of the allocation of reintroduction efforts at larger scales.

Indexed as

BiodiversityBiological EvolutionConservation of Natural ResourcesAnimalsBirdsCentral AmericaEuropeMammalsPhylogenyconservation prioritiesconservation translocationsevolutionary isolationphylogenetic diversity

Identifiers

PMID29531037
PMCPMC5879658

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.