Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32134937›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Assessing connectivity and the contribution of private lands to protected area networks in the United States.

Lindsey Bargelt, Marie-Josée Fortin, Dennis L Murray

Expression of concernAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It carries an expression of concern. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Lindsey BargeltDepartment of Biology, Trent University, Peterborough, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-8010-4472
Marie-Josée FortinDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Toronto, ON, Canada.
Dennis L MurrayDepartment of Biology, Trent University, Peterborough, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Current targets for protected area network coverage call for increased protection but lack specificity in terms of criteria for parcel type, placement, and landscape connectivity. We assessed land conservation achieved by protected area networks in the contiguous United States, and assessed whether private lands contributed substantially to network coverage and connectivity given species dispersal abilities. On average, states have 4.1% (range: 0.2% to 15.8%, n = 48) protected area coverage with connectivity ≤10 km. Terrain ruggedness, percent farmland, and population density are the primary determinants of protected area placement, leading to biased representation of land features currently under protection. On average, private protected areas contribute <1.1% (range 0.0% to 9.2%) to current protected area coverage across the United States. We conclude that current levels of protection and connectivity are inadequate to support a functional protected area network, and that increased and strategic selection of private protected areas is necessary to meet conservation planning goals.

Indexed as

BiodiversityConservation of Natural ResourcesFarmsHumansNeural Networks, ComputerOwnershipPopulation DensityPopulation DynamicsPrivate SectorUnited States

Identifiers

PMID32134937
PMCPMC7058307

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.