ArticleScientific reports2022
Functional representativeness and distinctiveness of reintroduced birds and mammals in Europe.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trait-based approaches to restoration ecology: Synthesizing insights from diverse systems.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America · 2026Review
- Taxonomic and phylogenetic biases in translocated angiosperm plant species across European countries.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025Article
- Changes in community composition and functional diversity of European bats under climate change.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025Article
- Accounting for functionality in the identification of global conservation priorities: promises and pitfalls.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Reintroduction, the human-mediated movement of organisms to re-establish locally extinct populations, has become a popular conservation tool. However, because reintroductions often focus on local or national conservation issues, their contribution to the conservation of biodiversity at large scale remains unclear. While taxonomic biases have already been identified in reintroduction programs at regional scales, studies have stressed the need to account for other facets of biodiversity when assessing the relevance of the allocation of conservation efforts. In particular, it may be very fruitful to discriminate if and how such taxonomic biases may influence the functional complementarity of reintroduction targets, and to which extent reintroduction practitioners may have focused on species performing more singular functions than others. Here, we investigate the diversity of functional traits supported by reintroduced species of terrestrial birds and mammals in Europe. For each taxonomic group, we explored the functional representativeness of reintroduction targets at the European scale, i.e., whether species involved in reintroduction programs collectively represent the range of functional trait variation observed in the regional assemblage. Because additional conservation value could have been given by practitioners to species performing singular functions, we also measured the functional distinctiveness of reintroduced species. We found that reintroductions of birds did not focus on functionally distinct species, and that the subset of reintroduced birds is representative of the functional diversity at a continental scale. However, reintroductions of mammals involved more functionally distinct species than expected, even though reintroduced mammals are not collectively representative of the functional diversity of the continental assemblage.
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.