Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30625183›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Single species conservation as an umbrella for management of landscape threats.

Claire A Runge, John C Withey, David E Naugle, Joseph E Fargione, Kate J Helmstedt, Ashley E Larsen, Sebastian Martinuzzi, Jason D Tack

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Evaluating past and future contributions of conservation programs to species recovery.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Reconciling opposite conclusions in umbrella species evaluation.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025
    Article
  4. Cryptic species conservation: a review.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

8 authors.

Claire A RungeNational Center for Ecological Analysis & Synthesis, University of California Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-3913-8560
John C WitheyGraduate Program on the Environment, The Evergreen State College, Olympia, Washington, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-9686-8450
David E NaugleWildlife Biology Program, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana, United States of America.
Joseph E FargioneThe Nature Conservancy, Minneapolis, United States of America.
Kate J HelmstedtDepartment of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management, University of California Berkeley, Berkley, California, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-0201-5348
Ashley E LarsenBren School of Environmental Science & Management, University of California, Santa Barbara, California, United States of America.
Sebastian MartinuzziSILVIS Lab, Forest and Wildlife Ecology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, United States of America.
Jason D TackUnited States Fish and Wildlife Service, Habitat and Population Evaluation Team, Missoula, Montana, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Single species conservation unites disparate partners for the conservation of one species. However, there are widespread concerns that single species conservation biases conservation efforts towards charismatic species at the expense of others. Here we investigate the extent to which sage grouse (Centrocercus sp.) conservation, the largest public-private conservation effort for a single species in the US, provides protections for other species from localized and landscape-scale threats. We compared the coverage provided by sage grouse Priority Areas for Conservation (PACs) to 81 sagebrush-associated vertebrate species distributions with potential coverage under multi-species conservation prioritization generated using the decision support tool Zonation. PACs. We found that the current PAC prioritization approach was not statistically different from a diversity-based prioritization approach and covers 23.3% of the landscape, and 24.8%, on average, of the habitat of the 81 species. The proportion of each species distribution at risk was lower inside PACs as compared to the region as a whole, even without management (land use change 30% lower, cheatgrass invasion 19% lower). Whether or not bias away from threat represents the most efficient use of conservation effort is a matter of considerable debate, though may be pragmatic in this landscape where capacity to address these threats is limited. The approach outlined here can be used to evaluate biological equitability of protections provided by flagship species in other settings.

Indexed as

Conservation of Natural ResourcesEcosystemGalliformesGrasslandAnimalsArtemisia

Identifiers

PMID30625183
PMCPMC6326495

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.