Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34312523›Full record

ArticleNature ecology & evolution2021

Spatial models of giant pandas under current and future conditions reveal extinction risks.

Lingqiao Kong, Weihua Xu, Yi Xiao, Stuart L Pimm, Hao Shi, Zhiyun Ouyang

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Nature ecology & evolution, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
6.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Limited and biased global conservation funding means most threatened species remain unsupported.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Spatial distribution dynamics forEcology and evolution · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. The Science Underlying Giant Panda Conservation Translocations.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Lingqiao KongState Key Laboratory of Urban and Regional Ecology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6523-1115
Weihua XuState Key Laboratory of Urban and Regional Ecology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7622-7365
Yi XiaoState Key Laboratory of Urban and Regional Ecology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China.
Stuart L PimmNicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4206-2456
Hao ShiState Key Laboratory of Urban and Regional Ecology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China.
Zhiyun OuyangState Key Laboratory of Urban and Regional Ecology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China. zyouyang@rcees.ac.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0927-0499
Chinese Academy of Sciences · CNDuke University · USResearch Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In addition to habitat loss and fragmentation, demographic processes-the vagaries of births, deaths and sex ratio fluctuations-pose substantial threats to wild giant panda populations. Additionally, climate change and plans for the Giant Panda National Park may influence (in opposing directions) the extinction risk for wild giant pandas. The Fourth National Giant Panda Census showed pandas living in 33 isolated populations. An estimated 259 animals live in 25 of these groups, ~14% of the total population. We used individual-based models to simulate time series of these small populations for 100 years. We analysed the spatial pattern of their risk of extinction under current conditions and multiple climate change models. Furthermore, we consider the impact of the proposed Giant Panda National Park. Results showed that 15 populations face a risk >90%, and for 3 other populations the risk is >50%. Of the 15 most at-risk populations, national parks can protect only 3. Under the Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 climate change scenario, the 33 populations will probably further divide into 56 populations. Some 41 of them will face a risk >50% and 35 face a risk >90%. Although national parks will probably connect some fragmented habitats, 26 populations will be outside national park planning. Our study gives practical advice for conservation policies and management and has implications for the conservation of other species in the world that live in isolated, fragmented habitats.

Indexed as

UrsidaeAnimalsClimate ChangeConservation of Natural ResourcesEcosystemParks, Recreational

Identifiers

PMID34312523
OpenAlexW3185951779

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.