SynthesisZoological research2021
Species bias and spillover effects in scientific research on Carnivora in China.
Synthesis in Zoological research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparing potential biodiversity conflicts from renewable energy expansion in China at different centralization levels.Nature ecology & evolution · 2026Article
- Pan-African review of cultural uses of carnivores.PloS one · 2025Review
- A Fine-Grained Image Classification Approach for Dog Feces Using MC-SCMNet under Complex Backgrounds.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Scientific research provides essential information for conservation of threatened species. Data deficiency due to insufficient research impedes the design of conservation plans, and research bias may mistakenly direct limited resources to low biodiversity regions or less threatened species. Here, we conducted a systematic review of published papers, grants, and graduate student training on carnivorans in China to identify species bias and research gaps. Furthermore, we collected intrinsic and extrinsic features of carnivorans, and identified features that impact research intensity using generalized linear models. We found that the amount of research on carnivorans increased markedly after 2000, but species bias existed. Bears and big cats received the greatest research attention, while most small- and medium-sized carnivorans received little attention, thus showing the 80-20 phenomenon. Species with a higher level of endemism and protection under Chinese law received more consideration. As an animal conservation icon in China, the giant panda (
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.