ArticleEcology and evolution2018
Low ecological representation in the protected area network of China.
Article in Ecology and evolution, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Study on the Evaluation and Assessment of Ecosystem Service Spatial Differentiation at Different Scales in Mountainous Areas around the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Region, China.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Identifying mismatches between conservation area networks and vulnerable populations using spatial randomization.Ecology and evolution · 2021Article
- Biodiversity conservation in China: A review of recent studies and practices.Environmental science and ecotechnology · 2020Review
- Low ecological representation in the protected area network of China.Ecology and evolution · 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
24 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Protected areas are considered as an essential strategy to halt the decline of biodiversity. Ecological representation in protected areas is crucial for assessment on the progress toward conservation targets. Although China has established a large number of protected areas since the 1950s, ecological representation of protected areas is poorly understood. Here, we performed the complementarity analysis to evaluate ecological representation of protected areas in China. We used a database of the geographical distribution for 10,396 woody plant species, 2,305 fern species, 406 amphibian species, 460 reptile species, 1,364 bird species, and 590 mammal species from 2,376 counties across China. We identified complementary sets of counties for all species or threatened species of plant and vertebrate species using a complementarity algorithm. We evaluated ecological representation of 3,627 protected areas and discerned conservation gaps by comparing the distribution of protected areas with complementary sets. The results show that the spatially representative and complementary sites for biodiversity are poorly covered, and a fairly large proportion of protected areas is not designed to efficiently represent biodiversity at the national scale. Our methodology can serve as a generic framework for assessment on ecological representation of protected areas at the national scale.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.