Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35136243›Full record

ArticleBiological conservation2022

COVID restrictions impact wildlife monitoring in Australia.

Alan Stenhouse, Tahlia Perry, Frank Grützner, Peggy Rismiller, Lian Pin Koh, Megan Lewis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biological conservation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. The contribution ofParasitology · 2023
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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.

Alan StenhouseSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia.
Tahlia PerrySchool of Biological Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia.
Frank GrütznerSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia.
Peggy RismillerSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia.
Lian Pin KohDepartment of Biological Sciences, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Megan LewisSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The global COVID-19 pandemic has imposed restrictions on people's movement, work and access to places at multiple international, national and sub-national scales. We need a better understanding of how the varied restrictions have impacted wildlife monitoring as gaps in data continuity caused by these disruptions may limit future data use and analysis. To assess the effect of different levels of COVID-19 restrictions on both citizen science and traditional wildlife monitoring, we analyse observational records of a widespread and iconic monotreme, the Australian short-beaked echidna (

Indexed as

ARIA+ARIA+, Accessibility/Remoteness Index of AustraliaAustraliaCitizen scienceConservationCOVID-19echidnaProtected areaRemotenessWildlife monitoring

Identifiers

PMID35136243
PMCPMC8814614

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.