Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32500604›Full record

ArticleGlobal change biology2020

Global human influence maps reveal clear opportunities in conserving Earth's remaining intact terrestrial ecosystems.

Jason Riggio, Jonathan E M Baillie, Steven Brumby, Erle Ellis, Christina M Kennedy, James R Oakleaf, Alex Tait, Therese Tepe, David M Theobald, Oscar Venter and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Global change biology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Small Felids Coexist in Mixed-Use Landscape in the Bolivian Amazon.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Improving protected area effectiveness through consideration of different human-pressure baselines.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2022
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

12 authors.

Jason RiggioNational Geographic Society, Washington, DC, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4988-3794
Jonathan E M BaillieNational Geographic Society, Washington, DC, USA.
Steven BrumbyNational Geographic Society, Washington, DC, USA.
Erle EllisDepartment of Geography and Environmental Systems, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2006-3362
Christina M KennedyGlobal Lands Program, The Nature Conservancy, Fort Collins, CO, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8902-8728
James R OakleafGlobal Lands Program, The Nature Conservancy, Fort Collins, CO, USA.
Alex TaitNational Geographic Society, Washington, DC, USA.
Therese TepeNational Geographic Society, Washington, DC, USA.
David M TheobaldConservation Planning Technologies, Fort Collins, CO, USA.
Oscar VenterNatural Resource and Environmental Studies Institute, University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, BC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-1719-8474
James E M WatsonSchool of Earth and Environmental Science, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Qld, Australia.
Andrew P JacobsonNational Geographic Society, Washington, DC, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1814-9113

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Leading up to the Convention on Biological Diversity Conference of the Parties 15, there is momentum around setting bold conservation targets. Yet, it remains unclear how much of Earth's land area remains without significant human influence and where this land is located. We compare four recent global maps of human influences across Earth's land, Anthromes, Global Human Modification, Human Footprint and Low Impact Areas, to answer these questions. Despite using various methodologies and data, these different spatial assessments independently estimate similar percentages of the Earth's terrestrial surface as having very low (20%-34%) and low (48%-56%) human influence. Three out of four spatial assessments agree on 46% of the non-permanent ice- or snow-covered land as having low human influence. However, much of the very low and low influence portions of the planet are comprised of cold (e.g., boreal forests, montane grasslands and tundra) or arid (e.g., deserts) landscapes. Only four biomes (boreal forests, deserts, temperate coniferous forests and tundra) have a majority of datasets agreeing that at least half of their area has very low human influence. More concerning, <1% of temperate grasslands, tropical coniferous forests and tropical dry forests have very low human influence across most datasets, and tropical grasslands, mangroves and montane grasslands also have <1% of land identified as very low influence across all datasets. These findings suggest that about half of Earth's terrestrial surface has relatively low human influence and offers opportunities for proactive conservation actions to retain the last intact ecosystems on the planet. However, though the relative abundance of ecosystem areas with low human influence varies widely by biome, conserving these last intact areas should be a high priority before they are completely lost.

Indexed as

Conservation of Natural ResourcesEcosystemBiodiversityForestsHumansTundraAnthromesconservation targetsConvention on Biological DiversityGlobal Human Modificationhabitat intactnessHalf-EarthHuman Footprinthuman influenceLow Impact Areasspatial conservation prioritization

Identifiers

PMID32500604
PMCPMC7383735

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.