ArticleEnvironmental monitoring and assessment2018
Identifying key areas of ecosystem services potential to improve ecological management in Chongqing City, southwest China.
Article in Environmental monitoring and assessment, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Urban Expansion Was the Main Driving Force for the Decline in Ecosystem Services in Hainan Island during 1980-2015.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Effectiveness of protection areas in safeguarding biodiversity and ecosystem services in Tibet Autonomous Region.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Land use changes in Zhangjiakou from 2005 to 2025 and the importance of ecosystem services.PeerJ · 2021Article
- Effects of Ecological Restoration Measures on Soil Erosion Risk in the Three Gorges Reservoir Area Since the 1980s.GeoHealth · 2020Article
- Enhancing the effectiveness of AHP for environmental performance assessment of Thailand and Taiwan's food industry.Environmental monitoring and assessment · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Because natural ecosystems and ecosystem services (ES) are both critical to the well-being of humankind, it is important to understand their relationships and congruence for conservation planning. Spatial conservation planning is required to set focused preservation priorities and to assess future ecological implications. This study uses the combined measures of ES models and ES potential to estimate and analyze all four groups of ecosystem services to generate opportunities to maximize ecosystem services. Subsequently, we identify the key areas of conservation priorities as future forestation and conservation hotspot zones to improve the ecological management in Chongqing City, located in the upper reaches of the Three Gorges Reservoir Area, China. Results show that ecosystem services potential is extremely obvious. Compared to ecosystem services from 2000, we determined that soil conservation could be increased by 59.11%, carbon sequestration by 129.51%, water flow regulation by 83.42%, and water purification by 84.42%. According to our prioritization results, approximately 48% of area converted to forests exhibited high improvements in all ecosystem services (categorized as hotspot-1, hotspot-2, and hotspot-3). The hotspots identified in this study can be used as an excellent surrogate for evaluation ecological engineering benefits and can be effectively applied in improving ecological management planning.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29600440What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.